Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030900 PTS AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk at (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR35.102.35.104 ADA Title 1I] CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENTS AGENDA TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION TO BE HELD AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California Thursday, March 9, 2000 at 6:00 P.M. COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Edwards, Katan, Connerton A total of 15 minutes is provided so membem of the public can address the Commission on items that are not listed on lhe Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Spa" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Recording Secretary before the Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of February 10. 2000 RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of February 10, 2000 COMMISSION BUSINESS 2. Traffic Signal Photo Enforcement RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review a presentation on Traffic Signal Photo Enforcement, and make a recommendation to the City Council. 3. Citywide Traffic Enforcement - Additional Police Officers RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file a report regarding additional Police Officers for Citywide Traffic Law Enforcement, and provide direction to staff. 4. Nei~,hborhood Traffic Calming Prom'am RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review the report and provide input regarding the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. 5. Traffic Engineer's Report 6. Police Chief's Report 7. Fire Chief's Report 8. Commission Reports ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday, March 23, 2000, at 6:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temeeula, California. ITEM NO. I MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COM MISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M., on Thursday, February 10, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. FLAG SALUTE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Edwards. Commissioners *Coe, Edwards, Katan, and Chairman Connerton. Absent: None. Also Present: Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Senior Engineer Moghadam, Associate Engineer Gonzalez, Battalion Chief Ritchey, Police Sergeant DiMaggio, Administrative Secretary Pyle, and Minute Clerk Hansen. * (Commissioner Coe left the meeting at 7:00 P.M.) PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of January 27, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of January 27, 2000. MOTION: Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the minutes, as wdtten. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Coe and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. ROLL CALL Present: COMMISSION BUSINESS 2. Evaluation of Traffic Circles - Via Cordoba RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review the effectiveness of traffic circles and make a recommendation to the City Council. Senior Engineer Moghadam provided a detailed overview of the staff report (of record); relayed that due to the community appeal from the Via Cordoba residents to the City Council on August 24, 1999, the Council had directed staff to conduct a demonstration to evaluate the effectiveness of temporary devices in reducing vehicle speed and volumes over a four-month pedod; noted the subsequent installation of two types of devices, one, for four-way intersections (traffic circle), and a vadant device installed at the T- intersections (raised median); relayed that the two types of calming devices had been installed at five intersections along Via Cordoba; and via overhead graphs, presented the results of the data, demonstrating that the speed and volumes had not been significantly reduced by the temporary installation of the devices. Via overheads, Senior Engineer Moghadam reviewed the neighborhood response dudng the evaluation pehod; noted that initially the concern had been regarding the aesthetics of the temporary devices, relaying that staff had clarified that these were temporary devices for evaluation purposes only, noting that if permanent devices were installed the appearance would be aesthetically pleasing; highlighted the alternate residential concerns with respect to the installation of the devices, as follows: illegal left turns, right- of-way issues, restricted access and parking, children playing in the areas where the devices had been installed, difficulty with respect to larger busses and trucks maneuvering around the circles, and opposition to the number of signs posted in the area; clarified that the Fire Department truck had been able to maneuver around the devices, solely slowing the response time by five to eight seconds; noted that the response from the forty-seven percent (47%) of residents that had responded (out of 240 total letters sent) to the written correspondence revealed that the residential opinion was split approximately fifty/fifty percent in terms of those opposed to, or proponents of, the effectiveness of the calming devices; and relayed that the adjacent communities expressed concern with respect to cut-through traffic in their area due to drivers avoiding the traffic circles. With respect to the estimated costs associated with the installation of permanent devices, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that the cost would be approximately $10,000-$20,000 per traffic circle device, and approximately $5,000-$15,000 per median island device; noted that although the matter was subject to City Council direction, there was a possibility that the residents would participate in the funding of the permanent installations, if installed; and concluded that due to the data presented which revealed that the devices had been ineffective tools for reducing speed, staff had recommended that the temporary installation devices be permanently removed. For Chairman Connerton, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that the traffic surveys had been conducted before and after the temporary installation of the devices; and for Commissioner Coe, clarified that the data revealed that speed did not significantly change with respect to downhill and uphill areas. Commissioner Coe commented that from the intersection of Via Del Coronado to Via Saltio there had been no device installed, noting that since this portion of travel was downhill, it was his opinion that vehicles would travel at higher rates of speed. In response, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that staff could further investigate the matter. Relaying her groat disappointment with the outcome of the data, Commissioner Edwards queded whether the survey questioned whether the residents would be in favor of the installation of the devices, if the data proved that the devices were ineffective. In response, Senior Engineer Moghadam confirmed that the survey did not query with respect to that question. The following individuals were in favor of the installation of the traffic circle devices: n Mr. Charles Hankley a Ms. Janet Dixon 31745 Via Cordoba 31860 Via Cordoba The above-mentioned residents expressed the following comments: · / Challenged the results of the data evaluation results. Relayed that the volumes of traffic varied greatly due to special activities held in the area (i.e., soccer), noting that the data did not take this matter into account. · / Noted that there had been minimal Police Enforcement since the installation of the devices. Specified that the data had concentrated on the results of the eighty-five percent (85%) range of drivers patterns, noting that the evaluation demonstrated that fifteen percent (15%) of the drivers were driving speeds in excess of 33 MPH. Concurred that the median islands were ineffective calming tools. Via photographs, presented a sample of permanent traffic circles devices, noting the visual pleasing appearance. Relayed that drivers were speeding in between the traffic circles, recommending that additional devices be installed. Recommended installing a modified traffic circle rather than a median island at the T-intersections. Implored the Commission and staff to not give up on seeking solutions to resolve the high volumes and speed on Via Cordoba. For Commissioner Coe, Mr. Hankley clarified that he was in favor of the installation of the traffic circles. The following individuals relayed their opposition to the installation of the traffic calming devices: Mr. William Kelley Mr. Robert Garcia Mr. Mario Carvatal n MS. Candace Whitmore 31542 Via San Cados 31775 Via Cordoba 31645 Via Cordoba 31795 Via Cordoba The above-mentioned residents expressed the following comments: ,r Relayed difficulty maneuvering around the traffic circles. ., Noted that the plethora of signs associated with the devices devaluated the community. ,r Relayed that the soccer activities scheduled in the area negatively impacted the volumes of traffic. Noted that Police Officers were diligently citing speed violators in the area. Requested that the City continue to seek solutions to reduce the speed and volumes in the area. ,r Relayed that the survey should have separated the evaluation of the traffic circles versus the median islands. Noted that if stop signs were installed in conjunction with the traffic circles, they would be more effective, Relayed the complete ineffectiveness of the median islands. ,r Since residents from the County area utilized this area for travel, recommended closing Loma Linda Road at Via Del Coronado in order to reduce this impact. Thanked the City and the Commission for the provision of a forum to express community comments. Suggested photo radar speed enforcement as an alternative solution. ., Relayed that the traffic circles created a hazardous situation, commenting on the numerous near collisions at the sites due to right-of-way issues. ., Queded the number of citations issued before and after the installation of the devices, ,/ Recommended that there be increased enforcement to control speed in the area. ,/ Relayed that the devices restricted easy access to residential driveways. ., Noted that when the surrounding read improvement projects were complete, the volumes and speeds would most likely be significantly reduced. For Chairman Connerton, Mr. Kelley relayed that he was aware that if the devices ware installed permanently, the visual appearance would be aesthetically improved; reiterated concam with regard to the plethora of signage; and clarified that he would be in favor of installing devices that had been proven to be effective in solving the speed and volume impacts. For Mr, Garcia, Commissioner Edwards clarified that photo radar enforcement was currently illegal in California. In response to Chairman Connerton, Ms. VVhitmore confirmed that the calming devices had made it difficult for her to access her ddveway. The Commission relayed its concludin.Q remarks, as follows: Commissioner Katan relayed that per his visits to the area, it was his opinion that the traffic circles did appear to reduce vehicle speed, concurring that the median islands appeared to be ineffective; and commented that the speed posted at 15 MPH in vadous portions was unreasonably low. In response to Commissioner Katan's comment that if the speed of eighty-five percent (85%) of the vehicles were travelling under 33 MPH after the installation of the devices, it would appear the devices were effectively controlling speed, Senior Engineer Moghadam clarified that the speed survey conducted before and after the installation of the devices revealed the approximate same results with respect to speed traveled in the area, noting that the devices did not have a significant impact. Commissioner Katan recommended that due to the effectiveness of the devices in alternate cities, that the matter should be further pursued in the City of Temecula. With respect to the survey results, Commissioner Coe relayed the following comments: that the study was flawed, that there should have been additional evaluation pedods in additional locations (i.e., the downhill portions), that at the T-intersections a modified traffic circle should have been installed rather than the median islands; relayed that in his opinion, and based on his experience, the traffic circles would reduce speeds if designed correctly; and noted that if additional traffic circles were installed, the permanent devices would be effective in reducing speeds. It was noted for the record that Commissioner Coe left the meeting at 7:00 P.M. Commissioner Edwards reiterated her dismay with the outcome of the surveys and studies associated with the calming devices; noted that Via Cordoba was one of approximately four streets in the City that have expedenced similar problems due to the configuration of the development; noted the additional ineffectiveness of the installation of stop signs for curving speed impacts; reiterated the close percentage of residents opposed, versus in favor of the calming devices; relayed her previous hopes that the traffic circles would have been proven effective in order for the Commission to be able to present viable solutions to community concerns; relayed that since the devices had been proven ineffective she would be reluctant to recommend installation in light of there being no justification for the associated costs; noted that she was additionally reluctant to dismiss the issue, relaying that perhaps staff could pursue additional concepts to render the devices more effective; and recommended that the matter be forwarded to the City Council for determination. Chairman Connerton relayed that he had visited the area of discussion, and noted the following: 1) on the weekends the vehicle speeds appeared to be higher, and 2) that based on his timing method of surveying speed, the speeds were generally at an average of 33-35 MPH, confirming the results of the traffic data; recommended that the evaluation pedod be extended, that the data be inclusive of traffic volumes and speeds generated on weekends and weekdays, and that the survey be conducted with respect to traffic traveling in both directions, in light of Commission Coe's comments regarding downhill speed; and recommended that there would be review of alternate temporary devices, and that after additional evaluation, the Commission consider the matter again. For Chairman Connerton, Senior Engineer Moghadam advised that additional speed surveys could be conducted and that the associated data could be presented at the February 24, 2000 Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting. In light of the City's current budgeting process, Commissioner Edwarde recommended that the issue be forwarded to the Council expeditiously with the caveat that additional surveys be conducted for the Council's consideration. Senior Engineer Moghadam provided additional information regarding the timing of the City's budgeting procass. For Commissioner Edwards, Senior Engineer Moghadam clarified that the current data reflected studies of the traffic impacts before and after the installation of the devices, noting that all factors remained equal with respect to the before and after evaluation pedods (i.e., the same day of week, same hours of evaluation, and same location); advised that based on his engineering experience, it was his opinion that additional studies would reveal similar traffic speeds; noted staff's willingness to conduct additional studies if that was the desire of the Commission, requesting that either a resident, or group of residents work with staff, or that the Commission articulate specified direction as to what the Commission's desire was with respect to the request for additional studies in order for staff to adequately provide the data that the Commission desired. Commissioner Edwards concurred with Senior Engineer Moghadam with respect to the likelihood of additional studies revealing similar data; relayed that the only issue mentioned that would warrant continuing this Agenda Item, rather than passing it to the City Council, was the issue of reconfigudng the design of the T-intersection devices; and noted that in her opinion, the residents would best be served by passing this issue on to the City Council for direction. In response to Commissioner Edwards, Chairman Connerton clarified that his desire was to provide additional specific direction to the Council, reiterating his recommendation to conduct a broader survey. For clarification, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that there would not be an opportunity to evaluate the prior speed and volumes analysis if additional areas were sun/eyed, noting that there would be no comparison data. In concurrence with Commissioner Edward's comments, Commissioner Katan recommended moving the matter forward to the City Council for consideration at this time; noted that in light of the fact that the data revealed that these particular calming devices were ineffective, his concern was with respect to the lack of any viable solutions provided to offer the numerous residents with concern regarding residential speed and volumes; relayed that in light of the perception that the traffic cimles were effective (noting that the data did not support this concept), and that the median islands were ineffective, recommended that additional traffic circles be installed. Senior Engineer Moghadam provided a brief history of the matter, noting the residents odginal desire for stop signs and the subsequent Council direction to temporarily install the traffic circles for evaluation; noted that the configuration design of the installations had been carefully engineered, clarifying that due to the location of the residential driveways, alternate devices would not be feasible at the T-intersections; and relayed that if it was the desire of the Commission to reconfigure the installation and design of the devices, he would forward those comments to Director of Public Works Hughes and the City Council in order to investigate funding appropriations for the proposal to redesign and install alternate T-intersections devices. Chairman Connerton provided additional clarification regarding his recommendation for additional studies, relaying the benefits of obtaining additional data; and for Commissioner Edwards, clarified that the new data could be compared to the average speed traveled in the area. For Commissioner Katan, Senior Engineer Moghadam reiterated the likelihood of additional surveys revealing very similar data with respect to speeds. MOTION: In light of the survey results, and the response of the residential opinions with respect to this issue, Commissioner Edwards moved to approve staff recommendation and to pass the matter on to the Council for further determination. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Katan and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Coe who was absent. Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that all of the additional information would be forwarded to the Council. 3. Additional Left-Turn Lane - MarCladta Road at Rancho California Road RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file the report. Senior Engineer Moghadam provided an overview of the staff report (of record); noted that a new traffic study (referencing Exhibit B of the agenda material) had been conducted which revealed increased volumes of traffic in the left-turn lane from Margadta Road to Rancho California Road; and relayed staff's recommendation to install an additional left-turn lane. MOTION: Commissioner Edwards moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Katan and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Coe who was absent. TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT Senior Engineer Moghadam noted the provision of the supplemental material regarding a vadant criteria standard for installing stop signs; and for Commission Katan, relayed additional information regarding the data. After additional Commission discussion ensued, Chairman Connerton requested that the issue be agendized for future consideration. POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT Police Sergeant DiMaggio relayed that the Police Department was preparing for the Rod Run Event in Old Town Temecula; and specified the street closures associated with the event. For Police Sergeant DiMaggio, Senior Engineer Moghadam noted that the red light camera representative had been scheduled to provide a presentation to the Commission at the March 9, 2000 meeting. C, In response to Senior Engineer Moghadam's comments, Chairman Connerton clarified that the action the Commission took with respect to the Via Cordoba matter (Agenda Item No. 2) was not inclusive of staff conducting additional studies. FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT No comments. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Katan challenged the residents on Via Cordoba, and Commissioner Coe, who had previously commented on the effectiveness of traffic circles in alternate cities (i.e., Seattle) to provide the associated data to staff or the Council. In light of the future plans for a Councilmember to visit Temecula's sister City in Japan, Commission Katan recommend that the Councilman take note of any traffic observations in that country. C= At Commissioner Coe's request, and due to his absence, Chairman Connerton relayed that Commissioner Coe had attended the Public Traffic Safety Awareness meeting, noting that the next meeting was scheduled for February 16, 2000 at 3:30 P.M., advising that the Committee would further discuss enhanced traffic violation awareness within the area and prepare a plan with respect to the issue. For information purposes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the Pala Road Bridge would be open on February 22, 2000; noted that this would be the first phase of the project; provided additional information regarding the detoured area, and the restricted access points, during the road improvement project period which could last from 30 days to six months; and relayed the notification process. ADJOURNMENT At 7:44 P.M. Chairman Connerton formally adjourned this meeting to Thursday7 February 24, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula. Chairman Dan'ell L. Connerton Administrative Secretary Anita Pyle 9 R:\bafficminutes~D21000 ITEM NO. 2 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic March 9, 2000 Item 2 Traffic Signal Photo Enforcement RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review a presentation on Traffic Signal Photo Enforcement, and make a recommendation to the City Council. BACKGROUND: At a recent meeting, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission requested that staff agendize this item and review the feasibility of implementing a traffic signal photo enforcement program at major intersections throughout the City. The public has been notified of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this issue through the agenda notification process. At the meeting of October 14, 1999, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission received a brief status report regarding the use of traffic signal photo enforcement. Subsequent to the meeting, staff received a demonstration from Lockheed Martin IMS that identified the system's operation and alternative methods of processing the violations. Ms. Lauri Keller, Regional Marketing Manager, Lockheed Martin IMS will provide a brief presentation and answer questions regarding the photo enforcement system. Additional information and handouts will be provided at the meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: None ITEM NO. 3 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic March 9, 2000 Item 3 Citywide Traffic Law Enforcement - Additional Police Officers RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file a report regarding additional Police Officers for Citywide Traffic Law Enforcement, and provide direeton to staff. BACKGROUND: At the meetings of November 18, 1999 and January 13, 2000, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission directed staff to agendize the feasibility of providing additional police officers to increase the citywide traffic enforcement efforts. The public has been notified of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this issue through the agenda notification process. Chief Jim Domenoe and Sgt. Mark Dimaggio of the Temecula Police Department will provide a brief report regarding citywide Traffic Law Enforcement and additional staffing needs. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: None ITEM NO. 4 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic March 9, 2000 Item 4 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review the report and provide input regarding the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. BACKGROUND: At the meeting of August 24, 1999, the City Council directed staff to develop a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program that would create a toolbox of accepted strategies that could be used to alleviate residential traffic concerns. The public has been notified of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this issue through the agenda notification process. Residents commonly express concern for excessive speed and volume on nearly every residential street in the City. The challenge is to provide an effective means of reducing vehicular speeds without significantly impacting the general public and adjacent neighborhoods. In the past, the City has experimented with speed undulations and more recently traffic circles as a means of controlling vehicular speeds and volumes on residential streets. To date, the speed undulation test on Calle Pina Colada has proven to be somewhat effective in reducing vehicular speeds but not vehicular volumes. The residents' perception is that the speed undulations are ineffective and should be removed. The temporary traffic circle experiment on Via Cordoba, however, has proven to be ineffective in reducing vehicular speed and volume along the roadway. Recognizing that these two types of roadway features may not be the "coolde cutter" answer to addressing speed and volume control issues on residential roadways, staff has developed a comprehensive program for neighborhood traffic calming. The goal of the program is to establish procedures and techniques that will mitigate impacts created by vehicular traffic on residential streets. The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program's objective is to: · Reduce vehicular traffic on local residential streets; · Reduce vehicular speeds on local residential streets; · Preserve and enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood destinations; · Encourage citizen involvement in neighborhood traffic management activities; · Provide a process that will address neighborhood traffic concerns; and, · Provide a process that will facilitate local traffic management requests. The application of the neighborhood traffic calming program is intended to be progressive in nature with staff working closely with neighborhood representatives to identifiy the problem and determine the appropriate solution. The program will address traffic calming in a two stage approach with Stage 1 being comprised of actions that are primarily education and enforcement based. Stage 2 will involve the use of roadway design features to reduce vehicular speeds and volumes. The program also includes the policies and procedures that will be used to address the requests for traffic calming measures and the tools that are likely to be used. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: 1. Exhibit "A" - Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program CITY OF TEMECULA NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM PURPOSE Since incorporation in 1989, the City of Temecula has focused on quality of life for Temecula residents. One area that is under constant scrutiny is traffic, both on major arterials and in residential neighborhoods. Recognizing the need to mitigate speed control issues on neighborhood thoroughfares, the City has developed a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. The goal of the program is to establish procedures and techniques that will promote neighborhood livability by mitigating the negative impacts of automobile traffic on residential streets. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES To promote safe and pleasant conditions on neighborhood streets for residents, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists, the City's Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program objective is to: · Reduce vehicular traffic on local residential streets; · Reduce vehicular speeds on local residential streets; · Preserve and enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood destinations; · Encourage citizen involvement in neighborhood traffic management activities; · Provide a process that will address neighborhood traffic concerns; and, · Provide a process that will facilitate local traffic management requests. ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTIFICATION The two basic elements of neighborhood traffic calming are the roadway functional classification and neighborhood identification. Classifying roadways according to their mobility function and interaction with adjacent land uses assists in defining the roadway types that are suited for traffic calming strategies. Roadway Classification In the City of Temecula there are five functional roadway classifications. The classifications are Arterial, Major, Secondary, Principal Collector, and Local. Since the goal of any traffic calming strategy is to reduce the opportunity for shortcutting and/or speeding on residential streets, the focus of the traffic calming strategies will be on local streets, or streets that are primarily residential in nature. Neighborhood Identification Traffic calming strategies will be focused on neighborhoods, particularly those where traffic patterns have changed. Each neighborhood is unique and it is recognized that individual features or characteristics will be important considerations in any application of traffic calming techniques. Input from residents of a particular neighborhood will be solicited early in the process to define traffic problems and assist in identifying the boundaries of the area of impact. Local characteristics and neighborhood identities will be important factors to consider when analyzing each problem and developing mitigation measures. R:\traffic\policy\traffic calming program/ajp IMPLEMENTATION CONDISERATIONS Financial Impacts The costs for analyzing requests and implementing traffic calming strategies are variable and there is a wide range of costs from inexpensive to capital intensive. The lower cost strategies include enforcement, educational programs, signage and installing roadway markings. A change to the physical layout of the roadway often demands more financial resources. During the evaluation of traffic calming strategies, staff may determine that mitigation measures be tested incrementally to minimize unnecessary major expenditures. The City' s budget generally covers the cost of installing and maintaining traffic control devices and speed undulations. The availability of funds for the installation of roadway design features will be dependent on overall priorities identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). In circumstances where cost- intensive traffic calming strategies are needed, it may be necessary to weigh the timing of their installation against other demands on the CIP. Additionally, costs associated with the maintenance of the landscaping at roadway design features will need to be programmed in the CIP. Liability and Legal Issues Traffic calming strategies may fall into one of two categories, traffic control devices or roadway design features. Traffic control devices regulate, warn or guide motorists on roadways. There is defined methodolgy tbr assessing their applicability to certain roadway conditions and characteristics. These conditions and characteristics are defined in the California Vehicle Code and the State of California, Department of Transportation, Traffic Manual. Traffic control devices are nationally and internationally standardized and are easily recognized by a majority of drivers. Variation from these standards often results in driver confusion and may create liability problems for the jurisdiction. Roadway design features constitute physical changes to a roadway designed to make it inconvenient or perceptibly more time consuming to use a local street. Typically roadway design features are permanent modifications to the width, surface or alignment of the roadway. Examples of roadway design features include speed undulations, median islands, chokers, traffic circles, and street closures. These features also cause inconvenience for the local residents and may result in increased emergency vehicle response times. Roadway design features are not recognized in California as traffic control devices, but local governments are empowered to install them. All features must take into consideration the liability and legal issues before their implementation. Because roadway design features require modification of the roadway geometrics or other changes to the roadway, the City could incur some liability. This liability could be significant if it is proven that the altered roadway configuration presents a safety hazard. Although the City of Temecula has a road closure policy in place, the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program does not recognize a road closure or permanent barricade as a viable traffic calming strategy. Therefore, road closures and/or permanent barricades are not included in the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program 2 R:\traffic\policy\traffic calming program/ajp Physical Impacts Traffic calming strategies that involve traffic control devices and roadway design features may have impacts that include increased noise, air pollution, visual intrusion, restricted access, removal of on-street parking, increased emergency response times, and obstacles to bicycles and pedestrians. Impacts to Emergency Vehicles Traffic calming devices that alter the roadway or create obstacles in the path of a vehicle can increase the response times for emergency personnel. The delay in response time will vary depending on the characteristics of the roadway and the traffic calming device, the availability of alternate routes, and the type of emergency vehicle. Impacts to Utility Vehicles and Buses Traffic calming devices that alter the roadway may have an impact on utility trucks, trash collection trucks, transit buses, dial-a-ride vehicles, and school buses. Vehicles on repetitive routes that access roadways that have speed undulations may experience maintenance or replacement of parts more frequently. Likewise, vehicles that access roadways with traffic circles will experience maneuverability problems. Impacts to Surrounding Streets Both categories of traffic calming strategies may impact the quality of life at adjacent neighborhoods by diverting traffic to the surrounding street network. While this may serve the intended purpose to reduce vehicle speeds and volumes on a certain roadway, it may mean that all traffic, local and non-local will use parallel or adjacent roadways more frequently. Due care will be exercised to minimize the negative or unintended impacts to adjacent roadways and neighborhoods. Potentially impacted residents and property owners will be notified of any proposed action, and will be given an opportunity to provide input before any decision is made. Impacts to Residents All roadway design features will result in an inconvenience to the residents that use the roadway on a daily basis. Some type of roadway design features may reduce accessibility to residential driveways. Loss of On-Street Parking The installation of traffic control devices, pavement markings, and/or roadway design features may require the removal of on-street parking to accommodate the implementation of the feature and maximize the visibility to approaching vehicles. Aesthetics Roadway design features such as traffic circles can be made aesthetically pleasing by installing landscaping, pavers, textured pavement or other hardscape. Other traffic calming devices such as speed undulations cannot be aesthetically enhanced. All traffic control devices and roadway design features will require standardized signing, striping and markings in colors and at locations that may not be aesthetically pleasing. The City will strive to make all traffic calming devices as aesthetically pleasing as possible and as cost effective as possible. 3 R:\traf~c\policy\traffic calming program/ajp Drainage Roadway design features may impact the capacity of catch basins, cross-gutters, or other drainage facilities. Staff will ensure that any roadway modification does not negatively impact drainage or cause the ponding of water on the roadway. Landscape Irrigation When landscaping is proposed as part of the roadway modification feature, consideration must be given to the location of the irrigation source. Providing irrigation to a landscaped traffic circle may be cost prohibitive. This may result in the selection of other traffic calming devices or treatments. 4 R:\traffic\policy\traffic calming program/ajp CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING TECHNIQUES Neighborhood traffic calming is most efficient when directed at reducing vehicular volumes and speeds in residential areas. The criteria listed below define the roadways and portions thereof that qualify for traffic calming consideration. The criteria constitutes a guideline for application of traffic calming techniques. Residential streets must satisfy the following basic parameters: A roadway or portion thereof must llO(c be designated on the City's General Plan Circulation Plan. General Plan roadways are expected to provide major connections to a variety of land uses throughout the City. Volumes and speeds are expected to be higher than those on local roadways. 2. Candidate roadway segments must be at least V2 mile in length. Traffic calming strategies are more effective on bad driving habits on longer stretches of roadway. 3. The average daily traffic must significantly exceed the expected volumes based on the number of dwelling units accessing the subject roadway. Residential areas typically generate 10 vehicles per day per household. An average daily traffic volume between 1,200 to 2,500 vehicles per day can be expected on a typical residential roadway, depending on the characteristics. Traffic calming techniques will address vehicular volumes that exceed the expected volumes, providing disincentives to using neighborhood roadways as a cut-through or bypass route. 4. The 85lh percentile speed must exceed the posted or prima facie speed limit by 10 miles per hour. The pnma facie speed limit on residential roadways is 25 miles per hour as mandated by the Califomia Vehicle Code. Engineering and Traffic Surveys have shown that typical 85Ih percentile speeds on residential streets range from 30 to 34 miles per hour, despite the posted or prima Iitcie speed limit. By addressing vehicular speeds that are above the 85~h percentile, traffic calming techniques will focus on driver behavior that is considered unreasonable for conditions. While intrusive traffic calming devices such as speed undulations and traffic circles are intended to target the minority (15th percentile) of drivers that do not adhere to the established laws, these devices will affect the majority of the drivers (85th percentile), who comply with the existing laws. 5 R:\lraffic\policy\traffic calming program/ajp APPLICATION PROCESS Neighborhood traffic calming is intended to be progressive in nature, with City staff working in conj unction with neighborhood representatives to determine the problem and identify the appropriate solution. The City of Temecula's Neighbor Traffic Calming Program will address traffic calming strategies in a two-stage approach. Stage 1 is comprised of actions that are primarily education and enforcement based. Stage 2 involves the use of roadway design features intended to reduce vehicular speeds and volumes. Listed below are the traffic calming tools that may be used during each stage of the program. Stage 1 Education and Enforcement · Neighborhood Traffic Safety Awareness Program - The first step in any traffic calming strategy is to educate neighborhood drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, residents, nonresidents, children and adults of existing traffic laws and roadway responsibilities. The City of Temecula has developed pamphlets that are geared to providing a greater awareness of the roles of the road. Radar Speed Trailer Deployment - When appropriate, the radar speed monitoring trailer will be used to educate motorists by advising them of their travel speed. The radar speed trailer can also be used to show the residents that actual travel speeds may not be as high as they are perceived. Neighborhood Speed Watch Program - The purpose of this program is to help neighborhood groups identify vehicles that are significantly exceeding the prima facie or posted speed limit by use of the City provided "hand held" radar monitoring device. The offenders could be notified and warned by mail. · Traditional Enforcement - This action is intended to modify driver behavior that will result in satyr conditions for neighbors and drivers alike. · Speed Limit Signs - Post 25-MPH speed limit signs and pavement markings on residential streets to reinforce the prima facie speed limit. Residential Multi-Way Stop Controls - Where appropriate, multi-way stop signs are installed to establish the right-of-way at residential street intersections. The warrant criteria for the use of multi-way stop controls is may be lower than the arterial roadway criteria. When used inappropriately, stop signs have been ineffective at controlling or reducing vehicular speeds and volumes on residential streets. Studies have shown that driver compliance with traffic control devices decreases and vehicular speeds increase between the "stop" locations. Unwarranted stop signs increase unnecessary noise and air pollution and o/~en cause inconvenience to drivers who comply with existing laws. Where education and enforcement fall short of addressing the perceived speeding and volume problem. the City will analyze the feasibility of installing roadway design features. These Stage 2 engineering strategies will be evaluated on their effectiveness in achieving the desired reduction in vehicular speeds and volumes. The benefit of the roadway design feature will be weighed against any adverse impact to adjacent roadways and neighborhoods. The Stage 2 features should be implemented as a temporary measure prior to installation of a permanent design feature. The minimum evaluation period shall be 4 months. 6 R:\traffic\policy\traffic calming program/ajp Stage 2 -Roadway Design Features · Pavement Markings - This roadway design feature narrows the travel way by striping a centerline and edge lines or bike lanes along a segment of roadway. This feature has proven to be effective in certain situations but may not be appropriate at every location. Bike lane striping may eliminate on-street parking. Speed Undulations - There is a policy in place for the use of speed undulations on residential streets. Speed undulations have proven effective at reducing vehicular speeds, but not vehicular volumes. This roadway design feature may not be appropriate at every location and there are several disadvantages associated with their implementation. Traffic Circles - This roadway design feature is a raised circular island typically installed in the middle of a residential street intersection. To date, the traffic circle has proven ineffective in reducing overall vehicular speeds although speeds were reduced at the traffic circle location. This roadway design feature may not be appropriate at every location. POLICIES The policies of the neighborhood traffic calming program will be communicated in the application process. The policies listed below will be followed throughout the analysis and final determination phases. 1. Safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and residents is the prime concern of this program. 2. Significant vehicular volumes must not be diverted from one local roadway to another. 3. Emergency vehicle access must be preserved. 4. Auto, pedestrian, and bicycle access must be maintained for residents living within the traffic calming area of impact. 5. All traffic control devices installed must comply with the California Vehicle Code. 6. Roadway design features will be planned and designed according to accepted engineering practice. 7. The least intrusive traffic calming strategy will be implemented first. If the strategy is found to be ineffective after a reasonable evaluation period, the City may consider more extensive strategies. PROCESS Step 1. Communicating a Request for Traffic Calming Measures To initiate a request for neighborhood traffic calming, an Application for Consideration of Traffic Calming Measures must be completed. This form identifies the nature of the perceived problem, the location and type of relief requested, and the contact person making the request. It is highly advisable that the residents gather as much support as possible for the requested action. After receipt of the application form, staff will identify the area of impact and provide a petition form to thc contact person identified on the application. Signatures representing at least 60% of households within the affected area are necessary to initiate an analysis of the perceived problem. Each household is entitled to only one signature. Nonresident property owners and their tenants must decide who should sign the petition. 7 R:\traffic\policy\traffic calming program/ajp Step 2. Analysis Following the receipt of the application form and petition, Public Works staff will begin the review and analysis process. The analysis will include the gathering of relevant information, including but not limited to vehicular volume data, vehicular speed data, pedestrian and bicycle activity, recorded accident history, roadway characteristics, and nearby land uses. During the review process staff will meet with the residents of the affected area to receive input and ddine the issues. The evaluation of the request will be conducted m conformante with accepted traffic engineering practices and standards. Based on the results of the evaluation, staff will determine the existence and magnitude of the traffic related problem and recommend an appropriate traffic calming strategy. A conservative traffic calming approach will be taken with the least intrusive strategy being implemented first. Step 3. Consideration by Public/Traffic Safety Commission Following the completion of the evaluation, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission will consider the issue at their regular meeting. The residents of the affected area will be notified by mail or through their designated representative, of the date that the issue will be considered. In some cases, the issue will be forwarded to the City Council for their approval of the recommended action. Step 4. Consideration by the City Council Following the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration, the City Council will consider the issue and provide a final recommendation. Step 5 Implementation Emphasis wilI be placed on the implementation of Stage 1 traffic calming strategies. If Stage 1 strategies fail to achieve the desired results then Stage 2 strategies may be considered. In situations where Stage 2 traffic calming strategies are necessary, temporary design features will be implemented for a period of approximately four months. During the four-month period the effectiveness of the roadway design feature to reduce vehicular speeds and volumes will be measured. The timing of implementation of a permanent improvement will depend on the results of the evaluation and available funding. Step 6 Evaluation Following the implementation of the traffic calming strategies, a data collection effort will be undertaken to determine the effectiveness of the devices. This "follow-up" data will provide valuable information that may be used when considering similar devices at other locations. 8 R:\traffic\policy\traffic calming program/ajp TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLS Education NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC SAFETY AWARENESS PROGRAM Stage 1 Tool Consists of activities that inform and seek to modify driver behavior. Techniques include printed information, meetings, and workshops between staff and residents, signing campaign, enforcement activities, school programs, parent outreach, etc... Advantages · Can be relatively effective and inexpensive · involves and empowers citizens · Works well with other mitigation tools Disadvantages · Not as effective on non-localized traffic · Can be time consuming · May take time to be effective · Effectiveness may decrease over time Education RADAR SPEED TRAILER DEPLOYMENT Stage 1 Tool Portable radar speed monitoring device capable of measuring vehicular speeds and displaying the speed to advise motorists of their speed. Advantages · Educational tool · Very good public relations tool · Useful especially in areas where spot speed reduction is necessary Disadvantages · Requires periodic enforcement · Effective for limited duration Unit moves frequently which requires personnel Education NEIGHBORHOOD SPEED WATCH PROGRAM Stage 1 Tool This program will help neighborhood groups identify vehicles that are significantly exceeding the prima facie speed limit or posted speed limit. Residents will use a "hand held" speed-monitoring device to measure vehicle speeds. Advantages · Educational tool · Very good public relations tool · Allo~vs identification of vehicles that are significantly exceeding the speed limit Disadvantages · Requires periodic enforcement · Effective for limited duration · Can be time consuming En forcem en t TRADITONAL ENFORCEMENT Stage 1 Tool Periodic monitoring of speeding and other violations by the police department. Advantages · Good temporary public relations tool · Serves to inform public that speeding is unacceptable behavior for which there are consequences Disadvantages · Effect is not permanent · Enforcement is an expensive tool · Can be time consuming Enforcement SPEED LIMT SIGNS Stage 1 Tool Post speed limit signs on residential sweets to reinforce the prima facie speed limit. SPEED LIMIT Advantages · Educational tool · Reinforces prima facie speed limit Disadvantages · May have negligible impacts on speeds · Overuse is counterproductive En fo cen? en t RESIDENTIAL MULTI-WAY STOP CONTROLS Stage 1 Tool Install multi-way stop controls to establish right-of-way and reduce vehicle conflicts at residential street intersections. Stop controls will not be implemented to control vehicular speeds and volumes. Advantages · Reduces vehicle conflicts by assigning right-of-way Disadvantages · Increased noise near stops · Increased emissions · May induce non-compliance of traffic control devices · Does not reduce vehicular speeds Roadway Design Feature PAVEMENT MARKINGS Stage 2 Tool This feature narrows the travel way by striping a centerline and an edge line or bike lane along a segment of roadway. Advantages · Inexpensive · May reduce speed · Edge treatment increases pedestrian and bicyclists safety · Low maintenance Disadvantages · May not be as effective as other physical improvements · May eliminate on-street parking Roadway Design Feature SPEED UNDULATIONS Stage 2 Tool Speed undulations are wave shaped humps in the roadway which when ideally placed at 300 feet apart can reduce vehicular speeds by 5 to 10 MPH. Advantages · Reduces vehicular speeds in the vicinity of undulation · Self enforcing · Relatively inexpensive Disadvantages · May create noise · May be a problem for emergency vehicles · May impact drainage · Vehicular speeds may increase between undulations · May increase vehicular volumes on other sweets · Requires signage that may be considered unsightly Roadway Design Feature TRAFFIC CIRCLES Stage 2 Tool A small circular island placed in the center of existing residential street intersection. Advantages Reduces vehicular speeds at intersection · Effective at four-way intersections · Provides area for landscaping · Provides equal access to intersection for all drivers Disadvantages · May be restrictive for larger vehicles · May increase volumes on adjacent streets · May increase vehicle speeds between circle locations · Maintenance responsibility if landscaped · Required signing may be unsightly · May put pedestrians and bicyclists more at risk due to vehicle deflection · Loss of on-street parking · Unlawful left turns may compromise safety CITY OF TEMECULA APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES Please fill out and mail this form to the City of Temecula, Public Works Department, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Califomia 92589-9033, or fax to (909) 694-6475. Date Contact Person Street Address Phone # Fax # E-mail (if available) Please indicate the location or street where you believe a problem exists. Be as specific as possible as to the location, time of day, day of week, and the problem being observed. Thank you for your input. R:\traffic\policy\traffic aiming program/ajp ANALYSIS PHASE All requests for traffic calming measures will include the following: · An approved application describing the perceived problem; and · An indication of participation of the residents who would be impacted by the problem and/or requested traffic calming measures. Following the receipt of the application for consideration of traffic calming measures, staff will: 1. Determine the area of impact and provide a petition form to the listed contact person for the collection of the necessary signatures. Signatures representing at least 60% of households within the affected area are necessary to initiate an analysis of the perceived problem. Each household is entitled to only one signature. Nonresident property owners and their tenants must decide who should sign the petition. 2. Meet with the area residents to define the problem and develop solutions. Residents within a localized area will be advised of the request and invited to participate in identifying the perceived problem and developing solutions. 3. Evaluate the request according to accepted traf. Ftc engineering practice and standards. The analysis will include the gathering of relevant information, including but not limited to vehicular volume data, vehicular speed data, pedestrian and bicycle activity, recorded accident history, roadway characteristics, and nearby land uses. The vehicular volume and speed data collection will be performed by an independent contractor hired by the City of Temecula. 4. Determine a solution, if necessary. Based on the results of the evaluation, staff will determine the existence and magnitudes of the traff c related problem and recommend an appropriate traffic calming strategy. A conservative traffic calming approach will be taken with the least intrusive strategy being implemented first. 5. Communicate the results of the evaluation to the requesting parties and residents within the area of impact. Residents will be notified by mail of the results of the evaluation. The City may poll affected residents and property owners to determine the acceptability of potential traffic calming measures that may be suggested. 6. Present the results of the evaluation to the Public/Traf. ftc Safety Commission attd solicit pnblic input. 7. Consideration by the City Council. 8. Implement traffic calming measures 9. Evaluate the results 2 R:\traffic\policy\traffic calming program/ajp &TOP 6ICN6 WHY DON'T THEY PUT IN MORE STOP SIGNS? A' stop sign is one of our most valuable and effective control devices when used at the right place and under the right conditions. It is intended to help drivers and pedestrians at an intersection decide who has the right-of*way. One common misuse of stop signs is to arbitrarily interrupt through traffic, either by causing it to stop, or by causing such an inconvenience as to force the traffic to use other routes. Where stop signs are installed as "nuisances" or "speed breakers," there is a high incidence of intentional violation. In those locations where vehicles do stop, the speed reduction is effective only in the immediate vicinity of the stop sign, and frequently speeds are actually higher between intersections. For these reasons, it should not be used as a speed control device. A school crossing may look dangerous for children to use, causing parents to demand a stop sign to halt traffic. Now a vehicle which had been a problem for 3 seconds while approaching and passing the intersection becomes a problem for a much longer period, A situation of indecision is created as to when to cross as a pedestrian or when to start as a motorist. Normal gaps in traffic through which crossings could be made safely no longer exist. An intersection which previously was not busy now looks like a major intersection. It really isn't -- it just looks like it. It doesn't even look safer and it usually isn't. Most drivers are reasonable and prudent with no intention of maliciously violating traffic regulations; however, when an unreasonable restriction is imposed, it may result in flagrant violations. In such cases, the stop sign can create a false sense of security in a pedestrian and an attitude of contempt in a motorist. These two attitudes can and often do conflict with tragic results. Well-developed, nationally recognized guidelines help to indicate when such controls become necessary. These guidelines take into consideration, among other things, the probability of vehiclcs striving at an intersection at the same time, the length of time traffic must wait to enter, and the availability of safe crossing opportunities. CDOeSeSWALKe5 WHEN IS A CROSSWALK UNSAFE? Apparently, whenever it is painted on the street! A number of years back, the City of San Diego published some startling results of a very extensive study of the relative safety of marked and unmarked crosswalks. San Diego looked at 400 intersections for five years (without signals or four-way stops) that had a marked crosswalk on one side and an unmarked crosswalk on the other, About two and one half times as many pedestrians used the marked crosswalk, but about six times as many accidents were reported in the marked crosswalks! Long Beach studied pedestrian safety for three years (1972 through 1974} and found eight times as many reported pedestrian accidents at intersections with marked crosswalks than at those without. One explanation of this apparent contradiction of common sense is the false security pedestrians feel at the marked cromvalk. Two painted lines do not provide protection against an oncoming vehicle and the real burden of safety has to be on the pedestrian to be alert and cautious while crossing any street. A pedestrian can stop in less than three feet, while a vehicle traveling at 25 MPH will require 60 feet and at 35 MPH approximately 100 feet. ~ ' :' The California Vehicle Code says that a crosswalk exists at all intersections unless pedestrian crossing is prohibited by signs. Some of these crosswalks are marked with painted lines. but most of them are not. Pedestrian crosswalk marking is a method of encouraging pedestrians to use a particular crossing. Such marked crossings may not be as safe as an unmarked crossing at the same location. Therefore, crosswalks should be marked only where necessary for the guidance and control of pedestrians, to direct them to the safest of several potential rouZes. LANE& WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET SOME BIKEWAYS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD? Bikeways have raised a lot of interest in the past few years. Some cities have built separate off-road bike paths. Many more have painted bike lanes on streets. Others have installed green "Bike Route" signs witl~out the special lanes, The cost of both building and maintaining bikeways can be a deterrent to many city bike programs. Initial cost can range from a few dollars to paint a lane to a small fortune to build a separate path including special bridges where needed. Before plunging into a bikeway program, your city or county should look at the total problem of bicycle operation and safety. Bike lanes and signs alone cannot solve the problem of bicycle accidents; in some places they have increased the problem by giving riders a false sense of security. An overall bicycle safety program should include: enforcement of traffic laws; bike safety training in the schools at an early age; follow-up training every year in the schools; and involvement of the parents of minor children who violate traffic laws or exhibit dangerous riding habits. The overwhelming cause of bicycle accidents is violation of the RULES OF THE ROAD. If these recommendations seem to b9 oriented toward the younger set, there is good reason, Over 70 percent of cyclists involved in accidents were violating a traffic law; over 60 percent were age 17 or under. It only makes good sense to emphasize the . children in training programs, since they are the principal users of bicycles, The bike program for your community should include three principal points: 1. Education in safe riding. 2. Enforcement of rules of the road. 3. Development of well-engineered bike lanes and bike paths. This will involve the active participation of: 1. The schools. 2. The police or sheriff. 3. The traffic engineers; and, of course, you, the citizen. eSPEED LIM ITe5 WHEN WILL A LOWER SPEED LIMIT BE POSTED ON MY STREET? A common belief is that posting a speed limit will influence drivers to drive at that speed. The facts indicate otherwise. Research conducted in many parts of this country over a span of several decades has shown that drivers are influenced more by the appearance of the highway itself and the prevailing traffic conditions than by the posted speed limit. California's Basic Speed Law requires that: "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is responsible or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." Under California law, the maximum speed limit for any passenger vehicle is now 55 miles per hour. All other speed limits are called prima facie limits, which "on the face of it" are safe and prudent under normal conditions. Certain prima facie limits are established by law and include the 25 MPH limit in business and residential districts, the 15 MPH limit in alleys, at blind intersections and blind railroad crossings and a part time 25 MPH limit in school zones when children are going to and from school. These speeds are not always posted but all California motorists are required to know these basic 15, 25, and 55 mile per hour speed laws. Intermediate speed limits between 25 and 55 miles per hour may be established by local authorities on the basis of traffic engineering surveys. These surveys include an analysis of roadway conditions, accident records, and the prevailing speed of prudent drivers. If speed limit signs are posted for a lower limit than is needed to safely meet these conditions, many drivers will simply ignore the signs. At the same time, other drivers will stay within the posted limits. This generally increases the conflicts between faster and slower drivers, reduces l~he gaps in traffic through which crossings could be made safely and increases the difficulty for pedestrians to judge the speed of approaching vehicles. Studies have shown that where uniformity of speed is not maintained, accidents generally increase. TI AFFIC o3IGNAL& DOES SOMEBODY HAVE TO BE KILLED BEFORE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WILL BE INSTALLED? Traffic signals don't always prevent accidents. They are not always an asset to traffic control. in some instances, total accidents and severe injuries increased after signals were installed. Usually, in such instances, right angle collisions were reduced by the traffic signals, but the total number of collisions, especially the rear-end type, increased. There are times when the installation of signals results in an increase in pedestrian accidents, Many pedestrians feet secure with a painted crosswalk and a red light between them and an approaching vehicle. The motorist, on the other hand, is not always so quick to recognize these "barriers," When can a traffic signal be an asset instead of a liability to safety? In order to answer this, traffic engineers have to ask and answer a series of questions: 1. Are there so many cars oR both streets that signal controls are necessary to clear up the confusion or relieve the congestion? 2. Is the traffic on the main street so heavy that drivers on the side street will try to cross when it is unsafe? 3. Are there so many pedestrians trying to cross a busy main street that confusing, congested or hazardous conditions resutt? 4. Are there so many school children trying to cross the street at the same time that they need special controls for their protection? If so, is a traffic signal the best solution? 5. Are signals at this location going to help drivers maintain a uniform pace along the route without stopping unnecessarily? 6. Does the collision history indicate that signal controls will reduce the probability of collisions? 7. Do two arterials intersect at this location and will a signal help improve the flow of traffic? 8. Is there a combination of the above conditions which indicates that a signal will be an improvement rather than a detriment? To aid them in answering these questions, engineers compare :'the existing conditions against nationally accepted minimum ' guidelines. These guidelines (often called "Warrants") were established from many observations at intersections throughout the country by experienced traffic engineers. Where the guidelines were met, the signals generally were operating effectively with good public compliance. Where the guidelines were not met, public compliance was reduced, and additional hazards resulted. A traffic signal that decreases accidents and improves the flow of traffic is an asset to any community. On the other hand, an ill-advised or poorly designed signal can be a source of danger and annoyance to all who use the intersection; pedestrians, cyclists and drivers alike. CHILDREN AT PLAY WHY WON'T THEY PUT UP "CHILDREN AT PLAY" SIGNS? An often heard neighborhood request concerns the posting of generalized warning signs with "SLOW-CHI LDREN AT PLAY" or other similar messages. Parental concern for the safety of children in the street near home, and a misplaced but wide-spread public faith in traffic signs to provide protection often prompt these requests. Although some other states have posted such signs widely in residential areas, no factual evidence has been presented to document their success in reducing pedestrian accidents. operating speeds or legal liability. Studies have shown that many types of signs attempting to warn of normal conditions in residential areas have failed to achieve the desired safety benefits. ff signs encourage parents and children to believe they have an added degree of protection, which the signs do not and cannot provide, a great disservice results. Because of these serious considerations, California law does not recognize, and Federal Standards discourage, use of "Children at Play" signs. Specific warnings for schools, playgrounds, parks and other recreational facilities are available for use where clearly justified. Children should not be encouraged to play within the street travelways. Ti~e sign has long been rejected since it is a direct and open suggestion that this behavior is acceptable. ITEM NO. 5 TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Activi(v Report January/February 2000 Prepared By: Amer Attar Submitted by: William G. Hughes Date: FebmaW 22, 2000 PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION 1. 1-15/Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvement Work on this project is almost complete. Only change order work remains. 2. Pala Road Bridge Construction of the bridge is almost complete. The Rainbow Canyon detour and Cupeno closure is to be implemented the same day the bridge is set to open, February 22, 2000. 3. Pujol Street Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter Constraction on this project started on January 20, 2000. The improvements include the construction of curb and gutter, sidewalk, asphalt concrete pavement, driveways and driveway approaches and extending a storm drain line. Contractor completed all tree ramovals, mlocated RCWD water meters. and in the process of completing the clearing and grubbing and extending the storm drain line. Completion is scheduled for April 2000. 4. Pavement Management System FY99-16, Winchester Road This project will rehabilitate Winchester Road from Diaz to Jefferson. The City Council awarded the contract to E. L Yeager for $360,440. The pre-construction meeting was held on February 9, 2000. Construction is set to start late February and be completed in April 2000. 5. Margarita Community Park Lighting and Fencing This project will install new light assembly on the existing poles and install a new fence in margarita Park Construction on this project started on February 7. 2000. The contractor installed the fence and began trenching and installing the conduit. Project completion is expected in early March 2000. 6. First Street Bridge This project will construct First Street from Pujol Street to Front Street, including the construction of a bridge over Mumeta Creek and the realignment of Santiago Road. The new intersection of First Street, Front Street and Santiago Road will be signalized. Bids were opened on January 27, 2000. Riverside Construction was the lowest bidder with a bid price of $4,522,222. The pre-construction meeting is set for February/24, 2000 and construction is to start shortly thereafter. Completion is scheduled for January 2001. R :XMonthlyActivityReport\ClP\99XJanuary 7. North General Kearney ~ La Colima Walkway This project will install a walkway from base material along the existing AC benn on North General Kearny and add an AC berm to close the gap between the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk and berm. An informal bidding procedure was conducted. McLaughlin Engineering and Mining, Inc. was the lowest responsible bidder with a bid amount of $15,235. Construction is to start as soon as the contract is signed and the PO is issued. PROJECTS IN DESIGN 1. Pavement Management System This project will provide street rehabilitation of Jefferson Avenue from the northerly City limits to Rancho California Road. This project will also include the installation of streetlights along the entire length of Jefferson Avenue. 2. Old Town Southside Parking Lots This project consists of two proposed parking lots. One will be located on the west side of Front Street just north of Second Street, and the other lot is located on the south side of Fourth Street west of Front Street. The project is currently being designed in-house. A landscape architect and an electrical consultant are being utilized to do the specialty work. The design for the Second Street parking lot is being l'malized. Design for Fourth Street Parking Lot is on hold pending the Mercantile building plans. 3. Diaz Road Realignment The consultant presented to the City two different alignments for Diaz as it is approaching Rancho California Road. Staff reviewed the available three alignment choices (one from a previous study) and gave the consultant direction on the preferred alternative. The consultant submitted 30% completed plans based on staff direction. Staff completed a traffic circulation and right of way impact analysis and a preferred alignment has been established. Individual meetings will be held with property owners to discuss and present to them the new alignment and its impacts to their properties. 4. Margarita Road Widening, Pauba Road to Dartolo Road The consultant completed 70% plans and submitted them to the City. Staff reviewed these plans and provided the consultant with input and comments on many issues that were raised. The design is moving forward. Completion is expected in March 2000. 5. Santa Gertrudis Bridge Widening at 1-15 This is Phase II of the Southbound Auxiliary Lane at Winchester Road project. This project will widen the 1-15 southbound off-ramp at the Santa Gertrudis Creek Bridge to provide for an additional lane from the freeway to just north of Winchester Road, The design consultant submitted the 1~t plan check to the City and Caltrans the first week of January. Staff is currently reviewing the plans and providing the consultant with input. Comments from Caltrans are pending. 6. Traffic Signals Design at Pala Road and Loma Linda and at Pala Road and Wolf Valley The consultant is in the process of submitting the preliminary design plans to the City Final plans will be 2 R:~MonthlyActivityReporl\CIP\99Uanuary completed in March and the project will be ready to advertise for bids. 7. Pala Road Improvements - Phase lI (79 South to Pechanga Road) Design of this project is proceeding as scheduled. Preliminary design work include geotcchnical investigation, environmental assessment, surveying and utility research. In addition, staff is coordinating the work with the Pechangas and Spring Pacific Properties, the developer for Wolf Creek. The design is to be completed in August. 8. Avenida De La Reina Drainage Improvements (~ Calle Aragon Park Staff is designmg a storm drain line to can'y nuisance water that accumulates at the park to the City's storm dram system and fix the drainage problem. The grade of the proposed storm drain line is being adjusted to accommodate an 8" water line. This project is scheduled for bidding in March 2000. 9. Sports Park Tot Lot Equipment Replacement This project will replace the tot lot equipment at the Rancho Califorma Sports Park. Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimate (PS & E) are complete. Since CDBG fimds (Federal) are funding this project, the PS&E documents were sent to the Economic Development Agency (EDA) for review and approval. Project will be advertised as soon as EDA approval is received. 10. Rancho California Road Median Modifications at Town Center Under this project, the two median openings at Target and at the Clahn Jumper will be closed and the left turn pockets at Town Center and the church will be lengthened. 11. Sports Park Pond Desiltation This project will clean up the Desiltation Pond in the Sports Park by removing silt from it to allow proper drainage downstream. The consultant, Armstrong Development Services, is currently making their fatal revisions to the design plans. Construction is scheduled for May 2000. 12. Adding an Additional Lane On Ynez Road Between Tierra Vista and Rancho Vista This project will add a second southbound lane to Ynez Road between Tierra Vista and Rancho Vista. Staff is working on the design of this project and a modified striping plan for Ynez Road within the proposed project. 13. Senior Center Expansion The expansion will include and addition of 3000 square feet of building area for recreational, office, and meeting purposes. The project is currently under design. 14. Chaparral High School Swimming Pool An Olympic size swunming pool will be conslmcted inside Chaparral High School. The kick-offmeeting for the design comn~ttee, indluding the architect RKIVI Design Group, City staff, School District staff and the swim club, was held on January 11, 2000. A commtmity workshop was held on February 12, 2000 at the high school. The architect is currently reviewing the community input with staff 15. Temecula Library A full service library., approximately 35.000 square feet in area will be designed and built on Pauba Road, next 3 R:hMonthlyActivityRepoa\CIP~99~lanuary to Fire Station #84. This project will provide the community with library resources and services. The design conumttce kick-offmceting was held on January 25, 2000. A layout and a theme were approved by the design committee. The architect and the engineer are looking into alternatives for site preparation (retaining walls vs. extensive slope grading). In addition, The cormmttee is reviewing and discussing buildIng form and appearance. 4 R:XMonthlyActivilyReporlXCIP\99XJanuary 0 0 o o o o o o TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent February 1, 2000 Monthly Activity Report - January, 2000 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for the month Of January, 2000: I. SIGNS A. Total signs replaced 20 B. Total signs installed 7 C. Total signs repaired 3 II. TREES A. Total trees tdmmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns 4 III. ASPHALT REPAIRS A. Total square feet Of A. C. repairs B. Total Tons 3~282 68 IV. VI. VII. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations B. Total S.F. STENCILING A. 9 New and repainted legends B. 300 L.F. of new and repainted red curb and stdping 222 25~803 27 3~086 Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 32 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 33 service order requests for the month of January. 2000. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 58 hours of overtime which includes standby tim, spedal events and response to street emergencies. The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of January, 2000 was $26~606.00 compared to $48~876.75 forthe month of Decenther, '1999. Account No. 5402 Account No. 5401 Account No. 999-5402 $10,251.00 $10,305.00 $ 1,050.00 cc: Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works All Moghadam, Senior Engineer - (CIP/Traffic) Greg Butler, Senior Engineer - (Capital Improvements) Amer Attar, Senior Engineer - (Capital Improvements) Jerry Alegala, Senior Engineer - (Land Development) ITEM NO. 6 POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT ITEM NO. 7 FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT ITEM NO. 8 COMMISSION REPORTS