Willows traffic crisis: Menlo Park to install 'No Thru Traffic' signs

Are you kidding me?

Kristen Keith, who lives in the Willows, chooses not to hear the item until close to midnight and then she gets up and leaves during public comment because she has to catch a 1am flight for a boondoggle mayors trip to the other side of the country. Apparently the boondoggle socializing with other elected officials and companies in a state on the other side of the country is more important than fixing the urgent problem that her neighbors she was elected to represent are dealing with. Then the City Manager tells the Council they can't vote on potential fixes for a month because Mayor Keith has other items she wants heard in early December.

Unbelievable.

The irony is that this construction has made the traffic situation on Willow Road on the Bay side of US-101 better ... I guess it keeps the number of them thar' west side Menlo Park folks coming through down to a more reasonable level ...

When you're driving, you're never a contributor to the traffic. It's always everyone else.

So lets put up pointless signs which can't be enforced, which cost money in terms of making, displaying and installing. What a joke!

When it comes to attempting to deter cut-through traffic, "No Thru Traffic" signs can't be legally enforced. By state law, public roadways can't be restricted to only a portion of the public that happens to live or have business there, Menlo Park Police Commander Dave Bertini told the council.

Hey, I don't like all that traffic driving past my house on Santa Cruz. Can we get some of those signs on Santa Cruz, too?

It may be that the council chooses a new mayor on Dec 5 so council woman Keith can skirt by this Willows traffic issue with ease. It is the mayor's job to put items on the agenda and place them in order and Keith is our mayor. To ask residents to wait until the end of the evening to hear an issue that has been so painful for such a long time is unconscionable. Is there just one more council meeting before Ms Keith steps down from her position as mayor? I guess Willows residents should be grateful that they got as far as they did and some solutions are being considered.

Two terms for council members is all the city should allow. These elected council members get tired, jaded and they learn how to play the game. That we already have another council member who is in his 11th year is wrong. Had Mr. Cline stepped aside in 2014, the field of candidates would have produced a new fresh voice that had and is still been badly needed.

Voters don't bother to research candidates and vote for the people with the best photos (in her case, ten-year-old photos as her kids are grown). We get what we deserve.

Fascinating. This traffic nightmare has gridlocked the entire area and I don't see a lot of thought or research done by the Council or Caltrans on how to alleviate it. Their new option: they plan to spend thousands of dollars on "No Through Traffic" signs that can't be enforced. Either Caltrans or Menlo Park needs to have traffic officers directing traffic. Also, how is the Dumbarton Bridge traffic related to this?

It would be interesting to know how much of the traffic South of US-101 is headed towards the Dumbarton Bridge, versus just trying to get to US-101. I don't think the current configuration would make it much slower to get to US-101 S (except for the overall back-up; there's a new stoplight, but I assume they can turn right), but it would significantly slow access to US-101 N, as they would encounter two extra stop lights. Maybe these people should make their way toward Marsh Road via Middlefield or Bay. Removing or adding the last few percent of traffic can make a huge difference in flow; getting above a certain threshold can make the difference between free-flow and slow traffic.

Can't anyone figure out that adding more offices & housing units increases traffic? It's not rocket science. Smart folks would figure out how to widen roads & increase capacity before encouraging "growth."
Menlo Park government is greedy & loves all the fees from developers, consequently making this a much less desirable place to live.
What about the planning commissioners who support growth & expansion in excess of what our infrastructure can handle?
City Hall OKs this stuff & the rest of us suffer the consequences.

The residents along Willow Rd west of 101 will not like this idea, but it has worked pretty well in San Carlos on Holly Street. During commute hours, they make it illegal to park along the street on Holly Street between 101 and El Camino Real. Menlo Park could do this for Willow Rd between 101 and Middlefield Rd. It would take a bit of figuring out how to make it work between Bay and Gilbert, but it should be very doable.

subject:
traffic congestion due to construction of Willow/101 interchange

I am addressing this to Gary Richards of the Mercury News, Robert Haus (whom I understand to be a public contact for DOT regarding this project) and Angela Obeso (project liaison for the City of Menlo Park.).

A letter to the RoadShow column a day or two ago noted how bad traffic through the Willow Road/101 interchange has become since the cloverleaf was shut down and replaced by traffic signals.  The situation has also received press coverage today in The Almanac <Web Link I live in the Willows neighborhood, and I concur with my fellow citizens who have been quoted regarding the gridlock on our streets.

I am moved to write because of the evident danger to drivers and especially pedestrians. CalTrans has officially closed the overpass to pedestrians, offering instead on a sign to convey them by shuttle.  But tonight about 6:45 I watched a pedestrian dodging cars as he tried to walk eastbound on the overpass.  What pedestrian would call (if he had a phone) and wait for a shuttle if he could see that the road was gridlocked and he could walk faster?

While Willow Road will suffer from congestion due to the sheer number of vehicles and any problem on the Dumbarton Bridge (as it always has), it is made much worse by inadequate signage.  For example:
• There is now no sign on southbound 101 pointing toward Willow Road west (only "east").
• The one southbound exit lane to Willow expands without warning into 3 lanes (2 westbound, 1 east). The arrows showing which lane to take are painted on the road, not visible when traffic is stopped.
• There could be a sign on the overpass allowing the 2nd from right southbound 101 lane to also turn onto westbound Willow (which cars have been doing as drivers learn to escape the stopped Dumbarton-bound lane).
• The electric sign on eastbound Willow notifying drivers of lane changes is located just past Middlefield, almost a mile away.  A lot of vehicles merge onto Willow in that mile.
• The only sign informing drivers that eastbound traffic on Willow has to merge left is a sticker pasted over an existing sign on the right shoulder, which is blocked from view by vehicles in the right lane until too late to change lanes.
• There are no arrows at the signal light on Willow where northbound 101 vehicles turn left.  If you miss this turn, you have to make a U-turn at the next light (which I did the first time, and many others continue to do).

These are the approaches to the interchange that I use every time I commute to work when I do not ride my bike.  I am sure there are similar issues with other approaches.  I can't understand why CalTrans did not do a better job of telling drivers how to safely and efficiently get through this intersection.

This article and most of the comments to it are about the temporary(?) consequences during the construction period. The real travesty will be the waste of time and emotional energy from the worsened traffic jams that this interchange change will result in from 2019 until ????. In economic terms, the cost of the incremental wasted time will measure in $billions, which will make the $70M that is being wasted to do this pale in comparison.

I tried to warn the city council about this starting in February of 2016:
Web Link
A year ago, I made public comments at a CC meeting and provided this handout:
Web Link (abbreviated version of above)
The only council members who tried to fight it were Catherine Carlton and Ray Mueller (although they were more genteel than I would have been). PO & RC did talk with me, but did not act. KK and Alex McIntyre never responded to multiple attempts to communicate about this. Ultimately the latter 4 are responsible.

The disaster is not finalized. If the MPCC were to acknowledge that CalTrans's plans are flawed, they can mitigate the problem by restoring it to a cloverleaf (and using the wider bridge for proper bike lane(s).

In politics, it is rare that people or government bodies admit an error and change plans. Usually the people have to be changed out for that to occur. Time will tell whether these individuals will be the rare exceptions.
-GML

Palo Alto has banned turns into the north Palo Alto neighborhood at certain hours to minimize cut-through traffic. Can something like that be done for the Willows?

The interchange design does appear to be flawed if it doesn't support safe usage of and to/from the overpass, and if traffic will back up onto hwy 101 for both east-and west bound vehicles exiting the hwy. A single driver trying to sneak into the east-bound exit, for example, could back up the entire west-bound exit lane.

I'm not suggesting it be done, but how can cities like Palo Alto (just south of Stanford Avenue) and Berkeley (downtown just west of Telegraph) simply block off the ends of public streets with bollards/fences to eliminate cut-through traffic - I thought that was essentially illegal to do to a public street?

"how can cities like Palo Alto (just south of Stanford Avenue) and Berkeley (downtown just west of Telegraph) simply block off the ends of public streets with bollards/fences to eliminate cut-through traffic"

I suspect the difference is that dead-ending a street applies to all citizens/taxpayers equally. Creating a dead-end denies through traffic to everyone, regardless of where they live; the local residents cannot drive through the dead-end any more than non-residents. Equal public treatment of public streets.

Just my 2 cents: that could be an option for the Willows, at least legally. But be careful that you understand the likely side-effects:

* yes, neighborhood streets that are dead-ended will no longer have cut-through traffic, but it will be at the expense of neighborhood streets that are not dead-ended. That traffic will have to go somewhere. Choosing dead-ends means you intend to give the middle finger to a subset of your Willows neighbors. (and it's worth mentioning that...obviously...you need SOME routes in-and-out of the Willows).

* Yes, it may become easier to get out of your driveway (or worse, depending on which streets were dead-ended), but it will become even more difficult to leave your neighborhood due to the additional concentration of traffic on fewer streets.

* Emergency response times would be at risk of becoming longer (i.e., worse) due to fewer (and in some cases longer) routes to homes that need emergency help, with those routes into the Willows becoming even more congested due to the reduction of routes into the Willows.

Be careful what you wish for...

Why spend money on signs that are not enforceable at the taxpayers expense. This seems like a huge waste of money and not very well thought out by whoever is installing the signs. They need to become informed and not spend this money needlessly. The fact that they are installing the signs knowing that they are not going to do any good is really not very prudent. We need to build a better mouse trap and get some new mice!

"Why spend money on signs that are not enforceable at the taxpayers expense."

Because for the City Council symbolism is much more important than substance.

Here is a concrete proposal:
1 - Eliminate parking on Willow Road
2 - Remove bulb outs on Willow Road
3 - Prohibit turns off of Willow Road during high traffic hours
4 - Install a reversible middle lane on Willow Road - West bound in AM and East bound in PM

Peter, Those bicycle lanes on Willow Rd are used constantly during the day going both directions. Its a bad idea to remove those if you are suggesting that. If you are not then why remove the bulb outs? I like the idea of a reversible lane in the middle but not at the expense of the bike lanes and bus stops which are used primarily by Menlo residents. We need more bike lanes and less vehicles. We don't need ideas that penalize Menlo residents just to help all those non residents drivers that are just passing through town and clogging the roads.

Couple comments. The signs are actually enforcable, we just need the police to enforce them. What is not enforceable are limits that apply to some people and not others (such as residents only). As No Through Traffic applies to everyone they can be enforced, though it may be difficult. The real reason behind this is two fold. First it is to discourage people from cutting through the neighborhood. Second it is to have Waze remove that as a route for cut through traffic. Some people say it has helped, I am not sure.

As for Peter's comments on Willow, I am glad he is on the Fire District Board and not transportation. He is doing enough damage there. [Part removed.]

Note that the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD) (published by the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and issued to adopt uniform standards and specifications for ALL official traffic control devices, in accordance with Section 21400 of the California Vehicle Code) does NOT include a NO Thru Traffic Sign.

I suspect that such a sign is legally unenforcible.

Well, Peter, a no through traffic sign may be unenforceable, but some people would feel like a jerk ignoring it.

"Well, Peter, a no through traffic sign may be unenforceable, but some people would feel like a jerk ignoring it."

Certainly not the people that are currently overwhelming the Willows neighborhood.

Traffic is the new normal in the Bay Area. We all need to get used to the idea that Willow Road (and University Ave and Marsh Rd and any other east-west arterial) are just going to back up during commute hours because our co-workers and service providers either can't find, or can't afford to live in town. We also should consider ourselves very fortunate to live in an area saturated with employment opportunities and services.

What I do not accept, is the complete absence of any traffic enforcement along Willow Road or any of the neighborhood streets that feed into Willow Road. Drivers speed, block intersections, and make dangerous turns with total impunity. As a result, many parents and children do not feel safe navigating our streets on foot or bicycle. I do not blame them.

"As for Peter's comments on Willow, I am glad he is on the Fire District Board"

Thank you.

"Here is a concrete proposal:
1 - Eliminate parking on Willow Road
2 - Remove bulb outs on Willow Road
3 - Prohibit turns off of Willow Road during high traffic hours
4 - Install a reversible middle lane on Willow Road - West bound in AM and East bound in PM"

“I suspect that such a sign is legally unenforcible.”
“some people would feel like a jerk ignoring it.”

I wouldn’t, not even a little. Let me count the ways:

1: The public pays for public roads.

2: I’ve tried…lordy lordy I’ve tried … to stay on what most people consider the “main arteries” during commute times. Here’s how my commute route has changed over the last few years:

* initially, I took Willow to 101S.
* When Willow got too bad, I took Middlefield to University to 101S.
* When PA turned MP/PA border @Middlefield into a chokepoint (intentionally), I took Lytton Ave or Palo Alto Ave to University to 101S. I still use this route the majority of the time (mostly to make PA residents pay for the middle finger to their northern neighbors). However…
* When Middlefield gets too backed up, I sometimes use a Willow neighborhood street to University to 101S.

Driving through the Willows is a last resort, but desperate times call for desperate measures sometimes.

If I’m ever pulled over for driving through the Willows, I’ll just politely hand the police office a copy of the California MUTCD, and politely point out my legal right to drive on the road. I’m confident I will be allowed on my merry way.

If the unenforceable signs provide Willows some degree of relief, I’m happy for the neighborhood. But if you want sustainable solutions, we need to make the main arteries more usable.


PS: speaking of arteries, how about Menlo Park make El Camino 3 lanes each way through the entire town, not just through part of the town?

So Menlo is trying to trick taxpayers into not using certain streets, in the hopes that traffic will remain deadlocked on major streets whose residents aren't lucky enough to get these tricky signs. Okay, got it.

Peter, Those bicycle lanes on Willow Rd are used constantly during the day going both directions. Its a bad idea to remove those if you are suggesting that. If you are not then why remove the bulb outs? I like the idea of a reversible lane in the middle but not at the expense of the bike lanes and bus stops which are used primarily by Menlo residents. We need more bike lanes and less vehicles. We don't need ideas that penalize Menlo residents just to help all those non residents drivers that are just passing through town and clogging the roads.

and you are so right Brian

Back then several educated people predicted that the new design of the Interchange will do nothing to alleviate the current problems.

Now we get to experience the future status quo on Willow even before it is finished.
I can't help myself speculating that the timing of this is all intentional.

By the time the project will be finished, people won't remember that the situation was actually better before.
And everybody will be satisfied if one refers to the "ever increasing traffic" and how it would be worse without these "improvements".

Smart move by the responsible parties!

Willow Road is a designated arterial and a designated primary emergency response route - neither function is being met by the current configuration.

The misguided attempt to reduce traffic on Willow by removing lanes, adding bulb outs and parking has failed because the traffic simply has nowhere else to go - except into the side streets!

Menlo Park should remove the parking and the bulb outs and add a third lane a third lane to Willow and Atherton should add a third lane to Marsh.

The city states "City staff installed a number of yellow advisory signs that were already on hand at key entry points to the neighborhood. White regulatory signs have been ordered and will be installed shortly. The “No Thru Traffic” signs are intended to discourage cut-through traffic"

So the signs are, as I suggested above, advisory and therefor there is no legal basis for enforcement actions. Changing the color to white will not change the fact that the signs do not conform to State law on traffic control devices.

I suggest that the people who work on the East Side of the 101, buy homes over there. They could walk or bike to work.

No negative impact on traffic and FB has promised a full community w/ a bank, a grocery store, dry cleaners etc.

Whether or not "no cut through" or "no through traffic" or "right or left turn only" or "no straight traffic" are enforceable, or not, or whether simply difficult to enforce will become more and more important as the traffic develops through our neighborhoods from all the development council has approved and is approving on El Camino Real.

George is correct - the current reality, however created, is what must be dealt with.

Leadership is about solving problems.'

The City can do nothing about the amount of traffic that currently exists BUT the City can do a lot to improve how ell that traffic moves thru the City - Add a third reversible lane on Willow, makes all of ECR three thru lanes, put bike routes on non-arterial streets, etc.

And then the City can revisit, once again, its Comprehensive Plan to determine if there are better long range solutions.

[Post removed. Please comment on the topic, not on other posters.]

"I suspect that such a sign is legally unenforcible."

Sorry Peter, where is your law degree from? Having spoken to a couple practising lawers they disagree with you. Sincve such a sign applies to everyone, residents and non-residents alike it is not discriminatory. It is just like the No turn signs that about in Menlo Park and Atherton.

No U turn signs are included in the California MUTCD; No thru traffic signs are not in the California MUTCD.

So what is the specific California code that makes No thru traffic signs enforcible?

Why does Palo Alto use No right/left turn signs during certain hours on Middlefield rather than No thru Traffic signs?

The city states "City staff installed a number of yellow advisory signs that were already on hand at key entry points to the neighborhood. White regulatory signs have been ordered and will be installed shortly. The “No Thru Traffic” signs are intended to discourage cut-through traffic"

Not one word about being legally enforceable - just "advisory", "meant to discourage", etc.

MP CITY CODE:

11.12.010 Powers and duties of City Council.
The City Council may, by resolution, order the installation, use, change or removal of such traffic control devices as the council deems appropriate and as are permitted by the Vehicle Code. This authority includes such things as turning markers, restricted turn, speed markers, one-way and other directional signs, stop and parking signs, and markings, all types of curb markings, no parking and no stopping or standing signs, and any and all other types of markings, signs or identification which the council approves and which are not prohibited by the Vehicle Code.

California Vehicle Code:
(a) (1) The Department of Transportation shall, after consultation with local agencies and public hearings, adopt rules and regulations prescribing uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices placed pursuant to this code, including, but not limited to, stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, speed restriction signs, railroad warning approach signs, street name signs, lines and markings on the roadway, and stock crossing signs placed pursuant to Section 21364.

(a) Except as provided in Section 21374, only those official traffic control devices that conform to the uniform standards and specifications promulgated by the Department of Transportation shall be placed upon a street or highway.

Signs are useless, as can be seen every day in our communities, as these do not apply to the special people around here.

It is a waste of money and will only contribute to the obvious frustration of our law enforcement officers, who would have to invest considerable time and resources to enforce something that would result in just a nominal fine.

People will take the very very slim risk of being actually pulled over (if that would be even possible)and cited a marginal amount of money that they'd likely either not pay or contest in court.
Enforcement would not cover it's cost nor the cost for the signs in the first place.

A band aid that is not gonna stick.

Two facts.

1. Willow WAS an arterial, but became an obstacle course when neighborhood was well represented in Council, because people who bought on an arterial wanted to live on a quieter street.

2. Mayor Keith lives in the Willows, but off of Woodland Ave. She has no need to use Willow Rd.

Willow Road legally remains both an arterial and a designated emergency response route - the City has an obligation to restore both functionalities. Failure to do so will adversely impact the surrounding neighborhoods and the vehicles using Willow Road and will endanger everyone due to dangerous increases in emergency response times.

"makes sense" I assume you would also be having all the people who live on the south side of 101 only work at jobs they can get to from 280 - since we're deciding where people can live to make your traffic better. It would certainly make the traffic better if the only people using 101 were from the willows or from Belle Haven, but I suspect Sharon Heights residents might have a problem with it.

It seems to me that the commute model of living far from work and driving alone to get there and back doesn't work any more, if it ever did. It is a shame and a major problem that NIMBYs in certain cities have blocked home construction, preventing people from living close to where they work and causing sky-rocketing home prices.

Let's close Middlefield at the Palo Alto border. That will make traffic on Willow much better.