Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-10-02; City Council; 2163; Proposed Council Policy on Traffic Signals1 THL CITY OF CARLSFAD, CALIFORN_IA 2163 Referred To: October2, 1973 -- Date Subject: Submitted By: Proposed Council Policy on Traffic Signals Acting Pub1 ic Works D i rector 2p 9, . -__ Statement of the Matter The Council directed the City Manager to submit a proposed City Council pol icy providing for participation by developers in traffic signalization of intersections in future developments. The City Manager directed the staff to prepare the staff paper for the proposed Council policy. Exhibit 1 is the result of the staff effort. The staff paper contains, in addition to the background material, two alternative City Council policies on this subject in order to provide the Council with a choice in their complex issue. Exhibit 4. Staff paper on proposed Council policy for traffic signals. StalFf Recommendations to the City Manager Adopt a motion approving the pertinent Council Policy on traffic s i gna 1 s . '0 AB No. Da te: October 2, 1973 .. City l.lanager's Recommendation .- The City Council asked for a proposed poli-cy for traffic signals. Many h6urs have been spent putting this report together. Attached ts the first run on this traffic signal report which the City Council is asked to study and indicate their reaction to the contents of the report. After this review the report will be put into final form. It is also the feeling of the staff that a proposed traffic signal policy should be revi,ewed by the Puilding industry. ... .- Counci 1 Action 10-5-73 . The proposed policy re traffic. signals was referred- back. to the staf'f with instructions to submit information to the Building Contractors Associ.ation, Engineering Association and developers for input and recommendations. . .. . .. . NIEMORANDUM September 27, 1973 TO : Acting City Manager FROM : Acting City Engineer SUBJECT: Proposed City Council Policy - traffic signalization Background Several Carlsbad tentative maps within the last 18 months or so have been conditioned that the applicant participate in the installation of fully actuated traffic control signals within or adjacent to the proposed subdivisions. Each tentative map was reviewed on an individual basis, with the result that the extent of developer participation varied. Factors such as internal and external traffic circulation, master circulation plan, trip predictions generated by the proposed subdivision, traffic signal warrants, traffic safety analysis, geographical location of the proposed subdivision and other factors were reviewed by staff, Planning Commission and City Council i.n order to determine reasonable requirements. Virtually every developer or his representative has challenged any requirement for participation in traffic signal installation. The notable exception was the Papagayo development, where the developer volunteered to construct a signalized intersection at Jefferson and Tamarack as a condition of tentative map approval. Exhibit "A" shows some typical examples of subdivisions that have been required to participate in traffic signal installation. Case I - Conditions: a. Entire limits of subdivision adjacent to an existing (or proposed) b. New proposed street will create intersection. c. Projected traffic entering intersection will warrant a traffic signal a. Construct traffic signal as part of subdivision improvements, major arterial street. Requirements of developer: or b. Provide suitable guarantee (future agreement secured by cash, bond or instrument of credit). In Case I, the developer may be reimbursed for a portion of his costs (50% maximum) as other developments occur on the other "corners" of the intersection. Case I1 is identical to Case I, except the developer may be able to be reimbursed for 75% of his initial costs as other development occurs. Case 111 is a schematic attempt to describe the La Costa subdivisions which, although somewhat removed from a particular intersection, do generate the traffic that creates the need for the traffic signal. MEMORANDUM Acting City Manager Traffic Signalization Page 2 In June 1973, the City Council in reviewing the tentative map for La Costa Vale Units 2 and 3 (CT 72-20) stated specifically that La Costa Land Co. was to pay for the traffic signal at El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue. Subsequent correspondence and discussions between the City and La Costa Land Company led to Agenda Bill 2105, which was presented to City Council on August 7, 1973. The substance of the agenda bill was that: 1. The developer still objected to the requirement that he install the 2. The County would enter into an agreement with the City to construct the 3. La Costa Land Co. would be willing to loan the City the required $22,000 signal. signal if the City could fund 50% of the $44,000 estimated cost. at 7% interest for 5 years. It was staff's recommendation that, should La Costa Land Co. deposit $22,000, the City should enter into a cooperative agreement with the County to construc the signal. After considerable discussion, no action was taken on AB2105. Staff was asked to study "temporary means of relieving the traffic situation at El Camino Real and La Costa Avenue." Staff was also directed to prepare a proposed policy for installation of signals in the City of Carlsbad. Progress to Date Our Engineering Division contacted the County traffic engineering staff and recommended a temporary installation of four-way stop controls at the intersection. The San Diego County Traffic Advisory Committee approved the four-way stop installation on August 28, 1973 and the four-way stop was installed by County crews on September 19, 1973. Traffic Signal Policy Research In developing policies on traffic signal installation, two questions immediately come to mind: 1. What standards or criteria should be used to determine whether a traffic 2. When itis determined that traffic signal is or will be required, how signal is or will be required at a particular intersection? will the construction of the signal be finGced? Other questions such as how a signal should be installed and what components should be used are simply technical design aspects and not a part of this discussion. MEMORANDUM Acting City Manager Traffic Signalization Page 3 Traffic Siffnal Warrants Much staff time was spent collecting data from other agencies on traffic signal "warrants". While two agencies (City of San Diego and Orange County) had significantly higher minimum requirements before an intersection might justify or "warrant" a traffic signal, most jurisdictions have adopted minimum warrants for the installation of traffic signal systems based on the nationally (and statewide) accepted warrants as depicted in the manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. Exhibit "B" is a compilation sheet of the warrants. This traffic signal warrant sheet will be recommended for addition to City Council Policy Statement No. 9 (Traffic Safety Policies and Warrants) at a future Council meeting. One thing was very clear in our research. Traffic signals will be required where four lane roads intersect other four lane roads (based on minimum vehicular volumes). Traffic Siqnal Construction Financinq Before embarking on developing a policy, it is not an unwise thing to check and see what everybody else is doing. With more chronological time available, we may have been able to contact cities our size who have successfully come to grips with the problem. No such luck. Most cities seem to be doing just like we have been doing. That is, they have been requiring develop- ments that generate traffic (or will generate traffic when fully occupied) that warrants signalization to construct and/or finance those signals. The City of San Diego evidently finances most of their signals through gas taxes or capital improvement projects. Most all cities finance some signal construction through TOPICS, gas tax, City-County thoroughfare funds, revenue sharing, etc. Several areas of potential City financing of signal installation were studied, --General Obligation Bonds or Redevelopment Agency funding might be feasible 10 years down the road, but those possibilities are slim unless traffic circulation is so bad then that G.O. Bonds or Redevelopment is the "only way out". --Revenue sharing funds are also a possibility. In fact, $30,000 has already been authorized for Pi0 Pic0 at Tamarack traffic signal. Financing future traffic signals from this source would be an unusual commitment, what with other areas of City services in need of funds. potential source. However, historically, General Funds have not been sufficiently plentiful to use for this purpose. Gas Tax funds, by them- selves, just won't stretch that far. --Capital Improvement Program - General Funds plus Gas Tax Funds are a MEMO-RANDUM Acting City Manager Traffic Signalization Page 4 Exhibit "C" is a rough estimate of projects that should be done in the next 10 years (rough cost $2.8 million). The anticipated gas tax revenues over the same period (assuming that none of it gets funneled into mass transit or other needs) is $1.72 million. In other words, the needs exceed the means by well over $1.0 million. At an average cost of $30,000 to $35,000 per signal, it is my estimate that during the next 10 years, approximately 20 signals or $700,000 will be required. Because of the lack of availability of City funding for future traffic signal installation in newly developed areas, I recommend for consideration Exhibit "D", a proposed Council policy statement regarding Developer Respon- sibility for Traffic Signals. I am also attaching Exhibit ''E", Board of Supervisors Policy for information. While I am recommending Exhibit "D" as a proposed Council policy whereby the developer would pay cash into a trust fund prior to recording his subdivision map, future consideration should be given to provide the necessar) legislation (state and local level) to allow for the collection of a "Traffic Signal Benefit" fee at the time of building permit issuance. This fee policy (see Exhibit "F") would be similar to local drainage area fees or "Bridge Benefit" area fees which now can be collected either at the subdivision map stage or at the building permit stage. It is estimated that such a fee would be approximately $75-80 per dwelling unit. Some of the advantages of such a fee are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The developer would not have to put up all the cash at such an early phase of development. Building permits (or occupancy) more closely correlates with actual traffic generation and hence need for signalization. Such a fee would be most easily administered by the City, therefore less overhead and more efficient use of monies. Fee would be easily adjustable to compensate for future signal costs. City could collect fees from many subdivisions previously approved as building permits are issued, thereby spreading cost over those who will benefit most. This is more equitable on the average, particularly for small develop- ments which may, because of geography, have the requirements for more than one signal. This would not require the first developer in an area to finance an entire signal while later developers don't pay because signal is already installed. TCF/de encl. MAJOR ARTERIAL W' CASE I ...... ...... -. . - ........... , ............. -. ., MAJOR ARTERIAL €25 L~ .'- i ...:. .... ........... .- .. .................... ..* .................. ... w ._ . .._-. 4.. ?. F u CLY ACTUATED TRAFF \C S\GNRL REQU I RED n CASE ..... ....... - ._ - -.. .. ..... .kc& ion Date A. MINIX24 T,TEIW VOLUME Satisfied Not Satkf ied S, Score No. of lanes for ming Veh/Ek. high 8 hrs. on V&/Hr. high 8 hrs. on traffic on each approach Mjor St. (Total both app.) high vol. Kinor st. app. Major Minor Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 (500) (350) (150) (105) 2 or mre 1 (600) (420) (150) (105) 2 or mre 2 or mre (600) (420) (200) (140) 1 2 or mre (500) (350) (200) (140) -- Note 1: When 85 percentile speed onmajor streets exceeds 40 m.p.h. or when intersection lies in isolated camunity, use rural warrants. B. Im OF CONTINuarS TRAFFIC Satisfied Not Satisfied % Score No. of lanes €or ming -traffic on each approach Maior Minor A 1 I I 2 or mre 1 2 or mre 2 or mre 1 2 or more Vehm. high 8 hrs. on Major Street. (Total of both app.) Urban Rural (750) (525) (900) (630) (900) (630) (750) (525) -- Vell/Br. hiqh 8 kurs. on high vol. &nor st. app.. Note 2: Same conditions apply as Note 1 above. c. MINIMOMpEDms Satisfied Not Satisfied % Score Urban Rural ( 600) (420) (1000) (700) I Ped&. for high 8 hrs. on high volume crosswalk on mjor street -- im (105) Veh./hr. enter: intersection on both approaches of major street If major strset has raised msdian 4' or mre in width Urban Rural Ped crossing major street must exceed 100 in each of 2 hrs. (100) ( 70) ming Si3rm 2 hr. V&/hr. rra;lst exceed (500) (350) Distance to nearest signal (warrant req.600 ft.) Sam conditions apply as Note 1 above. -- I1 School Crossing Note 3: Satisfied Not Satisf id. % Scare D. ACcIDENTEX?WENCE No. of accidents in 12 mnths susceptible of correction I % Score -.- Satisfied Not Satisified vkrants fulfilled 80% or mre (2) A ---- B C D Exhibit B I' Anticipated -~ Capital Improvements Projects For The Next Five to Ten Years Poinsettia Bridge El Camino Real Elm Avenue widening Traffic Signal - Pi0 Pico/Tamarack State Street storm drain Elm Ave. storm drain (15 to State) Downtown ramped curbs A. H. Bridge, replace with 4 lanes Elm Ave., Valley to El Camino Real Chestnut, Monroe to El Camino Real Carlsbad Blvd., Tamarack to Pine Tamarack, I5 to Carlsbad Rlvd. Palomar Airport Road Traffic Signals: Pi0 Pico/Elm Roosevelt/Elm (25 intersections @ $4,000 each) $60,000 320,000 18,000 30,000 250,000 75,000 100,000 235,000 500,000 330,000 50,000 400,000 350,000 40,000 40,000 $2,798,000 Anticipated Gasoline Tax Revenue Next Ten Years Fiscal Year 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 Estimated Annual Revenue $150,000 150,000 160,000 160,000 170,000 170,000 180,000 180,000 200,000 200,000 $1,720,000 Exhibit "C I' CITY OF CARLS~HD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Po 1 i cy No. ~ Date Issued: General Subject: Traffic Signals Effective Date: Specific Subject: Developer Responsibility Cancellation Date for Traffic Signals Supersedes No. Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File PURPOSE: -___- To state the City policy regarding the participation of private developers in the financing of the installation of traffic signals. STATEMENT OF POLICY: _-- It 1. 2. 3. is the policy of the City Council that: When it is determined by the City Engineer, upon reviewing a tentative map, that a completed development will generate sufficient traffic to warrant one or more traffic signals, the developer will be required to pay the cost of the traffic signal or signals. Cost shall be determine( using $32,000 as a 1973 base and ENR cost index. The developer will be required to pay the funds for the traffic signals together with other fees prior to recordation of the final map. All funds collected under this policy shall be placed in separate trust fund accounts for the purpose of installation of traffic signals. Separate Trust Fund Accounts shall be established for each area of the City, such area boundaries to be identical to the existing park in lieu fee boundaries. Subj ect Participation by Individcais OrgLiniza- tions, Private Developers, or other Jurisdictions in the Installation of Traffic Signals Pu rp o s e Pzge 5-25 1 of 2 PI cLmb e r I TO establish a policy for the participation by private developers, individuals, organizations or other public jurisdictions for the installation of traffic signals. Background The installation of traffic signals in many instances involves inter- sections for which one or more of the approaches to the intersection are under the jurisdiction of another governmental entity. fn other instances in the review of a proposed Tentative Map it is apparent that a proposed development could contribute substantially to the need for a signalized intersection st a specific location. There are also occasions where an individual, developer,. or organiza- tion indicate a willingness to pro;lide additional. contriburions to accelerate the installation of a traffic signal at a location which meets traffic signal warrants but is not high enough on the Signal Priority List to justify the budgeticg of County funds for the project. To establish the basis upon which the County will require a contribu- tion from private developers or other jurisdLctions for the costs of installing a traffic signai or accept additional contributions frcm individuals, organizations or private developers to accelerate the installation of a traffic signal the following policy is adopted. Policy It is the policy of the Board of Supsrvisors that: .1. At intersections where one or more of the approaches to the inter- sections are under the jurisdiction of ancther governmental entity and such intersections nieet the nationally accepted warrants for the installation of a traffic signal, the costs of the installation shall be shared by the County and the other governmental entity. The percentage of the costs to be paid by each jurisdiction shall. be directly related to the number of approaches to the intcrsccfiGn txdcr the control of either the County or the other governmecca1 entity. For example, an inccrsection i.5 ti7hich two cf thc approaches are within n City Limits ;ind tmo wirhin the unincorporated arc8 would bc financcd by cqm1 contri1:u:i::ns fron rnch jurisdiction. Subject Participation by Icdividuals, Organiza- cions, Private Developers, or other Jurisdictions 2. When it is determined that a private development will generate substantial traffic at a specific intersection the County will require from the developer a contribution toward the cost of tk installation of a traffic signzil. The zmount of the contribution shall be based upon an acalysis of the traffic which will be generated by the development. Until warrants are met for a signal installation project, and until the reiative priority of the project is such as to justify the expenditure of any 7ubli.c funds necessary to the project, the developer's contributions will be retained for the project in the Public Works Adminis- trator's Trust Fund. Policy Page . Number 3. If an individual, developer or organizatim indicates a willing- ness to provide additional contributions to accelerate the installation of a traffic signal at a location which mee'ts traffic signal warrants but is not high enough on the Signal Priority List to justify the budgeting of County funds for the project, the proposal will be reviewed cn an individual basis by the County Engineer and a recommendation for participation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors fcr their consideration. in the Installation of Traffic Signals 5-25 R,?fercnce 13/S Action 6-19-73 (94) 2 of 2 CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT General Subject: Traffic Signal Pol icy No. Date Issued: Effective Date: Specific Subject: Establishment of fee, new construction to pay for traffic signals Cancellation Date Supersedes No. Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Divisi Heads, Employees Bulletin Boards, Press, File PURPOSE: To state the City policy regarding the establishment of a fee for the purpose of financing future traffic signals in the City of Carlsbad. STATEMENT OF POLICY: It 1. 2. is the policy of the City Council that: In order to provide sufficient traffic signals that are necessary to th< proper safety of the citizens of the City without burdening these citim who have contributed in the past for the installations of traffic signa: the following fee is hereby established. a. All private dwelling unit construction will have an additional building permit fee of $75.00 per unit. b. All private commercial construction will have an additional building permit fee of $150.00 per unit. All funds collected under this policy shall be placed in a separate account and held in trust for the purpose of installation of traffic signals. Exhibit "F"