Logo


Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]


Traffic Impacts and incomplete per scope of work Cut through Traffic analysis

From: domainremoved <George>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 10:31:07 -0700

The September 25 W-Trans traffic report identifies impacts at four roadway
segments and two intersections and requires a EIR for the Stanford
Project. These impact findings are more significant because, although
labeled cut through traffic study, the study does not evaluate any cut
through traffic caused by congestion on ECR or other streets. The report
only examines project traffic, which must drive through the neighborhoods
per trip assignment routes to CSA (report Table 2, page 6) gateways (76% of
which are regional to I 280, US 101, SR 84, and Alameda/Junipero Serra on
ECR N/S and Sand Hill E/W) to reach non-local destinations (only 8% is
local). Peak hour differences are not a cut through traffic analysis. The
Study Scope of Work not done required congestion cut through analysis which
will add substantially more impacts. Also any Tesla purported reduction in
office space traffic is non existent, both per CSA, and in any event not
included in 2014 traffic.



The only lip service to cut through traffic caused by congestion with any
specifics, analysis, or methodology is on page 9 of the report which merely
states: “El Camino Real currently experiences congestion, especially during
peak hour periods. In the future the level of congestion is expected to
increase. As a result, some drivers may choose to follow alternative
routes through a neighborhood in an effort to avoid driving in congested
conditions along El Camino Real.” DUH! THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE
SUBJECT OF THE CUT THROUGH ANALYSIS. WHAT ARE THE BASE LINE STATISTICS ON
SUCH CONGESTION CUT THROUGHS, AND HOW WILL THEY CHANGE?



No existing such cut through traffic was quantified. This morning Stanford
was examining cut through traffic by attendants noting license plates
entering and leaving the campus. That is the proper way to measure cut
through traffic. Equally as important is that no analysis is made of ECR
congestion caused by the Findings on Table 3 of the report of Levels D, F,
and E at peak hour times at both the ECR Ravenswood Intersection and the
ECR Sand Hill intersection.



The scope of work for the Neighborhood Cut- through Traffic Analysis,
approved by Council on August 27, 2104 (Staff report 13-153, page 275,
second bullet point states “The percentage of traffic on alternate routes
will be based upon the actual use of streets, with consideration of
congestion on El Camino Real and other streets. . .”. The first bullet
point states that trip assignment (routes) of both peak hour and daily
routes, “assuming both non-congested and congested conditions on El Camino
Real, and along one or more routes [through neighborhoods] so that
potential impacts to the neighborhood can be assessed.” NEITHER SCOPE OF
WORK WAS PERFORMED.



Furthermore, the second bullet point of work order, page 3 paragraph D "
the intent of the written and graphical presentation will be to make the
analysis assumptions, methodology, trip distribution gateways, trip
assignment routes, and potentential peak hour and daily effects of the
proposed project AS WELL AS OVERALL CONGESTION ON EL CAMINO REAL CLEAR TO
RESIDENTS, CITY STAFF, AND DECISION MAKERS (emphasis added). The required
mapping of trip assignment routes, and other factors are not even
explained, much less made clear to anyone.



Re Neighborhood traffic management, the report fails to evaluate how the
described present systems, such as Cambridge, are presently working. The
report says "no additional traffic management on Cambridge are recommended
and futilely suggests "monitoring". The City’s transportation Impact
Analysis Guidelines require: “Mitigation measures may include roadway
improvements, operational changes, Transportation Demand Management or
Transportation Systems Management measures, or changes in the project.* If
roadway or other operational* *measures would not achieve this objective,
the consultant shall identify a reduction* *in the project size, which
would with other measures, reduce impacts below the* *significant
level. *(emphasis
added.” This highlighted analysis needs to be done.





Conclusion: An EIR is required and must include a cut through analysis,
including congestion caused cut-throughs, not simply direct project trips
through the neighborhood to reach CSA gateways. The EIR must include
analysis of reduction in project size to reduce impacts. In fact given the
differences shown in the Allied Arts neighborhood, other neighborhoods must
also be included in the EIR.









-- 
George C. Fisher
​1121 Cotton
​Menlo Park, CA 94025​
(650) 799 5480
Fax (650) 475 1849
georgecfisher_at_(domainremoved)http://www.gfisherlaw.com
Received on Wed Oct 01 2014 - 10:27:04 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]


Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)