Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout092895 PTS AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD AT CITY HALL, MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California Thursday, September 28, 1995 - 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Perry, Sander, Guerriero, Coe, Johnson PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Recording Secretary before the Commission gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of July 27, 1995 and August 24, 1995 RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of July 27, 1995 (Continued from the Meeting of August 24, 1995) 1.2 Approve the Minutes of August 24, 1995 (Continued to the Meeting of October 26, 1995) COMMISSION BUSINESS 2. "Stop" and "Yield" Sign Warrant Policy RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission support the proposed "Stop" and "Yield" sign warrant policy as requested. 3. Starlight Ridge - Speed Enforcement Reduction Efforts RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and File Project Update 4. "Stop" Sign on Camino Del Este at Via Puerte RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission support staff recommendation to deny placing a "Stop" sign on Camino Del Este at Via Puerte 5. "No Parking" Zone on Rainbow Canyon Road East of Birdie Drive RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission deny a request from the Homes by the Green Home Owners Association to create a parking restriction on Rainbow Canyon Road east of Birdie Drive 6. Traffic Engineer's Report 7. Police Chief's Report 8. Fire Chief's Report 9. Commission Report ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday, October 26, 1995 at 7:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall, Main Conference Room, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ITEM NO. I MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION JULY 27, 1995 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission was called to order on Thursday, July 27, 1995, 7:00 P.M,, at the Temecula City Hall Main Conference Room, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order. PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Guerriero, Perry, Johnson, Sander ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Coe Also present were Traffic Engineer Marty Lauber, Lieutenant Domenoe, Sergeant Brandt, and Recording Secretary Joan Price. Chairman Johnson led the flag salute. Chairman Johnson called for Public Comments on non-agenda items. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pam Braun, 2005 Via Santee, Murrieta, and Sandy Forguson, 42994 Agena Street, Temecula, representing Temecula Valley Union School District Transportation Department, spoke on drivers making illegal traffic maneuvers at Temecula Valley High School and Rancho Elementary School before school and after school. A video presentation was shared as well as written background on the traffic problems at the schools. Both speakers urged the Commission to assist in requesting police department coverage and helping with solutions. Lieutenant Domenoe and Commissioner Guerriero responded by providing information on the Ad-Hoc Committee set-up to study the high school traffic problems. The Committee includes representatives of the Temecula School District. Commissioner Guerriero stated he was in favor of an education program for parents dropping students off and hoped City Council would approve the warning sign flashera recommended by the Commission to be located on all arterial approaches to the schools. Commissioner Guerriero and Commissioner Perry, members of the committee, will contact Ms. Braun and Forguson with the time and location of the next Ad-Hoc meeting. Minutes. Pts\072795 1 PUBLIC/TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING JULY 27, 1995 Bullet Anderson, 40101 Avenue La Cresta, Murrieta, Rancho Recycled Products, spoke concerning street signs. Mr. Anderson demonstrated a prototype street sign manufactured by his company of recycled plastic. Traffic Engineer Lauber responded there is a standardized sign design approved by the Commission and he will work with Mr. Anderson on this. Commissioner Johnson recommended that Mr. Anderson submit his recycled sign product to the City. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes of June 22, 1995 It was moved by Commissioner Perry and seconded by Commissioner Guerriero to approve Consent Calendar item 1.1, the minutes of June 22, 1995, with the following correction: ADD - Commissioner Johnson was granted an excused absence for the June 22, 1995 meeting of the Commission. The motion carried as follows: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 4 Guerriero, Perry, Johnson, Sander NOES: COMMISSIONERS: 0 None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 1 Coe COMMISSION BUSINESS 2. Community Safety Day 2.1 Discussion Only: Commissioner Guerriero reported on Community Safety Day which will be held on November 4, 1995, at the CRC. Agencies such as the Triple A, Border Patrol, Fire Department, Police Department, CHP and Red Cross will be participating in demonstrations and displays on various aspects of safety. Commissioner Sander expressed concern on the cooperation of the school district to utilize school facilities during an emergency. Commissioner Guerriero stated this has been discussed and the school district has been invited to participate. Minutes. Pts\072795 2 PUBLIC/TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING JULY 2% 1995 Commissioner Johnson stated that the Commission should be made aware of the City Emergency Plan and requested Traffic Engineer Lauber place this item on a future Commission meeting agenda. 3. Traffic Safety Brochure 3.1 Review and Discussion Only Traffic Engineer Lauber presented a draft brochure for review and changes the Commission would like to recommend. He advised 1,000 copies will be printed and completed quickly and Commissioners wishing to make modifications or changes need to contact him as soon as possible. Commissioner Johnson asked Engineer Lauber for a schedule of dates and locations for the Radar Trailer. Commissioner Sander stated Caltrans had expressed being in favor of a 4- way stop at Nicolas/Winchester Roads. Engineer Lauber stated there is a delay factor to consider on a 4-way stop. TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT Traffic Engineer Lauber presented the Traffic Engineer's Report which included the following: Speed profiles requested by Commissioner Guerriero on Rancho California Road between Margarita and Butterfield Stage Roads. City Council actions on Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommendations. * Traffic Division project status and Capital Projects status. Commissioner Perry commented on the following: His exasperation concerning the denial by City Council of the "Green Curb" on the east side of Jefferson, and requested the background on this item. He recommended the views of the Commission be submitted to the Council as back-up to traffic related agenda items. Commissioner Guerriero commented on the following: Minutes,Pts\072795 3 PUBLIC/TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING JULY 27, 1995 The "No Parking" hours of 9:00 A.M. - 12:00 P.M. on Calle Rio Vista approved by the Council is inaccurate and a waste of signage, and police officer time. Recommends a representative of the Commission be in attendance at City Council meetings for traffic items. Commissioner Johnson recommended that any background information on traffic related items to be acted on by the City Council, be given to the Commission for review. Commissioner Perry proposed the Commission be represented at Council meetings when a traffic item is on the agenda. Commissioner Johnson volunteered to be the first Commissioner to attend the City Council meeting to support traffic related agenda items. Commissioner Sander asked if the Solar Operated Warning signs had been approved by the Council. Engineer Lauber responded that he had been working with the school district because the School Board has to allocate funds for the warning signs. The Commission recommended going ahead with the warning signs, if the funding is resolved. Traffic Engineer Lauber stated the Department of Public Works had ordered "12 Month School" signs to be installed at Rancho Elementary School as a test program. Commissioner Johnson recommended staff consider a right turn only sign east bound on Winchester Road. Engineer Lauber responded that staff is re- designing Enterprise Circle West of Jefferson and this will be brought back to the Commission. Commissioner Perry recommend staff consider a double right hand turn lane North bound on Jefferson Avenue at Winchester Road. Lieutenant Domonoe responded the Police Department is not in favor of that idea. Engineer Lauber will take the matter to staff as a separate issue. Commissioner Johnson commented that until the Winchester Road Bridge is completed, no changes should be considered. Engineer Lauber shared the proposed design for Winchester Road and Enterprise Circle. Commissioner Johnson requested the construction schedule for widening of the Winchester Road Bridge. Engineer Lauber responded it may take 3-4 months to gain eminent domain. Minutes. Pts\072795 4 PUBLIC/TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING .ILrLY 27, 1995 POLICE REPORT Sergeant Brandt reported on the following: Citations and non-injury accidents are down for the month, and D.U.I citations are up. Operation SCARE is off to a good start. Various officer units came together to cite 6 D.U.I's in one night. Officers have given numerous citations on Hwy 79 for excessive speed, The next SCARE Operation is scheduled on Ynez Road by Towne Center on August 12. Commissioner Johnson commented that Operation SCARE had been well done and appreciated the invitation to observe the operation. Commissioner Perry commented the Commission had not been invited to the Police Officers Awards Banquet and would appreciate future invitations for upcoming events. Commissioner Sander commented on his observation of 2 motorcycle officers riding side by side and asked if this was department procedure. Lieutenant Domonoe responded that it was not common practice but working in pairs has been successful. FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT Battalion Chief Mark Brodowski was on duty due to a fire in the area, a written report had been submitted. COMMISSION REPORT Commissioner Guerriero thanked Lieutenant Domenoe for the invitation to Operation SCARE and thanked Chief Brodowski for spearheading the Community Safety Day. Commissioner Perry also thanked the Lieutenant for the invitation to SCARE. Minutes. Pts\072795 5 PUBLIC/TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING JULY 27. 1995 Commissioner Sander commended the Fire Department for quick and efficient work involving his wife's accident and also the rescue of a child injured in his neighborhood. He stated the cooperation was wonderful between the police department and the fire department helicopter. Commissioner Johnson requested a list of Radar Trailer locations. He recommended Via Norte, north of Avenida Del Sol. Engineer Lauber responded this may already be on an addendum list. Commissioner Johnson commented on a letter written in the Californian statjng the blocked intersection at Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue is a continuing problem. It was moved by Commissioner Perry and seconded by Commissioner Guerriero to adjourn the meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission at 8:55 P.M. The next meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday, August 24, 1995 at 7:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall, Main Conference Room, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Knox Johnson Secretary Minutes. Pts\072795 6 ITEM NO. 2 TO: FROM: AGENDA REPORT Public/Traffic Safety Commission Marty Lauber, Traffic Engineer DATE: September 28, 1995 SUBJECT: Item 2 "Stop" and "Yield" Sign Warrant Policy RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission support the proposed "Stop" and "Yield" sign Warrant Policy as requested. BACKGROUND: At the August 24, 1995 meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission many items included requests for "Stop" controls. Due to the perceived lack of a consistent policy defining the warranted placement of intersection controls, the Commission requested a formal policy be prepared and presented. The following are excerpts from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Traffic Manual, which is the current source of accepted guidelines for "Stop" and "Yield" sign installation. This information should clarify the Department of Public Works, Traffic Division's analysis of possible intersection controls. This policy will list all factors used to identify warranted locations and can be used during initial development reviews and for analyzing citizen requests. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: 1. Draft Stop Signs and Yield Signs Policy 2. Hierarchy of Signing/Markings at Controlled Intersections r:\traffic~commissn\agenda\95~O928/ajp CITY OF TEMECULA STOP AND YIELD SIGN WARRANT POLICY · STOP SIGNS A STOP sign is not a "cure-all" and is not a substitute for other traffic control devices. Many times the need for a STOP sign can be eliminated if the sight distance is increased by removing the obstructions. STOP signs shall not be erected at any entrance to an intersection when such entrance is controlled by an official traffic control signal. Where two main highways intersect, the STOP sign or signs should normally be posted on the minor street to stop the lesser flow of traffic. Traffic engineering studies, however, may justify a decision to install a STOP sign or signs on the major street, as at a three-way intersection where safety considerations may justify stopping the greater flow of traffic to permit a left-turning movement. Portable or part-time STOP signs shall not be used except for emergency purposes. Also, STOP signs should not be used for speed control. The STOP sign (R1) shall be used where traffic is required to stop except at signalized intersections. The STOP sign shall be an octagon with white message and border on a red background. The standard size shall be 30 X 30 inches. Where greater emphasis or visibility is required, a larger size is recommended as identified in the Traffic Division Policy No. 01 - Hierarchy of Signing/Markings at controlled intersections. At a multiway stop intersection, a supplemental plate (All-Way) should be mounted just below each STOP sign. A red flashing beacon or beacons may be used in conjunction with a STOP sign. See Section 9-08 (Flashing Beacons) of the Caltrans Traffic Manual. Secondary messages shall not be used on STOP sign faces. · Warrants for STOP Signs Because the STOP sign causes a substantial inconvenience to motorists, it should be used only where warranted. A STOP sign may be warranted at an intersection where one or more of the following conditions exists: 1. ~nthe~esssigni~canttr~adatitsintersecti~nwithamainr~adwhereapp~icati~n~fthen~rmal right of way rule is unduly hazardous as evidenced by accidents susceptible to correction by STOP signs. 2. On a county road or city street at its intersection with a state highway. 3. At the intersection of two main highways. The highway traffic to be stopped depends on approach speeds, volumes, and turning movements. 4. On a street entering a legally established through highway or street. 5. On a minor street where the safe approach speed to the intersection is less than 10 miles per hour. 6. At an unsignalized intersection in a signalized area. 7. At other intersections where a combination of high speed, restricted view, and accident record indicates a need for control by the STOP sign. · Multiway STOP signs The "Multiway Stop" installation may be useful at some locations. It should ordinarily be used only where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. A traffic control signal is more satisfactory for an intersection with a heavy volume of traffic. Any of the following conditions may warrant a multiway STOP sign installation: 1. Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multiway stop may be an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the signal installations. 2. An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents within a 12 month period of a type susceptible to correction by a multiway stop installation. Such accidents include right and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. 3. Minimum traffic volumes a. The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and b. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but c. When the 85-percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements. · Yield Signs The YIELD sign (Rl-2) assigns right of way to traffic on certain approaches to an intersection. Vehicles controlled by a YIELD sign need stop only when necessary to avoid interference with other traffic that is given the right of way. The YIELD sign shall be a downward pointing, equilateral triangle having a red border band and a white interior and the word YIELD in red inside the border band. The standard size shall be 36 x 36 x 36 inches. Warrants for YIELD Signs The YIELD sign may be warranted: 1. On a minor road at the entrance to an intersection where it is necessary to assign right of way to the major road, but where a stop is not necessary at all times, and where the safe approach speed on the minor road exceeds 10 miles per hour. 2. On the entrance ramp to an expressway where an acceleration lane is not provided. 3. Within an intersection with a divided highway, where a STOP sign is present at the entrance to the first road way and further control is necessary at the entrance to the second roadway, and where the median width between the two roadways exceeds 30 feet. 4. Where there is a separate or channelized right-turn lane, without an adequate acceleration lane. 5. At any intersection where a special problem exists and where an engineering study indicates the problem to be susceptible to correction by use of the YIELD sign. NOTE: THESE CONTROLS SHALL ONLY BE PLACED IF WARRANTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER ARTERIAL STREET 0 J WHERE THE SAFE APPROACH .SPEED ON THE MINOR ROAD EXCEEDS 10 MILES PER HOUR LOCAL STREET ~j ._1 O REVISIONS DATE INIT. TRAr'RC DN~SION POLICY CITY OF 'I"~LtECULA ITEM NO. 3 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: Public/Traffic Safety Commission Marry Lauber, Traffic Engineer//f~,L DATE: September 28, 1995 SUBJECT: Item 3 Starlight Ridge - Speed Reduction Efforts RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the project update. BACKGROUND: The subject of residential speed control has for years been a popular topic at many Public/Traffic Safety Commission meetings. In the past staff has relied upon the substantiation of trouble locations by first receiving community input and then collecting actual vehicle speed counts. In most areas the speed profile revealed a moderate spell profile (slightly more than 15% of vehicles traveling over 25 MPH), which required minimal attention. In the Starlight Ridge neighborhood our data revealed a different picture. Due to the elevated speed profile which grossly exceeded the speed limit, staff recommended, with Commission support, an accelerated police enforcement effort based on actual speed plot information for every 15 minute period of the day. This coupled with the implementation of the Radar Trailer Display Unit, has not satisfied the residents and/or the Commission. The very last direction from this Commission included the re- checking of "Stop" sign warrants at locations that have already been found to be providing appropriate assignment of right-of-way. Further action was requested. This report contains three articles which describe procedures for elevated neighborhood speed controlling measures called traffic calming. These articles should provide enough information to open discussion on the possibility of using traffic calming techniques again in Temecula. Staff has plans to present the Commissions approved "Street Closure/Modification" policy to City Council as the guidelines for processing those types of citizen request. The proposed policy has all of the requirements needed to handle these issues now that the City has an adopted appeal process. Once the City Council provides staff with support of the new policy, we can begin the full scale community involvement needed to ensure success of any cooperative effort to reduce vehicular speeding. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: 1. I.T.E. Journal Article - Suburban Residemial Traffic Calming (Sept. 1995) 2. I.T.E. Traffic Engineer Handbook - Transportation Functions of Streets 3. A.A.A. Neighborhood Traffic Management Programs 4. Policy for Closure or Modification of Traffic Flow on Public Streets Suburban Residential Traffic Calming BY C. EDWARD WALTER affic calming or slowing is frequently ~referred to as reverse traffic engineer- ing. Instead of casing and speeding traffic flow. traffic calming uses geometric changes or designs that passively regulate travel speed. Europeans take traffic calming very seriously: In residential areas they try for 20 miles per hour (mph) speeds to reduce injury severity. In commercial areas, where there are shared traffic zones between vehicles and pedestrians. they strive to achieve speeds of 10 mph to 15 mph. Traffic calming measures are generally retrofitted onto existing streets. However, having once recognized the need for traffic calming, these ideas have led to new hierarchies of residential street classifications and design principles in England and Australia.' In the Washington, D.C.-Baltimore, Md., suburban areas, postwar residential development frequently was modeled along the Columbia~ Md., residential plan of long curving residential streets with numerous cul-de-sacs. These nonlinear street plans have led to longer trip lengths, At the same time these new resi- dential patterns were developing, local governments developed minimum design standards setting width, curvature and frequently vertical grades based on street C. Edward Walter is Chief of the Traffic Engi- neering Division .for Howard County, Mat~vland He is a graduate of Cornell University and has a master's degree flora MIZ2 He is a Member of lTE. classification. In Howard County, Maryland, which lies between Baltimore and Washington, a 35 mph design speed was used for residential streets with a 30 ft to 36 ft roadway width. Frequently 2,400-ft to 3.000-fi long cul-de-sac streets were approve& it is little wonder that despite 25 mph speed limits, 85th per- centde speeds of 38 mph to 40 mph are routine in such residential areas. Residential speeding is a major com- munity concern. Speeding has become a way of life for many; although residents may pass their own property within the speed limit, they have no hesitation in zipping past theix neighbors' property as fast as possible. Police with limited resources undertake periodic enforce- ment on request, but such enforcement efforts are spotty at best. These situations have given rise to the development and success of traffic calming measures in existing residential neighborhoods. Traffic engineers in the metropolitan counties surrounding Baltimore and Washington have formed the Maryland Traffic Engineers Council to solve joint problems. Several of the jurisdictions have been working with community groups on traffic calming measures. In 1992, f/ I the council formed a traffic calming sub- ~" committee to share information on ways to reduce speed in suburban residential communities. This article presents the results of that effort. Vertical Alignment Modification Vertical changes to roadway geome- try offer guaranteed speed reduction."' Speed humps, developed in England and sometimes referred to as "insomniac policemen," control speed by adjusting the height and spacing of the hump. They introduce a vertical acceleration factor to the vehicle. The Watt's Profile Speed Hump, as developed in England, is a por- tion of a 12 B-long cylinder rising 3 inches (in) in height (see Figure 1). In 1990. Howard County placed seven of these humps on Baltimore Avenue near Laurel, Md. The 85th percentlie speed Figure 1. Speed hump. 44 · lIE JOURNAL' SEPTEMBER 1995 Figure 2. Traffic circle. before placement was 38 mph and the speed limit 25 mph. immediately afterward (and continuing to the present day). 85th percentile speeds were 27 mph to 29 mph between humps and 15 mph at each hump. The series of humps replaced two multi- way stops and had the concurrence of 75 percent of residents. There have been no accidents in the four years since the humps were placed vs. four accidents in the two years immediately before hump construction. A year later Howard County placed four humps on Dogwood Drive. a narrow residential street between two arteri- al roadways. The 85th percentlie speed before construction of the humps was 40 mph: after construction. it dropped to 28 mph. There also has been a 24 percent reduction in traffic volumes on Dogwood Drive as vehicles diverted to other routes. The Watt's Profile Speed Hump frequently has been limited in its application to roadways with 3.000 vehicles per day (vpd) or fewer, although Dallas permits its use in streets handling up Figure 3. Roundabnut. to 8.000 vpd.3 A flat top speed hump 22-ft long with a center 10-ft flat section was pioneered in the United Stales by Seminole County, Florida,~ where it has been used on collector roads with more than 12.000 vpd. In England, fiat lop humps are used on col- lector roads and also frequently serve as pedestrian crossings. Two fiat top humps were installed in 1993 on Shaker Drive in Howard County. where the 85th percentlie speed was reduced from 43 mph to 29 mph. Remarkably, the speed between humps and at humps are essentially the same. (Seminole County found similar operating experience.) This characterislic has led to its adoption in Howard Count)' as the preferred hump design. The City of College Park, Md.. recendy completed construction of four raised pedestrian crossings as pan of a road rehabilitation. The cross section is similar to a fiat top speed hump with a 3-in rise. The city added visual impact to the crossings by constructing the fiat top portion with concrete and brick. The Institute of Transportation Engineers has published a pro- posed recommended practice on speed humps. It was prepared by the Technical Council Speed Humps Task Force, which is current ly evaluating comments before a final decision on adoption.$ Horizontal Alignment Changes Traffic Circles and Roundabouts The City of Seattle, Wash., pioneered the U.S. concept of installing small traffic circles in existing intersections to slow traffic through residential areas. From a small beginning in 1978, Seattle has now constructed more than 800 traffic circles on residential streets? Their pioneering experience has been adopted elsewhere, including suburban Maryland counties. Traffic circles have been installed in Maryland as both temporary and permanent installa- tions. Some of the temporary installations have been redesigned as permanent ones and some have been removed at the request of residents. Anne Arundel and Monlgomery counties have cach installed several circles (see Figure 2). The success of traffic circles in reducing residential travel speeds is related to the amount of horizontal deflection required as a vehi- cle moves around the circle.? Both Anne Arundel and Montgomery counties have designed considerable deflection in their circles. effectively prohibiting imersection traffic from traveling more than 18 mph to 20 mph. Operationally, side roads stop for traffic on the main route. Most left turning cars will make a 270-degree turn around the circlc. Some of the circles have been constructed with a mountable curb and 4 ft coilcrete ring to accommodate trucks. However. large trucks cannot operate wilhin the turning radius of the circles and therefore make left turns in front of the circle. This could be considcred a dangerous practice except volumes are low and the circles are designed with good visibility, Because of the problem of trucks turning iu front ol the circles. Prince Georges County has constructed several roundabouts. Roundabouts are similar to traffic circles but have splitter islands that effectively prevent trucks from turning in front of the circle.! Generally the islands are formed with concrete or aspbah curb. but occasionall)' the3, are painted (see Figure 3). Opcratiomfily. traffic entering a roundabout yields to traffic in the circle. and there is no major road/minor road consideration as at normal intersections. goundabouts large enough Io accommodale trucks must have a total inscribed diameter of approximately 100 loci (ft). This is frecluently difficult to achieve in lesidential intersec- tions without acquiring additional right-of-way. Both roundabouts and traffic circles are very effective as inter- section traffic calming devices. The5, have been used with consid erabit success in Montgomery County for isolated intersection calming. where 85th pcrcemile speeds have bccn reduced flora 46 · ITE JOURNAL, SEPTEMBER 1995 more than 4fl mph to 20-22 mph. Along a residential route they must be repeated at regular intervals to maintain '~calm" traffic speeds throughout. Circles have also been constructed between intersections to calm traffic. Roadway Restrictions Roadway restrictions can also be effective traffic calming devices. Many residential streets are considcrably wider than required. On such streets, cars parked opposite each other in mid- block act as a temporary roadway restriction. This phenomenon can be created by constructing pedestrian peninsulas at intersec- tions or chokers at mid-block (see Figure 4), The pavement width between chokers can be built for one traffic lane or two. Likewise the restriction can be either parallel to the travel way or twisted to the direction of travel (see Figure 5, next page}, Downtown Market Street in York. Pa.. is an excellent example of a one-way street narrowed to two lanes with a twist introduced at each end of a long block in order to reduce travel speeds. Medians also can be used for road narrowings. Medians 20 ft to 50 ft or more in length have been constructed in Anne Arundel County in advance of intersections. Roadway widths each side of the medians are I 1 ft. However, unless cars regularly park along the street, median construction by itself does little to reduce traffic speed. To compensate for this, Anne Arunde[ County is construct- ing small bulb-outs (peninsula projections into the roadwayl to force drivers to make a lateral deflection as they approach and enter median-calmed area. Studies indicate that islands have reduced 851h percentlie speeds by 2 mph to 5 mph. Islands without lateral deflection have the least speed reduction. · ' O Figure 4. Parallel choker. A variation on roadway restrictions has been constructed at two Prince Georges County intersections. where offset small medians force vehicles to go through a lateral deflection in one direction of travel only. In the next block a similar median forces sireliar deflection for the other direction of traffic. Both Anne Arundel and Howard counties have painted Where are your high accident locations? Intersection Magic® Software can tell you ~at, plus: Customized collision diagrams Charts on lime of Day, DUI, Type of collision, etc. Any user criteria! Frequency reports, accident lists, custom reports, etc. Pl GIS compatible output MS Windows,- compatible Programmi~ For information, contact Pd' Programming, Inc., or ask your current consulting engineer about Intersection Magic®. Questions may also be directed to Harl'zog & Crabill Inc. These Los Angeles area consulting traffic engineers have teamed up with Pd' Programming, Inc. Working together, we can help you with all your traffic engineering needs. (7141731-9455 Pd' Programming, Inc * (aoa) 666-7896 · 1235 Apollo Drive ® Lafayette, CO 80026 ® fax 666-7347 ® info@pdprog.com ITE JOURNAL, SEPTEMBER 1995 · 47 Figure 5, Twisted choker. ICE WARNING SYSTEM A tool for the road maintenance services The 4 EDS components: Active pavement sensor Roadside weather station Data acquisition software Pagers · Precise determination of the freezing temperature · Reliable determination of the road surface condition using a single transducer · Continuous prediction of the time of ice formation · Direct road surface information and alarm transmission through wireless pagers xrj.brc)-rn,et:er USA VIBR0-METER Corp. 489 Devon Park Drive # 310 Wayne, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 688 3700 Fax: (610) 688 3714 48 · ITE JOURNAL, SEPTEMBER 1995 parking lane lines without centerline striping on residential streets. This visually narrows the available roadway and has resulted in reductions of 3 mph to 4 mph in vehicle travel. This narrowing can be reinforced with several pedestrian peninsulas and speed humps. Such combinations of traffic calming mea- sures are used extensively in Europe to achieve desired speed rcductious. Troffic Colming Criterio Tentative criteria have bccn developed governing the instal- lation of traffic calming dcdccs, Roadways considered for traf- fic calming must be primarily residential streets with a majority of residential homes and driveways fronttrig on the street. Existing 851h percentlie speeds must be 10 mph or more above the speed limit and there ntust bc 1,000 vpd or marc using the rcsidenfial street. Each ol the metropolitan jurisdictions study traffic calming measures after neighborhood complaints, They then work with the community 1o quantify and define the prob- lem, and specific recommendations are made to the community. Maryland has found resident acceptance is paramount. and is best facilitated by working with a traffic committee from the community, which can then sell the project to the community at large, Howard Count} requires 60 percent of residents to approve recommendations by petition before construction. Conclusions Traffic calming can be an effective means of reducing speeds in established residential neighborhoods. Speeding generally occurs along the entire length of a street, may extend over sev- eral streets, and requires the regular repetition of traffic calming measures. The specific measures to be used for traffic calming are determined by roadway characteristics, cost restraints and resident acceptance. Speed reductions ranging from 3 mph to 24 mph have been obtained depending on the specific traffic calming devices utilized, Regular repetition of calming devices at 400 ft to 600 ft intervals is required to maintain slower speeds along the length of a street. References I. Green Street Joint Venture. Att~nalian Moltel Code for Residential Dcl,elopmene Canberra, Australia: Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, Nox lea0. 2 Devon Ctlunt,, Council Tr,!fic Cttlnzinc G,idelizlcs. Great Britain: Devon Cuunty Council. 1991. pp. 2S 31. 3 CiD of Dallas. Department ill Transportation R,ad Hitrap 4 NicHdcmus. David A. "Safe and EllccUvc Roadwa) Humps, The latH. pp 11}2 IU5. 4. Conflict between the public agencies that manage and maintain streets and protect neighborhoods (such as pub- lic works. police, and fire services) and the neighbors. 5. Conflicts among the professionals who plan. desigm and manage streets, chiefly bmween engineers and designers. Transportation functions of streets Streets perform two transportation functions: provision of access to individual parcels of land and provision of an infrastructure for moreitlerll between various origins and destinations. "Access" can be interpreted to inc]ude the existence of driveways connecting the street with private property and the availability of parts of the street for parking and loading. "Movement" comprises both the capaciz)' to move quanti- ties of vehicles or people and the ability to do so at a reason- ably high speed, Although residents frequently perceive access as a func- tion that primarily serves those within the neighborhood and movement as one that primarily serves those outside the neighborhood, in actuality both functions are necessary to both classes of users, since travel (movement) invariably in- volves departure and arrival (access) from an origin and to a destination. Design standards. Agencies in many nations and states have developed design standards for streets. Such standards generally emphasize safe and efficient vehicle operation but may be silent on the relationship of street use to abutting land deve opments and ts users it generally is assumed that other regulations (such as zoning and building codes) will address these concerns. Thus, although they may make provision for minimizing vehicle conflicts and vehicIe-pedestrian con- filets (e.g.. offset intersections, continuous sidewalks, etc.), the standards in current use in man:.',' jurisdictions do not ef- fectively address the potential for conflicts between needs for residential access and amenities and the needs for traffic movement into and beyond a given neighborhood. Many neighborhoods also predate current standards. and their streets may have other design problems. such as inade- quate driveway spacing. limited setback and space for off- street parking. a "grid" pattern of streets that facilitates the recursion of through traffic and that may result in vehicular conflicts and speeds that are unsuitable for the neighborhood. Another concern is that design standards usually are plied at the level of a subdivision or local jurisdiction. at least in the United States. There are many cases in which adjacent jurisdictions fail to coordinate their networks. and streets change designation and character as the:.' cross jurisdictional boundaries Residential traffic controls. Local residential streets should bc protected from through traffic. Residential streets should be linked to traffic-carrying streets in a way that simultaneously provides good access to other parts of the communit:. and minimizes the chance of the residential streets' use by through traffic. These goals should be a part of the planning for new residential areas. In some communi- ties. these objectives have been achieved in older neighbor- hoods (in Montgomery County. Maryland: Berkeley and Richmond in California: Seattle. Washington: and other locations) through the installation of traffic diverters and barriers. Residential streets should also be protected from vehic- ular traffic moving at excessive speed (greater than 25 to 30 mph) and from parking unrelated to residential activi- ties. Figure 1 i-8 illustrates several types of treatments that are designed to reduce speed and discourage through traf- fic at minor intersections in residential areas. A variety of treatments has been devised to accomplish the above objectives--ranging from speed "humps" and "chok- ers" for speed control to the Dutch "~oonerf" concept. which Figure 11-8. Treatment of minor intersecuons in residen- tial areas to reduce speed and discourage through traffic. SOURCE: WS HOMBURGER AND JH KELL. Fundamentals qf Traffic Engineering, 12th edition. University of Califor- nia. institute of Transportation Studies. Berkeley. 1988. p. 20-7. ...... ! , ........... ~ ~i ...... .: .... ...... i | . c 2'Y,2~' ~?,%'m 356 Traffic Eng~neenng Handboo~ essentially convert neighborhood blocks into pedestrian- oriented precincts. Speed "humps" are carefully designed undulations in the pavement surface that ha,,e been shown to control speed ef- t'ectively without the risk of interfering with the driver's control of the vehicle. These humps are typically installed across the width of the roadway. with a longitudinal circular section 3 to 4 in in height and approximately 12 ft in length. These should be distinguished from speed bumps, which are much shorter (el to 12 in long) and which have been associ- ated with maintenance, safety, and liability concerns. A study of the use of speed humps51 recommended that the pavement undulations should be used only under the following conditions: I. The street serves a purely local access function. 2. There is no more than one lane per direction. 3. The street is not a transit or truck route. 4. The street is not zoned above 25 mph. 5. The 851h percemile speed exceeds 30 mph. 6. There is evidence of a speed-related accident problem. Undulations should be located no less than 200 ft from an intersection or sharp horizontal curve. and each undula- tion should be visible for at least 200 ft. Standard warning signs (e.g., Sign W8 in the MUTCD) should be used. The use of pavement stripes has also been suggested,s-` but these might give the appearance of crosswalks, which could mis- lead motorists. "Chokers" may consist of landscaped bulbs between the sidewalk and the street. widened sidewalk areas, or points where street entrances are necked down. Raised or brick crosswalks may also be used in combination with pavement undulations. In addition to numerous applications of these devices in European and Australian cities, speed humps have been used extensively in Pasadena, California. The Woonerf requires motprized traffic and bicycle traf- Fic to adapt to pedestrian behavior, and it has become very popular in European countries. Extensive installations and utility relocation are required, and initial costs and mainte- nance costs may be high. Modified forms of this type of control have been implemented in Boulder, Colorado; San Francisco, and other United States cities. Neighborhood parking permit programs. to limit long- term parking to those living in the area. have also been imple- mented in a number of North-American cities and upheld by court decisions. These usually involve standard time-limit parking for the general public (I, 2, or 4 hours) with exemp- tion tbr vehicles displaying a permit available only to resi- dents. The parking restrictions may also exclude vehicles with no permit at certain hours of the day, Other traffic controls frequently requested by residents include stop signs, speed limits, turn prohibitions, and one- way street designations. ~n general. the application of these devices may be expected to ha~e the same effects in residential neighborhoods as they do else~here. and their indiscriminate use should be avoided. Stop signs are persis- tently requested by citizens with the expectation that they will control speeds or reduce traffic volumes and accidents in residential neighborhoods, Airhough there may be some effect on volume and accidents in certain instances. there is little evidence of effect on traffic speeds attributable to stop sign placement except within about 200 ft of the inter- section controlled. Some cities use special warrants with reduced minimum ~olumc requirements t~r residential neighborhood locations, 5/lost residential streets are covered by "blanket" speed limits of 25 or 30 mph. though it is not uncommon for 851h percentlie speed of traffic to be considerably higher. particu- larly on collector streets. In such cases, signs merely remind drivers of the general limits applicable to the residentia~ area. unless an overriding problem indicates the need to establish a new speed zone on the street. Studies evaluating the effect of speed limit signs oa speed have been largely confined to major streets and bare generally shown that signs have very little impact on driver speed on major streets. Drivers con- sistently drive at speeds which they perceive as reasonable, comfortable. convenient, and safe under existing conditions. regardless of posted speed limits. Consistent enforcement is essential to obtain any measurable effect from posting of speed limits. Alternatives to speed zoning include pavement undulations/described abovel. traffic circles (discussed be- low), and podlure intersections. where the entire intersection is raised a few inches above the normal grade level with ramps to conform to the grades of the adjacent streets. Turn prohibitions and one-way streets can have a very sig- nificant effect on traffic volumes, if their use is accepted by the affected drivers. Enforcement is essential, particularly when the regulations are first enacted. These measures are low-cost alternatives, and they provide minimum impedance to emergency vehicles, which can travel the "wrong ~vay" when necessary. Speeds tend to be higher on one-way streets. In residential neighborhoods. this can be counteracted by limiting the number of blocks with one-way continuity. One- way streets tend to be inherently safer than two-'way streets. but in residential neighborhoods, where irregular patterns of one-way streets are used, careful treatment is essential at in- tersections, Traffic circles tend to have higher violation rates and may represent a risk for increased accidents because of the tendency of some motorists to violate the one-way pat- tern. especially in making left turns. Other regularpry devices. such as traffic signals, yield signs, truck restriction signs, and access regulation signs C'Do Not Enter," "Not a Thru Street," "Dead End." ~'Local Access Only." and "Thru x&hicles Prohibited"). have also been used in residential settings. The latter signs are used primarily in conjunction with one-way streets (i.e.. '~Do Not Enter"/or as informational signs, although the use of "Local Access Only" signs in the regulatory black-on-white format could conceiv- ably be efI~ctl~e in reducing traffic volume on residential streets if accompanied by entbrcement Warning signs in residential neighborhoods have limited uses, and drivers and pedestrians usuall> need to be warned only of special hazards. The attention of the driver is drawn to tt:e location of schools (especially elementary schools) and playgrounds. to pavement undulations, to the hct that tralfic Traffic Regulat:ocs 357 barriers or di~erters arc located ahead, and to stop and yield signs ahead if they rna> not be readily visible because of cur~es or shrubbet2,, "Slow" signs. "Children at Play" signs. and novelty signs are vague and unenforceable. The result may. therefore. ha~e little more than a placebo effect on resi- dents, The no\'elt> of a new sign wears off quickly and then nil longer attracts the attention of regular pussets-b>. Nonstan- dard signs usuall> have no legal meaning or established prece- dent; their use is discouraged because of both the lack of proven effectiveness and undesirable liability exposure. Fur- ther. driver respect for signs and other traffic controls may be eroded through the use ofnonstandard and unheeded dexices Geometric design features. Geometric design features max be used to restrict access and/or reduce speeds in resi- dential settings. These include median barriers and cul-de- sacs at intersections with major streets. and seml-diverters. diagonal diverters. and midblock cul-de-sacs on local resi- dential streets. Some of these design features are also illus- trated in Figure 11-8. These are features that physicall> restrict and prevent vehicle movement as well as reduce speed, Their common characteristic is that by their physical form they force or prohibit a specific action. Geometric fea- tures have the advantage of being largely self-enforcing and of creating a visual impression that a street is not intended for through traffic. The disadvantages relative to other devices are their cost. the potentially negative impact on emergency and service vehicles. and the imposition of inconvenient ac- cess on some parts of a neighborhood. They are also static and must be appropriate at all hours of the day and night. Rumble strips. formed with patterned sections of rough pavement or raised pavement markers, have no effect on traffic volumes and little on speed though they do appear to cause an increase in driver attention. Studies conducted on major streets show that the strips have had a noticeable ef- fect in reducing accidents when placed in advance of a stop sign. Effects in lower-speed residential areas have not been determined. Introducing curvatures on a previously straight alignment has been discussed as a physical speed control device. but this has produced considerable public controversy and warnings of possible associated safety problems. Use of various designs in Australia is reported to have a very subtle effect on driver behavior, Valle? gutters and rough pavements are two existing devices that tend to control traffic as an unintended by- product of their presence, In neither case can it be suggested that streets should be designed to include valley gutters and rough pavement in order to reduce speed: however. the effect may be an argument for ddaying repaying of pureIv residential streets--an argument that should be carefull', weighed against an)' noted indications of a hazardous or deteriorating structural condition Play streets and private streets areas of the United States. Traffic flo~ ma> bc restricted on such streets [hruugh the use o/ temporaU barricades, signs, or gates. Such streets can be temporaril> closed during cer- tain hours, and permanent closure may also be considered in areas where vehicular access to homes and garages is pro- vided for b:, alternate means such as alleys, In Vancouver. British Columbia. a number of blocks have been closed to vehicular traffic and converted to exclusive use by pedestri- arts. cyclists, strollers. and--in one case--an outdoor care. Residents must park their vehicles on a cross street or alle.', or--where available--in ofiLstreet spaces. Provision for emergency vehicle entr} into these blocks is provided by use of traversable barriers in some. but not all. cases. implementing neighborhood traffic controls The wa> in which neighborhood traffic controls are im- plemented can be as important to their eventual success or failure as the substance of the strategies themselves. Imple- mentation should be considered not as a step but as a process requiring careful planning and documentation, public notice. evaluation, and possibly refinement of the strategies. Such a process calls for the same attention to detail and for the same thorough consideration as the initial planning efforL The implementation of neighborhood traffic control schemes may raise issues about the responsible jurisdiction's legal authority to take such actions. For example, the mea- sures or devices used to effectuate traffic control may be sub- ject to state requirements as to design and/or application. Legal questions may aiso be raised about restrictions of ac- cess caused by the plan, its environmental impact, or con- cerns for tort liability. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to report or advise on the legal reclutrements of various United States states or foreign jurisdictions. However. legal counsel is usually advisable in developing and implementing neigh- borhood traffic control strategies. Even when there is no question of authority, compliance with standards, or other legal requirements, neighborhood traffic control actions are sometimes challenged by opponents on grounds of denial of access or discrimination against non- residents, in general. challenges to otherwise authorized traf- fic control schemes on the grounds that they cause incidental inconvenience to some parties are likely to fail; a community may divert traffic and partially restrict access, but still suc- cessfully withstand a legal challenge, Tests of sufficient police power and reasonable exercise of such power must still be met. of course. Evaluating the impact of neighborhood traffic controls Evaluation of technical performance and community percep- tions is needed to provide a reasonable basis for decisions to keep or abandon a plan. A formal evaluation can cIarify is- sues. bring the more stabilized long-term performance char- acteristics into fncus, and spotlight hidden gains and losses that may be significant. Evaluation can point to opportuni~ ties for modifying a traffic control plan to make it perform its intended function better or to lessen adverse impacts. it can also be used to determine whether the plan should be ex- panded both in terms of devices and geographical area. FinalIS'. evaluation can advance the state of knowledge about neighborhood traffic control and identify problems that might be avoided in future applications. Effectiveness of controls. An evaluation should start with this question: Do the controls t~lfilI their intended pur- poses? Some effects are easily evaluated through a "before- alkr" traffic study. Other intended purposes involving public perceptions and reactions are best evaluated with pubtic in- put. Evaluation should go beyond the question of effective- ness in fulfilling the plan's primary intentions, however. In particular, any negative impacts of the plan as implemented should be identified. Technical staff can then fo[Iow up on such matters (e.g. increased emergency response time) so as to develop modifications to offset negative effects. Involve- ment of emergency and service personnel can also help to minimize such adverse efl~:cts. Minor adjustments to a neighborhood plan are a common occurrence. Observation during the period immediately lol- lowing implementation is critical in order to identify prob- lems that could easily be eliminated by minor adjustments. Additional police surveillance also helps discourage erratic or illegal driving behavior and vandalism. Maintenance and enforcement issues. Maintenance and enforcement are important to the continued effectiveness of the traffic control scheme and to continued public accept- ance. While the physical maintenance of the plan probaN? will require the greater amount of attention, in a brooder sense, maintenance also requires attention to t he need for con- tinued driver respect and public support. It may be necessary to remind police officials of the need tbr enforcement, or to ask them to do "focused entbrcement" in areas that appear to have a high violation rate. REFERENCES FOR FURTHER READING American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Deggn of Highways and Btreets, Washington PC, 1o90. pp. 103,212. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Manual/or ~[amtenance and inspection oF Bridges, WashingTon, PC, 1974 APPLEYARD. DONALD AND MARK LINTELL. '~The Environmental Quality of City Streets: The Residents' Viewpoint." Journal o] the 4rnertcan [nsti- tute of Planners. 38 ( March 1972 I, pp. 84-10 I. Automobile Club of Southern California, Realistic Speed Zoning, Why and How Los Angeles, 1976, p. 8. BRUCE. J A, "One-way Major Arterial Streets." hnproved Street Utilization l/lrougn Trafljc Engtneerlne, Highway Research Board Special Report 93, Washington. PC, May 1967 CahE~rnia Department of Motor Vehicles, I ?htc/e G)de Sacramento, 1986 California Department of Transportation. E'al~/brnia Ridesharing Fact/i- tzes. Sacramento, January 1984 GILL~-RD Q, "Los ~ngeles Diamond Lanes Freeway Experiment." Yrafi'ec and Traffic Flow," Pubtic Roads, 50, I December 1986), 82 Q0 Traffic Regulations 359 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS With increasing frequency, cities and counties are turning to neigh- borhood traffic management as a means of responding to citizen concerns about traffic problems in residential areas. Often, these concerns are prompted by the presence of non-local traffic in residential areas, a condition that almost always signals the presence of difficulties on the arterial or collector roadway network. These problems should be addressed, wherever possible, prior to the implementation of more restrictive controls. Neighborhood traffic management programs can be very controversial. As a result, they require careful planning, comprehensive study and thorough debate before implementation is attempted. The planning process should include these basic steps and involve public participation throughout: · Problem Identification - An exploration of the specific nature of the problem or problems, and the issues and individuals involved. · Alternative Plans Generation - Definition ,/~,.,/, ~, ~ - of the full range of plausible responses to the identified problems. · Plan Selection - Predicting the likely effects of each alternative and choos- ing an option which has the most acceptable balance of positive and , negative impacts. · Implementation - Preparing the public constructing or putting into effect the planned traffic control changes. ~ 7~' / · Evaluation - Observing and measuring how the traffic man- agement system actually operates and identifying features requiring change or fine tuning. · Modification - Adjustments to correct functional difficulties or to improve upon the initial planning concept or a larger-scale re- consideration of alternatives--a recycling of the planning process-- where the initial scheme has proven unacceptable or ineffective. Traffic diversion is perhaps the most divisive of all neighborhood traffic management stategies. As such, it requires the greatest thought and considera- tion. As an aid to the decision-making process, the advantages and disad- vantages of traffic diversion are listed in Appendix C. APPENDIX C ~ ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC DIVERSION PROGRAMS Advantages: 1. Improvements to a small area could be an incentive for families with children to move back into the area. 2. Diversion can help keep the occasional high-speed vehicle from using primarily residential, local streets as thoroughfares. 3. Selective street closures and the use of cul-de-sacs can provide additional green space, play areas, pedestrian malls, or parking areas for residents or businesses. 4. Closing streets or diverting vehicle traffic may foster a stronger sense of neighborhood or community identity. 5. Diversion may foster increased neighborhood activity and, coupled with the lack of easy vehicle access and escape, help to reduce crime. 6. Within an affected area, traffic diversion may reduce noise, air pollution and vibration, and may make the streets safer for children and other pedestrians. 7. Controlling traffic can act as a catalyst that spurs neighborhood revital ization. 8~ Improvements in the public streetscape could provide an impetus for the rehabilitation of private property. 9. Selective street closures, cul-de-sacs and directional controls at local and arterial street intersections can reduce access conflicts thereby improving traffic flow and safety on arterial streets. Disadvantages: 1. Residents on streets in the vicinity of vehicle diverters may experience higher levels of traffic volume and associated environmental and safety impacts. 2. Diversion may give children or other residents a false sense of ~,rotec- tion from motor vehicles. 3. Some cities have found that cul-de-sacs may heighten racial segregation; closed-off, tightly knit streets may discourage minority families from moving in. 4. Traffic diverted from residential streets may exceed the capacity of adjacent arterial and collector streets and require their upgrading or improvement. 5. Diverter installation (barriers, signs, islands and pavement markings) would require additional maintenance. 6. Additional right-of-way acquisition may be necessary for both the target and alternative streets; for instance, diagonal diverters and cul-de-sac construction could be restrained by insufficient existing rights-of-way. 7. Diversion may result in access problems and may incon- venience residents and visitors on the affected streets and in the vicinity of the diverters. 8. Access for police, fire and other emergency vehicles may be hampered and response times may increase unless adequate provisions are made to ensure passage for such vehicles. 9. The implementation of traffic restrictions without providing reasonable options for traffic circulation may generate negative reactions from both internal and external sources. 10. Traffic may not be eliminated but only redistributed. 11. Not all residential streets can have heavy traffic removed by traffic diversion. Where traffic impacts on residential streets cannot be reduced through street or transit improve- ments, those impacts should be offset by public trade-offs such as street landscaping and noise buffers. CITY OF TEMECULA POLICY FOR CLOSURE OR MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC FLOW ON PUBLIC STREETS Traffic flow modifications coverod by this policy include all "official traffic control devices" authorized by the California Vehicle Code. Some of the methods authorized in particular circumstances might include traffic islands, curbs, traffic barriers, or other roadway design features, removing or relocation traffic signals and one-way traffic flow. CRITERIA A petition request for the closure or modification of traffic flow on public streets, including re- opening previously closed streets, will be considered by the City for those streets meeting all of the following criteria: a. The street must be classified as a "local street" based on the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan. b. The street should be primarily residential in nature. Traffic volumes on the street must equal or exceed 2,000 vehicles per day for a complete closure. Volumes for a partial closure must equal or exceed 1,000 vehicles per day. d. Public Safety Agencies have not provided sufficient evidence of any major public safety concerns regarding the proposed street closure or traffic flow modification. An engineering safety study has determined that the proposed closure or traffic flow modifications will not create unreasonable traffic on the subject street or on streets which may be impacted by diverted traffic. The changes in traffic flow will not result in unreasonable liability exposure for the City. All persons signing a petition requesting a street closure or traffic flow modification acknowledge it is the City's policy that they will need to participate in all costs directly associated with the street closure or traffic flow modification in order to facilitate the funding of the ultimate improvements needed to implement the street closure or traffic flow modifications. h. The requested action is authorized by legislative authority in State law. PETITION REQUIREMENTS The following procedures must be followed for submitting a petition to the City: The City Traffic Engineer will examine the technical feasibility and anticipated impacts of the proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications. This review will include, but will not be limited to, items such as State law, the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, the type of road or street involved, compliance with engineering regulations, existing traffic conditions, projected traffic conditions, the potential for traffic diversion to adjacent streets, the increased liability exposure for the City or conflicts with future planned improvements. The City Traffic Engineer will determine the boundary of the "affected area" to be petitioned. The affected area will include those properties where normal travel routes are altered by the street closure or traffic flow modifications, and/or properties which are significantly impacted by traffic that is to be diverted. The petition requesting the street closure or traffic flow modifications must be supported by a minimum of 85 percent of the total number of properties within the "affected area." Persons submitting petitions must attempt to contact all property owners within the affected area to determine their views on the proposed street closure or modifications in traffic flow. The City will not accept a petition unless the petitioner offers confirmation in a form satisfactory to the City Traffic Engineer that at least 95 percent of the property owners in the affected area have been contacted and have either signed the petition in support of the street closure or traffic flow modification or have signed a document indicating non-support for the street closure or traffic flow modification. d. At a minimum, petitions submitted to the City for review must include the following: A statement that all persons signing the petition acknowledge it is the City's policy that they will need to participate in all costs directly associated with the street closure or traffic flow modifications in order to facilitate the funding of the ultimate improvements needed to implement the street closure or traffic flow modifications. A drawing showing the exact location of the proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications and the boundary of the "affected area" must be provided. The drawing must include changes in traffic patterns anticipated as result of the proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications. · The petition language must also clearly explain the location and nature of the proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications. The petition language and attached drawing must be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to circulation to ensure its accuracy and ability to be clearly understood. · A specific reference to the Vehicle Code section authorizing such street closure or traffic flow modifications must be provided. A sample petition has been provided as an attachment to this policy. PETITION REVIEW PROCESS The following process will be used to review all petitions associated with a proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications: The City Traffic Engineer will review any petition to verify compliance with all petition requirements set forth above, including whether the request in the petition is authorized by State law. Any petition not complying with these requirements will not be accepted for consideration. If the petition contains all of the required information under this policy, the proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications will be referred to all affected public agencies in conjunction with the environmental review process. When applicable, these agencies will include all City Departments, the local office of the California Highway Patrol, County Sheriff and Fire Departments, all affected local utility companies, Temecula Valley Unified School District, Riverside Transit Agency, the local office of California Department of Transportation and any other agencies affected by the requested closure or Waffle flow modification. If the petition contains all of the required information under this policy, where the street closure or traffic flow modifications on a street or system of streets may be accomplished by several different methods, a public workshop will be held to which all petitioners, affected property owners, and long-term tenants such as mobile home park residents will be invited to participate after the petition requesting the traffic flow modifications or street closure has been received and verified by the City. The purpose of the workshop will be to attempt to determine the method that has the greatest community support. CITY ACTION ON STREET CLOSURE OR TRAFFIC FLOW MODIFICATION REQUESTS Once a petition contains all of the required information and all of the matters described above under "Petition Review Process" have been completed, the City Traffic Engineer will prepare a report with recommendations and initiate and complete the environmental review process for the project. Project alternatives to the extent required will be defined for a temporary or permanent street closure or traffic flow modifications. The City of Temecula, Public/Traffic Safety Commission will review the street closure or traffic flow modifications request, any environmental review document prepared for the project, all public agency referral responses received during the environmental review process, and the results of the technical staff review. The City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission may support or recommend against the street closure or traffic flow modifications. If the Public/Traffic Safety Commission denies the proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications, that action will be final unless within ten days from the date of the City Traffic Engineer's notification of the Commission's decision to all property owners within the affected area, a property owner within the affected area appeals the Commission's decision to the City Council. In order to appeal the decision, the property owner shall file a written notice of appeal with the Department of Public Works. The appeal will be heard in accordance with the procedures described below. If the request is recommended for further consideration, after public notice is given, the City Council may, after making any necessary findings, establish a temporary or permanent period of street closure or traffic flow modifications. When the City Council considers a recommendation of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission or an appeal of a decision of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission with respect to a proposed street closure or traffic flow modifications, it will follow the process outlined below: A letter explaining the street closure or traffic flow modifications and the time and place when the matter will be heard by the City Council will be sent to all property owners, within the affected area prior to its installation. All approaches to the proposed closure or modification will be posted notifying motorists of upcoming Public Hearing. A Public Heating will be set before the City Council and public notice will be given at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing by letter to property owners in the affected area and by posting of signs on the affected roadways as described in this Section and by a notice published in the newspaper. Public notification of the City Council action will be given in cases when a street closure or traffic modifications is approved by the City Council, and signs giving notice of the street closure or traffic flow modifications will also be erected at least two weeks prior to the date of implementation of the street closure or traffic modifications. In the event the action involves a highway not under the exclusive jurisdiction of the City of Temecula, the City will obtain the proper approvals from the California Transportation Commission pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 21101 or 21100 (d) prior to implementation of the street closure or traffic flow modification. A letter explaining the final City Council decision will be sent by the City to all property owners, within the affected area. The City Council has the sole discretion, subject to all applicable laws, to approve, modify, continue or deny any street closure or traffic flow modifications request regardless of any support or lack thereof via the petition process. Any action by the City Council to approve or deny a street closure or traffic flow modifications request will be by adoption of a formal resolution. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PETITION TO CLOSE OR MODIFY THE TRAFFIC FLOW ON STREET BETWEEN AND BY THE INSTALLATION OF (Nature of Changes) AT (Location) DATE: BEFORE YOU SIGN THIS PETITION, UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SIGNING! IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOU FIRST READ THE CITY'S STREET CLOSURE OR TRAFFIC FLOW MODIFICATION POLICY. We, the undersigned resident of the area shown on the attached map do/do not petition the City of Temecula to on Street ~ shown on the attached drawing. All persons signing this petition acknowledge it is the City's policy that they will need to participate in all costs directly associated with the street closure or traffic flow modification in order to facilitate the funding of the ultimate improvements needed to implement the street closure or traffic flow modification. The specific California Vehicle Code section(s) authorizing such closure or traffic flow modifications states: All persons signing this petition do hereby certify that they reside within the area impacted by the proposed traffic flow change as shown on the attached map. Our designated contact person is: Phone: Signature Pritu Name Print Address APPENDIX "A" RULES AND REGULATIONS: SUBJECT MATTER VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21100. Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding the following matters: a. Regulating or prohibiting processions or assemblages on the highways. b. Licensing and regulating the operation of vehicles for hire and drivers of passenger vehicles for hire. c. Regulating traffic by means of traffic officers. d. Regulating traffic by means of official traffic control devices meeting the requirements of Section 21400. Regulating traffic by means of any person given temporary or permanent appointment for such duty by the local authority whenever official traffic control devices are disabled or otherwise inoperable, at the scenes of accidents or disasters, or at such locations as may require traffic direction for orderly traffic flow. No person shall, however, be appointed pursuant to this subdivision unless and until the local authority has submitted to the commissioner or to the chief law enforcement officer exercising jurisdiction in the enforcement of traffic laws within the area in which such person is to perform such duty, for review, a proposed program of instruction for the training of a person for such duty, and unless and until the commissioner or such other chief law enforcement officer approves the proposed program. The commissioner or such other chief law enforcement officer shall approve such a proposed program if he reasonably determines that the program will provide sufficient training for persons assigned to perform the duty described in this subdivision. Regulating traffic at the site of road or street construction or maintenance by persons authorized for such duty by the local authority. Licensing and regulating the operation of tow truck service or tow truck drivers whose principal place of business or employment is within the jurisdiction of the local authority, excepting the operation and operator of any auto dismantler's tow vehicle licensed under Section 11505 or any tow truck operated by a repossessing agency licensed under Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 7500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code and its registered employees. Nothing in this subdivision shall limit the authority of a city or city and county pursuant to Section 12111. Operation of bicycles, and, as specified in Section 21114.5, electric carts by physically disabled persons, or persons 50 years of age or older, on the public sidewalks. Providing for the appointment of nonstudent school crossing guards for the protection of persons who are crossing a street or highway in the vicinity of a school or while returning thereafter to a place of safety. Regulating the methods of deposit of garbage and refuse in streets and highways for collection by the local authority or by any person authorized by the local authority. Regulating cruising. The ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to this subdivision shall regulated cruising, which shall be defined as the repetitive driving of a motor vehicle past a traffic control point, in traffic which is congested at or near the traffic control point, as determined by the ranking peace officer on duty within the affected area, within a specified time period and after the vehicle operator has been given an adequate written notice that further driving past the control point will be a violation of the ordinance or resolution. No person is in violation of an ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant to this subdivision unless (1) that person has been given the written notice on a previous driving trip past the control point and then again passes the control point in that same time interval and (2) the beginning and end of the portion of the street subject to cruising controls are clearly identified by signs that briefly and clearly state the appropriate provisions of this subdivision and the local ordinance or resolution on cruising. Regulating or authorizing the removal by peace officers of vehicles unlawfully parked in a fire lane, as described in Section 22500.1, on private property. Any removal pursuant to this subdivision shall be consistent to the extent possible with the procedures for removal and storage set forth in Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 22650). TRAIqqC CONTROL DEVICES: UNIFORM STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21100.1 Whenever any city or county, by ordinance or resolution, pennits, restricts, or prohibits the use of public or private highways pursuant to this article, any traffic control device erected by it on or after January 1, 1981, shall conform to the uniform standards and specifications adopted by the Department of Transportation pursuant to Section 21400. REGULATION OF HIGHWAYS VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21101. Local authorities, for those highways under their jurisdiction, may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution on the following matters: Closing any highway to vehicular traffic when, in the opinion of the legislative body having jurisdiction, the highway is no longer needed for vehicular traffic. Designating any highway as a through highway and requiring that all vehicles observe official traffic control devices before entering or crossing the highway or designating any intersection as a stop intersection and requiring all vehicles to stop at one or more entrances to the intersection. Prohibiting the use of particular highways by certain vehicles, except as otherwise provided by the Public Utilities Commission pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 1031) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division I of Public Utilities Code. No ordinance which is adopted pursuant to this subdivision after November 10, 1969, shall apply to any state highway which is included in the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, except an ordinance which has been approved by the California Transportation Commission by a four-fifths vote. Closing particular streets during regular school hours for the purpose of conducting automobile driver training programs in the secondary schools and colleges of this state. Temporarily closing a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, and other purposes when, in the opinion of local authorities having jurisdiction, the closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use that portion of the street during the temporary closing. Prohibiting entry to, or exit from, or both, from any street by means of islands, curbs, traffic barriers, or other roadway design features to implement the circulation element of a general plan adopted pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 65350) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. The rules and regulations authorized by this subdivision shall be consistent with the responsibility of local government to provide for the health and safety of its citizens. LOCAL AUTHORITY TO TEMPORARILY CLOSE HIGHWAY: CRIMINAL ACTIVITY VEHICLE CODE SECTION 21101.4 (a) A local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, adopt rules and regulations for temporarily closing to through traffic a highway under its jurisdiction when all of the following conditions are, after a public hearing, found to exist. The local authority finds and determines that there is serious and continual criminal activity in the portion of the highway recommended for temporary closure. This finding and determination shall be based upon the recommendation of the police department or, in the case of a highway in an unincorporated area, on the joint recommendation of the sheriff's department and the Department of the California Highway Patrol. 2. The highway has not been designated as a through highway or arterial street. 3. Vehicular or pedestrian traffic on the highway contributes to the criminal activity. The closure will not substantially adversely affect the operation of emergency vehicles, the performance of municipal or public utility services, or the delivery of freight by commercial vehicles in the area of the highway proposed to be temporarily closed. A highway may be temporarily closed pursuant to subdivision (a) for not more than 18 months, except that period may, pursuant to subdivision (a), be extended for one additional period of not more than 18 months. ITEM NO. 4 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: AGENDA REPORT Public/Traffic Safety Commission Marty Lauber, Traffic Engineer/'/~/ September 28, 1995 Item 4 "Stop" Sign on Camino Del Este at Via Puerte RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission support staff recommendation to deny placing a "Stop" sign on Camino Del Este at Via Puerte. BACKGROUND: The Traffic Division has received one citizen request to place a "Stop" sign on Camino Del Este at Via Puerte. These streets form a "T" intersection of two (2) local streets with Camino Del Este as the stem. The intersection is only a few hundred feet north of La Serena Way on Via Puerte. This is not a new intersection and we have one recorded accident at this intersection prior to July 1, 1995. The only report identified one motorcycle unable to negotiate Camino Del Este at night due to the loss of their headlight. Both streets are local residential road with no restricted parking. All possible "Stop" sign warrants were reviewed and we found that none apply to this location. Intersection sight distance is good which allows motorists on Camino Del Este to decide if they need to stop when yielding right-of-way to those on Via Puerte. Staff feels that based on the normal assignment of intersection right-of-way (California Vehicle Code) laws and good intersection sight distance, a "Stop" sign is not recommended. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: Exhibit "A" - Location Map r:\traffic\commlssn\agenda\95\09'28/ajp t20N LOCATION MAP PROME}lAD( ~ S]II~ NORTH DR ITEM NO. 5 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: Public/Traffic Safety Commission Marty Lauber, Traffic Engineer DATE: September 28, 1995 SUBJECT: Item 5 "No Parking" Zone on Rainbow Canyon Road East of Birdie Drive RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission deny a request from the Homes by the Green Home Owners Association (HOA) to create a parking restriction on Rainbow Canyon Road east of Birdie Drive. BACKGROUND: Staff has been contacted regarding the partial sight obstruction created by parked cars on Rainbow Canyon Road east of Birdie Drive. Based on my field reviews of this area, a few cars park near the entrance to the gated community of Homes by the Green. Rainbow Canyon Road is classified as a secondary road with an ultimate configuration of four (4) lanes with 10 foot shoulders for parking, bike lane and/or distress lane. It currently carries about 2,900 vehicles per day which provides for a favorable level of service. The entrance to this gated community has a very wide driveway, which by its design, does not allow parking directly adjacent to the exit point. The parked cars seem to be associated with the development and should be asked to park away from the intersection to avoid the need for an additional City maintained parking restrictions. Staff suggested that the HOA contact all of their residents and ask them, and their guests, to park far enough from the project entrance to avoid obstructions. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: Exhibit "A" - Location Map NORTH SITE LOCATION MAP ITEM NO. 6 TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT (for September 28, 1995) City Council Actions: August 22, 1995 a. Solicitation of Construction Bids and ADDroval of Plans and Specifications for Winchester Road at Interstate 15, Bridge Widenin~ and Northbound Ramp Improvements (PW94-21) - Approved Staff Recommendation (54343) KL/RR b. Professional Services Agreement - 1-15/I-215 Joint ITemecula-Murrieta) Corridor Planning Study - Continued to the meeting of September 12, 1995 (5-0-0) RP/RR September 12, 1995 a. I~15/I-215 Joint ITemecula-Murrieta) Corridor Planning Study - Contract Award to DKS and Associates, Inc. Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) RR/RP b. Joint Project Funding Agreement (Pala Road Bridge/Sewer) - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) RR/RP Traffic Division Project Status: Interim Traffic Signals - Margarita Road, Pala Road and La Paz Street at SR 79(S). Staff has recoived traffic signal plan check comments back from Caltrans and has forwarded them to the appropriate consultant teams for inclusion. All changes have been incorporated in project re-submittals. b. Staff has received Proposals for our Azea Wide Intelligent Traffic Management System. Four project team proposals have been submitted and are currently being reviewed. Staff has held a workshop to investigate City Council suggestions for physical modifications to the intersection of Winchester Road and Enterprise Circle South. In order to gather the appropriate public input, a workshop was held on September 21, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. All of the people in attendance recommended implementation of our originally proposed trap right turn lane. It was felt that elimination of all intersection turns, by constructing a restrictive median, would greatly impact travel pattern to the detriment of the public. Staff has received a proposal for creating a protected right turn overlap phase for northbound Jefferson Avenue and Winchester Road. This will allow northbound right turns to move continuously during the existing westbound phase. Contracts are being signed. Staff is researching opportunities to purchase a computer based accident reporting system which will reduce police and Public Works efforts to keep abreast of immediate collision profiles. All software being evaluated will be able to create collision diagrams and statistical tables with a push of a butIon. The O.T.S. supported program called GIS- BARS is being pursued as a possible option. f. Staff is working with the School District to modify the striping on Margarita Road at their new Maintenance Facility aecoss, north of Winchester Road and to adjust the parking times restricted for buses at the High School. Traffic Division Aecomolishments: The Traffic Division's monthly activity report is attached which summarizes our on-going work efforts. r:\ltaffic\~ng~fi95~ngtl~t95 .~p Capital Proiects Status: The status of all construction projects currently being managed by the Capital Projects Division of the Public Works Department, and are included in their monthly activity report, which is aRached. Maintenance Activities: A summary of all maintenanc~ activities accomplished over the past month is also included for your information. Commission Recommendations - From the Meeting of August 24. 1995: Commissioner Ouerriero: Commissioner Guerriero suggested that staff investigate possible sight distance restrictions on Meadows Parkway at Rancho California Road. Commissioner Johnson: Commissioner Johnson requested staff to expand our monthly Activity Report to include all active, and recently completed, traffic requests made and what action was taken or is being taken, on each one. Commissioner Johnson also asked to receive a copy of the Traffic Impact Report for the Old Town Entertainment Project. Commissioner Johnson asked staff to invite Caltrans to our Commission Me~ting to present a status report regarding Winchester Bridge and Pala Road Bridges. Commissioner Coe: Commissioner Coe asked for updated traffic counts for Pala Road. He felt that volumes have been censistently increasing and would like to quantify that increase. r:\traffic\engtpt\95~ng~pt95 .gp TRAFFIC DIVISION Monthly Activity Report For September, 1995 TRAFFIC REQUESTS and PLAN CHECKS Submitted by: Joseph Kicak Prepared by: Marty Lauber Date: September 25, 1995 :TRAFFIC REQUESTS: :' Received Completed Active Scheduled for Traffic Commission 'WORK ORDERS ISSUED: ..... STRIPING PLANS REVIEWED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS 'REVIEWED. ' TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES REVIEWED. June July August 12 6 '3" 6 14 '4'.~.. 25 19 23 .' 2 3 .2'. 7 5 ".i. 1 0 .7 5 1 1 1 4 '2.. NOTE: This table does not include a Traffic Signal Plan Review for Rancho California Road at Lyndie Lane, Texaco Project II. DIVISION PROJECTS: Traffic signal plans have been returned from Caltrens for the Intersections of State Route 79(S) with Pala Road, La Paz Road, and Margarita Road. Corrections are being finalized by all consultants. Removed the U-Turn prohibition on westbound Rancho California Road, at Ynez Road to provided protected movements for vehicles accessing the pond site. Represented the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (I.T.E.) California Border Section, as President, at their Denver Annual meeting/convention. This has heightened Staff's access to developing technologies and unlimited resources. Set schedule for 3 months of implementing the radar trailer display unit throughout Temecula's residential neighborhoods. This will almost complete our list of requested locations. Sent requests for proposals for the City's intelligent traffic management system. Proposal must be submitted prior to September 5, 1995. This project is being funded through a CMAQ grant. r:Xmoacttpt\traffic\95\O1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Activity Report SEPTEMBER, 1995 Submitted by: Joseph Kicak~ Prepared by: Don Spagnolo Date: September 13, 1995 I. WORK UNDER CONSTRUCTION: 1. Moraga Road Street Widening: The contractor is currently backfilling around the box culvert and will start widening of the west side of Moraga Road next week. The construction is expected to be completed by the end of October. 2o Sports Park Parking and Skate Board Park: The Contractor has completed rough grading for the roller hockey rink, skate board park, parking areas and the restroom building. The contractor has started the underground storm drain, electrical and telephone work and has completed underground plumbing for the rest room buildings. The project is expected to be completed by February, 1996. The contractor will start the restroom foundation and structure during October. 3. Temecula Middle School Lighting Project: The Contractor has completed all underground conduits and pole foundations. All poles and lighting hardware have been delivered and are being assembled. Construction is anticipated to be complete by last week in September. 4. Access Ramos: The contractor has started removing any existing concrete for the construction of the new handicapped access ramps at various locations throughout the city. The project is expected to be completed by the beginning of October. 5. Solana Way Storm Drain Imorovements: A pre-construction meeting will be set up once the contractor submits his construction documents. The project should start by mid-October and be completed by the end of December. pwO4\moactrp~cip\95\sept.upd 09/14/95 Monthly Activity Report September 14, 1995 Page 2 II. OUT TO BID 1. Sam Hicks Monument Park Imorovement Project: Construction bids were opened on July 20, 1995. Due to irregularities in the contractors bids, the City Council rejected all bids. This project will start advertising for new bids at the end of September. The improvements include the construction of a 950 square foot concession stand and rest room facility, an asphalt parking lot, landscaping and irrigation improvements, and assorted park site amenities. 2. Walcott Corridor: Staff will be recommending the award of the project at the September 26, 1995 City Council meeting. The project will provide for the realignment of an underground waterline and a paved road surface on Nicolas Road, Calle Giraslo, Calle Chapos, Walcott Lane and La Serena Way. This project should start by mid-October and be completed by July, 1996. 3. Fire Station #84: Bids for construction of the new fire station and improvements on Pauba Road are currently being solicited. Bids will be opened October 5, 1995. The project will include grading, sewer, road improvements in Pauba Road between the new church site and Margarita Road, construction of a new fire station and landscaping. Construction should start by the first part of November, 1995 and be completed by the end of August, 1996. III. WORK IN DESIGN 1.1-15RVinchester Road Interchange Modifications: The plans and specifications have been approved and the remaining items include obtaining the additional right-of-way and the Caltrans' encroachment permit. The order of possession for the two sections of property became effective on September 1, 1995 and we are waiting for authorization from the Caltrans' right-of-way section for issuance of the encroachment permit. We anticipate Caltrans will release the permit the week of September 25, 1995. One other outstanding issue which will not effect the bidding process will be the installation of streets lights. The Planning Department is reviewing the lighting plans and will recommend whether to use 30 foot high standard lights or a 100 foot high multi light standard for the loop ramps. pw04\moactrpt\cip\95\sept.upd 09/14/95 Monthly Activity Report September 14, 1995 Page 3 2. I-15/Rancho California Road Interchange Modifications: The Project Report as well as the plans and specification were submitted to Caltrans on June 16, 1995. Caltrans is in the process of reviewing these items and staff is expecting comments to be returned to the City by the end of September, 1995. This project provides for the widening of the Rancho California Road bridge over the I-15 freeway and construction of a northbound loop ramp. 3. I-15/Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvements: The plans and specifications were submitted to Caltrans for final review at the end of July 1995. Caltrans is in the process of reviewing the plans and specifications and staff is expecting comments to be returned to the City by the end of September, 1995. The consultant is conducting a new soils investigation for design of the piles supporting the bridge. Legal plats and descriptions are being prepared for those properties that need to be acquired for construction of the project. 4. Emergency Generator: The project includes installing an emergency generator at the Community Recreation Center to provide power for emergency operations. The engineer has returned the plans and specifications to the City for second plan check. Staff is expecting to request authorization from the City Council to solicit public construction bids in October. 5. Traffic Signal L'~ Route 79S and Maraarita/Redhawk The second plan check was submitted to Caltrans on August 24, 1995. This project will be installing .a complete 4-way traffic signal and removing the median island on the south leg of the intersection to provide for a dual north bound left turn pocket. Staff has submitted an agreement to the County of Riverside for the City to pay 75% and the County to pay 25% of the design and construction costs since the southeast corner of the intersection is in the County. Once the County executes their portion of the agreement, staff will bring to the City Council a recommendation for the approval of the agreement. 6. Interim Traffic Signal @ Route 79S and La Paza The second plan check was submitted to Caltrans on August 28, 1995. This project will be installing a 4-way interim traffic signal at the intersection of Route 79S and La Paz St. The ultimate improvements will be constructed when the highway is widened. pwO4~rnoactrpt\cip\95\sept.upd 09/14/95 Monthly Activity Report September 14, 1995 Page 4 7. Interim Traffic SicJnal @ Route 79S and Pala Caltrans first plan check was returned to the consultant on September 5, 1995. This project will be installing a 3-way interim traffic signal at Route 79S and Pala Road. The ultimate improvements will be constructed when the new Pala Road Bridge is constructed and the highway is widened. The second plan check is expected to be returned to Caltrans by the end of September. pwO4\moactrpt~cip\95\sept.upd 09114/95 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent September 2, 1995 Monthly Activity Report - August 1995 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for the month of August 1995: I. SIGNS II. III. IV. VI. VII. A. Total signs replaced B. Total signs installed C. Total signs repaired TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns POTHOLES A. Total square feet of potholes repaired CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations B. Total S.F. STENCILING A. 1,094 new and repainted legends B. 10,200 L.F. of red curb new and repainted C. 63 S.F. of sandblasting/grinding 16 22 2 128 76,100 26 9,525 r:\roads\actrpt\95\08 skg MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT - July 1995 Page No. 2 Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 15 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 7 service order requests for the month of July, 1995. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 63 hours of overtime which includes standby time, P.M. surveillance (weekends only), and response to street emergencies. I.P.S. STRIPING AND STENCILING COMPANY has completed the followina: · 346,015 L.F. of new and repainted striping · 0 L.F. of sand blasting The total cost for I.P.S. striping services was 828,099.64compared to $0.00 for July, 1995. PESTMASTER SERVICES has completed the following: · 0 S.F. of right-of-way weed control, total cost 90.00 compared to $0.00 for July, 1995. · L. Willjams Landscape has trimmed 322 R.O.W. trees, total cost ~13,976.25. The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of August, 1995 was ~44,219.89 compared to ~0.00 for the month of July, 1995. Account No. 5402 Account No. 5401 S44,219.89 $0.00 CC: Steve Cresswell, Principal Engineer - Land Development Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects Martin C. Lauber, Traffic Engineer r:\roeds\actrpt\95\08 skg · C.I 0 n'~m w c~ Z O o' :7 U ~ 0 w ~OOw _1 ~ ac :D z .~Z ~ <I <C U n-o ~: ~ v c~ uJ 0DW u. ~ C~ w~ w z 0 ~- 0 ~ z u~Z u) ,r mLu-r~ a. z o; "~ m m z o;ec~ ITEM NO. 7 POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT of Temecula Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 (909) 694-1989 · FAX (909) 694 1999 TO: City Council Public/Traffic Safety Commission Ronald Bradley, City Manager FROM: Pete Labahn Police Department DATE: September 14, 1995 RE: TEMECULA POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT - AUGUST, 1995 The following report reflects Part One Crimes, traffic enforcement and miscellaneous activity occurring during August of 1995. As in past monthly reports, the Part One Crime statistics are broken down by individual districts within the City. This provides stable parameters for monitoring criminal activity, and is useful in planning police resource deployment. The Police Department issued fewer traffic citations last month than during August of 1994. Traffic collisions remained consistent with last year's figures, and there were no fatal collisions. Most reported felony property crimes, including burglaries, decreased over August of 1994. Arrests for possession/under the influence of methamphetamine continued their recent increase over last year. Overall, arrests increased slightly, by an average of approximately one per day across all patrol shifts. Temecula Police Department Monthly Statistics August 1995 September 95 Table of Contents Statistlcal Information Map of Districts ..................................... Page 01 August 1994 Number Totals ............................ Page 02 August 1995 Number Totals ............................ Page 03 Graphs Part 1 Property Crimes ............................. Part 1 Persons Crimes .............................. Activity Breakdown by District ..................... Burglaries by District ............................. Burglary Comparison ................................ Arrest Statistics .................................. Miscellaneous Activity ............................. Traffic Violations ................................. Traffic Collisions ................................. Narcotic Activity .................................. .Page 04 .Page 05 .Page 06 .Page 07 .Page 08 .Page 09 .Page 10 .Page 11 .Page 12 .Page 13 City of Temecula Reporting Districts ZIP CODE Q CRIME A B C D E F G H I SUB-TOTAL HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RAPE 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ROBBERY 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 FELONY ASSAULT 1 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 7 TOTAL PERSONS I 21 ~ I ol 21 21 21 31 01 01 12 BURGLARY 2 1 2 0 0 5 2 3 1 16 GRAND THEFT 1 4 1 0 1 8 3 0 0 18 AUTO THEFT 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 6 ARSON 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL PROPERTY I 31 81 31 01 I I 141 GRAND TOTAL 5 9 3 2 3 16 10 3 2 53 HAZARD CITES 26 15 14 19 14 38 25 4 8 163 NON-HAZARD CITES 24 2 6 I 0 9 20 11 6 1 89 PARKING CITES 9 7 6 12 11 2 8 11 4 70 TOTAL CITES I 59J 24l 261 41 I 34l 601 441 21 I 131 322 DIST. PEACE 9 14 15 3 6 7 9 19 5 87 SHOPLIFT 4 0 1 1 0 14 0 3 0 23 PETTY THEFT 1 2 2 0 2 6 5 3 1 22 VANDALISM 2 2 3 0 1 0 4 2 1 1 E MISD. ASSAULT 0 3 1 0 4 6 5 1 0 20 ALARMS 12 8 10 59 96 51 2 20 2 260 PUBLIC JNTOX. 0 1 0 1 7 3 3 0 0 15 DU~ 2 0 1 2 6 3 3 0 1 18 T/C INJURY 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 T,c .o.-,Nju.Y 1 FATAL TIC 0 0 TOTAL T~C I 9[ I I 2[ 4[ 22[ 241 3l 3l 3| 71 RESID. BURGLARY 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 COMM. BURGLARY 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 7 OTHER BURGLARY 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 VEHICLE BURGLARY 0 2 1 0 0 4 2 0 0 9 MISD. ARRESTS FELONY ARRESTS TOTAL ARRESTS TOTAL ACTIVITY I 81 ~1 21 el 211 2sl ~sl 91 21 ~0~ I 103[ 64[ 64[ 113[ levi 190| eel 75| 28[ 906 Page 2 CRIME HOMICIDE RAPE ROBBERY FELONY ASSAULT TOTAL PERSONS BURGLARY GRAND THEFT AUTO THEFT ARSON TOTAL PROPERTY GRAND TOTAL HAZARD CITES NON-HAZARD CITES PARKING CITES TOTAL CITES DIST. PEACE SHOPLIFT PETTY THEFT VANDALISM MISD. ASSAULT ALARMS PUBLIC INTOX. DUI TOTAL T/C INJURY T/C NON-INJURY FATAL T/C TOTAL TIC RESID. BURGLARY COMM. BURGLARY OTHER BURGLARY VEHICLE BURGLARY MISD. ARRESTS FELONY ARRESTS TOTAL ARRESTS TOTAL ACTIVITY J K L M N O P 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 I 41 31 11 ol ol ol 2 2 1 1 2 2 4 6 0 0 2 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 71 111 21 11 51 11 14 3 1 5 2 8 9 5 4 3 1 9 13 0 0 0 1 6 4 5 3 7 0 I 231 2el lol 71 lol 24 26 13 0 6 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 9 6 10 1 I 0 6 5 0 0 0 0 53 22 20 10 10 0 13 2 3 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 I 1141 671 461 111 171 ol I 71 31 21 ol 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 3 0 2 0 Q 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 4~ 5 3 2 10 15~ 15 0 2 4 6 6 1 0 34 2 0 0 1 SUB-TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0B 1 0 0 0 11 1 7 3 15 25| 5 0 1 0 2 5 0 0 131 21 1 0 121 71 11 31 21 31 11 TOTAL 0 1 4 4 91 13 14 6 0 331 42 40 28 50 1181 89 4 9 31 19 126 19 5 302| 171 10 1 2 0 I 1551 1101 611 191 331 51 551 411 4791 0 2 8 11 21 29 32 12 1 74 95 203 117 120 440 176 27 31 46 39 386 34 23 762 9 79 0 88 17 8 4 19 125 42 167 1385 Page 3 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 : 0 1) ~ ~ 7 0 '0 ' · r,J< :: · CJ <~E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ITEM NO. 8 FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT September 16, 1995 (909) 694 1989 o FAX (909) 694-1999 To : Attn. : Re. : Temeeula City Council Temecula Public Traffic / Safety Commission Ronald Bradley Temecula City Manager TEMECULA FIRE SERVICES August 1995 Activity Report The following reflects the monthly fire suppression and fire prevention activity of your fire department for the month of August, 1995. July and August have been very active fire months this year. We in Temecula have remained fortunate and have not had any significant grass / brush fires in our town. However, on August 15th at about 6pro, a vegetation fire did start near Camino Gatillo and Via Santa Rosa Roads in the hills just West of town. As the sun began to set, the brush fire was pushed by West winds into Temecula. The closing flame front became a threat to the homes and apartments lining the West side of Pujol Street, mos~y South of Main Street. Fire engine crews established structure protection operations behind the threatened buildings while our firefighting aircraft raced against time to slow the fire spread before their mandatory quitting time, which is one half hour before sunset. No structures were damaged and there were no apparent injuries. Many CDF / Riverside County Fire Department fire engines from adjacent areas came to help us, as well as about eight inmate hand crews used to cut containment lines around the fire's perimeter. When possible, a CDF fire bulldozer made fuel breaks as well. Acreage was finally calculated at about 135. Several small spot fires caused by juveniles were also quickly contained this month. One occurred West of Moraga behind the Baptist church. It burned an 80' diameter spot of tall grass. Another burned a large spot of grass on the South side of Solana, just East of Margarita and was caused by a fire cracker. All juveniles who caused these two fires were identified. Members of the Temecula Public Safety Commission, public works, police, fire, county fire department disaster preparedness division, and city managers office have been constantly working on the planned November 4, 1995 TEMECULA PUBLIC SAFETY EXPO '95. The original and continued intent of this Expo is to: showcase to the Temecula taxpayers and citizens what public safety resources their tax money pays for; to educate all children and adults about the newest ~Pnnted on Recycled Paper crime / fire prevention, disaster preparedness, and safety practices to promote personal and public safety awareness; to promote and assess public interest in disaster preparedness and neighborhood / community disaster preparedness volunteer teams; and finally, to allow the public easy access to public safety resources and personnel, as weli as vendors who provide products related to and beneficial for disaster preparedness and home safety. This, coupled with the presence of our elected and appointed officials should provide an informal and informative interaction with all participants and attendees. The site of this event will be at the Temecula CRC and plans are to have an authentic fire camp pancake breakfast there as well. Time is from 9am to about 2pro and the day will end with the R.E.D.I presentation (Residential Emergency and Disaster Initiative). This presentation will provide the important family survival plan message we have been stressing for many years now. We feel it is very important to cultivate more interest in survival and disater preparedness in Temecula, and we hope this Expo will prove to be an excellent tool to accomplish this. Prevention and education activities were a priority this month as usual. Fifty ACS employees received fire safety training from one of our crews. The Southwest Justice Center personnel also received a fire extinguisher class as well. There was also some fire station tours and pre-school activities held by our engine personnel. Summer is coming to a close, but fire season is not. Remember that the end of summer, early fall has produced some of the worst wildland fires in Southern California. Once we get through September and October, the worst is usually over. Thank you for your support of your fire services. It is very much appreciated. J. M.Harris, Chief Riverside County Fire By: Mark Brodowski Battalion Chief Temecula Battalion c: Mary lane McLarney TEMECULA FIRE SERVICES MONTHLY ACTIVITY STATISTICS Month AUGUST Year 1995 EMERGENCY ACTIVITY Structure Fires Vehicle Fires Vegetation Fires Other Fires Medical Aids Traffic Collisions False Alarms Fire Menace Standbys Public Service Assists Assists and Covers STA. 12 3 3 20 2 48 16 19 4 2 50 STA. 73 15 2 11 1 50 14 10 6 6 34 STA. STA. 84 3 2 3 0 47 9 9 2 2 14 TOTALS 21 7 34 3 145 39 39 12 10 98 TOTALS: FlRE PREVENTION Community Activities School Programs Fairs and Displays Company Inspections LE-3 8 Dooryard Inspections Fire Investigations Burning Permits Issued TOTALS: Form B15-1 ( 5/95 ) 167 2 0 0 132 2 9 3 148 149 1 2 0 78 0 0 0 81 BY: 93 409 3 2 0 210 2 17 3 237 DATE: 0 0 C) c- O ~o 0 0 0 © > 0 C) {::J,)O~. ~- (Dr~O ITEM NO. 9 COMMISSION REPORTS