Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-04; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMINUTES MEETING OF: DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: PLACE OF MEETING: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION October 4, 2010 (Regular Meeting) 3:00 p.m. City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chair Gallagher called the Meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Staff Members Present: Vice-Chair Steve Gallagher Commissioner Jairo Valderrama Commissioner Gordon Cress Commissioner Jack Gumming Chair Guy Roney John Kim, Traffic Division Manager Doug Bilse, Traffic Signal Systems Engineer Jim Murray, Associate Engineer, Traffic Division Jim Gale, Engineering Tech II, Traffic Division Melinda Rehfeldt, Engineering Tech, Traffic Division Lt. Marc Reno, Carlsbad Police Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 2, 2010 ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Commissioner Gumming, and duly seconded by Commissioner Valderrama, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on August 2, 2010, as presented. 3-0-1 Gallagher, Valderrama, Gumming None Cress October 4,2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 2 ITEM 4 - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. ITEM 5 - PREVIOUS BUSINESS: John Kim, Traffic Division Manager, reported that the 50 mile per hour speed zone on Faraday Avenue from Orion Street to the east city limits was introduced to the City Council on August 24, 2010 and was approved on September 14, 2010. In addition, three ordinances were introduced to City Council on September 14, 2010: (1) revise the prima facie speed limit upon Batiquitos Drive from Poinsettia Lane to Golden Star Lane to 45 miles per hour; (2) revise the prima facie speed limit upon Batiquitos Drive from Golden Star Lane to Aviara Parkway from 40 miles per hour; and (3) install a stop sign on Yosemite Street at its intersection with Valewood Avenue. ITEM 6 - NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 6A: Revise the prima facie speed limit upon Avenida Encinas, from Palomar Airport Road to 0.67 miles south of Palomar Airport Road. Mr. Kim stated Item 6A was initiated by him to consider revising the prima facie speed limit upon Avenida Encinas, from Palomar Airport Road to 0.67 miles south of Palomar Airport Road. Currently this portion of Avenida Encinas is posted at 40 miles per hour. The Engineering and Traffic Survey on file was approved on May 5,2003 with a speed survey dated April 8,2003. Based on the requirements contained in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the California Vehicle Code (CVC), this Engineering and Traffic Survey is considered expired and a new Engineering and Traffic Survey is required. Mr. Kim indicated the referenced directive clarifies procedures for setting speed limits. Caltrans has incorporated two new standards into the CA MUTCD to help set speed limits in California that are uniform, rational, enforceable by the police, and are supported by the judicial system. Requirements of the new standards as established by Caltrans are: (1) The speed limit shall be established at the nearest 5 mile per hour increment of the 85th percentile; and (2) If the 5 mile per hour reduction is applied, the Engineering and Traffic Survey shall document in writing the conditions and justification for the reduced speed limit and be approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. The 85th percentile speed, often referred to as the critical speed, is the speed which 85 percent of the drivers are traveling at or below. Prima facie speed limits are established by law when the City Council adopts an ordinance and the speed limit is posted on the roadway to indicate the maximum reasonable speed for a driver to operate a vehicle under ideal conditions in off-peak free flowing conditions. Among many factors, the three most persuasive arguments to consider when setting a realistic or rational speed limit are: (1) 85th percentile speed (critical speed); (2) Collision history; and (3) Conditions that may not be readily apparent to the driver. October 4,2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 3 Mr. Kim stated the subject portion of Avenida Encinas is approximately 0.67 miles in length and is classified as a secondary arterial in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. It is located adjacent to the railroad corridor, industrial buildings and the Encinas Water Pollution Control facility. The road follows a relatively straight alignment and varies in width from 32 to 65 feet. The subject segment has been improved with curb and gutter, sidewalk and street lights on the entire east side of the roadway. An asphalt concrete berm exists on the west side of the road. Approximately 1400 feet of roadway has been improved on the west side with curb and gutter and sidewalk. On-street parallel parking is allowed on some portions of the subject road segment. Mr. Kim indicated traffic counts were obtained on Avenida Encinas on September 2, 2010 to determine the two-way, 24-hour average daily traffic volume. The volume was found to be 9,385 vehicles per day. For reference, a secondary arterial has design capacity of 10,000 - 20,000 vehicles per day, so this is well beneath that number. Staff conducted speed surveys on Avenida Encinas on August 26, 2010 at two locations. The first location was 0.3 miles south of Palomar Airport Road and the second location was 0.6 miles south of Palomar Airport Road. The critical speed found at these two locations was 44 miles per hour and 46 miles per hour, respectively. Mr. Kim stated staff reviewed the Police Department collision reports for a two year period from August 1, 2008 through July 31, 2010. There have been six reported collisions on the subject segment, one of which was speed related. The collision rate of 1.31 accidents per million vehicle miles is lower than the 2007 state average of 1.71 for the same type of roadway. Since the California MUTCD requires that the speed limit be established at the nearest 5 mile per hour increment of the 85th percentile and that no justification for a 5 mile per hour reduction is hereby presented, staff recommends that the speed limit be established at 45 miles per hour. An ordinance will be required to be adopted by the City Council to revise the prima facie speed limit upon Avenida Encinas as recommended. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Gumming stated in the description of the subject roadway, it states "relatively straight alignment." The roadway is wide in some places, narrow at other places and the striping is confusing. For example, for a driver coming out of the Toyota Dealership there is a middle yellow lined lane with a left hand stripe when you're travelling northbound in the middle of the road, so it appears like it has been striped to be two northbound lanes when it is really a center lane. However, the width of the road is confusing to a driver. When will the roadway, the painting/striping, or the structure of the road itself be examined as opposed to just the speed on the roadway? Mr. Kim replied he was not aware of any plans to complete the widening on Avenida Encinas on this portion of the roadway. To the south there has been widening based on various projects that have occurred, including the coaster station and development to the south. He is not aware of any projects to widen Avenida Encinas on the portion next to the railroad right-of-way. October 4,2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 4 Commissioner Gumming asked if any of the non-speed related accidents were due to the poor marking of the roadway. Mr. Kim indicated he did not have those records before him today. Staff can look at the accident history to see if the striping had any bearing on any of the accidents. Commissioner Cress stated he drove the subject roadway frequently and he supported raising the speed limit to 45 miles per hour. He felt that speed was the normal traffic there. Vice-Chair Gallagher asked if staff typically indicated how many accidents are injury-related versus just the number of collisions recorded in the staff report that the Commissioners receive. If they could have that differentiation, it would suggest a little more severity than just a rear-ender. Mr. Kim responded that staff has that information available although it is not indicated as such on the staff report, because Caltrans does not make that distinction when it reports the statewide average when establishing speed zones. Therefore, staff reports list just the number of accidents since that is the factor in establishing the speed limit from a legal standpoint. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Commissioner Gumming, to revise the prima facie speed limit to 45 miles per hour upon Avenida Encinas, from Palomar Airport Road to 0.67 miles south of Palomar Airport Road. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Gallagher, Valderrama, Cress, Gumming NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Vice-Chair Gallagher mentioned that just to the south of the subject roadway the Commission just voted on to raise the speed limit to 45 miles per hour is a 30 mile per hour speed zone. This seems a little out of place there to him. As you're driving south where the roadway ends, there is a 30 mile per hour zone, which is less than one-half mile in length. His understanding of the MUTCD suggests the minimum distance should be at least one-half mile in length. Is that the basic minimum distance? Mr. Kim indicated that one-half mile was the minimum distance, but based on the speed surveys that were conducted on Avenida Encinas, there are differences in the characteristics of the roadway. The October 4,2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 5 area south of the subject roadway is wider, fully improved, and there are developments on both sides of the roadway. The critical speeds there were found to be lower, but that is another speed segment based on the date of approval of that survey that will have to come in for renewal at some point. At that time, staff could look at either consolidating a speed zone if critical speeds justify taking two separate speed zones and making them one, or if they are found to be different or varying, staff would keep them separate. Vice-Chair Gallagher indicated that was where he was coming from. In fact, the area that is actually posted 30 miles per hour now is not fully developed. It is located by the transit station. He thought the area that Mr. Kim was referring to is just a little bit further south of that at 35 miles per hour. It just seemed to him to be an awkward situation where now on the subject roadway we will be going from 45 miles per hour, drop down to 30 miles per hour in less than one-half mile, and then back to a 35 mile per hour speed zone. Mr. Kim stated staff was looking at possibly bring the whole segment of Avenida Encinas to the Commission, but for lack of time, staff just brought the subject segment for renewal since this is the one that is expiring. There are different ways staff can approach this. One way would be to define that entire segment south of the current zone today to be one segment and then to post any warning speeds through the curvature area. That way, there are not three speed zones, but two with a posted warning zone where there is the curve. That is something staff is considering. Vice-Chair Gallagher thought that sounded great. Another observation he had was when he has driven the subject roadway at the south end as you are going north from Poinsettia Lane it is posted at 35 miles per hour, but it seems like that is an area where you have either RVs or large trucks that park on the street that is related to the hotels and motels along the roadway. When he drove this area, there were several larger vehicles parked along there and he couldn't see the speed limit posted. He wondered if a street legend could be placed on the roadway to reinforce the 35 mile per hour speed limit because of the larger vehicles that are parked along the street. Commissioner Cress commented that he also noticed several larger vehicles parked along the subject roadway. He felt it would be a good idea for staff to look into the issue. Mr. Kim said this was a good observation and if speed limit signs are obscured, then staff could be assigned to see whether or not a pavement legend would be beneficial or if they could increase the visibility of any existing signs as well. October 4,2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 6 ITEM 6B: Consider adoption of a Traffic Safety Commission Resolution of Commendation for Robert T. Johnson, Jr. Vice-Chair Gallagher stated that item 6B was one of pleasure and joy for the entire Commission to consider adoption of a Traffic Safety Commission Resolution of Commendation to Robert Johnson for his 24+ years as the Traffic Engineer and the man who provided his wealth of support to the Traffic Safety Commission for many years. Commissioner Cress indicated that he has been a Commissioner for the Traffic Safety Commission for seven years, and Mr. Johnson has been a joy to work with the entire time. Commissioner Cumming added that he has been so impressed with Mr. Johnson's mastery and ability to speak extemporaneously as though he had written it all out in advance and was reading from his notes. ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Cress, and duly seconded by Commissioner Cumming, to adopt a Traffic Safety Commission Resolution of Commendation for Robert T. Johnson, Jr. VOTE: 4-0-0 AYES: Gallagher, Valderrama, Cress, Cumming NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Vice-Chair Gallagher asked if the proclamation was at the meeting to present to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Kim stated it was not. He had a copy of the draft and since he had not known which Commissioners would be present at today's meeting, he was unable to list them on the document. Now that he knew who was present, he would finalize it and have it framed and delivered to Mr. Johnson. Vice-Chair Gallagher read the Resolution of Commendation to the audience. Mr. Johnson thanked the Commission and staff in attendance for their kind words and wishes for a happy retirement. October 4,2010 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 7 ITEM 7: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Gumming advised the Commission that he would be out of town and unable to attend the next regularly scheduled Traffic Safety Commission meeting on November 1, 2010. Commissioner Cress indicated that he, too, would be unable to attend since he would be out of town. Vice-Chair Gallagher stated the remaining three Commissioners would need to be in attendance in order for there to be a quorum. Mr. Kim indicated he would contact the Commissioners before the next meeting to be sure there would be a quorum. There was an agenda item for November which is the speed zone on Aviara Parkway. Staff is in the process of finalizing revisions to the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program Revision, but he did not feel it would be ready to bring the Commission next month. Vice-Chair Gallagher stated that it would be helpful for all of the Commissioners to be present and hear the presentation on the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program since is was a large project. If something of this magnitude was scheduled for November, it would be better postponed to the following month so they could get the benefit of audience and Commissioner's input. Mr. Kim agreed and stated he would like to pursue a November meeting if there is a quorum because of the multiple speed zones that need to be addressed. ITEM 8: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER Mr. Kim reiterated the sentiments of the Commission on Mr. Johnson's commendation that was awarded. On behalf of staff, he thanked Mr. Johnson for the guidance and support that he has given to staff and the City as a whole. The next regularly scheduled Traffic Safety Commission meeting is scheduled to be held on November 1, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, Vice-Chair Gallagher adjourned the Regular Meeting of October 4,2010 at 3:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Woodbeck Minutes Clerk