Hi Nikki,Thank you for your response to Tricia, Tracy and the petitioners for the stop sign on Central Ave. I believe the
suggested improvements to the intersections are appropriate and the sight line corrections have been long overdue. However, there
is a fundamental theory in your argument against stop signs that need clarification. Here is the line in your email that worries
me:> > “They (stop signs) can also increase the likelihood of other types of crashes, and will also increase the City’s liability if
future collisions occur, as the stop signs were installed against standard requirements which can be readily challenged in case of
an incident.
Perhaps Bill McClure can give us examples of legal cases where a city has been found liable when an accident occurs at an
intersection that has stop signs that were“not warranted by Federal and State Criteria’, but one driver does not comply and
injures another driver. This thinking does not pass the straight-face test nor does it seem a sound reason to deny a request for a
sign. I researched the test for stop signs in several cities in California and found this same justification for denial used.
While I understand the City is reluctant to place stop signs without there being solid evidence that they are needed, it seems
that with the opening of the Upper Laurel School, there was not a thorough analysis of the number of children on bikes or walking
that would use O’Connor Street and cross Central, as an obvious route in both the morning and afternoon hours.
The argument that stop signs are too often ignored and therefore should not be thought of as a safety tool to protect school age
children can be compared to the argument that once drivers over a long period of time exceed the speed limit on a street, a city
cannot enforce the speed limit. Bad behavior is rewarded?
I worry that Menlo Park is bowing to standards set by an outside quasi governmental organization when evaluating the need for
these Central Ave stop signs rather than looking at the evidence being presented by those who are on the ground and have the most
to lose: the parents of children at both Upper Laurel and the Willow Oaks Campus. Rather than wait until more car related injuries
occur as that would meet the official warrants, we could take a preemptive position now.
I look forward to the Staff, the Council and the City Attorney to continue this discussion
Brielle JohnckCentral Ave.Meno Park
> Hi Tracy and all,
As Kirsten mentioned, one of our staff members and myself went to the intersections on Monday afternoon (it was nice to run into
you, Tracy!) to look for short-term solutions. We are installing:
·Installation of “cross traffic does not stop” signs at Elm and Walnut·Replacing the stop sign on southbound Walnut at Central
(its faded and leaning)·Painting four new crosswalks at each intersection·Adding two new in-street pedestrian warning signs
(“yield to pedestrians”) at each intersection, for the crosswalks across Central Ave
We’ve also been coordinating with the Police Department and they are targeting placing the speed trailer on Central and doing
targeted enforcement in the area.
I’ve shared with several of you in the past, but to summarize - the overarching request for an all-way stop sign is governed by a
set federal and state criteria called “warrants”. We look at the total traffic volume (vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians) during
peak and typical daily conditions (when school is in session); the collision history; and any other issues that might affect
safety like sight distance. The status of our evaluation of each of these is summarized below:
·Traffic Volume. Based on our last review in the fall shortly after Laurel Upper opened, the volume does not meet the requirements
for an all-way stop sign. We anecdotally think the turn restrictions have further reduced the volume, making this unlikely to meet
the volume warrants.
·Collision History. The collision history evaluation requires that the collisions be “correctable” by installing a stop sign. The
two most recent crashes occurred when the bicyclists did not stop at the stop signs. While it’s very hard to see anyone hit, these
are not considered “correctable” collisions. The Safe Routes to School program that the City is initiating currently will help
reinforce the educational aspects biking to lead to safer behavior in the long run as well.
·Other Site-specific Issues. We are continuing to look at other issues that may warrant a stop sign, with an emphasis on the sight
distance at both intersections. Code enforcement is scheduled to complete this week work on the corner of Elm/Central to remove
landscaping that is restricting sight distance at the intersection. Following completion of that work, our staff will be working
on a sight distance evaluation to see if any other changes are necessary (parking restrictions or stop sign installation). This
evaluation should be done in the next few weeks.
Ultimately, the City Council makes the decision about all traffic control installations in Menlo Park. If stop signs are
warranted, we’d look to bring an evaluation forward to the Complete Streets Commission for a recommendation followed by the City
Council. This process typically takes 3 to 4 months, in order to schedule meetings and send notifications in advance.
If stop signs are found not to be warranted, staff would not recommend their installation to the Commission or Council.
Unwarranted stop signs are demonstrated to reduce the frequency that drivers stop at all stop signs – and we already hear this
complaint frequently in Menlo Park. They can also increase the likelihood of other types of crashes, and will also increase the
City’s liability if future collisions occur, as the stop signs were installed against standard requirements which can be readily
challenged in case of an incident.
I know this is a lot of information; hopefully this helps explain our current status and next steps clearly.
Thanks,
Nikki
