Menlo Park: Willows residents press city to fight cut-through traffic

drop the speed limit to 15 or 20 during problem hours and routinely park a motorcycle cops there to enforce it. problem solved.

Oh, hi, hey city counsel! My street also has people driving on it that do not live of the street. What will you do about that?

Hey, I'll stop "cutting through", aka driving, in your neighborhood as soon as you stop cutting through mine. Okthanksbye.

Speed bumps.

Also, how about investing in school buses so the parents won't clog the roads dropping off/picking up their kids; that's one of the biggest contributors to the traffic congestion in the morning and late afternoon. It's amazing how much lighter traffic is in the summer when school is closed.

CC allows development, ignoring infrastructure and traffic. Squeezes citizen commissions so no numbers or time to address, and attempts to pass on its blame to Waze for consolidating routes smart motorists use anyway.

So, it now takes us up to 25 minutes to go from our home off Bay (~4 blocks from the VA) to 101/willow entrance during evening rush.

The problem is not just in the Willows...and that is known both to the council and the City. Traffic mitigation was ignored for Bay Rd, Van Burren and other surrounding neighborhood streets. They were deemed "serious but unmitigable."

City Council and government-how do you justify mitigation for the Willows while continuing to ignore Bay, Van Burren, Ringwood, etc?

Where is the comprehensive traffic circulation plan you promised?!

As a side note, although it wouldn't be that helpful for evening rush, having several school buses would do wonders in the morning - when school and work rush bang into each other. I was told that our City bought itself a fleet of new cars for City employees - 30 I think? So clearly, when we want something, the money appears.

Why is it so difficult to do the right thing with our traffic circulation and railroad crossings? Why is it okay to ruin the quality of life for so many of our residents? We also badly need and want mitigation!

Mr. Fisher, The answer to your question is that the Council gets a bang out of hanging with the titans of industry. Former Mayor Rich Cline chose Facebook as the site for his State of the City address. This council is having a ball meeting with the likes of Facebook and Bohannon attorney Tim Tosta. Everything is a big laugh. Our City Manager is way deep in the culture of developers, investors and tech stars. Our new Mayor Keith would go to the opening of an envelope if there was a hand to shake and a photo op.

Worrying about the quality of life of residents is at the bottom of the list. Another junket to China or India? Sure. We have had several opportunities to kick this bunch out of office but voters buy the colored mailers they receive. Happy talk is tool used by council candidates.

Lord, bless us all

According to the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, nationally, 10-14% of morning traffic can be attributed to driving to schools. This number is likely higher in Menlo Park.

If you care about traffic congestion in our community, I invite you to join Parents for Safe Routes. We believe that by creating opportunities for safe walking and biking to schools we can reduce the number of single occupancy vehicle trips on our streets. We also support busing, carpooling and any other measures that can help get kids to school safely. Safe Routes to School is not just for kids and families, it has great benefits to the larger community (less car traffic, less pollution, better connected communities, etc.).

In the 10 years since Palo Alto adopted a community partnership model for Safe Routes (what I like to call Safe Routes 2.0 and what Parents for Safe Routes is working on), the bike to school rates for their high school kids doubled to 40%! 50% of their middle school kids bike to school! Imagine how many cars are taken off the roads because of that!

We have a growing list of concerned citizens on our Parents for Safe Routes Google Groups mailing list. You can join here: Web Link We are open to all - parents, neighbors, business owners, all community members.

To learn more about our vision, you can review our Creating a Community Partnership - Safe Routes 2.0 slide deck (Web Link or check out our website at www.parents4saferoutes.org.

Sincerely,
Jen Wolosin
Parents for Safe Routes
www.parents4saferoutes.org

Please City Council, if you approve the Willows request then we from downtown request the same..... No Cut Through Traffic.....

I understand the concerns about "cut through" traffic. This is clearly unfortunate and I wish there were an easy remedy.

The need for drivers to cut through is a byproduct of cities like Menlo Park artificially constricting arterial roads like El Camino Real that are intended for high traffic. Getting off El Camino is due to the frustration of navigating on ECR. Other than two freeways, there are virtually zero surface streets that are capable of transporting large numbers of people wishing to drive north or south for routine trips of 5 to 10 miles.

Large numbers of people travel from San Carlos to Palo Alto or from Mountain View to Redwood City every day. They are parents taking their children to school, people going to doctor appointments, ordinary folks running errands and shopping, and employees trying to get to work. CalTrain and buses are often not good alternatives for many of these short trips that are not conveniently located near a train station.

So keep squeezing and discouraging traffic from the only road specifically designed and engineered to be a heavy traffic corridor - El Camino Real. The result will be people detouring through your neighborhoods.

Let us know how it works out.

Why not allow 2 lanes of traffic on Willow Road during rush hour? The road is only being half used.

Willow used to be four lanes but the Willows folks forced a foolish road diet - now everyone suffers and no one gains.

And the irony is that the Willows will suffer more than most.

Obviously most of you do not live in the Willows and have not experienced the issues first hand. I have lived here for 50 years and traffic has gone from bad to unbearable. Cars routinely exceeding the speed limit, running stop signs, passing other cars on narrow residential streets. I think if you had lived here you would want something done about it as well. It is only a matter of time until someone, likely a child, gets hit by one of these drivers trying to shave 5 minutes off of their commute. People want to avoid Willow so they cut into the neighborhood and speed down the streets before cutting back to Willow. Drivers are also trying to avoid University and cutting across the Pope street bridge and down to Willow near 101. There are many things we can do without the city getting involved and some residents have already started doing that. However, like other neighborhoods in Menlo Park we want the city to help in several ways, enforcement, restricting traffic during rush hours, possible traffic calming devices. There are probably other ideas to consider as well.

I don't know if stopping Waze from directing traffic onto neighborhood streets will help much but it won't hurt.

"pvrez" suggested

drop the speed limit to 15 or 20 during problem hours and routinely park a motorcycle cops there to enforce it. problem solved.

Either this was facetious or our Portola Valley resident has never visited the Willows during a weekday evening rush hour. Those Waze fans queued up to get onto Willow Road are averaging probably 2 miles an hour, not 20. In fact the problem is that no one can average, let alone exceed, 20 mph anywhere near Willow Road.

I respect Brian's observations even though they seem to contradict mine. It depends where in the Willows you sit and watch. I live on Chester Street near Willow and can never get into my own driveway between about 4:30pm and 7:00pm on a week night. That doesn't mean drivers aren't speeding through the streets farther from Willow. Waze fans seem to like the old army game: "hurry up and wait".

I beg to differ with Peter Carpenter, who (like "pvrez") might have a better understanding of the situation if he actually lived in the Willows. Making Willow Road four lanes from Middlefield to 101 would merely add a dozen or so spaces to a linear parking lot during the evening commute, and increase the likelihood of fender-benders and delays caused by last-minute lane changes. Even the old "Willow Expressway" idea wouldn't help. You'd have lots more tailpipe emissions locally, a nasty barrier to north-south traffic ALL the time (not just during commute hours), and still no relief for the desperate commuters until you widen Dumbarton bridge to, say, six or eight lanes. Wake up and smell the insanity: private automobiles are not a scalable solution. They weren't in the 1960s when my wife and I were activists against the Willow Expressway, and now we are just seeing the proof of that observation. It was as obvious then as human-caused climate change is today (to those who don't close their eyes and plug their ears).

Edward,

The cars speed down Marmona, Central, Laurel, Menalto, etc. then they turn to get back onto Willow and get stuck waiting to turn onto Willow. I have the same problem you have in the evenings.

As for Willow going to 4 lanes. It came up at the City Council meeting and the information given by a person from the city was that to do this the city would have to purchase houses along Willow because while there used to be an easement it was returned to the homeowners years ago. So given the price of houses in this area that option seems to be financially unfeasible.

As for reducing the speed, the current speed limit is already ignored so a lower one would just be ignored as well and the city does not have the police resources to dedicate a person to sitting at all the trouble intersections and streets.

When you squeeze one end of the toothpaste, the toothpaste just goes to the other end.

And that is what will happen if Menlo Park introduces measures traffic limiting measures in one area. The traffic will go to another neighborhood or streets to avoid those measures and annoy a new set of people.

The whole reason why there is cut through traffic in the Willows is that University Ave and Willow Road only support two lanes each. All that traffic going between El Camino and 101 have to get to their destinations somehow.

The first thing Menlo Park needs to do is decide where do they want all this traffic to go because that is unavoidable. Once they decide that, they need to build the road capacity, then funnel the traffic to that road.

Apple,

That might sound good but the city and the surrounding communities have had decades to figure this out and have not. So it is time to start taking action, maybe forcing the issues in one area will make it happen city wide. The problem with your suggestion is that most roads can not be widened and there is no place to build new roads. Buying private land is prohibitively expensive even if they could use eminent domain laws to get it. Maybe they should connect James or Oakgrove to Bay use that to ease some of the traffic on Willow?

@Brian,

The right-of-way at Willow and University are already wide enough to support four lanes once you remove street parking, medians, and the bike lanes. Bike lanes and street parking can be restored outside of rush hour. Eminent domain would only be needed if you wanted to keep these in place, plus go to four lanes. I'm guessing that is what the city employee meant.

San Mateo created four lanes for Hillsdale this way and San Carlos did it for Holly. Both streets provide connectivity between 101 and El Camino for their respective cities.

As to why Menlo Park and Palo Alto don't do this, it's political. There are a lot of people who live on Willow and University. They vote. Council members don't want to upset those people too much. So, they squeeze one end of the toothpaste.

From the council members' perspective, it's better if a lot of people are a little upset and the council is seen as doing "something", rather than really upset a small group of residents and make everyone else a little happier.

Mr. Carpenter, you are wrong. Willow Rd was never 2 lanes in each direction. Such a plan was proposed and soundly defeated.
Mr. Apple, "the whole reason there is cut-through traffic in the willows" is because Palo Alto and Stanford have added thousands of office uses in their jurisdictions. Forget University and Willow. Neither road was designed to handle the traffic that office developments have brought into our area. The residents on University and Willow owe drivers nothing. The Mid Peninsula needs mass transit from the East Bay to Silicon Valley. Caltrain needs to be upgraded with electrification.
The Menlo Park Council that has approved thousands of sf of office development and has a general plan that projects 4 million sf of office in Belle Haven This council has little empathy for the residents who live in Menlo Park. They have been swept up in the excitement of running a city that is in love with big business.

"Mr. Carpenter, you are wrong. Willow Rd was never 2 lanes in each direction."

It was indeed 2 lanes in each direction - a long time ago. Ask the old timers.

@LMAMF

First, it's a bit presumptuous to assume I'm a man. It's Ms. Apple, thank you very much!

Second, thank you for proving my point that the council will never approve making Willow a major thoroughfare because the residents there will strongly resist it. You appear to be a resident in that area that would strongly resist such a move.

If the council has little empathy for you, why don't they make Willow four lanes already? This was done to the Holly Street area residents in San Carlos. It was done to the Hillsdale Boulevard area residents in San Mateo. Yet, Menlo Park council doesn't do this. Perhaps you have more political sway than you think you do.

Yes, public transportation can be upgraded to alleviate some of the traffic, but that's not something that the city council can address, which is the essential question of this article. The county, state, and federal government have to come through for better public transportation. What the city does control is how traffic flows on its streets. And Menlo Park hasn't decided where it wants to funnel its traffic. It just squeezes the toothpaste at different points of the tube and traffic flows to different neighborhoods accordingly.

Adding more lanes to Willow will just compound the misery. The problem is the bridge. That's where backups start, and radiate through the connector roads (Marsh, Willow, University). Another problem is that there is no viable road connecting Belle Haven to the rest of Menlo Park. If I'm taking my kid to soccer practice at Kelly Park at 6 pm, I should be able to avoid the traffic that's heading for 101/the Dumbarton but I have no options other than Willow or Marsh, both streets that get backed up up because of the bridge/101.

Since so many Atherton residents think it would be a grand idea to displace homeowners in the name of increased traffic flow, how about cutting a throughway across Lindenwood?

@Observer

There won't be any homeowners displaced since there is enough room on Willow for four lanes if the city reorganizes the current right-of-way.

The key to get commuters off side streets is to ease their experience along the main thoroughfare. You do that and the side streets will clear up.

Peter,

I have been here 50 year and my family has been in the Willows since they bought a house here in about 1948, Willow road has never been two lanes in each direction from Middlefield to 101. There is a short segment from about Durham street to Bayfront that has been two lanes for a long time. As stated above there was a proposal to make it an expressway and widen it but that never got anywhere and is dead now.

Apple, I am relaying what was said at the City Council meeting. You are welcome to download and watch it for yourself (February 28th). When the idea of expanding Willor Road to 2 lanes in each direction was raised the person from the city (not sure his name) said that to do that the City would need to purchase houses as the easement was given back to the homeowners several years ago. I believe he probably knows what he is saying. So no, Willow was not nor will it likely be 4 lanes from Middlefield to 101, and especially not from El Camino to 101 (As Stanford wants).

apologies for the typos, having a few computer issues today and I did not catch them before submitting.

I agree, we could help reduce traffic on Willow if we added a connection from Middlefield to Bay going through Lindenwood. I am sure there wouldn't be any objection to that.

The core issue is commercial development. As numerous readers have pointed out, the city council has been unable to resist approving large development projects and expansions, e.g., Facebook. And once those projects are in place it's a one way ratchet on traffic.

We need a more robust mechanism to prevent development, one in which one weak city council can't Gree light projects that future generations have to live with forever.

@Brian

I watched the meeting video segment on the capacity creation to address Willows cut through traffic. The speaker, Chip Taylor, did not say anything about what it would take to increase Willows to four lanes.

There would be no need to take anyone's house if four lanes were constructed. All houses are setback from the street. If the city needs a few more feet to accommodate the minimum lane size, they could do a partial taking eminent domain. That would be much cheaper and less disruptive than acquiring the entire parcel.

If four lanes really can't be done for whatever reason (i.e. quality of life, budget, resident complaints), then go with three lanes: two going East and one going West. Westerly commuters are trying to get to 101 or Dumbarton on that part of Willow. Those going East are headed to ECR. Surely, there is no dispute that there is room for three lanes.

For am amusing graphic showing where MP Councilmembers live relative to Willows Traffic, see my
post

Web Link

"While researching this post I realized an illuminating problem: four of our five council members live west of San Mateo Drive, as illustrated by this figure. The bubbles in red show residences for councilmembers Carlton, Cline, Mueller and Ohtaki, all living west (left) of the red line denoting San Mateo Drive.

{IMG 1448.jpg}

Think of the implication: 80% of our council decides land use, impacts and approval of environmental impact reports, and traffic tolerance. In a sense these four council members need not cross El Camino but for visiting Café Borrone and City Hall, leaving the impacts to those of who use east of San Mateo Drive. Could it be that when we have disagreement concerning major zoning that it stems from a ‘west side’ bias imposed on the rest of us? "

Welcome to the world of living in Belle Haven. Although our complaints have fallen on deaf ears. Check out requests in the Community Visioning, EIR comments, Commission and Council minutes.

I am hopeful that the Willows' concerns are addressed and solved. We are still waiting.

Waze and other traffic apps are never going to divert traffic away from a specific neighborhood on request from various cities. That would be impossible to manage on a national or global scale.

I like the school bus idea, but that won't help Willow. Adding 1 or two lanes would help somewhat.

The businesses are hear to stay (we expect) therefore the town, county and NorCal region have an obligation to actually implement traffic mitigation plans.

We still have no east/west mass transportation options. Thank our region and county for that.

The towns have been derelict in their duties by encouraging massive office development without insisting on investment in traffic management solutions. But now that we are here, take a suggestion from the national protests and start organizing local protests at city hall and the like. Protests matter.

Apple,

It came up earlier in the meeting and he specifically did say that to go with 4 lanes they would need to purchase houses along Willow. Basically Willow Road expanding is not an option. You can hope for it all you want but I think the residents of several neighborhoods would oppose that suggestion. It would also not solve any of the problems that we face today. If you have ever traveled on Willow at Rush hour you will notice that it is just as congested east of Durham where it is 4 lanes wide.

I agree about Waze, I think asking was just something that needed to be done to cross it off the list. I know I had no expectation they would be open to it. First off they are in Israel and could care less about traffic here, second if they did it for one community they would be asked to do it by hundreds or thousands of communities. The best think to do is force them to make the changes by making the turns that people are using illegal during commute hours. There are example of these restrictions all over Menlo Park and Atherton (no right turn between 7:00 AM and 10:00 AM). I have seen them by the high school, on Bay, on Willow and else where.

Brian

@Brian

My guess is that the employee meant full property eminent domain would be needed if the town kept the bike lanes, street parking, medians, and separate turn lanes on Willow. That would make sense.

If you eliminated/merged all these, then you could fit four lanes. Did the employee address that scenario? Did that employee consider if three lanes (two eastbound, one westbound) would fit? Usually, the city council is fairly probing when fact finding. Perhaps the political danger of actually solving the problem by increasing Willow Road capacity scared them away.

The reason I'm confident full eminent domain would not be needed is that all the houses on Willow are pretty far setback from the street. And the city would only take property as a last resort by maximizing the current right of way.

I agree that the Willows resident will oppose four lanes. In fact, I pointed that out in one of my earlier posts. The city can spread the pain around or try to isolate the pain in one place. If they want the former, that is their prerogative.

My purpose was to present an engineering solution to ameliorate the cut through traffic problem. If you are asking for a political solution, it doesn't exist. Traffic will flow to the street with the least resistance. You close one shortcut; drivers will find the next one. Some set of residents will have to bear the burden.

I remember back to the 60s and Willow Road — at least between Gilbert and Middlefield — was never 4 lanes. It had these really wide unpaved (dirt) "sidewalks" though. The pavement kind off just rolled off into a wide unpaved strip between the road and the houses' front yards. I lived one street over on Santa Margarita and had a paper route on that part of Willow as well as some schoolmates/friends who lived there.

I recall my father working on the campaign to stop the "Willow Expressway" and going door to door to help get fellow Willows resident Robert (Bob) Stephens elected to city council. Bob, who also served as mayor, was what was part of what became a "residentialist" faction on council.

It should be obvious that making Willow 4 lanes from Middlefield eastward will do nothing to improve eastbound traffic congestion since the 4 lane portion leading up to Bayfront Expressway is already jam packed, with Hwy 101 to E/B Willow exit lanes backed up solid going both ways.

Long delayed, neglected and under-funded political orphan Dumbarton Rail is the real and best solution. It can link with ACE (Altamont Commuter Express) trains from Stockton & Tracy and Tri-Valley at Centerville Station, along with BART and Capitol Corrirod riders with Caltrain on the Peninsula deliver TRAINLOADS of commuters DIRECTLY to Facebook's front door as well as to Palo Alto's University and California Ave. Caltrain station (via the track wye at Redwood Junction).

For more about the Dumbarton Rail Corridor, current and past studies about re-establishing rail service, etc., see:
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link

"It should be obvious that making Willow 4 lanes from Middlefield eastward will do nothing to improve eastbound traffic congestion since the 4 lane portion leading up to Bayfront Expressway is already jam packed, with Hwy 101 to E/B Willow exit lanes backed up solid going both ways."

I disagree. Traffic congestion on side streets will be reduced since there is more capacity on Willow. If you really want to maximize throughput, then make Willow three lanes eastbound and one lane westbound.

You are correct that Willow itself will remain congested. The downstream bottleneck is bridge capacity.

Dumbarton Rail is a great idea. In fact, it should be pursued ahead of Caltrain electrification. Electrification is not adding that much more new capacity. If the money were allocated to Dumbarton Rail instead, it would make a big dent in East-West congestion and get a whole bunch of (idling) cars off the road, which would be a bigger improvement for environment and quality of life than electrification.