HomeMy WebLinkAbouttecp_041106r; i-~
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA
UKIAH CIVIC CENTER
Conference Room No. 3
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, California 95482
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006
3:00 P.M.
7. CALL TO ORDER:
Goodrick, Lohse, Baxter, Seanor, Turner, Taylor, and Whitaker
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 10, 2006
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: None.
5. NEW BUSINESS:
a. Discussion and passible action regarding request for STOP sign at West Perkins Street
and Oak Street.
b. Discussion and possible action regarding request for a crosswalk on Leslie Street at River
Oak Charter School.
c. Discussion and possible action regarding speeding traffic on Leslie Street.
6. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS•
a. Update on City Traffic Circulation Study (verbal report)
b. Update on City Parking Study (verbal report)
c. Update on crosswalks (verbal report)
7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
8. ADJOURNMENT
Please call JoAnne Campbell at 463-6755 if you are unable to attend the meeting.
The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with
disabilities upon request.
Minutes
Traffic Engineering Committee
January 10, 2006
Members Present
Dan Baxter
Ben Kageyama, Chair
Dave Lohse
Rick Seanor
Jerry Whitaker
Trent Taylor
Others Present
Lee Enemark
Don Wiles
David Meyer
Barbara Meyer
Ernie Wipf
Tim Eriksen
Staff Present
JoAnne Campbell, Recording Secretary
Members Absent
Steve Turner
Sue Goodrick
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Kageyama called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. in Conference Room
No. 3, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 11, 2005
ON A MOTION by Member Baxter, seconded by Member Seanor, it was carried by an all AYE voice
vote of the members present to approve the October 11, 2005, minutes as submitted.
3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The Traffc 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.
No one from the audience came forward.
4. OLD BUSINESS
None.
5. NEW BUSINESS
a. Discussion and possible action regarding request for STOP signs at North School Street
and Smith Street.
Member Seanor submitted and presented report, which consisted of a letter from David and
Barbara Meyer, aerial photo of intersection, excerpts from the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices and the MUTCD 2003 California Supplement regarding STOP sign applications,
a traffic count report, and staff recommendation (1. Post a STOP signs on School Street at the
intersection with Smith Street 2. Refer to staff for further analysis).
Open discussion regarding where to place the signs, if the other signs on Smith Street should be
removed, and traffic conditions. The signs would be placed in both directions, the street would be
painted, the other signs on Smith Street would remain, and all were in agreement traffic
conditions need to be improved.
Audience Comments: David and Barbara Meyer stated the need for the STOP signs and said
thank you to the committee for taking the time to address and research their request.
Traffic Engineering Committee
Page 1
January 10, 2006
The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably
accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request
ON A MOTION by Member Lohse, seconded by Member Baxter, based on Staff's determination
that the project site meets MUTCD Warrants, post STOP signs at the north-bound and south-
bound lanes of School Street where it intersects with Smith Street; the location of sign shall be
determined by Public Works Director, it was carried by an all AYE vote.
b. Discussion and possible action regarding request for STOP signs at East Gobbi Street
and Waugh Lane.
Member Seanor submitted and presented report, which consisted of a letter from Lee Enemark,
excerpts from the 2003 MUTCD and the MUTCD 2003 California Supplement regarding STOP
sign applications, sections of the Ukiah City Code, documentation that 3 out of 5 traffic signal
warrants are met, traffic counts, and staff recommendation (1. Post STOP signs on Gobbi Street
at the intersection with Waugh Lane 2. Refer to staff for further analysis).
Open discussion on the traffic conditions, how the closing of Hopland schools have had impact,
cost of installing a signal, and the potential impact on traffic with installation of signs occurred.
Chairman Kageyama generally disagrees with disrupting the flow of traffic, but in this situation
agrees with the staff's recommendation. Member Whitaker commented on the need to warn
drivers of the sign addition; a press release may be adequate.
Audience Comments: Lee Enemark explained traffic conditions pulling out of Waugh lane and
heading west on Gobbi and expressed his appreciation to the committee for all the work and
research that was done.
ON A MOTION by Member Lohse, seconded by Member Whitaker, based on Staff's
determination that the project site meets MUTCD Warrants, post STOP signs on Gobbi Street at
its intersections with Waugh Lane; the location of sign shall be determined by Public Works
Director, it was carried by an all AYE vote.
c. Discussion and possible action regarding request for no parking zone at 615 Talmage
Road.
Member Seanor submitted and presented report, which consisted of a letter from Ernie Wipf,
excerpts from the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, photograph of the subject intersection, and
staff recommendation (1. Recommend to the City Council the establishment of a no parking zone
on Talmage Road of sufficient length to provide corner sight distance of 426.5 feet 2. Refer to
staff for further analysis).
Open discussion on traffic conditions, possible solutions (height limit, no parking on all or part of
area, no overnight parking, weight limit, etc.), along with repercussions and enforceability, and
how current height restrictions are working in other areas.
Audience Comments: Don Wiles has been at this address for 27 yrs and there hasn't been a
problem with visibility until now. He does not want the curb painted red as he feels his business
will be hurt. Ernie Wipf informed committee the parking of a 40' truck is what is obstructing
visibility and the owner of the truck is uncooperative. He also stated a 3' red curb placed in the
center area would work. Both expressed their appreciation to the committee for time spent on
this issue.
ON A MOTION by Member Whitaker, seconded by Member Lohse, to recommend that the Ukiah
City Council approve the posting of "no parking over 6"'signs at 615 Talmage Road by an all
AYE voice vote of the members present.
Traffic Engineering Committee
Page 2
January 10, 2006
The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably
accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request
6. COMMITTEE MEMBER RtPORTS
a. Update on City Traffic Circulation Study
Member Seanor reported Tim Eriksen, Senior Civil Engineer with the City of Ukiah is to become
the City Engineer/Public Works Director, is coordinating with consultant on this study. Tim
Eriksen reports, currently the study is 6 months behind schedule due to purposed developments,
land use changes, and anticipation of how Mendocino County is laying out the roadways. (All
involved want to use the same model.) Currently at a stand still with the possibility that the
consultants can come up with different scenarios so the study can move forward. No date of
completion has been identified.
Chairman Kageyama asked if there is a preferred alternative. Eriksen stated 12 options were
given, none of which appear ideal. The consultant's preferred alternative is one-way couplets.
Oak Street could be used as a major thoroughfare and the School Street atmosphere would be
extended to State Street. One-way couplets are not preferred by City Council or MTA. Member
Baxter stated this would increase operation costs for MTA (have to add to routes and time). One-
way couplets have worked very well for other areas; points of view might change with more
education.
A copy of the working plan will be submitted to TEC when available.
b. Update on City Parking Study
Nothing to report. Need to have patterns from circulation study. Dave asked who is contact,
Member Seanor will investigate and update him.
c. Update on Crosswalks
No report.
7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
Member Seanor proposed the City of Ukiah hosting a Web Seminar on using round-abouts and
asked if the Committee is interested. Committee expressed interest in attending. Member Seanor will
keep them posted.
8. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Ben Kageyama, Chair
Traffic Engineering Committee
Page 3
JoAnne Campbell, Recording Secretary
January 10,2006
The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably
accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request
CITY OF UKIAH
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 6, 2006
TO: Traffic Engineering Committee
FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works ~jlil+
SUBJECT: STOP sign request -West Perkins Street at Oak Street
Agenda Item 5a.
REQUEST: Staff received a letter Attachment "A"from Fred & JoAnn Schneiter requesting that
a STOP sign be posted on West Perkins Street at Oak Street. Mr. & Mrs. Schneiter remarked
on close calls they have both experienced and witnessed at this intersection.
DISCUSSION: At the subject intersection there are existing STOP signs posted for northbound
and southbound traffic on Oak Street. West Perkins Street at this location is one-way for
westbound traffic with parking permitted along the north side of the street. Staff reviewed the
collision history at the subject intersection. During the four year period (2001-2004) for which
staff had collision data there were two reported collisions at this intersection. One collision
involved a vehicle backing into a parked vehicle. The other collision involved one vehicle
colliding broadside into another vehicle at the intersection. Based on collision data alone, a
STOP sign would not be warranted at the intersection. However, the City of Ukiah is in the
process of completing a citywide traffic circulation study. The study is expected to be completed
in the summer of 2006. Since there may be recommended changes in the downtown traffic
patterns, staff recommends evaluation of this intersection upon review and completion of the
citywide traffic circulation study.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is submitting this report for review and discussion by the TEC.
Staff has provided the following options for consideration:
1. Evaluate at a future date upon completion of the Citywide Traffic Circulation Study.
2. Refer to staff for further analysis.
enc.
cc: file
Attachment #r A~ ~
Thursday, February 2, 2006
TO: TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE
FROM: FRED & JOANN SCHNEITER
The intersection of West Perkins Street and Oak Street continues to
be one of the more dangerous intersections in the City. The
statistics do not record the number of close calls experienced by
both motorists and pedestrians.
Automobiles traveling west from the previous intersection are
gaining speed as they approach this dangerous intersection and
have little time to react to safety issues, pedestrians and other
autos. Many times both my wife and I have experienced and
witnessed close calls. Please consider a westbound stop at this
intersection. Consider the attached photograph from the Ukiah
Daily Journal.
Th k you,
Fred & JoAnn Schneiter
700 West Perkins Street
Ukiah, CA 95481-4729
707-462-3553
Attachment # "A ~~ Page 2-
--a-
THREE-CAR CRRSH RT PERKINS & ORK
~~
woelc the scans a .
u,n.-ray .odd.M
about 5:20 p.m.. Tusa-
day at IM hrinsc•
lion of Oslo and Ps~r
kMs atrwls. Acoo~
~rotn.upo,a
Scion aarN~np nortl,
on Oak Strsat dror.
kKO N+s Inlsessctlon
at tl+s sanM tiros ss .
fold 4x~ truck tra~a4
M1p west on Parltfns,
yWienqp tlti! bvdt 10
slam i~o ws nnr of a
paAad Toyota Can-
ry. No ona was In-
-urad In t11a weack.
... u.Wr.TS. n.w Ja..v+
CITY OF UKIAH
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 6, 2006
TO: Traffic Engineering Committee
FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works R~
SUBJECT: Crosswalk request -Leslie Street
Agenda Item 5b.
REQUEST: Staff received an email, Attachment "A", from David Taxis requesting that a
crosswalk be placed on Leslie Street for students and other pedestrians walking to and from the
River Oak Charter School.
DISCUSSION: Leslie Street is a north -south street connecting Perkins Street with Gobbi
Street. There is one lane of traffic for each direction with curbside parking generally unrestricted.
The posted speed limit on Leslie Street is 25 mph. A crosswalk as proposed at River Oak
Charter School would be considered a "mid block crosswalk" since there are no intersecting
streets at the requested location. Mid block crosswalks are not generally preferred since drivers
do not expect crosswalks at locations other than intersections. In addition, crosswalks can give
pedestrians a false sense of security that they are protected from traffic. The proposed
crosswalk, however, would provide the necessary channelization to ensure that all pedestrians
cross at the specified location. In the event that a crosswalk is installed at the requested
location, trained school crossing guards should be provided to provide additional safety
measures for school children crossing the street.
For reference, excerpts from the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement, and the California Vehicle Code regarding crosswalk
applications are attached. Please refer to Attachments "B", "C", and "D" respectively.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is submitting this report for review and discussion by the TEC.
Staff has provided the following options for consideration:
1. Recommend approval of crosswalk to the City Council.
2. Refer to staff for further analysis.
3. Deny request for crosswalk.
enc.
cc: file
2003 Edition Page 7C-1
MctKUal o~ Uvtiform ~ra~fi~Gan+rol 17GViceS
CHAPTER 7C. MARKINGS
~p u
Section 7C.01 Functions and Limitations Attachment # ~~P
Support:
Markings have definite and important functions in a proper scheme of school azea traffic control. In some
cases, they aze used to supplement the regulations or warnings provided by other devices, such as traffic signs
or signals. In other instances, they are used alone and produce results that cannot be obtained by the use of any
other device. In such cases they serve as an effective means of conveying certain regulafions, guidance, and
warnings that could not otherwise be made clearly understandable.
Pavement mazkings have limitations. They might be obliterated by snow, might not be cleazly visible when
wet, and might not be durable when subjected to heavy traffic. In spite of these limitations, they have the
advantage, under favorable conditions, of conveying warnings or information to the road user without diverting
attention from the road.
Section 7C.02 Standardization of Application
Standard:
Each standard marking shall be used only to convey the meaning prescribed for it in this Manual.
Crosswalk Markings
Support:
Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who aze crossing roadways by defining and
delineating paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections, and on approaches to other intersections
where traffic stops.
Crosswalk markings also serve to alert road users of a pedestrian crossing point across roadways not
controlled by highway traffic signals or STOP signs.
At nonintersection locations, crosswalk mazkings legally establish the crosswalk.
Standard:
When transverse crosswalk lines are used, they shall be solid white, marking both edges of the
crosswalk, except as noted in the Option. They shall be not less than 150 mm (6 in) nor greater than
600 mm (24 in)in width.
Guidance:
If transverse lines are used to mazk a crosswalk, the gap between the lines should not be less than 1.8 m (6 ft).
If diagonal or longitudinal lines aze used without transverse lines to mazk a crosswalk, the crosswalk should be not
less than 1.8 m (6 ft) wide.
Crosswalk lines on both sides of the crosswalk should extend across the full width of pavement or to the
edge of the intersecting crosswalk to discourage diagonal walking between crosswalks.
Crosswalks should be mazked at all intersections on established routes to school where there is substantial
conflict between motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrian movements, where students aze encouraged to cross between
intersections, or where students would not otherwise recognize the proper place to cross (see Figure 7A-1).
Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study should be performed before they
are installed at locations away from traffic control signals or STOP signs.
Option:
For added visibility, the azea of the crosswalk may be mazked with white diagonal lines at a 45-degree angle
to the line of the crosswalk or with white longitudinal lines parallel to traffic flow. When diagonal or
longitudinal lines aze used to mark a crosswallc, the transverse crosswalk lines may be omitted.
Guidance:
The diagonal or longitudinal lines should be 300 to 600 mm (12 to 24 in) wide and spaced 300 to 1500 mm
(12 to 60 in) apart. The spacing design should avoid the wheel paths. c
Section 7C.04 Sto~and Yield Lines v V '-'
Standard:
If used, stop lines shall consist of solid white lines extending across approach lanes to indicate the point
at which the stop is intended or required to be made.
Yovember 2003 Sect 7C.01 to 7C.04
/' ii
MUTCD 2003 California Supp~ement Attachment # / Page 3B-18
Section 3B.15 Transverse Markings
Thefollowing is added to this section:
Standard:
Crosswalk markings near schools shall be yellow. Refer to CVC 21368 and Part 7.
Support:
Refer to Department of Transportation's Standazd Plans for pavement marking letters, numerals and
symbols. See Section lA.l l for information regarding this publication
Section 3B.16 Stoo and Yield Lines
The following is added to this section:
Support:
As defined in CVC 377, a "limit line" is a solid white line not less than 300 mm (12 in) nor more than
600 mm (24 in) 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:
For all purposes, limit line(s) shall mean stop line(s) as referenced in the MUTCD.
A limit line shall be placed in conjunction with STOP (Rl-1) signs on paved approaches not
contro-led by signals.
Guidance:
If a sidewalk exists, the limit line should be placed in advance of an unmazked crosswalk area.
Option:
A limit line may be placed in advance of a crosswalk where vehicles aze required to stop, in compliance
with a STOP (Rl-1) sign, traffic control signal or some other traffic control device.
Support:
If a marked crosswalk is in place, it would normally function as a limit line.
Typical limit line mazkings are shown in Figure 3B-103.
Standard:
The individual triangles comprising the yield line shall have a base of 0.6 m (2 ft) wide and a height
of 0.9 m (3 ft). The space between the triangles shall be 0.3 m (1 ft).
Support:
Figure 3B-14 (CA) shows typical yield line layout for streets and highways.
Figure 3B-14. Examples of Yield Line Layouts
Standard:
MUTCD Figure 3B-14 is deleted and replaced with Figure 3B-14 (CA).
Section 3B.17 Crosswalk Markings ~
Standard:
In Paragraph 4 ("When crosswalk lines..."), the phrase "150 mm (6 in)" is changed to "300 mm
(12 in)"
The following is added to this section:
Standard:
Crosswalk markings near schools shall be yellow as provided in CVC 21368. See Part 7.
Option:
Pedestrian crosswalk markings may be placed at intersections, representing extensions of the sidewalk
lines, or on any portion of the roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing. Refer to CVC 275.
Guidance:
In general, crosswalks should not be marked at intersections unless they are intended to channelize J
pedestrians. Emphasis is placed on the use of marked crosswalks as a channelization device. /
May 20, 2004
MUTCD 2003 California Suppa;ment
Figure 38-iO3. Examples of lntersectton Markings
e ~ e
s ~
e ~ ~ °
~_ ~
DE E
1B3 m I6 ft} Min. 4
a
0.30 m(1 ft}
(See Nob 1}
2•LANE
~~ ~ 0.30m(i ft)
(See Note i)
.,
c`
_$
Ri-0
E (Sae Nota 2)
MULTf•LANE
Rt-i 0.30 m (1 ft)
1 f iSee Nob t)
--`E~
c
~- $_
E
R
NOTES:
7. The LimN line on wide side rwde an long radius corners may be bent at a 43°t angle Tor traffic
making a right turn.
2. When a STOP AHEAD (W3-ta) sign is used, a pavement legend may bo placed to supptament ttre
sign according to Section 38.19.
LEGEND
-- Direction of Travel
NOT TO SCALE
Page 3B-19
May 20, 2004
MUTCD 2003 California Supp~ement
Figure 36-i4 (CA). Example of Yield Line Layout
3.66 mm (t2 ft)
Page 3B-20
690 mm
l24 in)
c\--J~
900 mm
~ {38 in)
1, J
The following factors may be considered in determining whether a mazked crosswalk should be used:
• Vehiculaz approach speeds from both directions.
• Vehicular volume and density.
• Vehicular turning movements.
• Pedestrian volumes.
• Roadway width.
• Day and night visibility by both pedestrians and motorists.
• Channelization is desirable to clazify pedestrian routes for sighted or sight impaired pedestrians.
• Discouragement of pedestrian use of undesirable routes.
• Consistency with markings at adjacent intersections or within the same intersection.
Option:
Crosswalk mazkings may be established between intersections (mid-block) in accordance with CVC
2ll06(a).
Guidance:
Mid-block pedestrian crossings are generally unexpected by the motorist and should be discouraged
unless, in the opinion of the engineer, there is strong justification in favor of such installation. Pazticulaz
attention should be given to roadways with two or more traffic lanes in one direction as a pedestrian may be
hidden from view by a vehicle yielding the right-of--way to a pedestrian.
Option:
When diagonal or longitudinal lines are used to mark a crosswalk, the transverse crosswalk lines may be
omitted.
Standard:
However, when the factor that determined the need to mark a crosswalk is the clarification of
pedestrian routes for sight-impaired pedestrians, the transverse crosswalk lines shall be marked.
Option:
At controlled approaches, limit lines (stop lines) help to define pedestrian paths and are therefore a factor
the engineer may consider in deciding whether or not to mazk the crosswalk.
Where it is desirable to remove a marked crosswalk, the removal may be accomplished by repaving or ,
surface treatment.
May 20, 2004
MUTCD 2003 California Supp~ement
Page 36-21
Guidance: ~
A mazked crosswalk should not be eliminated by allowing it to fade out or be worn away.
Support:
The worn or faded crosswalk retains its prominent appearance to the pedestrian at the curb, but is less
visible to the approaching driver.
Standard:
Notification to the public shall be given at least 30 days prior to the scheduled removal of an
existing marked crosswalk. The notice of proposed removal shall inform the public how to provide
input related to the scheduled removal and shall be posted at the crosswalk identified for removal.
Refer to CVC 21950.5
Option:
Signs may be installed at or adjacent to an intersection directing that pedestrians shall not cross in a
crosswalk indicated at the intersection in accordance with CVC 21106(b).
White PED XING pavement markings may be placed in each approach lane to a marked crosswalk,
except at intersections controlled by traffic signals or STOP or YIELD signs.
§ectton 3B.18 Parking Space Markings v " `~
The fa((owing is added to this section:
Support:
Refer to CVC 22500 through 22522 for parking space mazkings.
Refer to Section 2B.39 for Parking Regulations.
Policv on Parking Restrictions
Option:
Local authorities may, by ordinance, provide for the establishment of pazking meter zones and cause
streets and highways to be marked with white lines designating parking spaces. Refer to CVC Section
22508.
Standard:
Where the proposed zones are on State highways, the ordinances shall be approved by the
Department of Transportation.
Local authorities shall furnish a sketch or map showing the definite location of all parking meter
stalls on State highways before departmental approval is given.
Support:
The District Directors have been delegated the authority to approve such ordinances.
The desirable dimensions of parking meter stalls are 2.4 m (8 ft) by 7.3 m (24 ft) with a minimum length
of 6.1 m (20 ft).
Standard:
At all intersections, one stall length on each side measured from the crosswalk or end of curb
return shall have parking prohibited. A clearance of 1.8 m (6 ft) measured from the curb return shall
be provided at alleys and driveways.
Guidance:
At signalized intersections parking should be prohibited for a minimum of two stall lengths on the near
side and one stall length on the far side. See Figure 3B-18 (CA).
Standard:
The departmental approval for the installation of the parking meters shall be covered by an
encroachment permit.
Option:
Local authorities may by ordinance permit angle pazking. Refer to CVC 22503.
Support:
Department of Transportation does not approve ordinances establishing angle pazking on State highways.
May 2Q, 2004
~,~~it;~I, ;11~; I;6?i;~~~ E? _[~~L
Afiachment # ~ i J~•~~
2-10E~. (a; Local. a-~thorities, by ordinance or resolution, may
_~_~abl ish crosswe7.ks between intersections.
;b~ Lcca- a~r_horities may install signs at or adjacent to an
in_erse:ction directing that pedestrians shall not cross in a
goes e~walk _ndicated at the intersection. Zt is unlawful for any
oedest Tian to cross at the crosswalk prohibited by a sign.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&... 4/6/2006
CITY OF UKIAH
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 6, 2006
TO: Traffic Engineering Committee
FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works R~I,~
SUBJECT: Request to review speeding traffic -Leslie Street
Agenda Item 5c.
REQUEST: Staff received a letter, Attachment "A", from Brenda Christian of the Ukiah Senior
Center requesting that the Traffic Engineering Committee review and discuss possible solutions
to speeding traffic on Leslie Street. Ms. Christian suggested considering a flashing yellow light
and/or speed bumps.
DISCUSSION: Leslie Street is a north -south street connecting Perkins Street with Gobbi
Street. There is one lane of traffic for each direction with curbside parking generally unrestricted.
The alignment of Leslie Street is straight with good sight distance. The posted speed limit on
Leslie Street is 25 mph.
Staff reviewed potential applications for Warning Beacons, Flashing Beacons, and Speed Limit
Sign Beacons. At this time, staff does not believe that beacons are warranted for installation.
For reference, excerpts from the 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and
the MUTCD 2003 California Supplement regarding beacons are attached. Please refer to
Attachments "B" and "C", respectively.
Speed bumps are an additional obstacle to police, fire, and ambulance vehicles providing service
to the neighborhood. In addition, speed bumps are not conducive to bicycle traffic on the street.
Staff therefore recommends against installing speed bumps at this time.
Rather than installing flashing beacons or speed bumps on Leslie Street as speed control
measures, staff recommends posting of the Police Department radartrailerand additional speed
zone enforcement of the street by the Police Department.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is submitting this report for review and discussion by the TEC.
Staff has provided the following options for consideration:
Recommend posting of the Police Department radar trailer followed by additional
enforcement of the speed zone.
Refer to staff for further analysis.
enc.
cc: file
UKia~
Senior
Center
February 22, 2006
~nric~ing cne ~ives of Seniors
Traffic Committee
City of Ukiah
300 Seminary
Ukiah, CA 95482
Dear Sir,
Dear Concerned Agencies and Ukiah City Citizens,
RECEIVED
FEB 2 7 2006
CITY OF UKIAH
DEPT. OF PUBLIC bVORKS
The Ukiah Senior Center is located at 499 Leslie Street in Ukiah. We are anon-profit Center for both active and
fragile seniors and our membership consists of approximately 600 families. Our slate of activities is very full and
we are open seven days per week, consequently wr lave a volume of traffic at all times.
The speeding traffic on Leslie (connecting Gobbi t~, - erkins) has become an alarming danger. Across from our
Center is a mobile home park for the elderly. Mos -.;:upants of the Park visit the Senior Center for lunch and
activities every day. These seniors are usually fragile, walk with canes, walkers and use wheelchairs and
scooters.
For a long time, we have been very fearful of a tragic accident involving one of our Members or visitors. River
Oaks Charter School is next door to us and the traffic in and out of the school grounds is very heavy at certain
times of the day. Still the cars rush by at alarming sl,eeds.
I am requesting that further investigation and consideration be given to our traffic dilemma. The Senior Center
hosts a considerable number of fragile elders each day and right next door are active children who should also
be protected. Perhaps you could take a look at the : eeding traffic. A suggestion would be for your experts to
consider a flashing yellow light zone and / er spee^_' ~~mps.
If you have any further questions, please do not h -: ate to call.
Sincerely,
Brenda Christian
499 Leslie Sr * Ukiah, CA 95482
707-462-43: * fax 707-462-2997
Attachment # \`t7 ~~
a public benefit 501(e)3 nonprofit organisation tax ID # 23-7258082
2003 Edition r /M~ L Page 4K-1
M,anua~ o~ un~torrn ~ • aTli ~ ~anli'vl De/i ee5
CHAPTER 4K. FLASHING BEACONS ~p - ~~
Section 4K.01 General Desigzt and Operation of Flashing Beacons Attachment #l ~lg
Support:
A Flashing Beacon is a highway traffic signal with one or more signal sections that operates in a flashing
mode. It can provide traffic control when used as an intersection control beacon or warning in alternative uses.
Standard:
Flashing Beacon units and their mountings shall follow the provisions of Chapter 4D, except as
specified herein.
Beacons shall be flashed at a rate of not less than 50 nor more than 60 times per minute. The
illuminated period of each flash shall not be less than one-half and not more than two-thirds of the total
cycle.
Guidance:
If used to supplement a warning or regulatory sign, the edge of the beacon signal housing should normally
be located no closer than 300 mm (12 in) outside of the neazest edge of the sign.
Option:
An automatic dimming device may be used to reduce the brilliance of flashing yellow signal indications
during night operation.
Section 4K.02 Intersection Control Beacon
Standard: i
An Intersection Control Beacon shall consist of one or more signal faces directed toward each
approach to an intersection. Each signal face shall consist of one or more signal sections of a standard
traffic signal face, with flashing CIRCULAR YELLOW or CIRCULAR RED signal indications in each
signal face. They shall be installed and used only at an intersection to control two or more directions of
travel.
Application of Intersection Control Beacon signal indications shall be limited to the following:
A. Yellow on one route (normally the major street) and red for the remaining approaches; and
B. Red for afl approaches (if the warrant for a multiway stop is satisfied).
Flashing yellow signal indications shall not face conflicting vehicular approaches.
A STOP sign shall be used on approaches to which a flashing red signal indication is shown on an
Intersection Control Beacon (see Section 2B.04).
Guidance:
An Intersection Control Beacon should not be mounted on a pedestal in the roadway unless the pedestal is
within the confines of a traffic or pedestrian island.
Option:
Supplemental signal indications may be used on one or more approaches in order to provide adequate
visibility to approaching road users.
Intersection Control Beacons may be used at intersections where traffic or physical condifions do not justify
conventional traffic control signals but crash rates indicate the possibility of a special need.
An Intersection Control Beacon is generally located over the center of an intersection; however, it may be
used at otrtet stutaJ$e locauons._ ~
4K.03 Warning Beacon
Support:
Typical applications of Warning Beacons include the following:
A. At obstructions in or immediately adjacent to the roadway;
B. As supplemental emphasis to warning signs;
C. As emphasis for midblock crosswalks;
D. On approaches to intersections where additional warning is required, or where special conditions exist;
and
E. As supplemental emphasis to regulatory signs, except STOP, YIELD, DO NOT ENTER, and SPEED
LI1vIIT signs. ^J
November 2003 v ~~ ~~ `~ ~~ ~J ~~ Sect 4K.01 W 4K.03
Page 4K-2 2003 Edition
Standard:
A Warning Beacon shall consist of one or more signal sections of a standard traffic signal face with a
flashing CIRCULAR YELLOW signal indication in each signal section.
A Warning Beacon shall be used only to supplement an appropriate warning or regulatory sign or
marker. The beacon shall not be included within the border of the sign except for SCHOOL SPEED
LIMIT sign beacons.
Warning Beacons, if used at intersections, shall not face conflicting vehicular approaches.
If a Warning Beacon is suspended over the roadway, the clearance above the pavement shall be at least
4.6 m (15 ft) but not more than 5.8 m (19 ft).
Guidance:
The condition or regulation justifying Warning Beacons should lazgely govern their location with respect to
the roadway.
If an obstruction is in or adjacent to the roadway, illumination of the lower portion or the beginning of the
obstruction or a sign on or in front of the obstruction, in addition to the beacon, should be considered.
Warning Beacons should be operated only during those hours when the condition or regulation exists.
Option:
If Waniing Beacons have more than one signal section, they may be flashed either alternately or
simultaneously.
A flashing yellow beacon interconnected with a traffic signal controller assembly may be used with a traffic
signal warning sign (see Section 2C.29). _ ~_~il ~~ ~ ,-. _ ~ ^ ~~
Standard:
A Speed Limit Sign Beacon shall be used only to supplement a Speed Limit sign.
A Speed Limit Sign Beacon shall consist of one or more signal sections of a standard traffic control
signal face, with a flashing CIRCULAR YELLOW signal indication in each signal section. The signal
lenses shall have a nominal diameter of not less than 200 mm (8 in). If two lenses are used, they shall be
vertically aligned, except that they may be horizontally aligned if the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign is longer
horizontally than vertically. If two lenses are used, they shall be alternately flashed.
Option:
A Speed Limit Sign Beacon may be used with a fixed or variable Speed Limit sign. If applicable, a flashing
Speed Limit Sign Beacon (with an appropriate accompanying sign) may be used to indicate that the speed limit
shown is in effect.
Support:
Section 7B.11 contains additional Options for the use of Speed Limit Sign Beacons with SCHOOL SPEED
LIMIT signs.
Section 4K.05 Stop Beacon
Standard:
A Stop Beacon shall consist of one or more signal sections of a standard traffic signal face with a
flashing CIRCULAR RED signal indication in each signal section. If two horizontally aligned signal lenses
are used, they shall be flashed simultaneously to avoid being confused with ahighway-rail grade crossing
flashing- light signals. If two vertically aligned signal lenses are used, they shall be flashed alternately.
The bottom of the signal housing of a Stop Beacon shall be not less than 300 mm (12 in) nor more than
600 mm (24 in) above the top of a STOP sign (see Section 2B.04).
Sect. 4K.03 to 4K.05 November 2003
MUTCD 2003 California Supt....ment Attachment # `,li Page 4K-1
CHAPTER 4K. FLASHING BEACONS
Section 4K.01 -General Design and Operation of Flashing Beacons
The following is added to this section:
Support:
Typical applications for flashing beacons include the following:
1. Signal Ahead
2. Stop Signs
3. Speed Limit Signs
4. Other Warning and Regulatory Signs
5. Schools
6. Fire Stations
7. Intersection Control
8. Freeway Bus Stops
9. At Intersections Where a More Visible Warning is Desired.
Typical uses include:
1. Obstructions in or immediately adjacent to the roadway.
2. Supplemental to advance warning signs.
3. At mid-block crosswalks.
4. At intersections where a warning is appropriate.
Option:
Only warning, regulatory or construction signs may be supplemented by flashing beacons.
Section 4K.02 Intersection Control Beacon
The following is added to this section:
Standard:
New installations of overhead intersection control flashing beacon shall consist of red indications
for each approach.
The cost of installing an Intersection Control Beacon and intersection -ighting shall be shared with
the local agency in the same manner as a traffic signal.
Section 4K.101 Warning Beacon Financing
Standard:
The cost of installing a Warning or Regulatory Sign Flashing Beacon on a State highway shall be
at 100% State expense.
Section 4K.102 Signal Ahead Flashing
Option:
Yellow flashing beacons may be used with Signal Ahead (W3-3) signs in advance of:
1. An isolated traffic signal on either a conventional highway or on an expressway in a rural azea.
2. The first traffic signal approaching an urban azea.
3. Any traffic signal with limited approach visibility, or where approach speeds exceed 80 km/h (50
mph).
On divided highways where the median is 2.5 m (8 ft) wide, or greater, the installation may consist of:
1. Two Type 1 standazds, each with a Signal Ahead (W3-3) sign and a 300 mm (12 in) signal face,
with one standazd located in the median and the other off of the right shoulder; or
May 20, 2004
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 4K-2
2. A Type 9 cantilever flashing beacon installation with a Signal Ahead (W3-3) or SIGNAL AHEAD
(W3-3a) sign and two 300 mm (12 in) signal faces as shown in the Department of Transportation's
Standazd Plans. See Section lA.l l for information regarding this publication.
The above installation designs may result in noncompliance with the Department of Transportation's
Highway Design Manual mandatory standards for horizontal clearance and shoulder width, and the advisory
design standazd for clear recovery zones. If such nonstandard features cannot be avoided, the designer must
obtain approval in accordance with Topic 82 of the Department of Transportation's Highway Design Manual
and the current instructions pertaining to exceptions from mandatory and advisory design standards. See
Section lA.l l for information regarding this publication.
On undivided highways or on highways where the median is less than 2.5 m (8 ft) wide, the installation
may consist of a single standazd located off of the right shoulder as described for use on divided highways, or
it may be a Type 9 cantilever flashing beacon installation.
Support:
The cost of installing a Signal Ahead Flashing Beacon is normally included in the traffic signal project
and the cost shared with the local agency.
Section 4K.103 Flashing Beacons at School Crosswalks
Option:
Flashing beacons at school crosswalks may be installed on State highways in accordance with CVC
Sections 21372 and 21373.
Flashing yellow beacons may be installed to supplement standazd school signing and mazkings for the
purpose of providing advanced warning during specified times of operation when justified.
A flashing yellow beacon may be justified when ALL of the following conditions are fulfilled:
1. The uncontrolled school crossing is on the "Suggested Route to School"; and
2. At least 40 school pedestrians use the crossing during each of any two hours (not necessazily
consecutive) of a normal school day; and
3. The crossing is at least 180 m (600 ft) from the nearest alternate crossing controlled by traffic
signals, stop signs or crossing guards; and
4. The vehicular volume through the crossing exceeds 200 vehicles per hour in urban areas or 140
vehicles per hour in rural azeas during the same hour the students aze going to and from school
during normal school hours; and
5. The critical approach speeds exceeds 55 km/h (35 mph) or the approach visibility is less than the
stopping sight distance.
Standard:
If school authorities are to operate flashing yellow beacon, an inter-agency agreement shall be
executed to assure designations of a responsible adult to operate the beacon controls and to provide
accessibility for necessary equipment maintenance.
Where traffic signals and/or flashing beacons are justified only by the School Area Traffic Signal
Warrant on a State highway, the installation shall be at 100% State expense. When any other warrant
is met also, the cost is shared in the usual manner.
Support:
Figure 4K-101 shows the worksheet for flashing beacon at school crossings.
Section 4K.104 Speed Limit Sign Beacon "'I `~ ~
Guidance:
When a Speed Limit Sign Flashing Beacon is installed at the request of a local agency, or installed by the
local agency under an encroachment permit the costs of installing and maintaining the beacon should be at
100% local agency expense. /-
May 2Q, 2004
Sign In Sheet
Traffic Engineering Meeting
April 11, 2006 3:00 p.m.
300 Seminary Avenue, Con. 3
Clt1J. Of ~~ZGLl2
NAME & COMPANY -please print ADDRESS
~~a~ ~A T~Y2. ~Lt 1 ~--
4esrr- T ~ ~~
~~ ~ageyG~a ~w
I C SE~}~p(z
~-
.__ u.~.~l ~~ I~ c; C'
~- p:.~r~~} c~-
y ~~ C,