Loading...
CC 2015-04-28_11b Stop Signs at Le Point and McKinley ARROYO O c'P INCORPORATED 9 MEMORANDUM it JULY 10.1911 ,F c441FORN\ TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: MATT HORN, CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET AT MCKINLEY STREET DATE: APRIL 28, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Direct staff to obtain a consultant to complete a Traffic Circulation Study that will review alternatives for Crown Hill/Le Point/McKinley neighborhood; 2) Approve the installation of interim stop signs on Le Point Street at McKinley Street and a stop ahead sign between McKinley Street and Highway 227 and reevaluate performance during circulation study review; 3) Direct staff to work with property owner of 207 McKinley Street to trim vegetation on property within sight distance triangle area; 4) Direct staff to restrict parking on areas of Le Point Street and McKinley Street; and 5) Direct staff to develop a Policy and Procedure for staff and residents to follow to request and evaluate traffic calming measures. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: Based on Traffic Commission advisement to City Council, costs are estimated as follows: 1. Installation of two (2) stop signs and associated limit lines and legend - $1,200 2. Red curb installation - $500 3. Traffic Circulation Study- $9,000 Items 1 and 2 are anticipated to be funded from existing operating accounts for this type of work. The Traffic Circulation Study is recommended to be funded from sales tax funds currently allocated for streets maintenance. BACKGROUND: Location The subject intersection of Le Point Street and McKinley Street is located in the Crown Hill Addition / Tract area adjacent to Le Point Addition / Tract. The intersection is surrounded by single-family homes adjacent to Paulding Middle School. This intersection serves as one of the two (2) primary paths to Paulding Middle School. Item 11.b. - Page 1 CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INSTALL ITt STOP SIGNS AT THE I T ERSEC` IO LE POINT STREET T MCKINLEY STREET' APRIL 28, 2015 PAGE 2 / imrU �% a��'>a4(If ��k�� Irntor� tiI�i I Cit;�V6-, w Background In 1903 the Le Point Addition, Tract was approved. In 19, the Crown Hill Addition � Tract was approved. Since that time various single-family homes and some nigher density developments have occurred,. In 19 th,e intersection of Crown bill at Highway 227 and Huasna Road was closed Frith a guardrail at the request of Cro win H111 residents. TWs closure now requires ail vehicular traffic that supports surrounding neighborhoods and Paulding Middle School to pass through the McKinley at Le Point intersection or the Cronin HH! at Last Branch Street Intersection.. On August , 2014, the City receiv d a written request to rrnodify the intersection of Le Point Street at McKi6ley Street from two-way stop conitrol to four-way stop control. The request cited safety concerns as e]I as excess ive speeds. On October 20. 2014 and January 24, 2015 the Traffic Ccnrnrr4SS10i n reviewed this request, received public testimony and evaluated information provided including: 1. Sight distance at the intersection of McKinley nley arnd Le Point Streets 2, Revising stop bar location at the intersection of McKinley and Le Point Streets . Parking restrictions . Active traffic calming measures (speed burps, speed humps, and Speed tables) Passive traffic calr nirng measures (speed feedback signs,) . Neighborhood design deficiencies, including: Item 11.b. - Page 2 CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET AT MCKINLEY STREET APRIL 28, 2015 PAGE 3 a. Lack of complete curb, gutter and sidewalk network b. Insufficient street lighting c. Non-standard roadway geometrics including horizontal and vertical curves d. Inadequate neighborhood circulation and access (based on number of homes and number of access points) The complete evaluation is included in Attachments 1 and 2 of this report. With this information the Traffic Commission recommended the City Council to: 1. Complete a Traffic Circulation Study that will review alternatives for Crown Hill/Le Point/McKinley neighborhood 2. Approve the installation of interim stop signs on Le Point Street at McKinley Street and a stop ahead sign between McKinley Street and Highway 227 and reevaluate performance during circulation study review. 3. Direct staff to work with property owner of 207 McKinley Street to trim vegetation on property within sight distance triangle area. 4. Direct staff to restrict parking on areas of Le Point and McKinley Street. 5. Direct staff to develop a Policy and Procedure for staff and residents to follow to request and evaluate traffic calming measures. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: The circulatory infrastructure of Crown Hill Addition and Le Point Addition would be designed and configured differently if constructed today. While the City's design standards are not retroactive, circulation might be improved over time. Currently this neighborhood is deficient in: 1. Horizontal curves located at: a. Le Point Street at Crown Terrace b. May Street at McKinley Streets 2. Vertical curves located at Le Point Street between McKinley and Corbett Canyon. 3. Roadway Widths on Crown Terrace do not meet standards for two-way traffic. 4. Curb, gutter and sidewalk installation are sporadic and do not allow contiguous pedestrian travel. 5. Street lighting is insufficient on portions of Le Point Street and Crown Hill Terrace. The vehicle speed limit in this neighborhood is 25 MPH. In August 2014 a speed feedback trailer indicated that average speed of vehicles on Le Point Street was 24 MPH with the maximum indicated speed of 36 MPH. Neighborhood feedback indicates that vehicles are traveling too fast and some residents are concerned with safety. While the average speed of drivers is 24 MPH, inadequate roadway width and sharp curves may provide a sense of faster speeds. These conditions, coupled with pedestrians required to leave sidewalks and walk in streets closer to vehicle traffic, increase the sense of speed and related concerns. These concerns would increase during dusk or evening hours when street lighting is needed. Item 11.b. - Page 3 CONSIDERATI F REQUEST TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AT THE, INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET AT MCKI 'LEY STREET APRIL 28, 2015 PAGE 4 Traffic Circulatioa S1ygy ?5u; to this neighborhood's age as well as deinfified roadway daficiencias, a revliew of this area in a more holistic manner WOLdd be Wafrranted. A circulation study that includes a direction of travel, one-way vs, two-way traffic and intersection needs woUd be appropriate. It could be tyre existing circulation, pattern is working well and there, i3, no reason to change, or the study rnight suggest some positive improvements, Staff recommends performing this work., The scope of work of t[ie study is lnd�ud'ed in Attachiment 3- Sty Sim linstallation The Traffic Commission concurred with the need 'to install additional stop signs at the intersection of Le Point at McKinley., The rationale for this installation was not to calm traffic speeds but due to insuffident vertical curve length in between Corbet Canyon and McKinley on Le Point Street. 'This vertical curve limits, sight, distance for approaching vehicles. 'The Traffic Commission, has recommended that 'the installation of stop controls be reviewed at the time the traffic, circulation study is complete, to reevaluate the issue in tyre larger context of a, circulation plan. pp Picture of Vertical Curve an Le Point traveling west bound to ar 11 cl [nl Item 11.b. - Page 4 CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL s,"rop, SIGNS Xr THE INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET Al MCKINLEY STREET APRiL 28, 2015 PAGE 6 Veqqtabon enov RL 11 L_ q_ The Intersection of Le Point Street at McKinely Street deer not meet design standards for sight dl stance due to vegetation growth and parking needs, Po ........... Picture of Sight Distance on McKinley at Le PoW traveling South Bound Staff has spoken with the property owner of the northwest corner of McKinley Street (207 McKinley Street) and the property owner is willing to work with staff to address this vegetation removal need, Parkin Restrictions - Red Curb installation Druring the neighborhood evaluation,, it appears that some confusion exists where legal parking is provided and were legalf parlkiingi is not provided. The City's Municipal Code states: 10.16.020- St ing and standing prohibited in cenaln places. It is unlawfui for, any person to stop, Jeave standing, pemrrit to be stopped or permit to be, /oft sta,ndfnq, any vehicle,irp the following places.- A Within fifteen (15) feet earn intersection, B. Within fifteen (1�) feet of any fire hydrant; C. Within fifteen (15) feet of the driveway entrance to ,a fire station; D. Within fifteen (15) reel of the entreoce to 9, hospital, E Or? any re,se,rve d space, vxcoptiv take on or fvt WT pass,C,ogers; F In a cre aik G. On a sidewalk,- H' In front of a public or pilvaie driveway; 1. In an intersection, except along the opposing edge of a, interne teen where a prohib ition is n o,t n eede d for,public safety an d1or traffic control; Item 11.b. - Page 5 CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO IN87ALL ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET AT MCKINLEY STREET' APRIL 28�, 2,015 PAGE 6 J,, Our are city street, highway, or murpicipal par1fing lot where parking has been prohibited pursuant 10 5,eLCtion 10.,16 050 and whore such street or parking lot is sign posted orpa�hted with red paint on the curb surface,- K On any (Vty street or highway wherp. parking has been prohfbifed' between designated time periods pursuant to SeOon io,i a,050 and where such restriction has beer) designaled by appropriate, s�qnaqe and1b)- mar ker,5,- are d L. (n any area resorved for preferonflai pernnit for residents, merchants, and their guests under terms set forth in the resolution of the city council designa,fing the gigograpMc areaL" wdhou possessing and displaying the proper city-issuedpermit. AddiVonailly due toy nadequate pavement wIdths, sharp curves or sight distance needs, the following parking restrictions are recommended: INNEWWW" Porking R Traffic Calming Polio y and Procedures During the Traffic Commiss,ion's evaluation of different traffic calming measures, a policy or procedures document would have been of value to help g0de the process. The Traffic Com miss Jon agreed that development of this process would be of va',jue cutside of any one specific request, This pulicy could provide Qty LeadersNp, Staff and Residents a better idea of the benefits and compromises traffic calming installations Item 11.b. - Page 6 CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET AT MCKINLEY STREET APRIL 28, 2015 PAGE 7 provide, as well as our process to develop neighborhood consensus. This effort will be included in the work program for the General Plan Circulation Element update, currently planned for the fall of 2015. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are provided for the City Council's consideration: • Approve staff's recommendation; • Do not approve staff's recommendation; • Provide alternate direction ADVANTAGES: Approving the recommendations will provide for incremental improvements or mitigations for deficiencies, allow for a holistic review of circulation in the neighborhood, and allow for future traffic calming requests and reviews to follow a standardized process for request, evaluation and implementation. DISADVANTAGES: Approval of the recommendation will have financial impacts as well as staff time needs. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The project is categorically exempt pursuant to either/or §15301 (Class 1), §15302 (Class 2) and §15304 (Class 4) of the State CEQA Guidelines. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT: The Agenda for this meeting was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday - April 23, 2015. The Agenda and this staff report were posted on the City's website on Friday - April 24, 2015. No public comment has been received. ATTACHMENT: 1. Traffic Commission Report- January 24, 2015 Item 11.b. - Page 7 ATTACHMENT 1 ARROYO U,INOORVORATEO rm MEMORANDUM it JULY 10,1911 P FORN\ TO: TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: MATT HORN, CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET AT MCKINLEY STREET DATE: JANUARY 26, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission advise the City Council to: 1. Approve the installation of interim stop signs on Le Point Street at McKinley Street. 2. Approve the installation of a stop ahead sign between McKinley Street and Highway 227. 3. Pursue the installation of additional street lighting on Le Point Street and Crown Terrace. 4. Complete a Traffic Circulation Study that will review alternatives for Crown Hill/Le Point/McKinley neighborhood 5. Direct staff to develop a Policy and Procedure for staff and residence to follow to request and evaluate traffic calming measures. 6. Direct staff to work with property owner of 207 McKinley Street to trim vegetation on property within sight distance area. 7. Direct staff to paint red curb adjacent to 502 Le Point Street. 8. Direct staff to paint red curb adjacent to 226 McKinley. 9. Direct staff to paint red curbing in compliance with Engineering Standard 104-AG at the intersection of Le Point and McKinley. IMPACTION FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: Based on Traffic Commission direction cost will vary. Below are estimated costs for the following types of work: 1. Installation of two (2) stop signs and associated limit lines and legend - $1,200 2. Relocation of one (1) limit line and stop legend - $500 3. Red curb installation - $500 4. Luminaire installation on existing pole - $15 annually 5. Speed feedback sign (each) - $5,000 6. Speed hump (each) - $5,000 7. Traffic Circulation Study - $9,000 Item 11.b. - Page 8 CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET AT MCKINLEY STREET JANUARY 26:, 2015 PAGE 2 BACKGROUND: �Location The subject intersection of Le Point Street and McK'Mley Street, is l ocated in the Crown Hill Addition, f Tract area adjacent to Le Point Addition / Tract, The intersection is surrounded by single-farnily hornes adjacent tu Paulding Middle School, This intersecdon serves as one (1)1 of the two (2) prknary paths to Paulding Middle School. "It BackgLqund In 1903 the Le Point Addition I Tract wa's approved (see attachment 1). In 1905 the Crown Hill Addition /' Tract was apprcved (sea attachr-rient 2). Since that tfi-ne various single-family homes and some higher density developments have occurred. In 1984 the intersection of Crown 1-1111 at IH ghway 227 and Huasna Road was closed with a guar rail at the request, of Crown Hill residents. This closure now requires all vehicular traffic that supports surrounding neighborhoods and Paulding Middle Schaal through the McKinley at Le, P6nt intersection war the Crown FIR11 at East Branch Street intersection. On August 7, 2014 the City received a wrftta,n request to mo�dify the Intersecfion of Le Point Street at McKinley Street from two-way stop controll to four-waystole control, The request cited safety concerns as w0 as excessive speeds. On October 20, 2014 the Item 11.b. - Page 9 CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL ST SIG ATTHE INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET AT MCKINLEY STREET JAN UARY 26, 2015 PAGE 3 Traffic Commission reviewed this request (see, attachiments 3 and 4) and directed staff to return to the Traffic Commission with additional information concerning-. 1. Tree trirnnning 2, Changing stop bar location 3, 'New red curb installations 4, Speed bump installations 5, Solar speed limit s signs The Mamlcll for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) warrant anaiysis romplated for the Le Point Street at McKinley Street 6d not suppart the request for four-)Nay stop control due vehicle volumes or accident history. Overriding consideration may be used to justif 6ur-way stop c ntrol clue to sight distance needs. Overriding considerabor) was not recornmended for, use far the purposes of traffic calming. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Desian Standards - General The neighborhoods of Crown dill Add6on and Le P6,nt Addition would require revsed horizontal, vertical, circulation, frontage improvements (curb, gutter and Sidewalk) and lighting if constructed today, WNW the City's design standards are not retroactive, the neighborhoods m ght be able to be improved over time, De n Standards - Hcrizontal Curve The horizontal curve at Le Point Street and Crown Terrace is not compliant Wth the Highway Design If (HDM) sight di,stance requirements,. The curve is rougNy twice as sharp as current standards and the stopping sight distance is roughly 3, third of current requirements. q, OF Piature of Horizontal Curve on Crown,Terrace at Le Point Street. Item 11.b. - Page 10 CONSIDERATION OF' REQUE,ST TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF' LE POINT STREET AT MCI NLEY STREET JANUARY 262015 PAG�E 4 Thi'e'"-intprsectlon of Le Poi;T§treet at I McKinelyStreet does, not meet design standards fair sight dli stance due to veqetatriion growth and parking needs. Picture of Might Distance on MrXinley at Le Point traveling South Bound Qosign Standards - Vertjcall Curve. Based or record map Wormiation the veriJoal curve, on Le Point. Street approaching Highway 227 does not meet FIDIM verfica[ curve requirements for sight distance at a trave5ng speed of 25 MPH. The vertical curve li s comprised of two (2') thirty (30) foot length, vertical curves and current HD M standards would require one (1) two-hundred (200) foot length VrerUCaj curve, ill �Picture of Verfical Curve on Le Point traveling west bound toward McKinley Item 11.b. - Page 11 CONSIDERATION' OF REQUES7 TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET ATMCKINLEY STREET JANUARY 26, 2015 PAGE 5 Q_esign.Standards - Secondar Access Y.................................................................. Current requirements 'for development require secondary access points, for developments of twelve (12), parcels or more (Municipal Code Section Currently May Street services thlirty-eight (38) parcels with one (1) point of Mgress and egress. This single point of a �ss coupled with the road cJosure of Crown Hill at 1-fighway 227 requires more traffic to travel through the interne ctiers of ILe Point Street at McK isle ytan wild normally be required with current slandards. Unfil of Harries 2. MM Ell 911 I, fti Picture of homes that use McKinley/ Le Point at for primary access DesignStandards : ,�j _. Current requirements for lighting 0n new devel'opments requrre roadway light to be provided at a spacing of one (1) llurninaire per 2.50 feet of roadway frontage (standard condition of approval 'to implement Municipal Code Section 16.68.040(A.) - Q. foot- candle). Existing roadway lighting, is sporadic and does niot provide uniform, ooverage. Approximately five (5) additional luminaries are needed to bring this neighborhood in, compliance with current City Standards. Item 11.b. - Page 12 CONSIDERATION OFREQUEST TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AT THE ]INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET AT MCKI EY STREET d' to , 2015 PAGE 6 Figure of existing and proposed street lighting — Existing are stars, Proposed are circles Design-Slondards - Sidewalks Typically sidewalks, are placed on both sides of eacb tr t. The Crown Hill Addition and Le Point Addition neighborhoods are missing several key oonniection points to, allow for pedestrian connectivi!ty. Future dev6lopment ofTiract 2346 located at 415 East Branch Street is planned to provide sndewallk installation Nong the westerly side of Crown Terrace This improvement will have a, large, pedestrian circulation benefit to the Le Point Addition i Tract ,neigh borhc>od. Display showing existing sidlewalk, Item 11.b. - Page 13 CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INSTALL ADDITIONALSTOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET AT MCKI EY STREET JANUARY b, 201 PAGE 7 del Mien of Limit Line, Vecietatiun Removal and Red Curb installation In order tai address sight distance limitations without installation of four-way stop control at the intersection of Le Point at McKinley streets linnited flne relocati on, vegetation removal, and red curb instaliatiion may be completed. The limited line on the northern section of McKinley Street may be relocated approximatel y 'five (6) feet closer to the intersectia,i, of Le Point Street while still mair"itaining compliance with the Caiffornia Vehicile Ce de section 22450: he (river o an lWersection shalt stop at a firnit line, if marked, otherwise before eEj2fl t crosswalk, on the near, side of the Wersection. If there is no limit line, or . .. w lk i1q.driver shall stpp t I a rance to the irat ersecting road (b) The drfver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign of a railroad grade crossing shalf stop at a firnit fine, if marked, otherwise before crossing the first track or entrance to the railroad grade crossing. (q) ,i ot,withstan.ding are rather ro vis ion of lane a lQgal a U ?qr t and repulations by ardinance or resoiution,pro vidirrg for the Placement of a Stop st n at anZ location on a h gh,wa,y under its jurisdiction where thes!_qp �.E would enhance, traffic safet�, The lira t line on the souffierly portion, of McKinley Street is not recommended for relocation due to pedestrian visibility concerns. Moving the limit line forward co Ad firnit pedestrian visibility, only allowin:g full visibility of the pedestrian upon entry into the intersection. In addition to the firnit line relocation on the norther'lly portion of McKinley Street, red curb installation is recommended on Le Point Street, The HDM standard suggests, a stopping sight distance requirement of 15 feet for a 25 MPH speed limit. Table 201A Sight Distance Standards Deogn Speed") Sioppinr,(') 10 50 15 1,00 --- 20 1,215 900 30 200 [00 Podoins of the IHDM Sight Distance Table Item 11.b. - Page 14 CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS, AT THE INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET AT MCKINLEY STREET JANUARY 26, 2,515 �PAGE 8 While slight distance flm4tatlion exists due to "the vertical curve located on Le Point Street between McKinley and Highway 227 painted red curb couid be installed to maximize avaflabie, sight distance. In order to provide the maximum sight distance achievable up, to HAM recommendabons, red curbing needs to be instWted on Le Point Street at McKinley as follows: o 90 feet of red curb, cimi true southwest portion of Le, ftint ,9treet, * 40 feet of red curb on the southeast portjon, of Le Point Street. Sinice exlisUng curbing is not available, posting no parkingsigns is recommended., 100 feet of red curb on the northeast portion of Le Point Street 60feet of red curb on the northw,est portion of Le Point Street Additionally, at the northwest corner of the Le Point at McKinley street intersecbon, all obstructions between, the height of thirty (30) inches and niinety-six (9 6) inches within approximately five (5) to eight ( ) feet from of face-of-curb on Le Point Street is recommended to be removed in order to provide the necessary sight. dis tance. Gil 1. Display vvfth dark lines, showing required red curb installaWn If the Commission's g0dance is to install interiirn stop signs at the nnterseOon of McKinley at Le Point streets,, vegetation removal is still recommended at the northwest cornier of this intersection,. Staff qua s spoken with the property owner of the northwest corner, of McKinley Street 1(207 McKinley Street) and the property owner is wlilling to work with staff to address this vegetation removal need. Additionally, with interim stop sign installations, ifr the or is concerned the proposed red, curbing work is 1:010, restrictive: red curbing could he installed in compliance with the Cit', of Arroyo, Grande E,nglneering Standard 104-AG. Item 11.b. - Page 15 CONSIDERATION OP REQUEST TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STOP, SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OP LE POINT STREET AT MCKMEY STREET JANVARY 26, 201 PAGE 9 °IRE"w;7 �e Portions of Engineering Standard 104-AG showing lirnits of rest curbing Traffic Calmin ed Feedback Si'2 gnd S e d urr7.; Ht Lm and Tables Speed Fee0aok Signs are classified a passive traffic calming measure. These signs provide feedback to vehicles cancerning their actual speed and inform the driver of the posted speed) limit. The intent of the feedback aigina is to obtain traffic speed compliance, through education or Wormation rather than enforcement: or rising active traffic calming measures. I i it �h !PPkdll,��1�kf�;pl%I o iii d' Pict re of Speed Feedback Sign cti!ve traffic calming measures such as speed burnpa., hLIMPS or tables Obtain compliance physical ical changes to the roue) rather than signage and roadway .stripling. Speed bumps„ as measured along the path of vehicular travel', are, typically one 1) fact Item 11.b. - Page 16 COMIDERATION OF REQUESTTO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AT THE, INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET AT MCI NLEY STREET JANUARY 26, 2015 PAGE 10 ,wide and three ,(3) to our ( ) inches in height. Speed humps are typic0y fourteen (14) feet wide and three (3) inches in height. Speed tables are typicafly ,twenty-two (22) 'reet wide and three (3) inches in height. Speed bumps are typically installed in parking lots. Speed humps are typically installed in residential areas. Speed 'tables are typically installed on local or collector type roadways. Speed Bump Speed Hump Speed Table Speed tables can, typically be driven over silightly faster than speed humps, secilion A,A r"i CIJ .................... ............................T­ .......... .............................. 4 ------------ Speed Hurnp Section F LAT ir, ................................................................ Speed Table Section, The MUTCD does not address physical features of the roadway but relies on the guidance of the institute of Transportation Engineers published technical quidanGe (attachment 5 and 6). AddlitionaUy', some jurisdictions have created warrant requirements prior to the installation of traffic calming measures. Some warrants requirements for other jurrsdicticns include: 1. A request signed by sixty (60) -to seventy-five (75) percent of the surrounding residents; 2. The request is then circulated to all affected residence nearby, 3. Traffic volumes must range from 500 to 2,500 vehicles per day; Item 11.b. - Page 17 CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INSTALL, ADDITIONAL STOPSIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET ATMCKINLEY STREET JANUARY 26, 2015 PAGE 11 4. 2/3 of the trafflo volume exceed the posted speed 11mit; 5,, The requested location has good ,0*iWlity; 6. Streets are, residential 'in nature 7. ,Street lighting is present; 8, The installation wifl not result in diversion of traffic to other resldenkial stireets. Emergency service personnel typically support the use of active traffic caliming features when installation of the devices will make unsafe conditions safer. In the Le Point Street area, the I known accident history of this area iright not classify this area as unsafe. Additionally, the City does not have a policy or procedure to quant[tafively evaluate an area in order to describe an area as safe or unsafe, If the Traffic Gommission's guidance is to install) traffic c6lming measures, passive caIming measures are recommended in lieu of active measures, AdditiondIly for traffic caWng needs on Le Point Street, either active o,r passive measures may be instali but installing both is not, recommended, Active traffic: calming measure should be placed in an area adjacent,to a luminaire for nighttime vi-sibflity. Display showing possible location of either active,or passive fraff ic cairning measure Other LM2LE�tments - Street j,!qb!!pg Property's adjacent to, Le Polnit Street and Crown Terrace are served by overhead utilities. These overhead u9ities are suspanded above the ground on wooden joint utility poles. Existing woo-den joint utility poles are placed in areas or Le Point Street and Crown Terrace that could serve street light install'ation, depending whether proper electricity power (secondary power) is available, Staff recommends pursuing the installation of 4ghts on these poles, if cost effective. Other Improvements -Circulation Stuft'-of Area Due to this development's age as well as some non-standard design deficiencies,, it, might be an appropriate time to review this area in a more holistic manner, It could be the existing circulation pattern is working well and there is no, reason to change, or the study might provide some positive improvernents. This circulation 'work could' be ti'mied in such a manner that it will also alllow for a good time to review the interim stop, sign installabon, if both, the Commission and Council approve this installation., Other lm roveme n4s - Traffic Calmjng Policy and Procedgres Staff would We the opportunity to develop a Traffic: GWming Policy and Procedure independent of any specific request. This polilcy couId provide City Leadership, Staff Item 11.b. - Page 18 COQ SIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET AT MCI NLEY STREET JANUARY26, 2015 PAGE 12 and Residents a better idea of the benefits, and compromises traffic cakning installations proOde, as weH as our process to develop neighborhood consensus. Other imprDyements -Additional Red Curb Installiaton During Staffs revaew of this neighborhood, it appear's that, wme confusion might exJst where, legal parkingi is provided and were legal parking its not prov'ded. The City's Municipal Code states: 1'0,16.020 - Stop ping aura d standing prohibited in certainpl ace s. It is unlawfuP for any person to stop, teave. standirrg, pertnit to be stopped or permit to b e left standing, arty vehicle in the rolio wing places.. A Within fifteen (15), foof of an intersection,- 8 Within fifteen (15) foot of arty fire hydrant; C. Within fifteen (1 5) feet of the driveway entrance to a, fire station; D: W00 fifteen, (1 5) feet of the entrance to a hospital,, El On any reserved space, except to take on or let off passengers,, F. In a crosswafk; G, On a sidewalk',- H, In front of a public or private drim�a 1. fn an intersection, except along the opposing at of a T-intersection where a prohibition is not needed for pubdc safefy andlor tra,ffic control; J, On any city ,street, high ray, or m w unicipal parking fot here parking has been ptoffibited Pursuant to Se-0-o n--10,-16,050 and where such street or parking/ot is sign po sted or pa irt ted with red p a in t on, the curb surface„ ,K. On any city street or, highway where, parking has been prohibited between desi';gnated time period"s pursuant to Section 10.16,050 and where suchrestilction has been designated by appropriate sfgnage andlor markers; and L. In any area reserved for preferential permit, for residents, merchants and their guests under terms set forth, in the resolution of the city council designa,ting the geographic area, without possessing and dis pie ying the proper city-issued permit. One Iccatjon at the intersection of May and McKinlby Street is an area that due, to Its conveHence rnight attract vehicle parking, Staff observed this d'Uring field review. Addition of red curbing in this area will! better onvey the use restriction, Item 11.b. - Page 19 CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INSTAL1 ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS ATTHE INTERSECTION OF ILE POINT STREET AT MCKINLEY STREET ,JANUARY 26, 2015 PAGE 13 '7 Display showing area for additional red curbing to reduce parking clonfusion Crown Terrace, at ILe Point Street Red Cu±Lng As mentilonedl above, Crown Terrace at Le Pcint Street horizontal curve is sharper than CUrrent design standards would recornmerlid. During staff's site review a vehicle parked in this area further Irri,pacted the corner qjght distance. Addifional red curb installa-don us recornmended. D#Iay a-frecornryiended addifional red curbinigi on Le Poirot I Crown Terrace ALTERNATIVES: The ft flew alternatives are PrOvided for the Cornmission's conslderatiom Item 11.b. - Page 20 CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LE POINT STREET AT MCKINLEY STREET JANUARY 26, 2015 PAGE 14 • Approve staff's recommendation; • Do not approve staff's recommendation; • Provide alternate direction PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT: The Agenda for this meeting was posted in front of City Hall on Friday, January 16, 2015. The Agenda and this staff report were posted on the City's website on January 16, 2015. No public comment has been received. Attachments: 1. Le Point Tract— 1903 2. Crown Hill Tract— 1905 3. Traffic Commission Staff Report—October 20, 2014 4. Portions of Traffic Commission Minutes— October 20, 2014 5. Institute of Transportation Engineers—Speed Hump Information 6. Institute of Transportation Engineers— Speed Table Information Item 11.b. - Page 21 G��s¢`••J � �� p V Q T� .ap . _ G) 0 o -o o Q S 3L to Afl IL Aj Rb ki gel IN Oaf. }�f A `�Q �v 9•1' R< e -._,...-...,---.�-re-.�.�..co..+c?a-�°=F;..:sr_2^.�...,z^r_^.::.�.. >_rr.±.'fiF!'y..�'s'�.'��<Fh+n"�»�-T°_'."�:i`�":-.. ._. .. .......�:t�•_ r.-..-. ._.:_+;•:.::_C>�..:::... .... . Item 11.b. - Page 22 ATTACHMENT 2 + , r•v '.v' `.G; .� •,.<.8-:' _cud.`- 4Ei _ tV$1�. .,�9 Q .4 �\k`j•�o. At r i AF'?- _ !..- g/ y�$•rte : _. . 9, .�:�Sr��' ��.';�t y. o.ty yM ''• 1- bc' ��,�e'`�ti^���,�'Q�K'��A•�.; �� �v.; ����' • ��• ^tip;-.:tt.'' '�; -•7i.:` .� .� �� e� @ y ��:��R y.. e..'� i�' .. - .. ��� . . - idt' _ _ m '°,• .. _ acs..; 't+.:$'a ..+�o���t1 { ' . :L �., ,..+:, ,• a °Par• +' '.� . � A-' y"`�• •try - „� rtr�� 'Szd :.j,... -��:Y\!. V y'h � 5. f•F-rr,.-.., - �z..-:.'�.,s-nlh•.;.5-_ ;,,,'� �a• �F io - a.eL..� o�-°i�5�..-'tic>-'4R- �--. ox + x� z�qy.. � �'4. � i�.. po,d m r•° " ��'...iy.,., -�.. oS,�N,..' P �t �° •F mod�,,• Y6 p�N �. P'`` .� '` .,Z' , -i t\J V'/1 l y" , GAO 43 3 4(�\ .' it. R'.. -g • _ } ' t Y•lY � � `� ', ', .. 5'7.•�� of .�,'ii� {t• Item l l.b. - Page 23 Attachment 3 O� pRROyO c INCORPbgATED v m {� JULY 10, 1011 . C,°t®FORN\P MEMORANDUM TO: TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR BY: JIM CARING, INTERIM CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF MCKINLEY STREET AND LE POINT STREET DATE: October 20,2014 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission advise the City Council that increased enforcement of the existing 25 MPH residential neighborhood speed limit be implemented and approve the installation of stop signs on Le Point Street at McKinley Street. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES: Add Stop Signs $1,000.00 Increasespeed enforcement *No added personnel costs, but would reallocate existing enforcement effort from another area of the City. BACKGROUND: In 1984,through traffic on Crown Hill to Highway 227 and Huasna Road("227/Huasna")was blocked at the 227 1Crown Hill intersection with a guardrail. This action was In response to the request of Crown Hill residents who complained about the high volume of school traffic flowing through Crown Hill street to the 227/Huasna intersection during the morning and afternoon student arrival and departure times from Paulding School. Unfortunately,blocking the 227/Huasna Road Intersection pushed Paulding School arrival and departure traffic out to other residential neighborhoods via McKinley Street and Le Point Street. The 1984 Crown Hill street closure has exacerbated delay on E. Branch St. at the westerly Intersection of Crown Hill and 227 during morning and afternoon student arrival/departure periods. The City has received a written complaint on August 7,2014 regarding excessive speeds and safety concerns (Attachment 1). ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: Use of stop signs for speed control is understood in Traffic Engineering to be inappropriate. Stop signs are intended to provide safe right of way assignment at intersections where accident history or peak hourly traffic count warrants stop sign Installation. If stop signs are Installed at locations where the accident history or relative traffic volumes do not warrant stop sign Installation, the result, is generally an Increase In accident history at the respective location over that which would have occurred without the stop signs. In addition to an increase in accidents,Installation of stop signs will subject existing residents at intersections where such signs are installed to more noise from vehicular starting and stopping which did not occur prlor to sign installation.Motorists will experience added vehicle wear and reduced vehicle efficiency. Item 11.b. - Page 24 Attachment 3 TRAFFIC COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS ATTHE INTERSECTION OF MCKINLEY STREET AND LE POINT STREET October 20, 2014 PAGE 2 Motorists often recognize situations where stop signs that do not meet warrants are installed and a percentage of the motoring public will react by Ignoring or rolling through such intersections. This behavior can contribute to an Increase in accident history at the location. At the request of the Interim City Engineer,,Commander Beau Pryor of the Arroyo Grande Police Department conducted accident history research for the intersection of Le Point Street and McKinley Street. The result of that Investigation Is that there were no accidents in either direction at that location between 2010 and 2014. At the request of the Community Development Director,Omhl-Means Engineering Solutions was requested to perform a m!�ltl-way stop analysis at the intersection of McKinley and Le Point Streets. The results of the Omni-Means study confirmed that added stop signs on Le Point Street are not warranted using standard criteria from the Manual of Uniformed Traffic Control Devices, however, the study also revealed that the available stopping sight distance on LePoint Street In both directions from McKinleyStreet is less that that required for a speed of 25 MPH. Accordingly,even though there Is no accident history over the last four years at this intersection,this provides an additional basis for installing stop signs on LePoint Street, ALTERNATIVES: 1. Increased enforcement of the 25 MPH residential speed limit In the Le Point Street and McKinley Street neighborhood. 2. Place stop signs on Le Point Street at McKinley Street. 3. Construct Intersection curb bulb outs. However,curb bulbouts are estimated to cost approximately $16,000,and this measure is not currently on the list of sidewalk replacement projects. 4, Remove Crown Hill Street closure guardrail and re-open Crown Hill Street to through traffic.Removal of the existing Crown Hill street closure barricade would allow school arrival and departure traffic to access the all stop intersection at E. Branch Street and Highway 227, reducing delays, This should only be considered If recommended measures do not slow speeds and improve safety 5, Provide other direction to Staff. ADVANTAGES: Advantages of increased enforcement would Include increased public awareness of the 25 MPH residential speed limit In the vicinity of Le Point Street and McKinley Street. Traffic calming measures will also slow motorists, New stop signs will stop motorists at an intersection with below standard sight distance. DISADVANTAGES: The disadvantages of the recommended actions would be the costs as noted and the effect, if any, of relocating enforcement effort from other areas of the City to the McKinley/Le Point Street area. Adding stop signs on LePoint Street Could increase accident history. ATTACHMENTS: 1. E-mail from Mrs. Petker 2. Omni-Means Report r 3. Speed versus Time 4. Excerpt from Traffic Manual 5. Excerpt from"Neighborhood Traffic Management' 6. Color slide aerial view of intersection 7. Minutes related to 1984 Crown Hill Street closure at Highway 227. Item 11.b. - Page 25 Attachment 3 ATTACHMENT 2 Jim Garing From: Geoff Ehgllsh stint: Friday,August 08,2014 3;48 PM To: Jim Garing Subject: FW:Stop sign request McKinley&Le Point Jim: Please see the request below for the installation of a new stop sign on•LePoint at the intersection with McKinley, Can you please respond to this request? My guess is that it doesn't meet traffic warrants and Mike Linn is not aware of any previous requests for a stop sign at this location, Please let me,know if you can take the lead on this request so that I can respond to the requesting party, Thanks Geoff Geoff English,Director of Public Works City of Arroyo Grande,1375 Asb Street,Arroyo Grande CA 93420 805-473-5466 Coffice) 805-473-5462 Cfax) Sent:Thursday,August 07,2014 2:24 PM To: Geoff English Subject: Stop sign request McKinley&Le Point Hi Ce'of� Numerous residents and myself would like to determine the best steps to have stop signs installed on McKinley and LePoint to complement the two that are there. Over the years traffic has increased significantly including the speed. We are aware that several calls to PD have beer.made and officers have staked out in the vicinity. In the last year alone, two dogs and a cat have been lit. The most important reason this request is corning forward is due to the fact there are 46 children living on the three streets that connect at this intersection including May Street as it is connected to McKinley and frequently used by all residents as a common loop due to the pedestrian walk thra. Just yesterday my 7year old daughter and I were walking around the block and a lady in a silver BMW was driving at least 40 mph and swerved around a neighbor while coming within two feet of my daughter, We yelled at her to slow down but her music was so loud and she didn't hear us or act like she cared, I have talked to almost every neighbor and we have agreed to do what ever it takes to lobby this need. W e know people are using the block as a short cut to 227 at the expense of the neighborhood. What do you, suggest we start with, signatures to the Traffic committee? Attend the meeting?go straight to Pd?It is literally only a matter of time before a child is hit by a speeding car. Respectfully, • Y's - M,.+,..rc. _ �tg '1" _�Plr.... <r ii�` -.,:u.._�;�.:•...;,;,.,..1:_,1'..;.`:'s %t,: .ti^:'�s:''''..W. '.5; ' �Einu{•; t:n`;y;.,,.. }x: n.. , ,�s �.,..::::;,•_ f,i i"` li v' -5M' ,y '.. `s"!.r;^"•: sii;�d {v�� �4 t } 1 s_.�e `�' k.�S•-r��';- h?M1 c '':- ,',:S �c Ftl:+-:M•Ti�' �'_. 'S;....y� t _ ^v+ �:<'T. •. a 4i. : -,x"S"i1Ht..�,+�.�irr aim..•..v:%: rf,'>ro' •:.>?,: b'�t 2-i�•W..,��:,'4•" >'Q_ ? _ -r z-�'-S� �.e�. ^i-'=.1�4'° `4V�+FV,6-lv')'.a II•_'. _ � A„ mt, .ri`s - F. .,•y.v i2.•t:r 0,r f?:v . f _ vti s g„u:! rC}.SeFr` y: , c•'srt, F ES:' ,.,v }k,` , i'•'r ci..�-'ty- � .a{°: „§Cy_ r..ay.>.:in> f�C."3:” ',>,° Z:;p'':+i{;4 ,,�i•`v;�",3�'" °,•i�:'w:"i;:'�,:'K �:• u'i-^���•;r`,.',� z„••,.',-•�?..,.,.:•.�,, .ru.. , • - is}�`..-17. 1�.:'ri�� _„'-^,'T•i ,YC '::,�i;'��f¢;'��YFT.'�^:::�Y:' YT�'R:,i..y:Fl._n. ::?L•'�`�`•�V-• _ :ys`:�:r;�-,'Y.`i(r'un,= •�:i 1r:°T x�' _.tom... '=d;�t.",.4 a:i''.t,'•c:�.!;:q-';, ','wt,t c�i,�c :.�': ' •�-?-5v ,.tl».r•L5>a -,q - L.I.��ht-+,�t:4'}�'� _ �14':�'.:f�:r`,::..•�',.:�+•.. .xt_.Ll, _ .t_Sr• 1.-c*i:StY :d nr .,y�.. ,,s''<'.�til:_it '•]:•'_:t'r::°` �'f�: ` _Y: —'it> �q.yy`•,c`h�gL :,'t5'r _•...'t'=a, `yr':.&'w:.'a{,ern".' jl "�'jf'':'• _ ' .i. ':�R.:t�,`. a;;'i�:t «i..v'7.:� ?d`c',%.,4:..,,"yr: b�Pwni;�`y �-•'}.Y`�o - _ • .`l=L`r�'9'-�_ia *{ur`$f,^r;• ,K_� .;At�i7�f,��r�_�.1;:`�.,.`�N2!!,;,.��_..4�:�"" _ 'e!St; 1Y'' ^�.t' j=7:4 r+;;, 'kPt •.'�- �..a5"?x� iw�:c*,.•,. :�,^'•_!��-.'..,,',' ' `''.- �: ;':i.•. y�..'�:,+:��s``�r„';;y�: t�•,"•�f±.nr}..hc�'°.':": ''1'`,: ,_i,�::_'.itu..tiitii.:;- :'i_,?>.� c:�'�;'`�.-�.,L:�LxA-•:..,i .;s„>,3,k:`,s. :rx'-�o '+w,:�;s;:" {' �s:, Item 11.b. - Page 26 Attachment 3 ■ ! means ATTACHMENT 2 ENGINEE11UNG SOLII71ONS Draft _ Memorandum To: City of Arroyo Grande Date: October 10,2014 Attn: Jim Garing Project: Le Point Street at McKinley Street Intersection Analysis From: Joe Weiland, P.E. On-Call Services Sarah Huffman Re: Ali-Way Stop Control Analysis Job No.: 25-1275-26 File No.: C1830MEM002.DOCX CC: Teresa McClish L Introduction Omni-Means prepared this technical memorandum in response to a citizen's concern with high traffic speeds and to determine if all-way (multi-way) stop control warrants are met at the intersection of Le.PoInt Street and McKinley Street. This study intersection is located two blocks northwest of Paulding Middle School, and is currently minor street stop controlled an the McKinley Street approaches. ll. Multi-Way Stops Control Analysis - Guidance 1. Evaluation Criteria Guidance provided in the publication California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD, 2012 Edition), Section 213.07 Multi-way Stop Applications was used as the basis for conducting this multi-way stop control installation engineering study. According to the MUTCD, the following criteria should be considered when determining if the installation of multi-way stop control is warranted at an intersection: A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that cah be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour, but 943 Reserve Drive I Suite 100 1 Roseville,CA 95678 1 p.916.782,8688 1 omnimeans,com Napa I Redding i Roseville I San Luis Obispo I Visalia I Walnut Creek Item 11.b. - Page 27 Attachment 3 October 10,2014 3, If the 85"-percentile approach speed of the major-street exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Item 1 and 2. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, CA and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition. 2. Data Collection Accident Data Recent available 5-year accident data was obtained both from the City of Arroyo Grande Police Department and from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Recli ds System (SWITRS) for the intersection of Le Point Street and McKinley Street. A reutew of this data resulted in no accidents reported at this intersection. °` Traffic Volumes Omni-Means collected a traffic/pedestrian/blcye� �volume sample dnt-Tuesday, September 30, 2014 during Paulding Middle School's pew morning and afternoonNkarrival and departure periods for use in this analysis. These counts ,;e;�e coliectec over a three,'hour period (7:00 to 8:30 a.m. and 1:30 to 3:00 p.m.). F Table 1 shows the resulting high �tMours of traffic pproach for the study intersection. Based on the intersection h.� priority giv_ o Le Point Street, it was classified as a major street and McKinley Stree# '.`"as classified as a r street. During the school peak hours, Northbound McKlnl Street had high s.#y: £lume o rabic, because it connects to the drop-off/pick-up area fQ' 'tddle schoo P W, k ItA .1 'a .F HIGHEST VOLUME a or-__ne :- bars _ : # . '" °e otiiiYe tree - z DEB_ , ttaac e_, S vac d. . 7:00-7:30Pr;M .,:u , 19 34 7:30-8:00 RN - �, 74 118 6',,8:00-8:30 ANI. 5 19 1 X3;0.,2:00 PM 21 11 2:00=2.3.0 PM's I MI 40 49 2:30-3fl 7 t PM 15 12 NB-NorthhotlaSouthbound,EB-Eastbound, WB-Westbound *Pauldng fiy d School starts at 7:50 a.m.and lets out at 2:20 p.m. 85th Percentile Approach Speeds The intersection of Le Point Street and McKinley Street is located in a residential area two blocks northwest of Paulding Middle School. The posted speed limit on Le Point Street(major street)is 25 MPH. 2 . Item 11.b. - Page 28 Attachment 3 October 10,2014 3. Analysis A. Traffic Signal Warrants Applicable traffic signal warrants provided in the MUTCD, CHAPTER 4C. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES, Section 4C,02 through Section 4C.10 were reviewed for the study intersection. Based on the provided warrants and data, traffic signals are not currently warranted at the study Intersection. Therefore, the installation of a multi-way stop would not represent an interim measure. R.Accident History � - A review of the recent available 5-year accide #. t ;.,� mati �,.dicates that there were no reported accidents at the Le Point Street and Mo;1 l:'ey Street i section. Since the minimum W, number of accidents required to meet this rant is five within: 'a. 12 month period, the Y P ' installation of a multi-way stop would not be w'`."anted. , C. Minimum Volume The data presented in Table 1 indicate Kthat the AM 5. hour occurred between 7:00-8:00 a.m. with the afternoon peak 1-houMd' e"e 2:00--3:OD` _ The 1-hour totals both along Le Point Street and McKinley Street are s gwnmlri able 2. Ta iI also shows a comparison of the observed two highest traffic hour volurr s to t espective-AVOI imum vehicular volumes. The minimum vehicular vole ais 300 vehicles er hotr1 #le col d major street approaches (Le Point Street)and2 ' 'lithe cottrb ed. ; usree.approaches(McKinley Street). 21 MN04UM VN CtTLAR V LRV�IC WARRANT ANALYSIS 5 300 152 200 2- > M 300 61 200 NB-NoYbound, 5B buthbound,EB-Eastbound, WB-Westbound As shown in Table 2, th a' f; m vehicular volume condition is not met at this intersection for the two peak hours counts= As these two hours are assumed to represent typical daily peak hours at this intersection, it is further assumed that this intersection would not meet the warrant for a multi-way stop control under MUTCD criteria Section 29.07. The Intersection is located within a residential neighborhood with a prima facie and posted 25 MPH speed limit on Le Point Street. As the posted speed is less than 40 MPH, the criterion C.3. Section 2B.07 is not applicable. 3 Item 11.b. - Page 29 Attachment 3 October 10,2014 D. 80-Percent of the Minimum Values Criteria B and CA are not satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values, Therefore, the study intersection does not meet the guidance criteria for a multi-way stop control application at the Le Point Street/McKinley Street intersection. Ill. Multi-Way Stop,Control Analysis — Optional Criteria 1. Evaluation Criteria Section 213,07 of the MUTCD includes four other criterN, tFat may be. considered in an engineering study to determine if the installation of multi F stop control is warranted at an intersection; A. The need to control left-turn conflicts; 4 B. The need to control vehicle/ p edestrian-,c o, 'c`ts nea �N�atons that generate high pedestrian volumes; C. Locations where a road user, after stop —0, cannot see conflicting a,�ic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cr,.oss traffic is lso requii e40 'onstop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood°: ectcj 'hrough) sire k t. similar design and operating characteristics w:he� multi-way st I would improve ffffffic operational characteristics of the intersection�'`. 2. Analysis " �. A. Control Left-Tu ion t Based on a field rev% left-tunllT�pnflicts d;. `appear to, e an issue, nor are accidents reported at the intersects=:oaf Le tilt Street art." cKiniey Street during the past 5 years. B. Conte . ' I'ed1141 t "C �`" :�. The s mtersectiori``dbbss.not eX�:erience a s� iticant amount of pedestrian activity. Based on a field re* six(6)pJ glans w bserved at the intersection for the AM peak 1-hour, and eight(8)p d strians were o lalb ed e afternoon peak 1-hour. Nq C, Sight Distat;tc Based on field me58 i(rements ..1 available stopping sight distance' (SSD) on the westbound Le Pointe Street apps c to Intersection was approximately 125 feet which is less than 150 feet required for a speetl o; -- PH2. The available SSD is limited by a crest vertical curve on Le Point Street between C"T•eft Canyon Road and McKinley Street. 'Per Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 201.3,Stopping sight distance is"the distance required by the user,traveling at a given speed,to bring the vehicle or bicycle to a stop after an object 1/2-foot high on the road becomes visible.Stopping sight distance for motorists is measured from the driver's eyes, which are assumed to be 3 1/2 feet above the pavement surface,to an object 1/2-foot high on the road." z Caltrans Highway Design Manual Table 201.1 4 Item 11.b. - Page 30 ME,r t° rya S.u.,'� c � �,r,T -tf `' �'7�,,,• �t • • 1 • • `.x............ �'L �- • • •^ • •-_• `i�C f ,�i 5` -1�r r °"'${`+i, f'� ,f\� J� 'r 2.54 • • • • � � • .•,-„^tlAtF.C���.' '� Jib -r -��+. 'S•"'r��,x��� max./�f%l�fr. -F5, � �Pa ,gym §'WRN. �4��� • • • ���,`4ii-^.R c // t.'`•�`. t ° a,��k '` �.. dry Mos RA - � • • �• • �s7 Y .r:2S'� ri''..i""�4 { 1 f Syr ������� _ „'t..,.,,.�:,, c-e S . ?"�'�.�4a'` r'` y��r+r����F��•f 11v.4 LY"s�z' � r � ��y.'r''�{ .�S ' '. • •• - -`a'rP..9�'� �- .n S.y y�t z*4n'{ ''`a r N v�-�'+r��t ^��t`�'-t C-p ,•�w���' s"rt '�4� � ut o �F�y” �,', �f.-Sa -�.rs�4 .•• •. • ! °-'15.,, r •� �\�'�`1-5"t z1:5�-c*",Ja,� 5���"is�<< �t�. �o.�>a�,...'��-c -Yid• • • • •• • • 1+� a Yom['��� �`� _��` I j'cati e- i v-. E.t �� .r • •• • �.-y�-LT� 4 t ^e•'�f °t .'k r�•qG `�� 1 C �f4�� -? 5 1 � .e - • • �Gi'u,n s��l r♦ s a �,���.�.Y ta; ��°��cl�. ,f.._ r .'�i `-' -- • - •- •• e ��'`y�\� .� � �r ��'i �� -rte r Z • • ` Z _ ��� / • - • •° - • s ® .• T';1`d� '� i j /''� ar n s r�T t — � • - • • • 4 '3^„� R,1,4-5 �. � t:a1r� -n- y. � 3� _ - ':1-k..1Xt� )'l "�-sW • • • • ems'*,..?�" y- s L air t'a `k.i.".�+ .•• •. • ® .•• • -• -• • •• • / -•• •- • as 0 Attachment 3 Traffic Manual SIGNS 44' 1-iss 4-03.6 INDIVIDUAL POLICIES FOR REGULATORY SIGNS POLICY R1 STOP SIGNS, SUPPLEMENTAL PLATES ANC Federal Sign No. YIELD SIGNS Rf-f • STOP SIGN ®' The Stop sign (131) shall be used where traffic Is required to stop except at signalized intersections. The Stop sign shall be an octagon with white message and border on a red background. At a multiway stop intersection,a supplemental plate (R1-3 or RI-4),may be used. When used,they should be mounted below each Stop sign. The numeral-on the supplementary plate shall correspond to the number of approach legs,or the legend All-Way(RI-4)may be used. The plate'shall have white letters and border on a red RI-3 background.Thesuppiementai plates 131-3 and R1-4 should R1-3 not be used at Intersections with State highways. A red flashing beacon, or beacons may be used in conjunction with a Stop sign. See Section 9-05,"Flashing Beacons". Secondary messages shall not be used on Stop sign ,�-• faces. R1-4 Warrants for Stop Signs RI-4 Because the Stop sign causes a substantial inconvenience to motorists,it should.only be used where warranted.AStop sign maybe warranted at an intersection - where one or more of the following conditions exist: AV On the less Important road at Its intersection with a main road where accident history justifies the placement of Stop signs. On a county road or city street with its intersection with a State highway. vas At the Intersection with.two main highways. The highwaytraffic to bestopped depends on approach speeds,volumes and turning movements. ,-4- 'On a street entering a legally established through -highway or street. . On a minor street where the safe approach speed to the intersection is less than 16 km/h. -6—At an unsignalized Intersection In a signalized area. O7- At other Intersections where a combination .of high speed;restricted view and accident record Indicates a need for control by the Stop sign. ` A Stop sign is not t-a"cure-all"and Is not a substitute' for other traffic control devices. ManyAknesythemeettqor ,' siStopoilgrimamthexeliminated ifAhe-_Wght&dlstai3ce_..le, lncroased� moving=obstruictions. j+54°c,�< re�ti�' afis•IwCG --� Gcresscs�ei Item 11.b. - Page 32 Attachment 3 .4-42 SIGNS Traffic Manual POLICY Sttagsigns sti'li ii?rf2�t be sedPf�spee7o tro�,l Stop signs shall not be erected at any entran ce to an intersection when such entrance is controlled by an official traffic control signal,nor at any railroad grade crossing which Is controlled by.automatic signals, gates, or other train- actuated control devices except as provided in1GVC-Q-1x55, Sigpv�Signs. The conflicting commands of two types of control devices are confusing. Where two main highways intersect, the Stop sign or 'signs should normally-be=posted on the minoT street to stop the lesser-flow�ofTfaffic.Traffic engineering studies, however, may justify a decision to install a Stop sign or signs on the major street, as at a three-way intersection where safety.considerations may justify stopping the ,_ •greater4lowmi6traffic to permit a leftaturning°moVeme�nt. Stop or Yield signs maybe installed at any highway-rail grade crossing without automatic traffic control devices with two or more trains per day traversing the crossing. Two or more trains per day is interpreted to mean an average two or more trains per day operating over the crossing each day for a period of one year prior to the installation of the Stop or Yield control sign. P-artable=or,part-time-Sta) hail-nbfb'etAused except fopemergency<purposes. i. • Multiway Stop Signs The"MultiwayStop"installation may be useful at some locations. It should ordinarily be used only where the .volume ..oJ.traffic on intersecting roads is approximately egui . A traffic�controftignal is more satisfactory for an Intersection with a heavy volume of traffic. y Any of the following locations may=warrantAmuitlway „?, Stop sign Installation: iwf,� Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multlway stop'may be an Interm measure that can be Installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the signal•installations. An accident problem,as Indicated by five or more reported accidents within a 12 month period of a type susceptible of correction by a multlway stop installation.Such accidents include right,°andJef#- turn,collisions as well as rights- le`collisions. IT -31, .Minimum traffic volumes; (a). The total vehiclular volume entering the _ Intersection from oil approaches must average at least 50G11VBhiblesAper4hour for any 8 hours,of-an average day;and �t Item 11.b. - Page 33 Attachment 3 October 10,2014 In addition, the City should work with the property owner on the northwest corner of the intersection to remove or trim back the vegetation limiting the sight distance on southbound McKinley Street to Le Point Street west of the intersection. Q. intersection of Two residential Collector Streets of Similar Design Based on the Caltrans Classified Road System Maps, Le Point Street is a major collector, and McKinley Street is a local street. Since both of their functional classifications are not collectors, this option did not apply. IV. Conclusion : Using the evaluation-criteria listed In Section 11 as gui.c{ar� d the existing traffic and accident data indicate that the study intersection of Le Poi ;_ re -�and McKinley Street does not currently warrant the installation of multi-way stor.s Hdvueuer, a review of the optional criteria listed in Section III indicates that the City,,5ho13I considers I "tallation of stop signs on Le Point Street due to sight distance constraints-r-1 -: WKM .. � .:,. ' go' �W}rttEVs 'xy�R Al. :.�'�` :kT.nx xe•' w �.,,lF • ti > '4 V.' �.. ,g 6 Item 11.b. - Page 34 Attachment 3 LU co M T M _= � II N _ -0 O CU 4-j c- CO C/) E I r- - 0 U .M < C6 E -s 2� f- C� N � V U O C N N � 'a if Q. E. (~ d to F= E j co W CO F- � e— O N CD LO LO mot' dam' M LO COQ U') N O O O r r � paadS Q Item 11.b. - Page 35 Attachment 3 $19 pus gins. The basic purpose of atop signs is to assign right of�way at intersections with significant volumes or,safetyproblemst warkanis for the in stallatioa of stop signs for thesdjpurposes have existed for many years;yet,stci signs are pai-1,, sistently.requested=by.oiifzew In order to con- trot speed.or:reduce-.volume.A number of stud- iss have tended to show that they hsva 111t*Jd-zf fecfivenessWtheae areas, PrimaryI)raffic•Effe'ots Effect on Traffic'Volume.St,ddles show that in order tohave a signif oanfieffe'iit-on<volume,a 7: street must be stopped at virtually every inter section.Even so,stop signs are*talways effec- tive at diverting volume,A seriee,of stop sign in- stallations In a Saratoga, Califprnia neighbor- hood showed that iruffiffio-pa�terna changed tit somewhat,bat overall traoen6ingtheneigh- borhood increased over a.,cmeyyear= erind, at least in part due to nevi*homes?,An sraa-wide stop jiignkrogram in Palo Alto,tallfornia tem porarilp,„reduced-neigliliorhotidaffic until ar- ter3'algngg�sfienoqusedyolume an�lo"esis#ceets to return toformardavals.Bsfor, •andaftersiud- !esonestreetiuSeattle,Wa nshowsdin:� significaat*diversildn.71 Two su&essful applfca bons were made in Glendale,.dWornia where - trafflamolumes on a former through street were Stop Sighs reduced by 80 peroenUtoA860'4Bpd?° and Co. vine, California's where insfa)lations on two streets one-fourth mile(A kn)k length; were claimed to be effeoffve.insreduomgvolume.Nu merous other examples,mostly-&saccessful or marginallysucoessfulhavebe ti oted.Itoanbe safely-generalize dthatwhereI'Q :streets-offer. signifio�t�a,�ringgia�ime�cver terielYandnol ' 1a7a AjUG or allow avoidanA.of congestion points,STMsxgns'_VM do littt9'o.effect+traffiic reduce-tO "But when the loo al treat's-advan- tage over other routes is mar al they may be eaoughtoshifttraffic. s .-EffectoxL.Tkaf£ie•Slreea;For ndanyyears,traf- fio engineers have receivedre'gtt"6sts om�citi• x8ns*r the installation of stop'eigns to reduce ' Ei3 Item 11.b. - Page 36 'r Attachment.3 speed The traditionabanaweristhat atop,signs 1 �+ arenatix>tepclQd.oneffective as-speed oontrolde- �""� — �, vases,but are intended and should be used for rlght of-way-assignment.Statistics on stop sign effectiveness tend to bear out the traditional re- sponse,The signs affect speed in the immediate t vicinity of the sign,asshowninFigure 70,butbs- ;� a r: tween intersections they are either ineffective '' or produce theanntrary-effect.For example,.a study in Palo Alto showed that in an arba with r' •` numerous,stop,dgns and a prima-facie--25'"Aph owmm, (401mph)spaedlindt,the average speed 300feet --tmt ra.cnrtns m�11MnnE loos ro mr mtmL (91 meters)In advance of the signs exceeded-the �-t51tl IPIC�YRa:S/Lp IMlitA MIIH Sro,mN11LL Figure-70,speed profile for attest b fore and aftoi-Map Tirn_it-at 4114Out-of''60 Vtes;the 86th pbrcentille � I speed exceeded the limit at 57 ou�"of 60 di s: Studiesi-aWalnutCreek,Californiashowedthat speeds 1ncreaed after-insfellati n of stop i si 408 studies in Pledsaaton,s?0--Worlte"and i t La4vilrada;.Ealifor-nis,47 and Troy;-Michigaa-V R showed no effective-difference in speeds aftei s r stop sign installation.A study in Saratoga,Cali- fornia showed as average;reductianinspeed of less than 3:mph,(5 kmph)atsW-fi fe sba-tfohe fol 1p lowing the installation of step signs,xa The gm oral conclusion from these studies must be that I stop signs have littie,overall-.effect�owap-aed,ex- oept within approximately,200"fest(61 meters) {, a�ftheinteraeotian. i;. Sf#ec#AA-Va£fic..Noise,Air-Qneltty.and,Bn- ergy-Cont didption.Stop signs tend to incr'ea'se z noisRindha vicinity of an intersection by adding aaQeleratipn and brakingznoise,normally more than oannellingAe noise xeducti6n.effect pf any decreRses.inAraffic.-speed,None of the studies eve)uatedqueniitatively addressedthis specific component of noise.VnAe the deceleration and accaleratidn which stop signs induce does tend to increase ainpollutant•emissions and fay coa- ' sumption,these changes are inconsequehtially ;? small at low-volume:rasldential street Intersec- tions. n Effeet-dh Traffic Safety.The traditional traf- fic engineering belief is that S T-GP-signsnotwar- . ranted-brtwh1fiievolume conflicts orspecifia site safety conditions(such'as inadQq ightI. s- tance)would lend to inak-a0i traffto accidents. `p However,evidence to date on the safety affeots of STOP signs placed for volume and speed re- duction purposes is somewhat mixed. Isolated 64 Item 11.b. - Page 37 Attachment 3 studies in Pleasantone?...aur_.,MMte,27 Cali- site-safety`conditions and the MWCD spec fi fornia showedinoreases.in- 'fiumlier-of-acct cally advises that stop signs should not be used dents in the range of'SOO.300• --ht Alarger forpuirpoasagfspea a"ol. study in Palo Alto, California showed little pbedibnae-to-StoprSigns.Numerous studies change in the accident rate�7 owever,a atudy have been prepared regarding the degred to of 57 new-four-way inter rations in Phaa- which stop Signs are:obsyad-92,77;7,zo,2s As a gee delphia showed that acaiden•� were reduced aral summary, when not required to stop;by from 273 to 35 in a onayear p"e lid. A study of areas traffic,only 5-20 percent of all drivers will. 38 intersections of major sYrea "in St.Paul,Min- 'come to a Somplate stop,40450pereentwiii Come nssota showed that convemi4rom 2=waytF*"` *ay amdralreducad the acaidelntratpby5aper tea- rcent will pass throum hat higher thap%= 40�eraent will peas through at higher tha�t;5, cent,however,these interseatiims had-volumes in excess,:of what would be expected on's resi- shows that The place mf artley,California dsntial street.87 Another study of"15•'3ntereea showed that e'p�g purpose laced p artedials and sat s lea�vrs for the oae of s eed-reduotion were tions inCpxgord,Californiasha�wed a 70.porce the most flagrantlyLviolated.21 Thus,stop signs reduetioain aaeidents afterthe nat&U1 tiWhf4- placed in violation of the standard warrants way stpp,,Ogna,maxty with v 'umss-below the r tend to be rea'e�et d and to some extent="`"ored• warrants of theA-071 D ss Wi out detailed in s by drivers, whereas signs placed for righ-=6f• apeefioas of the individual Bite it is difficult to . way;"purposes tendto be more usuellyrespeoidd. assess reasons for the mix-dr. is or why the traditional traffic:engineering- eliefis notmore „ oon_•�igipglysupportedinthe piricaldata.It Sleed'lirrnit`91gf1s' seems probable that at some o'"he intersdctions ' wheresafdt—ftramentswere `easure4,plaee- speed limit signs are a regulatory as in- a•-- tended to inform motorists of an ebaoltite-0—ki zrient of the signs in p9orm.sib' positions and la fftpplametltarymar�n eaoountforthe p><�•-facie-speedlimitimposed by the govern eAFrident;eaKperienae rathero fundamental �eaoy.Traditionally,they have been esab. characteristics: late"dto the rants,It also lished oaths bads of the existiog.85thpereentils seems probable that thexases• here safetyex- speed on the street or highway in question;In e�i, cewasimprovedinclude' taneeaawhere residential. ueighborhoode, appQdimits are P �g� q" usually established on a prima facie basis,and traditional warrants for stop Fastellaticn were signs are installed onlywhenaproblem or neigh- actually met Further cases wh0oh experienced borhood requeat-occura.As a•basis of compari- safet, jmprovemenis likely tr ude intersec- sea,Tables sand 8•ehow a range of aeighboa bons with conditions border traditional hood=andwachoabzone speed limits for citi8i�f warrants. varionsaizes?ao Citiz eactionszto.Stop."gip",. Stop signs EffesaEs on,Traffie Volnmb,Noae have a veryposiitaw,e mgga moatmitizens, who often see them as a soluti tonear miss" Effeef ori`T=affi6=Spe�il.Studies evaluating as well as actual•:acoident Upr Hems.They are the effect o_fsneedlimitsigns-atto—ebdhave been also..par a ved ss being benefi 'al-twspe'eE,iag largely confined to arterial-matreeis and iliigfi problems.Naga've reaction: top s_igna come • Eip.odd biigkways.Performance in the high speed mainly from rpajdents.:at,the.� rners who are higbway cases is considereduon-relevant td the subjected to additional noisalqmatopping and residential street situation and not discussed in aooelera' vehicles.and frodi motorists who -the assessment below.FinditsinUnited•,S.t*tes, perceive theysrebaingstoppe eedlessly., andEaW—ganarter:Wt ourfaaestrestapeedlimit IlAd rm Standards Tand Ws ants.Stop sign studies differ.In the United States,studies gave details and warrants for install ation are includ generally shown thatspeed limitsigus have very ad in theJvliJTiMSO However, e.warrdnts re- lit1b impact'on driveraspeed ua surface�ar*j- latetortgb f�wassaeaignment dresponseto als.Astadydatu2gto1948in Champaign audUr- - ss WF Item 11.b. - Page 38 �i�r,. w � STOP '.•. ♦y a t c 4T si , y �yM t J t _ �W �✓/, V V �`� �t d �� l y7 [ F ,ti�7�- �/ ti-,-.-. 1 � a i rt' a '� • � l�^F'�`a'�s { }�� ��,AViY� �'s�'S�� � ���.. t ,3 ...�r-t��.`'t� �n,`�Y � a4r�'" :: t J '��� '. � ✓, <`�' ���,r 'Er�� ��p �,h � Cl ,����, '�` �o'i�ltiv Rs .' �crg Y i i � �p. Y ski .�,� g .1 yv'i • • � �du r h�;ASS c�( � �-. �5�y xis .) '. �� �� _'t ty 5� P. �, _,ar,,.y�y� .� id y� '�,t ,f_ �F"� _ 7 -- '' s,`'' 3s.F-r y, �.�>•-,, cS�1 Y�rs4s+� �+ a, .`.� t�rc MR, X� 4 �� t�`'�� �? {ict � ,•54 �f � �ajl �� � r��A�*,,s ESP, � ? J y� � � ' r YcY ?n5 ft n' �F^>, >• ti� s� '(�,���3 tca '�`� ,�,.�� a�,�1 �„r""� .,)I `� 3an7fS3�r,r^. t3' < '1, ..•'P GV&D-1PI2MTxC-COMNiTSS30N MARCH 29, 19139 Attachment 3 21 C ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA 7:00 P.M. The Parking and Traffic Commission met is regular session with chairperson Wagner presiding. Present are Commissioners Sauers, Storton, and Lambert. Also in attendance are PuiT"c�.Wor_ks Dirueotor�x=,�,��wd Associate„ g44eer APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27, 1984 On motion by Commissioner Sauers, seconded by Commissioner Storton, that unanimously carried, the minutes of the regular meeting of February 27, 1984, were approved as prepared. DISCUSSION OF NO PARKING ZONE,tfC-i',PAYLESS_CENTRR, NORTH,.SIDE,CF'•SRAND"'A.7MUE Public Works Director Karp indicated that he wrote a letter dated March 15, 1984, to Randy�Poitl, Manager of the Lucky/Payless Shopping Center iadi:oating to him that the City will need a document stating that be is empowered to request the no parking zone for all the buildings at the Lucky/Payless Shopping Center, on the north side of Grand Avenue prior to takdng action on the no parking zone he had requested. Staff reported that at this time, there has not been any response, and, requested that this item be held over.until Mr. Fold xespouds to the City with• appropriate documentation. , CHUCK FELLOWS NOW PRESENT ' REVIEW OF CROWN HILL AND HIGHWAY 227 ACCIDENTS Staff reported to the Parking-and Tragic Commissioners on the memo from the Gity°Manager regarding Various people from the audience voiced•their concerns regarding this area stating that there is a problem with westS6rin'd"vehia1es running the stop sicns••a Hnasna Road and Fighway 229`, and speGding.,overCxown.�+Hi11, loosing...contm,1�of:�their'�dfi3cles.. The follow- ing people expressed their concexns'over accidents involving private property and packed-vebieles.on-Crown-Hill: Patricia-Fairbanks) 655 Crown Hill; JOW GUMwia, 623 Crown Hill, Faye-Guzzie, 623 crown HUI, and wan-GUlarte, 635 Crowh Hill. After considerable discussion, a motion was made by CoIDma].Oner-Sauers,'seconded by Commissioner Lambert_requesting that the Ci'ty`"`CBUnai1 diYeot the�_PUbl'ic"Works atcr x to.study this-area fora solution to the problem whictr might in- clude permaizent_or-temporary-o-lo-m Xe-of::the_.Crown•lHill; at Highway 227 intersection That motion unanimously-passed. The Commissioners also suggested that Staff can- tact A1_Sauvadon of the Lucia School District•and inform him of this=matter. NO PARKING ZONE ON TRAFFIC'WAY FRONTAGE NORTHERLY OF ARROYO GRANDE CREEK^W.EST SIDE Staff indicated to the Parking and Traffic Commissioners that be requested the no parking zone on Traffic Way frontage northerly of Arroyo Grande Creek, vest side (in front of Mr. Lovett's property), due to recently installed curb,.gutter, and sidewalk adjacent to the driving lanes. He further reported that this area was already posted, but not enforced_ After discussion, a motion was made by Commis- sioner Sauers, seconded by commissioner Starton recommending that the City Coun ail establish a no parking zone from the creek to Branch Street. That motion _ unanimously. passed. ESTABLISH STOP SIGN NORTHBOUND, BRISCO ROAD AT WEST BRANCH STREET The staff reminded the Commissioners that be was dixected to have West Branch Street paved between Festival Cinema and Brisco Road. Staff indicated that once the road is traveled, there will' : be the necessity for a stop sign on northbound Brisco Road at its intersection with the northbound off ramp from U.S. 101- After considerable discussion, a motion to place the recommended stop sign at Brisco Road was made by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Storton, and unanimously passed. ESTABLISHMENT OF EMERGENCY VEHICLE PARKING ONLY, NORTH SIDE OF FAIR OAKS AVENUE ' BETWEEN HALCYON ROAD AND DRIVE ACCESS TO EMERGENCY ROOM AT ARROYO GRANDE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL Staff reported that this problem came to the Commission due to the Arroyo Grande community Hospital wanting more parking for the emergency room. The. Page.1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 7 r Item 11.b. - Page 40 Attachment 3 CiTY COUNCIL APRIL 10, 19811 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE TWO. 1 18. Authorization for •Paynlent, Deep Well and Blending System, Phase-IV, Progress Payment No. 1. RECOMMEND APPROVAL, 19. Letter from South County Commufsl.ty Kettle; Re: Revenue Sharing Funds. RECOMMENDATION: DEFER ACTION UNTIL BUDGET ADOPTION. 20. Articles from Callfornia chamber of Commerce "Alert", Re: "Local Government ' Finance Bills Under fire" and "Reform'8111 Seeks to-Keep Hands Out of "Deep Pocket" in injury Suits." INFORMATIONAL ONLY. BONDING OF EMPLOYEES REPORT I Finance Director David Bacon said the City is covered by two bonds. One is i coverage against loss,of money and against depositors' forgery of City checks, The other is a public employees blanket position bond, which protects the Ctty against loss sustained through any fraudulent or dishonest'acts committey by any employee. He sold his memo of April 2, 1984, explains in more detail each bond coverage. He said separate bonds are required for only-three positions: City Manager, Acting City Manager and Finance Director; however, City Code provides that the Clty Manager and*Acting City Manager may be-covered by public employees blanket bond., Councilman Millis requested a written-report specifically covering the City Cbuncil Members, City Clerk, City Trea'surer-' comparison with other cities coverage i and If our coverage is adequate, City Attorney Shaw will seek the requested information and report back to Council as soon as It Is researched and received. PARKING AND TRAFFIC COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL R.ubl=hasWorkstD3.rrctnr�f�u,iswKarpisaid the Cammiss[on iscussed closure of i Crown Hill at State Highway 227, in response to reportedz•io ireirts that had occurred there, The Commission recommended studying_a_Cr_owr -J4-cu:I,=dews1dc and to have Council direct Pub1.ica,Works­to_,s.tu4y the proposal as soon as possible. Mayor Smith°invited residents of Crown ffl•lt,to address the•Council, and acknowledged the•pet+ti on'-subml tted by them." CYNTH4AaNE077:.1., 611 Crown Hill, said her great concern is the safety of the ch,U,dr-antcomi,ng fa-am-theastihool. She explained that as the cars come up the hill, they accelerate, and are a grovemthreab�,to=-the­bhIIdren playing on the d1r_tshll•l, "GEORGE:mE0TT1, 611 Crown Hill, said he would like to bring Council's attention fo the fact there aFE no--s.t•dewa-lks-along=CrownH.1•1,1 and the childrermwal:idng, roller skating or playing must do=sc;;,(.0,,,'l:hea.stree-t. i PATRICIA FAIRBANKS, 655 Crown Hiil,'pointed out the traffic coming from the 1 l.p pez-L•ake,,aa„ea-s.hou,l.d�adso.ba_cons.idered, since many do•�otwstop at the�top�sirgn at the interRect7.on=of.Crown-H1.11/H.ighway�223'/Hue"shaeRoad, and many have boon AmI i1kfh9. She said numerous accidents have happened there (s E:x�hn the past nth ae months.,_end-:.many neat_-misses). She said Hl:gbway�727yhasza��ypero��d7tch, not Z!1� noticed, and when drivers hit the gully they go airborne and lose control of their vehicles. Councilman Gallagher made a motion for a study of the t aff,tgpprab:7:ems and of a pede #r Ian=si'd 1'k aibHg`Croiafi�H1=1,L•and=the school. Councilman Hogan seconded the motion for discussion. Councilman Millis said he felt a study would take too long, the area is •very-dangerous; it is an urgent problem and the City needs'to make Crowrr9l+I--a-cu1^=dazsaa=now. Councilman Hogan said he felt a turn- around for °t r-ucks�shoUl'aTba'-1n`c•1'aded. Councilman @andeveer agreed that Crown Hill should be closed,.nowgbut:,-cantd-nue.-thQc study; and that he would like to receive comments from the,Po L(ee afld,fir-.e pepa_r-tments regarding the problems of the area. Mayor Smith called for a vote on the motion and (•t�car-rled.•unah•Lnysly, A motion was made by Coundllman Millis to make Crown Hill at Highway 227 and Huasna Road seconded by Councilman Hogan, and on the following roll call vote, to wit: AYP: Councilman Vandeveer, Gallagher,.Millis" Hogan and Mayor Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None Atha'Snbi:ion=,carriee=:ynanimousLy.::w •• , Item 11.b. - Page 41 A*chment 3 CITY COUNCIL MAY 22, 1984 ARROYO GRANDE, CALIFORNIA PAGE TWO. ADOPTION: UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PROJECT RESOLUTION i City Manager Mack explained that the-state PUC has a program in conjunction 1 with PG&E whereby certain funds are set aside annually for the Clty of Arroyo } Grande to be used solely for the•und'ergrovnd'iTtg-of-overhead•utilities an major thoroughfares. He said the total amount accumulated and available for project commitment is approximately •$20-;f4s-00. fie said the two projects eligible for , this program are identified as and (2)•on j Teaf-fi=�Way; and recommended priority be given to the'undergrounding on Traff r-Way. He said as requlred by PUC regulations, a resolution for creating an lj6dergro lid U>i, d9duiory GpilLmftee had been prepared and he read the title of the Resolution. On motion by Councilman Gallagher, seconded by Councilman Vandeveer, and unanimously 1 carried, to dispense with further reading of the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 1765 A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY t OF ARROYO GRANDE CREATING-AN UNDERGROUND U1ti'L-1 Y°ADV'1'SCRY-COMM FTZEE On motlon by Cagneilman Varideveer,• seconded by Councilman Millis, and on the following roil tali vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmen Gallagher, Hogan, Millis, Vandeveer'and Mayor Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None 1 the foregoing Resolution was passed and.adopted on the •22nd--day-6T'Mary�: A motion-was made by Councilman Millis, seconded by Councilman Vandeveer, and unanimously carried, to proceed wi th-underg.round=uti irlti'es wor�6n fit5ff-i:E` eiy. RESpLUTION=�ADOPTI'ON*••IN.SUPPORT••OF.GLOSURE�OF CROWN�Hd:L1- 1Mta—Mack said the Resolution confirms• the emergency.:actlon of the closure of Crown Hill on Aprda=1:0,,-1°98A•, and-it isle formalrity to have Council adopt on all •stseet-=r9•osures, Mr.. Mack read the title of the Resolution. On motion of Councl.l Member Gallagher, seconded by Council Member Vandeveer, and unanimously carried, to dispense with further reading of the Resolution. RESOL%tIr1oiW`V((9'1- 17663 A-•ftE50lFJi'ION®OFT�NErCITY"GOUNCl1�OF 7H ° T-TY-OF ApaYO..GRAijR ORDERING CLDSURE­OF°GROWN-RILL AT THE-••)tiTE.RS ECT,I.DN••OF-5TATE"H PGHWAY`227-'AND'-NUASNA .ROAD. On motion of Counci-lman Gallagher, seconded by Councilman Hogan, and on the following roll call vote, to wi.t: AYES: -Councilmen Gallagher, Hogan, Mr11ls,'Vandaveer and Mayor Smith NOES: None _ ABSENT: Nonc the forego-i-ngg•Resol•utlon was passed and adopted this 22nd day of May 1984. <PAUL-Dd:NGs:H=1 STORYt110USE�lt i?OgT Mr. Mack said at the last meeting of the Council the Staff was asked to do some evaluations regarding the number of units which could be-supported on the History House property site. He said after retaining the site of the History House and a parking area fqr approximately tetf.-drrs, the site would only support sub- dividing and selling off twox ing'Fa faini;tywrest•dentt.a]��ior�esltes. That does not appear to be likely to support the type'of flagpl,program the Dr, Caswell is advocating In the documents he submitted to the City. Mr. Mack said he could only conclude that if two single family• lots are Inadequate to support the proposal, 'then the proposal wlll have to be reworked in some manner by Dr. Caswell. There was no one present to represent the Paulding History House, Mayor Smith said there was a letter received from Mr. Stephen Cool, Attorney for Ruth Paulding, requesting the matter be taken off the May 22, 1984, agenda. On-motion by Councilman Vandeveer; seconded by Councilman Hogan, and unani- mously'carried, to honor Mr. Cool's regyast to continue the matter until the next meeting of Council. Item 11.b. - Page 42 Attachment 4 ACTION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2014 COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 215 E. BRANCH STREET ARROYO GRANDE, CA 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Ross called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Traffic Commissioners: Commissioner Gary Borda, Commissioner Matthew Brownlee, Vice Chair Jim Carson, Chair Steven Ross, Commissioners absent: None Staff present: Geoff English, Public Works Director; Jim Garing, Interim City Engineer; Beau Pryor, Police Commander; Officer Ken Reed, Motorcycle Policeman, and Jane Covert-Lannon, Office Assistant ll. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Ross led the pledge of allegiance. 4. COMMUNITY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS Mr. Robert Johnson —277 E. Cherry Street—Gave a presentation of his proposal for the widening of E. Cherry Street in light of the proposed development on East Cherry. Mr. Johnson presented the Commission with his proposal and plans. Mr. Johnson's proposal will be submitted to the Planner in charge of the E. Cherry Development Project and will be included in that file. Hearing no other public comment so Chair Ross closed the public comment portion of the meeting. 5. CONSENT AGENDA 5.a. Approval of Minutes ACTION: Vice Chair Carson moved to approve the minutes of the July 14, 2014 meeting as submitted. The motion was seconded by Chair Ross and the motion passed by the following vote: AYES: Carson, Ross, Borda, Brownlee NOES: None ABSENT: None Item 11.b. - Page 43 Attachment 4 6. BUSINESS ITEMS 6.a Consideration of Request to Install Additional Stop Signs at the Intersection of McKinley Street and Le Point Street Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Commission advise the City Council that increased enforcement of the existing 25 MPH residential neighborhood speed limit be implemented and approved the installation of stop signs on Le Point Street at McKinley. Jim Garing, Interim City Engineer, gave the Staff presentation on the recommendation for the installation of stop signs on Le Point Street at McKinley. He stated that the Police did a study on the history of this intersection and there have been no accidents since 2011. In addition, the Police placed a speed trailer near this intersection for a week. The speed trailer did not pick up a speeding problem. The average speed during the week long study was measured at 24 MPH. The highest speed registered for the entire week was 36 MPH. Jim Daring said that from an Engineering standpoint, the results of the speed study would not justify stop signs. Omni-Means was contracted by the City to do a four way stop analysis. This analysis concluded that the traffic did not meet the requirements for adding stop signs. However, during the analysis, Omni-Means noted several problems with the intersection. Omni- Means noted short sight distances coming up Le Point, the sign distance coming from Corbett Canyon/227 is below the requirements for a 25 MPH speed limit and overgrown shrubs and vegetation is also causing sight issues for this area. It.is because of these issues that Staff is recommending the installation of stop signs, Chair Ross asked Jim Garing if the vegetation and trees could possibly be trimmed to help the sight distance. Jim Garing replied that Staff would work with the property owners to discuss trimming. With no other questions from the Commissioners, Chair Ross opened the meeting up for public comment. Kathy Petker - 574 May Street — Ms. Petker stated she lives with her family one block from the intersection. She says she appreciates this subject being on the agenda and thanked the City. She stated that she is very concerned about the situation and believes the speed problem to be a true safety issue. She said that there have been near misses with Children almost being hit and three dogs have been hit and killed, including her own dog on July 3, 2014. She said in addition to many children living in the neighborhood, there is also a school bus stop where children congregate early in the morning and afternoons for pick up and drop off. Ms. Petker stated that in addition to stop signs any traffic calming that can be done would be greatly appreciated. Miriam Mousticats — 545 Le Point Street — Ms. Mousticats supported Ms. Petker's requests for stop signs and traffic calming. She said children go across the street to play with friends and there have been many close calls.and dogs have been hit and killed by the speeders. She stated that you can teach children to look both ways, but children don't necessarily have the judgment to look both ways every time they cross. She says that the street is dangerous. Jack English — 521 Le Point Street - Mr. English stated that he has lived on this street for 70 years. He said the problem started when Crown Hill was developed and the street Item 11.b. - Page 44 Attachment 4 was closed to through traffic. He said he yells at people driving too fast. He had the following suggestions: 1) Station a motorcycle officer facing Le Point especially during the heavy traffic hours of 7:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. and have the Officer laser the drivers. 2) Put a flasher trailer on Tally Ho to alert people to slow for the residential area. 3) Install speed bumps to calm traffic on Le Point especially where the children reside. 4) Install stop signs Mick Bondollo — 207 McKinley Street — This is the homeowner whose vegetation is overgrown. He said that when people park on the street northwest and east of McKinley people at the intersection cannot see. He suggests parking restrictions in this area in order to help the line of sight. He also suggested a reflecting mirror at the curve so people can see what is around the curve. Lastly he suggested stationing a police officer at the intersection corner because people do not stop. Patty Carp — 592 Le Point — Has three small children and lives one block from the school. S_ he asked if the speed trailer was able to see over the crest of Le Point. She also said she agreed with the previous speakers. Eric Wilding—Le Point—Mr.Wilding said speeding is a problem on Le Point and agreed with the previous speakers. Mr. Wilding also stated that Lucille Shephard and Steve and Kimmie Schneider, both residents of Le Point could not attend but wanted the Commission to know that they also support the need for stop signs. Hearing no further comments the public comment was closed. Commissioner comments were as follows: Commissioner Borda — Commissioner Borda said as long as the stop signs can be justified he has no problem with it and the request makes sense. Vice Chair Carson - Vice Chair Carson stated that when the street at Crown Hill was blocked off it helped to create this problem. He stated that the stop signs are not appropriate, that they will just give the children a false sense of security with the expectation of safety. He stated that people run stop signs and said that if there is a stop sign added on Le Point Street that speeds will increase as people accelerate from the stop sign. Vice Chair Carson suggested that more enforcement be implemented and trimming of the_overgrown vegetation be accomplished. In addition, he suggested the consideration of placing speed bumps on Le Point Street and painting the curbs red where cars are parking and blocking the sight line. He stated that he is not in favor of adding stop signs. Commissioner Brownlee— Commissioner Brownlee stated that he understood both Vice Chair Carson and Jim Garing's viewpoints. He stated that something needs to be done and he supports the stop signs as a good place to start. He also stated that speed bumps should be a consideration. _ Chair Ross - Chair Ross stated that he would like to see the following implemented prior to installing stop signs: Item 11.b. - Page 45 Attachment 4 1) Red curbing to correct the line of sight. 2) Trimming done so it does not impede the Right of Way. 3) Additional monitoring by police to see if people are more respectful of the speed limit. Once these have been done then depending upon the outcome, the stop sign issue can be re-visited. Chair Ross stated that he would not support the item as it has been presented Reopening for Public Comments: Kathy Peteker— Ms. Peteker suggested that a sidewalk is needed on the east side of Le Point Street for children to walk safely to school and a sidewalk would also help narrow the street. She said that it is important to get some changes ASAP. Jack_English — Mr. English stated that his main concern is speeding on Le Point Street. He said that the kid's safety and the speed on the street are the issue. Other members of the public stated that they would be open to speed bumps and an electronic speed sign to help calm the speed problem. Public Comments were closed. Discussion ensued regarding this issue. Officer Ken Reed addressed the Commission and the public. He stated that he is the only Motorcycle Policeman for the City. Officer Reed asked the constituents to help him with the enforcement by getting license plate numbers of speeding cars and descriptions of drivers and letting him know. He said he cannot be in the area all of the time so their support would be very helpful. Beau Pryor, Police Commander, stated that a radar trailer can be placed in different areas around the McKinley Street and Le Point Street. Commander Pryor said that two of the largest accidents in Arroyo Grande history were caused by speed bumps. He also stated that enforcement will be stepped up in the area. Geoff English, Director of Public Works stated that he would do the following: s Follow up with the neighbors regarding the trimming. Check the budget for funds for an electronic sign. e Advised that a sidewalk for Le Point in on the list when funds become available. ACTION: Vice Chair Carson made a motion to not approve the Staff recommendation, but as an alternative, provide additional police enforcement, trimming, possibility of adding red parking zones, consider the possibility of moving the stop bars forward for better line of sight, possible speed bumps and the addition of solar speed signs prior to the installation of Stop signs. Chair Ross seconded the motion and the motion deadlocked on the following vote: AYES: Carson, Ross NOES: Borda, Brownlee ABSENT: Item 11.b. - Page 46 Attachment 4 Commissioner Borda made a motion to accept the Staff recommendation to put in stop signs and add increased police enforcement. Commissioner Brownlee seconded the motion and the motion deadlocked on the following vote: AYES: Borda, Brownlee NOES: Carson, Ross ABSENT: Commissioner Borda made a motion to have Staff do additional studies on trimming trees, changing location for stop bars, red curb studies, the possible addition of speed bumps and a solar speed limit sign added to the area and bring back to the Traffic Commission at the next meeting. Vice Chair Carson second the motion and the motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Ross, Carson, Borda, Brownlee NOES: ABSENT: 6.b Consideration of Traffic Commissioner Appointment to the Community Service Grant Panel Recommended Action: It is recommended the Traffic Commission appoint one Commission Member and one alternate to serve as a representative on the Community Service Grant Panel. Geoff English, Director of Public Works, gave the Staff presentation on this subject. He stated that all of the Commissions are being asked to appoint a member and alternate for this Panel. ACTION: Chair Ross made a motion to appoint Commissioner Borda as the representative to the Community Service Grant Panel from the Traffic Commission and Chair Ross as the alternate. Commissioner Brownlee seconded the motion and the motion passed on the following vote: AYES: Ross, Brownlee, Borda, Carson NOES: ABSENT: 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS Geoff English, Director of Public Works updated the Commission on the following: 1) Would the Commission be available for a special meeting on November 10, 2014. Two of the four members were not available. This information will be given to the CDD Department. 2) Capital Projects Update: Item 11.b. - Page 47 Attachment 4 1) Resurfacing has been completed on East Grand from .the 101 deck to McDonald's and some parking lots. 2) Larchmont Street—Work began on 10/20/14 and is expected to be completed in two to three weeks and will include crowning the road and changing the drainage. 3) The Police Station frontage improvements are almost complete and the Bennett/Halcyon closure should be removed by the end of the week. 4) The scheduled completion of the Police Station has suffered some minor delays, dry rot, roof drainage and replacement of timbers. The deadline was early February and we are awaiting a confirmation from the Contractor as to the anticipated completion date. 8. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Chair Ross stated that he is a representative of the Citizen's Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), a committee that is part of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). He said he got some information on the financing of the Bridge Street Bridge project. In earlier discussions it had been stated that if the City does not comply with State specifications checklist that the City of Arroyo Grande might have to come up with 30 % of the funds for the construction of the Bridge Street Bridge. If historic elements are used and the bridge meets the 80 point criteria then it would be maintained by CalTrans.. He said he feels that this would be too costly and there are other places for the money to go. Chair Ross said that SLOCOG stated the numbers discussed were "old" numbers and the numbers might change. Commissioner Borda said that it was brought to his attention that going East on Grand Avenue and merging into Traffic Way there are two merge signs. One sign is obvious, the other is being blocked by a redwood tree. Geoff English stated he would follow up and trim if necessary. 10.ADJOURNMENT Chair Ross adjourned the meeting at 7:33 p.m. Steven Ross, Chair ATTEST: Jane Covert-Lannon Office Assistant II (Approved at TC Mtg: November 17, 2014—as amended). Item 11.b. - Page 48 1/5/2015 Institute of Transportation Engineers--iTE Attachment 5 A Cam4x3uniCy of rarlsportanon rofesstOrl 7 YOIIFSOI ACC.{Qt'�p'3tLfi��lA141Snttitlf3S BOOKSTORE EMPLOYMENT CENTER TECHNICAL INFORMATION LEARNING HUB PTOE I PTP ITE COMMUNITY __ Search ABOUT ITE MEMBERSHIP CINkNNJI Le ' DIRECTORIES CALENDAR AWARDS PAY DUES LOGIN I LOGOUT Traffic Calming Measures-Speed Hump Traffic Counts Traffic Crasheso Description: baim7ng,l,CekTSAtles Traffic Signal, dsdsals_ed_a[easo�avementy Icall 12 to 14 feet inlen th • often placed in a series(typically spaced 300 to 600 feet apart) • sometimes called road humps orundulations Applications: residential streets • nottypically used on majorroads,bus routes,or primary emergency response routes • midblock placement,not at an Intersection e • noton grades greaterthan 8 percent work well with curb extensions Federal f}ighway- I AdmfnistmHon l UW DeslgnAnstallatlon Issues: 1627 1("Eye")Street,NW,Suite 600 F�l SIJUP typically 12 to 14 feet in length;other lengths 10,22, Washington,DC ' h'P Y 9 9 ( 20006-3538 USA and 30 feet)reported In practice)n U.S. phone:202-785-0060 speed hump shapes ipri­i�p,frahnl4c,HmaiWr and Faxa 202--786-0609 sinusoidal Send comments to: i hump heights range between 3 and 4 Inches with trend Ite—staff@lte.org toward 3-3'/.Inches maximum Lci dtf icuitio construct precisely;may need to specify a SPEED HUMP I SPEED TABLE I RAISED r'r+, construction tolerance e.g.±1/e inch)on height INTERSECTION(CLOSURE I L�k often have signage(advance warning sign before first NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CIRCLE I hump In series and warning signor object marker at CHICANE I CHOKER I CENTER ISLAND hump) NARROWING typically have pavement marking(zigzag,sharks tooth, chevron,zebra) taper edge near curb to allow gap for drainage some have speed advisories • bicyclists prefer that It not cover or cross a bike lane Potential Impacts: • no effect on non-emergency access • speeds determined by heightand spacing;speeds between humps have been observed to be reduced between 20 and 25 percent on average • based on a limited sample ofsites,typical crossing speeds(85th percentile)of 19 mph have been measured for 31A Inch high,12 foothumps and of21 mph for 3 Inch high,14 foothumps;speeds have been observed to rise to 27 mph within 200 feet downstream speeds typically increase approximately 0.5 mph midway between humps for each 100 feet of separation • studies Indicate thattraffic volumes have been reduced on average by 18 percent depending on allrmatfve routes available • studies Indicate that collisions have been reduced on average by 13 percent on treated streets no adjusted for traffic diversion) • mostcommunities limit height to 3-31/.Inches,partly because of harsh ride over4-inch high humps • possible Increase in traffic noise from braking and acceleration ofvehides,particularly buses and trucks Emergency Response Issues: Concern overjaning of emergency rescue vehicles Approximate delay ofbetween 3 and 5 seconds per hump forfire trucks and up to 10 seconds for ambulance with patient Typical Cost • Approximately$2,000(1997 dollars) For additional detall,referto ITE's Recommended Practice entitled Guidelines forthe Design and Application of Speed Humps. Visit the ITE Bookstore for more Information about this publication. Institute of Transportation Engineers SM 1627 Eye Street,NW,Suite 600 I Washington,DC 20006 USA Telephone:+1 202-785-0060].Fax:+1202-785-0609 ITE Canon of Ethics Ite_staff@jte.org 02015 Institute of Transportation Engineers http://wwvvJte.org/tr'affic/hurnp.asp 111 Item 11.b. - Page 49 1/5/2015 Institute of Transportation Engineers--ITE Attachment 6 ACo,,�tri�uni�yof Transporta�on�Professiorta7s _ Ystttrsoure�or�'xpettise..latowledge6adrdea3 BOOKSTORE EMPLOYMENT CENTER TECHNICAL INFORMATION LEARNING HUB PTOE I PTP ITE COMMUNITY �_ Search ABOUT ITE ME1BERSAP COUNCILS DIRECTORIES CALENDAR AWARDS PAY DUES LOGINI LOCKOUT Traffic Calming Measures-Speed Table Description: •°Calm7ng!hi�easares..:if • long raised speed humps with a flat sectlon In the middle and ramps on the ends;sometimes �Ss constructed with brick or other textured materials on the flat section sometimes called fiat top speed humps,trapezoidal humps,speed platforms,raised crosswalks,or raised crossings Applications: • local and collector streets • main roads through small communities typically long enough for the entire wheelbase of a passenger car to rest on top • work wail in combination with textured crosswalks,curb extensions,and curb radius reductions can Include a crosswalk few federal Highway Administration. NOW m F 16271("Eye")Street,NW,Suite 600 Washington,DC 20006-3538 USA Phone:202-785-0060 Fax:202-785-0609 Send comments to: lte-staff@ite.org SPEED HUMP I SPEED TABLE I RAISED Designflnstallatlon Issues: INTERSECTION I CLOSURE i NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CIRCLE typically 22 feet In the direction of travel with 6 foot CHICANE I CHOKER I CENTER ISLAND -- — ramps on each end and a 10 footflatsection in the NARROWING I� middle;other lengths(32 and 48 feet)reported in U.S. _--- _ - -- practice most common height Is between 3 and 4 Inches(and r reported as high as 6 Inches) ' ramps are typically 6 feetlong(reported up to 10 feet long)and are eltherparaholic or linear careful design Is needed for drainage Potential Impacts: no effect on access speeds are reduced,but usually to a higher crossing speed than at speed humps(typically between 26 and 27 miles per hour) • traffic volumes have been reduced on average by 12 percent depending on alternative routes available • collisions have been reduced an average by 45 percent on treated streets(not adjusted for traffic diversion) • reported to increase pedestrian visibility and likelihood that driveryfeids to pedestrian Emergency Response Issues: • typically preferred by fire departments over 12 to 14-foot speed humps generally less than 3 seconds of delay per hump for fire trucks Typical Cost: • approximately$2,500(in 1997 dollars)for asphalt tables;higher for brickwork,stamped asphalt, concrete ramps and other enhancements sometimes used at pedestrian crossings Institute of Transportation Engineers ya 1627 Eye Street,NW,Suite 600 I Washington,DC 20006 USA Telephone:+1202-785-0060i Fax:+1202-785-0609 ITE Canon of Ethics lte-Stag@lte.org ®2015 Institute ofTransporiaUon Engineers http:1/wwwJte.org&affic/t&1e.asp 1/1 Item 11.b. - Page 50