The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About072491 TTC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULATRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD AT VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AUDITORIUM 29915 Mira Lome Drive July 2u,, 1991 - 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE ROLE CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Johnson, Sander Guerriero, Roberts, PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not listed on the Agenda. a pink 'IRequest 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 Spesk" form must be filed with the Recording Secretary before the Commission gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time timit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Minutes of June 13, 1991 Recommendation: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of June 13, 1991 Minutes of June 26, 1991 Recommendation: :2.1 Approve the Minutes of June 26, 1991. Riverside Transit Authority - Status of Line 23 Presentation by Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) Bikeways That the Traffic and Transportation Commission approve and recommend to the Board of Directors the Initial Bikeway for the City of Temecula. Calle Pifia Colada Recommendation: 5.1 That the Traffic and Transportation deny the request for closure of Calle Pina Colada based on the facts presented in the staff report. Avenida De La Reina Recommendation: 6.1 That the Traffic and Transportation Commission request that the City Council approve a temporary closure of Avenida De La Reina between Calle Aragon and Corte Arroyo Vista for six months during which additional study will be conducted to determine the traffic impacts and suitability to implement a permanent closure. Parking and lighting conditions on La Serena Way in front of Rancho Elementary School. Recommendation: 7.1 That the Traffic and Transportation Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a "No Stopping Zone" on the north side of La Serena Way between Via Halcon and Meadows Parkway. Traffic Engineer~s Report Commission Reports Adjournment Next regular meeting Wednesday, August 28, 1991, 7:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School Auditorium, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. MC:mph TRFC/MISC003B ITEM #1 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION HELD JUNE 13, 1991 A special meeting of the City of Temecula Traffic and Transportation Commission was called to order Thursday, June 13, 1991, 4:00 P.M., at the City of Temecula Engineering Department Conference Room, Second Floor, 43180 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Knox Johnson. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick Also present were Director of Public Works Representative Doug MacPherson, Steve Olier Transit Agency and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler. Tim Serlet, Staff of the Riverside PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. PROPOSED BUS STOPS IN TEMECULA - NEW BUS ROUTE 23 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1,1 Approve the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Route 23 in Temecula and the proposed stop locations as modified by staff and, request that RTA continue working with staff to acquire the necessary permits and install the necessary improvements. DOUG MACPHERSON provided the staff report. STEVE OLIER, RTA representative, gave a brief presentation on the proposed route and services. The Commission reviewed each proposed stop location and made the following recommendations: STOP NO. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Approve staff recommendation Approve staff recommendation TTMIN6/13/91 -1- June 14, 1991 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 13, 1991 STOP NO. (cent.) COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 3&4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 & 18 Recommendation that staff work with RTA on an internal loop stop in the Palm Plaza shopping center, entering at Stop No. 3 and exiting at Stop No. 4. Approve staff recommendation Recommendation that this stop be set aside until improvements to Ynez are completed. Approve staff recommendation Approve staff recommendation Approve staff recommendation Recommendation that staff move the stop inside the mobile home park, near the clubhouse on Rose Lane. Approve staff recommendation Recommendation that this stop be located inside the Towne Center, entering at the first driveway and exiting at the second driveway (near Blockbuster Video). Approve staff recommendation Approve staff recommendation Approve staff recommendation Approve staff recommendation Approve staff's alternative for counter clockwise circulation (Front to 2nd to Mercedes to Main). TTMIN6/13/91 -2- June 14, 1991 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 13. 1991 CHAIPa{AN JOHNSON moved to approve the Proposed Bus Stops for New Line No. 23 by the Riverside Transit Agency as amended, seconded by COMMISSIONER ROBERTS. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO moved to adjourn at 5:20 P.M., seconded by COMMISSIONER ROBERTS. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Traffic and Transportation Commission will be held Wednesday, June 26, 1991, 7:00 P.M., Temecula Unified School District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula. Chairman Knox Johnson Secretary TTMIN6/13/91 -3- June 14, 1991 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TIfFFIG AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION HELD WEDNESDAY# JUNE 26# 1991 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Traffic and Transportation Commission was called to order Wednesday, June 26, 1991, 7:00 P.M., at the Temecula Unified School District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Knox Johnson. Commissioner Ron Roberts led the flag salute. PRESENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Also present were Director of Public Works Tim Serlet, staff representatives Mark Greenwood and Doug MacPherson, Deputy City Engineer Doug Stewart, Director of Parks and Recreation Shawn Nelson, Sergeant Jim Domenoe and Minute Clerk Gail Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT JIMMY SIMS, J.F. Davidson Associates, 3426 Tenth Street, Riverside, provided a brief status report on the preparation of plans for CFD88-12, the Ynez Road Corridor project. The following individuals were present to express their concerns for the traffic conditions on Calle Pina Colada and requested the closure of Calle Pina Colada: LAURA UPTON, 30869 Calle Pina Colada, Temecula. PETER HUHN, 30879 Calle Pina Colada, Temecula. JAMIE CHRISTIAN, 30762 Calle Pina Colada, Temecula. MIKE CHILVER, 41343 Salt River Court, Temecula. FRANK CORREA, 41321 Salt River Court, Temecula. ROGER HART, 41342 Salt River Court, Temecula. SAN CUCKOVICH, 30767 Calle Pina Colada, Temecula. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON advised these individuals that the Commission was recommending the posting of a 30 M.P.H. speed limit for Calle Pina Colada, which will be presented to the City Council in July. LINDA CLOUGHEN, 41304 Bravos Court, Temecula, addressed the Commission with concerns for traffic safety in front of the schools. Ms. Cloughen specifically addressed inadequate drop- off locations for parents taking their children to and picking children up from school. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 26, 1991 DOUG MACPHERSON advised that the school district is currently addressing this issue. He added that he will be trying to set up a meeting with the school district representatives and the residents who are concerned about this issue. COMMISSION BUSINESS MINUTES OF HAY 13, 1991 MEETING 1.1 Approve the minutes of May 13, 1991 as mailed. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS moved to approve the minutes of May 13, 1991 as mailed, seconded by COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Roberts Sander, Johnson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None MINUTES OF HAY 22, 1991 MEETING 2.2 Approve the minutes of May 22, 1991 as mailed. COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO moved to approve the minutes of May 22, 1991 as mailed, seconded by COMMISSIONER GODNICK. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH CALTRAN8 3.1 Receive and file staff report. DOUG STEWART provided the staff report. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON declared a recess at 7:50 P.M. reconvened at 8:00 P.M. The meeting 4. BIKEWAYS 4.1 Presentation by Mr. Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services of the Parks and Recreation Department. SHAWNNELSON requested input and ideas from the Commission on a proposed interim bike route. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 26, 1991 The Commission expressed a concern for the use of Solano Way, in it's present condition, as an interim route. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS indicated that the southern route from Sports Park, down Margarita to De Portola, to Ynez, to Rancho Vista, back to Sports Park, was an excellent route, which he has incorporated in many bike rides and walk-a-thons. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON suggested for a northern route, taking Margarita from La Serena Way and crossing Solano Way and going back up General Kearney and routing through Meadowview. The Commission further recommended using Avenida Barca as the start of the loop off of Margarita through Meadowview. SAL MUNOZ stated that one of the highest density areas in the City was in the area of Solano Way and Margarita, and there is a need for a mechanism to get these individuals from this area to the southern bike path. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS suggested getting an interim asphalt bike path off the roadway on the east side at Rancho California Road and Margarita, to tie the north and south bike routes together. SHAWN NELSON stated that he would be bringing forth these recommendations to the Parks and Recreation Commission and come back to the Traffic Commission with a final interim bike route recommendation for their approval. 5. 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). Recommendation that the Traffic and Transportation 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 TTMIN6/26/91 -3- JULY 1, 1991 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 26, 1991 DOUG MACPHERSON provided the staff report. BECKY FRITSCH, 27527 Swallow Court, Temecula, asked about parking for the pool area. CHAIPa4AN JOHNSON advised Ms. Fritsch to contact the developer and/or the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER GODNICK moved to accept staff's recommendation, seconded by COMMISSIONER ROBERTS. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 6. CITY-WIDE POLICY REGARDIN6 MARKING OF "NO PARKING ZONES". 6.1 Receive and file staff report. DOUG MACPHERSON provided the staff report. COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO stated that he would like to see both signs and painted curbs. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS stated that he felt Front Street and Jefferson would be an area that he felt both the use of signs and painted curbs should be implemeneed. He added that residential areas could probably be painted curbs only. COMMISSIONER SANDER also stated that he felt the use of signs and painted curbs in the commercial district would be best. PARKING AND LIGHTING CONDITIONS ON LA SERENA WAY IN FRONT OF RANCNO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. Recommendation that the Traffic and Transportation 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. The Commission questioned when the widening of La Serena will be completed. TTMIN6/26/91 -4- JULY 1, 1991 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 26, 1991 COMMISSIONER GODNICK stated that the parents have to be able to get their kids to the school and have a safe drop off area. TIM SERLET stated that staff could look into the schedule for the improvements to La Serena Way and talk with the school district about this issue. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS moved to continue this item to the next agenda and requested staff to notify the school district and notify them of the recommendations, seconded by COMMISSIONER GODNICK. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 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-MURRIETA VALLEY. S.1 Recommendation that the Traffic and Transportation Commission adopt Resolution No. TC-91-01 COMMISSIONER SANDER moved to adopt Resolution No. TC-91- 01, seconded by COMMISSIONER GODNICK. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None U.S. POST OFFICE STREET ACCE88 ON RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MARGARITA ROAD. 9.1 Recieve and file staff report. DOUG MACPHERSON provided the staff report. The Commission as a whole felt that the westerly access to Rancho California Road had not been adequately addressed. TTMIN6/26/91 -5- JULY 1, 1991 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 26, 1991 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS moved that staff change the stripping on the most easterly driveway to allow left in/left out access, seconded by COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Godnick, Guerriero, Roberts, Sander, Johnson NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 10. TRAFFIC INVESTIGATION/MAINTENANCE REQUEST ACTIVITY FOR APRIL 1991. 10.1 Receive and file staff report. 11. PROPOSED GOALS OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1991-1992. 11.1 Receive and file staff report. TRAFFIC ENGINEER'8 REPORT TIM SERLET advised the Commission of the following:\ * Traffic signal at Motorcar Parkway is being constructed by ACS and should be operational approximately mid October. The reimbursement agreement is being filed between the Margarita Village Group and the City for the improvements to Rancho California Road. In the process of re-writing the agreement between the Tower Plaza and the Towne Center, for the traffic signal on Ynez. COMMISSION REPORTS COMMISSIONER GUERRIERO asked about the status of the traffic study on Rancho Vista and Avenida De La Reina. DOUG MACPHERSON advised that this item would be before the Commission in July with a recommendation for temporary closure. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS requested notification of the next AD161 meeting. TTMIN6/26/91 -6- JULY 1, 1991 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 26, 1991 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS gave a report on the pre-construction safety meeting for the overcrossings at Rancho California Road and 1-15. COMMISSIONER SANDER stated that there was an inauguration of Route 23 and representatives of RTA requested to attend the next Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting to get some feedback from the Commission and the public. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS requested that staff do a study of Rancho California Road westbound traffic. TIM SERLET advised that staff is doing a study currently. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS requested that staff continue to check with the League of California Cities for a Traffic and Transportation Commission seminar. CRAIRMAN JOHNSON requested a monthly list of reported traffic accidents within the City. He also requested a listing of citations issued for moving violations. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER ROBERTS moved to adjourn at 9:50 P.M. The next regular meeting of the Traffic and Transportation Commission will be held Wednesday, July 24, 1991, 7:00 P.M. Temecula Unified School Distri9t., 31.350 Rancho vista Road, Temecula. Chairman Knox Johnson Secretary TTMIN6/26/91 -7- JULY 1, 1991 ITEM ~3 ITEM CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: SHAWN D. NELSON DATE: JULY 24, 1991 SUBJECT.' INITIAL BIKE WAY RECOMMENDATION: That the Traffic and Transportation Commission: Approve and recommend to the Board of Directors the Initial Bike Way for the City of Temecula. FISCAL IMPACT.- Costs to develop an initial bike way is estimated at $30,000.00. It is recommended that $15,000.00 be paid by the TCSD, and $15,000.00 be paid by Public Works. DISCUSSION: Enclosed is the staff report submitted to the Parks and Recreation Commission on July 8, 1991, with the comments from the Traffic and Transportation Commission. If approved, staff will bring this item to the Board of Directors in August for final approval. TEMECUIA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA REPORT TO: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION FROM.' SHAWN D. NELSON DATE: JULY 8,1991 SUBJEC~ INITIAL CITY-WIDE BIKE ROUTE RECOMMENDATION: That the Parks and Recreation Commission: Approve an initial city-wide bike route for the City of Temecula. FISCAL IMPACT: Estimated cost for the bike route project is $30,000.00. It is recommended that this project be funded equally by the City's Public Works Department and the TCSD. The TCSD's share of the project's cost would be $15,000.00. DISCUSSION.' The TCSD will be pursing the development of a twenty (20) year Parks and Recreation Master Plan that should be completed within the next six (6) months. This master plan will consider required parks and recreation facilities to address future needs. This planning document will also develop a city-wide trails system including bike paths, jogging trails, and equestrian trails. At the request of members of the Board of Directors, staff has been directed to develop an interim bike route until a city-wide bike path is finalized. Due to the condition and width of some of the roads on the proposed bike route, it is not feasible to paint bike path lines throughout the entire route. Hence, staff is recommended that signs be posted depicting the bike route in roads not wide enough for painted path lines, and paint bike lanes on roads with sufficient width. Staff is also recommending that the TCSD apply for SB 821 funds to assist in developing the bike route. It is estimated that $496,000.00 will be available for Riverside County for FY 1991-92. Application deadline is July 30, 1991. A higher priority will be given to projects that receive matching funds. The total estimated costs for the bike route which includes painting of bike lanes on specific roads; installing approximately 30 signs along the bike route; and road improvements to Margarita Road is $30,000.00. It is recommended that the bike route improvement costs be split equally between the City's Public Works Department and the TCSD. The proposed bike route has been reviewed by the Traffic Commission and their comments have been incorporated into the proposed bike route. Enclosed are copies of the proposed bike route, the SB 821 Grant Application for FY 1991-92, and the Public Highways Code concerning bike paths and routes. WAY rv~O~JUr~ENT ~--~A.k, TIAqO RD. Vi s SPORTS PAILK I.h~HW'AY "]0I 15 June20,1991 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: ELIGIBLE AGENCIES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY ! Jack Reagan, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 1991-92 SB 821 Program - Bicycle and PedeStrian Facilities Section 99233.3 of the State Public Utilities Code (SB 821 ) sets aside 2 of the Local Transportation Fund in each County to fund facilities for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicyclists. Eligible expenditures are limited to preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, construction and reconstruction. Proposals for SB 821 funds may be filed by cities and the County of Riverside. For FY 1991-92, beginning July 1, 1991, it is estimated that $496,000 will be available. The Commission has adopted evaluation criteria with which to rate project proposals and establish a priority list for the purpose of allocating available funds. The adopted evaluation criteria is attached. An ed hoc committee consisting of three members of both the Commission's Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees will be responsible for evaluating the project proposals in accordance with the adopted criteria (attached). Local agencies wishing to apply for SB 821 funds must submit their application(s) to the Commission no later than July 30, 199'1. 'The following items must be submitted with the application(s): o A project description indicating the nature and type of project proposed, design considerations, transportation purposes to be served, and pertinent information indicating the extent of use by pedestrians and bicycles. o A project information form (attached). o An 8 1/2" x 11" map Showing the project location and limits. If your agency submits a project proposal for funding, you will be notffied of the time and place the project will be reviewed by the SB 821 Committee. You will be required to provide a brief presentation of the proposed project to the committee and respond to any questions they may have. If you have any questions concerning this matter please call Hideo Sugita, of Commission staff at (714) 787-7141. JR:HS Attachments 356U L'rliversl~v Avenue Suite IU(t o RJverside. California ~2501 SB 821 EVALUATION CRITERIA MAXIMUM POINTS; FACTOR USE The extent of potential use of a bicycle of pedestrian facility is the most important factor, Emphasis of this factor helps ensure the greatest benefits will be derived from the expenditure of SB 821 funds. Relative usage is to be derived from analysis of trip generators and attractors adjacent to the project. SAFETY Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to correct current safety problems. IMPORTANCE AS A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE Points are awarded on the basis of a projecrs potential to attract users who would otherwise use an automobile MISSING LINK OR EXTENSION Points are awarded to projects that link existing facilities or are extensions Of existing facilities. MATCHING FUNDS This factor is used to help ensure that there is local funding partjdpation in the project - not just a application for '~ree" money. One point would be awarded for each 5% of total project cost that is financed by the local agency. (Maximum points is 1 O) POPULATION EQUITY The purpose Qf this factor is to help ensure that one agency does not receive all the funds. The applicant receives the maximum 10 points if the amount of funds requested does not exceed what the applicant would receive ff the funds were altocated by population. Year to year totals are recorded so that an applicant could build up a "credit", 15 10 10 10 FY 1991-92 PROJECT INFORMATION (SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Only) 1. PROJECT NAME: PROJECT BUDGET: REVENUE: TDA ARTICLE 3 (SB 821) $ TDA ARTICLE 8 $ OTHER $ ESTIMATED STARTING DATE (MONTH/YEAR): ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE (MONTH/YEAR): Distribution: Mayors, City Managers, Public Works Director Chairman. Riverside County Board of Supen~isors Director, Riverside County Transportation Department Lake Elsinore Recreation & Park District Coachella Valley Association of Governments Western Riverside Council of Governments I~GHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-1 July 1, 1990 CHAPTER 1000 BIKEWAY PLANNING AND DESIGN (d) 21210--Bicycle parking. (e) 21960--Use of freeway shoulders by blcy- cllsts. Topic 1001 - General Information Index 1001.1 o Definitions "Bikeway" means 811 facfiitles that provide primarily for bicycle travel. (1) Class I Bikeway (Bike Path). Provides a completely separated right of way for the exclu- sive use of bicycles and pedestrians v~th cross- flow minimized. (2) Class lI Bikeway {Bike Lane). Provides a striped lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway. (3) Class 111 Bikeway {Bike Route). Provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic. More detafied definitions are contained In Section 2373 of the Streets and Highways Code. 1001.2 Streets and Highways Code References (a) Section 157--Severance of a major bicycle route by freeway construction. {hi Section 157.2--Incorporation of bicycle fa- cilities in the design of freeways. (c) Chapter 8--Califorrda 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. (f) Section 2381--Use of abandoned right of way as a bicycle facility. 100 1.3 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) 2 1208--Mandatory use of bike lanes by bl- 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 bicycILsts are expected to ride. On new construction. and major reconstruction projects. adequate width should be provided to permit shared use by motorists and bicycllsts. On resttrfacing pro- Jects, the entire paved shoulder and traveled way shall be resurfaced. When adding lanes Or turn pockets, a minimum 4-foot shoulder shall be provided (see Table 302.1). When placIng a roadway edge stripe, sufficient room outside the stripe should be provided for bicy- Cllsts. When considering the restrlping 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 bicycltng 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 ~xclusive corridors can be effective In providing new recreational opporturdties, or In some instances, desirable commuter routes. They can also be used to close gaps where barriers exlst to bicycle travel (e.g., river crossing). On-street bikeways can serve to enhance safety and converdence, espe- cially ff other cornmltrnents are made in con- Junction wlth establishment of bikeways. such as: elimination of parking or increasing road- way wldth, elimination of surface irregularities and roadway obstacles. frequent street sweep- HIGI. fwAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-3 July 1, 1990 (4} Clclss HI Bikeway {Bike Route). Bike routes are shared facfilties which serve either to: (a) Provide continuity to other bicycle facilities {usually Class II bikeways); or {b) Designate preferred routes through high demand coredors. As with bike lanes, designation of bike routes should Indicate to bicyclists that there are particular advantages to using these routes as compared with alternative routes. This means that responsible agencies have taken actions to assure that these routes are suitable as shared routes and will be maintained In a manner consistent with the needs of bicyclists. Normally, bike routes 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, II and III 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 facfiity, an overriding concern is to assure that the proposed facility will not encourage or require blcycllsts or mo- torists to operate in a manner that is inconsis- tent with the rules of the road. An irnpor~ant consideration in selecting the type of facility is continuity. Alternating seg- ments of Class I and Class H (or Class III) 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 will 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 SWeets and Highways Code describes Class I bikeways as serving "the exclusive use of bi- cycles and pedestrians". However, experience has shown that ff significant pedestrian use is anticipated, separate facfilties for pedestrian_ are necessary to minimize conflicts. 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 Inde.~c 1003.3 for discussion relative to sidewalk bike- ways. By State law, motorized bicycles ('toopeals"} 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) Wfdths. The minimum paved width for a two-way bike path shah be 8 feet, The mlnlfn-m paved width for a one-way bike path ahmll be 5 feet. A mlrllrnlsrn 2-fOOt wide graded area shall be provided adjacent to the pavement (see Figure 1003,1A), A 3-foot graded ar~a is recommended. Where the paved width is wider than the minimum requl~ed. the graded area may be reduced accordingly; how ever, the graded area is a desirable feature r~ gardless of the paved width. Development of a one-way bike path should be undertaken only after cardul consideration due to the problems of enforcing one-way operation and the difficul- ties in m=tntaining a path of restricted width. Where heavy bicycle volumes are antici- pated and/or significant pedestrian traffic Is expected, the paved width of 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 facility should be provided. HIGhwAY DF_~IGN MANUAL 1000-5 July 1, i990 (2) Clearance to Obstructions. A minimum 2-foot horizontal clearance to obstructions shall be provided adjacent to the pavement (see Figure 1003, I.A). A 3-foot clearance is recommended. Where the paved width is wider than the minimum 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 bicyclist hitting it. The clear width on structures between r~lllngS 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) SOtping and Sign/r~. A yellow centerline stripe may 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 distance; and, (c) Where the path is twltghted and nighttime riding is expected. (Refer to Topic 1004 for signing and striping details.) (4) Intersect~as with Highways. Intersec- tions are a prime consideration in bike path de- sign. If alternate 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 eLtmlrmte 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 bicycllsts may suffice. When crossing an arterial street, the cross- ing should either occur at the pedesu'lan crossing. where motorists can be expected to stop, or at a location completely out of the in- fluence of any intersection to permit adequate opportumt~ for blcyclists to see turning vehi- cles. When crossing at midblock locations. right of way should be assigned by devices such as yield signs. stop signs. or traffic 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- flict resulting from turning autos. Where bike path signs are visible to approaching auto traf- tic, 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) Selx~ation Between Bike Paths and Highways. A wide separation is recommended between bike paths and adjacent highways (see Figure 1003.1B). Bike paths closer than 5 feet from the edge of the traveled way shall include a physical barrier to prevent bicy- clists from encroaching onto the highway. Suitable bamers could include chain link fences or dense shrubs. Low barriers (e.g., dikes, raised traffic bars) next to a highway are not recommended because bicyclists could fail over them and into oncomix~ automobfie tralltc. In instances where there is danger of motorists encroaching into the bike path, a positive bar- rier (e.g., concrete barrier, steel guardrailing) 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 many bicyclists will find it less convenient to ride on these types of facfiities as compared with the streets, particularly for util- ity trips. (6) Bike Paths in the Median of Highways. As a general rule, bike paths in the median of highways are not recommended because they require movements contrary 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 bicycllst movements through inter- sections with signals are unclear. (c) Left-tung motorists must cross one di- rection of motor vehicle traffic and two di- HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1003.1C Curve Radii & Superelevations 1000-7 January. 1987 130 // ,f [ I~O ' · . IlO 100 ~~ ~ 80 ~ n.- 60 --:~ V:2Omah' I L 50 40- 20 tO V :15 m.l).h' V: IOm.p.h. I Superele'~fion Rate - Ft./Ft. V~ t~ne+ f plot of:g-F{: ~ where: V: velocity, ft./sac. g: acceleration due to gravity, ft./sac.z R --- radius of curvoture,ft f = coefficient of friction ~n dry pavement = 0.4 ~ (b6sed on maximum 20°lean) tan e = superelevelion rote, ft./ft. HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1003.1F Lateral Clearances on Horizontal Curves 1000-9 Janua~,198T Sight distance (S) measured along this Iine7 Line of sight is 2.0 above ~, inside lane at point of obstruction. S: Sight distance in feet. R: Radius oft inside lane in feet. M: Distance from (. inside lane in feet. V: Design speed for S in M PH Angle is expressed in degrees Formula applies only when S is equal to or less than length of curve. ~ 20 _~ ~ I0 0 , I00 20O Sight Distance-Feef 3O0 HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-11 Figure 1003.2A Typical Bike Lane Cross Sections (On 2-1 ne or a Multilane Highways) P~'king Parking Stalls or Optional 4" Solid Strip~ y 6" Solid White Stripe -----,,,,%"~ Lone The optional sohd ~,hde sfn~e mo!e be odwsohle where stalls o~e unnecessary (becc~use porkan<J ~s light ) hul there ~s concern that motorists may mssconlrue the bl~e lone to ~ o traffic lane 5' Mini, Bike Lane (1) STRIPED PARKING Parking Vertical Curb /6" Solid While Stripe - ~,~ *12' Min, Motor Vehicle Lanes 13'is recommended where there is suDstantiol parking or turnover of parked cars is high {e.g commercial areas). (2) PARKING PERMITrED WITHOUT PARKING STRIPE OR STALL Rolled Curb--.~,~ *11' Min. ~,r ' 4, Min L Bike Lane Solid White Motor Vehicle Lanes Bike Lone (3) PARKING PROHIBITED f6" Solid While Stripe---,,.~. Lone Lone (4) TYPICAL ROADWAY IN OUTLYING AREAS PARKING RESTRICTED HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-13 July 1. 1990 Bike lane stripes should be placed a con- stat distance from the outside motor vehicle lane. Bike lanes with parking permitted (11 ft to 13 ft between the bfie lane line and the curb) should not be acted toward the curb at inter- sections or localized areas where parking is prohibited. Such a practice prevents bicyclists from following a straight course. Where transi- Lions from one type of bike lane to another are necessary, smooth tapers should be provided. (3) Intersection Design. Most auto/bicycle accidents occur at intersections. For this rea- son, bikeway design at intersections should be accomplished in a manner that will rnmimtze confusion by motorists and bicyclists, and will permit both to operate in accordance with the normal rules of the road. Flgur~ 1003.2B ~ustrates 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-turning mo- torists. Left-turning bicyclists also have prob- lprnS, as the bike lane is on the right side of the street, and bicyclists have to cross the path of cars traveling in both directions. Some bicy- clists 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 many who do not feel comfort- able rn~king this maneuver. They have the op- tion of making a two-legged left turn by riding along a course ,,trnllar to that followed by pedestrians, as shown in the diagram. Young children will oftentimes prefer to dismount and change directions by wnlldng their bike in the crossw~lk At intersections where there is a bike lane and traffic-actuated signal. lnst~l!ation 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 signal. it is desirable to install detectors that are sensitive enough to detect bicycles. Figure 1003.2C ~ustrates recommended striping patterns for bike lanes crossing a mo- torist right-turn-only lane. When confronted with such intersections, bicyclists will have to merge with right-turning motorists. Since cyclists are typically traveling at speeds less than motorists, they should signal and merge where there is sufficient gap in rtght-turmnf{ traffic, rather than at any predetermined cation. For this reason, it is recommended that either all delineation be dropped at the ap- proach of the right-turn lane (or off-rap). or that a single, dashed bike-lane Rne 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-turning traffic. Also, some bicycllsts are apt to assume they have the right of way, and may not check for right-tag motor vehicle traffic. A dashed line across the right-turn-or~y 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 bicycltsts to prevail. A Bike Xlng sign may be used to warn motorists of the potential for bicyclists crossing their path. IOO~.S Class HI Bikeways Class III bikeways (bike routes} are intended to provide continuity to the bikeway system. Bike routes are established along through routes not served by Class I or H bikeways, or to connect discontinuous segments of bLkeway (normally bike lanes}. Class III facilities are shared facilities, either with motor vehicles on the street, or with pedestrians on sidewalks, and in either case bicycle usage is secondary. Class KI facilities am established by placing Bike Route signs along roadways. MWtmum widths for Class Ill 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+ HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-15 January, 1987 Figure 1003.2C Bike Lanes Approaching Motorist Right-turn-only lanes //-Optional Dashed Stripe. ~~ ~, L Not recommendedht doubte turn lanes """"'-Typical path exist. of through bicyciist. If space is available. r Ile~eKE~!therWiSe OIl deline~tim I ? should be dropped at LANE RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE PARKING AREA BECOMES RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE Ped, Crossincl f Typical path of \~ through bicyclist. I I , Pad. Crossing t(' LANE BIKe Typical path of through bicyclist. * If space is uvoilabie. Drop bike lane stripe where right turn only designated. OPTIONAL DOUBLE RIGHT LANE BECOMES ,",,*"t,*','_',',,r**,,,_~,,, v , z~Hr RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE H~G~WAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-17 July l. 1990 1003.4 Bicycles on Freeways In some instances. blcyclists are permitted on freeways. Seldom would a freeway be signed or striped as a bikeway. but it can be opened for use if it meets certain criteria. Essentially, the criteria involve assessing the safety and conve- mence of the freeway as compared with avail- able alternate routes. if a reasonable alternate route exists. it would normally be unnecessary to open the freeway. However. if the alternate route is inconvenient (e.g., it involves substan- tial out of direct. ion ~ravel) and/or is considered unsuitable for bicycle travel (e.g., high-speed traffic, no paved shoulders. poor sight distance. etc.), the freeway may be a better alternative for bicycllsts. However, a freeway should not be opened to bicycle use ff it is determined to be incompatible (e.g., nsrrow lanes, no shouldes, freeway-to-freeway interchanges, etc.). Nor- malRy, 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 blcycllsts are permitted on segments of freeway, it wfil be necessary to modify and supplement freeway regulatory signs, particu- larly those at freeway ramp entrances {see Chapter 4 of the Traffic Manual). 1003.5 Multipurpose RecreatiOnal Trails In some instances, it may be appropriate for recreational agencies to develop multipurpose recreational tr~],~ - 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 facilities 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 Miscellaneous Bikeway Criteria The following are mL*-ceHaneous bikeway criteria which should be followed to the extent pertinent to Class I, II and IIl bikeways. Some, by their ver~ nature. w~l 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 estabIished. (1) Br/dges. Bikeways on highway bridges must be carefully coord/nated with approach bikeways to make sure that all elements are compatible. For ample. bicycle traSic bound in opposite dJrections 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 appropriate. 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 blcycllsts will be encouraged to ride on the wrong side of the highway beyond the bridge terrnini. 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 5vo-way fac~ty for the reason explained above. (b) A physical separation, such as a chain link fence or railing. shall 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 minimize fixed end hazards to motor vehicles and ff the bridge is an in- terchange structure, to me sight dis- tance restrictions at ramp intersections. It is recommended that bikeway bridge r~tl{ngs or fences placed between traffic lanes and bikeways be at least 4.5 feet high to min- imize the likelihood of blcycllsts f~lltr~ over the railings. Standard bridge r~i'ngs which are lower than 4.5 feet can be retrofitted with Lightweight upper r~,~ngs or chain link fence suitable to restrain bicy~'lt~ts. ~eparate 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 shall 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 ofpotholes. HI~uwAY DESIGN MANUAL 1000-19 July 1. 1990 in Figure 1003.6B. Signs, reflectors, diagonal black and yellow makings, or other treatments will be appropriate in other instances to alert bicyclists to potential hazards. (6) Lighting. Bileway lighting should be considered along routes where nighttime riding is expected. This is particularly important for bike paths serving as commuter routes, such as paths leading to colleges. Adequate lighting is also important at bile path crossings of streets and for underpasses. Normal]y, on-street bike- ways will be adequately lighted ff street lights exist. Top. ic 1004 - Uniform Signs, Markings and Traffic Control Devices 1004.1 Introduction Per Section 2376 of the Streets and High- ways Code, ..-"ronn signs, markings, and tre61c control devices shall be used, As such this section is mandatory, except where per- missive language is used. See the Traffic Man- ual for detailed specifications. 1004.2 Bike Path (Class I) An optional 4-inch yellow stripe my 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 r~lsed, depending on the situation. Standard regulatory, warning, and guide signs used on highways may be used on bike paths. as appropriate (and may be sealed down in size). Special regulatory, warning, and guide signs may also be used to meet specific needs. White painted word (or symbol) warnrag 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 Bike lanes require standard signing and pavement markings as shown on Figure 1004.3. The R81 bike lane sign shall be placed at the beginning of all hike lanes, on the far side of every arterial street intersection, at all major changes in direction, and at maxi- m-m half-mile intervals. Bike lane pavement markings shall be placed on the far side of each intersection, and my be placed at other locations as de- sired. Raised pavement markers or other raised ban'iers shall not be used to delineate bike lanes. Also, thermopLastic paint shall not be used for pavement marking, as the paint sur- face is extremely slippery when wet. The G93 Bile l~ute sign may also be used along bike lanes. but its primary purpose should be to provide dlrectional signing and destination signing where necessary. A proLtf- elation of Bile Route signs along signed and striped bike lanes serves no useful purpose. Many signs on the roadway also will apply to bicycllsts in bile lanes. Standard regulatory, warning, and guide signs used specifically in conjunction with bile lanes are shown in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Manual. 1004.4 Bike Routes (Class 1~) Bile routes are shared routes and do not ~equlre pavement markings. In some instances. a 4-inch white edge stripe separating the traffic lanes from the shoulder can be helpful in pro- vidlng for safer shared use. This practice is particularly applicable on rural highways, and on major arter~=l,, in urban ar~as where there is no vehicle parking. Bile routes are established through place- sent of the G93 Bile Route sign. Bike route signs are to be placed periodically along the route. At changes in direction, the bile route signs art supplemented by G33 direcUonal ar- rows. Typical bile route signing is shown on Figure 1004.4. The figure shows how des- tination signing, through application of a spe- cial plate, can make the Bile Route sign more functional for the bicycllst. This type of signing is recommended when a bile route leads to a high demand destination {e.g, downtown, col- lege, etc.). Many signs on the roadway also w~l apply to blcyclists. Standard warning and guide sign,, used specffically in conjunction with bike routes are shown in Chapter 4 of the Traffic Manual. HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL Figure 1003.6B Hazard Markings 1000-21 ,,,,,/ Hozordous pier, obutment, etc. I--W-...I · 4'L6" Solid--.-/ White Stripe Diretitan of Bike Travel L LEGEND L: VW where: L = Length of eplXOQCh marking (Ft.) V = Average speed of bicyclists (MPH) W = Width of obstruction (Ft.) f LANE BIKE m*G~wAY DESIGN MA1N'UAL Figure 1004.4 Bike Route Signing 1000-23 ,,/ ',,_ G93 Special Optional Oestinotion Signing 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 #5 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Traffic Commission Department of Public Works July 2u,, 1991 Calle Pi~a Colada RECOMMENDATION It is the recommended that the Traffic and Transportation Commission deny the request for closure of Calle Pina Colada based on the facts presented in this staff report and summarized in the Conclusion. BACKGROUND: As the Commission will recall, traffic conditions on Calle Pifia Colada were discussed initially at the February 27, 1991 meeting in response to requests from the neighborhood to close Calle Pii~a Colada west of Salt River Court and to concerns regarding "speeders" on this street. (See February 27, 1991 Staff Report - Attachments) Some members of the neighborhood wished to close Calle Pifia Colada to prevent an infiltration of traffic which was allegedly short-cutting through Calle Pifia Colada (Between La Serena and Del Rey) while traveling between the Ynez-Solana area to areas east of Calle PiCa Colada near La Serena Way (Calle Medusa area and others). With regard to the speeding issue on Calle Piffia Colada, an Engineering and Traffic Survey was prepared in accordance with California Vehicle Code Sections 22357, 22358, and 615 to determine the appropriate speed limit which can be enforceable with radar. An urgency ordinance amendment to institute a 30-mph speed limit will be introduced before the City Council on July 23rd. The ordinance could become effective on July 26th. Speed limit signs can be placed on Calle Piffia Colada at that time. Since the March meetin9 was the Calle Medusa Public Hearin9, staff brought to the Commission on April 2~,th a recommendation that the Commission request the City Council direct staff to conduct a complete traffic study relative to closing Calle PiCa Colada. This recommendation was denied by the Commission believing the $8,500 study cost was not justifiable. At the June 1991 meeting, the Commission referred this matter back to staff for further study in response to the continuing additional request from residents of Calle Pifia Colada at the June meeting to provide relief from the alleged infiltration of through traffic. DISCUSSION: Following the June meeting staff initiated an investigation to determine the following: 1) 2) s) Is there a discernable level of through traffic on Calle PiCa Colada? What are the magnitudes of daily and peak hour volumes? Are the traffic volumes creating significant interferences with the ability of residents to maneuver to/from driveways and adjacent streets? Traffic Volumes: The investigation included the conduct of 2q-hour traffic counts on Calle Pifia Colada at locations near Del Rey Road and La Serena Way. As Figure 1 shows, the 2Lhhour traffic (both directions) near Del Rey Road was 931 vehicles, while near La Serena the 2~,-hour total volume was 1, 1~,7 vehicles. Table 1 shows the directional traffic volumes throughout a typical 2~,-hour period on a week day at the two locations on Calle PiCa Colada. As the Exhibit shows, volumes are very light before 7:00 a.m. and begin to decline sharply after 8:00-9:00 p.m. In general, volumes at most are slightly more than one vehicle/minute during the heaviest daytime hours. Figures 2 and 3 show the peak half-hour traffic volumes for the morning and evening, respectively. To put these in perspective, the morning volumes represent an average of one vehicle every 39 seconds, while the evening volumes represent an average of one vehicle every 33 seconds. Throuqh Traffic: The level of through traffic along Calle Pii~a Colada {i.e. between Del Rey Road and La Serena Way non-stop, or reverse) was recorded by a staff observer during the typical peak hours of 7:00-9:00 a.m. and LI:00-6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 9, 1991. Figures ~, and 5 show the total traffic volumes and through traffic volumes only during the 7:00-9:00 a.m. and LI:00-6:00 p.m. periods, respectively. Figure 6 shows the percentages that through traffic represents of the total traffic recorded during those times. As indicated in Table 6, through traffic accounts for between 55-90 percent of total traffic on Calle PiCa Colada during the peak hours. Based on the expected daily trip 9erieration for the 55 homes on or adjacent to Calle PiCa Colada, it is estimated that 70-75 percent of the daily traffic on Calle PiCa Colada on a typical day is through traffic. Analysis: The basic desire of residents along and adjacent to Calle PiCa Colada is to close the street to remove through traffic. The issue of when and under what conditions streets should be closed is an issue the City needs to consider carefully on a case-by-case basis. Significant numbers of street closures could result in a fragmented street system which loses its capability to transport the community from point to point without unnecessary delay and increased circuitry, and associated increases in noise and air pollution. Fragmentation of the street system can also create significant increases in emergency vehicle response times, confusion to necessary delivery and construction travel in the City, and to other visitors and business activity necessary for economic vitality. Many issues need to be satisfactorily addressed before a street closure should be seriously considered including the following: Is the environmental capacity of the roadway exceeded? Are driveway and pedestrian movements extremely constrained? Are safe gaps available at intersections for vehicles to enter the roadway? Do the substantial majority (2/3 to 3/u,) of residents concur with possible street closure? Are there viable alternatives for both residents and diverted traffic? Will diversion cause the problem to be shifted to another adjacent/nearby street? Will emergency access have acceptable alternatives (no major response time increases)? Consideration of Calle PiCa Colada: Typically the environmental capacity of a 2-lane roadway in a residential atmosphere is in the 3,000-3,500 vehicles per day range. At this level, when peak hour volumes have a typical relationship to daily traffic (8-12%) experience has shown that the spacing of vehicles becomes such as to preclude driveway and pedestrian movements and residents become generally concerned that their peaceful environment is becomin9 threatened. This range corresponds to an average vehicle spacing of 5 vehicles/minute. Volumes on Calle PiCa Colada are significantly below these levels (daily volume 1,150; peak half-hour volumes about 2 vehicles/minute). During the peak half hour the spacing of vehicles on Calle PiCa Colada is about 33 seconds. Since a typical driveway maneuver (worst case backing out) should require 10-15 seconds at most, no significant interference has been identified by the analysis. Similarly, a 30-second gap in volume on Calle PiCa Colada should be more than adequate for traffic on Salt River Court, Yorba Court and Bravo Court to enter the traffic stream at stop controlled "T" intersections. Based on the interest shown by the Calle PiCa Colada residents, it appears a substantial majority would favor street closure. However, as will be shown, significant diversion could occur to Avenida Barca to the west. Those residents, when properly informed, would likely oppose any closure of Calle PiCa Colada. Figures 7-10 show the anticipated patterns of diversion of through traffic which is likely to occur with any closure of Calle Pina Colada. As these figures indicate, of the four possible movements along Calle Pina Colada that would be diverted with a closure, three are anticipated to shift traffic (mostly current through traffic on Calle Pina Colada) to the west to Avenida Barca, a roadway through a residential area like Calle Pina Colada. It is estimated that 700-900 vehicles daily would need to re-distribute with a closure. It is further estimated 500-700 vehicles could redistribute to the adjacent street, Avenida Barca. CONCLUSION: It is the opinion of the Department of Public Works that a closure of Calle Pina Colada is not justified based upon the facts that ( 1 ) the level of peak 1/2 hour traffic volumes is not significantly interfering with driveway or pedestrian movements on the street, (2) the closure would create a significant diversion of traffic to another residential type roadway ( Avenida Barca ) therefore there is not an appropriate alternative for diverted traffic, and (3) sufficient gaps are available in Calle Pina Colada traffic during the peak periods to allow side street traffic to access Calle Pina Colada safely. TABLE 1 Calle Pifia Colada Hourly Traffic Volumes ( Both Directions) W/O La Serena A.M. P.M. 12:00 6 71 1:00 4 74 2:00 1 69 3:00 3 72 4:00 10 86 5:00 14 97 6:00 20 84 7:00 70 65 8:00 63 67 9:00 75 ,,. 10:00 59 ~1 11:00 76 3 Daily Totals E/O Del Rey Road A.M. P.M, 1,147 6 60 1 63 1 59 1 57 8 68 13 82 10 63 52 61 48 47 64 27 52 16 59 13 931 02192/1002/043 TRFC/MISC004 DEL RET ROAD t~ ,SALT RIVER COURT COURT BRAVO5 C.OURT 24-NOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME CALLE PINA C. OLADA CITT OF TEMECULA FIGURE IDEL RET ROAD &ALT RIVER COURT 'cUBA COURT COURT. LA $ERENA LUAY PEAK NALF FIR. TRAFFIC vOLUME8 ¢3 AM. TO c3:~ AM. CALLE PIN~. COLADd CITY OF TEMECULA FIGURE ~ DEL RE.T ROAD SALT RIVER BRAVO& COURT LA 8ERENA LUAY PEAK NALF 1.4R, TRAFFIC VOLUME8 ,5:15 PM. TO ,5:4,5 P.M, CALLE PINA COLADA CIT.T OF TEMECULA FIGURE DEL RET RO,AD RIVER COURT COURT BR,AVOS COURT L,A 8EP-,EN,A LUAY LEGEND "f-~ ,AM. (4-e, PM.) TOT,a,L TRAFFIC vOLUME JULY c3, lcac31 (TUESD,AY) C,ALLE PIN,A COL,AD,A I CITY OF TEMECULA FIGURE 4 DEL RET ROAD 8ALT RIVER COURT TUBA COURT BRAVOS COURT LA ,SERENA LUA"F LEGEND 1-':5 AM. (4-,e, P.M.) THRU TRAFFIC VOLUME JULT '~, l~'=Jl (TUEBDAT) CALLE PINA COLADA CITT OF TEMECULA FIGURE DEL REY ROAD SALT RIVER COURT COURT COLJRT LA e, ERENA LIJAY LEGEND 'I-c3 A.M. (4-e P.M.) TNE::%I TRAFFIC PERC, ENTAGE5 JULY ':3, lc3c31 (TLJESDAY) CALLE PINA COLADA CITY OF TEMECLILA FIGURE _ ~APoN~I~W ~{~ADoWvI~W --- cu/e',~'~rr TZ~V~' AvF~/p,~ ~ t ~{FAPoW~l~W ATTACHMENTS CITY OF TEMECULA ACENDA REPORT TO: FROM: IDATE: SUBJECT: Traffic Commission Engineering Staff April 2L~, 1991 ~ Calle Pina Colada C RECOMMENDATION: Request the City Council to {a) direct staff to prepare a traffic engineering study addressing traffic conditions on Calle Pina Colada between Del Rey Road and La Serena Way and Ib) authorize the funds to conduct the study. BACKGROUND: Prior to the Commission's February 27, 1991 meeting, the Engineering Department had received several requests regarding traffic conditions on Calle Pina Colada between Del Rey Road and La Serena Way. At the February 27,1991 meeting, the Commission received comments from residents of Calle Pina Colada regarding this situation. A petition {essentially requesting that Calle Pina Colada be closed just west of Salt River Court) was also received at that meeting signed by about 41 residents { representing about 20-25 residences in the area). Essentially residents are concerned about speeding and infiltration of through traffic. At the February 27, 1991 meeting, the Commission directed staff to present'the approval of a 30 mph. speed zone to the City Council. In order for radar enforcement to be used, an engineering and traffic survey has been formally prepared to support the 30 mph. speed limit. This survey is required by California Vehicle Code ICVC) Sections 22357 and CVC Section 22358. Council action is scheduled on this recommendation on May l~,th. In response to the Commission's request to do an investigation of closing Calle Pina Colada, staff believes that a complete traffic study should be conducted to I1 ) quantify the level of through traffic on Calle Pina colada. (2) examine the affects closure may have on local access. ~3) quantify the possible level of diversion of traffic to other residential streets and {4) examine other possible alternative solutions. The scope of work and anticipated costs are as follows: TRAFFIC STUDY CALLE PINA COLADA Scope of Work TASK I Establish Existing Conditions/Data Collection This task will involve gathering existing pertinent roadway characteristics {i.e., street/right-of-way widths, signing and striping, average daily traffic, peak hour traffic, and other features of area roadways. Traffic counts will be taken on Calle Pina Colada, Del Rey Road, La Serena way and Avenida Barca. License plate surveys will be conducted to quantify through traffic infiltration and area traffic patterns. TASKII Develop Alternative Solutions Potential alternative solutions to control through traffic infiltration and excessive speed will be developed in this task, TASK III Analysis of Alternative Solutions/Development of Optimum Traffic Solution. Each of the possible alternatives for preventing traffic infiltration of Calle Pina Colada will be analyzed to determine traffic and safety impacts including redistribution of traffic, access limitations for the neighborhood, and other issues. TASKIV Investigate Legal Implications of Alternatives and Develop Cost Comparisons. The legal implications of possible street closures, diverters or other techniques to prevent traffic infiltration will be studied. In addition, comparisons of costs will be developed for alternatives which may have significant cost implications. TASK V Prepare TraffiC: Report A report summarizing the existing conditions and data collected, analysis techniques, alternatives discussion, conclusions and recommended actions will be documented in a traffic report, CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Traffic Commission Engineering Department February 27, 1991 J Calle Pine Colada between La Serena Way and Del Rey Road BACKGROUND: The Engineering Dept. has received nineteen requests to close Calle lina Colada West of Salt River Court. These requests were received from residents of Del Rey Road (8), Salt River Ct. (3), and Calle Pine Colada (8). A traffic investigation of the area revealed the following information: Calle Pina Colade is one of approximately six access points for the properties served by the Del Rey Road/Via Norte loop. If Calle line Colada is closed, additional traffic will be forced to utilize each of the remaining 5 access roads. It is anticipated that closure of this road would result in similar requests at other locations. Traffic volume on Calle Pine Colada is estimated to be approximately 1000 vehicles per day. There have been no accidents reported on Calle Pina Colada, however there was one accident reported on Del Rey Road at Calle Pina Colada in 1990. Currently, there is no speed limit posted on Calle Pina Colada. Calle Pine Colada does not satisfy the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 515 to be classified as a "residence district". There are 23 residences existing of Calle Pina Colada which is 2055 feet long, CVC Section 515 requires a minimum of 25 residences for this distance. There are five additional residences on Bravos Ct., Yuba Ct. and Salt River Ct. which lie along Calle lira Colada but can not be included in the inventory above, due to the requirements of CVC Section 240. The design speed of Calle Pina Colada is 30 mph. This is due to limited sight distance at the cross streets and at a crest vertical curve in the roadway. There are also several horizontal curves in the roadway with radii of approximately 500 feet which provide a comfortable ride at 30 mph. Possible alternative measures to improve traffic conditions on Calla Pina Colada include the following: 1. Establish a 30 mph speed limit on Calla Pina Colada, based on the design speed of the road. If additional residential development occurs the speed limit could then be adjusted to 25 mph, based on CVC Section 515. 2. Enhanced enforcement effort to gain maximum compliance with traffic regulations. 3. Develop additional access points to the Del Ray Road/Via Norte Loop, to offset additional traffic as development occurs. MG:sl 02160 0021 043 AGENDA1 \TRAFFIC MEADOWVIEW " THE e ~nep/ AUTO TEMECULA' ,F.$rATES ITEM ~6 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT To: From: Date: Subject: Traffic Commission Department of Public Works July 24, 1991 Avenida De La Reina Recommendation: It is recommended that the Traffic and Transportation Commission request that the City Council approve a temporary closure of Avenida De La Reina between Calle Aragon and Corte Arroyo Vista for six months during which additional study will be conducted to determine the traffic impacts and suitability to implement a permanent closure. INTRODUCTION In response to requests by residents, the Traffic and Transportation Commission, and the City Council, the Department of Public Works has conducted a traffic study regarding conditions on A.venida De La Reina. Prior to the Traffic commission's February 27, 1991 meeting, the Engineering Department received several requests regarding traffic conditions on Avenida De La Reina between Rancho California Road and Rancho Vista Road. At the February 27, 1991 meeting, the Commission received comments from many residents of Avenlda De La Reina regarding this situation. A petition was also received at that meeting signed by about 75 residents in the area. Essentially, residents are concerned about speeding, infiltration of through traffic, school bus loading safety, and bus fumes from the School District facility. The infiltration of through traffic is perceived to be students and other vehicles from Temecula Valley High School using Avenida De La Reina to short-cut between Rancho California Road and Rancho Vista Road through a residential district. At the February 27, 1991 meeting, the Commission directed Staff to implement the following improvements on Avenida Del La Reina: Install centerline striping on Avenida De La Reina. Install 25 mph speed limit signs. install a 4-way stop at the intersection of Corte Alhambra/ Corte Arroyo Vista with Avenida De La Reina. Subsequent to the February meeting, several residents expressed disagreement with the installation of centerline striping. Staff was asked by the Traffic Commission not to follow through with that action. Since Avenida De La Reina is a "residence district: as defined by California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 515, this street currently has a 25 mph prima facie speed limit. However, to emphasize this limit, 25 mph speed limit signs have been installed at appropriate locations on Avenida De La Reina. Staff met with Mr. Woody Franklin, Director of Maintenance, and Mr. Paul Oglesby, Assistant Principal of Temecula Valley High School to discuss some initial actions which the school district may be willing to take to relieve traffic infiltration on Avenida De la Reina. It has come to the staff's attention that the School District is currently beginning a reconfiguration of their high school parking area which will result in ( 1 ) paving of the dirt area adjacent to the driveway opposite Avenida De La Reina, (2) closing of an existing driveway just east of Calle Rio Vista, (3) placing a new driveway opposite Calle Rio Vista, {~,) eliminating internal access between staff and student parking areas, {5) and other changes. At the February 27, 1991 meeting of the Traffic and Transportation Commission the Commission received comments from residents living on or adjacent to Avenida De La Reina which indicated a desire to install a Ll-way STOP at Avertida De La Reina and Corte Alhambra/Corte Arroyo Vista. The following comments on this issue were presented to the Commission in the February 27, 1991 agenda report (staff had anticipated the neighborhood request). Although no traffic count data was available for the intersection of Avenida De La Reina and Corte Alhambra/Corte Arroyo Vista it was expected that this intersection does not meet the warrants for installation of a q-way stop. The estimated daily traffic volumes are as follows: Avenida De La Reina - 1500 Corte Alhambra - 200 Corte Arroyo Vista - 200 The minimum volumes to warrant a t-way stop are 2u,00 per day on Avenida De La Reina and 1600 per day on Corte Alhambra/Corte Arroyo Vista. Sight distance at the intersections is adequate for the 25 mph speed limit. There have been no accidents reported at any location on Avenida De La Reina, except one at the intersection at Rancho Vista Road. Installation of stop signs on Avenida De La Reina at Corte Alhambra is not likely to reduce the traffic volumes or speeds in the area. There have been numerous studies performed by engineers and agencies to determine the effects of unwarranted stop signs on speed. these studies indicate that unwarranted stop signs typically do not decrease the speed of traffic and in may cases actually cause and increase in speeds as motorists try to "make up for lost time". ;=ol lowin9 discussion the Commission unanimously approved the installation of the 4-way stop sign. Since this installation did not satisfy stop sign warrants, and since one alternative solution to traffic problems may be a potential street closure of Avenida Del La Reina within 1 block of this location (which would significantly reduce traffic on Avenida De La Reina), staff brought the 4-way stop issue to the Commission again on April 24, 1991. On April 24 staff advised the Commission that this location would not satisfy warrants, nor would the primary neighborhood concerns (speed and traffic infiltration) be resolved or significantly effected by the 4-way stop sign. Following discussions, the Commission re-affirmed its direction to staff to install the 4-way stop sign. 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 stop installations should ordinarily be used only where the volume of traffic on the intersecting 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: 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 are right-angle collisions. 3. Minimum traffic volumes: a) The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours on an average day, and b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at lest 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 hour, the minimum vehicular warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements. A complete study has been conducted at this location with the following findings: 1. Traffic signals are not warranted at this location. 2. Only one accident has occurred at this location in the past 12 months. 3, The minimum traffic volume warrant requirement is NOT satisfied. WARRANT ACTUAL Avenida De La Reina 500 Corte Alhambra/Corte Arroyo Vista 200 128 35 * Average Vehicles/Hour for Any 8 Hours In summary, none of the requirements for a 4-way stop warrant are satisfied. Since visibility is adequate for the 25 mph speed limit on Avenida De La Reina (for vehicles entering from Corte Alhambra/Corte Arroyo Vista), since the volumes are not equal i.e. significant levels of traffic would be stopped on the major street traffic stream with little delay to the minor street traffic for the overwhelming majority of a typical day (heavier Avenida De La Reina traffic does exist for very short periods 2-3 times daily on school days due to traffic from the High School). It is hoped this condition can be resolved in a more appropriate manner than installing unwarranted stop signs. EXISTING CONDITIONS Avenida De La Reina is a 44 foot wide roadway which connects Rancho Vista Road and Rancho California Road via Calle Bahia Vista. This area is classified as a "residence district" per the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 515 (See Fi9ure 1 ). Traffic volumes on Avenida De La Reina range from 728 to 1049 vehicles per day as shown on Figure 2. Durin9 the 6:40 to 7:40 a.m. peak hour, 105 vehicles enter Avenida De La Reina from Rancho California Road and 132 vehicles exit Avenida De La Reina on to Rancho Vista Road (Figure 3). During the 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. peak hour, 70 vehicles enter Avenida De La Reina from Rancho Vista Road and 82 vehicles exit on to Rancho California Road. Figure 4 shows the mid-day traffic volumes on Avenida De La Reina and on Rancho California Road and Rancho Vista Road while Figure 5 shows the PM peak hour volumes. There are 309 residences in the neighborhood surrounding Avenida De La Reina. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual indicates that approximately 10 trips per residence per day are typically expected. It would be expected that approximately 3,000 vehicles per day (VPD) would enter and exit the neighborhood. The actual traffic volume entering and exiting the neighborhood on all approaches was counted at 3,948 vehicles per day. However, when these counts were conducted, the school parkin9 lot was closed due to construction which forced students to seek other parkin9 areas. It was observed that students were parking on Calle Rio Vista, Corte Alamar, and adjoining streets which produced counts which were higher than normal on those streets. For this reason the traffic count on Calle Rio Vista was reduced to 600 vehicles per day, rather than the actual count of 1,219 vehicles per day. Therefore, the total volume entering and exiting the neighborhood is 3.329 VPD. Approximately 325 VPD or 10% of the daily traffic within the neighborhood is through traffic. This does not appear to be an extraordinary volume of through traffic however, average daily traffic is not the only concern and the level of through traffic is likely understated since the school parking lots near Avenida De La Reina and Rancho Vista were closed for construction. Peak hour traffic volumes are normally expected to be approximately 10% of the average daily count. A street with an average daily count of 1,000 typically carries approximately 100 vehicles during its peak hour. Avenida De La Reina, north of Rancho Vista Road has a volume of 817 VPD with an a.m. peak hour volume of 204, or 25% of the daily count. During the a.m. peak 1/2 hour, 148 vehicles used Avenida De La Reina. This averages to one vehicle every 12 seconds over the 30 minute period. This does not allow adequate gaps for residents to safely exit their driveways or for pedestrian's to cross the street, during the time of day when they are most likely to need access. This phenomenon has been actually observed in the field to occur. By comparing expected to actual peak hour volumes we found that approximately 100 of the 148 peak 1/2 hour vehicles on Avenida De La Reina are through vehicles. Redirectlon of this through volume to perimeter major roadways (Margarita - Rancho Vista) will greatly benefit the local neighborhood while causing a minor (less than 5%) impact to the adjacent major street system. Closure of Avenida De La Reina could divert approximately 325 vehicles per day from the surrounding residential streets. It is anticipated that these vehicles will continue to travel between Rancho California Road and Rancho Vista Road, but with the closure in place will remain on arterial streets such as Margarita Road or Meadows Parkway. Estimated AM peak hour and average daily traffic volumes on the affected streets within the neighborhood after the closure is implemented are shown on Figures 6 and 7. Prior to construction of a permanent closure, a trial closure should be implemented for a period of 6 months at which time additional studies should be conducted to determine if the desired results were achieved. If the results are found to be beneficial, a permanent closure could be designed and constructed at that time. ALTERNATIVES Closure of Avenida De La Reina could be effectively accomplished at any of three locations; at Rancho Vista Road, between Corte Alhambra/Corte Arroyo Vista and Calle Aragon, or on Calle Bahia Vista at Rancho California Road. The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative include the following: Closure at Rancho Vista Road restricts direct access from Rancho Vista Road to Avenida De La Reina. This alternative still provides access to the neighborhood from Rancho California Road. However, indirect access to Avenida De La Reina will be available to through traffic, residents, and emergency vehicles from Rancho Vista Road by divertin9 to Calle Rio Vista, Corte Alamar and Corte Arroyo Vista. Since this alternative would divert traffic to other residential streets this alternative is not recommended. Closure at Calle Bahia Vista would restrict direct access to Avenida De La Reina from Rancho California Road. This alternative still provides access to the neighborhood from Rancho Vista Road. However indirect access to Avenida De La Reina will be available to through traffic, residents, and emergency vehicles by diverting to Calle Aragon. Since this alternative would divert traffic to other residential streets this alternative is not recommended. Closure between Corte Alhambra/Corte Arroyo Vista and Calle Aragon prevents any through traffic from infiltrating the neighborhood. This alternative also restricts residents and emergency vehicle access. Access to/from the neighborhood north of the closure would be limited to Rancho California Road. Similarly access to/from the neighborhood south of the closure would be limited to Rancho Vista Road. The restriction of emergency vehicle access must be mitigated to allow emergency access to the entire neighborhood from either Rancho Vista Road or Rancho California Road. Therefore, this alternative also includes an emergency access gate at the closure location. The Department of Public Works contacted Chief Mark Brodowski of the Fire Department regarding possible closure of Avenida De La Reina. After review of the location, Chief Brodowski indicated that closure would be acceptable as long as Fire Department access was maintained through the closure. Access could be maintained by locked gates within the barrier. Each emergency vehicle would then be equipped with a key to the barrier gate lock. A sketch of the proposed temporary road closure is included in Figure 8. This barrier includes access gates for emergency vehicles as requested by the Fire Department. CONCLUSIONS It is the opinion of the Department of Public Works that due to (1) the significant interference to driveway maneuvers and pedestrian activity associated with the through traffic infiltration, (2) the ability of diverted traffic to be accommodated with little impact on adjacent major roadways or on travel time or inconvenience, (3) the fact that through traffic will not divert to other neighborhood streets, and (~,) that emergency access response times will not be measureably changed, a temporary closure of Avenlda De La Relna should be implemented for a period of 6 months. After the trial period has been completed further study should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of the closure. If the results are found to be satisfactory then a permanent closure should be designed and constructed. If the results are found to be not satisfactory then the closure should be modified or removed and other methods of traffic control should be investigated. FISCAL IMPACT The estimated cost of the temporary closure is $6,500 for signs, barricades, and chain link fence. 0 CALLE B~'Y~I~' WlS1~ DE LA REINA CITY OF TEMECULA AVENIDA DE LA REINA TRAFFIC STUDY 24 HOUR COUNT TRAFFIC VOLUME Z Z p CALLE RIO VISTA NOT TO r,,AL.~ CITY OF TEMECULA AVENIDA DE LA REINA TRAFFIC STUDY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME Y \ REINA z Z 0 ',/: CITY OF TEMECULA AVENIDA DE LA REINA TRAFFIC STUDY MID-DAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFJC VOLUME e REINA N REINA z ~- c~ C) o~ CITY OF TEMECULA AVENIDA DE LA REINA TRAFFIC STUDY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME 0 LA REINA CITY OF TEMECULA AVENIDA DE LA REINA TRAFFIC STUDY ESTIMATED 24 HOUR VOLUMES WITH CLOSURE IN PLACE z CALLE RIO VISTA I~OT TO 8CAI~ CITY OF TEMECULA AVENIDA DE LA RDNA TRAFFIC STUDY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME WITH CLOSURE IN EFFECT REINA C~ /' I/ ROAD CLOSED DO NOT ENTER ROA~l CLOSED PROPOSED TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURE ~TEM ~7 CITY OF TEMECUI, Ii AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Traffic and Transportation Commission Department of Public Works July 24, 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 approva~ of a "No Stopping Zone" on the north side of LA Serena Way between Vista Halcon and Meadows Parkway. BACKGROUND: As the commission will recall staff was directed to advise the Temecula Valley School District (TVSD) of the intention of the City to implement the subject recommendation. On July 9, 1991 staff spoke with Mr. Woody Franklin, Director of Maintenance, Operations, and TranspOrtation at TVSD who advised us that they concur with the installation of the Zone on La Serena Way. The staff report from the June Agenda is attached. DM/sw agendal .mem 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 Stopping 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 16-foot lane is not wide enough for both moving vehicles and parked vehicles. A No Stopping 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 Stopping" 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, AVM3AI~O ]OOHOS 0 0 .,~ NOO'IX/H ~IA/~