Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-08; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF : DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: PLACE OF MEETING: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION September 8,1997 (Regular Meeting) 3:OO p.m. City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Blake called the Meeting to order at 3:OO p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Blake, Allen, Courtney, Green, and Gillfillan Staff Members Present: Bob Johnson, Traf6c Engineer Bruce May, Senior Police Ollicer, Carlsbad Police Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Commissioner Green, the Commission approved the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 4,1997, with the following corrections: Page 3, Item 6B, Paragraph 2., should read, Commissioner GiWdlan, regarding the curb median. . . . etc., not Commissioner Green. Commissioner Courtney abstained. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PREVIOUS BUSINESS: TrafEc Engineer, Bob Johnson announced that, on September 2,1997, the City Council re-appointed Cdssioners Allen and Green to the Traffic Safety Commissioner for a four-year term, and offered his congratulations to both Commissioners. Mr. Johnson also advised that their terms of office will expire in the year 200 1. Mr. Johnson also announced that the City Council concurred with the Trdc Safety Commission's recommendation to establish a prima facie speed limit of 40 mph on Batiquitos Drive bm Poinsettia Lane to Kestrel Drive, and introduced the ordinance to establish that speed limit. 6A. Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real Intersection - A rcquert to eliminate the eastbound RIGHT TURN ONLY lane on Tamarack Avenue at El Camino Real and convert it to a THROUGIURIGHT shared lane. Traffic Engineer, Bob Johnson presented some background information and the staffreport as follows: This item was discussed at the April 7,1997 Traffic Safety Commission meeting, at which time the motion to accept the TralXc Safety Coordinating Committee's recommendations to leave the existing RIGHT TURN ONLY lane for eastbound Tamarack at El Camino, resulted in a 2-2 tie vote (motion failed) as only four members of the Commission were present. Mr. Johnson went on to explain that in the Traffic Commission Rules and Procedures, the Commission has asked that when there is a 2-2 vote, the item be reconsidered at the next possible meeting when there are five Commissioners present. Since then, there has not been a 111 Commission present until this meeting. September 8, 1997 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 2 This item was initiated by Commissioner Green, on December 2,1996, at which time he asked the Commission to consider whether the “must turn right” lane on eastbound Tamarack approaching El Camino should be eliminated. Mr. Johnson stated that he had received a telephone call, hm a citizen, stating that he agreed that that lane should be changed to a THROUGHAUGHT lane. Mr. Johnson pointed out that some of the issues that were presented in question form and discussed at the April meeting, need clarification and are discussed as follows: 1. The concern that the through lane on the west side of El Camino does not line up with the corresponding through lane on the east si& of El Camino. Mr. Johnson presented the survey data and drawings for that intersction that show that there is a very slight offset of perhaps less than a foot, and that the lanes, for the most part, line up. Mr. Johnson explained that the curves in the approaches to the intersection actually create an optical illusion that the lanes are mis-aligned. 2. The placement of the RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT sign. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the sign is about 135 feet west of the intersection and 63 feet east of the driveway at Amberwood Court and can be seen ti-om an adequate distance (500 feet or more). 3. The collision history at that intersection. Mr. Johnson stated that the collision history, is very good. Since the beginning of 1994, there have been only 2 collisions reparted One of the collisions involved through tr&c on El Camino and the other, an eastbound left turn fiom El Camino. Neither of them was involved, in any way, with eastbound traffic on Tamarack approaching the intersection. 4. Mid-block collisions on Tamarack, east of the iutersection. Mr. Johnson indicated that there have been no such collisions recorded since the beginning of 1994. Mr. Johnson further stated that the Tr&c Safety Coordinating Committee’s recommendation , based on existing conditions, was to leave the RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT as it is at this time. In their opinion, that Configuration does not appear to be presenting any problems for eastbound traffic. The basis for their conclusion is the good operational and safety characteristics and features of the intersection, including the low instances of Collisions. This recommendation, however, does not preclude the possibility that changing conditions in the future may necessitate the proposed changes at that intersection. This intersection is operates at LOS “A”, the highest level of mice and is calculated and based on the configuration that exists with the eastbound left turn, through, and right turn lanes. There is adequate capacity with the current configuration and no changes are indicated. Mr. Johnson pointed out that there is no history of mid-block collisions west of this intersection. Good sight distance exists, there are no operational problems occurring, and the vehicles in the through lane clear on each tr&c signal cycle. Mr, Johnson also pointed out that the RIGHT TURN ONLY lane is very mow and there isn’t enough room for a vehicle to be “stored” there, at the intersection, while waiting to go through and still allow enough room for a vehicle to make a right turn on a red signal. Basically, any eastbound vehicle at a red signal, would effectively block any other right turning vehicle. Essentially, there is no possibility for a right turn on a red signal as long as thae is just one vehicle waiting to continue eastbound on a green signal. Mr. Johnson concluded his report by reiterating that the Tdc Wety Coordinating Committee recommends that the eastbound RIGHT TURN ONLY lane remain and that it not be converted to a shared THROUGWRIGHT land that staffmonitor this location for any future problems with tr&c operations. Commissioner Gillfillan, asked Mr. Johnson to cob that the Commissioner’s opinion that the figures that appear on the Queuing Studies on 311 8/97, between 4:30 and 530 p.m., Cycle 20, and the figures appearing for 3/13/97, in that same time period, Cycle 8 and 1 1, indicate that this intersection is working very well as it now exists. Mr. Johnson concurred with Commissioner Gillfillan’s interpretation. September 8, 1997 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 3 Commissioner Green, referred to a past meeting and Mr. Johnson’s explanation of a shared THROUGH/RIGHT lane at El Camino and Carlsbad Village Drive (hereinah refa to a CVD) and asked if his explanation of the two intersections vary, and if so, why. Mr. Johnson responded that he wasn’t quite sure what Commissioner Green was refdg to, but there is more room for a shared THROUGwRlGHT lane at CVD and El Camino than there is at Tamarack and El Camino. Additionally, the relatively loose geometrics at CVD and El Camino do not compare with the tight geometries at Tamarack and El Camino which essentially would prevent a truly functional THROUGWRIGHT lane. Commissioner Courtney, regarding Commissioner Gillfillan’s earlia reference to the Queuing Studies, stated that he agrees that there doesn’t seem to be any current problems. Due to his concern for future problems due to growth, Commissioner Courtney asked for reassuranw that the Commission would be allowed to shdy and discuss this intersection again at some time in the future. The Commissioner also asked if it would be possible to locate a sign reading “THROUGH TRAFFIC, MERGE LEFT -RIGHT TURN ONLY AHEAD”, further to the west in order to give more warning of the RIGHT TURN ONLY lane. Mr. Johnson responded by agreeing that there is a sign of that nature that could be placed further west, waming drivers of the RIGHT TURN ONLY. Commissioner Allen agreed that there doesn’t seem to be any problems with the intersection, as it currently stands. Chairperson Blake, stated that he is in favor of changing the RIGHT TURN ONLY lane to a shared THROUGHRIGHT lane and pointed out that in his opinion there is a problem during evening Mc hours. He further stated that he feels that there are not enough cars needing to make right turns, at any time, to necessitate a RIGHT TURN ONLY lane. Chairperson Blake invited anyone wishing to testify, to please approach the podium. Tom Flannagan, 2988 Ridgefleld Avenue, Carlsbad, an attorney and a product liability consultant, stated that he fin& the approach to the intersection of El Camino and Tamarack to be somewhat confusing. He further stated that he CoIlSiders that intersection to be biased toward right turn traffic when the configuration should be of more benefit to the through traf€ic. He pointed out that there is a steep grade and curve in the eastbound approach which makes it dif€icult to move to the left (through) lane when necessary. Mr. Flannagan also stated that he often sees vehicles in the right lane go straight across the intersection because they missed seeing the warning sign. In conciusion, Mr. Flannagan stated that he thinks that the current configuration of the intersection is an incomect design and would lie to see it changed to a shared THROUGHRIGHT lane. Chairperson Blake asked what time of the day Mr. Flannagan drives through that intersection. Mr. Flannagan responded that he drives through there at various times of the day and evening. Commissioner Allen pointed out that it was agreed that there could be an additional warning sign placed further up the hill, to alert drivers to the RIGHT TURN ONLY lane ahead, which would aileviate much of the problem. Commissioner Gillfillan asked ifhe correctly understd that there is a waming sign west of the intersection. Mr. Johnson stated that the Commissioner’s understanding is cotfed that there is a sign, “RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT”, approximately 135 feet east of the intersection and his department can erect an additional sign, further west of Birchwood, that would provide more advanced notitication of the RIGHT TURN ONLY lane. Chairperson Blake stated that it appears to him that the design of the approach to El Camino is restricting the flow of the predominanty through traffic (for 22 to 23 hours per day), in favor of the 1 to 2 hours of heavy demand for right turns. Commissioner Courtney stated that he tends to agree with Chairperson Blake, except that those vehicles waiting to cross, always clear with each cycle of the signal and therefore, does not agree that there should be a change to a shared THROUGH/RIGHT lane. I I J J 1 September 8, 1997 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 4 ACTION: On motion by Commissioner GillfilIan, and duly seconded, the Traffic Safety Commission confinned the validity of the intersedon of El Camino Real and Tamarack Avenue, determined that it remain in it's current configuration and concurred with the recommendation of the Traftic Safety Coordinating Committee and requested that an advanced warning sign be posted westerly of the intersection. AYES: Allen, Courtney, and Gillfillan NOES: Blake and Green 6B. Cannon Road, Pas- Del Norte to LEG0 Drive - Request to establish a prima facie speed limit. Tr&c Engineer Bob Johnson began the staff report and described the project as follows: This project is to establish a prima facie speed limit on a new -on of Cannon Road and to change a small -on of the existing Cannon Road that currently has a 35 mph prima facie speed limit. The entire length of Cannon Road from Carlsbad Boulevard to Car Country Drive cunrently has a 35 mph speed zone. The portion of Cannon Road from Car Countq Drive to LEGO Drive, has recently been completed and extended to the LEG0 Drive terminus. There is a signal at that terminus but is not yet operational. To the east of the terminus is the construction access to the LEGO site. There is a 90" turn hm Cannon Drive to LEGO Drive (and vice versa). Speed surveys were conducted and it was found that the critical speed at a location 0.15 miles east of Paseo del Norte was 44 mph and 400 feet west of LEGO Dnve, the critical speed was found to be 45 mph. In the hture Cannon Road will be extended, easterly, hn LEGO Drive to El Camino Real. The Traffic Survey indicates that it would be appropriate to change the portion of Cannon Road, hm Paseo del Norte to Car Country Drive, fnnn the existing 35 mph to 40 mph and then continue that 40 mph speed limit hm Car Country Drive to LEG0 Drive. This, in effect, would have 35 mph from Carlsbad Blvd., to Paseo del Norte and 40 mph beginning at Paseo del Norte and continuing easterly to LEG0 Drive. There will be further surveys to determine the proper speed limit(s) when Cannon Road is extended further east to El Camino Real. Cannon Road is a major arterial with a 50 mph design speed and as the road is extended, there is a chance that the speed limit would have to be raised, depending on what is found in the Engineering and Traffic Survey, including the critical speeds along the new portion. Under today's condition, the recommendation of the Trac Safely Coordinating Committee is to establish 40 mph from Paseo del Norte, easterly to LEGO Drive and leave the remaining portion of Cannon Road at 3 5 mph. Commissioner Gillfillan, for clarification, asked if was comt that from Carlsbad Blvd. to Paseo del Norte, the speed limit is currently 40 mph. Mr. Johnson corrected the Commissioner and stated that the limit there is currently 35 mph. In addition, the current speed limit for all of Cannon Road from Carlsbad Blvd. to Car Country Drive is 35 mph, as it has been since it was first opened. The new portion of this road is from Car Country Drive to LEG0 Drive. However, the proposal is to change the 35 mph speed limit on Cannon, from Paseo del Norte to Car Country Drive to 40 mph to coincide with the proposed 40 mph zone from Car Country Drive to LEG0 Drive. Commissioner Gillfillan expressed concern regarding the possible negative effect of having varying speed limits in close proximity and asked Senior Police Officer, Bm May, for his opinion on the matter. Officer May stated that the changes in the speed limits are not likely to affect the average driver in addition to the fact that the design will more than support a 40 mph speed limit. He added that since Annada Drive is a si& street, he does not feel that a speed change will be an issue there. Regarding Car Country Drive, ofticer May stated that the concerns are the issues surrounding the mechanics and car buyers who test drive vehicles in that area and tend to ignore any speed limits, regardless of where they are pted. However, that is a separate issue and does not apply to the routine driver. Commissioner GillfilIan asked what the current speeds are on Car Country Drive and Paseo del Norte. Officer May replied that throughout Car Country the posted speed is 35 mph and exiting Car Country on Paseo del Norte, Southbound, the limit changes to 40 mph all the way to Poinsettia Lane. Commissioner Gillfillan, to clari@, asked if he was correct in that officer May sees a real distinction between Cannon Road and Armada, as far as speed limits, and that he does not see the changes in speeds as enforcement issues. .. September 8, 1997 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 5 Officer May responded that the department has not had an opportunity to “work” Armada Drive, because there is no posted speed limit, to date. He added however, that they have had a number of calls from some of the businesses in the area, reportmg speeding cars. On the other hand, Camon Road has not posed any speed problems or complaints of speeding, thus far. Officer May added that as progress is made on the new roads and streets and traftic increases on Cannon Road, speed will become an issue and will have to be dealt with. Mr. Johnson interjected with the information that because Cannon Road will be considered a major arterial, there will be no driveways exiting onto Cannon. The businesses that will be located on Cannon will not be allowed to have driveways that exit directly onto Cannon Rd. Commissioner Courtney stated that he would rather see the entire area with a posted speed of 35 mph, rather than have Merent speeds on Merent streets and roads. Commissioner Allen stated his agreement with Commissioner Courtney regarding an overall 35 mph posted speed rather than varying speeds throughout the entire area. He also commented that he has no doubt that the speed limit will eventually be raised, once Cannon Road is extended to and meets with El Camino Real. Mr. Johnson responded to both Commissioner Allen and Commissioner Courtney by stating that it is true that when Cannon is opened all the way through to El Camino, there will more than likely be a raise in the posted limit as the road is designed for a 50 mph. Commissioner Allen stated that he is a little surprised that this higher speed is being proposed because it is his understanding that there is a trfic signal being constructed at the comer of Paseo del Norte and Cannon Road and also one a LEG0 Drive and CannOn. Mr. Johnson dumed that there is, indeed, a signal being constructed at Paseo del Norte and there will be another at LEG0 Drive and Cannon in the near future. He also reminded the Commission that if a speed limit is posted, contrary to the speeds mmmended by the Engineering and Trfic Survey, the police department will not be able issue speeding citations, using radar, and have them hold up in court. Commissioner Green reminded his fellow Commissioners that Canwn Road is intended, designed, and built for an arterial that would carry more traffic hm 1-5 to LEG0 and beyond, whereas the side streets such as Armada, Car Country, and p- del Norte, are merchant and local traftic areas that should and will have lower speeds. ACTION On motion by Commissioner Green, and duly seconded, the Traffic Safety Commission recommended that a prima facie speed limit of 40 miles per hour be established upon Cannon Road tiom Paseo del Norte to LEG0 Drive. as presented. AYES: Blake, Allen, Courtney, Green, and Gillfillan 6C. A1 - A request to estabhh a prima facie speed limit on Armada Drive from PaIomar Airport Rod to LEG0 Drive. Trac Engineer Bob Johnson began the staffreport and described the project as follows: This project is to establish a prima facie speed limit on the recently CoIlStNcted Armada Drive, between Palomar Airport Road to LEG0 Drive. It is a secondary arterial approximately 0.87 miles in length with a 40 mph design speed. It CoMeCts the “round-about” at LEG0 Drive, on the north, with Palomar Airport Road, to the south. In addition to bus turn-outs and bike lanes, there are some parking spaces on the west side of Armada available for those people wishing to visit businesses or just wanting to enjoy the view. Traftic volumes vary on the roadway between 1,300 and 2,100 Average Daily Traffic (ADT). An Engineering and Traffic Survey was conducted to help establish a prima facie speed limit and in two locations the critical speeds were found to be 40 mph and 39 mph, respectively. Since this road has only been open since May, it has a good accident history, meaning there have been no accidents on that roadway since it’s opening. There have been some complaints of speeding vehicles, most of which is thought to be from mechanics and car buyers performing test drives. Armada Drive is currently unposted which means that it is a 55 mph road until posted otherwise. The recommendation of the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee, based on the results of the Engineering and Traftic Survey, is to establish a prima facie speed limit of 35 mph., on Armada Drive from LEG0 Drive southerly to Palomar Airport Road. September 8, 1997 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 6 Commissioner Allen asked Mr. Johnson to explain how the “round-about” will work and the necessity for it. Also, the Commissioner asked if that is where a vehicle, coming fiom Armada Drive, will turn right to get to LEGO. Mr. Johnson responded by explaining that the “round-about” is designed to minimize congestion at that point, since that is where the entrance to LEGOLAND is considered to begin. Also, that is indeed where trattic coming hm Armada Drive will tum right to get to LEGO. Commissioner Gillfillan stated that to his way of thinking, there is a “rule of thumb” that there should be about 10 mph difference between the design speed and the posted speed. He went on to ask if it is more than just a “rule of thumb” or are we getting pretty close to the design speed as to be a liability issue. Mr. Johnson responded that it is not necessarily common to post a road 10 mph below the design speed and added that there m many instances where, based on the critical speed, the road would be posted right at the design speed. In this we, had the critical speeds been in the low 40’s, there is a good chance that the recommendation would have been for a 40 mph posting, in the absence of any kind of collision history. ACTION On motion by Commissioner Courtney, and duly seconded, the TraiXc Safety Commission recommended that a prima facie speed limit of 35 miles per hour be established upon Armada Drive bemeen Cannon Road/LEGO Drive and Palomar Auport Road, as presented. AYES: Blake, Allen, Courtney, Green, and Gillfillan REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS: None REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER: None ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of September 8,1997, was adjourned at 4: 13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Cruise Minutes Clerk