Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Safety Priorities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews traffic studies; Selby Lane, El Camino and Station Lane crossings highlighted
Summary
Atherton councilors reviewed a slate of traffic and safety studies Feb. 5 and told staff to prioritize projects at high‑risk intersections, including Selby Lane and El Camino, while accounting for regulatory constraints near the rail corridor.
The Atherton Town Council on Feb. 5 discussed prioritizing projects from multiple traffic and safety studies, including the El Camino Real Complete Streets Gap Closure Study, the Alameda de las Pulgas corridor project, the Neighborhood Traffic Management Action Plan and a town bicycle and pedestrian master plan now under contract.
Public Works Director Robert Gravattia summarized ongoing work and recommended completing current design projects and carrying the study recommendations forward into capital planning. The council asked staff to prioritize locations where safety risk and accident history are worst, with several council members calling out the Selby Lane and El Camino intersection as “the most dangerous intersection in town.”
Staff described constraints near the rail corridor: the California Public Utilities Commission opposed placing a crosswalk immediately adjacent to the Watkins/Station Lane rail crossing, and staff said some crossing options may need to be moved farther from the tracks to provide adequate visibility. “Everything in the vicinity of rail needs to get approval through the CPUC,” Robert Gravattia said during the presentation; he recommended the bicycle and pedestrian master plan study include an evaluation of pedestrian access from El Camino to Station Lane.
Councilors asked that the town pursue signalization and safety improvements at several high‑priority intersections — including Middlefield Road at Watkins and Fair Oaks/Middlefield — while acknowledging that implementation will involve multiple jurisdictions and significant outreach in some neighborhoods. Council members also urged additional neighborhood traffic management measures such as additional speed humps in residential areas near the library and park, and one councilor recommended investing in traffic‑modeling software to simulate changes as development and travel patterns evolve.
Staff said some items (for example, intersection reconfiguration at Selby) have been studied previously and that neighborhood opposition has been a barrier; council members noted neighborhood composition can change over time and urged renewed outreach. The council asked staff to fold the discussion into the upcoming capital improvement program prioritization and to continue public outreach during design and funding steps.
No formal votes were taken on project funding; staff will integrate the council’s feedback into CIP planning and future community engagement.
