The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.4 HrngStagecoachTrfcStdySUBJECT: CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT City Council Meeting Date: May 9, 1988 Public Hearing: Stagecoach Road Traffic Study~ Request for STOP Sign on Stagecoach Road at Turquoise Street EXHIBITS ATTACHED' 1) Report from TJKM 2) California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section Pertaining to Speed Traps 3) Letter from Mrs. Jackie Wray 4) Petition Submitted by Mrs. K.C. Elliott 5) Draft Resolution for installation of STOP signs on Stagecoach Road at Turquoise Street 6) Slides and diagrams of the intersection will be displayed at the meeting. RECOMMENDATION' l) 3) 4) 5) Open public hearing Receive Staff report and public testimony Question Staff and the public Close public hearing and deliberate Option A: (Staff recommendation) Authorize installation of "PLAYGROUND" signs in advance of the park, an additional 25 mph sign for southbound traffic, 25 mph pavement legends, and continued enforcement and monitoring of Stagecoach Road per TJKM recommendation; or Option B: Adopt resolution for installation of STOP signs on Stagecoach Road at the intersection of Turquoise Street. If selected, Staff recommends that this option also include the items in Option A. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Option A: Approximately $250.00 for "PLAYGROUND" signs, additional 25 mph sign, and "25" pavement legends, plus cost of Staff time for periodic monitoring of intersection. Option B: Approximately $1,000.00 to install STOP signs, STOP AHEAD signs, related pavement markings, and a crosswalk, plus the cost of any items selected from Option A. DESCRIPTION: Staff received two communications from residents of the Dublin Hills Estates development off Stagecoach Road requesting installation of STOP signs on Stagecoach Road at Turquoise Street (the location of Stagecoach Park) and for increased enforcement of the speed limit. Over the past few months, Staff has addressed these concerns by performing speed surveys, traffic counts, pedestrian counts, and other analyses associated with traffic studies, as well as increasing enforcement of the speed limit. The results of the studies are included in the report from TJKM, which is Exhibit 1 of this report, and which is stumnarized as follows. ITEM NO.~.~)'~, COPIES TO' Mrs. Wray Mrs. Elliott Chris Kinzel TJK>! Setting Stagecoach Road is a two-lane road extending from Amador Valley Blvd. in Dublin to Alcosta Blvd. in San Ramon. Stagecoach travels through a residential area, but no houses front directly on the road, and there is no direct driveway access onto Stagecoach. The houses in the Dublin Hills Estates development back onto Stagecoach, and the single-family houses on the west side near Amador Valley Blvd. that face Stagecoach are separated from the main travel lanes by a raised concrete island. The posted speed limit on Stagecoach Road is 35 mph north of Turquoise Street and 25 mph south of Turquoise Street. Radar Speed Survey Radar speed surveys were conducted along Stagecoach Road on January 18, March 24, and April 25, 1988. The January 18th survey was taken both north and south of Turquoise Street~ the March 24 and April 25 surveys were taken south of Turquoise Street. 85th percentile speeds are as follows: January 18 North of Turq. South of Turq. March 24 April 25 Northbound 39 39 38 40 Southbound 41 37 37 37 These surveys support the 35 mph speed limit north of Turquoise Street: however, earlier as well as current surveys show 85th percentile speeds consistently well above the 25 mph speed limit south of Turquoise Street. The establishment of the 25 mph speed limit was based on the fact that openings exist in the raised island through which residents gain access to their houses. There is also a crest vertical curve in the area. Since these speed limits were established, enforcement has varied. The police department confirms that disobedience to the speed limit is a problem; however, enforcement of the 25 mph speed limit will not be held up in court due to the discrepancy between the 85th percentile speed survey and the posted speed limit. The police department has been hesitant to issue citations that will be thrown out of court for fear of establishing a reputation of operating a "speed trap." (A copy of a memo from Dennis Atkinson to Lt. Severini regarding this subject is attached to TJKM's report; see also Exhibit 2, copy of the Vehicle Code sections pertaining to speed traps). Citations issued on the 35 mph section of Stagecoach are considered enforceable. During March and April, the police department concentrated their enforcement efforts on Stagecoach Road between Turquoise Street and Amador Valley Blvd. Blatant violators of the 25 mph speed limit were issued citations, while other violators driving over the speed limit received warning tickets. A total of 41 citations and warnings were issued in March and 43 in April. Six in March and 9 in April were citations. There have been no repeat offenders, and a survey of citations indicates that most of the violators are residents of the area along Stagecoach Road. TJ~M concludes that there is some justification for raising the speed limit in the 25 mph section to 30 mph in order to allow radar enforcement which will not be overturned in court: however, Staff is not recommending this action at this time. Staff is arranging a meeting with the Traffic Commissioner to discuss speed surveys and their relationship to speed limits; the meeting will be attended by representatives of TJKM, City Engineering, and Police Services. Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection approach volumes were counted on January 25 27, 1988. The total volume entering the intersection from all four approaches averages 339 vehicles per hour (VPH) for the highest eight hours of the day. This satisfies the minimum volume for residential STOP sign warrants of 300 YPH. The volume entering the intersection from the minor street averages only eight VPH for the same eight hours, or a total of 2.5% of the total volume. This does not satisfy the warrant requiring the minor street volume to constitute -2- at least one third of the total. Installing all-way STOP signs where side street traffic volume is very low will cause partial non-compliance with the STOP sign. Pedestrian Counts The Caltrans Traffic Manual specifies that pedestrian volume may be combined with minor street vehicular volume to determine if minor street volumes satisfy the minimum warrants. Pedestrian counts were conducted between 12:00 and 3:00 p.m. on February 2, during which time seven pedestrians and two bicyclists crossed Stagecoach Road. Adding the average figure of three per hour to the vehicular volume above increases the percentage from 2.5 to 3.3% of the total volume, which is still not sufficient to meet the minimum warrant of 33%. TJKM attempted to count pedestrians on two Saturdays; however, weather was not conducive to using the park on either weekend. It is assumed that when the weather is warmer, more people will use the park and pedestrian activity across Stagecoach will slightly increase: however, the volume would probably still not meet the minimum warrant. Pedestrian observations did indicate that the majority of pedestrians tend to cross Stagecoach on the south leg of the intersection where the park is located. It would be safer for pedestrians to cross on the north leg of the intersection in order to maximize sight distance between northbound vehicles and pedestrians. Traffic Accident Analysis Two accidents occurred at this intersection over the past three years, neither of which would have been correctible by installing STOP signs. Sight Distance Analysis Sight distance for southbound traffic to the east and west is more than adequate, as well as sight distance to the north for both eastbound and westbound traffic. Northbound looking toward westbound traffic and westbound traffic looking to the south at northbound traffic is restricted by a curve on Stagecoach Road. Westbound drivers can see a northbound vehicle approximately 300 feet away to the south, and a northbound vehicle can see a westbound vehicle also at approximately 300 feet. The desirable stopping distance for a vehicle traveling at 40 mph is 300 feet; therefore, the existing sight distance satisfies the required Stopping Sight Distance criterion. The trees recently planted along Stagecoach Road may restrict sight distance as they mature; however, they will be pruned up as they grow. Analysis and Conclusions The intent of the request for a four-way STOP sign installation was to slow down traffic on Stagecoach Road and to provide a safe and controlled crossing for the users of Stagecoach Park. Past studies have indicated that STOP signs are not effective in slowing traffic. Existing conditions were compared to volume warrants, accident warrants, and sight distance warrants for four-way STOP sign installation. The side street volumes, including pedestrian volumes, do not meet the minimum requirement (3.5% vs. the warrant of 33%). There were no accidents susceptible of correction by STOP signs (compared to the warrant of five within a 12-month period). Existing sight distance satisfies the minimum requirement of 160 feet described in the warrants; it also satisfies the Stopping Sight Distance required for the prevailing speed of traffic. Installation of a crosswalk on the north leg of the intersection may help to channel pedestrians to cross at the location which provides the best opportunity to see and be seen by approaching traffic. However, there is concern that the crosswalk may provide a false sense of security and that pedestrians would take less care in crossing Stagecoach Road than they do now. -3- Providing a four-way STOP sign along with the crosswalk would theoretically provide more protection for pedestrians; however, this raises a concern about motorist compliance with STOP signs when side street traffic is extremely light. TJKM's report expresses concern that installation of both the crosswalk and STOP signs would be counterproductive in the effort to enhance pedestrian safety. At this location, the pedestrian is best able to ensure his safety by observing oncoming traffic and crossing when safe. TJX{ therefore recommends not installing either the crosswalk or STOP signs but taking some alternative measures which are as follows: 1) Installation of PLAYGROUND signs in advance of the park for both directions of traffic. 2) installation of an additional oversized 25 mph sign for southbound traffic in order to further emphasize the speed limit (two oversized speed limit signs have already been installed). Pavement legends reading "25" are also recommended. 3) Contacting neighborhood associations (e.g., Amador Lakes management) to make them aware of the speeding problem. 4) Continuing to monitor conditions along Stagecoach Road, particularly the growth of the trees, to make certain adequate sight distance continues to exist. Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and direct Staff to install PLAYGROUND signs, an additional speed limit sign, and pavement legends indicating the 25 mph speed limit, and to periodically monitor the street as the trees mature to insure that sight distance remains adequate. The notice sent to residents of the Stagecoach Road area regarding this public hearing was also sent to Amador Lakes management and requested obedience to the posted speed limit. Should the City Council determine that STOP signs and a crosswalk be installed on Stagecoach Road at Turquoise Street, Exhibit 5, the Resolution authorizing installation of STOP signs, must be adopted. If the City Council chooses this option, Staff recommends that the measures outlined in TJKM's recommendation; i. e., installation of an additional speed limit sign and continued monitoring of sight distance factors, also be included. MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 1988 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 214 Pleasanton Ca. 94566 (41,5) 463-0611 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Lee Thompson Chris Kinzel and Ty Tekawa STOP Sign Study on Stagecoach Road at Turquoise Street/ Topaz Circle (South) Introduction This memo presents the results of our STOP sign warrant analysis at the intersection of Stagecoach Road/Turquoise street/Topaz Circle (South). This study was undertaken in response to a citizens' petition for a four-way STOP sign and a crosswalk at the study intersection. The intersection approach volumes were counted at all four of the intersection approaches to determine the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes entering the intersection. Pedestrian counts were also taken between 12:00 and 3:00 p.m. on a weekday to determine the existing demand for pedestrian crossings of Stagecoach Road. Pedestrian activity was also observed during weekends. A radar speed survey was taken just north and south of the intersection to determine the prevailing speed of traffic. Accident records for the past three years were reviewed. A concentrated police enforcement program was implemented during March and April. Visibility to all directions of traffic were also assessed and compared to minimum acceptable values. The warrants for four-way STOP sign installation are presented in Attachment A. Setting Stagecoach Road is a two-lane road extending from just south of Amador Valley Boulevard in Dublin to Alcosta Boulevard in San Ramon. Stagecoach Road travels through a residential area but the frontage varies along its length. North of Turquoise Street, in the City of Dublin, single-family dwelling units back up to Stagecoach Road. There is no direct driveway access from these units onto Stagecoach Road. South of Turquoise Street, single-family houses front onto the west side of Stagecoach Road, but they are served by a frontage road which is separated from the main travel lanes by a raised concrete island. This island provides a buffer between the single-family homes and the traffic on the main portion of Stagecoach Road, and allows residents to back out of their driveways without the delay associated with disrupting the through traffic on Stagecoach Road. Stagecoach Road currently has a posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph) south of Turquoise Street and 35 mph north of Turquoise Street. Radar Speed Survey Radar speed surveys were conducted along Stagecoach Road on January 18, March 24 and April 25, 1988. The January 18 surveys were taken just north of Turquoise Street and just south of Turquoise Street. The critical speed or 85th PL£ASANTON'SACRAM£NTO'FR Lee Thompson -2- May 4, 1988 percentile speed north of Turquoise Street was 41 mph for southbound traffic and 39 mph for northbound traffic. South of Turquoise Street, the 85th percentile speed was 37 mph for southbound traffic and 39 mph for northbound traffic. Thc surveys on March 24th and April 25th were taken south of Turquoise Street. Thc southbound 85th percentile speeds on both days was 37 mph. The Northbound speed was 38 mph on March 24th and 40 mph on April 25th. These 85th percentile speeds exceed the posted speed limits of 35 mph north of Turquoise Street and 25 mph south of Turquoise Street. The results of the speed survey arc presented in Attachment B. The current radar speed survey supports a speed limit of 35 mph north of Turquoise Street on Stagecoach Road. However, earlier as well as current radar surveys of the 25 mph section revealed that the 85th percentile speed was well above 25 mph. The establishment of the 25 mph limit in 1985 was based not on the radar speed survey, but on the fact that there is an island separating Stagecoach Road from the frontage road, and there are openings in this island from which residents obtain their access. There is also a crest vertical curve in this area. Since the establishment of these speed limits, enforcement has varied. Observations made by the police department confirm that disobedience of the speed limit is a problem. However, enforcement of the 25 mph posted speed limit will not be upheld in traffic court due to the great discrepancy between the 85th percentile speed survey and the posted speed limit. The Dublin Police Department is hesitant to issue citations that will be thrown out in court for fear of establishing a reputation of operating a "speed trap". (See Attachment C - the memorandum from Dennis Atkinson, Deputy, to J. Severini, Lieutenant, Dublin Police Department, December 3, 1987.) Citations issued on the 35 mph section are, however, considered enforceable and are being issued. During March and April of 1988, the Dublin Police Department concentrated their enforcement efforts on Stagecoach Road between Turquoise Street and Amador Valley Boulevard. Blatant violators of the posted speed limit of 25 mph were issued citations while other violators who were clearly driving over the speed limit, were issued warning tickets. A total of 41 citations were issued in March and 43 in April. Six of the citations in March went to court and nine in April. There were no repeat offenders. However; most of the violators were residents of the area along Stagecoach Road. There is justification for raising the speed limit on the 25 mph section to 30 mph, in order to prevent this section of Stagecoach Road from being interpreted as a "speed trap" and thereby to allow radar enforcement which will not be overturned in court. Traffic Volume Analysis Thc intersection approach volumes xvere counted on January 25-27, 1988. These counts are summarized in Attachment D. The total volume entering the intersection from all four approaches averages 339 vehicles per hour for the highest eight hours of the day. This satisfies the minimum volume for residential STOP sign warrants of 300 vehicles per hour (vph) for eight hours of an average day. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the minor street averages eight vph for the same eight hours or 2.5 percent of the total volume entering the intersection. This does not satisfy the requirement that the minor street volume constitute at least one-third (33.3 percent) of the total volume entering the intersection. Traffic on the side streets would have to increase ten- fold for this warrant to be met. The highest single hourly volume entering the intersection form the side streets was only 15 vph. Thus, existing traffic volumes Lee Thompson -3- May 4, 1988 do not satisfy the four-way STOP sign warrants at the intersection of Stagecoach Road/Turquoise Street/Topaz Circle (South). Installing all-way STOP signs where side street traffic volumes are a very small percentage of the total traffic volume may cause thc main street traffic to disregard the significance of the STOP sign at the unjustified location as well as at justified locations. At intersections with Iow side street traffic volumes, drivers tend to come to rolling stops at best, rather than full stops, and to not look thoroughly for cross traffic, either vehicular or pedestrian. Pedestrian Counts The Caltrans Traffic Manual specifies in their four-way STOP sign warrants that the pedestrian volume may be combined with the minor street vehicular volume to determine if the minor street volumes satisfy the minimum volume warrants. Therefore, pedestrian counts were conducted between 12:00 and 3:00 p.m. on February 2, 1988, to assess the peak demand for pedestrian traffic. A total of seven pedestrians and two bicyclists were observed crossing Stagecoach Road during the three hour time period.' One bicyclist crossed westbound (appropriately) on the north leg of the intersection, while the seven pedestrians and the remaining bicyclist crossed on the south leg of the intersection. Assuming these observed volumes are representative of the highest eight hours, the average number of pedestrians and bicyclists per hour would be three. If three pedestrians per hour are added to the vehicular volumes, the percentage of side street traffic volume of the total volume entering the intersection would increase from 2.5 percent to 3.3 percent. This still does not meet the warrant which specifies that 33 percent of the total traffic should be side street traffic volumes. However, the pedestrian count did reveal a couple of factors: 1) the two peak periods of pedestrian traffic crossing Stagecoach Road were 12:45-1:00 p.m. and 2:30-2:45 p.m. when three pedestrians crossed during each 15 minute period. The 2:30-2:45 p.m. peak cannot be explained by school children returning home, because all pedestrians were crossing westbound. Conversely, the 12:45-1:00 p.m. peak was comprised solely of eastbound pedestrians. 2) All pedestrians crossed on the south leg of the intersection. Although the park is located on the south side of the intersection, it would be safer for pedestrians to cross on the north leg, to maximize the sight distance between northbound vehicles and pedestrians. Pedestrian activity at the intersection was observed during two weekends in April. An observation during the weekend of April 23rd was aborted because of heavy rainfall. Saturday, April 30th, was a windy day and there was virtually no pedestrian activity from 10:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Another observation on Sunday, May 1st showed no pedestrian activity crossing Stagecoach Road. A family group of three was playing catch. With better weather, the use of the park will improve and pedestrian activity across Stagecoach Road should increase. Ho~vever; that increase would probably not warrant the installation of STOP signs. Traffic Accident Analysis Reported traffic accidents for the past three years, 1985, 1986, and 1987 were reviewed at the intersection of Stagecoach Road/Turquoise Street/Topaz Circle (South). Collision diagrams of the accidents are presented in Attachment E. There was one accident at the intersection in August, 1986, and one accident near the intersection in August, 1985. The 1986 accident was caused by a vehicle pulling from the southbound left-turn lane into southbound through traffic and side Lee Thompson -4- May 4, 1988 swiping another southbound vehicle. The 1985 accident also involved a southbound vehicle. South of Turquoise Street, the driver dropped a cigarette in his lap, took his eyes off the road, ran over the island and hit a newly planted tree and a sprinkler head. Neither of these accidents are susceptible of correction by the installation of STOP signs. Sight Distance Analysis The sight distance was reviewed for all four approaches of the intersection and compared to the Stopping Sight Distance and the visibility criterion of the four- way STOP sign warrants. The sight distance for southbound traffic to the east and west is more than adequate, as well as sight distance to the north for both eastbound and westbound traffic. However, northbound looking toward westbound traffic and westbound traffic looking to the south at northbound traffic is restricted by the curve on Stagecoach Road. Westbound drivers can see a northbound vehicle approximately 300 feet away to the south, and a northbound vehicle can see a westbound vehicle also at approximately 300 feet. The desirable Stopping Sight Distance for a vehicle traveling at 40 mph is 300 feet. Therefore, the existing sight distance satisfies the required Stopping Sight Distance criterion. However, it should be pointed out that the planting of young trees along the east side of Stagecoach Road may reduce the sight distance in the future. The trees have no leaves at present, and do not restrict sight distance. But if they do not grow tall enough to canopy over the street, the sight distance would be reduced to approximately 170 feet. The maintenance supervisor of the City of Dublin advises that ultimately, the canopy should be 12-14 feet high. In the interim, however, they could contribute to a visibility problem. Analysis and Conclusions The intent of the request for a four-way STOP sign installation was to slow down traffic on Stagecoach Road as well as to provide a safe and controlled crossing for the users of the neighborhood park at the corner of Stagecoach Road and Turquoise Street. However, past studies here in Dublin have proven that STOP signs are ineffective in slowing trat'fic. The existing conditions were compared to the volume warrants, the accident warrants, and the sight distance warrants for four-way STOP sign installation, (see attached). The side street volumes, including consideration of pedestrian volumes, do not meet the requirement for four-way STOP sign installation (3.3 percent versus 33 percent of the total intersection volume). There were no accidents of the type susceptible of correction by STOP signs, (compared to the warrant of five accidents within a 12-month period). Existing sight distance satisfies the minimum requircmcnt of 160 feet described in the warrants. It also satisfies the Stopping Sight Distance required for the prevailing speed of traffic (300 feet at 40 mph). The installation of a crosswalk on the north leg of the intersection may help to channel pedestrians to cross at the location which provides them thc best opportunity to see and be seen by approaching traffic. However, there is the concern that thc crosswalk may provide a false sense of security, and that pedestrians would take less care in crossing Stagecoach Road than they do now. Providing a four-way STOP sign along with the crosswalk would theoretically Lee Thompson -5- May 4, 1988 provide the pedestrians more protection. However, this raises the concern about motorists compliance to STOP signs when side street traffic is extremely light. Unwarranted four-way STOP signs tend to make the motorist consider them a nuisance regulation. Once this occurs, observance deteriorates, and safety at more dangerous intersections controlled by STOP signs becomes compromised. We are very concerned that the installation of four-way STOP signs and crosswalks, either separately or together, would be counter productive in the effort to enhance safety near Stagecoach Park. At this location, it is the pedestrian, not the motorist, who is best able to ensure that pedestrian safety is optimized by carefully observing traffic conditions and crossing the street when it is safe. For these reasons, we are recommending that neither four-way STOP signs nor crosswalks be installed. We do feel however, that motorists need to be made aware of the park/playground area. It is therefore recommended that PLAYGROUND warning signs be installed in advance of the park for both northbound and southbound traffic. These signs are intended to warn unfamiliar motorists of the presence of the park. Oversize 25 mph signs have been installed on Stagecoach Road in an effort to slow speeds. Another oversized sign is recommended for southbound traffic to further emphasize the speed limit. Pavement legends reading "25~ are also recommended. Since many of the speeders along Stagecoach Road are local residents, it is recommended that neighborhood associations be contacted and made aware of the problem. In addition, it is desirable to continue to monitor traffic conditions along Stagecoach Road. The young trees along Stagecoach Road, at this location and at all other nearby intersections, have a particular potential to create visibility restrictions. Not only the leaves and branches, but also the tree trunks themselves, when compared with the relatively narrow streets, can block the view between side street motorists and Stagecoach Road motorists. Continued monitoring will ensure that the trees do not obscure visibility below minimum acceptable values. nlc 157-001M. 10D ATTACHMENT A WARRANTS FOR FCUR-WAY STOP SIGN INSTALLATION Four-way stop sign installation may be considered if any of the following conditions exist: VOLU~ (a) Total vehicular volmne entering the intersection from all approaches must average 300 per hour for any 8 hours of an average day. (24-hour equivalent approximately 4,000 vehicles.) (b) In addition, the vehicular volume entering the intersection from the minor street or streets for the same 8 hours must average at least 1/5 of the total volume entering the inter- section (100 per hour min.). ACCIDENTS Five ore more of types susceptible of correction by stop signs within a 12-month period, ~th satisfactory observance and en- forcement of less restrictive control. VISIBILITY The straight line sight distance on one or more approaches of the major street for vehicles or pedestriap~ crossing the inter- section is less than 160 feet. RESIDENIIAL .ARE{ Volume warrants to be reduced to 60% of the values above if 'ALL of the follmving conditions are met: (a) Both streets have residential frontage with existing 25 mph speed limits. Co) Neither street is an adopted through street. (c) Neither street exceeds 40 feet of roa~vay width. (d) No existing stop sign or signal is located on the more heavily traveled street within a distmnce of 800 feet. (e) Intersection has four legs, with streets extending 800 feet or more mvay from the intersection on at least three sides. (f) Installation of a four-way stop is co~,wpatable ~th overall traffic circulation needs for the residential area. Reprinted from a Report by H. Richard 5litchell Traffic Engineer Concord, California ATTACHNIENT B SF'OT SPEED STUDY ANALY'*T.S FOR THE CITY OF DUBLII. LOCATION STAGECOACH RD.S/O S.TOPAZ CIR. DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL NORTHBOUND 50th PERCENTILE SPEED S4 MONDAY 85th PERCENTILE SPEED 39 01/18/88 10 MPH PACE SPEED 29 TO 38 10:35-10:55 AM PERCENT IN PACE SPEED 80 25 RANGE OF SPEEDS 25 TO 45 25 SKEWNESS INDEX 1.23 DIRECTION DAY OF THE WEEK DATE TIME OF THE DAY 'POSTED SPEED LIMIT VEHICLES OBSERVE[) SPEED NUM- 25 1 4.00 26 0 0.00 27 0 0.00 20 ~, 0 0.00 29 S 12. O0 51 2 8. O0 · = b,. O0 SG 1 4.00 54 5 20.00 55 2 E',. O0 56 0 0.00 37 0 O. 00 58 2 8.00 39 1 4.00 40 0 0.00 4.1 1 4.00 42 1 4.0 0 43 0 O. 00 44 0 0. O0 45 1 4.00 46 0 0. O0 47 0 0.00 48 0 O. O0 49 0 O. O0 50 0 0. O0 51 0 O. O0 52 0 0.00 51; 0 0. OC) 54 0 O. Oil) 55 0 O. O0 $6 0 O. O0 57 0 0.00 58 0 0.00 59 0 O. 6C) 0 C). O0 61 0 O. C)O 62 0 0. O0 ~:.', 3 0 0. C) 0 d, 4 0 0. ~, 5 [') O. C)C) CUMULATIVE SPEED CURVE PERCNT. CUMUL. 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 16. O0 -'o_O0 5E,.O0 44.00 4E:. O0 68. O0 76.00 76. O0 76. O0 84.00 L=:8. O0 E:8. O0 92. O0 96. O0 CE,. O0 96. O0 1 O0. O0 100.00 1 O0.00 100.00 100.00 100. O0 100. O0 100.00 1 O0. O0 100.00 l C)O. O0 i 00. Od) 100. O0 1 O0.00 100. O0 1 O0. O0 100. O0 1 O0.0[) 1 O0.00 100.00 100. O0 90% , 80% , 70% , ~,0.~, , 50.%' , 4.0% , 30% , , , 10% , 0 l C) :? 0 30 40 50 60 70 SPEED (MPH) SF'OT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS FOR 7'HE CITY OF DUBLIN LOC'AT Z ON STAGECOACH RD.S/O S.TOPAZ CIR. DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL SOUTHBOUND 50th PERCENTILE SPEED 32 MONDAY E:Sth PERCENTILE SPEED 37 O1/lo/,..,,:~ 10 MPI4 PACE SPEED .-~'-":' TO 37 10:35-i0:55 AM PERCENT IN PACE SPEED 84 25 RANGE OF SPEEDS 22 TO 51 26 SKEWNESS INDEX 1.Og DIRECTZON DAY OF THE WEEK DATE TIME OF THE DAY POSTED SPEED LIMIT VEHICLES OBSERVED CUMULATIVE SPEED CURVE SPEED NUM- PERCNT. CUMUL. '"'-' 1 3. '-'~' 5 '-'~' C, 0 23 0 0.00 3 "-'= 24 0 O. O0 3 '-'~ 25 0 0.00 3.85 9C]~ , 26 1 o=. c,o'-'=' 7 "'- 27 0 0. O0 7.69 ~ c, 4 15 ~',3 2 J. 08 2'~.. 1 ~ . oo'-' = 26.92 o0.~ , SO 1 3. oo'-'=' 50.77 ~1 i ~. oo'-'= 54 .e,~"¢' 52 4 15.o~"-'c, 50.00 ~ 5 11.54 61.54 70% , 54 · 1 5.85 65.38 o o 1 3. ',~', 5 d, 9.25 37 6 ~_'~*'o. OC: 'Q2.. 51 60% , 5:3 0 O. O0 92.31 59 1 5. oo'-" ~- 9~':, . 15 40 0 0. O0 96.15 41 0 0.00 9E,. 15 50% , 4'-' 0 0.00 96 ].5 45 0 0.00 9 ~,. 15 4.4 0 0_00 ~ "_ .e, 15 45 0 O.OC] 96.15 40% , ~ ¢" 96 4.::, 0 0.00 .15 4Y 0 O. O0 9d,. 15 4 U-' 0 0.00 '-Ye,". 15 49 0 0.00 96.15 50% , 50 0 0. O0 96.15 51 1 3. oo'-'" 100 . O0 ~,~. 0 O. O0 100. O0 53 0 0.00 100. O0 '2C]F: , .... ~ 0 O. OC) 100 O0 ~;.) 0 O. O0 100. O0 ~F ---0 .... b O0 100 O0 57 0 0.00 i00.00 10,% , ~),~, 0 O. O0 100 O0 5'P 0 0. [3 0 100.00 E,O 0 O. O0 100. O0 G ] 0 0. O0 1 O0. O0 [37: ,,:. 0 O. O0 100. O0 C) .t 0 20 50 413 50 SPEED (MPH) 60 7O SPOT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN LC)CATION STAGECOACH RD.N/O S.TOPAZ CIR. DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL NORTHBOUND 50th PERCENTILE SPEED 55 MONDAY 85th PERCENTILE SPEED O1/1,:.,/c .... 10 MPH PACE SPEED 50 TO 39 11:10-11:50 AM PERCENT IN PACE SPEED 88 55 RANGE OF SPEEDS 22 7'0 46 25 SKEWNESS INDEX 1.29 DIRECTION DAY OF THE WEEK DATE TIME OF THE DAY POSTED SPEED LIMIT VEHICLES OBSERVED CUMULATIVE SPEED CURVE SPEED NUM- PERCNTi CUMUL. ~ 1 4 O0 4 O0 25 0 O. 00 4 . 0 L] 24 0 O. O0 4. O0 25 0 0 . O0 4 . O0 ,-_e, 0 0. O0 40L] 27 0 0. O0 4. O0 "~':' 0 0. O0 4. O0 29 0 0.00 4.00 50 1 4. O0 E:. O0 31 0 O.OCI o.'-' O0 J2 1 4. O0 12. O0 jJ 4 16. O0 "~'-' ..- o O0 54 5 12. O0 40. O0 55 5 20. O0 60. O0 SE, '2 E:. O0 68. O0 J7 ,~'-' 8 . O0 76. O0 5 :'--: 2 8.00 84.00 39 '2 L--J. O0 92. O0 40 0 O. O0 92. O0 41 0 O. O0 92. O0 42 0 0. OO 92. O0 43 0 O. O0 92. O0 44 i 4. O0 9E,. O0 45 0 O. O0 '96. O0 46 1 4. O0 100. O0 47 0 0.00 100.00 4',-] 0 O. CD 0 1 C) O. 00 49 0 O. O0 100. O0 50 0 O. O0 ].00. O0 51 0 O. O0 100. O0 =' '-' 0 0 00 100. 00 5:5 0 O. O0 100. O0 ~ 0 0 O0 100_ O0 5.~~ 0 0 O0 100.00 ..... o .... OiL 6'C) ] 0o 57 0 O. OQ 100. O0 5:7: 0 0.00 100.00 5'9 0 O. O0 100. O0 60 0 O. O0 lO0. O0 ~;, .l. L] 0. O0 .l O0. O0 e,,-. 0 O. O0 lO0. C ] 80% , 70% , 60% , 50% , 40% , 50% , ].0% , 0,% 0 10 20 E;C) 40 50 SPEED (MF'H) 60 70 SPOT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN LOCATION STAGECOACH DIRECTION [)AY OF THE WEEK DATE TIME OF THE DAY POSTED SPEED LIMIT VEHICLES OBSERVED RD.N/O S.TOPAZ OIR. DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL SOUTHBOUND 50th PERCENTILE SPEED 35 MONDAY 85th F'ERCENTILE SPEED 41 m/is/sE: io MPH PACE SPEED 50 TO 59 li:lO-].l:SO AM PERCENT IN PACE SPEED 76 35 RANGE OF SPEEDS 27 TO 45 25 SKEWNESS INDEX i.17 CUMULATIVE SPEED CURVE SPEED NLIM- PERCNT. CUMUL. 27 i 4. O0 4. O0 ,~o 0 0. O0 4. CIO 29 0 0.00 4. CIE) ..'50 2 8.00 12.00 51 1 4. O0 16. CIO 32 1 4 0 L] " - . .-0. OU 33 i 4. O0 24. O0 54 5 20. O0 44.00 55 ~ '-' 52. O0 ~ o. O0 36 3 1 d, 4 2. O0 _ 37 2 8.00 7.-. CIO 38 0 O. 00 72. O0 .- u. O0 80. OC] 40 I 4. O0 84. O0 4]. 2 8. O0 92. O0 42 1 4. O0 9d,_ 00 43 0 O. O0 9E,. 00 44 0 0 _ O0 '-~e,". O0 45 1 4. O0 100. O0 46, 0 O. 00 100. O0 4.7 0 0.00 100.00 4',3 0 0.00 100. 0 49 0 O. O0 1C)O. O0 50 0 O_ O0 100.00 51 0 0.00 100.00 52 0 O. O0 100.0 ,,o 0 O. 00 100. OC) 5,1 0 0.0 C) 100.0 .... ) C) 0. OC] 1 O0. 56 0 O. O0 100.00 -,/ 0 0.00 100.00 5 E', 0 0.00 100. 0 -, ? 0 C). 00 1 C) C). 00 60 0 0. O0 10Cl. ~, _1. 0 O. 00 ]. 00. C) C) E, 2 0 O. O0 100.0 E, 3' 0 0.00 10 F). 0 6, 4 0 0.00 1 C) O. 0 :,..) 0 0.00 ]. O0. O0 ~ ~i, C] C). 0[] 100. CIO ((, }; 0 O. O0 l O0. O0 90.% , 70Z , 50.% , 40Z , 30Z , 1 (.DZ 0 10 20 3 0 40.ti"; ' SPEED (MF'H) 6O SP()T ,)FEEI~ ,.~TUD f ANAl.. FOF.~, THE C:IT'f L 0 C A'T' Z 0 N DZ RE'CT ]i OIq [)AY C)F: 'THE WEEK DA TINE: OF THE [)AY P 0:3 T E D .S P E E D L. I M I ~t" VEH "' ':' .I L, L. [::.._, 0 lB 3 E R V [:T. D '..'.;TAGEC;)ACH N/O AMAI)C)R VALLEY I)[..-_VELOF'ME-NT REolDENTIAL NC)R-FH 50t. h PERCENTII._E SPEED .52' rHUR,:,DAY '-'= , 'c'- ' ' - --"- ,:::,,_,t.h F EF.,_.EN'I IL.E SPEED 0T,/',24/:3:i:.: ].0 HF'H PACE:. ,SI:~EED 27 TO 36 ~.: r:- .... FEED 70 4:T0'-4: ...... ~ PM PERCENT IN PACE ':'" '"":: RANGE OF oP[:.l:[),., 1 'TC) 4(!, okENhlEo,) ZNDEX .1 . 14 E!', 4. ' .... ~-' ~-' [.: [::.]) I'-.II..JM'-- (MF't.t) BER ,,'.::_, ;:] .].. ,:. o 24. 0 ":' F 2:; 29 9 J 1 -~.,-., T, 4- 4 o .., ";' '::' 2:; · q 0 '"' 41 ! ,::1.2 1 4 J 0 4.4 ,:- ,.:,t 0 ,:i-6 ]- 4.7 zl ',:'.-: 4 9 [: C) C) '5.1 0 ,:: ,.., ": ...~ ,':l- ['~ < '-' ,% 9 ,'¢, 0 ~.i, l. CI..MUI._ATZVE SI:~[-~[--]-) CI_JIRVE F [: I-,L, I41 . CIJMLIL. OF 'T'OT. F'RCNT. 1C30.% .i- .................................................. ::::$::::q~:::l,:::::::l,:::i<::k ..... ,1.. 1. 9 ?; ~: "-, 14.29 2 ]. - 4-:5 4- 2. ',L-'~ 6 .'5 4.7 d, ,:j 0.0 5 ( ) ~--J- ,..~ .~:. ':::'::'10 q 1 6 TM 94 ~'-' [.) ,:: 'P 6 4 ~_:-; 9f3 CJi 1 C)O. -)I_- t {.-}{:} . I {'3 (). ('7} 113{_-). O0 .1130.0(3 .1. [)('). 10C!. ' '! TI, ~}{_-J. (T}O 1.00. [30 1. {'J]{]. O0 1. O0. .. I {3 {'). 1 [J}O. {. 3 1..1. ') 1..19 (3.00 O. O0 1...1. 9 ,':, . ~. 7..1. 4 ; . 14 [3.7 I 0. (ilo ,: . ,S 4 ~ 76 ;::~. ,5, 7.14. ,5 . ,_~ / :!:;. 5 7 l .1.9 1 I 9 0 O0 0 08 .1. .1. 9 C]. {3 0. Ol'-) 0.0 0 O. 1 '].[ '''l.~ '-~ [). 0 i) 1. ['!{') O. [ )0 0. {J.]r) 1!. 0{3 0. [)0 Il}. {)0 · }. {.){) l.). .:)F EE:D ,:, [LJDY ANAL f,..~IS SPO'f ,-, ,-.- , ....... FOR '1-l'i[Z [:::[.'FY OF' DUBL. IH l_ 0 C A T I 01`4 D I R E [,'T 101'4 [)AY OF THE WEEK DP-,I"F! TIH[£ OF TliE [)AY P OS '[' L: D S P E'E D L_ I H I -F VEI-.{:Ii CI..[::S OB SE RVED STAGECOACH H/O A1`4ADOR VALLEY i')EVELOF'HEHT SOUTH oU,..h PERCEN-FILF: SF'EED 3.1 'T'HURSDAY ',2, Sth PERCEF.ITILE SPEED 57 05/24/88 .ICJ MPH PACE SF'[:'ED 4.: :]0.-.4: ....... F'H F'ERCEHT I.N PAC;E ,:>FEED ,_,,-:.':'"-' ""--. F.¢AI',IGE OF ',:;PFEDS ,:,o Tn /4.0 ..~= ~::," i. 79 1.79 1.79 ]. 79 1.. 79 12. ~'[" J. 7.8,::, 4.6.4:] ,54.29 69.64 82.14 83.93 87.50 ',?,'). 29 98.21 100. O0 1 O0. O0 i []0. O0 i OC). O0 10[). O0 i O0. O0 100.00 J. 00.0[) 1 O0. O0 t [1)13. C)O 180. O0 l O0 O0 I00 0 ) .l. Or3 O0 .1.00 08 l. 00 013 1.00 80 1 O0. l. L:) (3.00 100. ,l. Or.). O0 SPOT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN EXHIBIT A LOCATION DIRECTION DAY OF THE WEEK DATE TIME OF THE DAY POSTED SPEED LIHIT VEHICLES OBSERVED STAGECOACH N/O AMADOR VALLEY NORTHBOUND HONDAY o4/2s/83 3:50-4330 PH 25 60 DEVELOPHENT RES 50th PERCENTILE SPEED 35 85th PERCENTILE SPEED 40 10 HPH PACE SPEED 29 TO 38 PERCENT IN PACE SPEED 65 RANGE OF SPEEDS 24 TO 49 SKEWNESS INDEX 1.13 SPEED NUH- (HPH) BER 24 1 25 i 26 0 27 2 28 2 30 5 31 4 32 0 33 6 34 2 33 4 36 5 37 4 39 1 4O 5 41 0 42 2 43 1 44 2 43 0 46 1 42 48 0 49 2 SO 0 5! 52 0 54 0 55 0 S6 0 58 6O 0 61 0 63 0 64 0 1.67 1.67 0.00 3.33 8.33 8.33 6.67 0.00 10.00 J.JJ 6.67 8.35 6 67 6 67 1 6? 8 33 0 O0 3 33 1 67 J.JJ 0.0o 1.67 1.67 0.00 3.~3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CUHULATIVE SPEED CURVE PERCNT. CUMUL. OF TOT. PRCNT. 100~ + ........................ ********--+ 6 67 90~ I .... I .... ' ....' 33.33 80% [ .... : .... '--- ' ~o.oo 5o% ~ .... I .... I .... I-*--~ .... I .... I .... 95 67 ~ ' lOO.Oo o ~o 2o ~o 4o so ~o 7o SPEED (~?H) EXHIBIT A SPOT SPEED STUDY ANALYSIS FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN LOCATION DIRECTION DAY OF THE WEEK DATE TIME OF THE DAY POSTED SPEED LIMIT VEHICLES OBSERVED STAGECOACH N/O AMADOR VALLEY SOUTHBOUND MONDAY 04~25~88 ~:50-4:30 PM 25 52 DEVELOPMENT RES 50th PERCENTILE SPEED 33 85th PERCENTILE SPEED 37 ID MPH PACE SPEED 27 TO 36 PERCENT IN PACE SPEED 71 RANGE OF SPEEDS 24 TO 42 SKEWNESS INDEX 0.77 SPEED NUM- (MPH) BER 24 2 25 2 2~ 2 27 20 3 3O 2 31 32 2 33 8 34 4 55 4 36 4 37 38 4 39 0 40 2 41 0 42 i 43 0 44 0 45 0 46 0 47 0 49 50 0 5I 0 5° 53 0 54 0 55 0 56 O 52 0 58 0 59 0 60 0 ~1 0 62 0 6,3 0 64 0 CUMULATIVE SPEED CURVE PERCNT. CUMUL. OF TOT. PRCNT. 1001 + .................... 3 8.5 5.85 5 85 il.54 5 77 17. .31 il 54 34.62 1 92 40.38 80% 3.85 44.23 15.58 59.62 I [ I J * J J J 7.69 67.31 ~ J ~ L * J ] J 7.6g. 75.00 7.69 82.69 . o~ 86.54 7.69 94.23 ~ ~ ~ : * J J,' 0 O0 94.25 60~ 3 85 98. OB o oo 98. o8 ] 92 lO0.O0 0 O0 JO0.O0 0 O0 lO0 O0 o oo ioo.oo o oo ioo oo .... , .... ,- 0 oo lOO oo 40z I ' ' ....... ' .... o oo iOO oo 0 O0 100 O0 0 O0 lO0 O0 0 O0 ~00.00 0 O0 lOO O0 0 O0 JO0.O0 000 lO0. oo ' -' .... '--*-I .... l .... l .... I ..... 0 O0 100.00 20~ ~--- o oo loo.oo o oo ioo.oo I I I * I I I I 0 O0 lO0.O0 0 O0 iO0.O0 ZOX 0 O0 lO0.O0 o oo loo.oo o oo ioo.oo 0 O0 lO0.O0 o oo loo.oo o lo 2o :o ~o 5o 6o ~o SPEED (HPH) ATTACHMENT C MEMORANDUM De~_mber 3, 1987 FROM: TO: D. ATKINSON, Deputy #618 J. SEVEKINI, Lieutenant C. ARCHER, Sergeant SUBJECT: Letter from Mrs. Jackie Wray (November 20, 1987) Response: Stagecoach Road is one of the streets which has been targeted in the past for enforcement. I am not sure what time periods of the day Mrs. Wray refers to, but I have worked that street considerably during the past year. With the re-opening of Dougherty Road, traffic through Stagecoach Road has decreased. I failed to encounter much in the way of violations which would be considered citeable. The exception to this would be the area which is posted at 25 miles per hour. When you compare Stagecoach Road with other problem streets within the City, the enforcement need for ~tagecoach Road is minimal. Here is the problem we (the Dublin Police) are faced with when taking enforcement within the 25 m.p.h, zone of Stagecoach Road. On May 22, and August 2 of 1985, TJKM conducted several radar speed studies. (see attached) The original speed recommendation was to retain the speed limit (not included in this study) at 35 m.p.h, for the entire length of Stagecoach Road. This would be consistan~with the speed study, and the 85th percentile readings for this street. The recommendation was changed, at the request of the City Council and neighbors'living on that street, to retain the 25 m.p.h, speed limit through the residential or island area. (this section would be south of the park, and north of Amador Valley B!vd) The final recommendation, and the one adopted by the council on September 9, 1985, was a posted speed limit of 25 m.p.h, through the island area, and a posted 35 m.p.h. zone for the remainder of the street. The problem we encounter is that the speed study does not support a posted speed of 25 m.p.h. The survey does support 35 m.p.h, and with a added consideration for the newly completed park possibly 30 m.p.h. Sections 40801 and 40802 of the California Vehicle Code explain what a speed trap is. Sections 40803 through 40805 of the California Vehicle Code explain the Court's options pertaining to evidence obtained when a speed trap is in effect. Section 40504 CVC is quite specific in that any officer or other person shall be incompetent as a witness if testimony is based upon, or obtained from the maintenance or use of a speed trap. Our department (members of the Dublin Police Department) are very well respected with the Pleasanton-Dublin-Livermore Court. ! have had Traffic Commissioner Walker ask members of our department questions pertaining to legal issues conce.rning traffic laws and traffic enforcement, so I know that he has a great deal of respect for the members of this department. The Dublin Police Department has a well established credibility with this court. If ~e really push enforcement page 2 of this 25 m.p.h, zone, it is only a matter of time before someone, knowledgable of traffic laws, contests the citation(s)~ issued on this street, and invokes the privledge provided within sections 40801 through 40805 CVC. Once the word gets out that Dublin operates a speed trap, we run the risk of opening a real "pandora's box" This situation could cause our department embarrassment, and threaten the established credibility with the court. This problem is not new to me. The members of the Traffic Committee have discussed this several times. We have made the following observations / recommendations. 1. Use strict enforcement in this area, but issue only warning citations, with exception of a violation so severe that it can be proven in court. This is somewhat of a "band-aid" approach, and most probably would only be effective as long as the marked patrol vehicle remained in the area. 2. Re-survey this area, and see if the new survey would better support the 25 m.p.h, speed limit. 3. Raise the posted speed to a speed consistent with the survey, and the 85th percentile. Given the design of the street, this is probably the more practical approach, but one which I am sure would not set well with the people who live in that area. 4. Now that the park is open, and this area is more poou!ated, it has been reconmended that a crosswalk be placed across Stagecoach Road somewhere near the intersections of Turquoise Drive or Topaz Circle. Step signs would be placed prior to the crosswalk to allow access for pedestrians. This would serve as a right of way control, and should help ease the speeding problem through the 25 m.p.h, zone. There are some drawbacks to this plan, however. a. We do not want to place "false security" in the eves of children and pedestrians using this crosswalk. There is a pcssible liability for the City should someone be injured or killed while using the crosswalk. b. Stop signs placed in this area would not meet the guidelines used by the traffic engineer for stop sign placement. c. There is no guarantee that the stop signs would be effective as speed controls, it could quite possibtv add to the existing problen. d. Installation of adequate signs advising motorists of children present would be necessary. ATTACHMENT D TSXH PAGE I HOURLY, ! CHAHHEL VEHICLE COUNT REFERENCE: DUBLIN CORRECT[OIl FACTOR: I.O0 LOCATION: STAGECOACH RD. NORTH OF S.TOPAZ CIR. SOUTHBOUND HACH.I Z FILENAHE: (NO FILE) WEATHER: CLEAR HONDAT i / 2S / 88 OPERATOR: HIETEK HOUR HONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 7 DAY BEGINS 25 26 27 28 29 AVERAGE I 2 AVERAGE 12 * 7 6 * * 7 * * 7 1 * 3 4 ~ * 4 * * $ * ll 6 * * 9 * * 9 4 * lO 9 * * I0 * * lO S * 29 36 * * 55 * * 33 6 * 125 114 * * t20 * * 120 7 * 266 294 * * 280 * * 280 8 * 172 * * * 172 * * 172 9 * 96 * * * 96 * * 96 10 * I00 * * * lO0 * * 100 11 * 99 * * * 99 * * 99 12 * 112 * * * 112 * * 112 1 * 117 * * * 117 * * 117 2 * 102 * * * 102 * * 102 3 109 ~S * * * llZ * * i1Z 4 162 160 * * * 161 * * 161 S 177 t6S * * * t?1 * * 171 6 142 1~0 * * * 156 * * 136 7 q2. 121 , , , ~.,~7 * * lOZ 8 60 62 * * * 61 * * 61 9 29 47 * * * 38 * * 38 10 29 ~0 * * * 30 * * 30 II 9 iZ * t , 13 * * 13 TOTALS 809 2t!~ 47~ ~ AVG ~KDA¥ 59 !01 23 % AVG DAY 39 !01 23 * AH PEAK HR * 7 7 * * * * PEAK FL09 * 266 294 * * * * PH PEAX HR 5 5 * * * * PEAK FLO~ 177 i65 * t * * * TJ~M ?AGE1 HOURLY, CHA,,E VE,IC E COU, T REFERENCE: DUBLIN CORRECTION FACTOR: LOCATIO!/: STAGECOACH RD. SOUTH OF S.TOPA2 CIR. NORTHBOU);D HACH.) 8 FILENAHE: (NO FILE) ~EATHE~: CLEAR OPERATOR: HIETE~ .................................................................................................................................... HOUR HONDAY TUESDAY ~EDHESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ~EE~DAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 7 DAY 8EGD4S 25 26 27 28 29 AVERAGE 1 2 AVERAGE .................................................................................................................................... 12 * 14 25 * * 20 * * 20 2 * iD 6 * ~ 8 * * 3 * 12 4 * ~ 8 * * 8 4 * 4 10 * ~ 7 * * 7 8 * 127 115 * * 121 t , 121 i0 * 69 * * * 69 * * 69 I1 * 94 * * * 94 * * 94 12 * 123 * * * 123 t , 123 I * 103 * * * I0~ * * 103 2 * 1!~ * * * 1!8 * * 118 ~ I~0 153 * * * 142 * * 142 4 231 20~ * * * 220 * * 220 ~6 * 2]5 * * 235 8 112 118 * * * 115 * * 115 9 87 97 * * * 92 * * 92 i0 60 71 ~ * t 66 * * 66 11 17 32 * * * 2S * * 25 TOTJLS !JS6 2313 354 * * 2J12 * * 2~!2 I AVG D~¥ 59 lO0 IS t , ~ ~M PEA× HR * 8 7 PEAK FLO~ * 127 118 PEAK FLOP TJ[M PAGE ! HOURLY, ! CHANNEL VEHICLE COUNT REFERE}ICE: DUBLIN CORRECT[ON FACTOR: I.O0 LOCATtO)h S.TOPAZ CIR. EAST OF STAGECnACN RD. WESTBOUND ffACH.] 6 FILENAHE: (NO FILE) WEATHER: CLEAR OPERATOR: ~IETEX ~OtIDAY I / 25 / HOUR HO)(DAY TUESDAY WEDHESDA¥ THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAF SUNDAY Z-iii--' BEGI~IS 25 26 27 20 29 AVERAGE 1 2 AVERAGE 12 * 0 1 * t 1 t ~ 1 i * 0 i * , 1 * * 1 2 * 0 * ~ , 0 * * 0 4 * I * , , I * * I 5 * 2 * , , 2 * * 2 6 * 2 * , , 2 * * 2 8 * 7 * , , 7 * * 7 ? * 4 * , , 4 * * 4 i0 11 * ! * PM 1 12 * 2 * 4 * ~ , 4 * * 4 4 4 2 6 6 2 , ~ , 4 * * 4 7 2 3 * ~ , 3 * * 3 8 2 ! * , , 2 * * 2 9 2 0 * , , I , , ! i0 1 I * , , I * , ! 11 0 I * .................................................................................................................................... TOTALS 28 65 2 I AVG D~Y ~? 79 $ , ~ PEAK AH PEAK HR T3XM PAGE ! HOURLY, ! CHANNEL VEHICLE COUNT REFERENCE: DUBLIN CORRECTION FACTOR: 1.O0 LOCATION: TUROUOISE ST. WEST OF STAGECOAC H RD. EASTBOUND ffACH.] 2 FILENAHE: (HO FILE) WEATHER: CLEAR HONDAT I / 25 / 88 OPERATOR: MIETEX HOUR MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ~EE~DAY SATURDAY SUNDAY 7 DAY BEGINS 25 26 27 28 27 AVERAGE ! 2 AVERAGE AM 12 * 0 0 * * 0 * * 0 1 * 0 0 ~ ~ 0 * * 0 2 * 0 0 * * 0 * * 0 3 * 0 0 * * 0 * * 0 4 ~ 0 0 * * 0 ~ ~ 0 $ * 0 0 * ~ 0 * * 0 6 * 0 I * * I * * 1 7 * 0 0 ~ ~ 0 * * 0 8 ~ 1 * * ~ ! ~ * 10 * 6 * * * 6 * * 11 * ~ * ~ * 8 * * 8 12 * 8 * * * 8 * * 1 * 12 * * * 12 * * 12 2 9 5 * * * 7 * * 7 ~ 4 7 * * * 6 * * ~ 5 5 * * * 5 * * 5 4 6 * * * $ * , 6 2 4 * * * $ * * 8 0 2 * * * I * * I 9 0 0 * * * 0 * * 0 i0 0 0 * * * 0 * * 0 I1 0 0 * * * 0 * * 0 TOTALS 26 68 I * * 67 * * ~7 AH PEA~ HR * !1 6 * * , , PEA~ FLO~ * 8 I * * , PM PEAK HR 2 ! * * * * , 'o" 12 PEAK FL..N o t , , , , ATTACHMENT E ! p4BIKF (L) (D) 0 E] ~.TOPRZ LEGEND: RIGHT ANGLE LEFT TURN REAR-END '- HEAD -ON SIDE SWIPE, REAR-El SIDE SWIPE, HEAD-Oi PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE BACKING DAYLiGHT DARKNESS PROPERTY DAMAGE FIXED OBJECT INJURY FATAL PARKED CAR OUT OF CONTROL CD- 2 I COLLISION DIAGRAM CITY OF LOCATION $T~C,-ECO fig H ~iI~ S.TOPt~Z CiD. PERIOD COVERED: I- I - DATE CO,qPILED: --7~ -- Div. 17 Effe~ive July 1, 1985. ~ctive January I, 1979. 3Tmrative July I, 1984. Effective July 1, 1985. dodificotion of Decision ~tive January 1, 1979. )~'7__ ativeJuJy 1, 1984. Effective July 1, 1985. b or J~fodi~ing Decision ,.ctive January I, 1979. )perative JuN 1, t984. r-fleet/ye JanUary 1, 1982. Effective July 1, 1985. ctive January. 1, 1979. Iperative July 1, 1984. kffective Janim6, 1, 1982. Effective July 1, 1985. etive January. I, 197,9. perafive July 1, 1984. Lffecrive Jul?' 1. 1985. S. Demonstration Program - ~monstretion Counties '. ' :tine Janua. o., 1, 1979. perative jul?' 1, 1984. - ffecPive June 12. 1980 bi' terms of an urgency clause. 'a '. ~d'fective Januav,.- 1, 1984. Tfecfive July 1, 1985. >erarive July 1, 1984. '~ffect/ve Jahuary I, L%q4. )Tect/ve July 1, 1985. ti,e .l'a~uar~' t, 19'79. ' ' ~rathe July 1, 19/54. ffective Juli' I, L~55. :ire Janu.n? 1, 1979. erative Jul?- 1, 1984. . , feetive Jcme 1~ 1980 by terms of an urgency clausal ffecfive Januao. 1. 198~ lective July l. 1985. Div. 17 -- 743 .- § 40802 Article 9. Termination and Transition Adjudication Transition 40760. '. Added Ch. 1116, Stats. 1983. EffectiCeJanuary I 1984 Repealed Ch. 1116, Stats. 1983. Vffecfive July 1, '1985. ' Court Jurisdiction of Board-Imposed SuspensiOns and Revocations; Fees 40761. Added Ch. 1116, Stats. 1983. Effective January I, 1984. Repealed Ch. 1116, Stats. 1983. Effective July 1, 1985. , Court Adiudicotlon 40762. Added Ch. 1116, Stats. 1983. Effect/ye January 1, 1984. Repealed Ch. 1116, Stats. 1983. Effective July 1, 1985. · ; CHA~I'ER 3. ILLEGAL EVIDENCE Article 1. Prosecutions Under Code Vehicle and Uniform Used by OFEcer~ . 40800. Every traffic officer on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing the provisions of Division 10 or 11 of this code shall ,,,,'ear a full distinctive uniform, and ff the officer while so on duty- uses a motor vehicle, it must be painted a distinctive color specified by the commissioner. This section does not apply to an officer assigned exclusively to the duty, of investigating and securing evidence in reference to any their of a vehicle or failure ora person to stop in the event of an accident or violation of Section 23109 or in reference to ans- feionv charge, or to any officer engaged in ste_.~_'_'~_g _andy ~.v, arrant when/the~ o~cer,is not en. gag~d in patroJlL~g the m~nwavs for me purpose or emorcing the traffic laws. Amended Ch. -°'0'*.2, Stats. 1~1. Effective September 15. 1961. Speed Trap Prohibition 40801. No peace officer or other person shall use a speed trap in arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, any person for any alleged violation of this code nor shall any speed trap be ~ed in securing'evidence as to the speed of any vehicle for the purpose of an arrest or prosecution under this code. Speed Trap 40802. A "speed trap" is either of the follo~iu~: (a) A particular section of a hi,=hwav measured'as to distance and boundaries marked, designated, oF otherwise determined in order that the speed of a vehicle may be ealc~ated by securing the time it takes the vehiete to travel the 'known distance. ' (b) A I?artieular s_eetion of a kighway with a prima faeie speed limit proxSdedov this earle or by local ordLinanee pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision' (b) of Section :a:oo_, or established pursuant to Section o223:5.'7, °.°.°.°.°.°.°.°.°.~358, or 0o22358.3, which ~eed limit is not justified by an en~neerin,. apd, t.r. affie survey.conducted xvithh~ five )'ears prior to the dhte of the altegec~ ~aolauon, and where erfforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic de,Sees which measure a?;lvspeed of moving objects. The provis/ons of this subdMsion do not . to local streets and roads. For purposes of this section, local streets and roads shall be defined by the latest functionM usage and federal-aid system maps as submitted t6 the Feder.,d Hiohwav Administration. When these maps have not been submitted, t"he f6llowing defmit:ion shall be used: A local street or road ~_~ma.rily p. roxqdes access to abuttin~ residential nrooertv and shall meet the mu. OW~ng three conditions- ~ ' '- ) (I) Roadxvay ~Sdth of not more than 40 feet. '§ 40802 --744- Div. 17 ( ): (2) Not more than one-half mile of uninterrupted length. Interruptions shall include official traffic control devices as defined in Section 445. ( )a (3) Not more than one traffic lane in each direction. This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, ( ) 4 1993, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is ( ) ~ enacted before January 1, ( ) 4 1993, deletes or extends that date. Amended Ch. 1346, Stats. 1972. Effect/ye March 7, 1973. Amended Ch. 203, Stats. 19'/3. Effect/ye Jrd. 9, 19'/3, by terras of an urgency clause. Amended Ch. 1210, Stats. 1978. Effective January 1, 1979. Repealed Ch. 1210, Stats. 1978. Ope'rafive January 1, 1982. Amended Ch. 3o'"/, Stats. 1981. Effective January 1, 1982. Repealed Ch. 30'7, Stats. 1981. Operati,,'e January 1, 1987. Amended Ch. 833, Stats. 1986. Effective January 1. 1987. The 1986 amendment added the italicaaed material and at the point(s) indicated deleted the follo~,rin g: $ "chaptered" NOT[: ?hi'~ ,e~ion remoin$ in e~ only until ,lanucaqt 1, 1993, ~:! which it is repe~:l~l en~l !he followin{; $ecllon b,com,s ef~z~ive. ' . 40802. A "speed traP" is either of the follo~Sng: .... (a) A particular section of a highway measured as to .ctistane. e a~.ct wa. th boundaries marked, designated, or otherwSse der. ermined in.orcle, r tha,t .t_q,e speed of a vehicle may be calculated by securing the time it takes me vemele to travel the known distance. (b) A particular section of a highway ~-ith a prima faeie speed Limit providedbv this code or. bv local ordinance pursuant to paragraph (i) of subdi~4sion' (b) of Section ~°--.352, or established pursuant to Section 0o_2354, oo_Z357, 22.7~, or o22358.a, which speed limit is not justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted ~t-ithin five >'ears prior to the date of the alleged violation, and where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of mo~Sng objects. Th.is section shall become operative on January 1, ( ) 1993. Amended Ch. 30-7, Stats. 1981. Overative IanuaD' 1, 1987. Amended Ch. 833, Stats. 19,56. Effecm'e Janua.D' 1, 1987. "198'7" St:ced Dap Evidence 40803. (a) No evidence as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall be admitted in any court upon ~e trial of any person for an alleged violation of this code when the evidence is based upon or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a speed trap. (b5 In any prosecution under this code of a char<e involving the spee~ of a x"ehicle. \vhere enforcement involves the use of r:~dar or other electronic devices which measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of its prima facie case, that the evidence or testimon?~. presented is not based upon a meed trap as defined in subdivision (b) Section 40802. Evidence that a'tr'~e and en.oSneering survey has bee_n conducted within five years of Lhe date of the alleged x-iolation or evidence that the offense was $ommitted on a local street or road as defined in subdix'ision (b) of Section 408~2 shall constitute a prima facie case that the evidence or testimony is not based upon a speed trap as defined .in subdixSs/on (b) of Sect/on 4CC',0'~ Amended Ch. 357, Stats. 1981. E.fft~.-~x e January 1, 1982. . .: .3; resIimony Based on Sl~eed l'rap .... 40804. (a) In any prosecution unde? this code u¥~on a charge invol¥-ing the speed of a vehicle, any officer or other person snail be incompetent as a witness if the testimo/~y is based upou or obtained from or by the maintenance or use of a Slx'ed trap. ' -- 744 -- Div. 17 than one-half mile of uninterrupted length. ude official traffic control devices as defined in lan one traffic lane in each direction· tin in effect only until January 1, ( ) 4 1993, and as mless a later enacted statute, which is ( ) ~ enacted 1993, deletes or extends that date. t2. Effective March 7, 1973. " t. Effective Jul. 9, 1973, by terms of an urgency clause. tS. Effective January. 1, 1979. 8. Operative January 1, 1982. t. Effective January 1, 1982. · Operative January 1, 1987. i. Edfective January 1, 1987. the italicized material and at the po/ntis) indicated deleted the Is in effect only until January 1, 1993, at which time 'owing section becomes effective. . ' "is either of the following: m of a highway measured-as to distance and with gnated, or otherwise determined in order that the ~ calculated by securing the time it takes the vehicle lnce. on of a highway with a Prima facie speed limit · . by local ordinance pursuant to paragraph (1) of n ~_.?d352, or established pursuant to Section 22354, vhich s~oeed limit is not justified by an engineering ted wit}dn five years prior to the date of the alleged in~,olves the use of radar or other 'fforcement measure the speed of mo~Sn~ objects. me operat/ve on January 1, ( ) 1993. · Operative January i 1987 · . _ Effecn,,e Januar~ 1 198, :e as to the speed of a vehicle upon a highway shall upon the t-ri~ of anv person for an alleged violation -idence is based upon or obtained from or by the speed trap. ~ under this code of a charge invoMng the speea other electronic ~ement involves the use of radar or he speed of mowing objects, the prosecution shall ,rima facie case, that the evidence or testimony pon a speed trap as defined in subdivision (b) that a traffic and enCneer/n~ survey has been ~rs of the date of the alleged viglation c~r ewidence nmitted on a local street or road as defined in t 4CKS02 shall constitute a prima facie case that 'the is not based upon a speed trap as defined~.¢ ~ 40802. Effective January 1. 1982· ' i Trap - . secution under this code u~on a charge inv°l'~ng ~v officer or other person snail be incoml {w is based upou or obtained from or ~l~eed trap. Div. 17 . ..---745 -- !§ 40830 (b) Every officer arresting, or participating or ass/sting in the arrest of, a person so charged while on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing the provisions of D/vis/ons I0 and 11 is incompetent as a witness if at the time of such arrest he was not wearing a distinctive uniform, or was using .a .motor vehicle not painted the distinctive color specified by the This section does not appiy to an officer ~s/gned exclhsively to the duty of investigating and securing evidence in reference to any theft of a vehicle or failure ora person to stop in the event of an accident or violation of Section 9,3109 or in reference to any felony charge or to any officer engaged in serving any warrant when the officer is not engaged.in Patrol.l~ng the highways for the purpose of enforcing th'e traffic laws.. Amended Ch. ,58, Stats. 1~1. Effective September 15. 1981. ..r Amended Ch. 84, Stats. 197& EHeetive January 1, 1979. -' Admission of Speed Tra~ Evidence ' ' -.. ' ! ' ' ' 406¢5. Every court shall be without jurisdicti;n t(~ rend~' a jUdgment of conviction against any person for a violation of this code involving the speed of a vehicle if the court admits any evidence er testimony secured in violation of, or which is inadmissible.under this article..-.. '.. · - ' Police Rope-" 40806. In the event a defendant charged with'~U~ 0ffens;'under this code pleads guilty, the trial court shall not at any time prior to pronouncing sentence receive Or consider any report, verbal or written, of any police or traffic officer or witness of the offense without fully informing the defendant of all statements in the report or statement of witnesses, or without g/ring the defendant an opportunitw' to make answer thereto or to produce witnesses in rebuttal, and f~>r such purpose the court shall grant a continuance before pronouncing sentence ff requested by the defendant. Use of Evidence Regarding Departmental Action 4CZ,07. No record of any act/on taken by the department against a person's pri~51ege to operate a motor vehicle, nor any testimony regard/rig the proceedings at, or concerning, or produced at, any hearing held in connection with such action, shall be admissible as evidence in any court in any crirrdnal action .... ~'oprovision of this sect/on shall in any way limit the admissibility of such records or testimony as is necessary to enforce theprovisions of this cede relating to operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver's license or when the driwing privilege is suspended or revoked, the admissibility of such records or testimony in any prosecution for failure to cliselose any matter at such a hearing whe'n requ~'ed by law to do so, or the admissibility of such records and testimony when introduced solely for 'the 'purpose of impeaching the credibilib' of a witness. Added Ch. S04. Stats· 1977. F.q'ect/ve Ja~nuaxy. 1, 1978. Art/cie 2. CbAI Actions Effect of Convictions -40830. In either et' the fcilowin~ circumstances a '~5olation of any provision of this code does not establish negligence as a matter of law, bu't tn any civil act/on under either of the circumstances negligence must be proved as a fact without regard to the violation. The circumstances under which this section applies are either: (a} Where violation of the proxSsion was required by a law of the federal t~eVe, rn. ment or by any rule, re~*nzlation, directive or or'der of any agency of federal gover'nment, the w[elation of which is subject to penalty un'der an act of Con~ess or by any va/id order of military authority.. (b) Where violation c~t' th~ provision was required'in order to comply with November 20, 1987 Jackie and Ralph Wray 6780 Sapphire Street Dublin~ CA 94568 (415) 829-5298 City of Dublin Dublin City Council P.O. Box 2340 Dublin: CA 94568 Attention City Manager: We are residents in the new housing development~ Dublin Hills Estates, on Stagecoach Road. We have lived here one year and are increasingly concerned by the speed of traffic along Stagecoach Road. As parents of young children this~prOblem is becoming intolerable. Moreover, more than once we have been passed on the left side of our vehicle by speeders. We have signed a petition to place a traffic stop sign in front of Stagecoach Park but feel that in addition either regular patrol be initiated or additional stop signs be considered. We would like to be informed on any action regarding this matter. Sincerely, Mr. and~Mrs. Ra. ph Wr November 2, 1987 Mr. Lee Thompson Dublin City Engineer 6500 Dublin Boulevard, Suite D Dublin, CA 94568 WORKS' RE: Stop sign at Stagecoach Road and Topaz Circle at childrens park. Dear Mr. Thompson: We are writing with concern about our new city park on Stzgecoach ~oad. Although the speed limit is satisfactory along Stagecoach Road, a stop sign and crosswalk is needed at the intersection of Stagecoach Road and Topaz Circle, at the corner of the childrens park. We feel this will eliminate any and all safety hazards that may arise from the constant traffic on Stagecoach Road where our children are at play. Thank you in advance for your immediate action on this proposal. Sincerely, K.C, Elliott 7695 Tooaz Circle Dublin, CA 94568 zIg. L,. zt Pd P .4 .Siflr:ati~res for stop sign at St acoach Road and Topaz Circle at ildrens park. Si~:nal. ures for stop sign at agecoach Road and Topaz Circle childrens park. stop. sign at $ ecoach Road and Topaz Circle at ildrens park. for stop si,tn at St ~acoach Road and Topaz Circle at lldrens park. __._¢(.,..-~ Cor~ ~ u,3 ~q'x' DO,q,L~, Q4 S ;ecoach Road and Topaz Circle at 71drens park. ~ou stop si~r~ at ~ c v~, Rq~GfR' .... '2. &? %'q"'7,~¢,,,, ..~ %':~atures for stop sign tagecoach Road and Topaz Circle chil~en$ park. RESOLUTION NO. -88 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DESIGNATING PLACEMENT OF STOP SIGNS ON STAGECOACH ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF TURQUOISE STREET/TOPAZ CIRCLE Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 1, Section 5 of City of Dublin Ordinance 55-87, the City Council of the City of Dublin does RESOLVE as follows: Section 1. STOP signs shall be erected on Stagecoach Road at the intersection of Turquoise Street/Topaz Circle. Section 2. The provisions of Section 1 shall be added to Chapter 3 of the City of Dublin Traffic Code. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 9th day of May, 1988. AYES' NOES' ABSENT' Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk