Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-03; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION DATE OF MEETING: August 3,2009 (Regular Meeting) TIME OF MEETING: 3:00 p.m. PLACE OF MEETING; City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chair dimming called the Meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Chair Gumming welcomed Steve Gallagher to the Traffic Safety Commission for his first meeting. ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Jack Cumming Vice-Chair Guy Roney Commissioner Gordon Cress Commissioner Jairo Valderrama Commissioner Steve Gallagher Absent: None Staff Members Present: Robert Johnson, City Engineer Doug Bilse, Traffic Signal Systems Engineer Lt. Don Rawson, Carlsbad Police Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 6,2009 ACTION: Motion by Vice-Chair Roney, and duly seconded by Commissioner Valderrama, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on July 6,2009, as presented. VOTE: 3-0-2 ' AYES: Cumming, Roney, Valderrama NOES: None ABSTAIN: Cress, Gallagher ITEM 4 - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. August 3,2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 2 ITEM 5 - PREVIOUS BUSINESS: Robert Johnson, City Engineer, reported that the Commission's decision hi June to not recommend that a parking restriction be implemented on Paseo Descanso at night was appealed to the City Council and heard July 21,2009. The City Council overruled the Commission's recommendation and determined that there should be a no parking zone at night from 2:00 am. to 5:00 a.m. on Paseo Descanso from Carrillo Way to Paseo Cerro. Staff will prepare an ordinance for introduction by the City Council to establish the no parking at night restriction for the August 11,2009 City Council meeting. On August 18, 2009, the City Council would adopt the ordinance and 30 days later the ordinance would go into effect. In addition, based on a previous action and recommendation by the Traffic Safety Commission, the City Council will consider adopting an ordinance to establish stop control on Davis Avenue (west) at its intersection with Knowles Avenue. That item is scheduled by staff for ordinance introduction by the City Council on August 11,2009. ITEM 6 - NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 6A: Review and discuss changes in the current California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD) policy and procedure for setting speed limits in California. Mr. Johnson indicated this item is a brief discussion of the method for establishing prima facie speed limits hi California. Over the past three to four years, there have been different methods to establish a prima facie speed limit. CALTRANS recently established the methodology to set a prima facie speed limit. The California Traffic Control Devices Committee has been reviewing the matter for several years and recently made a recommendation to CALTRANS how to establish speed limits. CALTRANS issued a policy directive on June 29, 2009 that became effective July 1, 2009. The policy directive includes the changes for setting speed limits in California and those changes will be reflected in the California MUTCD. Mr. Johnson stated the new policy directive requires an Engineering and Traffic Survey. For Carlsbad, we have always included an Engineering and Traffic Survey when we brought forward recommendations to the Traffic Safety Commission. Per the California Vehicle Code, speed limits are reviewed every 5, 7, or 10 years, depending on changed conditions on the roadway. Carlsbad usually looks at roadways every 5 years. If there have not been changed conditions, we can go the 7 or 10 years. Those changed conditions might include additional traffic signals, road widening, or land uses adjacent to the roadway - something that has changed the character of the road which would reflect in the prevailing speed on the roadway. The policy directive indicates that the speed limits shall be established at the nearest 5 mile per hour increment. A couple of years ago, we would round up to the nearest 5 mile per hour increment. Now the speed limit will be established at the nearest 5 mile per hour increment The new directive indicates that if there are factors or extenuating circumstances, the speed limit can be dropped an additional 5 miles per hour, in compliance with the California Vehicle Code Sections 627 and August 3, 2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 3 22358.5. If the speed limit had the 5 mile per hour reduction, reasons have to be clearly indicated in the Engineering and Traffic Survey. There has to be substantial evidence or data to justify why a speed limit is reduced an additional 5 miles per hour. Continuing, Mr. Johnson indicated the last significant item in the policy directive is that the Engineering and Traffic Survey must be approved by a registered civil engineer or a registered traffic engineer when the speed limit is reduced by 5 miles per hour. That has not been a problem hi Carlsbad since Mr. Johnson himself is a registered civil engineer as well as a registered traffic engineer. The Caltrans directive includes an example of how to establish a prima facie speed limit. By definition, the critical speed is the 85th percentile speed. Based on the speed survey, if the critical speed is 37 miles per hour then the recommended speed limit would be set at the nearest 5 mile per hour increment, or 35 miles per hour. If the critical speed were 38 miles per hour, however, then the recommended speed limit would be 40 miles per hour.. There is the option to lower that by 5 miles per hour, so if the critical speed is at 38,39 or 40 miles per hour the 5 mile per hour reduction would be used to decrease the recommended speed limit to 35 miles per hour. This 5 miles per hour reduction requires substantial documentation and information. CALTRANS will be watching that aspect of the directive so it doesn't become customary to keep our speed limits arbitrarily low by routinely dropping it. Mr. Johnson explained the Commissioners hi the San Marcos Court will be examining closely all factors, the criteria, and the documentation justifying why the speed limit is being dropped below the critical speed. In Carlsbad, most of the speed limits are in compliance with the new criteria because staff has always paid careful attention to where the speed limit should be posted in relation to the critical speed. Several streets will have to be re-evaluated and discussed at the Commission and ultimately at City Council to initiate a different speed limit. DISCUSSION: Vice-Chair Roney asked if someone wants to lower the speed limit by 5 miles per hour, does that mean staff would have to go back and do a supplement to the Traffic and Engineering Survey, or would that be addressed in the main body of the original report? Mr. Johnson answered that the current Traffic and Engineering Survey was one page. It will probably have to be expanded to a two page report to address these types of speed reductions. In addition, certification will be included at the bottom of the page with an indication of who is signing the Engineering and Traffic Survey. He and Doug Bilse are registered traffic engineers in the State of California, and therefore complies with the Caltrans directive. August 3,2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 4 Commissioner Gallagher asked if speed surveys were always in round numbers, or could it be in fractions, like 35.6 miles per hour, which would give it more latitude if it is not a whole number. Mr. Johnson replied that the critical speed and actual speed is rounded to whole numbers, and staff doesn't try to calculate a tenth of a mile per hour. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the Commission is required to find those conditions not readily apparent or does staff bring it to this Commission? Mr. Johnson explained that staff brings the item to the Commission with all of the factors included in the Engineering and Traffic Survey, including if there were conditions not readily apparent to the drivers. That part of the Engineering and Traffic Survey is one of the more critical ones, including the collision history and the critical speed. Those three are the most persuasive factors in an Engineering and Traffic Survey. In an urban environment, it is often very difficult to find conditions that are not readily apparent to the driver. This is actually covered in the California Vehicle Code, section 22358.5 that states: "It is the intent of the Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions or any other conditions readily apparent to a driver, hi the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning as the basic rule of section 22350 is sufficient regulation as to such conditions." Section 22350 is basic speed law, which means you adjust your speed in accordance with prevailing conditions. It doesn't matter if you are on El Camino Real and the posted speed limit is 55 miles per hour, if something is happening, such as an incident, congestion, or construction -you may need to be driving 25 miles per hour to be safe. These are readily apparent conditions that the driver is expected to adjust his speed for accordingly. For years, the State Legislature has been very protective of establishing proper speed limits. Just because you are driving on a hill or on a curvy road, it does not mean agencies have to post a lower speed limit. Lt. Rawson explained that when the Engineering and Traffic Survey rounds down 5 miles per hour, it is incumbent on the officers testifying in court to very clearly and convincingly articulate the issues that are not readily apparent. The best example in Carlsbad is between the jetties along Carlsbad Boulevard by the power plant, between Tamarack Avenue and Cannon Road. It's a four lane divided highway. On the surface, why would you have to drive slowly? There are joggers and people with then* dogs and bikes. There is fishing on the east side of the roadway hi the harbor by SDG&E. These are the kinds of things that the officers have to articulate with every citation they write. That is the area of the survey that when brought to the Commission for recommendation to reduce the speed limit by 5 miles per hour will be enhanced a little to help articulate the issues in court, particularly one of these new regulations. August 3,2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 5 Mr. Johnson added that there is a staff committee that meets to discuss each item before it goes to the Commission. That committee is called the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee, and it is comprised of representatives from the Engineering Department, the Police Department, Fire Department, Risk Management, and Streets Department. It is their recommendation that is brought before the Commission with the wording "the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends. .." The input of the Police Department is very critical and very much a part of a recommendation for a prima facie speed limit. Chair Cumming mentioned Mr. Johnson stated he would be reviewing streets to see where modifications are needed in view of the new directive. Is there a set time for compliance on this directive? Are there time constraints? Mr. Johnson replied the way the courts may interpret the new directive is mat when the Engineering and Traffic Survey is due to be updated, it better be hi compliance with the current criteria. He couldn't imagine that with all of the hundreds of Engineering and Traffic Surveys that are in Carlsbad and in other cities that the court would immediately start throwing out every ticket that it brought to them. The directive doesn't specifically talk about a grandfathering or timeframe, but the Engineering and Traffic Survey should be updated each tune that they are due. Staff will look at the streets and prioritize the more critical streets that need to be updated, based on the input of the Police Department. Chair Cumming assumed that Poinsettia Lane was merely exemplary, that it isn't something that jumps out for that particular roadway. Mr. Johnson responded the California Traffic Control Devices Committee has met frequently in the last year to discuss the latest criteria. Staff had a feeling the criteria was going to be approved, so we tried to make sure we were in compliance with what eventually did come out. We had copies of the meeting minutes and that appeared to be the way they were heading with the recommendation to the CALTRANS director. The most recent speed zone on Poinsettia Lane should be in compliance. Chair Cumming indicated that Mr. Johnson had indicated some of the things are not considered apparent on the roadway to the driver regarding the 5 mile per hour discretionary reduction, because it is expected that a reasonable motorist driving safety would take that into account Beyond that, is it pure engineering judgment? Is that what is really involved, or is there anything more specific? Mr. Johnson replied that the policy directive indicates factors that should be included. Everything that is mentioned hi the directive that should be included is already being done hi Carlsbad. Even in the past, when staff recommended a speed limit a little lower, we tried to include those conditions August 3,2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 6 that are not readily apparent to the driver. The challenge for the Commission will be for an item where a lower speed limit is sensitive to the neighborhood and there may be citizens in the audience lobbying the Commission. The residents are going to throw out what they believe are conditions not readily apparent. It is going to be very difficult to make a case for a condition not readily apparent. In an urban environment, it is really hard to list those conditions. Lt. Rawson gave an example on the beach where the Commissioners hi the San Marcos Court have accepted that those are conditions not readily apparent and they have allowed a lower speed limit to be in place, which is 35 miles per hour. In light of the new criteria, the court may start taking a close look at that speed limit. MOTION: No motion was required since this was an item for review and discussion only. ITEM 6B: Staff Presentation on Traffic Signal Operations. Mr. Johnson introduced item 6B and said it is in response to a request by the Traffic Safety Commission to receive a brief overview on traffic signal operations hi Carlsbad and it would be presented by Traffic Signal Systems Engineer, Doug Bilse. Mr. Bilse stated that the operations of traffic signals were either pre-timed, actuated, or semi- actuated. In pre-timed traffic signals, each turning movement gets a pre-determined amount of time, there are no traffic detectors, there is a constant cycle length, each movement might have "surplus" time, and it is not very efficient. With actuated traffic signals, vehicle detectors communicate to the signal controller which movements have vehicles waiting to be served and there is no surplus time. With semi-actuated traffic signals, side streets and left turn movements are actuated, mainline detectors are turned off for coordination, mere is a constant cycle length, and only the mainline movement will have "surplus" time. When running fully actuated (free) traffic signals, all vehicle detectors are used, they are good for short trips, green lights are not coordinated, and signals are constantly adjusting. When running semi-actuated (coordinated) traffic signals, mainline detectors are turned off, all intersections have the same cycle length, there is one cycle length for each period, it is good for long trips, and "surplus" time is given to mainline traffic. Mr. Bilse explained green lights start at random times when running free, so signals cannot be coordinated; upstream signals cannot tell downstream signals that a platoon is about to arrive; and mainline traffic platoons usually aren't grouped together and rarely get more than two green indications in a row. Why not run coordinated all day? Mainline detectors are turned off so signals "rest hi green" on the mainline. You can't serve side street traffic if mainline traffic is not there. Drivers may conclude the signal is not working if the wait is too long. Signals with consistent traffic are good candidates for coordination. Signals with low traffic volumes or that are spaced far apart get the most complaints. August 3,2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 7 Ideal conditions for signal coordination are narrow streets, flat roadway grades, consistent roadway cross sections, ideal intersection spacing - not too close and not too far, and uniform traffic volume - no volume surges from the side streets. Ideal conditions would result in short traffic signal cycle lengths, good progression hi both directions, and delay would be reduced. Mr. Bilse indicated there are three types of coordination: (1) Fixed-tune grid, where no detectors are used on any approaches; all movements have "surplus tune;" it is a good alternative if all movements are "maxed out;" and this is typically used in downtown grids. (2) Time-based grid, where each time period is given a timing plan based on a common cycle length; the plan goes into effect based on the time of day - not traffic flows; and signals do not react to traffic conditions. (3) Traffic adaptive signals, where mainline detectors are used to measure traffic flow; the computer in a Traffic Management Center selects timing plans; and the timing plans adapt to daily/seasonal changes in traffic flow. What is needed for traffic adaptive coordinated timing is a Traffic Management Center and an Advanced Traffic Management System. Typical complaints about traffic signals are traffic signal maintenance (fixing signal equipment) and traffic signal engineering (improving signal tuning plans). To reduce traffic complaints, we need to focus on critical intersections, make improvements to critical movements at the intersection, distribute traffic evenly, and have adaptive traffic signals. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Gallagher asked if the City of Carlsbad was contemplating installing traffic signals where they can cite drivers with cameras utilizing red light photo enforcement. Is there a certain philosophy that the City has already adopted towards that sort of thing? Lt. Rawson stated that City Council has not directed staff to pursue anything related to red light photo enforcement. There are always mixed messages on that, such as is it a revenue source, which has always been against City Council policy. Enforcement is not doing things just because the City needs money; the Police Department does it because it is good for Carlsbad and the safety of its citizens. Right now there is no direction to pursue red light photo enforcement and it has never been discussed. Commissioner Gallagher said he was not championing it one way or the other. He was just curious when you have a high activity signal where several cars are running through the red light, it appears that the signal is overwhelmed by the amount of traffic at a peak time. Lt. Rawson explained there is an excellent system hi the City where the police record almost every collision that occurs in Carlsbad. It goes to the Engineering Department to prepare an annual report. The Police Department knows every year where the highest collisions are involving red lights. August 3,2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 8 Historically, there is not one place where it always happens in Carlsbad. Some of the need for red light enforcement camera in some municipalities are because every day at that one intersection there are three or four accidents that happen. In Carlsbad, that is not the case. Last year, the highest intersection with the most collisions was at Palomar Airport Road and El Fuerte with a total of seven collisions involving red lights. When you think of all of the cars with the daily traffic volume on Palomar Airport Road every day, 24 hours a day, only to have seven collisions related to red lights specifically, that is not a significant number statistically to justify the cost and expense of a red light photo enforcement camera. That is another factor in the equation. Mr. Bilse added that he has received calls about the vehicle detection cameras that Carlsbad has on the mast arms and they are just for vehicle detection. The cameras do not record anything and they could not be used for red light enforcement. That's a whole separate system. Chair Gumming stated that he found the presentation very interesting. Some of the new navigation systems in cars connect through the cellular network with other cars in the area and detect when traffic is building up and reroutes you around it. Obviously, getting signals through a similar kind of real time network probably in that same network has tremendous potential to allow one to mathematically model the City to optimize the whole network. We're probably 20 - 30 years away from that, but it is exciting to think about. Mr. Bilse replied that the main issue is just getting a communication connection from the signals back to the office. It's an expense and may not happen for quite some time. MOTION: No motion was required since this was an item for review and discussion only. ITEM 6C: Adoption of a Traffic Safety Commission Resolution of Commendation for Gordon Cress. Mr. Johnson stated that this item is at the discretion of the Traffic Safety Commission to adopt a Resolution of Commendation for Gordon Cress for serving as Chairperson the past twelve months. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Vice-Chair Roney, and duly seconded by Commissioner Valderrama, to adopt a Traffic Safety Commission Resolution of Commendation for Gordon Cress. VOTE: 5-0-0 AYES: Gumming, Roney, Cress, Valderrama, Gallagher NOES: None ABSTAIN: None August 3,2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 9 Chair Gumming stated that it was mentioned earlier that this may be Lt. Rawson's last meeting with us before retiring. In addition, did Mr. Johnson indicate that this is his last recurring meeting? Mr. Johnson indicated he would be attending several more Traffic Safely Commission meetings and then Doug Bilse will take over traffic engineering duties and representing the Engineering Department at the Traffic Safety Commission meetings. Chair Gumming asked if we could give Lt. Rawson a Resolution of Commendation for all of the years he has provided service to the Traffic Safety Commission. Commissioner Cress asked Mr. Johnson if that was something the Commission could do. Mr. Johnson stated staff could certainly bring something back at the next meeting for the Commission to consider. MOTION: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Vice-Chair Roney, to adopt a Traffic Safety Commission Resolution of Commendation for Lt. Don Rawson. VOTE: 5-0-0 AYES: Gumming, Roney, Cress, Valderrama, Gallagher NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ITEM 7: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS Chair Gumming indicated that twice now neighborhood petitions that were vetted at the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee and then a resolution was brought forward to the Traffic Safety Commission, were then appealed to the City Council. At the last meeting, the City Council spent close to an hour deliberating a matter that the Traffic Safety Commission had deliberated on. He didn't know what that means, but he was wondering if they should rethink the process to try to respond so that these matters get resolved before they have to be appealed to the City Council. He understood Council was the elected political officials, so they have the authority. The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee is working at a technical level, looking at accident rates and the manuals that apply, and the Traffic Safety Commission worked in an advisory role to Council. He just wanted everyone to think about this because it is a little disconcerting to have their decisions appealed to the City Council and then overruled. Commissioner Cress replied that a lot of the Commission's deliberations and decisions are based on the information that is provided by the TSCC, and they make their decision based upon the regulations and so forth, whereas the City Council is more a political body, and they are reacting to voters. He thinks this is the big difference. The City Council is a political entity and you get a block of voters out there, they react to that. August 3,2009 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 10 Chair Gumming responded that made a lot of sense. He asked Mr. Johnson how he felt about this. Mr. Johnson stated that the Commission is advisory to the City Council. The Commission is supposed to give their best technical recommendation. Any decision by the Commission can be appealed by anyone, depending if they are for or against whatever the Commission recommendation is. Most of the time, the Commission's recommendations do not get appealed. There have only been a handful in all of the years he has been hi Carlsbad. Not all of the Commission recommendations have been overturned by the City Council. Some of them have been upheld. The Commission should give their best recommendation based on the facts that are presented to them. If someone wants to appeal to City Council and if there is a different decision that City Council believes that they want to go with, that is what the City Council would do. ITEM 8: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER Mr. Johnson informed the Commission mat the next regularly scheduled Traffic Safety Commission meeting would not be held on September 7, 2009 because of the Labor Day holiday, and would instead be held on October 5,2009 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Lt. Rawson thanked the Commission for their kind words of appreciation. He stated he was officially retiring from the City of Carlsbad after 29 years. His replacement is Lt. Mark Reno who has served the City of Carlsbad 20-some years now. Lt. Reno came to Carlsbad from the Sheriffs Department and grew up in Vista. He has served the City in the Police Department as a motor officer early hi his career and about five years ago he was a traffic sergeant. He is now a lieutenant and has been the Patrol Watch Commander for awhile. Lt. Reno has a lot of experience in the Division and will hit the ground running. He is a very good fit and the Commission will enjoy his expertise as well as his knowledge base. Lt. Reno has an opportunity to attend the FBI's National Academy in Quantico, VA, and will be gone for three months, so we won't be seeing him until December or January, hi his absence, Sgt. Chris Boyd of the Traffic Department will be representing the Police Department for three months. He thanked the Commission again for their time and it has been his pleasure to get to know them all. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, Chair Cumming adjourned the Regular Meeting of August 3, 2009 at 4:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Woodbeck Minutes Clerk