HomeMy WebLinkAbout062691 TTC AgendaCALL TO ORDER:
FLAG SALUTE
ROLL CALL:
AGENDA
TEMECULA TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TO BE HELD AT
TEMECULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
31350 Rancho Vista Road
June 26, 1991 - 7:00 PM
COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Johnson,
Roberrs, Sander
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 nO~ 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.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Minutes of 13, 1991
Recommendation:
1.1 Approve the minutes of May 13, 1991
2. Minutes of May 22, 1991
Recommendation:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of May 22, 1991
Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans
3.1 Receive and file report
Bikeways
Presentation by Mr. Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services of the
Parks and Recreation Department.
Rorlpaugh Road/Jon Christian Place
Recommendation:
5.1
That the Traffic and Transportation Commission recommend to the City
Council, adoption of a 25 MPH speed limit on Roripaugh Road between
Nicolas Road and Winchester Road {State Route
5.2
That the Traffic Commission concur with the Engineering Department
recommendation to install 2-way stop control at the following locations:
On Dandelion Court at Roripaugh Road
On Rosebay Court at Roripaugh Road
On Senna Court at Roripaugh Road
On Swallow Court at Roripaugh Road
On Startin9 Street at Roripaugh Road
On Jon Christian Place at Warbler Circle
5.3 Approve installation of stop control on Jon Christian Place at Warbler
Circle.
City-wide policy regarding marking of "No Parking Zones,
Recommendation:
6.1 Receive and file staff report.
Parking and lighting conditions on La Serena Way in front of Rancho
Elementary School.
Recommendations:
7.1
That the Traffic and Transportation Commission recommend to the City
Council approval of a "No Parking Zone" on the north side of La 5erena
Way between Via Halcon and Meadows Parkway.
Resolution No. TC-91-01 - A Resolution of the Traffic and Transportation
Commission of the City of Temecula to initiate a coordinated effort to develop
a transportation plan for the Communities of Temecula-Murrleta Valley,
Recommendation:
8.1 That the Traffic Commission adopt Resolution No. TC 91-01.
U.S. Post Office street access on Rancho California Road and Margarita Road.
Recommendation:
9.1 Receive and file staff report.
10. Traffic Investigation/Maintenance Request Activity for April 1991.
Recommendation:
10.1 Receive and file staff report.
11. Proposed goals of the Traffic and Transportation Commission 1991-1992
Recommendation:
11.1 Receive and file report.
Traffic Engineer's Report
Commission Reports
Adjournment
Next regular meeting Wednesday, July 24, 1991, 7:00 P.M., Temecula Unified School
District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
MG:mph
TRFC/MISCO03
ITEM NO. 1
RECEiV,ZD t j 7-,3 1
MEETING MINUTES
OF A SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
TRAPFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
HELD MAY 13, 1991
A special meeting of the City of Temecula Traffic and
Transportation Commission was called to order Monday, May 13, 1991,
by Chairman Knox Johnson.
PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero,
Roberts, Sander, Johnson
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Councilmember Sal Munoz and Minute Clerk Gail
Zigler.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMI88ION BUSINESS
1. GOAL8 AND OBJECTIVE8 WORKSHOP
The purpose of this special meeting was to discuss the
individual objectives of each commissioner as well as
discuss areas needing special attention as they pertain
to the Commission's duties.
Each commissioner expressed their own areas of concern
and also discussed what they thought were areas within
the Commission's business that needed improvement.
Some of the key issues that were raised as they pertain
to the duties of the Traffic and Transportation Commission
and what areas may need improving:
* Continuous personnel changes within the Traffic
Engineering department.
· Lack of follow-thru on commission recommendations.
, No attendance by a City Traffic Engineer at the
meetings.
· Commission recommendations being bypassed for Staff's
recommendation.
The following is a list of issues or concerns that the
Commission feels are areas that they should direct their
efforts:
* Radar warning signs should be posted throughout the
City.
Commission participation in League of California Cities
conferences pertaining to Traffic and Transportation
Commissions.
* Condition of roads within the City.
· Road networking.
· Traffic safety, particularily in the areas of the
schools.
* Active involvement in the Circulation Element of the
General Plan.
* Planning of the Western Corridor.
* Participation in the development of bicycle routes and
equestrian trails throughout the City.
, Coordination of major arterial roadways with
surrounding cities.
The following Commissioner's volunteered to act as Inter-
Commission Liaisons to keep abreast of action being taken
that could involve the Traffic and Transportation
Commission:
Commissioner Godnick liaison between the Planning
Commission and the Traffic and Transportation
Commission.
Commissioner Guerriero liaison between the Public
Safety Commission and the Traffic and Transportation
Commission.
* Commissioner Roberts liaison between the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
* Chairman Johnson liaison between the City Council and
the Traffic and Transportation Commission.
City Council Liaison Sal Munoz stated that he would
prepare Proposed Goals of the Traffic and Transportation
Commission to be presented to the City Council.
ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS moved to adjourn at 9:25 P.M. The next
regular meeting of the City of Temecula Traffic and Transportation
Department will be held Wednesday, May 22, 1991, Temecula Unified
School District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula.
Chairman Knox Johnson
Secretary
ITEM NO. 2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 1991
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Traffic and
Transportation Commission was called to order Wednesday, May 22,
1991, 7:00 P.M., at the Temecula Unified School District, 31350
Rancho Vista Road, Temecula. The meeting was called to order by
Chairman Johnson. Chairman Johnson led the flag salute.
PRESENT: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Godnick, Guerriero,
Roberts, Sander,
Johnson
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Staff Representative Doug MacPherson, Director of
Public Works Tim Serlet, and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler.
PUBLIC COMMENT
JAMIE CHRISTIAN, 30762 Calle Pina Colada, Temecula, requested that
the Commission recommend the street closure of Calle Pina Colada
due to the high speeds of motorists traveling on Calle Pina Colada.
Ms. Christian presented the Commission with a video tape, and a
letter by Don James, also a resident of Calle Pina Colada. Ms.
Christian also stated that the residents would request if the
Commission would not approve the closure of the street, that speed
bumps and/or stop signs be placed on Calle Pina Colada.
LAURA UPTON, 30869 Calle Pina Colada, Temecula, also was present
to support the closure of Calle Pina Colada.
BECKY FRITSCH, 27527 Swallow Court, Temecula, presented the
Commission with a request for a study of the traffic conditions in
their development and requests by the Roripaugh Hills Homeowner's
Association for corrective measures to the traffic problems
(attached as Exhibit A).
MAX GILISS came before the Commission representing the City
Manager, as a member of the Murrieta Transportation Committee and
as Chairman of the Sub-Committee for the Circulation System, to
discuss the concept of a Transportation Circulation Plan for
Temecula and Murrieta and some of the unincorporated cities.
Mr. Giliss requested that the Commission consider a resolution that
would initiate a joint effort by Temecula and Murrieta and the
unincorporated cities to study the development of this
Transportation Circulation Plan.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 22, 1991
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. MINUTE8 OF APRIL 24~ 1991
1.1 Approve the minutes of April 24, 1991.
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS moved to approve the minutes of April
24, 1991, as presented, seconded by COMMISSIONER GODNICK.
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
Godnick, Guerriero,
Roberts, Sander, Johnson
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
2. YNEZ ROAD AND PAUBA ROAD - SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN
Recommendation to forward staff report to Riverside County
with recommendation to reduce the northbound-southbound
gap timing.
DOUG MACPHERSON presented the staff report.
COMMISSIONER GODNICK moved to approve the staff report as
presented, seconded by COMMISSIONER ROBERTS.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero,
Roberts, Sander, Johnson
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
3. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD 88-12); (MELLO ROO8
DISTRICT)
3.1 TIM 8ERLET provided a status report on the Mello Roos
District improvements.
4. TRAFFIC ENGINEERS REPORT
TIM SERLET advised the Commission of the following:
* Business cards will be available to the Commission
before the next meeting.
, Introduced the Assistant City Manager Mark Ochenduszko
to the Commission.
, Calle Medusa public hearing will be Tuesday, May 28, 1991,
staff will be presenting the Commission's recommendations.
TTMIN5/22/91 -2- MAY 28, 1991
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 22, 1991
, The Planning Center of Newport Beach has been selected as
the General Plan consultant for the City of Temecula.
Rancho california Road entrance into Towne Center signal
is being designed. Land Grant will pay 50% and the City
will pay 50%. The signal between Towne Center and Tower
Plaza will be paid 50% by Land Grant and 50% by Bedford.
, Staff looking at restricting the left turn access out of
the Marie Calendar entrance to Towne Center.
, Currently preparing a Capital Improvement Plan.
, The signals for the Rancho California Road overcrossing
are currently going through Cal-Trans.
· Staff preparing a RFP for the road maintenance. Anticipate
extending the County contract for signal maintenance.
Staff in the process of proposing that the fire department
pay for the implementation of the Opti-Com systems for the
traffic signals.
COMMISSION REPORTS
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS polled the Commission for their interest in
the formation of a valley wide Transportation Committee. The
Commission supported the formation of the Committee unanimously.
CHAIRMAN jOHNSON requested staff to draft a resolution for the next
agenda recommending the formation of a valley wide Transportation
Committee to the City Council.
COMMISSIONER SANDER advised that there is a potential concern in
the area of Calle Medusa and Liefer Roads, where there are several
churches that have purchased land to build. Commissioner Sander
suggested that parking, screening of parking areas and the
transition from the residential to the churches needs to be
addressed.
TIM SERLET stated he would bring this matter to the attention of
the Planning Director.
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS advised that the Commission has been placed
on the mailing list for the League of California Cities.
TIM SERLET stated that he would contact some neighboring Traffic
Commissions to see what type of training they have recieved and if
possible have some chairmans attend a Temecula Traffic Commission
meeting to provide some input on their experience.
TTMINS/22/91 -3- MAY 28, 1991
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 22, 1991
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS requested an update on the posting of speed
limits be on the next agenda.
COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO advised staff that there is a problem with
people parking along the red curbs in front of the schools and
requested that staff post "No Parking" signs in these areas.
Conunissioner Guerriero also addressed the potential for traffic
problems at the new Post Office location.
CHAIRMAN JOHNSON questioned when staff would be re-setting the "No
Left Turn" signs within the Towne Center along Ynez.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:35 P.M. The next
regular meeting of the Traffic and Transportation Commission will
be Wednesday, June 26, 1991, 7:00 P.M., Temecula Unified School
District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula.
Chairman Knox Johnson
Secretary
TTMINS/22/91 -4- MAY 28, 1991
ITEM NO. 3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Traffic end Traneportetlon Commlas;on
Douglas Stewart, Deputy CIty Engineer
June 26, 1991
Memorandum of Understanding with Celttens for Access
Management on State Route 79
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
DISCUSSION:
Receive and file Staff Report.
Attached for your review Is a draft Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between Celttans and the CIty of
Temecula. The intent of the MOU is to define access
spacing to State Route 79 for the entire corridor wlthln the
City of Temecula prior to each agency reviewing Individual
development projects. The MOU should eliminate past
conflict between the two agencies regarding appropriate
accees manacjament for the SR79 Corridor.
The MOU Is still In draft format at this time, Your review
and comment of this document is greatly appreciated.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding [MOU) is between the California Department of
Transportation (CeltFans) and the City of Temecula (the City). The MOU covers
Intersection and drlveway location spaclng. The purpose of this MOU Is to provide
guidelines for the CIty and CeltFans to use in reviewing and approving new
development along State Route 79. Route 79 enhancements shall be made through
Developer contrlbutlona and assessment dlstrlct funding administered by RIverside
County.
The basic understanding Is as follows:
Route 79 shall have three lanes for through traffic and up to two lanes
for local traffic turning movements in each direction. Realignment may
be necessary upon future development along Route 79. The City shall
protect the right-of-way for Route 79 realignment,
North Route 79 (Winchester Road) Is to have 1//4 mile spacing for
intersections with 1/8 mile spacing for limited access (i.e. right In,
right out only access) driveways from 1-15 to Margarlta Road. From
Mergerits Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road the spacing shall be
tulle Intersections or driveways. Intersection spacing beyond Murrieta
Hot Springs Road will be 1/2 mile. Approvals prior to the date of this
MOU are excepted.
South Route 79 is to have 1/2 mile intersection spacing (prior approvals
accepted) from 1-15 to Anza Road with l/u, mile limited access driveways
(I.e. right In, right out only access).
Driveway and Intersection design shall be developed In accordance with
pollGlee, procedures, practices and standards CeltFans end the City
would normally follow.
CeltFans and the CIty may in the future discuss dedication of the
current Right-of-Way for Route 79 to the CIty of Temecula. An attempt
shall be made to establish an alternative ROute 79 alignment prior to the
adoption of the CityIs General Plan.
Concur:
KEN STEELE
District 8 Director
RONALD J. PARK5
Mayor
CIty of Temecula
Date
Date:
pLN.,I, IING\ROUIF79.ffiU
ITEM NO. 4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA REPORT
Traffic and Transportation Commission
Engineering Department
June 26, 1991
Bikeways
Background:
Mr. Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services of the Parks and Recreation
Department Department will present a report regarding bikeways. State of California Bikeway
Design Guidelines/Requirements are attached for information.
H~uwAY DESIGN MANUAL
July 1, 1990
CHAPTER 1000
BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN
(d) 21210--Bicycle parking,
(e) 21960--Use of f~eeway shoulders by bicy-
clists.
Topic 1001 - General Inforrnation
Index 1001.1 - Definitions
'~ikeway" means all facilities that provide
primarily for bicycle travel.
(1) Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Provides a
completely separated right d way for the exclu-
sive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross-
flow minimized.
(~) Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane). Provides a
striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street
or highway.
(3) Class III Bikeway {Bike Route). Provides
for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle
traffic.
More detailed definitions are contained in
Section 2373 of the Streets and Highways Cede.
1001.2 Streets and Highways Code
References
(a) Section 157--Severance of a major bicycle
route by freeway construction.
Co) Section 157.2--Incorporation of bicycle fa-
cfiities in the design of freeways.
(c) Chapter 8--California Bikeways Act.
(d) Section 2374--Caltrans to establish design
criteria for bikeways,
(e) Section 2376--Local agencies must comply
to the criteria established by Caltrans.
(t) Section 2381--Use of abandoned right of
way as a bicycle facility.
1001.3 Vehicle Code References
(a) 21100(H)--Operation of bicycles on side-
walks.
(b) 21207.5--Prohibition of motorized bicycles
on Class I and II bikeways.
(c) 21208--Mandatory use of bike lanes by bi-
cyclists.
Topic 1002 - General Planning
Criteria
1002.1 Introduction
Bicycle travel can be enhanced by improved
maintenance and by upgrading existing roads
used regularly by bicyclists, regardless of
whether or not bikeways are designated. This
effort requires increased attention to the right-
hand portion of roadways where bicyclists are
expected to ride. On new construction, and
major reconstruction projects, adequate width
should be pmvided to permit shared use by
motorists and bicyclists. On resurfacing pro-
Jecta, the entire paved shoulder and traveled
way shall be resurfaced. When adding lanes
or turn pockets, a minimum 4-foot shoulder
shall be prodded (see Table 302.1). When
placing a roadway edge stripe, sufficient room
outside the stripe should be provided for bicy-
clists. When considering the restriping of
roadways for more traffic lanes, the impact on
bicycle travel should be assessed. These efforts,
to preserve or improve an area for bicyclists to
ride, can benefit motorists as well as bicyclists.
1002.2 The Role of Bikeways
Bikeways are one element of an effort to im-
prove bicycling safety and convenience - either
to help accommodate motor vehicle and bicycle
traffic on shared roadways, or to complement
the road system to meet needs not adequately
met by roads.
Off-street bikeways in exclusive corridors
can be effective in providing new recreational
opportunities, or in some instances, desirable
commuter routes. They can also be used to
close gaps where barriers exist to bicycle travel
(e.g., river crossing). On-street bikeways can
serve to enhance safety and convenience, espe-
cinlly if other commitments are made in con-
Junction with establishment of bikeways, such
as: elimination of parking or increasing road-
way width, elimination of surface irregularities
and roadway obstacles, frequent street sweep-
1000-2 HIGIiWAY DESIGN MANUAL
July 1, 1990
lng, establishing intersection priority on the
bike route street as compared with the majority
of cross streets, and Installation of bicycle-sen-
sltive loop detectors at signalized intersections.
1002.3 The Decision to Develop Bikeways
The decision to develop bikeways should be
made with the knowledge that bikeways are not
the solution to all bicycle-related problems.
Many of the common problems are related to
improper bicycllst and motorist behavior and
can only be corrected through effective educa-
tion and enforcement programs. The develop-
ment of well conceived bikeways can have a
positive effect on bicyclist and motorist behav-
ior. Conversely, poorly conceived bikeways can
be counterproductive to education and en-
forcement programs.
1002.4 Selection of the Type of Facility
The type of facility to select in meeting the
bicycle need is dependent on many factors, but
the following applications ar~ the most common
for each type.
(1) Shared Roadway (No Bllcew~ Designa-
tilt. Most bicycle travel in the State new oc-
curs on streets and highways without bikeway
designations. This probably will be true in the
future as well. In some instances, entire street
systems may be fully adequate for safe and effi-
cient bicycle travel, and signing and striping for
bicycle use may be unnecessary. In other
cases, routes may be unsuitable for bicycle
travel, and it would be inappropriate to encour-
age additional bicycle travel by designating the
mutes as bikeways. Finally, routes may not be
along high bicycle demand corridors, and It
would be appropriate to designate bikeways
regardless of roadway conditions (e.g., on minor
residential streets).
Many rural highways ar~ used by touring
bicyclists for intercity and recreational travel.
In most cases, it would be inappropriate to
designate the highways as bikeways because of
the limited use and the lack d continuity with
other bike routes. Hewever, the development
and maintenance d 4ofoot paved roadway
shoulders with a standard 4-inch edge stripe
can significantly improve the safety and conve-
nience for bicycltsts and motorists along such
routes.
(2) Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Generally,
bike paths should be used to serve corridors
not served by streets and highways or where
wide right of way exists, permitting such facili-
ties to be constructed away from the influence
of parallel streets. Bike paths should offer op-
portunities not provided by the road system.
They can either provide a recreational opportu-
nity, or in some Instances, can serve as direct
high-speed commute mutes if cross flow by
motor vehicles can be minimized. The most
common applications are along rivers, ocean
fronts, canals, utility right of way, abandoned
raftwad right of way, within college campuses,
or within and between parks. There may also
be situations where such facfiities can be pro-
vided as part of planned developments. An-
other common application of Class I facilities is
to close gaps to bicycle travel caused by con-
struction of freeways or because of the exis-
tence of natural barriers (rivers, mountains,
etc.).
(3) Class II Bikeway {Bike Lone). Bike lanes
are established along streets in corridors where
there is significant bicycle demand, and where
there are distinct needs that can be served by
them. The purpose should be to improve con-
ditions for bicyclists in the corridors. Bike
lanes are intended to delineate the right of way
assigned to bicyclists and motorists and to pro-
vide for more predictable movements by each.
But a more important reason for constructing
bike lanes is to better accommodate bicyclists
through corridors where insufficient room exists
for safe bicycling on ~ streets. This can
be accomplished by reducing the number of
lanes, or prohibiting parking on given streets in
order to delineate bike lanes. In addition, other
things can be done on bike lane streets to irn-
prove the situation for bicyclists, that might not
be possible on all streets (e.g., improvements to
the surface, augmented sweeping programs,
special signal facfiities, etc.). Generally, stripes
alone will not measurably enhance bicycling,
If bicycle travel is to be controlled by de-
lineation, special efforts should be made to as-
sure that high levels of service are provided with
these lanes.
In selecting appropriate streets for bike
lanes, location criteria discussed in the next
section should be considered.
HIGuwAY DF~IGN MANUAL
July 1. 1990
(4) Class ITI BikewaU (Bike Route). Bike
mutes are shared facilities which serve either
to:
(a} Provide continuity to other bicycle facilities
(usually Class H bikeways); or
(b) Designate preferred mutes through high
demand corridors.
As with bike lanes, designation of bike
mutes should indicate to bicyclists that there
are particular advantages to using these mutes
as compared with alternative mutes. This
means that responsible agencies have taken
actions to assure that these routes are suitable
as shared routes and will be m~tntamed in a
manner consistent with the needs of bicyclists.
Normslly. bike mutes are shared with motor
vehicles. The use of sidewalks as Class Ill
bikeways is strongly discouraged.
It is emphasized that the designation of
bikeways as Class I, H and Ill should not be
construed as a hierarchy of bikeways; that one
is better than the other. Each class of bikeway
has its appropriate application.
In selecting the proper facffity, an overriding
concern is to assure that the proposed facility
will not encourage or require bicy~-ll~ts or mo-
torists to operate in a manner that is inconsis-
tent with the rules of the road.
An important consideration in selecting the
type of facility is continuity. Alternating seg-
ments of Class I and Class H (or Class Ill) bike-
ways along a route are generally incompatible,
as street crossings by bicyclists are required
when the route changes character. Also,
wrong-way bicycle travel wffi occur on the street
beyond the ends of bike paths because of the
inconvenience of having to cross the street.
Topic 1003 - Design Criteria
1003.1 Class I Bikeways
Class I bikeways (bike paths) are facilities
with exclusive right of way, with cross flows by
motorists minimized. Section 2373 of the
Streets and Highways Cede describes Class I
bikeways as serving "the exclusive use of bi-
cycles and pedestrians". However, experience
has shown that if significant pedestrian use is
anticipated, separate facilities for pedestrians
are necessary to minimize cordlicts.
Sidewalk facilities are not considered Class I
facilities because they are primarily intended to
serve pedestrians, generally cannot meet the
design standards for Class I bikeways, and do
not minimize motorist cross flows. See Index
1003.3 for discussion relative to sidewalk bike-
ways.
By State law, motorized bicycles ('mopeds')
are prohibited on bike paths unless authorized
by ordinance or approval of the agency having
Jurisdiction over the path. Likewise, all motor
vehicles are prohibited from bike paths. These
prohibitions can be strengthened by signing.
(1) lVldth$. 'l~ne minimum paved width
for a two-way bike path shall be 8 feet. The
mlvslm~sm paved width for a one-way bike
path shall be 5 feet, A mls~imssm 2-foOt wide
g~,ded area shell be provided adjacent to the
pavement (see Figure 1003,1A). A 3-foot
graded area is reco,~-~ended. Where the paved
width is wider than the minimum required. the
graded area tony be reduced accordingly; how-
ever, the graded area is a desirable feature re-
gardless of the paved width. Development of a
one-way bike path should be undertaken only
after careful consideration due to the problems
of enforcing one-way operation and the difficul-
ties in maintaining a path of restricted width.
Where heavy bicycle volumes are antici-
pated and/or significant pedestrian traffic is
expected, the paved width d a two-way path
should be greater than 8 feet, preferably 12 feet
or more. Dual use by pedestrians and bicycles
is undesirable. and the two should be separated
wherever possible. Another important factor to
consider in determining the appropriate width
is that bicyclists will tend to ride side by side on
bike paths, necessitating more width for safe
use.
Experience has shown that paved paths less
than 12 feet wide sometimes break up along the
edge as a result of loads from maintenance ve-
hicles.
Where equestrians are expected. a separate
facfiity should be provided.
I000-4 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
January. 1987
Figure 1003.1A
Two-way Bike Path on Separate
Right of Way
¢-
8'4
Figure 1003.1B
Typical Cross Section of Bike
Path Along Highway
Edge of pavement
2' r
5' (Min,) [ Bike Path
*One-Way: 5' Minimum Width
Two-Way: 8' Minimum Width
H]GzlwAY DESIGN MANUAL
1000-5
July 1, 1990
(2) Clearance to Obstructions. A xnlnim~nl
2-foot horizontal clearance to ob~txu~fions
2hall be provided adjacent to the pavement
(see Figure 1003.1A). A 3-foot clearance is
recommended. Where the paved width is wider
than the mlnixnum required, the clearance may
be reduced accordingly;, however, an adequate
clearance is desirable regardless of the paved
width. If a wide path is paved contiguous with
a continuous fixed object (e.g., block wall), a 4-
inch white edge stripe, 1-foot from the fixed ob-
ject, is recommended to minimize the likelihood
of a bicycllst hitting it. The clear width on
structures between x~lltngs shall be not less
than 8 feet, It is desirable that the clear width
of structures be equal to the minimum clear
width of the path (i.e., 12 feet).
The vertical clearance to obstructions
across the clear width of the path shall be a
minimum of 8 feet.
(3) Strtp/ng and Signing. A yellow centerline
stripe my be used to separate opposing direc-
tions of travel. A centerline stripe is particu-
larly beneficial in the following circumstances:
(a) Where there is heavy use;
(b) On curves with restricted sight ctistancc;
and.
(c) Where the path is unlighted and nighttlznc
riding is apcctcd. (Refer to Topic 1004 for
signing and striping dei~'~:)
(4) Intersections with Highways. Intersec-
tions are a prime consideration in bike path de-
sign. If aRemate locations for a bike path are
available. the one with the most favorable inter-
section conditions should be selected.
Where motor vehicle cross traffic and bicycle
traffic is heavy, grade separations are desirable
to eliminate intersection conflicts. Where grade
separations are not feasible, assignment of right
of way by traffic signals should be considered.
Where traffic is not heavy, stop or yield signs for
bicyclists may suffice.
When crossing an arterial street, the cross-
ing should either occur at the pedestrian
crossing, where motorists can be expected to
stop, or at a location completely out of the in-
fluence of any intersection to permit adequate
opportunity for bicyclists to see turnlng vehi-
cles. When crossing at midblock locations,
right of way should be assigned by devices such
as yield signs, stop signs, or tr~mc signals
which can be activated by blcyclists. Even
when crossing within or adjacent to the pedes-
trian crossing, stop or yield signs for bicyclists
should be placed to minimize potential for con-
ffict resulting from turning autos. Where bike
path signs are visible to approaching auto traf-
fic, they should be shielded to avoid confusion.
In some cases, Bike Xlng signs may be placed
in advance of the crossing to alert motorists.
Ramps should be installed in the curbs, to pre-
serve the utility of the bike path.
(5) Separation Between Bike Paths and
Highways. A wide separaUon is recommended
between bike paths and adjacent highways (see
Figure 1003.1B). Bike paths closer throe 5
feet fxom the edge of the traveled way shall
include a physical barrier to prevent bicy-
clists fxom encroaching onto the highway.
Suitable barriers could include chain link
fences or dense shrubs. Low barriers (e.g.,
dikes, raised tmfi'ic bars) next to a highway are
not recommended because bicyclists could fall
over them and into oncoming automobfie tmfilc.
In instances where there is danger of motorists
encroaching into the bike path, a positive bar-
rier (e.g.. concrete barrier, steel guardr~tlir~g)
should be provided. See Index 1003.6 for crite-
ria relative to bike paths carried over highway
bridges.
Bike paths immediately adjacent to streets
and highways are not recommended. They
should not be considered a substitute for the
street, because rnmny bicyclists will find it less
convenient to ride on these types of facilities as
compared with the streets, particularly for util-
ity trips.
(6) Bike Paths in the Median of Highwa~Js.
As a general rule. bike paths in the median of
highways are not recommended because they
require movements contrax~ to normal rules of
the road. Specific problems with such facilities
include:
(a) Bicyclist right turns from the center of
roadways are unnatural for bicyclists and
confusing to motorists.
(b) Proper blcyclist movements through inter-
sections with signals are unclear.
(c) Left-turning motorists must cross one di-
rection of motor vehicle traffic and two di-
1000-6
July 1. 199o
rections of bicycle traffic, which increases
conflicts.
(d) Where intersections are infrequent, bicy-
clists will enter or exit bike paths at mid-
block.
(e) where medians are landscaped, visual re-
lationships between bicyclists and mo-
torists at intersections are impaired.
For the above reasons. bike paths in the
median of highways should be considered only
when the above problems can be avoided.
(7) Design Speed, The proper design speed
for a bike path is dependent on the expected
type of use and on the terrain. The ~!nimlam
design speed for bike paths shall be 20 mph
except as noted in the table below,
Type of F acfiity
HIGUwAY DESIGN MANUAL
Design
Speed (mph)
Bike Paths with Mopeds Prohibited ..... 20
Bike Paths with Mopeds Permitted ..... 30
Bike Paths on Long Downgrades
(steeper than 4%, and longer
than 500 R.) .............. 30
Ins,s!!Ation of "speed b-raps" or other
Sirelist snrface obetrnctlon$, intended to
u~ bicyc~ to slow don h admce d
~temc~o~, ~ not ~ reed. ~ de-
Uces cnot comp~te for ~pw~r de~.
(8) H~n~ Al~t ~ S~~
M~m ~conended c~ m~ ~d su-
perel~ons for v~ous de~ ~ee~ ~
sho~ on F~ 1~.1C. ~ ~um
c~e ~ ~e ~lected, ~ ~em
~d~ on ~e reside of ~e ~e is r~om-
mended to com~te for bi~t le~.
A s~t 2% c~ slope ~ ~on~d~
on talent se~o~. Supe~l~o~ steeper
th~ 2% should be avoid~ on b~ pa~s ~-
pected to have adult ~le ~.
(9) SWpp~S~t~. ~ I~.ID
~ates ~e m~um stopp~ ~t ~t~es
for ~ous des~ speeds ~d ~des. For ~o-
way b~e paffis, ~e de~en~ d~on ~
con~ol ~e desk.
(10) Length of Crest Vertical Curves. Figure
1003.1E indicates the mintm,m lengths of crest
vertical curves for varying design speeds.
(1 I) Lateral Clearance on H~'izontal Curves.
Figure 1003.1F indicates the rninlmllrn clear-
ances to line of sight obstructions for horizontal
curves. The required lateral clearance is ob-
tained by entering Figure 1003.1F with the
stopping sight distance ~rom Figure 1003.1D
and the proposed horizontal curve radius.
(12) Grades. Bike paths generally attract
less skilled bicyclists, so it is important to avoid
steep grades in their design. Bicyclists not
physically conditioned wffi be unable to negoti-
ate long, steep uphill grades. Since novice bicy-
clists often ride poorly m~intalned bicycles, long
downgrades can cause problems. For these
reasons, bike paths with long, steep grades will
generally receive very little use. The maximum
grade rate recommended for bike paths is 5%.
It is desirable that sustained grades be limited
to 2% if a wide range of riders is to be accom-
roedated. Steeper grades can be tolerated for
short segments {e.g., up to about 500 feet).
Where steeper grades are necessitated, the de-
sign speed should be increased and additional
width should be provided for maneuverability.
(13) Structaral Section. The structural sec-
tion of a bike path should be designed in the
same manner as a highway, with consideration
given to the quality of the basement soft and the
anticipated loads the bikeway w~l experience.
Principal loads will normally be from mainte-
nance and emergency vehicles. Expansive soft
should be given special consideration and will
probably require a spe~!~l structural section. A
minimum pavement thickness of 2 inches of
asphalt concrete is recommended. Type "A" or
"B" asphalt concrete {as described in Depart-
ment of Transportation Standard Specifica-
tions), with 1/2-inch rn~xlmum aggregate and
medium grading is recommended. Considera-
tion should be given to increasing the asphalt
content to provide increased pavement life.
Consideration should also be given to
sterilization of basement soft to preclude
possible weed growth through the pavement.
(14) Drainage. For proper drainage, the
surface of a bike should have a cross slope of
2%. Sloping in one direction usually simplifies
longitudinal drainage design and surface
construction, and accordingly is the preferred
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
Figure 1003.1C
Curve Radii & Superelevations
1000-7
January, 1987
150
140
I~'0
I10
4O
3O
2O
I0
V: 15 m.p.h.
V: IOm.p.h.
o q d
d o
Superelevation Rote - Ft./Ft.
tene+f
plot of: = I-~
where: V: velocity, ft./sec.
g = acceleration due to
gravity, ft./sec.z
R: radius of curvature, ft.
f: coefficient of friction on
dry pavement: 0.4
'~ (based on maximum 20° lean)
ton e = superelevation rate, ft./ft.
1000-8
January, 1987
2O
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
Figure 1003.1D
Stopping Sight Distance
~5
0
0 50 tO0 150 200 250 300 550
Stopping Sight Distance-Ft.
67
S: +3. V
where: S = stopping si hi distance ft Descend
V = velocity, r~. Ascend
f: coeffmclent of friction (use 0.25)
G = grade ft./ft. (rise/run)
30-
E20.
15 ::::
Sight Distances for Crest
Vertical Curves
IO0 ~ ~ 400 500 600 700 800 900
Minimum Length of Vertical Curve - ft.
L: 2S - A when S>L where: S: Stopping sight distance.
h~: - t~
L: 100(v/~T+~T~.~)2 h:: s/s ft.-height of object.
L: Minimum vertical curve length.
AS2
when S < L
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
Figure 1003.1F
Lateral Clearances on Horizontal
Curves
1000-9
J~,nu~, 1987
Sight disffince (St measured along this line
/ ~, Ol~lect/
Line of sight is 2.0 above ~. inside
lone at point of obstruction.
S: Sight distance in feet.
R: Rodbs oft,. inside lane in feet.
M = Distance from ¢. inside lone in feet.
V = Design speed for S in M.P H
Angle is expressed in degrees
"("-'")]
S: as
2 R
Formula applies only when
S is equel to or less then
length of curve,
40
,= 30
._o
0
20
I0
/
I f
t /
/
/
/
f / / ///
/ //
//
/
IO0
200
Sight Distance-Feet
.I
3OO
1000-10
July l, 199o
practice. Ordinar~y, surface drainage from the
path will be adequately dissipated as R flows
down the gently sloping shoulder. However,
when a bike path is constructed on the side of a
hill. a drainage ditch of suitable dimensions
may be necessary on the upblll side to intercept
the hfilside drainage. Where necessary, catch
basins with drahns should be provided to carry
intercepted water across the path.
Culverts or bridges are necessazy where a
bike path crosses a dralnage channel
(15) Barrf~ Po~s. It may be necessary to
install barrier posts at entrances to bllce paths
to prevent motor vehicles from entering, When
locating such installations, care should be
taken to assure that barriers are well marked
and visible to bic'yclista, day or night (i.e., in-
stall reflectors or re~ectorized tape).
Striping an envelope around the harriers is
recommended (see Figure 1003.16). ~ sight
distance is limited, special advance warning
signs or painted pavement warnings should be
provided. Where more than one post is neces-
sa~, a S-foot spacing should be used to permit
passage of bicycle-towed trailers, adult tricy-
cles, and to assure adequate room for safe bicy-
cle passage without dismounting. Barrier post
installations should be designed so they are
removable to permit entrance by emergency and
service vehicles.
Generally, barrier configurations that pre-
clude entry by motorcycles present safety and
convenience problems for bicyclists. Such de-
vices should be used only where extreme prob-
lems are encountered.
1003.2 Class II Bikeway~
Class II bikeways (bike lanes) for prder-
ential use by bicycles are established within the
paved area of highways. Bike lane stripes are
intended to promote an orderly flow of traffic, by
establishing specific lines of demarcation be-
tween areas reserved for bicycles and lanes to
be occupied by motor vehicles. This effect is
supported by bike lane signs and pavement
markings. Bike lane stripes can increase bicy-
clists' confidence that motorists will not stray
into their path of travel ~ they remain within
the bike lane. Likewise, with more certainty as
to where bicyclists will be, passing motorists are
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
leas apt to swerve tow~u-d opposing trafilc in
making certain they will not hit bicyclists.
Figure 1003.1G
Barrier Post Striping
Class II bike lanes Shmll be one-way facili-
ties. Two-way bike lanes (or bike paths that
are contiguous to the roadway) are not permit-
ted, as such facilities have proved unsatisfac-
tory.
(1) Wfdths. 'l~pical Class H bikeway con-
figurations are filustrated in Figure 1003.2A
and are dcseribed below:
(a) Figure 1003.2A-I de~)ict~ bike lanes on an
urban type curbed street where parking
st~lh (or continuous parking stripes) are
marked. Bike lanes are located between
the parking area and the traffic lanes.
Min~rnum widths are as shown.
Bike lanes shall not be placed between the
pazking area and the curb. Such facilities
crease the conflict between bicyclists and
opening car doors and reduce visibility at
intersections. Also, they prevent bicyclists from
leaving the bike lane to turn left and cannot be
effectively maintained.
(b) Figure 1003.2A-2 depicts bike lanes on
an urban-type curbed street, where parking is
permitted, but without parking stripe or stall
marking. Bike lanes are established in
conjunction with the parking areas. As
indicated, 11 feet or 12 feet (dependtn~ on
the type of curb) shall be the mlnims,m
width of the bike lane where parking Is
permitted, This type of lane is satisfactory
where parking is not ex~cnsive and where
turnover of parked cars is infrequent.
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-11
January, 1987
Figure 1003.2A
Typical Bike Lane Cross Sections
(On 2-lane or Multilane Highways)
~rking
Parking Stalls or Optional 4" Solid Strip~-
y 6" Solid White Stripe ---.---,,~'~
Lone
The oplionol solid white stripe may be advisable where SialIs ore
unnecessary (bucouse parking is light ) but there is concern thai
motorisis may miscoatrue ibe bike lane to be o traffic lone.
5' Mi~l, ' ,.~"
Bike Parking
Lone
(1) STRIPED PARKING
,/Vertical Curb//.-----6" Solid White Stripe------.~
'12' Min. , Molar Vehicle Lanes
13'is recommended where lhere is substantial parking or
turnover of parked cars is high [e.g. commercial oreas).
(2) PARKING PERMITTED WITHOUT
PARKING STRIPE OR STALL
Rolled Curlb--,~
*11' Min. ,~I~llt
p~l~5,Min.~/6" Solid White Stripe 3'M'
.: .,. L~o~. ve.~,e ,...--14' M,.. L
Bike Bike
Lone Lone
(3) PARKING PROHIBITED
f6" Solid White Stripe-~
Lane Lore
(4) ~PlCAL ROADWAY
IN OUTLYING AREAS
PARKING RESTRIC~D
1000-12
July 1, 1990
However, if parking is substantial or turnover of
parked cars is high, additional width is
recommended.
(c) Figure 1003.2A-3 depicts bike lanes along
the outer portions of an urban type curbed
street, where parking is prohibited. This is
generally the moot desirable configuration
for bike lanes, as it eliminates potential
conflicts resulting from auto parking {e.g.,
opening car doors). ~ginlmnm widths
shall be as shown. Both I~lnlm~lS shall
be achieved. With a normal 2-foot ~ut-
ter, the m|nimtll~ bike 1she width shall
be 5 feet. The intent is to provide a rnm-
imum 4-foot wide bike lane, but with at
least 3 feet between the traffic lane and the
longitudinal joint at the concrete gutter.
since the gutter reduces the effective width
of the bike lane for two reasons. First, the
longitudinal joint may not always be
smooth, and may be dlffienlt to ride along.
Seeondly, the gutter does not provide a
suitable surface for bicycle travel. Where
gutteTS are wide (say, 4 feet). an additional
3 feet must be provided because bicycllsts
should not be expected to ride in the gut-
ter. Wherever possib]e, the width of bike
lanes shou]d be increased to 6 to 8 feet to
provide for greater safety. Eight-foot bike
lanes can also serve as emergency parking
areas for disabled vehicles.
Striping bike lanes next to curbs where
puking is prohibited only during Certain
hours shall be done only in conjunction with
special Si~mh,,~ tO designate the hours bike
smnes are to be effective. Since the Vehicle
Code requires blcyclists to ride in bike lanes
where provided (except under certain condi-
tions), proper signing is necessary to inform hi-
cyclists that they are required to ride in bike
lanes only during the course of the parking
prohibition. This type of bike lane should be
considered only ff the vast majority of bicycle
travel would occur during the hours of the
parking prohibition, and only ff there is a firm
commitment to enforce the parking prohibition.
Because of the obvious complications, this type
of bike lane is not encouraged for general appli-
cation.
Figure 1003.2A-4 depicts bike lanes on a
highway without curbs and gutters. This lo-
cation is in an undeveloped area where tnfre-
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
quent parking is handled off the pavement.
This can be accomplished by supplementing the
bike lane signing with R25 (park off pavement)
signs, or R26 {no parking) signs. Min:m._m
widths shall be sa shown. Additional width is
desirable, particularly where motor vehicle
speeds exceed 40 mph.
The typical motor vehicle lane width next to
a bikc lane is 12 feet. There arc situations
where it may be necessary to reduce the width
of motor vehicle lancs in order to stripe bike
lanes. In determining the appropriateness of
narrowcr motor vehicle lanes, consideration
should be given to factors such as motor vehicle
speeds, truck volumes, alignment, and sight
distance. Where favorable conditions exist,
motor vehicle lanes of 11 feet my bc feasible.
Bike lanes arc not advisable on long, steep
downgrades. where bicyclc speeds greater than
30 mph are expected. As grades increase,
downhill bicycle speeds will increase, which in-
creases the problem of riding near the edge of
the roadway. In such situations, bicycle speeds
can approach those of motor vehicles, and ex-
perienced bicycltsts will generally move into the
motor vehicle lanes to increase sight distance
and maneuverability. If bike lanes are to be
striped, additional width should be provided to
accornmedate higher bicycle speeds.
If the bike lanes are to be located on one-
way streets, they should be placed on the right
side of the street. Bike lanes on the left side
would cause bicyclists and motorists to under-
take crossing maneuvers in making left turns
onto a two-way street.
(2) Striping and SIgnlr~. Detafis for striping
and signing of bike lanes are included under
Topic 1004.
Raised barriers (e.g., ~aised tr~l~e bars
and asphalt concrete dikes) or raised pave-
ment markere shall not be used to delineate
bike lanes, Raised bamers prevent motorists
from merging into bike lanes bdore making
right turns, as required by the Vehicle Code.
and restrict the movement of bicyclists desiring
to enter or exit bike lanes. They also impede
routine maintenance. Raised pavement mark-
ers increase the difficulty for bicyclists when
entering or exiting bike lanes, and discourage
motorists from merging into bike lanes before
making right turns.
HI~UwAY DESIGN MANUAL
1000-13
july 1, 1990
Bike lane stripes should be placed a con-
stant distance from the outside motor vehicle
lane. Bike lanes with parking permitted (11 1~
to 13 ~ between the bike lane line and the curb)
should not be directed toward the curb at inter-
sections or loc~ltTed areas where parking is
prohibited. Such a practice prevents bicyclists
from following a straight course. Where transi-
tions from one type of bike lane to another are
necessax~, smooth tapers should be provided.
(3) Intersect/on Des/~L Most auto/bicycle
accidents occur at intersections. For this rea-
son, bikeway design at intersections should be
accomplished in a manner that wffi rnlnJwJF~
confusion by motorists and bicyclists, and will
permit both to operate in accordance with the
norms! rules of the rood.
Figure 1003.2B illustrates a typical inter-
section of multilane streets, with bike lanes on
all approaches. Some common movements of
motor vehicles and bicycles are shown. A
prevalent type of accident involves straight-
through bicycle traffic and right-tung mo-
torists. I~t-turnlng bicycilsts also have prsb-
lems, as the bike lane is on the right side of the
street, and blcycllsts have to cross the path of
cars traveling in both directions. Some bicy-
ellsts are proficient enough to merge across one
or more lanes of traffic, to use the inside lane or
left-turn lane provided for motor vehicles. How-
ever, there are rn~ny who do not feel comfort-
able making this rn~neuver. They have the op-
tion of rr~king a two-legged left turn by riding
along a course .~rnllar to that followed by
pedestrians, as shown in the dlA~o'r~rn Young
chfidren will oftentimes prefer to dismount and
change directions by walking their bike in the
crossw~lk
At intersections where there is a bike lane
and traffic-actuated signal, lnstnllnfJon of bicy-
cle-sensitive detectors within the bike lane is
desirable. Push button detectors are not as
satisfactory as those located in the pavement
because the cyclist must stop to actuate the
push button. It is also desirable that detectors
in left-turn lanes be sensitive enough to detect
bicycles {see Chapter 9 of the Traffic Manual
and Standard Plans for bicycle-sensitive detec-
tor designs).
At intersections (without bike lanes) with
significant bicycle use and a traffic-actuated
sl~o~al, it is desirable to install detectors that
are sensitive enough to detect bicycles.
Figure 1003.2C illustrates recommended
striping patterns for bike lanes crossing a mo-
tortst right-turn-only lane. When confronted
with such intersections, bicycllsts will have to
merge with right-turning motorists. Since bi-
cyclists are typically traveling at speeds less
than motorists, they should signal and merge
where there is s-f~cient gap in right-turning
traffic, rather than at any predetermined lo-
cation, For this reason, it is recommended that
either all delineation be dropped at the ap-
proach of the right-turn lane (or off-ramp), or
that a single, dashed bike-lane line be extended
at a fiat angle across the right-turn lane. A pair
of parallel lines {delineating a bike lane cross-
ing) to channel the bike merge is not recom-
mended, as bicyclists will be encouraged to
cross at a predetermined location, rather than
when there is a safe gap in right-tag traffic.
Also. some bicyclists are apt to assume they
have the right of way, and may not check for
right-turning motor vehicle traffic.
A dashed line across the right-turn-only
lane is not recommended on extremely long
lanes, or where there are double right-turn-only
lanes. For these types of intersections, all
striping should be dropped to permit judgment
by the blcycllsta to prevail. A Bike Xtng sign
may be used to warn motorists of the potential
for bicycllsts crossing their path.
1003.3 Chss 111 Bikeways
Class HI bil~w~ys (bike routes) are intended
to provide continuity to the bikeway system.
Bike routes are established along through
rou~es not served by Class I or II bikeways, or to
connect discontinuous segments of bikeway
(normally bike lanes). Class HI facilities are
shared fac~lties, either with motor vehicles on
the street, or with pedestrians on sidewalks,
and in either case bicycle usage is secondary.
Class HI facilities are established by placing
Bike Route signs along madways.
Minimum widths for Class HI bikeways are
not presented. as the acceptable width is de-
pendent on many factors, including the volume
and character of vehicular traffic on the road,
typical speeds, vertical and horizontal align-
ment, sight distance, and parking conditions.
1000-14 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
J~nuary, 1987
Figure 1003.2B
T pical Bicycle/Auto Movements at
?'nltersectlons of Multilane Streets
BIKE
I
I
I I ~ ~
I
Ped, Crossing
I I I
]XI8
I I
LEGEND
- -- -,-Bike Trovel
----I~M0tor Vehicle Travel
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-15
January, 1987
Figure 1003.2C
Bike Lanes Approaching Motorist
Right-turn-only I*anes
Not recommended
where a long right-
turn-only lane or
double turn lanes
~ exist.
~ r
* If space is available.
Otherwise aft delineation
I
should be dropped at LANE
t.is point. t
Cr0ssinc,
Ped..Cr inc, ~ 1
t a~ ~'""t, El
I r0ptionol Dashed Stripe. I BiKe
~ Typical path
\ of through
x bicyclist.
RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE
PARKING AREA BECOMES
RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE
Ped. Crossinq/ Ped, Crossing
LANE
path of
I I ~ through bicyclisl. -'~
4
\ t available.
Drop bike lone
stripe where
right turn only
designated.
OPTIONAL DOUBLE RIGHT LANE BECOMES
RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE
1000-16
July 1. 1990
Since bicyclists are permitted on all
highways (except prohibited freeways), the
decision to sign the route should be based on
the advtsabfiity of encouraging bicycle travel on
the route and other factors listed below.
(1) On-street Bike Route Cr/ter/a. To be of
benefit to bicycltsts, bike routes should offer a
higher degree of service than alternative streets.
Routes should be signed only if some of the fol-
lowing apply:
(a) They provide for through and direct travel
in bicycle-demand corridors.
Co) Connect discontinuous segments of bike
lanes.
(c) An effort has been made to adjust traffic
control devices (stop signs, signals) to give
greater priority to bicyclists, as compared
with alternative streets. This could include
placement of bicycle-sensitive detectors on
the righthand portion of the road, where bi-
cyclists are expected to ride.
(d) Street parking has been removed or re-
stricted in areas of critical width to provide
improved safety.
{e) Surface imperfections or irregularities have
been corrected (e.g., utffity covers adjusted
to grade, potholes ~led, etc.).
(1) Maintenance of the route will be at a higher
standard than that of other comparable
streets {e.g., more frequent street sweep-
in .
(2) Sidewalk Bikeway Criteria. In general,
the designated use of sidewalks (as a Class IH
bikeway) for bicycle travel is unsatisfactory.
It is important to recognize that the devel-
opment of extremely wide sidewalks does not
necessarily add to the safety of sidewalk bicycle
travel, as wide sidewalks will encourage higher
speed bicycle use and can increase potential for
conflicts with motor vehicles at intersections, as
well as with pedestrians and fixed objects.
Sidewalk bikeways should be considered
only under special circumstances, such as:
(a) To provide bikeway continuity along high
speed or heavily traveled roadways having
inadequate space for bicyclists, and unin-
tempted by driveways and intersections
for long distances.
HIGitWAY DESIGN A~,s, NUAL
Co) On long, narrow bridges. In such cases,
ramps should be installed at the sidewalk
approaches. If approach bikeways are two-
way, sidewalk facilities should also be
two-way.
Whenever sidewalk bikeways are estab-
lished, a special effort should be made to re-
move unnecessary obstacles. Whenever bicy-
clists are acted from bike lanes to sidewalks,
curb cuts should be flush with the street to as-
sure that bieyclists are not subjected to prob-
lems associated with crossing a vertical lip at a
fiat angle. Also curb cuts at each intersection
are necessary, as well as bikeway yield or stop
signs at uncontrolled intersections. Curb cuts
should be wide enough to accommodate adult
tricycles and two-wheel bicycle trailers.
In residential areas, sidewalk riding by
young chfidren too inexperienced to ride in the
street is common. With lower bicycle speeds
and lower auto speeds, potential conflicts are
somewhat lessened, but still exist. Neverthe-
less, this type of sidewalk bicycle use is ac-
cepted. But it is inappropriate to sign these fa-
cilities as bikeways. Blcyclists should not be
encouraged (through signing) to ride facilities
that are not designed to accommodate bicycle
travel.
(3) Destination Signing of Bike Routes. For
Bike Route signs to be more functional, sup-
piemental plates may be placed beneath them
when located along mutes leading to high de-
mand destinations {e.g., "to Downtown"; "1'o
State College"; etc,-- see Figure 1004.4 for typi-
cal signing).
There are instances where it is necessary to
sign a route to direct bicyclists to a logical des-
tination, but where the route does not offer any
of the above listed bike mute features. In such
cases, the route should not be signed as a bike
route; however, destination signing may be ad-
vtsable. A typical application of destination
signing would be where bicyclists are directed
off a highway to bypass a section of freeway.
Special signs would be placed to guide bicyclists
to the next logical destination. The intent is to
direct bicyclists in the same way as motorists
would be acted if a highway detour was ne-
cessitated.
HIGuwAY DESIGN MANUAL
1000-17
duly 1, 1990
1003.4 Bicycles on Freeways
In some instances, bicycllsts ar~ permitted
on freeways. Seldom would a freeway be signed
or striped as a bikeway, but it can be opened for
use ff It meets certain criteria. Essentially, the
criteria involve assessing the safety and conve-
nience of the freeway as compared with avail-
able alternate routes. If a reasonable alternate
route exists, it would normally be urmeeessary
to open the freeway. However, If the alternate
route Is inconvenient (e.g., it involves substan-
tial out of direction travel) and/or is considered
unsuitable for bicycle travel (e.g., high-speed
traffic, no paved shouldera, poor sight dIstance,
etc.), the freeway may be a better alternative for
bicycltsts. However, a freeway should not be
opened to bicycle use if it Is determined to be
incompatible (e.g., narrow lanes, no shouldera,
freeway-to-freeway interchanges, etc.). Nor-
really, freeways in urban areas will have
characteristics that make it infeasible to permit
bicycle use. Where no reasonable alternative
exists within a freeway corridor, development of
a separate bike path should be considered ff
dictated by demand.
When bicy:lists are permitted on segments
of freeway, It will be necessary to modify a~..d
supplement freeway regulatory signs, particu-
larly those at freeway ramp entrances (see
Chapter 4 of the Traffic Manual).
1003.5 Multipurpose Recreational T'tsilm
In some instances, it may be appropriate for
recreational agencies to develop multipurpose
recreational trails - for hikers, Joggers, equestri-
ans, bicyclIsts, etc. Many of these trafis will not
be paved and will not meet the standards for
Class I bikeways. As such, these facfiities
should not be signed as bikeways. Rather, they
should be designated as recreational trails (or
similar designation), along with regulatory
signing to restrict motor vehicles, as appropri-
ate. If recreational trails are to serve primarily
bicycle travel, they should be developed in ac-
cordance with standards for Class I bikeways.
1003.6 Mlscelhneous Bikeway Criteria
The following are rni~ellaneous bikeway
criteria which should be followed to the extent
pertinent to Class I, II and HI bikeways. Some,
by their very nature, will not apply to all classes
of bikeway. Many of the criteria are important
to consider on any highway where bicycle travel
is expected, without regard to whether or not
bikeways are established.
(1) Br/dges. Bikeways on highway bridges
must be carefully coordinated with approach
bikeways to make sure that all elements are
compatible. For example, bicycle traffic bound
in opposite directions is best accommodated by
bike lanes on each side of a highway. In such
cases, a two-way bike path on one side of a
bridge would normally be inappropriate, as one
direction of bicycle traffic would be required to
cross the highway at grade twice to get to and
from the bridge bike path. Because of the in-
convenience, many bicycllsts will be encouraged
to ride on the wrong side of the highway beyond
the bridge termlnL
The following criteria apply to a two-way
bike path on one side of a highway bridge:
(a) The bikeway approach to the bridge should
be by way of a separate two-way facility for
the reason explained above.
(b) A physical separation, such as a chain
link fence or rsilin_~, 8h81T be provided to
offset the adverse effects of having bicy-
cles traveling against motor vehicle traf-
fic. The physical separation should be de-
signed to mWtmlT~, fixed end hazards to
motor vehicles and if the bridge Is an in*
terchange structure, to minimize sight dIs-
tance restrictions at ramp Intersections.
It is recommended that bikeway bridge
r~ilirlgS Or fences placed between traffic lanes
and bikeways be at least 4.5 feet high to rnin-
imize the likelihood of bicyclists falling over the
l~lllrlgS. Standard bridge r~lJtrlgS which are
lower than 4.5 feet can be retrofitted with
lightweight upper r~tllngs Or chain link fence
suitable to restrain bicyclIsts.
Separate highway overcrossing structures
for bikeway traffic shall conform to Caitrans'
standard pedestrian overcrossing design
loading of 85 pounds per square foot. The
minimum clear width ShAIT be the paved
width of the approach bikeway. If pedestrians
are to use the structure, additional width is
recommended.
(2) Surface Quality. The surface to be used
by bicyclIsts should be smooth, free of potholes,
1000-18 HIGhwAY DESIGN MANUAL
and the pavement edge uniform. For rideability
on new construcUon, the finished surface of
bikeways should not vary more than 0.02 foot
frown the lower edge of an 8-foot long straight
edge when laid on the surface In any direction.
Table 1003.6
Direction of
Travel Grooves( II Steps(2I
Corrective actions described above are rec-
ommended on all highways where bicycle travel
is permitted, whether or not bikeways are des-
ignated.
Future driveway construction should avoid
construction of a vertical lip from the driveway
to the gutter, as the lip ram/ereate a problem
for bicyclists when entering from the edge of the
roadway at a fiat angle. If a lip is deemed nec-
essary, the height should be limited to I/2
inch.
Parallel to travel
No more No more
than 1/2" than 3/8"
wide wide
Perpendicular to --- No more
travel than 3/4"
(1) Oroove--A narrow slot in the surface that could catch a
bicycle wheel, such as a gap between two concrete slabs.
(2} Step--A ridge in the pavement, such as that which
might exist between the payment and a conc~te gutter or
manhole ~ or that ml_ght exist between two pavement
blankets when the top level does not ex~end to the edge of
the roadway,
Table 1003.6 indicates the recommended
bikeway surface tolerances for Class II and IH
bikeways developed on existing streets to mini-
mize the potential for causing bicyclists to lose
control of their bicycle (Note: Stricter tolerances
should be achieved on new bikeway construc-
tiorh)
(3) Drainage Grates, Manhole Covers, arid
Dr/veways. Drainage inlet grates, manhole cov-
ers, etc., on bikeways should be designed and
installed m a manner that provides an adequate
surface for bicyclists. They should be maIn-
tamed flush with the surface when resurfacing.
Drsl~s_ee inlet grates on bikeways shall
have Openin{S nm~'~rOW enough and short
enough to assure bicycle tires will not drop
into the grates (e.g., retleuline ~TP~), regard-
less of the direction of bicycle travel Where
it is not immediately feasible to replace existing
grates with standard grates designed for bicy-
cles, I Inch x 1/4 inch steel cross straps should
be welded to the grates at a spacing of 6 inches
to 8 Inches on centers to reduce the size of the
openings adequately.
(4) At-gr, rlp Ragroad Crossings and Cattle
Guards. Whenever it is necessary to cross raft-
road tracks with a bikeway, special care must
be taken to assure that the safety ofbicyclists is
protected. The bikeway crossing should be at
least as wide as the approaches of the bikeway.
Wherever possible, the crossIng should be
straight and at right angles to the rafts. For on-
street bikeways where a skew is unavoidable,
the shoulder {or bike lane) should be widened, if
possible, to porrnit bicy~,~f.s to cross at right
angles (see Figure 1003.6A). If this is not pos-
sible, special construction and m~terials should
be considered to keep the flangeway depth and
width to a minimum. Pavement should be
maintained so ridge bufidup does not occur
next to the rafts. In some eases, timber plank
crossings can be Justified and can provide for a
smoother crossing. Where hazards to bicycllst
cannot be avoided, appropriate signs should be
installed to warn bicyclists of the danger.
All railroad crossings are regulated by the
CaJlrorllla Pub]k: Utilities Coinmillion (CPUC).
All new bike path railroad crossings must be
approved by the CPUC. Necessav/raftroad
protection will be determined based on a JoInt
field review involving the applicant, the railroad
company, and the CPUC.
The presence of eattie guards along any
roadway where bicy~ll~ts are expected should
be dearly marked with adequate advance
warning.
(5) Hazard Markings. Vertical barriers and
obstructions, such as abutments, piers, and
other features causing bikeway constriction,
should be clearly marked to gain the attention
of approaching bicye!l~ts. This treatment
should be used only where unavoidable, and is
by no means a substitute for good bikeway de-
sign. An example of a bnTnrd marking is shown
HIGhwAY DESIGN ~AL
1000-19
July 1, 199o
m Figure 1003.6B. Signs, reflectors, diagonal
black and yellow markings, or other treatments
wfil be appropriate in other instances to alert
bicyclists to potential hazards.
(6) Lighting. Bikeway lighting should be
considered along mutes where nighttime riding
is expected. This is particularly important for
bike paths serving as commuter mutes, such as
paths leading to colleges. Adequate lighting is
also important at bike path crossings of streets
and for underpasses. Normally, on-street bike-
ways will be adequately lighted if street lights
exist.
Top. ic 1004 - Uniform Signs,
Markings and Traffic Control
Devices
1004.1 Introduction
Per Section 2376 of the Streets and ltigh-
ways Code, t~nifOrm. SigDS, DlarkiDgs, and
t.r-ffle control devices shall be used. As such
this section is mandatozy, except where per-
missive language is used. See the Trafilc Man-
ual for detailed specifications.
1004.2 Bike Path (Class I)
An optional 4-inch yellow stripe may be
placed to separate opposing directions of travel.
A 3-foot stripe with a 9-foot space is the rec-
ommended striping pattern, but may be revised,
depending on the situation.
Standard regulatory, warning, and guide
signs used on highways may be used on bike
paths, as appropriate {and may be scaled down
in size). Special regulatory, warning, and guide
signs may also be used to meet specific needs.
White painted word (or symbol) warning
markings on the pavement may be used as an
effective means of alerting bicyclists to ap-
proaching hazards, such as sharp curves, bar-
rier posts, etc.
1004.3 Bike Lanes (Class !I)
Bike lanes require standard signrag and
pavement markings as shown on Figure 1004.3.
The R81 bike lane sign shall be placed at
the beginning Of all bike lanes, on the far
side of every arterial street intersection, at
all major changes in direcUon, and at maxio
mum half-mile intervals.
Bike lane pavement markings shall be
placed on the far side of each intersection,
and may be placed at other locations as de-
sired.
Rslaed pavement markers or other raised
barriers shall not be used to delineate bike
lanes. Also, thermophstic paint shall not be
used for pavement mRrk]ng, as the paint sixr-
ace is extremely slippery when wet.
The G93 Bike Route sign may also be used
along bike lanes, but its primary purpose
should be to provide directional signing and
destination signl~ where necessary. A prolif-
erstion of Bike Route signs along signed and
striped bike lanes serves no useful purpose.
Many signs on the roadway also will apply
to bicycllsts in bike lanes. Standard regulatory,
warning, and guide signs used specifically in
conjunction with bike lanes are shown in
Chapter 4 of the Traffic Manual.
1004.4 Bike Routes (Class
Bike mutes ar~ Shared routes and do not
require pavement markings. In some instances,
a 4-inch white edge stripe separating the traffic
lanes from the shoulder can be helpful in pro-
viding for safer shared use. This practice is
particularly applicable on rural highways, and
on major arterials in urban areas where there is
no vehicle parking.
Bike routes are established through place-
ment of the G93 Bike Route sign. Bike route
signs are to be placed periodically along the
route. At changes in direction, the bike route
signs are supplemented by G33 directional ar-
rows. Typical bike mute signing is shown on
Figure 1004.4. The figure shows how des-
tination signing, through application of a spe-
cial plate, can make the Bike Route sign more
functional for the bicyclist. This type of signing
is recommended when a bike route leads to a
high demand destination (e.g.. downtown, col-
lege, etc.).
Many signs on the roadway also will apply
to bicyclists. Standard warning and guide signs
used specffically in conjunction with bike routes
are shown in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Manual.
1000-20
JanuatT. 1987
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
Figure 1003.6A
Railroad Crossings
//
CLASS I BIKEWAY
LANE
BIKE
Large radii
of bike lrovel.
"""Widen to permit right angle
crossing.
CLASS II BIKEWAY
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
Figure 1003.6B
Hazard Markings
1000-21
Jsnusry, 1987
~Hozordous pier, abutment, etc.
I-.-W-H ·
4'L6'' Solid
White Stripe
Direction of
Bike Travel
L
LEGEND
L=VW
where; L: Length of approach marking (Ft,)
V = Average speed of bicyclisls (MPH)
W = Width of obstruction (Ft.)
f
LANE
BIKE
100~2~
july L lego
HIG~twAY DEelGN MANUAL
~igu~e 1004.3
Bike Lane Signs and Markings
V/HERE VEHICLE PARKING IS PROHIBITED
aptlonal Dashed Stripe
(See Note 4)
Centerline or Lane Llne~__
4' Minimum E0O'
(S e FmOure 1003.2A) .~ = ~ ~ = ~ ~ .
F ~ Curb ~
R 26, RB1 Optional H~rklngs
(No PG~kln9) (See No~e 1)
(BIke Lune)
(See No~e 6)
VHERE VEHICLE PARKING IS PERMITTED
Optional Dashed Stripe
(See Note 4)
11' or 12' Hlnlmum 200'
(See Figure 1003.2A)
Opt~ona& M~rklngs~
(See Note 1)
NO STALLS
F
ee HInts
g:=rq
PARKING STALLS (See No~e 5)
R 83
(See No~e 6)
~TALL~
NOTES:
1. The B~e Lane pavement markings shall be placed
on the far side of each intersection, and may be
placed at other locations as desired.
2. The use of the bicycle symbol pavement marking
to supplement the word message is optional.
3. The G93 Bike Route sign may be placed intermit-
tenfly along the bike lane if desired.
The bike lane line may either be dropped entirely,
200' in advance of the intersectjan. or o dashed line
carried to the intersection or through the intersection.
In areas where parldng stalls are not necessary
(because parking is light), it is permissile to paint
a 4" solid white stripe to fully delineate the bike
lone. This may be advisable where there is concern
that motorists may misconstrue the bike lane to be
a traffic lane.
The RB1 bike lone sign shall be placed at the be-
ginning of all bike {aries. on the for side of every
arterial street intersdon. at all major changes in
direction, and at maximum half-mile intervals.
HIGhwAY DESIGN MANUAL
Figure 1004.4
Bike Route Signing
1000-23
G33
G93
Special Optional
Oestinotion Signing
-m
G93
Special Optional
Destination Signing
NOTE: The G93 Bike Route signs shall be placed at all points where
the route changes direction and periodically as necessary.
ITEM NO. 5
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA REPORT
Traffic and Transportation Commission
Engineering Department
June 26, 1991
Roripaugh Road / Jon Christian Place
Recommendation:
That the Traffic and Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council,
adoption of a 25 MPH speed limit on Roripaugh Road between Nicolas Road and
Winchester Road (State Route 79).
That the Traffic Commission concur with the Engineering Department recommendation
to install 2-way stop control at the following locations:
On Dandelion Court at Roripaugh Road
On Rosebay Court at Roripaugh Road
On Senna Court at Roripaugh Road
On Swallow Court at Roripaugh Road
On Starling Street at Roripaugh Road
On Jon Christian Place at Warbler Circle
Background:
In response to a request by the Roripaugh Homeowners Association, the Engineering
Department has conducted a traffic investigation for this area.
A 25 MPH speed limit was requested for Roripaugh Road. Roripaugh Road is 44 feet
wide (curb to curb) with a curvilinear alignment from Nicolas Road to Winchester Road
(State Route 79). Development on Roripaugh Road is residential in nature with the
segment between Nicolas Road and Rosebay Court being a "residence district" as
defined by California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 515. There are two community
pools/play areas located on Roripaugh Road, one at Jon Christian Place, which has off-
street parking, and one between Sanderling Way and Mimulus Way.
A parking lot, for the model homes in this area, exists adjacent to the pool/play area
located between Sanderling Way and Mimulus Way. The final disposition of this
parking lot is unknown, however, it could feasibly be used for the pool patrons, which
could reduce on-street parking in this area.
The prevailing speed (85th percentlie) of vehicles on Roripaugh Road is approximately
35 miles per hour. Sight distances at the vertical curves, horizontal curves, and
intersections are adequate for the prevailing speed except at the pool between
Sanderling Way and Mimulus Way. When vehicles park on the street at this pool, sight
distance on the curve would allow a maximum safe speed of 25 MPH. Traffic volume
on Roripaugh Road is approximately 1300 vehicles per day. There have been no
reported accidents on Roripaugh Road in the past three years.
Multi-way stop controls were requested at the intersections of Roripaugh Road and
Swallow Court and at Roripaugh Road and Bolandra Court. Traffic volumes on
Swallow Court and Bolandra Court are approximatley 100 and 225 vehicles per day
respectively. Installation of multi-way stop controls are not warranted by these
volumes.
A 25 MPH speed limit and "stop" signs were requested for Jon christian Place. Jon
Christian Place is 40 feet in width with a slightly curvilinear alignment from Roripaugh
Road to Tananger Circle. Jon Christian Place is a "residence district" as defined by
CVC Section 515. Sight distance at the intersection of Jon Christian Place and
Warbler Circle is limited to approximately 1 O0 feet by residential development. Traffic
volume on Jon Christian Place is approximately 450 vehicles per day. Jon Christian
Place and Tananger Circle is a "knuckle" type intersection. There have been no
reported accidents on Jon Christian Place in the past three years.
Discussion:
Several of the requests by the Roripaugh Homeowners Association are for stop signs
to control speed. Because the STOP sign causes a substantial inconvenience to
motorists (and increases associated noise, fuel consumption and air pollution) it should
only be used when warranted. Good traffic engineering practice indicates that multi-
way installations should ordinarily be used only where the volume of traffic on the
intersection roads are approximately equal. The primary purpose of a stop sign is safe
right-of-way assignment, not as a method of speed or volume control on a street.
Studies have shown unwarranted stop signs can have significantly high violation rates
with the inherent possibility of accidents at such locations.
The State of California Traffic Manual policy guideline for warrants for a multi-way
stop are as follows:
POLICY
Any of the following conditions may warrant a multi-way STOP
sign installation:
Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed,
the multi-way stop may be an interim measure that can
be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements
are being made for signal installations.
An accident problem, as indicated by five or more
reported accidents within a 12-month period of a type
susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation.
Such accidents include right and left turn collisions as
well as right-angle collisions.
3. Minimum traffic volumes:
(a)
(b)
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
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-percentlie approach speed of the
major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hours,
the minimum vehicular warrant is 70 percent of
the above requirements.
A complete study has been conducted at Roripaugh Road and Swallow Court and Roipaugh
Road and Bolandra Court with the following findings:
1. Traffic signals are not warranted at these locations.
2. No accidents have been reported at these locations in the past 3 years.
3. The minimum traffic volume warrant requirement is NOT satisfied.
In summary, none of the requirements for 4-way stop warrants are satisfied at Roripaugh
Road and Swallow Court or at Roripaugh Road and Bolandra Court. Since visibility is
adequate for the 25 MPH speed limits and the volumes are not equal i.e. significant levels of
traffic would be stopped on the major street (increasing air and noise pollution), and since
adequate gaps exist to enter the major street traffic stream with little delay to the minor street
traffic for the overwhelming majority of a typical day. It is hoped this condition can be
resolved in a more appropriate manner than installing unwarranted stop signs.
As the complexity of traffic issues in the City intensifies with future development, numerous
requests for traffic control devices from residents will inevitably result. Staff believes that it
is important to safety and effective traffic control in the City to install traffic control devices
based on sound traffic engineering criteria and judgment. For that reason, staff cannot
support 4-way stop installations at Roripaugh Road and Swallow Court or at Roripaugh Road
and Rolandra Court as requested by the Roripaugh HOA.
However, due to the intersection configurations, sight distance, and lack of traffic control, it
is recommended that stop signs be installed at the following locations:
Dandelion Court at Roripaugh Road
Rosebay Court at Roripaugh Road
Senna Court at Roripaugh Road
Swallow Court at Roripaugh Road
Starling Street at Roripaugh Road
Jon Christian Place at Warbler Circle
The homeowners request also includes 25 MPH speed limits on Roripaugh Road and on Jon
Christian Place. As previously mentioned a portion of Roripaugh Road is a residence district,
which justifies a 25 MPH speed limit on that portion. Therefore, it is recommended that a 25
MPH speed limit be adopted on Roripaugh Road between Nicolas Road and Winchester Road
and that speed limit signs be installed as appropriate. Jon Christian Place is a residence
district which justifies a 25 MPH speed limit. This speed limit is in effect and may be
enforced regardless of the existence of speed limit signs, therefor, it is recommended that
signs not be installed on Jon Christian Place.
ISOOO NOI13ONVO
~NO0 ~V83508
I~NOO VNN3S
i)jROO
~4, O
THE RORIPAUGH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATICN REQUEST THE F~iLIXDWING:
· 1.
THAT A 4 WAY STOP BE PLACED ON THE OORNERS OF SWALL~q COURT AND RORIPAUG~
ROAD TO SLOW CARS AS THEY GO AROUND THE BLIND CURVE AT THE NEW POOL AND
C~ILDR~S PLAY AREA.
THAT A 3 WAY STOP BE PLACEO ON THE CORNERS OF BOLANDRA COURT AND RORIPAUGH
ROAD TO SLOW CARS AS THEY COME TO THE TOP OF THE HILL ON RORIPAUGM. THIS
AREA TOO IS HARD TO SEE WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU AS YOU DRIVE UP THE HILL.
3. THAT A 25 MPH SPEED SIG~ BE POb"rm ON RORIPAUGH ROAD AS YOU TURN ONTO
RORIPAUGH ROAD FROM NICI{OLAS ROAD.
4. THAT A 25 MPH SPk~iu SIGN BE P0~'r~u ON RORIPAUGH ROAD AS YOU TORN ONTO
ROR/PAUGH ROAD FROM WINC}~E,%-r~ ROAD.
5. THAT 25 MPH SP~:~n SI(~S BE PLAca~U ON JON C~RISTIAN PLACE.
6. THAT STOP SIC~S BE pIAc"W3~ STRATEGICALLY ON J(3N (Z-iRISTIAN PLACE TO SLOW THE
INCREASING SP.z~nERS ON THAT ST~T.
7. THAT A 2 WAY SIOP SIGN BE PIA~:u ON THE COlMR OF JON C{RISTIAN PLACE AND
TANANGER CIRCLE.
200-6
January, 1987
HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL
Stop inl Sight
· Height of eye - 3.50 feet
· Height of object - 0.50 feet
· LIne of eight is 2.0 feet above ~ inside lane
et point of obstruction
DEEIGN EPEED
MPH
30
40
50
60
65
70
75
80
34 F
32
30
I--
LU 28
O
U,I
U.. 26
U.I it
I
Z~ I 24
'( ~" 20
r~O 18
EIGHT DIETANCE
FEET
200
300
430
580
660
750
840
930
o o ~JDESIGeoN
i16
O 8
4
0 100 200 300 NO
Figure 201.6
Distance on
Curves
S=SIGHT DIETANCE IN FEET
ReRADIUS OF Pt INSIDE LANE IN FEET
m=DIETANCE FROM ~ INSIDE LANE IN FEET
VIDEEIGN EPEED FOR °E*IN M.P.H.
Angle is expressed in degrees.
1 C 28.65S 3]
m= R -COS R
R [ -1 CR-m3]
8= 28.65 COS R
· Formula applies only when '8° is equal
to or lees than length of curve.
· For sustained downgrades, see
Index 201.3.
SPEED -- MPH
500 600 700 800 900 lo0o
81GHT DISTANCE -- FEET
Bather Belro~e Boje, Inc. SPEEDPLOT Prob_am 0 Blk. RORIPAUGH RD
NICOLAS RD to WINCHESTER RDd~oDT~ c~= ~i~o~-u 7~i~
DIRECTION(S) .......... EB-WB
DATE .................. 6/6/91
TIME .................. 3-4PM
POSTED SPEED LIMIT .... 25
CUM ·
SPEED NO. PCT. PCT.
21 2 3 7 3.7
22 0 0 0 3.7
23 4 7 4 11.1
24 3 5 6 16.7
25 1 19 18.5
26 4 7 4 25.9
27 4 7 4 33.3
28 6 11 1 44.4
29 4 7 4 51.9
30 5 9 3 61.1
31 4 7 4 68.5
32 2 3 7 72 2
33 3 5 6 77 8
34 4 7.4 85 2
35 4 7.4 92 6
36 0 0.0 92 6
37 0 0.0 92 6
38 1 1.9 94 4
39 0 0.0 94 4
40 1 1.9 96 3
41 0 0.0 96 3
42 2 3.7 100 0
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED ................. 29
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED ................. 34
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 26 through 35
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 74.1
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED ............. 7.4
~ERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED ............ 18.5
RANGE OF SPEEDS ................. 21 to 42
VEHICLES OBSERVED ................... 54
AVERAGE SPEED ....................... 29.7
+ .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... +
100
_ ******* -
90 90
C - * '
U 80 * 80
M - '
70 ** 70
p - _
E 60 * 60
R - -
C 50 * 50
E - * -
N 40 40
T - * -
S 30 30
_ , -
20 * 20
_ , -
10 * 10
0 0
+ .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... +
21 31 41 51 61 71
+ .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... +
20 20
15 15
10 * 10
21 31 41 51 61 71
SPEED IN MILES PER HOUR
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
S
Bathel 8elrose Boje, Inc.
STREET ................ 0 Blk. RORIPAUGH RD
LIMITS ................
D' ECTION ( S ) ........
D~._E ................
TIME ................
POSTED SPEED LIMIT..
CUM.
SPEED NO. PCT. PCT.
21 3 4.9 4
22 8 13.1 18
23 5 8.2 26
24 8 13.1 39
25 7 11.5 50
26 4 6.6 57
27 8 13.1 70
28 3 4.9 75
29 5 8.2 83
30 4 6.6 90
31 2 3.3 93
32 1 1.6 95.
33 0 0.0 95.
34 2 3.3 98.
35 1 1.6 100.
. . 6/11/91
.. 1245-145 pm
. .25
SPEEDPL~f Program
zco s ROAD to wzNc. ESTER
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED ................. 25
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED ................. 30
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 21 through 30
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 90.2
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED ............. 9.8
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED ............ 0.0
RANGE OF SPEEDS ................. 21 to 35
VEHICLES OBSERVED ................... 61
AVERAGE SPEED ....................... 26.0
9
0 + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... +
2 100 **************************************100
3 - *** -
8 90 * 90
4 C - * -
5 U 80 80
4 M - * -
6 70 , 70
2 P - -
4 E 60 60
1 R - , -
i C 50 , 50
4 E - -
0 N 40 * 40
T - -
S 30 30
_ , --
20 * 20
10 10
_, --
0 0
+ .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... +
21 31 41 51 61 71
+ .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... +
20
P 15
E -
R -** ·
C -** ,
E - · ** *
N 10 * ** *
T - * ** *
S - **** *
_ ****** **
_ ****** **
5**********
_********** -
-*********** , -
_************ ** -
_************ ** --
+ .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... +
21 31 41 51 61 71
SPEED IN MILES PER HOUR
20
Bather Belr~se Boje, Inc. SPEEDPLOT Program
STREET ................ 0 Blk. JON CHRISTIAN PL
LIMITS ................ RORIPAUGH RD to WARBLER CIRCLE
DIRECTION(S) N-S
DATE .................. 6/11/91
TIME 2-3 pm
POSTED SPEED LIMIT .... 25
SPEED NO. PCT. PCT.
23 1 6.7 6.7
24 1 6.7 13.3
25 0 0.0 13.3
26 0 0.0 13.3 -
27 2 13.3 26.7 90
28 1 6.7 33.3 C -
29 1 6.7 40.0 U 80
30 2 13.3 53.3 M -
31 2 13.3 66.7 70
32 1 6.7 73.3 P
33 2 13.3 86.7 E 60
34 0 0.0 86.7 R
35 1 6.7 93.3 C 50
36 1 6.7 100.0 E
N 40
T
S 30
20
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
S
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED ................. 3C
85TH PERCENTILE SPEED ................. 33
10 MPH PACE SPEED .......... 27 through 36
PERCENT IN PACE SPEED .............. 86.7
PERCENT OVER PACE SPEED ............. 0.0
PERCENT UNDER PACE SPEED ............ 13.3
RANGE OF SPEEDS ................. 23 to 36
VEHICLES OBSERVED ................... 15
AVERAGE SPEED ....................... 29.9
+ .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... +
100 **************************************100
,
**
,
,
,
,
,
,
10
_,
0
+ .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... +
23 33 43 53 63 73
+ .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... +
20
10 , ** *
20
+ .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... + .... , .... +
23 33 43 53 63 73
SPEED IN MILES PER HOUR
ITEM NO. 6
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA REPORT
Traffic and Transportation Commission
Engineering Department
June 26, 1991
City Policy Regarding Marking of "No Parking" Zones,
Recommendation:
Receive and file staff report.
Background:
The Engineering Department requests a discussion with the Traffic Commission
regarding the preferred method of marking "No Parking" zones.
The Engineering Department is in the process of developing a City-wide policy for the
marking of "No Parking" zones. "No Parking" zones can be marked by either signs,
indicating the parking prohibition, or by red curb or by a combination of both in
accordance with City ordinance or resolution. "No Parking" signs are typically placed
at intervals of 150 to 200 feet within the restricted area while curb is painted over the
entire length of the parking prohibition. For this reason, it is expected that red curb
is more effective to identify the parking prohibition to drivers, especially during adverse
conditions such as darkness or fog, however, many of the streets throughout the City
are not improved with curb. The estimated costs for the alternatives are:
Painted
Curb
Installation
Maintenance
$1.00 per foot.
$0.50 per foot per year.
Signs
Installation
Maintenance
$0.75 per foot.
$0.10 per foot per year.
Either method of marking "No Parking" zones is enforceable, however, a consistent
policy will aid in enforcement effort and with compliance with parking restrictions.
ITEM NO. 7
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Traffic and Transportation Commission
Engineering Department
June 26, 1991
Parking and lighting conditions on La Serena Way in front of Rancho Elementary
School
Recommendation:
That the Traffic and Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council
approval of a "No Parking Zone" on the north side of La Serena Way between Via
Halcon and Meadows Parkway.
Background:
The Traffic and Transportation Commission requested that this location be reviewed.
La Serena Way is 76 feet wide with curb and gutter on both sides in front of Rancho
Elementary School narrowing to 32 feet wide west of the school with curb and gutter
on the north side, providing a 16-foot lane in each direction. A 16ofoot lane is not
wide enough for both moving vehicles and parked vehicles. A No Parking zone exists
on the north side of La Serena Way between the Rancho Elementary Driveway and
Meadows Parkway. Street lights exist on the south side of La Serena Way east of
Meadows Parkway. The traffic volume on La Serena Way is approximately 5000
vehicles per day and there have been no reported accidents at this location in the past
three years.
It has been observed that vehicles are parking at the curb on the north side of La
Serena Way between the existing "No Parking" zone and Via Halcon in the narrow 16-
foot lane while delivering and retrieving students and occasionally during night-time
events at the school. This restricts the westbound travel lane causing some westbound
vehicles to cross the centerline stripe.
Discussion:
It is believed that this on-street parking condition is a result of the school parking lot
being full during certain events. These vehicles will, therefore, continue to utilize the
most convenient available parking which is anticipated to be on the south side of La
Serena Way, east of Meadows Parkway in an area where parking is not restricted and
would not interfere with on street traffic. This condition will require the vehicle
occupants to cross La Serena Way on foot at the existing marked school crosswalk at
Meadows Parkway.
The need for street lighting is a concern throughout the City. It would not be an
efficient use of the City's limited budget to address street lighting needs on a case-by-
case basis. It is preferable to pursue street lighting installations through
comprehensive projects. The Engineering Department will pursue these types of
projects when funding becomes available.
AVM]AI~JG ~OOHOS
AMid SMOGV]~
ITEM NO. 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Traffic and Transportation Commission
Engineering Department
June 26, 1991
Resolution No. TC 91-01 A Resolution of the Traffic and
Transportation of the City of Temecula to initiate a coordinated
effort to develop a Transportation Circulation Plan for the
Communities of Temecula-Murrieta Valley.
DISCUSSION:
As the Traffic and Transportation Commission requested the
Engineering Department is preparing the subject resolution
which will be presented to the Traffic and Transportation
Committee for adoption at the 6/26/91 meeting.
1b/Traff%j~1316-19
ITEM NO. 9
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA REPORT
Traffic and Transportation Commission
Engineering Department
June 26, 1991
U.S. Post Office Street Access on Rancho California Road and Margarita Road
Recommendation:
Receive and file staff report.
Background:
This information is presented for discussion at the request of the Traffic Commission.
This project was not presented to the Engineering Department for review and approval
until after construction was in progress. This situation is due to the United States
Postal Service contention that the City of Temecula has no authority to place
conditions of approval on federal projects. Engineering Department staff were,
however, able to negotiate several conditions for curb cuts/street access with the
Postal Service. A letter which details those conditions and a site plan are attached for
your information.
February 11, 1991
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Los Angeles Facilities Ser','ice Office
3000 Ocean Park BIrd., Suite 2001
Santa Monica, CA 90405-3026
Tim D. Setlet
City Engineer
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 3000
Temecula, CA 92390
Attention:
Douglas H. Stewart
Deputy City Engineer
Subject:
Temecula, CA - U.S. Post Office
Contract No. 059986-90-B-0043
CURBCUTS: I~CHO CALIFORNIAROAD
REFERENCE:City of Temecttla Letter dated 12-27-90
Telecon: Larry McClements/Kirk WillJams - 1-25-91
Telecon: John Remington/Kirk Williams - 1-29-91
The following was agreed upon in a telecon between John Remington, USPS
Project Manager, and Kirk Willlame, City of Temecula Transportation Engineer,
January 29, 1991, regarding curbcuts/driveways on Rancho California Road:
Westerly Curbcut (main customer driveway)
1) Right tun in, only.
2) Right turn out, only
3)
USPS will add "RIGHT TURN ONLY" sign and add yellow striping to
central island "projecting" it out and to the right, to
reinforce the right-turn-only signage.
4)
Future median strip and left turn lane, from Rancho California
Road to Margarita, which the City of Temecula plans to install
u r
at some future time, precludes left-turn ingress to e stome s
parking from Rancho California Road.
Easterly Curbcut:
1. This is a full access driveway with all turns permitted, both
ingress and egress.
Tim D. Serlet
City Engineer
February 11, 1991
Page 2
I".IIIU.' ..a¢'.]llii. ('.illil['lsl'lll)il by LI.,~ City oL Temt!cula will include
a median break to permit both left-turn-in and left-turn-out
movements. This includes Postal Service tractor/trailer traffic.
The curbcut on Margarita remains as origtually intended: egress
only/right-turn-only for USPS carrier vehicles (long Life Jeeps).
I believe this to be an accurate accounting of my discussion of the subject
with Mr. Willisms. If you find it to be incorrect or incomplete, or have any
questions regarding the matter, please contact me immediately at
(213) 314-3480.
cc: John Middleton, Senior Project Manager
~/Kirk WillJams, Transportation Engineering,
Pete Rustin, Resident Engineer
John Dunay, Mosakovski-Lindsey Associates
''C
colTE pLA IG :"=~o' "'
'~MeCuLA PosToFEtc~
~')2.2.-1l'7 2-7- 91
~?,,AWsM5 NO. RFC
MOSAKOWSKI & LINI)SEY ASSOCIATES
PLANNINO Ag. CHITI~CtU!~ INTERIORS
200 South Los Robl~t Avenue. Suite 100, Prudent C4 91101
Telqahoue (lit) 792-12.15 Fax IllS) 792-2261
ITEM NO.
10
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA REPORT
Traffic and Transportation Commission
Engineering Department
June 26, 1991
Traffic Investigation/Maintenance Request Activity for April 1991
Recommendation:
Receive and file staff report,
Background:
In response to a request by the Traffic Commission, a list of traffic related
requests/investigations which were processed by the Engineering Department during
the month of April is attached.
rRAFF I C
i NVEES 1 I GA'I' I ON / MA I NrENANCE
REPGF~[
APRIL 199t
F=R[],ZiEC:[ GR FRE[;iUEZS'[ 'TASK & JOB DA'TE
DA'[E ACT I ON
[]DMF'LE I'ED 'TAKEN
CAJ_EE ME:ZDIJSA II',ISI"AI..L 25 )2191/1J)02 03127/91 WE:)RK (]RDER T'O
MF'Fi SIGNS ORANGE CO.
........................................................................................................................................................................... ~5_']']B,I__P..I NG
I"IWD EASEPIEI',!'T' RES [ DEI',] IS
CI:.~L_I._E PIEDLJSA FRE[~!UES]' FI!EI'FCE
H/O LA SEZF:ENA ACR[]SS EASEMEI".IT
..................................... !!:)13J~4.(~ .........................................................
03127/91
INVEST I BAT I ON
W/MWD IN
PROGRESS
FRAZiZHBOW CANYON X-GUI'TER 02191./1002
E!E:!>:!'J:!L=.I=:. ................................... _N_Ej;_E.t~)_~ REPA I R ..................
04101/91 04/0L/91
WORK ORDER
COUNTY
RAIqCHO CALIF. STREE'[ NAME 02191/1002
& VIA LAS SIGN TURNEiD
04101/91 04101/91 FIELD
04/02/91 04102/91
REVIEW COMF'L.
ON SI"[E
COR'FE: ARROYG SIGN IS 02191/1C~02
'v' I: S I A -. C 0 R 1 E i'll E I',1 r
~3 != QI':!.F~E~ ...............................................................................................
04103/91
W(]RK ORDER TO
C(]UNI'Y
{:]I.JIE:T I'tEAD[]W- SF. NAME '~2191/1 )02 0410:3/91
':!!~AJ<!_!.,(!!G_!~, ..........................$_:~GN MTSS.L[:!Q .................................................
WORK ORDER '1"0
COUNTY
RAN[]HIE CAL.. I F.
<;~ TOWNE CNIR
SIGN IN 02191/1002
PIE D I AN
KNOCKED 1)0_~]]'! ...........
04/04/91
04/09/91
SIGN REMOVED
\i' I'.1 E Z ,.' r O W N E
ill,IF:;.: DRVWY
C I T I ZEN 02191 / 1002
F~E[:]LJES"[ED
DATE NO L_EFT
TURN INSrALLED
04/09/91
04109/91
CITIZEN
NOTIFIED
HARGAIRI"I"A RD. 'TRAF:FIC CNTRL "
FRDM DE F'OR'T'OLA PLAN REVIEW
[Q_.~j::~ N "JZ. I..e~_.c:~_c..]_ _R_'p_ ..................................................................
04/11/91
04/11/91
REVIEW CMF'LTD
..]EFFEiRSON AVE. TRAFF'IC CN[RL 04/11/91 04/11/91 REVIEW CMPLTD
................................. F~:.l=~.bL ,F3,~.!EJ! ............................................
PRO.]ECT (JR REOLH'ZST TASK & JOB DATE DATE ACTION
L.!~!.!Z;~f~.!l!0_.~! .........................................................NUMBERRECEIVED COMPLE]ED 'TAKEN
AGEZNA ST REE'[ S"F'RE{E"F L. I GH[
04/11/91 04/11/91 EDISON
NOTIFIED
WABASN-S'TATE 'TRAFFIC SIGNAL_ 04/11/91 04/30/91 CALTRANS
..l~!z!!=!.!~..,..Tl~ .......................~i!_!J!!~2 ....................................................................................................L'!OTI F Z E D
R'AI"I[]H[} CAL, I F .
fi~ COSMIC IAr,~E
C I TY i I'JSURANCE
ACC. CLA i M
04/22/91
04/22/91
C I TY CLERK
ADVISED OF
COND I T IONS_ .....
04/22/91
REVIEW CMF'LTD
WORK ORDER TO
COUNTY
BLJENA SIJERIE & NEED SFOF' 02191/1002 04/24/91
AVEr,~ IDA DEL S I GN
!~E~.!:.'[~!.~i:',~ ............................................................................................................
04/24/91
WORK ORDER
PENDING
CAIfilNO VEI:;ZDE & PAINT' STOF' "2191/1)02 04/24/91 04/24/91 WORK ORDER
PENDING
V ! .e..._F:,!J._E_[;~ 'Jl6'_ .........................!.[~i.~.!~['iP_ ..........................................................
RANCH[] CALIF. ENHANCEE L. AI\JE 02191/1002 04/24/91
& VIA I, AS DROF' BY
~;i. DL..! N.i)~ ............................._~ti[~!Z'.Z!'.~ .........................................
04/24/91
blORF::: ORDER
PENDING
NICOL. AS RD. & AC[]ELEiRATION 02191/1002 04/24/91
L~III',.ICHESI'EF: RD. LANE ON
W I IqCHES IER
INVESTIGATIOI~
IN PROGRESS
I"EMECULA VALLEY PA]ZN'I'ING [IF 02191/1002 04/24/91
bJ.,],GH_~C_H._E.'Z[! ............ D:_EZ.~t CURB ......................................
INVESTIGATION
IN PROGRESS
F'AL[P1A DEL SOL SIGNING &
E!:~.Q.J_~jq]:: ........................ a]l[:{IpIl,,tG F'LN
02191 / 1002 04/24/91
041
04/26/91
REVIEW CMF'LTD
04/24/91
RIVERSIDE CO.
NOTIFIED
I-1AREiAR:[TA RD.& KN[ICKED DOWN 02191/1002 04/26/91
HORAGn RD. SCHOOL WARN I NG
S I GN
04/30/91
WC]RK ORDER
SUBNITTED TO
RIVERSIDE CO.
CORFE ARROYO STREET LIGHT 02191/1002 04/30/91 04/30/91 EDISON
Y! ~i!.~_ ...............................~!j_Fi!~,g_~,. 0,LJ.T_ ............................................... N O T I F I ~D__ ..........
ITEM NO. 11
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA REPORT
Traffic and Transportation Commission
Engineering Department
June 26, 1991
Traffic and Transportation Commission Goals FY 1991-1992
Recommendation:
Receive and file report.
Background:
The following are the Traffic and Transportation Commission goals for FY 1991-1992
as modified by the City Council on May 28, 1991:
1. Participation in the development of the General Plan with emphasis on
evaluation and review of the road network for the City and circulation element
to include neighboring community roadways.
2. The identification and recommendation of programs to promote traffic safety.
3. The identification and recommendation of safety zones such as school bus
loading and unloading areas, bus stops, etc.
4. Formulating recommendations regarding transportation with the City of
Temecula.
5. Participation in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan development as it relates
to bicycle routes/paths and other trails.
6. Review and evaluate public transportation systems and routes.
7. Encourage ride sharing, i.e. Dial-a-Ride, car pools, bussing, etc.
8. Review general circulation elements such as driveways, no parking zones,
traffic signals, properly lighted intersections, striping, signage, street names and
addresses.
APPROVAL~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJEC~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Councilmember J. Sal Mu~oz
May 28, 1991
Proposed Goals of the Traffic and Transportation Commission -
1991-1992
PREPARED B~
City Clerk June S. Greek
RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file report.
BACKGROUND: The Traffic and Transportation Commission wishes to advise
the City Council that the following are the general goals they will be pursuing during
the coming year subject to any modifications the City Council may choose to make.
Participation in the development of the General Plan with emphasis on
evaluation and review of the road network for the City and circulation
element.
The identification and recommendation of programs to promote traffic
safety.
The identification and recommendation of safety zones such as school
bus loading and unloading areas, bus stops, etc.
Formulating recommendations regarding transportation within the City
of Temecula.
Participation in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan development as it
relates to bicycle routes/paths and other trails.
City Council Minutes May 28. 1991
8. Rejection of Vehicle Bids
Councilmember Mu~oz requested that staff research converting one or two City
vehicles to use of clean burning fuel, and by so doing take the lead in improving
air quality.
(:ilV M:|lhl(liq I)ixcut ?~lnhHI 711nil wcHihl I(I~L(IIlICll thIN IIllll|()f.
It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember
Lindemans to reject the bids received resulting from the invitation to bidders of
May 9, 1991 (Bid Number 91-015).
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Mu~oz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
9, ProPosed Goals of the Traffic and Transportation Commission for FY 1991 ~92
Councilmember Mu~oz stated that with respect to goals, the Traffic
Commissioners are interested in development of the circulation element of the
General Plan and would like to add the wording "to include neighboring
community roadways", in Item No. 1.
Mayor Parks stated he is in agreement with the proposed goals but would like
to add the following:
6. Review and evaluate public transportation systems and routes.
7. Encourage ride sharing, i.e. Dial a Ride, car pools, bussing, etc.
Review general circulation elements such as driveways, no parking
zones, traffic signals, properly lighted intersections, striping, signage,
street names and addresses.
4\Minutea%05%28%9'l -7- 06/05/91
City Council Minutes
Mav 28. 1991
It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember
Mu~oz to approve staff recommendation with the addition in goal #1 of the
language, "to include neighboring community roadways" and with the following
additions as goal//6, "Review and evaluate public transportation systems and
routes"; goal//7, "Encourage ride sharing, i.e. Dial A Ride, car pools, bussing,
etc."; goal//8, "Review general circulation elements such as driveways, no
parking zones, traffic signals, properly lighted intersections, striping, signage,
street names and addresses."
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Mu~oz, Parks
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
12. Public Hearing No. 60 - Calle Medusa
Tim Serlet, City Engineer, introduced the staff report.
Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 7:38 PM.
Evonne Taylor, 40811 Calle Medusa, asked that the City install an arterial
access road to correct the problem on Calle Medusa. She stated that painting
yellow lines and other minor improvements will not solve the problem on Calle
Medusa.
Paul Serao, 31675 Leigh Lane, asked that the City not redirect traffic to other
nearby streets which will only create further problems. He asked that the City
re-think rerouting traffic to Walcott Lane, but in favor of completing Butterfield
Stage Road.
Nelson Betawcourt, 40835 Calle Medusa, stated that other surrounding streets
do not have houses facing the road. He asked that the Councilmembers spend
time on Calle Medusa to see the problem first hand.