Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbouttecp_111213TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA REGULAR MEETING UKIAH CIVIC CENTER Conference Room No. 3 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2013 3:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Baxter, Seanor, Whitaker, Kageyama, Lampi, Taylor, Jordan 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 15, 2013 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS: The Traffic Engineering Committee welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than 10 minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on non -agenda items. 4. OLD BUSINESS: a. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Advanced Crosswalk Yield Lines at the Intersection of South State Street and Luce Avenue Agenda Item (Report Attached) 5. NEW BUSINESS: None 6. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS: 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: 8. ADJOURNMENT: Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda. Dated this 8t" day of November, 2013 Jarod Thiele, Recording Secretary TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE MINUTES October 15, 2013 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT Dan Baxter, MTA Vice - Chair Ben Kageyama, Staff Trent Taylor, UPD Jerry Whitaker, Staff Rick Seanor, Staff MEMBERS ABSENT Kim Jordan, Staff John Lampi, Public Representative 1. CALL TO ORDER The Traffic Engineering Committee meeting wa Conference Room No. 3, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — August 20, 2013' M/S TaylorlWhitaker to approve Augu,122 i f 013 min voice vote of the members present OTHERS PRESENT Jessica Stull -Otto STAFF40'6ENT to order by Vice "fir Baxter at 3:05 p.m. in 'y Avenue, Ukiah C61�16fnia. 'sjsubmitted. Motion carried by an all AYE 3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON N0114°';-END�IAS 4. OLD 4a. Discuss and P1//�e Comrhot on Draft � t 'Streets F ticy (Report Attached) ' 8/& o/ r The Traffic Engineering C � ittee (TE/_,C) reference"" page 1 of the policy document and talked about the definition of the term, 'cy- 6 ias Member. nor: • li�'�1012 Cit CoilE�' had �, y �� aresentation ah discussion about the topic 'complete streets' and wi t;, this means to 1�e. com"itry. Since that time Councilmember Rodin spent a significant i/ii /// iii, amo„ of time creatine `Cofflo#e Streets Policy of the City of Ukiahwith assistance from City s ,and public r %bers. Tt policy document raised some concerns by the City %i Engineers, epartment but why the TEC was not included as a participant in the process and the possib%ct the doc;'ant may have on street maintenance. • City Council re :wed th.22olicy document at the regular July 17, 2012 meeting and referred it back to the TEG .eviand input. • Related to the 'C Streets Policy,' the City already has other documents/processes in place such as the Bic , and Pedestrian Master Plan that are used to analyze projects and/or to seek grant funding. There is a bike plan through Mendocino County Office of Government (MCOG) that specifically addresses bicycle routes in the City and throughout the County. Also, when cities receive funding from Caltrans for road projects, Caltrans passes a complete streets policy onto the cities. As such, the City has to follow a complete streets policy when it receives grant funding from Caltrans for street -related projects. This essentially means, we have to look at whether there are adequate and/or up -to -standard ADA ramps on street corners for sidewalks, acceptable accommodations for bicycle routes and other such accommodations required in the 'Complete Streets Policy.' • Supports not changing the current process by not adopting a policy that could possibly impact the City financially and unable to properly maintain City streets. The City of Ukiah as well as other jurisdictions in the area suffer because they have very little maintenance dollars to maintain streets. MINUTES of the Traffic Engineering Committee October 15, 2013 Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 • Recommends focusing on being able to provide for an adequate maintenance levels for maintaining City streets first by utilizing the dollars available wisely without doing/committing to maintenance projects that are beyond the scope of what the City can realistically and/or economically afford. • Lastly, to address the 'Complete Streets Policy' many if not most City streets have very little traffic so there is no really no issue concerning bicyclists being able to ride on them. Related to City streets, there are bicycle facilities on some of the routes Member Seanor identified some of the streets having such facilities. Accordingly, there are existing bicycle/pedestrian facilities 'pretty much everywhere in town.' While there are a few places on streets where gaps exist between sidewalks, most streets have sidewalks. • Is inclined to support continuing on with the resent roce s%�f'eviewin /evaluatin improvement pP 9 p p 9 9 P projects for City streets. • Is requesting the TEC comment on the proposed doc�rj�tit , Vice Chair Baxter: • It appears Councilmember Rodin is of the having a`C6 // to Streets Policy' is a good idea. The County in addition to the State h�� 'Complete Streets Poll �yi that staff can use for reference purposes when seeking grant fu�"kr/ jfor street, improvemen��ajects and essentially �,, sees no need to add yet another layer and/TAR duplicate /rocess that wady works that may r/, also create more work for staff 0 unnecessary c s j City. The TEC can support staffs r� , endation antt�'��t is to comment on the draft Complete Streets Policy. Member Kageyama: • Referenced theEvalbatic Department perfo6xis iii" the City are ser ng each data on a reg6i� basis. improve pedestriari ceE other street -related imp ©, • Is of the opinion, City PuG of matting a streeuprojecr • Doffs not have a prob]err p�(cy document. • Find language in tf% for somepaper work on 'Exemptfts section that accommod4tf6ps for all m is subject to i'' penden 'Evaluation' sec Qn will i essentially unnecessary. completeness.' section o'/e policy'd'o went ands f the opinion the Public Works al evaIuat1 of ho'��%�� 1 ��O he streets and transportation network of ttegory of u b" ,b i co lecting�baseline data and collection follow -up - >o valuation deojects is performed when an opportunity exists to nv Ning crosswaljts, ADA compliance issues, bulbouts, and/or some 0, ehit�fnatter that vv�duld benefit an area. rs stiff -pis already to a large degree looking at projects and ways ire of a 'complete strut.' nth ;.what is behg'a"sked for in principle with regard to the proposed ocurritrtt ther vague; As written, the document will create the need �e part of '/ty staff, particularly with regard to what is required in the Z . s the department head must provide a written explanation of why of transportation were not included or necessary for a project that view by the City Manager. With this and what is required in the Este ongoing paperwork for City staff that is time consuming and when staff already analyzes/evaluates every street project for Member Taylor: • It may be the recommendation of TEC should be since City staff is already meeting the requirements outlined in the proposed 'Complete Streets Policy' that adding a new policy requiring more reporting about what is already being done is basically a waste of time. Jessica Stull -Otto: • Works for the County Public Health Department. • Related to the comments that processes contained in the draft Complete Streets Policy are already being done, is concerned about what happens when present City staff leaves? • The idea of a policy is for the good work/processes currently being done to successfully continue into the future. MINUTES of the Traffic Engineering Committee Page 2 October 15, 2013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Has questions related to the 'Exemptions' section of the draft policy document and with having to write an explanation of why accommodations are not to be included or necessary with regard to street improvements. It may be the written evaluation needs to be further clarified as to how the process can effectively be accomplished where the process is simplified and made less burdensome to staff. The intent of the policy document is to make certain the process related to street improvements is working and to fix it where it is not. As such, understands the concept of reviewing plans and policies to make necessary changes/improvements where needed and to make certain the intended purpose is being done. Appreciates the interest in not adding yet another thing for staff to do. Is it possible to simplify the draft document and/or make its "11)' to better serve its intended purpose? �i �, Member Seanor: • It is possible to simplify the document. How(. Master Plan, as well as the Regional Bike v�r staff follows regarding street improvemen .% of documents that places an extra ��'en transportation could actually limit how muc � I , If it becomes necessary to do some project' s? requirements of this policy then his could restnc Works has with regard to the department Any p ����ensive. An work done on pavement is i "r im ,, necessary to sometimes do bash at �, ce additional requirements, this can lir u a. j /i; we have to do som else Agai ��en the its own Completeolicy that is�ssed of When the City�Mi ves fClg from Cfr What has occ�%t typically t,/ , e past for/6/a/ e� and upgrade those to meet tf,#% cceptable ffC over the vears there' iive begilii6cremental 66`ih, ing may;!WWtf%1N ayear sda' that the of having a'pcsltcy thiol'" ements when,wt" alread ;;.updated in they/ °fir futu Member Kage)Of a: 7 • ExemptiorYs *Auld be required foraft( Jessica Stull -Otto: to saY/�the the Bicycle consultant. r,"/V I ;M4,ave a Bicycle and Pedestrian an that MCOC�; �s and other documents that iria ts. Having a Com�eAt Streets Policy in the mix lent of evaluating ets for all modes of ;ity can afford to do inof improvements. it may ;,ore expensijnorder to fulfill the ,�� i r enance abilities. �fY problem Public is ble toeffectively maintain City streets. We struggling with not having the funding so if e same time another policy places D maintai,�VRy streets because the policy says ets func(hg,through Caltrans, Caltrans has i end otherr//cities for improvement projects. hafollow their complete streets policy. �t project, is'we have to look at the ADA ramps lards. This can be a challenge in itself because ges in ADA standards that require an upgrade to i ding to one standard and then the standard ;compliance with those standards. Therefore, is City has to have an evaluation for all of these and Pedestrian Master Plan in place. This plan on a case-by-case basis. A biennial evaluation would also be Street Policy. • Understands Sue Baf�O)Vrom public health was working on this project and has left. • She is stepping into Ms. Barton's place to continue the process. • Recalls a public discussion at a TEC meeting about the issue of routine maintenance such that the language in the policy document can be changed so that some evaluation does not trigger a larger project. Member Whitaker: • It is his understanding that after a certain dollar amount it triggers specific requirements that must be met to be in compliance with the standards. Jessica Stull -Otto: • The aforementioned scenario may pertain if the cost is 20% or more of the projected cost amount and if this is the case then the associated requirements could be exempted. MINUTES of the Traffic Engineering Committee Page 3 October 15, 2013 1 • Requested clarification that the discussion is about a maintenance project that is really small and 2 inexpensive. 3 4 Member Whitaker: 5 For example, what could occur is if work is being done to an intersection and the site does not 6 have ADA ramps where the work being done can trigger further work associated with the 7 intended street maintenance and improvements by having to provide for ADA ramps. At this 8 point, this is when the job cost becomes too high for City work crews to do in-house and has to go 9 out to bid for a contractor to do. 10 As the City Streets Supervisor, his cost threshold limit per job is a maximum $40,000. After this 11 amount, if the job cost exceeds this amount it must be contr,`. out to complete. 12 The intent is to keep job costs down so the work can bee'in-house as much as possible. 13 ii 14 Jessica Stull -Otto: ai,h� 15 How does the above -referenced scenario fit witl the 20% oy cost and can the associated 16 requirements then be exempted? If the rojed�F' ered ADA a�P q p p t rgg &essible ramps would the ramps 17 be part of the 20% over cost or just increas ��ost of the entire j%�t? 19 Member Whitaker: 20 It would likely increase the cost of the whole ct. 1� ; r or not the c was increased by 21 20% would not be known until a -cost estimate wa ne�i�' 22 What is of concern is if once k,bW ,ct is started ere it was later determined that other 23 requirements were necessary ttiia �u)d,, rive the co t exceed what City crews can do in - 24 house and this is a problem. 25 26 Member Kageyama 27 Pavement work [s►csf" Just -Tor vehicles; but r�ierother modes of transportation, such as 28 bicycles. 29 30 There was discussion concerning cert4in types of street improvements that include 'sharrow' striping that 31 could encompass more strut users. 32 33 Member6earror noted theCityisworking with a'wnsultant to complete the Safe Route to School Plan. 34 35 Jessica P Otto: 36 Hd to the existing plar%that staff uses related to maintenance communicated in the plans? For 37 examphik,bio the plans tiWaddress rn8intenance items that can be incorporated for complete 38 street profeots? 39 Is it possibr (plated to mai mance that the plans document what might be a small project could 40 actually trigg&Ai large prom`/ ? How is this aspect documented/communicated in the plans? 41 • Would not want a �licy,i {/Jace that essentially triggers larger projects. However, it would be a 42 good thing if the pdfi;y���oorporates/addresses smaller scale maintenance items for projects. Are 43 those identified and who would identify them? How would they be communicated in making sure 44 that information is related to maintenance so that when work is done no other additional work has 45 to follow. 46 • The intent of a complete streets policy is to make certain maintenance projects are designed for 47 everyone to enable safe access for all users of all ages and abilities, i.e., pedestrians, bicyclists, 48 motorists and public transportation. 49 50 Member Seanor: 51 • Member Whitaker is the City's Streets Supervisor and he reviews plans for projects. 52 0 Even though some projects appear to be simple at the beginning this may not always be the 53 case. For instance, if the project is Caltrans funded, the design aspect must still be considered by 54 an engineer even if it is just a striping project. Contractors typically do the striping of streets 55 because a special truck is necessary. MINUTES of the Traffic Engineering Committee October 15, 2013 Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Jessica Stull -Otto: • Striping is an important aspect of street maintenance. • Related to the threshold of when it is necessary to go out to bid for a contractor, would like to see this amount clearly documented. • Concern is that once existing staff has left the City, the good work being done presently can carry on. This is the 'beauty' of a policy because the information would be represented in this document, but only if it is done in a manner that does not actually prevent staff from doing the good work that is currently being done. Brief discussion concerning what constitutes forced accounting and,., that needs to be done as the result of an emergency situation. jjjj Member Whitaker: • Confirmed the threshold amount per project is $40JW! e" "�ot do any work over $40,000. 1//% /%i; • Emergency work is different from forced accour/#/i , "INNI, Member Seanor: j/; Briefly addressed the topic of constructin DA ramp and noted i��� a ramp is non -existing and work needs to be done from `scratch' th //St could beg nywhere fr1! 5,000 to $10,000. 5. NEW BUSINESS 5a. Discussion n ad Possible Actio= �jrding Reques JjEi t Additional Speed Limit Signs along West ,, ,%,i Member Seanor gave a staff report and not& // • Public Works staff a ceived a req; est for e� # dditionaVs;eed limit signs alongWest Mill Street from a ro0 � Residen r Enf Res&ntial Speed RERS . 011 • West Mill Stree m MCP treet to satis i660,h� California Vehicle Code definition ,i ' . �i of a residence distr;�ct and thefefore, has a p� facie speed limit of 25 mph. • In addition an EA§"*ering a� Traffic (Sp Zone) Survey was completed under the direction %OGOi //ii of a California licensed pro aslor)al traffic erg neer for W. Mill Street on April 30, 2012. This i/�i/// / i i/, survo/ confirmed the poSf d„%2 mph sir ed zon © W. Mill Street. • 1lti�k�Vrlf Streetis�technicall'olessified a`�ollr and therefore, does see a larger volume of tr is than a local sr t Thi�str et picks u(e tributary area from the west side of Ukiah. • W,Q�II Street is appr+nately%�feet in width and approximately 2,000 feet in length between McF? k�Street and So�i Oak Stf, with parking allowed on both sides of the street. Vehicles parkiis manners, to crew traffic calming as vehicles slow down when negotiating narrow stretches of the st�Qwhere the cars are parked on both sides. • There are fob xisting 25 r speed limit signs posted on W. Mill Street at different locations. • Staff observecYe Ukiaiice Department speed radar trailer is in use on W. Mill Street for /h westbound trafficjT�t�hI//4 is a good tool to remind drivers of the speed compared to the posted speed zone:' • Offered the following recommendations: 1) Continue to utilize the Police Department speed radar trailer. 2) Recommend W. Mill Street for the Police Department's 'Directed Enforcement Program.' 3) Take no action. 4) Refer to staff for further analysis. 5) Post additional signs. • Notification of this meeting was sent to the group requesting the eight additional speed limit signs. TEC: • W. Mill Street has four existing signs. Questioned where eight additional signs would be posted? • What initiated this discussion is that some people from this neighborhood group put up signs to address speeding. It is illegal for a neighborhood group to post its own traffic control devices. • The speed limit in any residential area is 25 mph. TEC consensus: • Deny the request for additional signs on W. Mill Street. MINUTES of the Traffic Engineering Committee October 15, 2013 Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 • Continue to utilize the Police Department speed radar trailer and include W. Mill Street for the Police Department's 'Directed Enforcement Program.' Member Seanor: • When a speed survey is conducted data has to be collected from 100 vehicles from both directions of traffic and analyzed. The results conclude that people tend to drive in and around the posted speed limit. If not, this is reason to look at either increasing or decreasing the speed limit. • Also, the engineer conducting the speed limit surveys for the City, observed people tend to drive the posted speed limits. MS: Taylor/Whitaker to deny the request for additional siggeAkfid continue to utilize the Police iDepartment speed radar trailer when available and utilize the `.%d Enforcement Program as much i as possible. Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote of them 19gpresent. HER /%i 6. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS `�' Member Seanor: / ifs' , • The TEC has a vacant seat. Steve Turne/ ed on the T ' EC for ��q years and had to resign because he now resides in the County. V�. Vice Chair Baxter: "'// , • On Thursday, October 17, W -TA will have ate' e of Commerce shop/garage structure on the from 5:00 to' m. 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 8. ADJOURNMENT o There being no further bL fik tY% meeting U, '/0 Cathy Elawadly, Recording; ecretary MINUTES of the Traffic Engineering Committee Page 6 house in the October 15, 2013 CITY OF UKIAH MEMORANDUM DATE: November 12, 2013 TO: Traffic Engineering Committee FROM: Ben Kageyama, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Advanced Crosswalk Yield Lines at the Intersection of South State Street and Luce Avenue Agenda Item 4a. REQUEST: Staff is requesting reconsideration by the Traffic Engineering Committee for the possible installation of advanced crosswalk yield lines for the existing crosswalk at South State Street and Luce Avenue. DISCUSSION: On August 20, 2013, the Traffic Engineering Committee previously discussed this item and directed staff to consider installing the advanced crosswalk yield lines at the intersection of South State Street and Freitas Avenue instead of Luce Avenue as originally proposed (see attachments). Member Taylor indicated that the Freitas Avenue intersection has more pedestrians than at Luce Avenue and would be a better location for this installation. Staff agrees there may be more pedestrians at Freitas Avenue, and the existing crosswalk could benefit from installing advanced yield lines. However, the east side of the crosswalk does not currently have a curb ramp, and staff does not recommend upgrading the crosswalk with advanced yield lines without also installing a new ADA compliant curb ramp. The Luce Avenue crosswalk currently already has curb ramps on both sides of the street. Since this initial installation of advanced yield lines is considered a test case to monitor the effectiveness of the yield lines, and so as to avoid further delay to beginning this trial period, staff recommends proceeding with its installation at the originally proposed Luce Avenue intersection. Meanwhile, Public Works will plan to install a curb ramp at Freitas Avenue as time allows. Additional advanced yield lines may be considered for TEC approval at Freitas Avenue or other locations if deemed to be effective. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is submitting this report for review and discussion by the TEC. Staff has provided the following options for consideration: 1. Approve the request to install advanced crosswalk yield lines and signs at the South State Street and Luce Avenue intersection. 2. Install flexible crosswalk signage similar to other locations on State Street 3. Take no action. 4. Refer to staff for further analysis. cc: file California MUTCD 2012 Edition Page 738 (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California) Figure 313-17. Examples of Yield Lines at Unsignalized Midblock Crosswalks 20 to 50 ft --I A -Two-way roadway -ma 1 20 to 50 ft—> Note: ere for Pede signs are used i ield Here to B - One-way roadway Pe , ns signs, s . es shall e used instead of yield lines. 1 � 6 f �ma I----20 to 50 ft—< Legend �� a► Direction of travel Chapter 3B - Pavement and Curb Markings January 13, 2012 Part 3 - Markings California MUTCD 2012 Edition (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California) Figure 313-16, Recommendec to 12 inches 3 to 12 inches 12 ft Direction of travel Page 737 IYield Line Layouts (a) Minimum Dimensions base i- 12 nches heig7 ht 8 inc'. 7b) Maximum Dimensions base 24 nches 1 height 36 \ inch#es I Notes: Triangle height iqual to 1.5 times the base ' ension. Yield lines may be smaller suggested when installed on narrower, slow -speed facilities as shared -use paths. Figure 3B-16 (CA). Recommended Yield Line Layouts 12ft Direction of Travel Chapter 3B - Pavement and Curb Markings Part 3 - Markings —� 24 in I 36 in V 1 Series of white isoceles triangles January 13, 2012 California MUTCD 2012 Edition (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California) Page 199 Figure 25-1. STOP and YIELD Signs and Plaques YIELD TO M:1 R1-1 R1 -3P R1-2 R1-2aP R1 -10P v H.EERRE� • f To R1-5 STATE LAW YIELD TO • WITHIN CROSSWALK R1-6 Figure 213-2. Unsignalized Pedestrian Crosswalk Signs YIELD HERjeo"To PEDESTRIANS R1 -5a HER FOR HERE ESTRIA R1 -5b R1 -5c —Y STATE STATE LAW LAW oYIELD TO PEDESTRIANS R1-9 WITHIN CROSSWALK R1 -6a TATE LA ST PED NS R1 -9a * The legend STATE LAW is optional. A fluorescent yellow -green background color may be used instead of yellow for this sign. Chapter 2B — Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates January 13, 2012 Part 2 — Signs California MUTCD 2012 Edition (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California) Page 688 Standard: 03 If raised pavement markers are used to substitute for broken line markings, a group of three to five markers equally spaced at a distance no g cats= than V8 (see Seetion 3B.11) shall be used. rfl" than 40 feet, the mar-liers shall be equally spaeed ever- the line segment length (at 1/2 points Mr- dw-ee marls" Fk „a "s 1 in points for- r;_ _ker- ) c9 "" �� points `"" `"'m—n " ", " At least one retroreflective or internally illuminated marker per group shall be used or a retroreflective or internally illuminated marker shall be installed midway in each gap between successive groups of non-retroreflective markers. ea- at no gr-eateF than N/4, with r-etr-or-efleetive or- internally illuminated upAts at a spaeing no gFeater- than XL2. oat The widths and patterns of raised pavement markers shall conform to the details shown in Figures 3A-101(CA) through 3A-112(CA). See Section 3A.06. Guidance: os Raised pavement markers should not substitute for right-hand edge line markings unless an engineering study or engineering judgment indicates the benefits of enhanced delineation of a curve or other location would outweigh possible impacts on bicycles using the shoulder, and the spacing of raised pavement markers on the right-hand edge line is close enough to avoid misinterpretation as a broken line during wet night conditions. w -When raised pavement MaFker-s substitute for- dotted they shall be spaced at no lines, , with not less than one raised paivement mar-ker- per- dotted line segment. At least one Faised mar-keF-every-N shall be r-etrnr"fleetive or- inteMally illumAnated. Option: 07 When substituting for wide lines, raised pavement markers may be placed laterally adjacent to each other to simulate the width of the line. Standard: oe If used on State highways, internally -illuminated raised pavement markers shall be installed by an encroachment permit and include a maintenance agreement as a provision of the permit for the service life of the markers. Section 3B.15 Transverse Markings Standard: of Transverse markings, which include shoulder markings, word and symbol markings, arrows, stop lines, yield lines, crosswalk lines, speed measurement markings, speed reduction markings, speed hump markings, parking space markings, and others, shall be white unless otherwise provided in this Manual. 01a Crosswalk markings near schools shall be yellow. Refer to CVC 21368 and Part 7. Guidance: 02Because of the low approach angle at which pavement markings are viewed, transverse lines should be proportioned to provide visibility at least equal to that of longitudinal lines. Support: 03 Refer to Department of Transportation's Standard Plans for pavement marking letters, numerals and symbols See Section 1A.11 for information regarding this publication Section 3B.16 Stop and Yield Lines Guidance: of Stop lines should be used to indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to stop in compliance with a traffic control signal. Option: 02 Stop lines may be used to indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to stop in compliance with a STOP (R1-1) sign, a Stop Here P^r n^a"sty.;^ s (RI cr of D, c sign, or some other traffic control device that 03 Yield lines may be used to indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to yield in compliance with a YIELD (R1-2) sign or a Yield Here To Pedestrians (R1-5 or R1 -5a) sign. Chapter 3B — Pavement and Curb Markings January 13, 2012 Part 3 — Markings California MUTCD 2012 Edition (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California) Page 689 Standard: 04 Except as provided in Section 8B.28, stop lines shall not be used at locations where drivers are required to yield in compliance with a YIELD (RI -2) sign or a Yield Here To Pedestrians (RI -5 or R1 -5a) sign or at locations on uncontrolled approaches where drivers are required by State law to yield to pedestrians, os Yield lines shall not be used at locations where drivers are required to stop in compliance with a STOP (111-1) sign, a Stop Here For Pages*Mans (RI 5b or n, 5e) sign, a traffic control signal, or some other traffic control device, 06 Stop lines shall consist of solid white lines extending across approach lanes to indicate the point at 07 Yield lines (see Figure 3-16SB- 16(CA)) shall consist of a row of solid white isosceles triangles pointing toward approaching vehicles extending across approach lanes to indicate the point at which the yield is intended or required to be made. 09 The individual triangles comprising the yield line should have a base of 12-te 24 inches wide and a height equal to 1.5 times the base. The space between the triangles should be �-te 12 inches. -�hrlfZz3rrzndzl linatlat be-pl e an' ee e nearest crosswalk line at controlled intersections, except for yield lines at roundabouts as provided for in Section 3C. 04 and at midblock crosswalks. In the absence of a marked crosswalk, the stop line or yield line should be placed at the desired stopping or yielding point, but should not be placed more than 30 feet or less than 4 feet from the nearest edge of the intersecting traveled way. t i Stop lines at midblock signalized locations should be placed at least 40 feet in advance of the nearest signal ---W 12 If yield or stop lines are used at a crosswalk that crosses an uncontrolled multi -lane approach, the yield lines or stop lines should be placed 20 to 50 feet in advance of the nearest crosswalk line, and parking should be prohibited in the area between the yield or stop line and the crosswalk (see Figure 3B-17). Standard: 13 If yield (stop) lines are used at a crosswalk that crosses an uncontrolled multi -lane approach, Yield here To (Stop Here Fot Pedestrians (R1-5 series) signs (see Section 2B.11) shall be used. 14 Yield (stop) lines and Yield Here To (Stop Her &N' Pedestrians signs should not be used in advance of I crosswalks that cross an approach to or departure from a roundabout. Support: is When drivers yield or stop too close to crosswalks that cross uncontrolled multi -lane approaches, they place pedestrians at risk by blocking other drivers' views of pedestrians and by blocking pedestrians' views of vehicles approaching in the other lanes. Option: 16 Stop and yield lines may be staggered longitudinally on a lane -by -lane basis (see Drawing D of Figure 3B- 13). Support: 17 Staggered stop lines and staggered yield lines can improve the driver's view of pedestrians, provide better sight distance for turning vehicles, and increase the turning radius for left -turning vehicles. is Section 813.28 contains information regarding the use of stop lines and yield lines at grade crossings. Support: ,e As defined in CVC 377, a "limit line" is a solid white line not less than 12 inch nor more than 24 inch wide, extending across a roadway or any portion thereof to indicate the point at which traffic is required to stop in compliance with legal requirements. Standard: K. For all purposes, limit line(s) as defined per CVC 377shall mean stop line(s). ), A limit line shall be placed in conjunction with STOP (R1-1) signs on paved approaches, except where marked crosswalk exists. Guidance: u If a sidewalk exists, the limit line should be placed in advance of an unmarked crosswalk area. Chapter 3B — Pavement and Curb Markings January 13, 2012 Part 3 — Markings California MUTCD 2012 Edition (FHwA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California) Page 690 Option: 23 A limit line may be placed in advance of a crosswalk where vehicles are required to stop, in compliance with a STOP (R1-1) sign, traffic control signal or some other traffic control device. Support: 24 If a marked crosswalk is in place, it would normally function as a limit line, z ical limit line markings are shown in Figure 313-103(CA). -- 26 The individual triangles comprising the yield line shall have a base of 2 feet wide and a height of 3 feet. The space between the triangles shall be 1 foot. Support: 27 Figure 3B-16(CA) shows typical yield line layout for streets and highways. Section 3B.17 Do Not Block Intersection Markings Support: I 0o Refer to CVC 22526 for entering intersection, rail crossing or marked crosswalk. Option: of Do Not Block Intersection markings may be used to mark the edges of an intersection area that is in close proximity to a signalized intersection, railroad crossing, or other nearby traffic control that might cause vehicles to stop within the intersection and impede other traffic entering the intersection. If authorized by law, Do Not Block Intersection markings with appropriate signs may also be used at other locations. Stand,qrd: 02 If used, Do Not Block Intersection markings (see Figure 39-1-8 3B-18(CA)) shall consist of one of the following alternatives: block;A. 1AL-id—e— SAM white lines that outline the inter -section area that vehicles must not B. Wide solid white lines that outline the intersection area that vehicles must not block and a white word message such as DO NOT BLOCK or KEEP CLEAR; 144de solid white 1-ines that oudine the inteeirseettion area that vehicles Faust not bloek and white er-oss C. hateh;.,g within the int., seetion area;oF I D. A white word message, such as DO NOT BLOCK or KEEP CLEAR, within the intersection area that vehicles must not block. 03 Do Not Block Intersection markings shall be accompanied by one or more DO NOT BLOCK INTERSECTION (DRIVEWAY) (CROSSING) (R10-7) signs (see Section 2B.53), one or more DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS (R8-8) signs (see Section 8B.09), or one or more similar signs. Section 3B.18 Crosswalk Markings Support: of Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections, and on approaches to other intersections where traffic stops. 021n conjunction with signs and other measures, crosswalk markings help to alert road users of a designated pedestrian crossing point across roadways at locations that are not controlled by traffic control signals or STOP or YIELD signs. 03 At non -intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk. Standard; 0a When crosswalk lines are used, they shall consist of solid white lines that mark the crosswalk. They shall not be less than 612 inches or greater than 24 inches in width. Guidance: os If transverse lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the gap between the lines should not be less than 6 feet. If diagonal or longitudinal lines are used without transverse lines to mark a crosswalk, the crosswalk should be not less than 6 feet wide. Chapter 3B — Pavement and Curb Markings January 13, 2012 Part 3 — Markings INTERSECTION OF S. ST'A'TE ST/LUCE AVE To see all the details that are visible on the GoosleAttachment # � screen, use the "Print" link next to the map. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=south+state+street+and+lute+avenue,+... 8/6/2013