Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-02-02; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF : DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: PLACE OF MEETING: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION February 2,1998 (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, and Courtney Absent: Gillfillan Staff Members Present: Bob Johnson, Traffic Engineer Jim Murray, Associate Engineer Bruce May, Senior Police Officer, Carlsbad Police Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES: On motion by Commissioner Allen, the Commission approved the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5,1998, as presented. AYES: Chairperson Blake and Commissioner Allen ABSTAIN: Courtney ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PREVIOUS BUSINESS: Traffic Engineer, Bob Johnson, reported that the ordinance establishing a prima facie speed limit of 30 miles per hour on Paseo Candalero, h Alicante Road to Alga Road, was introduced by the City Council on Tuesday, January 27,1998 and they will adopt the ordinance at their regular meeting on Tuesday, February 3,1998. NEW BUSINESS: 6A. Traffic Simal Evaluation Policv ReDort Associate Engineer, Jim Murray presented the staff report as follows: This item is a review of the 1998 Traffic Signal Evaluation and Qualification Policy Report and a request for approval by this Commission. The policy was originally adopted in 1988 and is updated bi-annually. This is the 5th update of the policy. The policy is intended to provide a mechanism to establish a ranking system to evaluate future traffic signalized intersections within the city. Intersections are basically evaluated and those that meet any of the Caltrans warrants are then placed on the Signal Qualification List. This list provides a systematic way of listing intersections based on their priorities and preliminary engineering. --four intersections were evaluated and of these, twenty-one met at least one of the Caltrans warrants and were subsequently put on the qualifications list. Also, twelve of the twenty-one locations are new intersections. With regard to the 1996 qualifications list, there were fourteen locations on that list of which five have dropped off the list for a variety of reasons; February 2,1998 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 2 Three of them are pending construction and two failed to meet warrants on this last evaluation. The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee has recommended that the 1998 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, including the Signal Qualification List, be adopted by the City Council. chmpemm Blake asked if Caltrans establishes the points and the relative weight system used to evaluate various potential signal locations. Mr. Murray replied that, in fact, Caltrans does set the seven factors for point qualification. Commissioner Allen asked staff to confirm that, under certain circumstances, this list could be modified or even superseded if it is determined that there is justification for another signal in another part of the city. Mr. Johnson responded by stating that a lower ranked traffic signal can be installed ahead of a higher ranked signal, with justification. He went on to state that the City Council looks very closely at whether or not an intersection meets warrants. Ifthere is a proposal to install a signal (at a location that does not meet traffic signal warrants) ahead of one already on the list, it may not be looked at as favorably as it would be if it were at least on the list, even if it is in last place. The policy states that signallzed intersections or locations for potential signalization will be based on meeting one or more of Caltrans warrant and that they be on the list. If, in the next two years, a particular intersection is evaluated and considered for signalization, and it meets the warrants, the item would be brought to the Commission with the proper evaluation of all seven qualification factors and where the qualification points are (in relation to those already on the list). The list would then be modified and taken back to the City Council. Regarding the TrSc Signal Qualification List, Commissioner Courtney asked if the prioritization of the list is determined by the Caltrans’ seven criteria and if that was the criteria used when drafting the 1998 list. Mr. Joh replied that the qualified signals are listed on the current list, based on the number of points each received on each of the seven qualification factors. He further stated that before they could be considered for evaluation, they had to meet one or more of the eleven Caltrans warrants. Once they met those warrants, then Mr. Murray evaluated each one based on the quahfication factors and the points indicated in the report. Those seven factors, and the corresponding points, per factor, are indicated in the Policy and that is what the numbers on the qualification list are based on. The Policy, itself, dictates how many maximum points under each factor can be given and the maximum possible out of the eighty points. Commissioner Courtney asked what determines when the proposed signals are funded and installed. Mr. Johnson replied that the dekmbtion is made, by staff, based on conditions, the ranking, circulation system, etc., and is fkdamentally judgmental as to when to place it into the CIP. He went on to state that when the CIP is reviewed and it appears that a funded signal on the list shouldn’t be installed at that time, it is placed lower on the list to await the appropriate time. If a signal is unfunded, it is then placed on the ‘‘unfunded‘‘ portion of the CIP and as the need arises, it is brought to the City Council in the CIP process. Chairperson Blake asked Mr. Murray what factors caused the aforementioned five signals to drop off the list. Mr. Murray responded by pointing out that of the five on the 1996 list, three are pending construction and two failed to meet warrants. ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Courtney, and duly seconded, the Traffic Safety Commission confirmed the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee to the City Council to approve and adopt, by Resolution, the 1998 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy as presented. - AYES: Blake, Allen, and Courtney February 2, 1998 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 3 6B. La Costa Avenue - Request to install traffic signals, flashing beacons and sidewalks at various locations. Trafllc Engineer Bob Johnson presented the staffreport and described the project as follows: This item is the consideration and discussion of various traffic control devices and related issues on La Costa Avenue, easterly of El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road. This item was initiated by a group of citizens calling themselves the La Costa Avenue Traffic Committee. Staff met with several representatives of the committee to discuss their concerns and staff requested that they put their concerns in the form of a letter and submit it to the City Engineer’s office. A letter from the La Costa Avenue Traffic Committee was received and a copy of that letter is on file in the Engineering Department. The request is for the installation of traffic signals at Cadencia Street, Romeria Street, and Vieja Castilla Way, as well as the installation of sidewalks on the north side of La Costa Avenue, the addition of a flashing beacon and painted crosswalk at Calle Madero, and the lowering of the speed limit to 40 miles per hour on all of La Costa Avenue. La Costa Avenue from a point 1,000 feet east of El Camino Real, easterly to Rancho Santa Fe Road, is a 45 mph speed zone and is approximately two miles in length. The majority of La Costa Avenue consists of four lanes except for the portion immediately east of Romeria (eastbound) where there is a lane “drop”, leaving one eastbound lane and two westbound lanes. Left turns are accommmodated on La Costa Avenue via two-way left turn lanes or left turn pockets at each of the intersections. Parking is allowed on the north side, westerly of Romeria Street, and on the south side, easterly of Romeria Street almost all the way to Levante. ADTs are 14,93 1 between Vieja Castilla and Calle Madero and 1 1,571 between Romeria Street and Cadencia Street. Those counfs were taken in 1997. Also, in 1997 there were ten reported mid-block traffk collisions, two of which had “exceeding safe speed” as the primary collision factor. Based on the collisions that have occurred and the volumes, the accident rate west of Calle Madero was calculated at 1.06 and between Calle Madero and Rancho Santa Fe Road the calculation was 0.98. This compares to a statewide average for a four lane road of 2.30, as determined by Caltrans. The local rates are about one-half of the statewide average. The traflic signal warrants were evaluated for the three locations. One of the locations is number 6 on the 1998 Traffk Signal Qualification List and the other two are tied at number 14. Because Romeria and Cadencia provides either direct or indirect access to La Costa Heights Elementary School, it was determined that it would be appropriate that those two locations be signaluad. The Trafllc Safely chodm&ng Committee, however, did not recommend that a signal .be installed at Vieja Castilla. The lane ‘‘&x$‘ previously mentioned, was also recommended to be moved to the west so that the eastbound lane “drop” would occur prior to the Romeria intersection. Also, if a traffic signal is installed at that location, that land “drop” would be part of the signal design. Warrants were analyzed for a flashing beacon at Calle Madero. Numerous turning movement counts were conducted in the one hour prior to the beginning of the school day and again in the one hour after the ending of the school day. No school pedestrians were found to be crossing La Costa Avenue and, cxmqedy, the warrants for a school crossing at that location were not met and the recommendation was that no flashing beacon be installed at that intersection. Regardmg sidewalks, thirteen parcels on the north side of La Costa Avenue (a distance of about 1,450 feet) are currently devoid of sidewalks. However, when those parcels are developed, they will be required to install sidewalks. In staff‘s opinion, to put sidewalks in now would result in considerable damage to the sidewalks by construction crews and equipment and the loss of the money spent on their installation. There is approximately 1.23 miles, on the south side of La Costa Avenue, that have not had sidewalks comtm&d because of the topography, vegetation, and a number of other obstructions which would make the installation of sidewalks there very costly. It was the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee that sidewalks on the north side of La Costa Avenue not be constructed. Also with regard to sidewalks, in 1991 the sidewalk inventmy was completed and a priority ranking was established. There were locations along La Costa Avenue that ranked as high as No. 23 while other segments ranked Nos. 40,48,75, and 76. The top locations currently are being installed because they are near, or leading directly to, schools. February 2,1998 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 4 The speed limit issue has also been discussed with the residents of the area. The Engineering and Traffic Survey would not support the lowering of the existing 45 mph speed limit. To arbitrarily lower the speed limit would result in effectively eliminating the radar enforcement of the speed limit by law enforcement officials. Pacing could be used to determine a violator’s speed but pacing is, for the most part, very inefficient. Also, if the speed limit is not justified by the Engineering and Traflic Survey, the courts will not uphold the citation and the case will be dismissed. Overall, because a 40 mph limit would not be enforceable, La Costa Avenue would effectively become a street without a speed limit. The rmmmendation of the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee is as follows: 1) Traffic signals be installed at Cadencia Street and Romeria Street; 2) Move the lane drop located immediately to the east of Romeria Street to a location westerly of Romeria 3) No flashing beacon or painted crosswalk be installed at Calle Madero; 4) Sidewalks on the north side of La Costa Avenue be installed by land owners as development occurs and that no sidewalks on the south side be considered at this time; 5) The speed limit of 45 miles per hour remain and not be lowered to 40 miles per hour. street; If this item, all or in part, is recommended by this Commission, the recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration and final disposition. Chairperson Blake asked if there have been any intersection collisions on La Costa Avenue. Mr. Johnson stated that there were six intersection collisions in 1997, each at a different intersection. Of the six, one was caused by “exceeding the safe speed”, and the remaining five were “violation of right-of-way”. Chanperson Blake asked why the installation of a signal was not recommended for the intersection at La Costa Avenue and Vieja Castilla Way. Mr. Johnson replied that the decision was based on the ranking and the fact that it is not anywhere near a school or on a direct route to a school. It was felt that the other inWons had highex priority because of their proximity to the La Costa Heights Elementary School. Chairperson Blake asked if there have been any accidents at Vieja Castilla and Mr. Johnson replied negatively. PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Eric Spitzbarth, 3026 Cadencia Street, Carlsbad, questioned the need for a traflic signal at Cadencia versus alternate methods of lrailic control. He stated that it is his personal opinion that traflic signals are obstacles and human nature being what it is, people would seek an alternate route in an effort to avoid the signal. That would then increase traffic on the adjacent residential streets. Mr. Spitzbarth also pointed out that because of the nature of the topography fi-om Rancho Santa Fe Road to Cadencia, he believes that there would be a higher incidence of running the red light and/or rear end collisions because of the blind curve at that location. Mr. Spitzbarth offered the following alternatives to a traffic signal: 1) a “No Left Turn” sign on Cadencia warning of the dangers of turning left onto La Costa Avenue and, 2) a merge lane on La Costa from Cadencia (eastbound). Clive Wdden, 2448 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that one of the problems facing the homeowners and residents of La Costa Avenue, is that they must exit their properties directly onto La Costa Avenue. Because there are is no signal at Vieja Castilla, vehicles have accelerated to a much higher speed than allowed by law and make it nearly impossible for residents to exit their driveways. Mr. Walden also pointed out that there is major construction, in progress, at the top of La Costa Avenue at Rancho Santa Fe Road, and at the top of La Costa Avenue at El Camino Real, which will (according to the trailic studies) nearly double the existing traflic. He further stated that the reason they (residents of La Costa Avenue) would like to see a traffic signal at Vieja Castilla is that it would create a trBk gap that would give them regular opportunities to exit their driveways, safely. Also, with the signals nearly a mile away from Vieja Castilla, vehicles will February 2, 1998 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 5 have ample opportunity to ramp up their speed (hlgher than allowed) by the time they get to Vieja Castilla, again making it nearly impossible to exit driveways. Cdy Walden, 2448 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that people umhually drive at 50 to 55 mph as they pass her home and it takes a very long time for her to exit her driveway. She further pointed out that the number of people traveling past Vieja Castilla are far greater than those passing Romeria and Cadencia, particularly between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. Commissioner Allen asked Ms. Walden if she thinks the signal at Romeria will slow the traffic. Ms. Walden replied that the signal at Romeria is much to far away from Vieja Castilla to effectively reduce speed. Glenn Bechthold, 2420 La Costa Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that he has lived at this address for four years and there have been five accidents in his ht yard, two of which were reported and three just cleaned up the messes and left. The apparent cause of those &dents appeared to be caused by the accelerated speeds coming up the hill past Vieja Castilla, westbound, to El Camino Real. Mr. Bechthold also questioned the validity of the “average rate of speed” of 52 mph in the staff report, and that it is his opinion that the majority of people are meling at speeds as high as 75 and 80 mph. Mr. Bechthold further questioned why La Costa Avenue has a 45 mph speed limit (and is considered to be a safe speed) when similar areas in the city have 35 and 40 mph speed limits and don’t have residential driveways on them. Mr. Bechthold also stated his disagreement with Mr. Spitzbarth‘s statement regarding traffic signals and alternatives. Since the City’s plans are to install medians, trees, and signals on El Camino Real west to 1-5, Mr. Bechthold asked why they can’t continue the beautification and control the traffic with medians, trees, signals, and sidewalks down La Costa Avenue. He went on to state that there are a large number of kids that walk along La Costa Avenue and when it gets muddy, they step into the street to avoid the mud. He voiced his concern for their safety, should even one car be out of control and hit and kill one or more of them. chaupersofl Blake asked if there is parking and or a bike lane along La Costa Avenue and Mr. Bechthold replied that there are both. Peter Sainato, 7620 Calle Madero, Carlsbad, representing the La Costa Avenue Traffic Committee, stated that his committee has submitted a petition containing over 200 signatures to the City Council, with the primary objective of reducing the speed limit on La Costa Avenue. Mr. Sainato presented the Commissioners with a “handout” (copy on file in the Engineering Department) which includes newspaper clippings, a letter from the principal of the La Costa Heights Elementary School, and a letter from a Calle Madero resident. He pointed out that there are a large number of people that turn off of La Costa Avenue onto Calle Madero and since crosswalks are not acceptable, he suggested that perhaps there could be an advisory limit posted for a speed lower than 45 mph. Mr. Sainato pointed out that the speed study was not done during peak hours and perhaps is showing speeds lower than if the speeds were tested throughout the day. After much discussion, Mr. Sainato stated that the consensus of the committee was that the speed limit should be set at 35 mph. They then met with city staffand canpromised at 40 mph. He stated that it is their feeling that 40 mph would at least give them some reduction of risk. Regarding accidents, Mr. Sainato stated that he is of the opinion that if an accident is not reported to a police department andor DMV, it is not included in the Engineering reports. He went on to point out that there is no other street in Carlsbad, having direct residential entrance and exit, with a speed limit over 40 mph. While it would be acknowledged that this roadway would not be built, today, he pointed out, it still must be recognized that there is a risk to this road and it does represent some unsafe conditions. Mr. Sainato concluded by suggesting that a signal at Vieja Castilla be reconsidered and the speed limit reduced to 40 mph. commissioner Courbeyexplainedhow State Law regulates the setting of speed limits and how those limits can and cannot be enforced or upheld by the courts. He further pointed out that if a limit is set, either higher or lower than that called for by the state, an individual can drive up to speeds of 65 mph without fear of being given a speedmg citation. Commissioner Courtney offered a little consolation, in that Leucadia Boulevard is due to be cut through and that should give some relief to the traflic on La Costa Avenue. Commissioner Allen agreed with Commissioner Courtney’s comments and added that to put a signal or crosswalk at Calle Madero, would be a mistake because of the blind cwve in the approach to the street. A signal there would certainly do more h February 2, 1998 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 6 harm than good. In response to a question fiom Mr. Walden, Mr. Johnson replied that, in a direct way, the fact that there are homes along a street is not taken into consideration in the evaluation of an intersection. On the other hand, and in an indirect way, residences on a given street are taken into consideration, in that those residences also generate traffic. So, that traffic volume, accident history, delay, etc,. are all factors that are considered in an intersection evaluation. Mr. Sainato suggested that another traffic volume study be done in the morning hours, as opposed to the one already conducted between the hours of 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Allen, and duly seconded, the Traffic Safety Commission confinned the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee that; 1) traffic signals be installed at Cadencia Street and Romeria Street; 2) move the lane drop located immediately to the east of Romeria Street to a location westerly of Romeria Street; 3) no flashing beacon or painted crosswalk be installed at Calle Madero; 4) sidewalks on the north side of La Costa Avenue be installed by land owners as development occufs and that no sidewalks on the south side be considered at this time; and, 5) the speed limit of 45 miles per hour remain and not be lowered to 40 miles per hour. AYES: Blake, Allen, and Courtney 6C. AdoDt a Traffic Safetv Commission Resolution of Commendation for Bud Green. Mr. Johnson presented this resolution for the Commission's approval and described the resolution as follows: Usually when a Commissioner migns after a number of years on the Commission, as Mr. Green has, the Commission adopts a Resolution of Commendation for that individual. ACHON: On motion by Commissioner Courtney, and duly seconded, the Traffk Safety Commission adcqted a Traffic Safety Committee Resolution of Commendation for Bud Green. AYES: Blake, Allen, and Courtney REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS: None REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER None ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of Februaty 2,1998, was adjourned at 4: 16 p.m. Minutes Clerk