Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-04; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: December 4,2006 (Regular Meeting) TIME OF MEETING: 3:00 p.m. PLACE OF MEETING: City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chair Gardner called the Meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Susan Gardner Vice-Chair Guy Roney Commissioner Steve Dorsey Commissioner Bonnie Bradshaw Absent: Commissioner Gordon Cress Staff Members Present: Robert Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, Transportation Lt. Don Rawson, Carlsbad Police Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 6,2006 ACTION: Motion by Vice-Chair Roney, and duly seconded by Commissioner Dorsey, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of November 6, 2006 as presented. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Gardner, Roney, Dorsey, Bradshaw NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ITEM 4 - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. December 4, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 2 ITEM 5 - PREVIOUS BUSINESS: Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, informed the Commission that the speed zone on El Fuerte from Alga Road north to Palomar Airport Road is tentatively scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 12, 2006, for consideration of establishing the 45 mile per hour prima facie speed limit as recommended by the Traffic Safety Commission. The two items that the Traffic Safety Commission recommended at the November 6, 2006 meeting for consideration of establishing a prima facie speed limit are both tentatively scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 19,2006 for consideration of introducing an ordinance. They are Palomar Oaks Way from Palomar Airport Road to its northerly terminus and upon Tamarack Avenue easterly of College Boulevard. ITEM 6 - NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 6A: Establish a prima facie speed limit upon Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to the north city'limit. Mr. Johnson stated that this item is to obtain a recommendation from the Commission for a prima facie speed limit on the portion of Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to the north city limit. Referring to Exhibit 1, Mr. Johnson explained that Melrose Drive is designated as a prime arterial roadway in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. This segment is very short. It was a number of years in the making before it was finally constructed and opened in August of this year. The segment is approximately 0.34 miles in length. Since it's opening, the average daily traffic volume on that street has been measured at 21,000 vehicles per day, well below the prime arterial standard of 40,000 vehicles and above. Considering that the road has only been open since August, it is a dramatic increase in volume. Mr. Johnson commented that a prime arterial, including this segment, is six traffic lanes, three in each direction separated by a raised median. In the case of the current configuration, southbound Melrose Drive approaching Palomar Airport Road has two through lanes with two right turn lanes. That configuration will change when some minor widening on the south side of the intersection takes place. When that happens, the road can be striped with three southbound lanes and one right turn only lane. Mr. Johnson explained that in order to establish a prima facie speed limit, the California Vehicle Code requires that an Engineering and Traffic Survey be conducted. The survey was completed and some of the key features are as follows. When considering the establishment of a prima facie speed limit, the three most persuasive factors that are considered in that Engineering and Traffic Survey are (1) critical speed (85th percentile speed); (2) collision history; and (3) conditions that may not be readily apparent to the driver. A speed survey was conducted on Melrose Drive north of Palomar Airport Road and the critical speed was determined to be 54 miles per hour. The 85th percentile speed means that 85 percent of vehicles are traveling at or below 54 miles per hour. That is an important distinction that is often not understood. The upper 15 percent are the drivers that would be December 4, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 3 subject to the enforcement actions by the Police Department after a speed limit has been posted on the roadway. Mr. Johnson commented that there is currently no posted speed limit upon the roadway. Because it is a multilane divided roadway, it would have a maximum or absolute speed limit of 65 miles per hour. The action by the Commission today is to consider lowering the speed limit on Palomar Airport Road from that maximum speed limit. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices states that a prima facie speed limit should be established at the nearest 5 mile per hour increment to the critical speed. In this case, with a 54 mile per hour critical speed, it suggests that 55 miles per hour should be considered for the prima facie speed limit on this portion of Melrose Drive. Establishing a 55 mile per hour speed limit would be consistent with the portion of Melrose Drive south of Palomar Airport Road. There have been no reported collisions on the roadway since it's opening in August, and there are no conditions that are not readily apparent to the driver. There is a traffic signal at Lionshead Avenue and that traffic signal location is delineated with signing and striping to indicate the presence of a traffic signal. Other markings on Melrose Drive indicate the bicycle lanes and the parking restrictions that are in place. In conclusion, Mr. Johnson stated upon review of the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee, which is a staff committee, recommends establishing a 55 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to the north city limit. DISCUSSION: Vice-Chair Roney asked for clarification in the staff report where it mentioned that the City of Vista staff was going to re-evaluate the speed limit on Melrose Drive in Vista. Mr. Johnson responded that he spoke several months ago with the Traffic Engineer for the City of Vista. They currently have a 50 mile per hour posting and that posting was established and determined when Melrose Drive terminated at the Vista south city limit and there was no extension into Carlsbad. The Vista traffic engineer indicated, without giving a date, that it is something Vista staff will have to reconsider now that there has been a change in roadway conditions, meaning that the road is now extended into Carlsbad, and there is traffic traveling to and from Vista into and out of Carlsbad. Commissioner Bradshaw asked if that would be considered a speed trap if one was heading northbound going from a 55 mile per hour speed limit to a 50 mile per hour speed zone. Mr. Johnson answered that it would not be a speed trap in Carlsbad if it is established that 55 miles per hour is based on the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey. Someone challenging a ticket December 4, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting , Page 4 that is given in Vista by the Sheriffs Department may be able to make a case and convince the judge that it is a speed trap in Vista, because the Vista Engineering and Traffic Survey was not updated. If Vista goes through the update of the Engineering and Traffic Survey and still determines that the critical speeds are low enough that the 50 mile per hour speed limit can be justified, then they would be presenting that survey to the courts and that survey should hold up, depending what the judge determines. There is a chance that tickets could be thrown out if the judge determines that Vista does not have a valid Engineering and Traffic Survey to support 50 miles per hour in Vista. Public Testimony: Farrah Douglas, 2914 Carrillo Way, Carlsbad, stated that she was here to oppose the proposed 55 mile per hour prima facie speed limit on Melrose Drive. She was requesting that the speed be reduced to 45 miles per hour based on several reasons. First, there is the projected high volume of traffic during peak hours. Traffic projections for the intersection of Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road show that they expect 1,370 vehicles per hour on Melrose Drive crossing Palomar Airport Road both southbound and northbound. Southbound peaks are due to evening hours, and northbound peaks are in the morning hours. This is just the vehicles that are crossing and not those turning from Melrose Drive or turning to Melrose Drive. Those 1,370 vehicles are the vehicles crossing the intersection at 55 miles per hour. In comparison, they project that El Camino Real crossing Palomar Airport Road will have 1,378 northbound vehicles and 1,390 southbound vehicles in peak hours. Ms. Douglas said the second reason for the request is the merging of four lanes of traffic to three lanes of traffic - which makes it very difficult and confusing, plus there is a sight restriction because it is a downhill slope with a curve. The sight restriction of the intersection is at the crest of a hill as you approach it southbound allowing it to be a multiple lane change makes it very confusing to get into the correct lane, so a lot of drivers have to change their lane at the last minute. 55 miles per hour is too fast to address all of these changes and restrictions in view of what is coming at you. Setting a speed limit for the longer stretches of road that do not have sight restrictions is very different and should not be applied to areas that do have curves and sight restrictions. Ms. Douglas wanted to know where the traffic survey was conducted, if the traffic survey was used based on what speed limit. It appears to her as a resident that they are watching to see what speed that vehicles want to go and then setting the speed limit at that. So if people tomorrow start driving at 65 miles, is the City going to set the speed limit at 65 miles per hour, knowing how dangerous those curves are and those turnings are, and what high volume of traffic they are going to have? As a resident of Rancho Carrillo, she is asking the Commission to reduce the speed limit rather than increasing it. Commissioner Bradshaw asked Ms. Douglas where she got her data, the traffic volumes. December 4, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 5 Ms. Douglas replied that the volumes were taken from the projection that the City of Carlsbad prepared. Joanne Grueskin, 6182 Paseo Palero, Carlsbad, Rancho Carrillo HO A, thanked Mr. Johnson for notifying the residents of today's meeting. She stated that the speed limit on Melrose Drive has been an ongoing concern for them. They would like to ask the Commission to consider lowering the speed limit to 45 miles per hour north of Palomar Airport Road. Now that the segment of this road has opened, she has observed that instead of so many vehicles crossing the intersection, it seems that the bulk of them are turning to Palomar Airport Road. They felt that a 45 mile per hour speed limit would make it a safer intersection. Ms. Grueskin mentioned that in the news a couple of years ago, it stated that the second most dangerous intersection in North County was at El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. Those speed limits are 55 miles per hour both ways. About two years ago, there was a head-on collision at Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road. Their interest is in making this a safe intersection for all the vehicles that travel through it. Ms. Grueskin stated that they also believe that as one is traveling on Melrose Road north, i.e., going south approaching Palomar Airport Road, if you're getting in the turning lane, you really have to slow down quite a bit and the disparity in the speed limit - 55 miles per hour versus someone turning and switching out of the lane - would make it much safer. Ms. Grueskin explained that Mr. Woelffer, who has been before the Commission before but could not attend today, pointed out that on La Costa the speed limit is 45 miles per hour, but as you approach the curve where there are two exits from the two adjoining shopping centers, it is posted as 35 miles per hour on the one side to alert people that it is a blind congested area. Therefore, they would like some of those things to be taken into consideration for them on the north portion of Melrose Drive. Jack Williams, 2821 Rancho Rio Chico, Carlsbad, stated that he was a resident in Rancho Carrillo and he wanted to encourage the Commission not to set the speed limit at the maximum possible, but rather at the lowest possible speed limit. The reason is the issue of safety. Traffic continues to grow and grow and vehicles exceed the speed limit. Being the speed limit is 55 miles per hour, people are driving faster than 55 miles per hour. It is beginning to be a serious problem. He stated that he wanted to appeal to the Commission to use their common sense - not just statistics - to say 'this makes no sense.' If you set the speed limit to 55 miles per hour, you're almost putting pressure on Vista to up their speed limit. If their speed limit is 52 they should up it to make sure that they won't get a ticket and lose in the court. It doesn't make sense. Mr. Williams indicated that bicycle lanes on a 55 mile per hour speed limit - imagine yourself driving down that lane at 55 miles per hour, people coming by you in two and three lanes at 55 miles per hour, and you're on a bicycle! How do you feel? He stated that he was from San Jose and their December 4, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 6 expressways there have lowered the speed limit from 50 miles per hour to 45 miles, because they have bicycle lanes in the expressways. He saw that for himself when he lived there for 30 years, watching the changes. Moreover, he lived in a new development there for about four years and they put six lane roads going up into those neighborhoods and the speed limit is 45 miles per hour. Are people there driving slower than they're driving down here? He doubted it. He thought the difference was the philosophy of the City where -speed is a big issue - a safety issue. It results in greater injuries. Mr. Williams indicated that he pulled a piece of statistics from a national survey that shows as you increase the speed limit, more and more people violate the speed limit. It's a philosophy thing. He drove yesterday up to Orange County and he set his cruise control at 75 miles per hour in the middle lane, and watched what happened. For the entire period of going almost to Orange County, he was driving slower than the majority of drivers. He passed very few drivers to his right and many others were passing at 80 to 90 miles per hour. He doesn't want his neighborhood to be a freeway. He wants those people out there to slow down, and get the police force to enforce it. The only time he sees speeders slow down is when police are driving down the road and then everyone slows down. This is an issue; he feels pressure driving at 65 miles per hour on the freeway because he feels like someone is going to run him off. So we should not go the upper speed limit - the City needs to focus on getting the speed limit down a little bit. They're going to grow more, there's commercial development off of Melrose Drive, those people will be turning in and out going to work every day, and its just going to be more and more dangerous. He is asking that the Commission recommend a lower speed limit. 45 miles per hour would be ideal, but definitely as low as they can possibly get away with of setting it legally. Chair Gardner closed Public Testimony. Commissioner Dorsey asked Lt. Rawson that with the speed survey showing that the appropriate speed limit is 55 miles per hour, if they establish a speed limit of 45 miles per hour, are they now in a position where the speed limit is virtually unenforceable for anyone who intends to challenge it in court? Lt. Rawson, Carlsbad Police Department, replied that with the Engineering and Traffic Survey, the critical speed was determined to be 54 miles per hour upon this segment of roadway, and if there was instead a 45 mile per hour posting, it would legally be considered a speed trap by definition of the vehicle code as well as court rulings over the last several years. It would not be enforceable by the Police Department. Commissioner Bradshaw asked if the Commission could summarily post 45 miles per hour as the public testimony suggests. December 4, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 7 Mr. Johnson stated that the Commission can make what recommendation they believe is appropriate based on the information presented. The City Council ultimately makes the decision to adopt an ordinance to establish a speed limit. He said he couldn't speak for the City Council if they would knowingly post a low speed limit when they know that when the residents ask the police to be out there to do enforcement, the police would tell them that they can't go out there because it's a speed trap. This is a legal issue. The courts are very serious about it. They will tell the police that police cannot be out there, and they better not be bringing any tickets to them written in a speed trap. Otherwise, there are certain actions that the court will take against the police in that case because the roadway needs to have a speed limit in accordance with the Engineering and Traffic Survey. Can the City Council post a lower speed limit and then not have any enforcement? That's a decision the City Council would have to make. It would be very awkward for the police, Engineering Department, City Council, and the Commission to have a posted speed limit and have to tell the residents that you cannot have a policeman out there doing any enforcement action because it is a speed trap. Also, having speed traps on one or more streets hi Carlsbad hurts the credibility of all speed zones in Carlsbad that come into play. That is not something that we would want in front of the courts. We would want the courts to believe that Carlsbad is establishing speed limits in accordance with the law and the speed limit that is out there is supportable by the results of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, and whatever benefit of the doubt is needed to be given to the policeman that wrote the ticket that would be the case by the judge or the Commissioner in the San Marcos Court. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Dorsey, and duly seconded by Vice-Chair Roney, to recommend establishing a 55 mile per hour prima facie speed limit upon Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to the north city limit. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Gardner, Roney, Dorsey, Bradshaw NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ITEM 6B: Install a STOP sign on Wright Place at its intersection with Palomar Oaks Way. Mr. Johnson stated that this request was initiated by Dannette Hess asking that a stop sign be installed on Wright Place at its intersection with Palomar Oaks Way.' Referring to Exhibit 1, he said that Palomar Oaks Way was the subject of discussion last month to consider establishing a prima facie speed limit. It is a short industrial street that terminates north of Dryden Place. The particular intersection under consideration today is located northerly of Palomar Airport Road. It is an industrial cul de sac street. December 4, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 8 Mr. Johnson explained that when staff receives a request for a stop sign on the stem of the T- intersection—and in this case, there is a driveway on the opposite side - staff analyzes the particular street for the 10 mile per hour safe approach speed. This analysis has been the subject of previous items regarding the stem of a T-intersection that the Traffic Safety Commission has considered. What we are looking for is a 10 mile per hour vehicle traveling oh the minor street, Wright Place, and when they reach the conflict point in the intersection for the approaching vehicle on the major street, which is Palomar Oaks Way. We want to make sure that there is at least stopping sight distance available on the major street. If there are obstructions, buildings, fences, or hedges that are on the corner of the street, then there is a possibility that that safe approach speed at 10 miles per hour would result in a conflict with the vehicle traveling on the major street and not having the stopping sight distance on the major street. In the case of Wright Place looking to the south, Mr. Johnson indicated that the actual available stopping sight distance is 215 feet, whereas 250 feet of stopping sight distance for the Palomar Oaks Way vehicle is required. Therefore, at the conflict point there is reduction less than the minimum required. When a driver on Wright Place is looking to the north, 250 feet of stopping sight distance is required as the driver pulls onto Palomar Oaks Way and reaches the conflict point. In reality, there is 596 feet of actual sight distance available at the decision point. A driver approaching the intersection of Palomar Oaks Way when they are on Wright Place and looking north, has a very long available sight distance. They have a reduced available sight distance on only 215 feet when they are looking to the south. Looking to the south, it is a combination of the grading of the lots, the landscaping, and the roadway itself is lower than the intersection, meaning that there is a rise in the road for vehicles traveling up the hill to reach the intersection. As a result, the safe approach speed required distance is less than the minimum and the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee is that a stop sign be placed on Wright Place at its intersection with Palomar Oaks Way. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Bradshaw asked if staff could install a stop sign on the driveway also. Mr. Johnson replied that a stop sign on the driveway would be the responsibility of the private property owner. Commissioner Bradshaw commented that she noticed there was no striping on the street at the subject location. Mr. Johnson answered that the need for striping is predicated on traffic volumes, actual collisions, and the need to separate traffic. Putting striping on a roadway serves a purpose of channelizing the vehicles, but it also becomes a routine regular maintenance requirement and if there are no issues December 4, 2006 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 9 with conflicts, then typically a number of roads do not get centerline striping. There is striping between Wright Place and Palomar Airport Road - that's where the greatest numbers of conflicts and turns would occur. Further to the north, at this time, there has not been a need to differentiate the travel lanes with a centerline striping. Therefore, there is a lack of maintenance at this time. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Dorsey, and duly seconded by Commissioner Bradshaw, to recommend the installation of a STOP sign on Wright Place at its intersection with Palomar Oaks Way. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Gardner, Roney, Dorsey, Bradshaw NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ITEM 7: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Bradshaw wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Years. ITEM 8: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER Mr. Johnson also wished the Commission happy holidays and a happy new year. It has been a busy year. There have been a number of items before the Commission this year, and he wanted to thank everyone for their hard work. In addition, a thank you went to the minutes clerk for getting the minutes to staff in a timely manner so they can be included each month for the Commission's consideration. Next month, the January meeting falls on the first Monday, the January 1st holiday; therefore, the January meeting is cancelled. The next regular meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission is scheduled to be held on February 5,2007 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion Chair Gardner adjourned the Regular Meeting of December 4,2006 at 3:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Woodbeck Minutes Clerk