Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-04-02; Traffic Safety Commission; MinutesMEETING OF: DATE OF MEETING: TIME OF MEETING: PLACE OF MEETING: MINUTES TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION April 2, 2012 (Regular Meeting) 3:00 p.m. City Council Chambers ITEM 1 -CALL TO ORDER Chair Gallagher called the Meeting to order at 3 :00 p.m. ITEM 2 -ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Chair Steve Gallagher Vice-Chair Gordon Cress Commissioner Guy Roney Commissioner Jairo Valderrama Commissioner Hope Wrisley Staff Members Present: John Kim, Associate Engineer, Transportation Department ITEM 3 -APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 5, 2012 ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Vice-Chair Cress, and duly seconded by Commissioner Roney, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on March 5, 2012, as presented. 3-0-0 Gallagher, Cress, Roney None None ITEM 4 -ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. April 2, 2012 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page2 ITEM 5 -PREVIOUS BUSINESS: None. ITEM 6 -NEW BUSINESS: ITEM 6A: Investigate the need to establish an All-Way Stop atthe intersection of Pio Pico Drive and Stratford Lane. John Kim, Associate Engineer, stated the requested action was to investigate the need to establish an All-Way Stop at the intersection of Pio Pico Drive and Stratford Lane. The subject intersection is located in the northwest quadrant of the city. Due to the geometric configuration of the intersection and prevalence of parked cars on the east side of Pio Pico Drive, sight distance from Stratford Lane is limited and access to Pio Pico Drive can be difficult. Staff conducted an analysis to establish an All-Way Stop at the subject intersection. The analysis is based on Section 28.07 of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic control Devices (MUTCD), which specifies the consideration of minimum traffic volumes, accident history, vehicle/pedestrian conflicts, sight distance restrictions and other criteria to determine whether or not an AU-Way Stop is justified at a particular location. A 24-hour approach count was conducted on March 7, 2012, and the results showed a low vehicle volume. There has only been one reported collision in the past five years at the subject intersection. Based on traffic volumes and collision history, the intersection of Pio Pico Drive and Stratford Lane did not meet the California MUTCD volume criteria for All-Way Stop installation. Staff also conducted field measurements of the existing sight distance conditions at the subject intersection. The posted speed limit on this portion of Pio Pico Drive is 25 miles per hour and the minimum stopping sight distance required for 25 miles per hour is 150 feet. The results of the sight distance evaluation looking to the north was 154 feet, which meets the minimum sight distance for 25 miles per hour, and looking south was 130 feet, which does not meet the minimum sight distance for 25 miles per hour. Section 2B.07 of the California MUTCD allows consideration of an All-Way Stop at "locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to reasonably safely negotiate the intersection unless the conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop." Mr. Kim stated based on the findings of the report, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee (TSCC) recommended the installation of an All-Way Stop at the intersection of Pio Pico Drive and Stratford Lane be approved. April 2, 2012 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page3 DISCUSSION Vice-Chair Cress stated he agreed that the critical speed along Pio Pico Drive is probably higher than 25 miles per hour. Based on that and the geometry of the roadway, he felt that an All-Way Stop is a good idea. Mr. Kim stated that Pio Pico Drive, south of Carlsbad Village Drive, is posted at 35 miles per hour, but the critical speeds are 38 miles per hour and 40 miles per hour. Commissioner Roney asked if the Buena Vista Elementary School still was still in operation. Mr. Kim stated it was still operating. Chair Gallagher stated he has historically had a problem when staff brings items to the Commission when the volumes are not close to being met for the specific guidelines. He felt the staff and the city are using the guideline to justify the All-Way Stop control and seems to be a liberal interpretation for him. He understands the need for parking, but if two parking spaces were removed he felt the required sight distance for that location would be met. Mr. Kim responded that perhaps I SO feet would be gained if two or three parking spaces were removed, but realistically the critical speeds are most likely higher and he didn't feel they would be able to get the 250 feet required for a 35 miles per mile critical speed or more realistically, 300 feet for a 40 miles per hour critical speed. Chair Gallagher said it would be helpful to him if he knew what was going to be used for the guideline. In other words, the report states 25 miles per hour. He understands where Mr. Kim is coming from as far as a higher 85th percentile speed is concerned, but it looks like that is what they are using to justify the All-Way Stop and the 25 miles per hour is based on the posted speed limit. He asked what the cause was of the one accident that was reported. Mr. Kim did not recollect what the specific cause of that accident was. Chair Gallagher stated there may not even be a right-of-way issue regarding the accident. It could have been a rear-ender or anything. April 2, 2012 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page4 Mr. Kim stated it was some fonn of right-angle collision. Staff does not count accidents that are not likely susceptible to correction as part of the analysis, such as rear end accidents. Chair Gallagher asked what the vote was from the TSCC on this item. Mr. Kim replied it was a unanimous vote. Chair Gallagher stated some of this could have been corrected with other options other than installing an All-Way Stop. It means we will be stopping over 1,800 vehicles per day which is totally inconsistent with driver expectations as far as he can see. Mr. Kim pointed out that the Commission as well as the TSCC did approve a Traffic Calming Program, which is going to bring these types of stop locations for approval. It was a strategy to implement Stop Signs at low volume locations similar to the subject intersection. Since this is not a residential location, staff cannot consider this as part of the Traffic Calming Program. There will, however, be quite a few low volume residential street intersections that staff will be proposing All- Way Stops on. The past emphasis on vehicular volumes is no longer the sole criteria. The use of the options given in Section 2B.07 of the California MUTCD is appropriate and justified in this case. There is no language in the California MUTCD stating that one criterion should weigh more than the others. It clearly states the options that can be used to evaluate stop signs from outside of the vehicular volumes, and staff is using those options rationally. ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Vice-Chair Cress, and duly seconded by Commissioner Roney, to approve the installation of an All-Way Stop at the intersection of Pio Pico Drive and Stratford Lane. 2-1-0 Cress, Roney Gallagher None ITEM 6B: Investigate the need to establish an All-Way Stop at the intersection of Adams Street and Highland Drive. John Kim stated the requested action was to investigate the need to establish an All-Way stop at the intersection of Adams Street and Highland Drive. The subject intersection is located in the northwest quadrant of the city. Due to the geometric configuration of the intersection and the hillside characteristics of the streets, sight distance from Highland Drive is limited, making access to and from Adams Street difficult for drivers. April 2, 2012 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page5 Staff conducted an analysis to establish an All-Way Stop at the subject intersection. A 24 hour approach count was conducted on November 15, 2011, and the results showed a low vehicle volume. There have been no reported collisions in the past five years at the subject intersection. Based on traffic volumes and collision history, the intersection of Adams Street and Highland Drive did not meet the California MUTCD volume criteria for All-Way Stop installation. Staff also conducted field measurements of the existing sight distance conditions at the subject intersection. The posted speed limit on this portion of Adams Street is 25 miles per hour and the minimum stopping sight distance required for 25 miles per hour is 150 feet. The results of the sight distance evaluation looking to the north was 284 feet, which meets the minimum sight distance for 25 miles per hour, and looking south was 141 feet, which does not meet the minimwn sight distance for 25 miles per hour. Section 28.07 of the California MUTCD allows consideration of an All-Way Stop at "locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to reasonably safely negotiate the intersection unless the conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop." Based on the findings of the report, the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommended the installation of an All-Way Stop at the intersection of Adams Street and Highland Drive be approved. DISCUSSION Commissioner Roney asked if the requestor of this item was a resident in that immediate area. Mr. Kim stated the requestor lived on Highland Drive near Adams Street. Vice-Chair Cress stated going south on Highland Drive is part of his normal route and turning right onto Adams Street from Highland Drive can be a little bit exciting sometimes when you are trying to edge out and look to the left to see if someone coming. That 141 sight distance sounds optimistic to him. He feels that installing an All-Way Stop at the subject intersection is a good idea. Chair Gallagher asked how much right-of-way was on the comer south of Highland Drive. Mr. Kim stated not much. One of the things that staff looked at was possibly reorienting the striping of the intersection so that it comes in more of a 90 degree angle than now. The right-of-way terminates in a point and there is not much you can do. Based on that, staff felt restriping the intersection without regrading and reconstruction was not feasible April 2, 2012 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page6 Chair Gallagher stated he lived close to the subject intersection and he agrees that it is challenging. What bothers him is that there is no demonstrated issue ofreported collisions, and you would think if there is a problem at this intersection it would present itself with reported collisions. There are only 73 cars per day coming off of Highland Drive. He asked if there are turning counts at this intersection. Mr. Kim stated there were no turning counts outside of the approach counts. Chair Gallagher looked at the subject intersection several times, and during that time there were four cars that came off of Highland Drive onto Adams Street, and three out of four turned right. He felt this is probably the case in the majority of the cases. He has a concern of people turning left, because that is more of a problem than turning right. It bothers him that all these cars will be stopped for just 72 cars when just half of them or more are turning to the right anyway. Mr. Kim indicated sight distance was restricted whether turning right or left at that intersection and that is the bottom line. There is no provision in the California MUTCD to say that a given deficiency must occur the majority of the time. The sight distance was measured and found to be deficient for 25 miles per hour, which is very conservative, and staff stands by that finding. Chair Gallagher stated he was not questioning the sight distance. He is questioning that for 9 feet, we are going to install an All-Way Stop. The safe stopping distance that is quoted is on a level surface and this is an uphill grade, so he would suggest that we don't even need 150 feet to stop going northbound on Adams Street. So, we're going to put in an All-Way Stop for 9 feet. Mr. Kim stated he respectfully disagreed. Again, this is a posted 25 mile per hour speed zone. Critical speeds are undetermined. Based on staff's experience at other streets posted at 25 miles per hour without a critical speed measurement, realistically speeds are probably going to be significantly higher than 25 miles per hour. Chair Gallagher said he would agree with Mr. Kim, except on Adams Street in this case is uphill and they have just come around a curve, and he didn't think drivers were going at the same speed as in Pio Pico Drive. To use a 35 or 40 mile per hour speed zone on this particular street, especially going northbound is extravagant in his opinion. Can anything be done with vegetation on that comer? Mr. Kim said it was essentially the geometry of the intersection both horizontally and vertically. As Chair Gallagher observed, the roadway goes down as you proceed south on Adams Street, and that April 2, 2012 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 7 contributes to the sight distance limitation, so it is not something that you can trim away to increase the sight distance. Chair Gallagher asked if there has been any thought about a right turn only. He suspects that a lot of people because of the left turn being uncomfortable turn right instead. Anyone who wants to turn left could use Hoover Street. Mr. Kim stated staff discussed a right turn only option, but the sight distance looking to the south was detennined to be deficient, which applies to both left and right turns. Chair Gallagher asked when the sight distance was measured was it taken where the limit line is and then looking to the left versus if you 're making a left turn, you are going to center yourself more towards the center of the intersection. Mr. Kim stated the standard methodology for determining sight distance at any intersection is 10 feet back from the prolongation of the edge of roadway. Chair Gallagher stated his point was is if you were making a right turn only, you would be a little bit further away from the edge of the center line and you would pick up a few more feet of sight distance if you are turning right versus turning left. Making a left is very challenging. It seems almost natural for him to make it a right turn only that would then allow most people who be going that way anyway. Mr. Kim mentioned there was an issue with pushing people further to the north to make that right turn, because you're forcing somebody to look even more to the rear which would be more difficult to do since you'd be craning your neck or relying on you mirrors. That is not a very comfortable or safe action for a driver to take. Chair Gallagher said that is what drivers are already doing and they didn't seem to be having a problem. Mr. Kim respectfully disagreed with the complaints staff has received, observations that staff has made personally, and observations of some of the Commissioners themselves. Chair Gallagher asked if the TSCC voted unanimously for this also. April 2, 2012 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page 8 Mr. Kim stated the TSCC voted unanimously on this issue. ACTION: VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Motion by Commissioner Roney, and duly seconded by Vice-Chair Cress, to approve the installation of an All-Way Stop at the intersection of Adams Street and Highland Drive. 2-1-0 Cress, Roney Gallagher None ITEM 7: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS None. ITEM 8: REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER Mr. Kim mentioned that staff is beginning work on the Traffic Calming Program. Levante Street, which is the longest of the streets in the queue to be addressed by the Traffic Calming Program, is looking at approximately 7 new stop signs along Levante Street, which is per the approved Traffic Calming Program. After the public meetings that will be held, staff will bring it to the Commission for review. Chair Gallagher asked if it would come to the Commission by next meeting or down the road a bit. Mr. Kim stated possibly down the road. Staff is considering bringing the traffic calming streets in groups to TSC instead of individually. Chair Gallagher asked the status on the Carlsbad Boulevard project as far as being done before summer starts. Mr. Kim didn't have a specific date for that. The All-Way Stops that were part ofit were approved by City Council at the last City Council meeting. The other improvements are going forward, but he did not have a date on that. April 2, 2012 Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Page9 The next regularly scheduled Traffic Safety Commission meeting is scheduled for May 7, 2012 at 3 :00 p.m. to be held in the City Council Chambers. If there are no agenda items, the Commission will be notified a couple of weeks before the scheduled date. ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, Chair Gallagher adjourned the Regular Meeting of April 2, 2012 at 3:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Woodbeck Minutes Clerk