Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbouttecm_021704Minutes TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE February 17, 2004 Members Present Ben Kageyama, Chairman Mike Harris Dave Lohse Jerry Whitaker Rick Seanor Steve Turner Dan Walker Others Present None Staff Present Members Absent Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Doug Pilant The meeting was called to order by Chairman Kageyama at 3:06 p.m. in Conference Room No. 3, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 20, 2004 ON A MOTION by Member Harris, seconded by Member Seanor, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to approve the January 20, 2004 minutes, as submitted. III. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one from the audience came forward. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS: IV. OLD BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action regarding MTA bus stop at North Coast Opportunities (NCO), North State Street at Henry Street. (Continued from January 20, 2004 meeting) Member Seanor advised that the staff report for this agenda item was inadvertently omitted. He provided a copy of the staff report to the members, including a map demonstrating the specific location. He noted the proposed bus stop will be moved from NCO to Nuestra Casa, approximately 25 feet south of the North State Street/Scott Street crosswalk. He further advised that the North State and Gibson Street bus stop application request will not be discussed at this meeting, as there are some issues to be addressed before it can be brought forward for review and possible action. Traffic Engineering Committee February 17, 2004 Page 1 It was noted there is a crosswalk in the general vicinity of the proposed bus stop. The members expressed concern for pedestrian safety, noting clear visibility for drivers may be impacted when the bus stops for passengers. A general discussion followed regarding potential parking impacts, and it was determined that public parking in the vicinity of the bus stop would not be a problem. It was further noted no parking zone (red curb area) has been painted adjacent to a fire hydrant at the proposed bus stop location. However, the City Fire Marshal has determined the proposed bus stop will not conflict with the Fire Department's use of the fire hydrant. Member Harris inquired whether the matter must be reviewed by the Ukiah City Council. Member Seanor replied negatively, stating the TEC would be able to act on this matter. ON A MOTION by Member Harris, seconded by Member Walker, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to approve the MTA bus stop at Nuestra Casa, approximately 25 feet south of the North State Street/Scott Street crosswalk, as discussed above. b. Discussion and possible action regarding crosswalks (Continued from December 17, 2003 meeting) Member Seanor reported the TEC discussed items related to crosswalks at the December 2003 regular meeting. The TEC requested additional information on the standards and use of diagonally hatched or ladder style crosswalks, raised pavement markers (RPM) to mark crosswalks, flexible crosswalk signs, and Advanced Yield Markings for crosswalks. The TEC also discussed the proposal to mark all crosswalks on State Street north of Low Gap road and south of Gobbi Street with diagonally hatched pavement markings. The TEC reviewed the installation of raised pavement markers to supplement crosswalk markings. The TEC reviewed information relevant to flexible crosswalk signs and "Advance Yield Markings" for crosswalks. Member Seanor referred to crosswalk information provided, noting Attachment "A" is an excerpt from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) concerning yield line markings; ladder and diagonally hatched crosswalk markings; and in-street pedestrian crossing signs; Attachment "B" is an excerpt from Caltrans Traffic Manual referencing crosswalk markings; Attachment "C" is an excerpt from the January 31, 2002 minutes of the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) addressing the use of raised pavement markers to supplement transverse crosswalk markings; Attachment "D" is an excerpt from Portland Pedestrian design Guide that provides information on crosswalk pavement markings; and Attachment "E" provides additional information on crosswalk markings that was provided by Chairman Kageyama. Traffic Engineering Committee February 17, 2004 Page 2 Attachments "A", "B", "D", and "E" in the staff report contain information on crosswalk markings the TEC may want to consider for improving/changing the crosswalks in the City. Attachment "E" provides information regarding the application of designing pedestrian facilities for accessibility by implementing various types of crosswalk design and treatments. Member Seanor noted that both the MUTCD and the Caltrans traffic manual permit either diagonally hatched crosswalks or ladder style crosswalks and there is no associated preference. If the TEC desires to change the City's policy concerning the use of diagonally hatched crosswalks to a ladder style crosswalk, the appropriate changes would have to be made to the existing crosswalk policy that designates diagonally hatched markings at specified locations. A potential benefit to the installation of raised pavement markers (RPM's) to complement crosswalk markings is that the RPM's may provide better visibility of the crosswalks at night and other times of low visibility; However, Staff recommends against implementing pavement markers in the areas where bicyclists typically travel on the street. The CTCDC has approved the use of raised pavement markers to supplement transverse crosswalk markings. A potential benefit to implementation of flexible crosswalk signs is that they may direct additional attention to crosswalk locations. The width of the sign is 12- inches. The centerline of State Street is a Caltrans Detail 22, comprising a combination of traffic striping and reflective raised pavement markers. The total width of the centerline striping is 11-inches and the outside dimension of the pavement markers is 23-inches. There is adequate room to post a flexible crosswalk sign on the centerline stripe. The MUTCD has established acceptable standards for use of "in street pedestrian crossing signs," but the Caltrans Traffic Manual has not identiflied a standard for this type of sign. The TEC may want to consider "Advance Yield Markings" as a solution, as the MUTCD has established standards for "Advance Yield Markings". However, the Caltrans Traffic Manual has not identified a standard for this type of marking, as this is a unique type of pavement marking. It was noted the purpose for review and discussion concerning the topic of crosswalk markings resulted from staffs recommendation that the crosswalks on North and South State Street be diagonally hatched. Member Seanor clarified the initial request was for the crosswalks on State Street north of Low Gap Road and on State Street south of Gobbi Street be diagonally hatched because these are outlying areas where traffic is "more free- flowing." Traffic Engineering Committee February 17, 2004 Page 3 Member Seanor stated the TEC may want to consider the following crosswalk recommendations: 1. Provide recommendation to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer on the locations for installation of specially marked crosswalks on State Street. 2. Provide recommendation to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer on an update to the City's diagonally hatched crosswalk policy. 3. Provide recommendation to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer on the installation of raised pavement markers to identify crosswalks. 4. Provide recommendation to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer on the installation of flexible crosswalk signs. 5. Provide recommendation to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer on the installation of Advance Yield Marking for crosswalks. It was noted the raised pavement markers contain reflectors, which enhance the crosswalk line in times of decreased visibility. Member Seanor stated the policy established for the implementation of raised pavement markers in the City should include a provision that excludes markers from being placed in areas were bicyclists travel, as a safety precaution measure. Member Seanor addressed photographs from the City of Carpinteria showing examples of a crosswalk with white and fluorescent colors, as well as a crosswalk using the flexible crosswalk sign. He referred to Attachment "C", noting the information in the minutes from the CTCDC specifically addresses new traffic control devices to determine whether such devices could be approved for use in the State. He drew attention to Agenda Item 00-4 of the CTCDC minutes dated January 31, 2002, Use of Raised Pavement Markers in a Transverse Pattern. Furthermore, the motion relative to this agenda item, acknowledges that raised pavement markers can be used to supplement transverse or longitudinal pavement markings. Additionally, the motion states the pavement markers shall not be placed either on or within the marked crosswalks. A general discussion followed regarding the follow-up of whether Caltrans has officially adopted the CTCDC's recommendation for the use of raised pavement markers. Member Seanor noted the MUTCD has approved "LED" crosswalk markers that essentially light up crosswalks for increased visibility purposes. There was no information provided in the MUTCD that addresses the ordinary reflective markers. Member Turner inquired whether the City's adoption of the diagonal striping policy was City Council or staff initiated. Traffic Engineering Committee February 17, 2004 Page 4 Member Seanor replied the aforementioned policy was established by the TEC Member Turner requested clarification whether the intent is to try and improve safety at crosswalks by making them more visible with improved mechanisms to alert drivers. He advised there is a mobile metal sign at Oak Manor School that is placed at the crosswalk every morning. Member Seanor stated Frank Zeek School uses a similar sign. Member Turner stated crosswalks within a quarter mile of school are considered "school-zoned crosswalks." They are painted yellow instead of white. He inquired whether the Carpinteria crosswalk examples referenced above are located near schools. Member Seanor replied negatively as the color white was used, which is different than the standard Caltrans recommends for school area crosswalks. Member Lohse inquired regarding the location of the mobile pedestrian crossing sign for the schools. It was noted the sign is placed at the crosswalk A general discussion followed regarding the effectiveness of such a sign, noting it also functions as atraffic-calming device. Member Lohse cited crosswalks where safety precaution measures are necessary, especially in situations where a pedestrian enters the crosswalk and not all cars entering the crosswalk area stop due to lack of clear visibility and the number of lanes the pedestrian must cross. It was noted State Street has four lanes and many of the safety issues concerning crosswalks are correlated to the width of this street in terms of the distance a pedestrian must walk to cross the street. The TEC discussed the potential reduction in the number of lanes on State Street, as well as providing for medians near crosswalks to ensure better safety and to assist with traffic calming. Member Seanor addressed the application of "Advanced Yield Markings," noting these are makings in the pavement alerting cars to yield in advance of the crosswalk, especially designed for those situations where one vehicle stops and the other does not. Member Seanor referred to information from the MUTCD (Attachment "A") that addresses the standards for crosswalk yield lines, crosswalk markings, etc. Traffic Engineering Committee February 17, 2004 Page 5 Section 36.16 of the MUTCD contains information regarding the placement of yield line markings near crosswalk markings. In Section 36.17, the MUTCD states for added visibility, the area of the crosswalk may be marked with white diagonal lines at a 45-degree angle to the line of the crosswalk or with white longitudinal lines parallel to traffic flow. Specifically, when diagonal or longitudinal lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the transverse crosswalk lines may be omitted. Such marking types may be used in locations where a substantial number of pedestrians cross without any other traffic control device, at locations where physical conditions are such that added visibility of the crosswalk is desired, or at places where a pedestrian crosswalk might not be expected. Section 26.12 of the MUTCD addresses the issue of "In-Street Pedestrian Crossing" signs, noting these signs may be used to remind road users of laws regarding the right-of-way at an unsignalized pedestrian crossing. Member Seanor referred to a letter from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in Washington, D.C., addressed to the Federal Highway Administration, dated April 26, 2000. This lobbyist group works on behalf of the insurance companies, recommending the potential revision of the MUTCD, concerning general provisions, markings, and signals. He referred to page 2 of the letter that addresses MUTCD section 36.9, "Stop and Yield Line." The letter recommends that stop lines be placed farther back than 4 feet from crosswalks. Member Seanor stated the letter is an example of the process for changing the MUTCD standard in Washington, D.C. It was noted the above information represents stop-control type crosswalks unlike an "Advance Yield," as the stop line distances vary. Member Seanor recommended "not too much credit" be given to the contents in the letter, as the intent was to provide the TEC with an example of the process for requesting changes to the MUTCD standards, especially for yield lines. Chairman Kageyama distributed an article from the ITE Journal/January 2004 that addresses the topic of "Safety Analysis of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks, in 30 Cities." He commented the article addresses the issue that having a marked crosswalk is potential more dangerous than having an unmarked crosswalk. He referred to the diagrams and tables on pages 37 and 38 of the article that demonstrate the percentage of crashes and exposure by pedestrian age group and roadway type, including a table that compares pedestrian crash trends at marked and unmarked crosswalks. A general discussion followed regarding the aforementioned article in terms of crosswalk safety, noting that pedestrians are often the cause of an accident because they do not effectively exercise the caution necessary when entering a Traffic Engineering Committee February 17, 2004 Page 6 crosswalk. It was noted that age and mobility factors are correlated with pedestrian/vehicle accidents. Member Turner stated he was unable to stay for the remainder of the meeting and recommended continuing the discussions regarding the appropriate crosswalk treatments and locations to ensure pedestrian safety, if it were the consensus of the members. Member Lohse addressed the improvements made to the crosswalk at State and Perkins Streets, noting the treatment was expensive, but effective in terms of visibility. He inquired whether there was a significant difference in the cost of materials for installing the decorative crosswalk markings as opposed to painting crosswalks. Member Whitaker replied the crosswalk treatment at State and Perkins Streets was expensive as opposed to painting a crosswalk. Painting a crosswalk is also less time consuming. A general discussion followed regarding the crosswalks implemented on School Street in the downtown in conjunction with the type of treatments and bulbouts in terms of effectiveness and pedestrian safety. A brief discussion followed regarding the use of paint versus thermoplastic as treatments for crosswalk markings. Member Harris commented on the importance of crosswalk maintenance and installing treatments that ensure the safety of pedestrians. A brief discussion followed regarding implementing crosswalks in areas where left turns are permitted and the potential associated safety hazards. Chairman Kageyama stated it may be possible that some of the crosswalks at Freitas Street, Cherry Street, and Luce Avenue can be consolidated with the implementation of the "advanced yield," for instance, with ladder striping and making them a "more focused" crosswalk, as opposed to having a series of crosswalks "back-to-back." The same treatment for every crosswalk can be "self- defeating" in terms of effectiveness. Member Seanor noted the Traffic Circulation Study currently in progress will conduct a series of workshops to assist with traffic-related recommendations based upon their findings. The TEC can be a part of these discussions. Member Seanor stated the TEC has the option of deferring action relevant to making changes to some of the City's crosswalks until after completion of the Traffic Circulation Study. Traffic Engineering Committee February 17, 2004 Page 7 Member Seanor addressed the matter of diagonally hatching crosswalks on State Street north of Low Gap Road and on South State Street south of Gobbi Street, noting the variety of methods to mark crosswalks as indicated by the information presented. The question remains as to how many of the above crosswalk marking examples would be applicable to Ukiah. Member Harris recommended the discussion on crosswalks and marking be continued to the regular meeting in April. Member Lohse recommended the discussions continue regularly on an as- needed basis as additional information becomes available. Moreover, the Traffic Circulation Study results are intended to be an upgrade to the City's Circulation Element of the Ukiah General Plan. It was noted that further discussion was necessary concerning the use of diagonally hatched versus ladder style marking for crosswalks, as well as other treatments to upgrade crosswalks. ON A MOTION by Member Harris, seconded by Member Lohse, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to recommend that the matter of crosswalks and markings be identified on future agendas under Committee Member Reports as an update to the sidewalk discussions until after the Traffic Circulation Study has been completed and for staff to include for committee discussion any relative information that may pertain to sidewalks, traffic, and crosswalks, as it becomes available. V. NEW BUSINESS N/A VI. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS a. Update on City Traffic Circulation Study Member Seanor reported the aforementioned study is currently in progress and the results and any questions/concerns can be addressed during a series of workshops conducted by the consultants. b. Update on City Parking Study Member Seanor reported the aforementioned study is also in progress and is being coordinated by City staff. The objective is to review the effectiveness of the City parking lots and curbside parking in terms how well they are being utilized. VII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Member Seanor reported a letter of appreciation was prepared by Chairman Kageyama, thanking Member Looney for his years of service on the TEC. The letter was circulated for each member to sign. Traffic Engineering Committee February 17, 2004 Page 8 VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:41 p.m. r ~ -- --- Ben,Ft a ama, ai an ~cvrZt Cathy EI wadly, Recordin ,Secretary Traffic Engineering Committee February 17, 2004 Page 9