City tries to ease traffic-calming process

By Linda Taaffe, Town Crier Staff Writer

A 15-year-old bicyclist is injured at a crosswalk at the busy San Antonio Road and Pine Avenue intersection during the morning commute last week. Los Altos residents consider traffic to be a major problem, and the city has procured more than $1 million in federal grants to address some of the specific concerns.

Anyone who has spent time in Los Altos has probably heard of or made complaints about cut-through traffic, speeding cars and pedestrian routes too dangerous for schoolchildren to use unsupervised.

Residents rank traffic as a top concern citywide year after year, yet surprisingly only two neighborhoods have successfully approved improvements for their streets through the city’s Neighborhood Traffic

Management program in the five years it has been in place. That’s not to say residents aren’t taking action. Through grass-roots efforts, the city has secured more than $1 million in federal grant money for various traffic-calming projects throughout the city, including some Safe Routes to School projects.

So why aren’t residents taking advantage of the city program?

Some say the program, intended to give residents the opportunity to come up with traffic-calming solutions they feel are best suited to their streets, is too complicated and burdensome. Others say it’s the engineering solutions, not the program, that are often too controversial.

The city, based on recommendations from the Traffic Commission and city staff, is revising the program this month to make the process easier to understand and possibly faster to complete.

City Traffic Engineer Tom Ho, hired two years ago to improve traffic conditions in Los Altos, said the program is lengthy and requires a lot of hard work from neighbors. Most petitions take about a year to go through the process, he said.

Because Los Altos does not have uniform streets, there’s no cookie-cutter solution, he added. Each neighborhood, street and block has to be studied when looking at traffic solutions - something that takes time.

“There’s been a lot of neighborhoods that have gone through the process that say they don’t think the (traffic) problem is as severe as they originally thought after collecting and analyzing the data,” Ho said. “They decide that some police enforcement is all that is needed … About 90 percent of the time, that takes care of it.”

The number of neighborhoods that make it to that point is very small. Only about two out of 20 neighborhoods that request a program application actually proceed, Ho added.

“They read how much work it takes to get through the process, and most say it’s not worth doing,” he said.

Ho said he receives at least a call a week involving neighborhood traffic issues. In the five years since the program has been around, only 14 neighborhoods have filed petitions for traffic improvements. Out of those, six decided not to pursue a vote for physical street improvements; two garnered enough support to approve a plan; two neighborhoods failed to get enough votes; and four neighborhoods are still working through the process. Improvements have not been made yet in either of the two neighborhoods that passed plans. The neighborhoods must first raise 50 percent of the estimated cost before the city will throw in the remaining amount.

Ho believes a $3,030 service fee would cut the process time to about six months. Right now, there is no initial fee. Traffic studies are conducted on a priority basis, which can push projects back for months until staff is free to do traffic and speed counts, meet with neighbors and record street characteristics, he said.

The fee could potentially be used to hire outside contractors, when needed, to conduct traffic counts.

Ho said the fee is similar to what the city charges for other services, such as building permits and overlay zones. If the neighborhood approves a plan, the fee would be put toward improvements.

“The purpose behind doing this is to make sure residents are truly interested in continuing with the project. If they petition and come up with the fee, chances are they are serious,” Ho said.

Others say the fee will only hinder more residents from going through the process.

Resident Jean Limbach, whose North Clark neighborhood approved bulbouts and a mini traffic circle for its streets through the city’s program last month, said if the fee had been in place when her neighborhood went through the process, she doesn’t know whether neighbors would have been as willing to get on board.

“If that had been the case, it would have been a problem,” she said. “We would have had to ask them to sign a petition and ask for some money. That’s so hard as a first step.”

Financing isn’t the only issue that the city is looking to revamp. The program requires a 67 percent majority vote before traffic improvements can be put in place. Some residents want that number reduced to 55 percent and want better direction on how to define a neighborhood.

Maria Murphy Lonergan, who helped create the program, said requiring a super majority vote is difficult in most cases, especially if businesses and flag lots not impacted as much are included in the area. Despite majority approval, the neighborhood lacked the 67 percent approval requirement more than once. Volume and speed remain an issue, she said.

“I think building consensus among neighbors is a very important part of the process,” Murphy Lonergan said. “Traffic impacts some parts of the street more than others, such as a corner home that gets a lot of speeding and noise. Those in the middle of the street may not feel the (traffic) as much and may not be inclined to vote.”

A lower approval requirement and smaller boundaries would help, she said.

Ho said he believes the voting threshold in place works. In the case of Limbach’s neighborhood, all 25 homeowners acknowledged the same problems and agreed on the solutions.

“If a neighborhood is together, (residents) can get a successful plan,” Ho said. “If they’re not united, even if you reduce the vote, I don’t know if that would influence their decision.”

Many residents take issue with making any physical changes to their street.

Limbach said the traffic problems were so evident on her street, residents were anxious to have improvements. There was already a lot of consensus, she said. More than that, she added, neighbors were flexible.

“People had really grand ideas but were very open when it came to meetings with the city. We incorporated ideas … scaled back some ideas,” she said.

The next step for Limbach’s neighborhood is to implement the approved plan. This is the farthest any neighborhood has gotten in the process. The neighborhood is waiting for the city to bring back an estimate, half of which the neighbors are responsible for paying. The city funds the other half using funds set aside for such projects.

There are currently no funds budgeted for traffic calming, Ho said. However, staff has developed a Capital Improvement Project for consideration in the upcoming year to fund traffic-calming work.

The 50-50 funding split is perhaps the biggest roadblock in the program, according to some residents.

Murphy Lonergan said the city should consider funding as much as 95 percent of traffic improvements.

Just because many residents live in $1 million-plus homes doesn’t mean they have the money to pay for such improvements, she said.

Limbach said funding isn’t an issue in her neighborhood because there are enough homeowners willing and able to put in more than their share to cover the cost of those who can’t afford it.

“It’s not a show stopper with us,” she said. “No one is required to pay. It’s voluntary. We recognize that some people can’t afford it … That’s OK.”

Ho said the 50-50 split is unique to Los Altos. Other Peninsula cities, including Palo Alto and Mountain View, fund their programs 100 percent.

For a city without a huge tax revenue base, 100 percent funding would mean taking money away from other projects, staff said.

Ho said he doesn’t think cost is the deciding factor when it comes to whether residents pursue improvements.

“They voted for the plan, not for the money,” Ho said of the four neighborhoods that have gone through the voting process. “A lot has to do with the neighborhood itself. You’re not going to get consensus even if money is available unless you have (neighbors) willing to move forward on a plan. Money is not the deciding criterion.”

For Limbach and her neighbors, the process wasn’t easy, but it worked. A big reason why it worked, she said, is because of Ho’s input. Without a traffic engineer, Limbach doubts there would be any projects moving forward.

“It’s a slow process and one that has to be resident-driven. If there is no one to keep the momentum then it will die,” she said.