Menlo wants to stop traffic at Santa Cruz and Elder

Dear reporter - HILLVIEW MIDDLE SCHOOL - NOT HILLCREST MIDDLE SCHOOL.
Please check your maps or phone directories before writing articles regarding Menlo Park.

Good news, long awaited safety measures for cars and students on Santa Cruz. I am sorry about the potential added inconvenience for Atkinson residents. Hopefully this cure will be better than the one our Engineering Services professionals attempted along Santa Cruz a few years ago.

Neighbors, keep an eye on the design.

The second reference to the school has been fixed. Thanks.

Almost $300k for traffic signal changes???!!??

I think before we start worrying about adding to city revenue, we should worry about waste at every level. From our city manager's shamefully high salary on down to traffic signals.

Someone is making out like a bandit... at OUR expense!

Lest we forget, the Hillview School expansion EIR traffic analysis dictated three (3) new traffic signals, at Elder/Olive/Avy intersections with Santa Cruz.
Typical fashion, city staff capitulated to the district's bullying tactics and ended up putting up half the tab for what should have been the district's legal responsibility per CEQA, payable in full from its substantial bond money reserve.
Just shows that council has little resolve to make developers pay for their increased traffic generation.

[Both my kids (now 15 and 21) went to Hillview.] This was long overdue.

I endorse Joanna's comment. How can anyone justify a cost of $300k for a new traffic signal? That doesn't even include the cost of powering and maintaining the lights. Though the signal may be necessary to improve safety, one has to question the cost of the system and the process involved where it is deemed "OK" to just pay the bill without asking questions about how the price is arrived at.

If it takes 5 work crew 5 days of 8 working hours to complete the work, and each crew member is paid a (generous!!) $100/hr, that's still only $20k in labor costs. Where does the extra cost come from?

Maybe we would be better off using a roundabout instead of a traffic light. It will cost less to install a roundabout, and a roundabout doesn't require electricity.

Spencer:

I suggest you have several contractors give you bids on the work involved in installing the traffic signals. Make sure they figure their labor at "prevailing wage" and you will have your answer. If it really costs that much the contractors should all be in the same ball park price wise. By the way, that's how public works contracts such as these are let.

Can a whole intersection of lights cost $240,000? Time for a review of how these items are bid, and who signed off on that cost?

Downtown:

if that's what the bids came in at, yes, that's what it costs.

Menlo Voter:

If that's what the bids are, then you have to ask the question, Is it worth it? Are we really getting value for money here?

Can we really not find someone else to do the job at a more reasonable cost? It's not like the city is flush with cash.

When we simply say "OK, that's what it costs" then we end up with spiraling cost increases. Ever wonder why our health care costs keep going up as much as they do? It's because we keep saying "well, that's the price so we have to pay it".

Spencer:

I'm sorry, but you just don't know what you're talking about. The construction industry is seriously depressed. Construction companies are bidding work at next to no margin just to try to stay in business. Any one doing construction today is getting value like no other time in recent history. Beleive me, whatever prices they finally end up with for these signals it will be the best pricing we will see for a long time. Commercial construction is actually up right now as large companies see that they can get things done cheaply now. Safeway, for example, has at least five new stores under construction and at least that many more being renovated in the bay area. It's attributable to the depressed costs and low bids they are receiving.

Menlo Voter:

Sorry, but I just don't see how $300k is a "low bid" for a traffic light. Can anyone provide a breakdown of those costs?

And even if that were the lowest possible, most reasonable bid the city could possibly get, then is that the most important thing to be spending city money on today? I just don't see it.

Spencer:

I think if you had a child attending Hillview you would probably feel spending the $300,000 was very worthwhile.

they should just remove the crosswalk so people don't aren't tempted to cross such a major traffic artery

I do have a child at Hillview and I think this is a ridiculous amount of money. (Maybe I should get into the traffic signal business myself?) Apart from the light, how does it cost $35k to paint a right turn lane on Elder?

I seem to recall that the design for the new school includes a dropoff/pickup detour that may serve to relieve the traffic on Santa Cruz. Why not wait to see how well that works? Seems like the money is burning a hole in someone's pocket.

School Parent:

maybe you should go into the construciton business. Then you would find out those of us in the business aren't "rolling in it." We are barely staying alive.

There should be oversight into wasteful spending.

Menlo Voter: You imply that you are in the construction business.

I'm sorry your business is hurting. Lots of businesses are hurting. But without a breakdown of those costs it looks to me like this bid is making up for slow business at the taxpayer's expense. So I'll tell you what. I'd also like to make some extra $$ for my business so I will offer to cut your lawn for $10k. Does that seem like a fair bid to you?

Of course not, because you can find a lower bid from someone else who will be willing to do the work for less. And that's my point. If the construction business is really hurting as you say it is, then it shouldn't be hard to find a lower offer from someone else who is more hungry.

I wonder if the parents of the children attending Hillview have considered the additional air pollution their children will be subjected to by the constant stopping, idling and starting of the traffic with a 24/7 signal light.

Spencer:

you just don't get it. When this is put out to bid I will guarantee at least ten bidders minimum. They will all be bidding the same plans and specifications. They will be required to provide exactly what is in the plans and specifications that they are bidding on. Now if it comes in at $300,000 do you think there is collusion amongst these ten starving bidders? No, they will all be giving their best, lowest, most competetive bid based upon the cost of labor and materials. The city is not talking about just giving the job to someone for $300,000. They are guessing that is what it will cost based upon past experience. I'm betting, in this economy, when it actually goes out to bid it will come in lower.

As backsliding asks - why isn't the School District paying the full cost? That is what the city would require of any private entity.

Peter,

Apparently you don't appreciate the silly, pathetic, social cliques that dominate Menlo Park politics. It's laughable. All the self-annointed prom kings and queens of local lore get together and run for various leadership positions on the school board and city council. Whenever criticism is raised, the following refrains are voiced:

1) "We are unpaid volunteers!"
2) "Do it for the kids!"
3) "Damn NIMBYS don't want anything done! How dare they express concern about their property rights? Down with the NIMBYS!"

School bonds to make public schools rival private posh facilities, more compensation without performance standards, insisting that good outcomes in our schools are a product of "expert management" and judicious oversight rather than parental socioeconomic status and parental involvement (the 2 major statistical correlates).

The list goes on.

Hmmm, schools can often get parents or other volunteers to be "crossing guards". Such an approach would have zero cost to the community, and be the ultimate "on demand" system. That is, when kids trying to cross queue up at that intersection, the crossing guard stops traffic and holds it until the kids get through safely. Most of the school crossing happens at predictable times, the crossing guard can be scheduled appropriately, and then not impede traffic when kids aren't present. A "push the button" on demand system can also supplement the crossing guard, for times when the crossing guard is not present but kids are (like for after school sports, summertime playground useage, etc.).

A low tech and low cost idea for the community to consider.

For liability reasons, volunteer crossing guards are prohibited

Palo Alto has crossing guards but they are paid for and trained by the police.

The biggest cost of a traffic light is not in the labor or in the bulbs and wiring. A lot of the cost is in the controller. These are basically computers these days, and they must meet a whole host of safety certifications. They have to be absolutely fail-safe and never, ever do something like give greens in conflicting directions at the same time. They must monitor themselves and have a safe failure mode when something goes wrong. Any reputable contractor must use equipment that meets the same specs. This makes the equipment expensive, but the consequences of using shoddy traffic light controllers are more expensive in the long run. This is not a place to cut corners and skimp on quality.

The school board decided to make Hillview the only middle school in the district, with expected enrollment exceeding 1000 in short order.
The campus expansion project EIR deemed that 3 signals on Santa Cruz (Elder.Olive,Avy-Orange) would be needed to manage the safe and efficient vehicle, bus, pedestrian and bicycle access to and from the campus. Don't even think adolescent middle school students would be caught dead riding a "school bus" to and from Hillview. That's why increased auto traffic will make the Hillview area a nightmare as time goes on.

The Encinal Elementary campus expansion required a new signal at Encinal/Middlefield. The district paid the cost of that signal at Atherton's insistence as is standard in most development agreements.

What's missing in the article is how MP city staff misled council into capitulating to the district's crying poor and footing half of the bill for just ONE signal, when State Law would normally have required the district to pay for all 3 signals as required mitigation under the California Environmnetal Quality Act. See (City of Marina vs. CSU, the defining Supreme Court Case that dictates school district payments for offsite traffic improvements as a result of campus expansion projects). Staff reports demonstrate once again how weak our staff was in negotiating a better deal for the City 2 years ago when they had the chance.
That's what "civil servant" job security gives city taxpayers. Dig deep 'till it hurts 'cause it's not out of city staff pockets.
While we're on the subject of increased traffic from new development, anyone know why MP is not holding council hearings on the Stanford Med Center expansion project that will flood our streets with spillover traffic? Is city staff once again asleep at the switch?

One dumb question - So taxpayers don't pay for the light/intersection if the school district pays for it, but the taxpayers do pay if the city funds ? OK maybe the district would pay out of bond proceeds, but that is still taxpayer funded, so that whole argument of who pays seems moot.

On costs, 300K seems like a lot, but then again, the new Highway 101 / 85 interchange cost 200M$ with half the costs attributable to having to keep the highways open while building.