HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-02; Traffic Safety Commission; ; Requested that a crosswalk be painted on Carlsbad Boulevard at the intersection of Cerezo DriveCITY OF CARLSBAD
I
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
COMMISSION REPORT OF: November 2, 1987 ITEM NO. 6A
LOCATION: Intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Cerezo Drive
INITIATED BY: Bailey Noble, P.O. Box 860, Carlsbad, California 92008
BACKGROUND:
DATA:
In his letter of August 24, 1987, Mr. Noble has requested that a crosswalk
be painted on Carlsbad Boulevard at the intersection of Cerezo Drive.
Frequent requests are received by the City of Carlsbad Traffic Engineering
Division to have painted crosswalks installed at various uncontrolled
intersections as a safety device. These requests are denied unless a
traffic engineering study determines that such crosswalk markings are
necessary to encourage concentrations of pedestrians at an intersection or
at other points within the roadway.
Several studies conducted by other agencies have found a higher number of
accidents for marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersection than unmarked
crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections. The reasons cited for this
statistic is that the pedestrian perceives the painted crosswalk (two
white stripes six to ten feet apart) as a safety device. The assumption
of the pedestrian in a painted crosswalk is that he will be "protected "
by the markings. Such an assumption is what leads to the false sense of
security on the part of the pedestrian and hence, a reduced pedestrian awareness of approaching vehicles.
Undeniably, the perception of the painted crosswalk is different to the
pedestrian crossing between the two painted stripes and the driver in the
vehicle approaching the crosswalk. A pedestrian views the crosswalk as two
painted 12-inch wide stripes (white or yellow) separated by a distance of
six (6) to ten (10) feet. The motor vehicle operator, however viewing the
marked crosswalk at an extremely oblique angle, sees the painted stripe as
an extremely thin single yellow or white line. Compounding problems that
the driver has of seeing the painted stripes are pavement imperfections,
faded lines and environmental conditions. Therefore, it cannot be assumed
TRAFFIC SAFID COMMISSION
COMMISSION REPORT OF: November 2, 1987
(Continued)
ITEM NO. 6A
that any significant information is transmitted to the operator of the
motor vehicle.
The California Vehicle Code (CVC) states that there are a minimum of three
crosswalks at each intersection. Furthermore, the CVC states that the driver
shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian at an intersection within a
marked or unmarked crosswalk. Incumbent upon the pedestrian is the
requirement to exercise due care for his personal safety when leaving the
curb or other pl ace of safety and not walk or run into the path of a
vehicle so as to constitute an immediate hazard. Thus, responsibility is
placed on both the motor vehicle operator and the pedestrian at a location
that the pedestrian desires to cross.
In evaluating the request for a painted crosswalk at this location staff
conducted a traffic study that included such factors as adequate gaps in
vehicular traffic, pedestrian volumes, traffic approach speed, sight
di stance, accident hi story, intersection geometrics and other factors.
Based upon the low pedestrian volumes, adequate gaps in traffic and good
sight distance at this.location, and pedestrian safety considerations, a
painted crosswalk is not recommended on Carlsbad Boulevard at Cerezo Drive.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends the following:
1. That a painted crosswalk not be installed on Carlsbad Boulevard
at its intersection with Cerezo Drive.
2: The Pol ice Department continue to enforce pedestrian right of
way that is violated by drivers of motor vehicles.
3. Staff develop a policy for the installation and removal of
painted crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections and present the
findings at a future Traffic Safety Commission meeting.
NECESSARY CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
No City Council action is required.
Tl ~AMAR ASSOC/A TION
CARLSBAD,CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 860
92008
August· 24, 1987
Mr. Robert T. Johnson, Jr.
Office of the City Engineer
20,5 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-4859
!1r. Johnson,
Thank you for your letter of August 17, 1987.
,'l.U G z 6 1987
I obtained a copy of the "North Beach Planning/Traffic Study"
anc. as the title signifies it is ded;i.cated _to the area north
of Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. It goes into great.detail on all
types of traffic basically from Tamarack north. Jl.s you and
I both know Carlsbad Boulevard doesn't stop .at T~narack.
Appendix C to the basic study ha·s serious concern for pedestrian
traffic from Elm to Tamarack. These same charts clearly shows
this heavy traffic impacts severely further south in Terramar
and we have no traffic cont:toL; and only ~ planned.
;
I would direct your attention to parc1graph 1 under PEDESTRII\N
ISSUES on page 62 of the report. 'I'hat is the fate of Ter:t:amar
and we need help. Most people tend to either forgc,t or
ig:1ore problems south of the lagoon.
We have asked for a traffic signal at the intersection of
Carlsbad Boulevard and Cannon (which was subsequently approved
for CIP 87-88).
We have also asked for stop signs at existing crosswalkj.
We would request that a crosswalk be painted on. the boulcivard
at Cerrezo Street as NCTD pickup points are locatec'. there.
We bascially are asking for assistance in safely crossing
the street and getting our cars into·the flow of traffic in
a timely arid safe fashion.
As you have a copy of my October 22, 1986 letter I will not
repeat information therein.
/;kdt )t~ J?ik
Bailey ~ble, -;;eāident
Terramar Association