Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 Crossing Guard StudyCITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT City Council Meeting Date: November 14, 1994 SUBJECT: Authorization for Crossing Guard Study Report by: Public Works Director Lee Thompson EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Resolution 50-85 establishing crossing guard warrants 1971 Alameda County report - Amador Valley/Burton and excerpt from TJKM 1985 study 1979 Alameda County report - San Ramon Road/Shannon Excerpt from 1986 study - Silvergate/Amarillo Excerpt from 1990 study - Amarillo/Alegre 1990 report from TJKM - Murray School RECOMMENDATION: 1) 2) Provide direction to Staff as follows: a) To proceed with warrant study at five existing crossing guard locations, including the new location at Murray School. OR b) Continue to fund the existing crossing guard locations, including the new location at Murray School. If future requests are made for additional crossing guard locations, to conduct studies for comparison to the specific warrants. If the City Council chooses to continue with the fifth crossing guard at Murray School, approve budget transfer in the amount of $9,845 ($9,718 for contract services and $127 for additional equipment) to the crossing guard operating budget from the contingent reserve. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The cost of the crossing guard warrant study is estimated at $2,500. This could possibly be covered by the City's current Traffic Engineering budget. The annual cost for five crossing guards for Fiscal Year 1994-95 is $48,340, including the cost of contract service through TSU Temporary Services and the cost of equipment. The current City budget for crossing guards is $38,495. As stated in Recommendation #2 above, if the City Council chooses to retain the fifth crossing guard at Murray School, a budget transfer is necessary. DESCRIPTION: On August 22, 1994, the City Council agreed to fund the existing four school crossing guard locations plus an additional location at Murray School. However, the Council only approved funding for four (4) crossing guard positions for a full year. After the 1994- 95 school year had been open long enough to develop pedestrian and vehicular patterns, Staff was to perform a crossing guard warrant study. The purpose of this agenda item is to advise the City Council of the cost of the study and to obtain: direction as to whether the warrant study should proceed, or whether the City Council prefers to forego the warrant study and continue to fund all five crossing guard locations, which would require ad~litio~m.1 fi~ading. The following background information regarding previous crossing guard warrant studies ~uty be helpful. Background - Crossing Guard Warrants and Studies The State Traffic Manual sets forth guidelines and warrants for a number of traffic control devices, including stop signs, traffic signals, and the provision of adult crossing guards. Some local jurisdictions opt to use these guidelines, while others adopt local policies and procedures. The City of Dublin's warrants for adult crossing guards were adopted in 1985 as part of an overall school safety study. These warrants are somewhat more relaxed than the warrants in the State Traffic Manual. Following is a brief history of crossing guard warrant studies which have been conducted to date. Copies of the operative information from the studies are attached. Studies for the Amador Valley/Burton Street location date back to 1971. At the time the study was done, the location did not specifically meet the County's warrants for volume, even though children who crossed at midblock were also counted in an attempt to make a case for a crossing guard. At the time that TJKM did the school safety study in 1985, that study recommended moving the crossing guard that was at Village Parkway and Tamarack to Amador Valley and Burton. The State crossing guard warrants would disallow this intersection on the basis that there is an alternate controlled crossing within 600 feet (Penn Drive); however, the City's adopted warrants do not contain this provision. It is likely that the volume warrant of 350 vehicles per hour for any two hours while 40 or more children are crossing the street .would be met since the ADT on this part of Amador Valley is over 10,000 per day. The latest County study for San Ramon Road/Shannon Avenue was performed in 1979, at which time the crossing guard was already in existence, and the County Staff recommended to retain it. TJKM's 1985 study also recommended retaining this crossing guard. At the time that both of these studies were done, the intersection was signalized but San Ramon Road did not have a median refuge. The lack of the median refuge was cited as a reason for retaining the crossing guard, along with the high percentage of truck traffic using San Ramon Road. Apparently the volume of children crossing the street was not very high in 1979 but was felt to be high enough in 1985. The City has improved San Ramon Road since the time the studies were done, and there is now a median refuge. The criteria that now apply would be "turning movements through the crosswalk exceeding 300 vehicles per hour while children are going to and from school" and the fact that San Ramon Road is considered a commercial route. Traffic counts would need to be taken to absolutely confirm the turning movements; however, it is highly likely that the 300 vehicles would be achieved because of the nearby locations of the Valley Christian School, St. Raymond's, and Shannon Park. The Silvergate Drive/Amarillo Road crossing guard was approved in '1986. While this intersection did not meet the warrants at the time, the crossing guard was recommended on the basis of a survey Staff conducted which indicated that more children would be allowed to walk to school if a crossing guard was there. Since the time that the crossing guard was approved, stop sign control has been added at this intersection, which causes the volume warrant for vehicles to increase from 350 per hour to 500 per hour. When the stop signs were approved in 1990, TJKM commented that the vehicle warrant would be affected. In order to determine whether this crossing guard is still warranted, vehicle and pedestrian counts would need to be taken. The Amarillo Road/Alegre Drive crossing guard did not meet warrants at the time of its approval, and in fact, fell far short of the vehicle warrant. The pedestrian warrant was met in the afternoon and was very close in the morning. The City Council did agree to fund this location based on concerns presented by the Nielsen School parents. It is felt that this location would still not meet the warrant for vehicular traffic. ' Staff conducted a warrant study for Murray School on Davona Drive in 1990. At that time, the locatio~ did not meet the warrants on the basis of the vehicular traffic volume, although the report suggeste6 ~hat a crossing guard could be warranted in the future if traffic increased. This study was not p~esented to the City Council, as the resident who requested the study did not pursue it. Page 2 Given the $2,500 estimated cost of a new crossing guard warrant study, Staff is requesting direction from the City Council as to whether the study should be performed at the existing locations or whether the City Council prefers to continue to fund these locations without further study. Staff recommends, however, that studies he conducted on the basis of the adopted warrants for any future requested crossing guard locations. If the City Council chooses to continue funding all five of the crossing guard locations, a budget transfer will be necessary to provide for the new location at Murray School. a:(9495) Inovember[a gstx grd Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 50- 85 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF DUBLIN ESTABLISHING CROSSING GUARD WARRANTS FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has commissioned TJKM Transportation Consultants to conduct a comprehensive School Safety and Crossing Guard Study; and WHEREAS, the study recommends that the City adop% specific warrants for the placement of Adult Crossing Guards; and WHEREAS, the establishment of a policy will allow for an objective review of crossing guard requests. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 'iT RESOLVED that the Dublin City Council does hereby adopt Table I Recommended Crossing Guard Warrants rot ~he C~- , __ ' _ _~./ of Dublin (attached) which sha~ be the official policy until such vi:~.= ~= the City Council either amends or rescinds the pc!icy. PASSED, AP.~r~s./o.~ ..... ADOPTED cn~_s 10th day of oune, Counci!members Hegarty, Jeffery, ~offatt, Vonheeder and Mayor Snyder NOES' None ABSENT- None " City C ! e r~P.' ~ult ~ossir. g ~ards are norrally assigned where official s~{isicn cf e!~mentary school pedestrians is desirable while t~hey ~css a uub!ic high~y on the "Suggested Route to School". ~nhmlt Crossing ~ ray he ~rr~nted K-.der tke fo!!~,~L.~g conditic~: 1. At unccntr~!!ed crossings: ;~ere t, here is no a!terr~te ~ssing ~ within 1,200 feet; ar~ m~ere v~--hicu!ar t_~ffic vol~r~ ~xce~s 350 v~hicles in each of any two daily hours during which 40 or more school p~estrians ~css ~_le goLng to or from scinco!. 2. At STOP sign ccn~c!!ed ~cssings: ~nere titere is no a!te_~r_~ta crossing gm~d within 1,200 feet; ~=~ w%_ere the veinicu!ar t_~ffic vol~e on roads of four or msra l~nes e~ce~s 500 vei~_~c!es per hour durLng ~idn 40 cr more sci%co! F~estri~m ~css goL~g to or f_~cm scinco!. 3. At t_~ffic sigr~! ccn~o!!ed _crcssi.-gs: ~¢r. era the n~ker cf sd-.oc! _crs~s~lf< axca~s ~00 va~_~c!es per hc~ ~%.{~e scincc! F~destri~-m are g~.~ to cr frc~, sc?.cc!. ~.era t~k-~e are ci_~L~sts~nces net nc~a!!y present at a sigr~.a!ized intersection, such as crcss~3Lks rote t~n SO f~t !cng wit2~ nc Lnte_~r.~_/ata re_~ge, cr ~n abncrr, a!!y b~.~. proportion cf !~V~e c~?__~ci~! vei~c!es. Stud/e~ - Ammz]~y~ Valley Mr. Stau Berk, Business Manage= Murray School Dis%riot P.O. Box ~98 Dublin, Califo.-mia 94568 In accordance with discussions _~_ your letter of June 8, 1971, a comprehensive traffic survey has been performed at the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and ~mrton ~treet in accordance with Section 21373 of the California Fehicle Code. This survey commenced on September 1~, 1971, as you had requested. ~owe~er, ~ %he arrival -~d_ d/smissal time of studen~ pedestrian traffic was to be che~ beginning September 20th, hours of pedestrian mov~-~_ _ _-t other than those observed on Se~_ _~ l~th, ~ -~o conquered Lu the stmdy. The investigation considered the practicab~t¥ of pls~ing addition_ e~ stop signs at this intersecticul, ~tr~.traffic signals, er~_ ~mp.!~y~ng an adult school cross~r~ criteria used .to evaluate the need f~r these types of services; however~:~be'results ~-the course ef this i~tgatica, tt was '*noted that.~an-exce~aiVe mmunt of The ~ of traffic on Amador V~ ~ Boulevard wa~ ~easured in pe~ to coineida ~lth the heavy mor~ and ~oon ~ 20th. The speed checks ~cated .at "8~th PerCentile speeds of 31 a=l 32+ m.p.h. Mr. ~ Berk -2- September 27, 1971 However, speeds were recorclecl as high as ~ m.p.h, in both the morning and afternoon periods. Copies of tb~s letter~ therefore, will be sent to both the 0~l~fornia Highway Patrol amd the Sheriff's D~partmemt to alert the emforc~t agencies to this matter. Informatio~ regarding the coat of this study is being a~emm, 1 eted. You will be bille~ for one-half of the cost when it has been determined. The intereSt of the Murray School District in traffic' safety matters is appreciated. It is hoped that the info rmmti on developed by th&s study will be used by ali in improving safety for student pedestrt~-~ of the area. Very truly y~urs, JJW:~:sc cc: ~!!fornia Highway Patrol Sheriff' s Dep~ JAMES J. WARD, ~ - ROAD DIVIS~N Amador Valle, Sculeva-~d at ~on S~eet ~]~ O~OO( ~~ ~~t!y, ~ador Valley Bouleva~ fo~ ~e at~~ between Mu~ay Elementa~ School and Cronin E!amenta~ Sdt~!. ~~en~y at pr~ut it is not n~s~ for ~~ ~h~! ~~i~ ~ ~s D_~dcr V~!ey ~~. H~'~, ~ Schcoi ~ cl~ ~nd sdn~! att~nce b~ies ~e for the 1985-86 schco! year, students residing sou~ of ~ador Valley ~ulevard will need to cross ~ador Valley ~~ ~ ~~<sen El~.ent~z Sdn~l. Since B~n S~t is a ~_~n s~t ~{e~n A~dcr V~!ey ~e~ ~ T~ck ~ive, it conveniently "f~e!" all the stud~ts sou~ of ~adcr Valley ~e~ ~ T~d< ~ive wi~ 100 f~t of ~e ~!'s ~n~n~. A crossin~ ~ard at eisner ~era!d Avenue or Pe~ Drive ~th wo~d ~ r~.~%t, evan ~tcu~ ~ is ~ ~st~.g 3~I; STOP at Pe~ Drive ~d ~_r~adcr Valley ~u!evard. ~erefore, it is cf D~dor V~!ey ~~' at ~cn S~t for the 1985-86 y~. ~n~' fntersecticn of kma~_g'.or Valley_Boulevard at Burton Strut is ccntro!!~_2 by a STOP sign cn ~on Street only. A 3~y STOP at th_~s inte_~se~_tion is not c~-rr~nt!y ~_~r~n~. There ~ no ~s~ cn ~ny of ~ne ~ee app~dn~ to the ~n~ion. S~ a ~sL-~ V~!ey ~~ cn ~%e w~t side of ~e ~~~icn. ~s will ~!e s~dd~n~ to he cn ~.e w~t side of ~e ~t ~.an ~%av ~ive at the Ln~s~icn cf T~d~ ~ive ~ ~on S~t. ~ais is d~!e ~e the ~t~! is ~ the w~t ~ ~h~e ~ an a~L~ y~!~ ~~k cn ~na ~t app~ch of T~~ ~iva ~ ~--~n S~t. S~ ~.e ~~k at ~adcr V~!ey' ~~ ~ ~--~n S~t will ke wi~n 2,800 faet of ~e ~h~! ~ ~ ~n~ w{~! ~.~! ~~, it ~ Suc~d ~ ~~ yel!~{. -!1- OCTOBER l, 1979 JESSIE G. CAMBRA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ROADS STANLEY L. OLD, TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ENGINEER CROSSING GUARD STUDIES - SAN RA~J~N ROAD AT S-I:L/~INON AVENUE A~D AT A~ADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD Studies were conducted at subject intersections on September 20 and 25, 1979, and at both locations there is need for adult supervision because vehicles were observed to run through the red light phase of the traffic control signals. A crossing guard ~ar., be warranted~at the San Ram~n-Shannon intersection on the basis of the extenuating curcumstances at the intersection: The crosswalk is 9.3' long without a median refuge area and L~.-.] road is used by a large number of commercial vei:icles,~, some of which ran through the red signal. However, the number of studentswhich would be served is low. If signals were not in place, the guard w. ould be warranted for a one hour period i~~ the morning. The speed of traffic on San Ramon Road north of Shannon Avenue was checked a~ the same time the crossing guard study was underway. The check indicated that drivers were traveling below the posted 50 MPH. Therefore, checks were made at other locations to develop the information needed for a Speed Zone Survey. At this date, the data is being assembled still, but the indications are ~hat the 50 MPH li~it can be lowered to 40 HPH, the same as the limit south of Silvergate Drive. It is expected that this study wi!!.:b~ co~;pleted, to allow the change to 6e included in the next communication to theBoardabout traffic regulations. The students crossing San Ramon Road at~,madorYalley Boulevard were supervi ult acting as a guard. This person may have Leen associated with Nielson School or ¢ School located on the west side of San Ra~on Road, north of Amador Valle A crossing guard can be Ramon-Amador Valley inter- section on the basis of vehicular turning movements 'oss~ k where dqildren must cross. However, the number of students t~a~iw~ yen though the count probably included students of the church school as'well as the i Copies of the studies are attached. The results of the studies co~oet a recommendation that adult school crossing guard service be provided at both locations until adult supervision can be provided by some other means. SO:mdb MAIN FILE San Ramon Road at Sb~mnon Avenue This intersection currently has an adult crossing gmrd. sir, ce traffic volumes are not expe~ cted to decrease, and the attendance bourxiaries of Nielsen Scinco! will not ~e, the w-~m-ant 1E =ce!y will be r~t ~arir~ the 198S-86 s~hool y ~ear. Therefore, it is that this crossing ~mrd be retained. San Ramon Road at }~adcr Va? =v Ecu!evard 'This intersection c,arrent!y has an adult crossing gua_~. !fic volumes are not expe. cted to decrease, and of Nie!s~n Sds. cc! will not d~mmge, ~ne 1~ ~<e!y will he met tine !955-~6 scinool year. There: it is t?.at tin~s cnla~d he retaLned. Village P=_rk.~ey at Bri~ub.t,' ~nis the 1985 (see Figure 2) .r-~=~ = ela~_ntary scinco! need to ~ss Village ~]c~y ~l~s they do not cbs~e a~r.~ ~.~ri~. !t is r~c~e~ t~t ~e a~t ~m~ at ~is l~ticn ke ~s~ntLnu~. y b~s an adult ;ing gua~d. Em~'ever, for school year, Village Par~.~y form E!~7~n-~f Scincol ar~ tl~.e new will -!0- CItY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT City Council Meeting Date: October 27,_1986 SUBJECT: Silvergate Drive Traffic Study Continued from Meeting of September 22, 1986 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Report from TJi©! RECOMMEN-DATION: 1 ) Approve provision of an adult crossing guard on Silvergate at Amarillo, installation of STOP signs and related pavement markings on Silvergate at Peppertree, and an additional crosswalk on Peppertree. Authorize a budget transfer of $6,300 from Contingent Reserve to cover the cost of an adult crossing guard for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1986-87. F I N.~=NC IkL STATE,ME.N-f: Annual cost for an adult crossing guard is estimated at $7,200. This includes approximately $1,000 for "supervision." The cost for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1986-87 is estimated at $6,300. Cost of the additional signage and pavement marking is estimated at $1,500. DESCRIPTION: At the meeting of Septenber 22nd, the City Council received a oreliminary presentation from TJ]©~ regarding traffic problems on Si!vergate Drive and heard comments from many residents of that area. The issues of speeding, STOP sigv..s, and provision of an adult crossing guard for Nielsen School students were discussed, and Staff was directed to continue their study of the problems. TJI~M's report, a copy of which is attached, presents the following observations and recommendations. Adult Crossing Guard Additional counts of pedestrians and motorists were conducted, and it was determined that the warrants for an adult crossing guard have been met during the a.m. peak hours. The warrants have been 85% satisfied for vehicles and 60% satisfied for pedestrians during the p.m. peak hour~. A survey of Nielsen School parents was made which indicates that enough additional children would walk to school if a crossing guard were provided to completely satisfy .the pedestrian warrant during p.m. peak hours. Additional growth in the area will probably create enough traffic to also meet the vehicular warrant in the near future. It is therefore recommended that an adult crossing guard be placed ~t ~the intersection of Silvergate Drive and Amarillo Road.~ An additional suggestion is placement of a crosswalk on the north leg of Peppertree Road at. Silvergate in order to direct children toward the crossing guard at Amarillo STOP Sign Investigation Regarding placement of STOP signs on Silvergate at Peppertree Road, the traffic volume warrann on Silvergate has been met, but the warrant on Peppertree has not. The two accidents which have occurred in the past ~.l'three years would not have been ccrrectable by STOP sig~,s. Visibility at the 8. There is no active school bus service to the school other than a special bus for handicapped students. Analysis A crossing guard is typically warranted if the Recommended Crossing Guard Warrants (Attachment 1 of TJKM's report) are met. These warrants are guidelines which consider the volume of pedestrian and vehicle traffic. The warrants do not directly address other conditions such as visibility, child security and safety, effectiveness and location of existing traffic control, the volume and type of traffic, and alternative methods of increasing the levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic control. Because of the relatively high cost of providing adult crossing guards, the warrants are set to cover only the very hi,nest needs as far as pedestrian-vehicle volume conflict. On the day that traffic counts were taken, the total vehicular volume (79 in the morning and 54 in the afternoon) on Amarillo Road at Ategre was significantly less than the minimum warrant of 350 vehicles per hour. /he total number of pedestrians was slightly less than the warrant of 40 in the morning, but was almost double that amount in the afternoon. To warrant a crossing guard, traffic must exceed 350 vehicles per hour during the same two hours in which crossing pedestrians exceed 40. Given the residential character of the streen, it is reasonable to expect that traffic on ~arillo Road will not increase to the'point that an adult.crossing guard will be warranned. Recoramendation~ 1. Assigp~ent of an official adult crossing guard is not recommended, based on meeting recommended warrants. The establishment of a school safety patrol was considered; however, the school Principal and the Paren~ Faculty Ct~ do not support this alternative. Continuing to use the adult crossing guard volunteers is beneficial even though official guards are not warranted. It is suzgested, however, that the School District provide some type of formal training and explore the insurance consequences of sanctioning use of volunteer crossing guards. ~n official adult crossing guard would also be beneficial; however, the City's approval of an unwarranted crossing guard for Nielsen School would set a precedent for placement of crossinz guards at other schools in Dublin. Staff is currently eva!uatinz a similar request from Murray School. - 2. Closing the school driveway with orange cones during the peak pick-up period eliminates loading along the school driveway and stacking of vehicles onto k~arillo Road. An expanded passenger loading zone for 6 vehicle spaces between the school driveway entrance and exit would help compensate for the removal of the existing loading area along the driveway when the entrance is closed. Use of the adjacent church parking lot (with the church's permissicn) as an alternative parking and loading zone for school staff and parents is recommended. A more radical and costly on-site reconstruction of the parking landscaping and even use of the parking lane could provide up to 24 drop-off parking spaces on-site. This would require the relocation of 8 existing long-term parking spaces on-site (see rough sketch attached). A crosswalk should be installed across A!egre Drive to consolidate crossing pede§~rians. /his crosswalk, combined with painting the curb red near the fire hydrant, will discourage drivers from parking on the curb radii and blocking the fire hydrant and pedestrian,circulation. A 20-foot no parking zone should be established on the east side of ~arillo Road south of the driveway exit to improve sight distance between vehicles exiting the driveway and northbound vehicles on Amarillo Road. _~_ TRANSPOR TA T/ON CONSUL TANTS '-'1' ~? '.."1. ' ~./~ ~ '/~ November 9, 1990 TO: Lee Thompson, Director of Public Works FROM: Ty Tekawa David Otb_ling SUBJECT: Mucray School Crossing Guard Study As requested in your memo dated June 7, 1990, TJt~I has reviewed the City's School Safety and Crossing Guard Study, dated May 1985. The review was conducted to evaluate the recent request to consider the use of a crossing guard at the Murray Elementary School. Table I of the study contains the recommended crossing guard warrants for the City of Dublin. The table is attached with this memo. Your memo to us was received on Friday, June 8, 1990. The last day of school ~'as Thursday, June 14. After discussion with school personnel, it was decided that a pedestrian count would be taken on Wednesday, June 13. According to the school, peak pedestrian activity would occur at 8:25 a.m. Our counts were conducted from 7:45 to 8:45 a.m. which is the peak hour of pedestrian activity. The pedestrian count was recorded at each of the three crosswalks on Davona Drive. The follo~ving is a summary of the peak hour pedestrian count: Location On Davona Drive No. of Peds. Peak Hour East leg at Lucania Street 13 West leg at Bonniewood Lane 62 Mid-block at 8442 Davona Drive 14 A 24 hour machine count taken on Monday, March 21, 1988 showed a corresponding peak morning vehicular count on Davona Drive of 312 vehicles. Based on the guidelines established in the School Safety and Crossing Guard Study and the counts shown above, a crossing guard was not warranted. It should be noted however, that the vehicular counts were taken in 1988 and were assumed to be suitable for this review. It should also be noted that the counts analyzed were for a single peak hour and the assumption was that during any other hour of the day, the counts would be less. To be certnin that these assumptions were valid additional pedestrian and vehicle counts were conducted on Monday, 4637 Chabo/Drive, Suite 214, Pleasanton, C FAX (415) 463-36~- PLEASANTON · SACRAMENTO · Lee Thompson -2- November 6, 1990 October 1, 1990. The total number of pedestrians using the Davona Drive crosswalks during the morning and afternoon peak hours of pedestrian activity exceeded the minimum requirement of 40. The new 24 hour machine counts showed morning and afternoon peak hour vehicular counts of 379 and 216 vehicles on Davona Drive. To warrant a crossing guard, the Davona Drive traffic must exceed 350 vehicles during the same two hours in which crossing pedestrians exceed 40. Therefore, based on the current levels of afternoon Davona Drive traffic, a crossing guard is still not warranted. An increase of 134 vehicles along Davona Drive in the peak afternoon hour of pedestrian activity would warrant a crossing guard. The Davona Drive vehicle traffic should be monitored at least once a year and an adult crossing guard assigned to the existing crosswalk on the west leg of Bonniewood Lane at Murray School when warranted. The elimination of the mid-block crosswalk at 8442 Davona Drive is recommended to increase safety and reduce pedestrian conflicts with Davona Drive through vehicles, and trafSc entering and exiting the adjacent school parking lot, by encoura~ng pedestrians to cross at the e~sting crosswalk at Bonniewood Lane. The pedestrians heading to school from the west that currently use the mid-block crosswalk will be inconvenienced by having to pass by the school and cross at the Bonniewoed Lane crosswalk. A new crosswalk on the east leg of Wictdow Lane across Davona Drive should be considered. 'STOP Ahead' signs are already in place east and west of Wictdow Lane on Davona Drive resulting in adequate sight distance on each Davona Drive approach. Figure 1 illustrates the primary existing and proposed pedestrian and vehicle control on Davona Drive in the vicinity of Murray School. A revision of the current crossing guard warrants to consider the cumulative total of pedestrian and vehicle traffic might better address safety related concerns which could exSst when counts greatly exceed the minimum warrants in only one category, pedestrian or vehicle, and not both. Still, in light of this, based on this study, previous field observations, and noting that the Davona Drive traffic and Murray School neighborhood is local and residential in character, an adequate vehicle to pedestrian awareness and level of pedestrian safety is currently provided. Our previous study suggested the establishment of a school safety patrol. Warrants for school safety patrols are contained in the Caltrans Traffic Manual and in the California Administrative Code. It was our recommendation that a procedure be implemented by the school district to systematically establish school safety patrols. However, the principal of Murray School was interviewed and does not want school safety patrols by students since it might provide a false sense of security. With this in mind, adult crossing guard volunteers, perhaps consisting of parents of Murray School students, might be organized and would be beneficial even though 'official' guards are not warranted. Section 21373 of the California Vehicle Code states that the governing board of any school district may request the appropriate public agency to install traffic control devices and establish procedures for implementation. It is TJt~I's recommendation that the City encourage requests related to public schools to come from representatives of the school and not from parents of pupils. This would ensure that requests to the City reflect the views of the school representatives. The representatives of the school could be a school safety advisory committee as described in the attached Section 10-02.1 "Policy" of the Caltrans Traffic Manual. ca Attachment 157-001 (Murray School)