Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbouttecp_020805TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA UKIAH CIVIC CENTER Conference Room No. 3 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, California 95482 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2005 3:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Archibald, Lohse, Baxter, Seanor, Turner, Walker, Whitaker, and Chairman Kageyama 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 14, 2004 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. None. 5. NEW BUSINESS: a. Discussion and possible action regarding proposed MTA bus stop at 998 South State Street. b. Discussion and possible action regarding MTA bus stop at Coffee Critic. 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) d. Route 101 Corridor Interchange Study (verbal report) 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: 8. ADJOURNMENT Please call Katrina Ballard at 463-6203 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. DRAFT Minutes TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE December 14, 2004 Members Present Ben Kageyama, Chair Mike Harris Dan Baxter Jerry Whitaker Rick Seanor Staff Present Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary The meeting was called to i Conference Room No. 3, Uk California. II. APPROVAL OF MINUI ON A MOTION by Member N by an all AYE voice vote of 2004 minutes, as submitted. ABSTAIN: Members Han Chair Kageyai Others Present John McCowen Antonio Andrade Members Absent Dave Lohse Dan Walker ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~GL f1` 5 1 ~ ~e~~ 6 p.m. in ie, Ukiah, vas carried )ctober 12, III. AUDIENCE COMME~ No one from the audience came ivir.o~... IV. OLD BUSINESS a. None V. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action regarding merge lane on South Dora Street at Gobbi Member Seanor reported Antonio Andrade has requested the TEC review the merge lane for southbound Dora Street traffic. According to Mr. Andrade, drivers are not aware of proper use of the merge lane, especially when children are being dropped off at Yokayo School by improperly merging across the solid white traffic stripe (channelizing line). Mr. Andrade states that misuse of the merge lane has nearly caused accidents with southbound traffic in the adjacent lane. An aerial photomap (Attachment "B") shows the general layout of the intersection where there is an 8-inch solid white traffic stripe, approximately 110 feet in Traffic Engineering Committee December 14, 2004 Page 1 length, establishing the merge lane. The California Vehicle Code Sections 22100 and 21800 (a) (Attachment "C") provide adequate measures to address traffic issues for this type of intersection. Attachment "D" provides various examples of State standards for pavement markers and traffic lines for channelizing/bike lines and lane line extensions through intersections. The TEC may want to consider: - Placing one-way clear reflective pavement markers in accordance with Caltrans Standard Plan A20D, Detail 38. - Recommending removal of the merge lane and replace with appropriate yellow cross-hatch striping. - Making no changes to the existing merge lane. Member Seanor stated drivers misunderstand the use of the merge lane, because it is not a typical situation. Chair Kageyama inquired whether a driver can lawfully exit the intersection in either one of the two lanes or from just the merge lane. He has observed drivers exiting the intersection from either lane. Member Seanor stated he did not know. He added that he hoped Captain Dan Walker had been in attendance to answer the question. Member Whitaker has observed that many drivers cut across the merge lane to the through lane rather than entering the merge lane when negotiating a left turn from Gobbi Street. Antonio Andrade has also observed the above-referenced scenarios. John McCowen requested clarification that a driver turning left from Gobbi Street can cut across the merge lane onto Dora Street, provided there is no other driver southbound on Dora Street entering the intersection. Member Seanor stated this is the way he interprets the California Vehicle Code on this issue. John McCowen has observed that many drivers cut across the merge lane when turning left from Gobbi Street without making any distinction between the merge lane and the travel through lane. Member Seanor stated it is unusual to have a merge lane from the left-hand side of traffic. The traffic manuals primarily address the channelizing line, which is how the street is currently striped to designate the merge lane. Traffic Engineering Committee December 14, 2004 Page 2 Member Richard inquired whether information is available concerning the number of accidents that may have occurred in conjunction with this type of intersection. Member Seanor replied the traffic accident statistics from the State have not been available for the past two years. Member Richard inquired whether traffic is so heavy that a merge lane is necessary. Member Whitaker indicated that traffic is heavy during the early morning hours when school is in session. John McCowen stated the merge lane makes traffic flow more efficiently when used properly. Member Whitaker commented most drivers do not understand its intended purpose. John McCowen stated clarification must be made whether it is unlawful to cross the solid white line. He supported the concept of maintaining the merge lane. Member Harris inquired if the question for Captain Walker is whether the line should be dotted or dashed, and inquired whether implementing painted arrows on the merge lane was a possibility. Member Whitaker stated the problem is the cutting into the merge lane as drivers make a left turn from Gobbi Street without properly merging into the lane. Member Harris commented a driver can legally complete a left turn in the merge lane. The merge lane is not necessary if a driver is coming from the north and heading south. He commented the intersection cannot accommodate a driver proceeding south through the intersection and a driver turning left. John McCowen commented drivers turning left from Gobbi Street automatically go into the through lane without the realization that adjacent drivers can be in the merge lane and the through at the same time. Member Harris acknowledged the aforementioned comment, and stated the driver heading southbound would have the right-of-way and should not be in the intersection at the time a driver is making a left turn from Gobbi onto South Dora Street. John McCowen commented the driver southbound likely has the right-of-way to the through traffic lane, provided he/she is not interfering with a person turning Traffic Engineering Committee December 14, 2004 Page 3 left from Gobbi Street. Typically, the driver turning left from Gobbi Street feels he/she has ownership to the through south lane. Antonio Andrade commented one of two scenarios must occur; become better educated on traffic laws or clarify the situation. Member Seanor addressed the right-of-way issue at the intersection relevant to Vehicle Code Section 22100, and commented that a driver making a turning left would have the right-of-way when he/she enters the intersection unless striping changes are made. A driver should wait for a vehicle to be out of the merge lane intersection before another vehicular movement is made, according to California Vehicle Code Section 21800. A general discussion followed regarding the use of reflective pavement markers to guide left turn traffic through the intersection. Drivers would still have the opportunity to turn into the through lane when unoccupied by another vehicle and likely cross over the reflectors when negotiating a left turn. Antonio Andrade recommended the existing striped line be a broken line. John McCowen further replied drivers southbound can get a false sense of security that the merge lane is ultimately dedicated to them. He stated, for example, the left-turn lanes are clearly marked all through the intersection at Airport Park Boulevard and Talmage Road. A driver has the opportunity to change lanes when it is safe to do so. A general discussion followed regarding the use of arrows to appropriately direct drivers into the merge lane, giving the indication that two lanes do exist on Dora Street and that the situation is not a "free for all." A brief discussion followed regarding the issue of safety with the elementary school located adjacent to the merge lane. ON A MOTION by Member Harris, seconded by Member Whitaker, it was carried by an all AYE voice voted of the members present to recommend the City Director of Public Works install arrows in the merge lane and that further action on this matter be continued to the next regular meeting so that the accident report for the intersection can be evaluated and a determination made whether a single solid or dashed line is necessary for the configuration. John McCowen recommended the motion include a clarification whether there is away to legally stripe the lane so that drivers cannot go from the merge to the through lane until the lanes actually merge. b. Discussion and possible action regarding locations to post electronic speed display signs Traffic Engineering Committee December 14, 2004 Page 4 Member Seanor reported the City successfully obtained a grant from the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) to fund the installation of four electronic speed display signs. The pair of signs would be placed on each end of the street. One pair of signs is intended for installation at a location where school children may be present. The other set of signs is planned for installation on a street with a high volume of speeding vehicles. One pair of signs will be wired directly to an AC power source and the other set will be solar-powered. Staff was informed by OTS after the grant was obtained that the electronic speed display signs may not be installed on streets identified on the Federal Aid System. Additionally, the City cannot post electronic speed display signs on these street sections, which are further classified as either "arterial or collector." The signs may only be posted on street classified as local (residential) streets. Member Seanor stated City Engineer Diana Steele recommended the electronic speed display signs be placed on Oak Manor Drive and Waugh Lane. Member Seanor noted Attachment "A" references the City's maintained mileage report that identifies the street sections listed on the Federal Aid System. No electronic speed display signs funded by OTS may be placed on the streets listed. The TEC noted that Ford Street could be a candidate for the display signs. A brief discussion followed regarding whether the signs should be permanently placed. A general discussion followed regarding Lorraine Street and other City streets where traffic calming devices were implemented to discourage speeding. A general discussion also followed regarding the benefit of purchasing all solar display signs. Chair Kageyama inquired whether it would be necessary to notify residents that a speed display sign would be installed on their street. Member Seanor explained a general press release is required for receiving the grant. A separate press release and/or newspaper article can be published advising the public where the signs will be displayed. Member Harris proposed that a letter be sent to the residents advising them of the display signs. Even though the signs would be installed in the public right-of- way, they are large and would be clearly visible to the residents. A brief discussion followed regarding potential lighting impacts to adjacent properties. Traffic Engineering Committee December 14, 2004 Page 5 Chair Kageyama noted that if such signs are installed on streets recognized for speeding violations, the neighborhood would likely be pleased to have them. A brief discussion followed regarding measures to control the lighting features for the device, such an a time clock. Member Richard inquired whether there is any noise associated with the mechanisms. Member Seanor replied the display signs must comply with State standards, so it is unlikely any noise impacts would be associated. ON A MOTION by Member Harris, seconded by Member Whitaker, it was carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present to recommend to the Director of Public Works the posting of two electronic speed display signs on Oak Manor Drive and two on Ford Street. VI. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS a. Update on City Traffic Circulation Study Member Seanor reported a second public meeting with the consultants should be scheduled shortly. A traffic model projecting what City traffic would look like in 2025 is being prepared, and should be completed in early 2005. b. Update on City Parking Study Member Seanor reported staff anticipates a draft of the recently conducted City Parking Study. c. Update on Crosswalks Member Whitaker stated the crosswalk markings implemented to further assist pedestrians at Freitas Street and South State Street appear to be helpful. d. Route 101 Corridor Interchange Study Member Seanor stated the City and MCOG have been working on this project. The project involves reviewing all of the interchanges on 101 from Boonville Road to Lake Mendocino Drive relative to overall performance and recommendations for increased efficiency for each off-ramp. The MCOG subcommittee recently met to select a consultant to conduct the interchange study. VII. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Member Seanor commented on the South Barnes Street issue concerning whether parking should be restricted and whether the street has additional right-of-way width. Staff is currently researching maps to identify the public right-of-ways. The matter will be revisited by TEC when the necessary title research has been completed. Traffic Engineering Committee December 14, 2004 Page 6 Member Richard stated MTA provides input relevant to the Citywide Traffic Study. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:02 p.m. Ben Kageyama, Chair Cathy Elawadly, Recording Secretary Traffic Engineering Committee December 14, 2004 Page 7 y ~ 5.x. ~~~ -~'- SERVING MENDOCINO COt~NTY SINCE 97~i Mendocino Transit Authorit} RECEIVED DEC 2 0 2004 December 16, 2004 CITY OF UKIAH City of Ukiah DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS Traffic Engineering Committee 300 Seminary Ave Ukiah, CA 95482 ~~ Dear Sirs We request that you approve a new Bout ~ .-~.-~~~-- rt the Express Gas and Food Store and remova th of Luce and the other south of Observatory ~ iat are very close to one another and allow c ~~~-~~c (,1 ie and be in place for left turn onto eastbou ~~ J ~ In addition to allowing MTA vehicles to should improve southbound traffic flow ~ change lanes and move to the left turn lai :ion than we do now. We spoke to the owner of the Express Gas and Food Store, Mr. Haji in October and he has agreed to the change. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Cj `IFS ~,'i~ Dan Baxter IF Transportation Manager 241 Plant Road Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 462-5765 Fax (707) 462-1760 m m J Y > ma p , cn U m E v 0 Y Ip h Y W 3 m ~_ C ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ N 3 w ~ W ~ m ~~ y ~ ~ W m (/1 m t ~ ~ H y G ~ 9 O Y a (p '~ Q O A ~ ~ ~ E a w ~ ~ ~ "' ~ a c y ~ v 9 M C ~ m ~ t ii ~ O O ~ a o a a0 i s ~ ~ 0 0 o v ~ v o a a g m n S o m 3 o ~ b. v ~ E Q 0 N ,~, Proposed P 'TA Bus Stop - 998 South ~' ate Street `a 1 inch equals 100 feet Photo Date: March 2001 N W~,E North ~ ~.te Street at Scott Street Agenda Item #5b. 1 inch equals 50 feet Photo Date: March 2001