Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-04; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: 3:OO p.m. PLACE OF MEETING: - October 4,2004 (Regular Meeting) City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chair Gordon Cress called the Meeting to order at 3:OO p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Gordon Cress Commissioner Susan Gardner Commissioner Guy Roney Commissioner Bonnie Bradshaw Absent: Vice-Chair Steve Dorsey Staff Members Present: Robert Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, Transportation Division Sgt. Marc Reno, Carlsbad Police Department Lt. Don Rawson, Carlsbad Police Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 13,2004 ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Gardner, and duly seconded by Commissioner Roney, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of September 13,2004 as presented. VOTE: 3-0-1 AYES: Cress, Gardner, Roney NOES: None ABSTAIN: Bradshaw ITEM 4 - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: There were no requests to address the Commission on a non-agenda item. October 4,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 2 ITEM 5 ’- PREVIOUS BUSINESS: Robert Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, Transportation, reported that the Calle Barcelona speed limit item that the Commission considered a couple of months ago west of El Camino Real to establish a 40 mile per hour prima facie speed limit had the ordinance introduced by City Council last week. The ordinance is scheduled to be adopted tomorrow night at the City Council meeting. I ITEM 6 - NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 6A. Establish a prima facie speed limit upon College Boulevard from Cannon Road northerly to the north city limit. Mr. Johnson explained that the purpose of Item 6A was to consider recommending a prima facie speed limit for College Boulevard from Cannon Road northerly to the north city limit. Referring to Exhibit 1, Mr. Johnson stated that College Boulevard is a major arterial on the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The segment being addressed by this item is College Boulevard fiom Cannon Road northerly to the north city limits, which is a distance of approximately 1.64 miles. For almost the entire length College Boulevard from the north city limits proceeding southerly, the road is built to major arterial standards, being a four-lane divided road, two lanes in each direction, with bicycle lanes, a raised landscaped median, sidewalk, curb and gutter, and street lights. On a portion of the easterly side, there is a DG pathway hiking trail in lieu of a concrete sidewalk. On the west side of College Boulevard, a concrete sidewalk has been constructed. The southerly 0.3 mile segment of College Boulevard is only a two-lane roadway. Mr. Johnson explained that in the future that two-lane portion of College Boulevard would be widened to the four-lane major arterial standard. Widening will occur when Robertson Ranch, the property located on the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard, is built. That project will be conditioned to widen College Boulevard to the full four lanes. Currently, the Robertson Ranch project is processing an environmental report and master plan, so it will be several years before the road is widened. Mr. Johnson stated that currently on College Boulevard there is no speed limit posted except in the Calavara Hills School zone. There is an elementary school near College Boulevard, and east of the elementary school there is a middle school. Both are on the Carlsbad Unified School District property. A school zone speed limit is established on College Boulevard with signs indicating “School 25 miles per hour when children are present.” Those signs are located on both sides of the school zone and both signs are supplemented with a flashing beacon. When children are going to and fiom school, the 25-mile per hour speed limit is in effect on College Boulevard. The portion of College Boulevard from Carlsbad Village Drive to Tamarack Avenue (north) was opened in 2000. The remainder of College Boulevard opened on August 9,2004 when the barricades located at the northerly city limit and just north of Tamarack Avenue (north) were removed. With the October 4,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 3 road now opened, the traf'€ic volumes are approximately 17,600 vehicles per day at the north city limit (two-way ADT), and approximately 13,300 vehicles per day just south of Carlsbad Village Drive. Mr. Johnson stated that traffic signals have been installed at three locations on College Boulevard: (1) where Tamarack Avenue intersects on the north, (2) where Tamarack Avenue intersects on the south, and (3) at Carlsbad Village Drive. Future traffk signals will be installed at two additional intersections: Red Bluff Place and one intersection to the south of Red Bluffplace. In addition, when Cannon Road and College Boulevard either becomes a T-intersection or a four-leg intersection, there will be a traffic signal installed. The character of College Boulevard will change in the future when all trafXc signals are installed. College Boulevard follows a curvilinear alignment in some portions. Mr. Johnson explained that to move College Boulevard away from the existing homes located south of Carlsbad Village Drive, the roadway was curved south and east. A super elevation on the road was used to meet the design speed of 50 miles per hour for a major arterial, and an 880-foot vertical curve was used to meet sight distance requirements. Comer sight distance for vehicles at Carlsbad Village Drive is 550 feet, which is approximately 50 miles per hour. Stopping sight distance shown on the plans is 430 feet for College Boulevard at Carlsbad Village Drive, which is equivalent to approximately 50 miles per hour. Mr. Johnson stated that speed surveys were conducted on College Boulevard at three locations. One was between the two Tamarack Avenue intersections and the critical speed was found to be 48 miles per hour. The critical speed is the speed at which 85 percent of the drivers are traveling at or below. Just north of Red Bluff Place, the critical speed was also found to be 48 miles per hour. North of Cannon Road in the down hill portion, which has almost a 7% grade, the critical speed was found to be 49 miles per hour. With respect to vehicles traveling 40 miles per hour at the Tamarack Avenue location of the speed survey, only 17% of the vehicles were traveling at or below 40 miles per hour. Near Red Bluff Place, only 18% of the vehicles were traveling 40 miles per hour or below. Finally, in the location where the 49-mile per hour critical speed was obtained, 14% of the vehicles were found to be traveling at or below 40 miles per hour. When setting speed limits, Mr. Johnson explained that there was a case in California that is referred to continuously by the Traffic Commissioners in the San Marcos Court. The Traffic Commissioners (judges) uphold the principles of the Goulet Case which was decided in the Appellate Department of the Superior Court in Ventura in 1992. The basis of the case is that a citizen, Judith Goulet, was stopped and cited for speeding in a 35 mile per hour speed zone near a senior citizens center. The ticket was subsequently decided in court and ultimately, the ticket was dismissed. The judges found that the Engineering and Traffic Survey was invalid for the police to use radar. The critical speed in the Goulet Case was 48 miles per hour on the roadway, and the roadway was posted at 35 miles per hour. There were zero collisions indicated in the Engineering and Traffic Survey to justify the lowered speed limit. The court held that the Engineering and Traffic Survey did not support the posting of 35 miles per hour in that particular case. As a result, they indicated that using radar for enforcement constituted a speed trap and speed traps are illegal in California. The ticket was dismissed. October 4,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 4 The Appellate Department ruled that the Engineering and Traffic Survey did not set forth any condition’s that were not readily apparent to the driver to justify the reduced speed. The state legislature gives the authority to the local authorities and local cities to determine a prima facie speed limit, which is why the Carlsbad Traffic Safety Commission can provide a recommendation to the City Council for a speed limit. The City Council can then determine a prima facie speed limit to post on a roadway. In addition, the state legislature declared that there is a strong public policy against the use of speed traps, which has been backed up by several court cases. - Mr. Johnson remarked that the State Legislature allows local authorities, based upon the result of an Engineering and Traffic Survey, to set a prima facie speed limit which is most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe. The Survey must comply with methods that are determined by the Department of Transportation. It must take into consideration a number of factors, including the prevailing speed on the roadway which is the 85* percentile, conditions not readily apparent to the driver, and the collision history on the roadway. Criteria set forth are that speed limits should be set at or near the 85* percentile. Speed limits below the 85* percentile do not facilitate orderly movement of traffic. The 85* percentile is sometimes questioned as to why it is used, but it is the basis of setting speed limits because it conforms to the consensus of those drivers who drive the road as to what speed is reasonable and safe and as a result, is not dependent on the judgment or opinions of a few individuals. Most drivers comply with Basic Speed Law which is referenced in CaliforniaVehicle Code, (CVC) Section 22350. That is, most motorists drive at a speed that is reasonable and prudent taking into account conditions on the roadway. Mr. Johnson stated that no matter what the posted speed limit, one must take into account certain roadway conditions such as stopped traffic, fog, or rain. The appropriate speed limit might be as low as 5-10 miles per hour going through construction zones and so forth. That is what Basic Speed Law requires and it is in effect at all times. There are only a few drivers, that top 15%, that ignore Basic Speed Law and they will be subject to law enforcement. Setting speed limits at or slightly below the critical speed provides police officers a means of controlling those drivers who choose to ignore posted speed limits or those drivers that choose not to conform to what the majority of drivers are indicating is a reasonable and prudent speed. Mr. Johnson read CVC Section 22358.5 that states: “It is the intent of the Legislature thatphysical conditions such as width, Curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning, as the basic rule of Section 22350 is suficient regulation as to such conditions.” Mr. Johnson explained that what this means is that CVC 22358.5 precludes justifying reduced speed zoning on physical conditions such as curvature or any other condition that is readily apparent to the driver. Conditions readily apparent to a driver do not require lowered speed limits as Basic Speed Law is in effect at all times. Mr. Johnson cited again the Goulet Case and the reference to the limited sight distance to commercial driveways to justify the 35 miles per hour speed limit that was found by the Court not to be valid. Mr. Johnson read that the Court concluded, “It is questionabze whether, with that volume of daily trafic, a condition not apparent to drivers can justzfi a IO mile per hour speed reduction October 4,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 5 unless the accident rate is greater than would be statistically expectedfiom the trafic volume and road type. ” He said in the Goulet Case no speed related collisions were indicated on the Engineering and Traffic Survey. Therefore, the court did not find that there were conditions not readily apparent to the general public that drives that road. - Mr. Johnson mentioned that in general, one of the most decisive evidence of conditions not readily apparent to a driver would be the collision history. In the absence of a collision history or a significant accident or collision problem, downward speed zoning generally is not appropriate. Because College Boulevard is designed to city standards, it is not expected to have a collision rate that would be above the statewide average for a similar roadway. Collisions are monitored by the Transportation Division of the Engineering Department, and are something that is looked at closely. Mr. Johnson stated that establishing a speed limit must be carefully considered taking into account the reasonable and prudent judgment of drivers on the roadway. Mr. Johnson said in the Goulet Case, the Court admonished: “We have discussed the requirements and consequences at length because it must be clear to trafic engineers, local authorities, and law enforcement oficers that ifa prima facie speed limit is set without being justified in fact by the Engineering and Trafic Survey, the speed limit cannot be enforced by any means involving the use of radar. Local authorities must set prima facie speed limits carefilly, as justiJed by appropriate factors, to avoid making use of radar unavaiIabIe for speed enforcement. ’’ Mr. Johnson explained that this is one of the reasons that when staff and the police officers address the Traffk Safety Commission and City Council about setting speed limits, the purpose is to be in compliance with case law. The position of the Traffk Commissioners is known in the San Marcos Court where they have indicated that they expect the critical speed to be used in setting the speed limit. They expect that the speed limit would be set at the first five mile per hour increment below the critical speed unless there are factors in the Engineering and Traffic Survey that could justify lowering an additional five miles per hour. In most cases, that justification cannot be found. Consequently, this is why the speed limits are set at that first five mile per hour increment below the critical speed. By doing so, there are no speed traps in Carlsbad. When the police issue tickets using radar, those tickets will be upheld in court. Mr. Johnson informed the Traffic Safety Commissioners that when the Goulet Case was published in the early ~O’S, Carlsbad had to raise some of their speed limits because they were determined to be speed traps by the San Marcos Court and were not in compliance with the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey. Mr. Johnson concluded and indicated that based upon the results of the Engineering and Traffk Survey, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommended that a 45 mile per hour prima facie speed limit be established upon College Boulevard from Cannon Road to the north city limits. October 4,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 6 DISCUSSION: Commissioner Gardner stated that it is her concern that every-hng being considered during a sampling may be skewed simply because of a lack of knowledge by the locals that data may be used more than three months from now to set speed limits. Commissioner Gardner anticipates that people, as they learn that College Boulevard could be considered a bypass past the El Camino mall, may traverse it more frequently and create more traffic. The critical speed may actually edge up or down. In being sure to be in compliance with the state mandates on setting speeds, Commissioner Gardner wondered how often can one go back to consider raising or lowering that speed. - Mr. Johnson explained that there has been a lot of interest on the part of the public as to what the speed limit is on College Boulevard and how Basic Speed Law prevails. Legally, a maximum of 65 miles per hour is the speed that a driver could drive on College Boulevard. However, each driver would have to comply with Basic Speed Law, depending on road conditions. As conditions change, such as adding a traffic signal, the Engineering and Traffic Survey would be updated. It would be anticipated by staff to update that survey once or twice during the next year. Mr. Johnson did not expect a dramatic change up or down in the critical speed. Once the speed limit is posted, then the police officers will be out there to enforce the prima facie speed limit. Commissioner Bradshaw asked if there has been any coordination with the City of Oceanside for them to establish a speed zone. Mr. Johnson stated that north of the city limits Oceanside had a 35-mile per hour speed limit established. Oceanside has been talking to Carlsbad to know what we planned to do. So if discussing the issue is coordination, then there has been coordination. However, both cities have to go through their own process to establish a speed limit. It is generally the same. Each respective local authority must establish the prima facie speed limit for their city. Commissioner Bradshaw stated that she has noticed a sign installed on Tamarack Avenue indicating “end ‘school zone.” She asked if “end school zone” signs are needed on College Boulevard. Mr. Johnson stated that once College Boulevard is posted, a speed limit sign at the school boundary will suffice legally and no “end school zone’’ sign is necessary. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Chair Cress opened public testimony October 4,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 7 Susan Landis, 3965 Portal Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that she lives in the subject area and also works as a realtor, so she comes and goes along College Boulevard throughout different times of the day. She has a lot of opportunity to stop her car and run across College Boulevard to put signs out. Her experience is that with the gradient on College Boulevard, cars are actually traveling faster that it seems. One has to be very careful how one judges speed, especially as a car comes down hill and some coming up at the same time. Depending on which way you’re crossing and which way you look, it’s easy to misjudge the speed of the traffic. From a safety point of view, Ms. Landis felt it was important to have the speed limit posted as low as possible for children. She feels that the lower it is the safer it is for them. In addition, Ms. Landis stated that Mr. Whittle spoke to the City Council at last week’s Council meeting about the petition that was circulated asking for the speed limit to be posted as low as possible, primarily because of the school. Ms. Landis felt that a 45-mile per hour speed limit was a fair posting, and hoped that it wouldn’t creep up. She hoped for very noticeable signs placed on the road. - Chair Cress responded to Ms. Landis reiterating what Mr. Johnson had stated about how speed limits are set. He stated that as more traffic signals and signs are installed as the road progresses, the speed limit would probably remain the same or be reduced. Closing Public Testimony, Chair Cress asked staff to respond. Mr. Johnson stated that when the additional traffic signals are installed on College Boulevard he would expect the speed limit to remain the same, not going below 45 miles per hour. He said the recommendation was appropriate based on conditions on the roadway now and after additional tr&ic signals are installed. Regarding the placement of speed limit signs, staffwill make sure speed limit signs are in very conspicuous places so that drivers are well informed of the prima facie speed limit on College Boulevard. Signs will be placed in very obvious places where trees, shrubs or the like does not obscure the signs. Signs will be very visible to drivers. Commissioner Gardner asked if the Tamarack Avenue (north) traffic signal gives adequate crossing for school children. Mr. Johnson stated that the signal has been timed to allow ample pedestrian crossing time, even assuming that there would be some platoons of school children crossing together. Chair Cress asked for a motion. October 4,2004 MOTION: ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ITEM NO. 6B Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 8 Motion by Commissioner Rony and duly seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw, to establish a 45 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon College Boulevard from Cannon Road northerly to the north city limits. Cress, Bradshaw, Gardner, Roney None None 4-0-0 Establish a prima facie speed limit upon Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard. Mr. Johnson indicated that the Cannon Road item is also to consider a recommendation to establish a prima facie speed limit. Referring to Exhibit 1, Mr. Johnson explained that Cannon Road is a major arterial on the Circulation Element from El Camino Real to Cannon Road. It is about 0.73 miles in length. At this time, Cannon Road is a two-lane divided roadway. When Robertson Ranch develops, they will be conditioned to build the other two lanes so that in the future, Cannon Road will be a four-lane divided roadway with bicycle lanes, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and streetlights. Currently, it exists as a two-lane divided roadway with a bicycle lane on each side. In general, there are no curbs, gutters, sidewalks or streetlights except at the 90 degree turn where there are two street lights and at a driveway serving the nursery there is a street light. Those three streetlights are solar powered because the electrical lines have not been run for the street lights at this time. The road has two lanes except at El Camino Real where it widens out to two lanes plus a dual left-turn lane. Cannon Road west of El Camino Real has been built to the full major arterial standards. This portion of Cannon Road also opened on August 9, 2004. There have been no collisions reported. Setting a speed limit now is the type of situation where depending on when we want to bring forward the results of an Engineering and Traffic Survey, we can wait for more history on the roadway, whether its collision history, volumes or so on. It is staff's opinion that the volumes have stabilized to the point that there is sufficient data for a good valid Engineering and Traffic Survey. Mr. Johnson said the public is interested in having a posted speed limit on the roadway. The average daily traffic volume was approximately 12,400 on September 9,2004. Generally, the road has a relatively flat vertical alignment and is fairly straight. Cannon Road has a horizontal curve and the side friction on the roadway is very minimal. There are three driveways that intersect the road, but otherwise there are no other homes or driveways or other conditions to affect trfiic flow. West of El Camino Real on Cannon Road, the speed limit is posted at 50 miles per hour. The Engineering and Traffic Survey, in the speed survey portion, found a critical speed of 53 miles per hour. Based upon the critical speed and the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends that a 50-mile per hour prima facie speed limit be posted on Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard. October 4,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 9 Mr. Johnson stated that the same general comments about setting speed limits in accordance with the Goulet Case as explained in Item 6A are applicable to Item 6B. In conclusion, it is recommended that a prima facie 50-mile per hour speed limit be posted on this roadway. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Bradshaw asked the cost of installing a speed limit sign. Mr. Johnson said the price is approximately $125 per sign, which includes the telespar post to mount the sign. Chair Cress informed the Commission that he has driven portions of both roads himself and found the speed limit of 45 and 50 miles per hour to be a reasonable speed. Commissioner Bradshaw asked if it was not posted at 50 miles per hour, did that mean that drivers could drive at 65 miles per hour. Mr. Johnson stated there when not posted, the maximum speed limit prevails, and for a four-lane divided roadway, the maximum speed is 65 miles per hour. A two-lane divided roadway would be 55 miles per hour. That is what state law mandates. Commissioner Bradshaw asked if the reason we were posting the speed limit was because of public interest. Mr. Johnson stated there is public interest. However, it was being posted, which is normally done on any new road, so that a prima facie speed limit can be established. With a valid Engineering and Traffic Survey and a speed limit established by ordinance, radar can be used to enforce the prima facie speed limit. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Gardner and duly seconded by Commissioner Roney, to establish a prima facie 50 mile per hour speed limit upon Cannon Road from El Camino Real to College Boulevard. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Cress, Bradshaw, Gardner, Roney NOES: None ABSTAIN: None October 4,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 10 ITEM 7: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS None. - ITEM 8: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER Mr. Johnson stated that the workshop for Traffic Safety Commissioners and public officials that was to be held last Saturday, October 2nd, has been postponed until February 12, 2005. Two of the Commissioners had signed up for the workshop. If any of the other Commissioners are interested in attending, please let him know. Mr. Johnson stated that next month’s regular meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission would be held on November 1,2004 at 3:OO p.m. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Gordon Cress adjourned the Regular Meeting of October 4,2004 at 3:40 p.m. Respectfdly submitted, Ruth Steckdaub Minutes Clerk