|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
If you’re like many local drivers, the words “Willow Road” may conjure flashbacks of time spent in powerless gridlock trying to get on and off U.S. 101. If you’re anything like this reporter, you might even have forehead bruises from periodically banging your head against the steering wheel in frustration.
You’ve probably asked, Can’t somebody – anybody – do something about this?
The four-part answer to this question:
● Yes, there is a plan to address traffic problems relating to the Willow Road-101 interchange.
● Unfortunately, the plan is estimated to cost $64.4 million, with little funding promised from state and federal sources.
● Fortunately, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority recently committed $56.4 million, or about 88 percent, to fund this project.
● Unfortunately, the project is still $8 million short.
The plan
The Willow-101 interchange was built 60 years ago, and can no longer “serve the volume of traffic that moves through this interchange,” said Tasha Bartholomew, spokesperson for the county transportation authority.
The plan, she said, would convert the current interchange from a full to partial cloverleaf pattern, designed to help eliminate cars weaving through traffic.
According to Joel Slavit, programming manager for the transportation authority, the new shape of the interchange will reduce the four loops to two. The design eliminates loops on which cars, over a relatively short distance, merge onto 101 and exit onto Willow Road. Those loops cause traffic to slow and create a bottleneck.
The project will replace the existing roadway where Willow Road passes over U.S. 101. The current roadway has two lanes in each direction, with an added exit lane to access the interchange.
The new roadway will have four traffic lanes in each direction, Mr. Slavit said, with carpool bypass lanes at the north and south loop onramps. Alternative transportation will be encouraged, too: a bike lane, cycle track (a separated, protected bikeway) and sidewalk will be installed in each direction on Willow Road.
To further streamline the interchange, the current off-ramps, which are diagonal, will be realigned and widened to meet Willow Road at a 90-degree angle to create a new intersection. Traffic signals and crosswalks will be installed at the new intersection.
On-ramps will have ramp meters (stop-and-go signals to regulate the frequency of vehicles entering the freeway). Finally, frontage roads will be realigned, sound walls reconstructed, and retaining walls built along off-ramps.
The changes are expected to reduce collisions and traffic queuing on U.S. 101 and Willow Road.
Once funding is secured, Ms. Bartholomew said, the construction process is expected to take two years. During that time, construction could temporarily increase traffic congestion. Caltrans, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto are working together on a plan to minimize that impact, perhaps by doing construction work during non-peak travel hours, weekends or nights, creating traffic detours, and giving advance notice of ramp closures.
Funding gap
The project has been in the works for years, but finding funding has been an ongoing challenge.
Funding to rebuild the interchange was approved by San Mateo County voters in 1988 as part of the Measure A sales tax ballot measure to fund transportation projects. A study on the project was completed the following year, but it was never given final approval. In May 2013, the Menlo Park City Council approved the project’s design.
Though the interchange is in Menlo Park, it is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Ms. Bartholomew said Caltrans has financial responsibility for the state highway system, including Willow Road, but federal and state funding can be hard to come by, so local agencies often must use their own funds.
To speed the local fundraising process, Menlo Park became the sponsor of the project in June 2015. Since then, the city has taken a more active role in pushing the project along, including gathering aerial imagery of traffic congestion on Willow Road and, recently, persuading the county transportation authority to commit $56.4 million.
City officials hope the $8 million still needed might come from a California Transportation Commission’s fund known as STIP, for State Transportation Improvement Program. The goal is to persuade the commission to move up by a year funds slotted for the 2017-18 fiscal year.
STIP funded earlier phases of the project, including the environmental review and design process, Ms. Bartholomew said.
Whether STIP acts to fill the gap is expected to be decided this March. If that funding comes through, the project could start as soon as this summer. If not, the project will be further delayed.
Meanwhile, for Menlo Park commuters, the best investment may be a padded steering wheel cover to double as a face cushion.
A before/after image would have alleviated my headache while reading this article.
This would be amazing. That traffic backup on Willow seems to be entirely due to slowness going into 101, so there’s a decent chance this would fix the issue.
Most of the congestion on Willow is caused by commuters heading for the Dumbarton. If the problem were the on-ramp to 101, the stretch of Willow between 101 and the bridge would not get backed up. Instead, it’s usually worse than the Middlefield-101 section of Willow.
To get from US-101 N to Belle Haven (Newbridge Avenue), I have to be one of those cars that “weave” across traffic every evening. I hate this; it’s heart-stopping. Thanks for the informative update; I’ve been following this for awhile. I hope it gets funded soon. It might not fix the backup to the Dumbarton Bridge, but it’ll help with the lane changes.
By the way, here’s the East Palo Alto webpage about the new interchange design: http://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=486
Yes, this will make traffic getting on and off 101 from Willow better and safer.
Can you imaging what 2 new stop lights on Willow are going to do for Willow traffic?
During rush hour there will be solid cars from Middlefield to Facebook.
I find it rather hard to believe that a clover leaf design with no lights is worse at moving traffic than a design with two additional traffic lights.
It only needs $8 million to go ahead.–make it $10 mil. Are you listening Mr. Zuckerberg? I’m sure Facebook’s employees would benefit.
How did this proposed plan receive approval for funding? This redesign will do nothing to alleviate traffic on Willow, which is primarily due to the Dumbarton Bridge traffic. The Dumbarton Bridge traffic is a much bigger problem than the Willow/101 interchange. The fundamental problem is that Willow Road is a small, residential street that was never meant to serve as a cross-bay thoroughfare. Adding two more traffic signals will only make traffic worse. We should strongly reconsider the implementation of this proposed solution because it will simply be a waste of public funds and worsen congestion for Belle Haven residents over the next 2+ years. The funds would be much better spent towards expanding the Dumbarton Rail Corridor or exploring other alternative transportation methods, disincentivizing commuters from taking Willow Road with a road diet or bike-friendly plan, or towards a broader solution to the Dumbarton Bridge/101 connection that will be beneficial for Marsh Rd, Willow Rd, and University Ave.
A road diet! That’s really what Willow needs. Maybe take the whole street down to single file, alternating traffic directions every 5 minutes. Add some speed bumps and the traffic will really start to hum.
Clover leaf designs are very hard for pedestrians and cyclists to cross. This redesign makes it easier for people to cross 101 on foot or on bike instead of needing to get in their car just to get across 101. We can’t fit more cars into the same size roads, but if we improve safety for people to walk and bike, then that becomes a more attractive alternative for those for whom it is an option. That’s a good start, but it won’t be a huge difference. Willow will be overburdened with cars traveling from the East Bay as long as it is cheaper to drive across the Dumbarton Bridge than it is to ride a bus over it. Congestion pricing will actually change behavior.
So, since funding was approved in 1988, has this money earned interest ? That would help close the gap on the
8Â million ! We can not keep going to Facebook for every little penny Menlo Park needs ! We have to learn to put
our hand in our own pocket, pay as we go. Where has this money been since 1988 ? 28 years, really people.
The consensus seems to be that 1) Willow Rd is not designed to withstand the strains of acting as a cross-bay thoroughfare, 2) the proposed change to the Willow/101 interchange will not significantly reduce Dumbarton-induced traffic on Willow Rd in the long term but will introduce short term inconvenience to residents and commuters alike. The point about the clover design being not pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly is well taken. The on-/off-ramp crossings are awkward at best and dangerous at worst for pedestrians to navigate. As a cyclist, crossing over the 101 is far from enjoyable but definitely doable. Making improvements to the current design to promote cyclists’ safety would be a more cost-effective effort than installing two new signal lights/intersections. Given the constraints on Willow Rd’s capacity and the large number of trans-bay commuters, perhaps a flow-dependent middle zipper lane stretching from FaceBook to the Menlo Park VA might be a cost-effective and worthwhile solution.
A new overpass should help with safety problems, but it’s hard to see how it will help with traffic.
Today at about 3:00, I went to 101. Traffic was backed up to Middlefield. It took several cycles to get past Gilbert, and another 2 cycles to get past Coleman. Past Durham there was no traffic. As I got onto 101N, I noticed that traffic was backing up at Newbridge, on the other side of the overpass, and was already backed up onto 101N.
I’m sure there’s an explanation for how the new overpass can fix this, but to my untutored eyes, all these problems seem to be caused by the design of Willow on either side of the overpass, not the overpass itself.
Mr. Davis:
A “road diet” is a great idea if you don’t care about getting emergency vehicles down that road during rush hours. They’re already having trouble getting through there due to the idiotic “bulb outs” that have been put in place. Dumb idea.
Willow Road is already on a road diet – it use to have 4 traffic lanes.
So what you see now is the brilliant result of a road diet.
Peter Carpenter – of course, we don’t know what it would have looked like without the road diet. Could have been just as bad.
Regarding the road diet, yes Willow is congested but the stretch between the VA and Middlefield is very bike-friendly, and if the residents who live on Willow have a hard time getting out of their driveways now, I can only imagine how it used to be when Willow had more lanes and faster speeds. I agree it’s not a perfect solution but we can’t have it both ways. I still think some sort of zipper lane could be the ticket and hopefully cost less than $65 mil.
Excellent idea!
The Bay Area should also:
> have middle lanes between the highway for public transportation (busses) like Texas and other states, so the busses can drive without interference back and forth
> raised roads that go over the Cal-Train Tracks so that no one has to wait for the blinking signals to go up and down (and don’t get me started about the accident and suicide mortality rate in train incidents in the Bay Area alone).
> Bike lanes that are color coded and have reflector bumps on them (especially in turning areas.
>8-story parking lots all over the Bay Area
>Enable a Cal-Tran that goes to Santa Cruz and back (with the added bus lane). I think there should be an added Freeway to the side of Highway 1, “Speedway One” that doesn’t drive along the coast but more along the edge of the Foothills all the way North and South in the U.S. (make that 8 lanes, too).
> have more ports for ferries crossing the Bay; this would also help generate Bayside restaurants- and who hasn’t dreamt of Coastal Bayside restaurants an resorts all along the SF Bay?
>Any thoughts?
“Peter Carpenter – of course, we don’t know what it would have looked like without the road diet. Could have been just as bad.”
Of course we do -it WAS a four lane road that worked well. On that four lane road emergenecy vehicles were able to transit the section between Middlefield and 101 quite easily because there was always room for other vehicles to yield to those emergency vehicles.
The basic premise of a road diet is that if you decrease a road’s capacity then drivers will go somewhere else. The major flaw here is that there is no such “somewhere else”.
Do you think that the government of Manlo Park and Palo Alto should think of this when they continue to build more buildings for business offices and living. Their problems created cause problems with traffic all toe way to 280 near me. Dumb Clowns.
I am sorry, but converting the merge lanes to T-intersections is just throwing the towel in to the eroding driver conduct and road etiquette, where drivers deny others the right to merge or change lanes. This will do nothing to alleviate the Dumbarton bridge back-up on Willow.
In addition, some of the traffic lights would be facing right into the rising and setting sun. T-bone accidents lead to more sever injuries than rear-enders or swipes.
Road diet– what a great name. It works horribly but if you live near willow road you have to smile at all those poor souls who do the 1/2 hour crawl to get to the freeway. If they choose to clog our roads coming from Palo Alto then they deserve the frustration and waist of time. Use University and stay out of Menlo park
@ Peter
I have lived in Menlo Park for many years and Willow rd was never 4 lanes. In the 80s it was widened and repaved but the changes were to include turn lanes and put in those awful bulbs. You will have to supply proof that the road was 4 lanes because I believe you have the wrong information. Perhaps some long time residents could confirm my belief
“I have lived in Menlo Park for many years and Willow rd was never 4 lanes”
Long time firefighters assure me that it was indeed four lanes – probably before your time.
Four lanes won’t fix the bridge bottleneck; it’ll just make everything east of 101 even worse.
It’s a fairly basic queueing theory type problem – you are limited by the most constrained points in the system (101 and the Dunbarton); more lanes will just let you park more non-moving cars on Willow.
While the upcoming work is definitely an improvement (let’s not turn down improvements – better is better!), pushing forward on the Dunbarton rail corridor is a real long-term solution. Without more cross-bay capacity, anything else is a band-aid.
It appears they are adding a lanes to the bridge. Without a new bridge, it’s hard to see how traffic capacity would increase (at least, the capacity coming from West Menlo Park to the Dumbarton); a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.
As a Belle Haven resident, I could live with them blocking Willow Road immediately after Newbridge or Ivy Drive – so people coming from West Menlo Park or US-101 can’t use it to go to the Dumbarton Bridge. It might make matters worse for others, but I’m proud to be a NIMBY. 🙂
Actually, if Willow Road had been 4 lanes, it would’ve predated the building of the Bayfront Expressway. US-84 used to follow Willow; now it follows the Bayfront Expressway. That wasn’t too long ago. Willow Road was pretty awful back then during rush hour. I don’t remember when it wasn’t.
@Alan They’re adding lanes to the Willow-over-101 bridge, but not the Dunbarton.
However, given the backups for the Dunbarton, your idea of blocking access from Willow to the bridge may have merit – it’s clear that Marsh + Willow is more cars than the bridge can handle. Could be an interesting experiment – do a temporary block, gauge the impact on throughput.
(And just for Peter, do the temporary block in a way that can be moved for fire trucks)
“And just for Peter, do the temporary block in a way that can be moved for fire trucks)”
Thank you. There a number of street blocking/diverter designs that permit the passage of fire engines. College Terrace in Palo Alto has a number of such diverters.
I’m not sure how they would do this, but if they could configure traffic to encourage most of the local traffic to use Willow Road (including the original Facebook campus traffic), and to discourage or completely disable the Willow Road connection to the Dumbarton Bridge – it could be an interesting experiment. If Bayfront Expy had more free flow traffic to the Dumbarton Bridge – i.e. no Willow Road traffic to merge – it may have higher capacity. I find myself driving north to Marsh and backtracking to Belle Haven some days – that’s crazy, but it’s often faster. Bayfront Expressway should be the preferred route for people going to Dumbarton Bridge from the North, Willow Road from the South. I don’t know how to fix the University Avenue mess. If Facebook could configure flow to and from their campuses to minimize conflict with the people just trying to get through the neighborhood, that would be good.
How about this, make it three lanes with one reversible lane depending on time of day? They do it in Santa Clara on a Portion of Lafayette.
“The basic premise of a road diet is that if you decrease a road’s capacity then drivers will go somewhere else. The major flaw here is that there is no such “somewhere else”.” The latter part of this is the root of the problem, and the reason why the proposed changes to the Willow/101 intersection would yield no benefit. A much larger solution that jointly considers all three connections between the Dumbarton bridge and the 101 is needed. If the county has $55 million to burn, a reversible/zipper middle lane might prove to be a worthwhile solution.
My anecdotal observation is that at least half the eastbound afternoon traffic on Willow originates in Palo Alto. Those drivers choose not to take University because it feels slower. (Having used both Willow and University to travel to Belle Haven and EPA, I’m not sure this is true.) Note that University also can be used to access the bridge via the Bayfront Expressway.
And therein another cause of the problem: Palo Alto and Menlo Park are in two different counties. Who is going to fund access improvements?
Meanwhile, it would be wonderful to have a way to avoid this bottleneck if you’re just trying to travel between BH/EPA and the west side. It can take me an hour to get to the Facebook campus or Kelly field at 6 pm; that’s normally a 7-minute trip.
The 101/Willow interchange replacement appears to be a profoundly bad idea premised primarily on solving an imaginary problem “delays associated with short weaving segments.” There are many things wrong with this, but the most worst is the fact that all traffic exiting 101 in each direction will have to wait in the same queue. At present, 101 has 4 exits, but under the new design, it would have 2. So, for example, on 101 north, the traffic heading for the Dumbarton bridge forms a queue all the way back to the University entrance ramp. Under the new scenario, all traffic for westbound Willow would have to wait in the same queue. Since the queue is a result of problems upstream (esp. intersection of Willow with 84), even if the new interchange had higher throughput (which is doubtful) it would make life miserable for residents of MP trying to exit 101.
It would help greatly to see before and after drawings of the interchange.
What I do know is that problems would become much worse if the new design is like the exits from northbound 101 in Palo Alto where traffic exiting and entering 101 are mixed together for a long distance.
Currently in the afternoon, northbound 101 at Willow is backed up for a long distance for those exiting to go towards the bridge, NOT to go west into Menlo Park. Traffic is backed up on Willow itself in both directions but the exit is not from northbound 101.
Isn’t it interesting how adding thousands of additional Facebook employees to an area that already has soul-crushing traffic seems to make the problem even worse? I wonder what’s going to happen when the new Facebook building on Chilco, already under construction, is finished and thousands more employees settle in? Or when the additional Facebook buildings slated for that same corridor are built. Um… city planners? “correlation”? “hindsight”? Any of these words mean anything to you?
WILLOWS NEIGHBORHOOD, GET READY FOR MUCH MORE CUT THRU TRAFFIC
I drive North on 101 every day at peak hour and pass the LONG line of traffic trying to turn East onto Willow. Typically this line of traffic is backed up to University Ave.
The right 3 lanes of traffic are usually congested by people trying to push into the LONG line without getting in line back at University.
Once I had to wait in that line. It took 20+ minutes to get to Facebook.
Desiring to take Willow Rd West, I daily heave a sigh of relief as I pass that LONG line, pass under Willow Rd and take the cloverleaf to get onto Willow Rd West.
Now, with the Willow Rd change, people wanting to get onto Willow Rd West also have to wait in that line, making it yet longer!!!
I will have to get off on University and wind my may thru Chaucer or along the creek and thru the Willows neighborhood streets to get to Willow Rd near Gilbert. — So will much of the other Willow Rd West traffic. For a savings of 10-15 minutes per day, it will happen.
WILLOWS RESIDENTS, GET READY FOR MUCH MORE CUT THRU TRAFFIC.
Addition to the previous post.
Below is a link to the interchange design.
http://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=486
Note that drivers on 101 North wishing to turn onto Willow Rd West will have to wait in the same LONG line as drivers trying to turn onto Willow Rd East.