My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
Agda Pkt 2026.01.26 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2026
>
Agda Pkt 2026.01.26 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/27/2026 11:37:07 AM
Creation date
1/27/2026 11:34:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
1/26/2026
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
372
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
3 <br /> Concern that one travel lane in each direction may make it difficult for people to access or exit their <br />driveways, especially at east segment of the project corridor between Hudson Street and El Camino <br />Real <br /> Support for the alternative because it would be safer for bicyclists and pedestrians <br /> <br />Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) and PHB/HAWK signals are proposed at various locations in all <br />three scenarios. PHB/HAWK signals, which stop traffic, are generally recommended at uncontrolled crossings on <br />multilane roadways. RRFBs are typically recommended at uncontrolled crossings on two-lane roadways and on <br />three-lane roadways with a center turn lane. All alternatives implement daylighting at intersections and pedestrian <br />crossings according to California AB 413. <br />Click here for a summary of the three early concept design alternatives <br />In general, the community voiced support for: <br /> Slowing vehicle speeds <br /> Continuous dedicated bike lanes <br /> Dedicated turn lanes to help with backed up traffic on left side travel lanes <br /> Access to driveway and residential parking <br /> Improved pedestrian crossings <br /> <br />Click here for a summary of Spring 2025 outreach efforts <br />Refined Concept Design Alternatives (Fall 2025) <br />The project team considered community feedback from Spring 2025 outreach efforts and modified the proposed <br />alternatives for a second community meeting on October 8th, 2025, to determine the preferred concept design. The <br />meeting notice was mailed to 2,400 addresses (including both owners and occupants) within one block on two sides <br />of the project corridor. <br />Key modifications to the proposed alternatives were: <br /> Alternative 1 retained its key design elements and was renamed Alternative A. The concept included PHBs <br />(example shown in Figure 2) at Ruby Street and Adams Street. This Alternative is extended from Oak Ridge <br />Drive to El Camino Real. Alternative A was the only option advanced for the segment between Hudson <br />Street and El Camino Real, due to the anticipated operational impacts of a lane reduction in that portion of <br />the corridor based on the traffic study results and community feedback. A new traffic signal is proposed at <br />Jefferson Ave and Valota Street intersection. <br /> Alternative 2 was dropped from consideration. <br /> Alternative 3 was modified to provide a Class II bikeway (bike lane) along most of the corridor to preserve <br />on-street parking for residents and local businesses and also keep access to driveways. A two-way Class <br />IV bikeway (separated bikeway) was proposed between Avenue del Ora and Myrtle. The concept included <br />RRFBs (shown in Figure 3) at Topaz Street and King Street, and a PHB at Ruby Street and Adams Street. <br />This modified design—designated Alternative B—was proposed for the segment from Oak Ridge Drive to <br />Hudson Street. A new traffic signal is proposed at Jefferson Ave and Valota Street intersection. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />11.B. - Page 13 of 17 <br />190
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.