HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.02 Traffic Signals Retrofit G • 11 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Fl1)' `�
DATE: March 19, 2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager �/L riztiao
SUBJECT: Approval of a New Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project- Accessible
Pedestrian Signal Retrofit of Existing Traffic Signals
Prepared by Obeid Khan, Senior Civil Engineer(Traffic/Transportation)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Staff received community requests to review and address pedestrian access for Staff developed ly
y
disabled individuals at key signalized intersections. To address this concern,
ranking system for prioritizing intersections which could benefit most from
e deemed installation of
Accessible Pedestrian Signals. Based on these rankings, four intersections be
the highest priority under the proposed project. This proposed Capital Improvement Program
project will retrofit the existing traffic signals at those intersections.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The total cost of the project is estimated to be $28,964. Staff recommends revenues from m
the Transportation Development Act — Article 3 (TDA Article 3) to fund the of
Fiscal Year 2012/13, there is $272,394 available in the City's allocation under the TDA—Article
3 fund. The budget for this CIP was appropriated as part of the Mid-Year budget adjustment
p
approval at the March 5, 2013 City Council meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
E{'
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve a new CIP — Accessible Pedestrian Signal
Retrofit of Existing Traffic Signals, and 2) Approve the attached Resolution Requesting the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of $28,964 in TDA—Article 3 funding
for the CIP project.
Submitted By Reviewed By
Director of Public Works Assistant City Manager
Page 1 of 2 ITEM NO. 4.2 a�
DESCRIPTION:
Accessible pedestrian signals provide information in non - visual formats such as audible tones,
speech messages, and /or vibrating surfaces. This improves safety for pedestrians with visual
disabilities to cross streets at signalized locations.
Staff has developed criteria to prioritize intersections that would benefit most from the
installation of Accessible Pedestrian Signals. These rankings were generated based on
standards set forth in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) as
well as an assessment of local conditions.
These intersections proposed for these CIP improvements are the following:
Dougherty Road and Park Sierra (Iron Horse Trail)
Dublin Boulevard and Iron Horse Parkway
Dublin Boulevard and Glynnis Rose Drive
Dublin Boulevard and Tassajara Road
A location map of these intersections is attached (Attachment 1).
The proposed resolution (Attachment 2) approves a request to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) to allocate funding for this project.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None required at this time.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map of Proposed Retrofits
2. Resolution of Approving Request to the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission for the allocation of Fiscal Year 2013/14 Transportation
Development Act Article 3 Funding for the Project
Page 2 of 2
Location Map for Proposed Installation of Accessible Pedestrian Signals
❑ High Priority
G: \TRANSPORTATION \Local Traffic \Accessible Pedestrian Sign a l\Attach me nt 2 Location Ma P.doc
RESOLUTION NO. -13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING REQUEST TO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION FOR THE ALLOCATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2013/14
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 PEDESTRIAN /BICYCLE
PROJECT FUNDING
WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public
Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a
regional transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the
benefit and /or use of pedestrians and bicyclists; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional
transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC
Resolution No. 875, Revised, entitled "Transportation Development Act, Article 3,
Pedestrian /Bicycle Projects," which delineates procedures and criteria for submission
of requests for the allocation of "TDA Article 3" funding; and
WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised requires that requests for the
allocation of TDA Article 3 funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide
coordinated claim from each county in the San Francisco Bay region; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to submit a request to MTC for the
allocation of TDA Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to
this resolution, which are for the exclusive benefit and /or use of pedestrians and /or
bicyclists; now, therefore, be it
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Dublin declares it is
eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the
Public Utilities Code, and furthermore, be it
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that there is no pending or threatened litigation
that might adversely affect the project or projects described in Attachment B to this
resolution, or that might impair the ability of the City of Dublin to carry out the project;
and furthermore, be it
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Dublin attests to the accuracy of
and approves the statements in Attachment A to this resolution; and furthermore, be it
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution and its
attachments, and any accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to the
congestion management agency, countywide transportation planning agency, or county
association of governments, as the case may be, of Alameda County for submission to
MTC as part of the countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of March, 2013, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
MTC Prog. & Alloc. Section April. 2005 TDA Article 3 Claim Applications Appendix A Page 2
Resolution No. 13
Attachment A
Re: Approving Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the
Allocation of Fiscal Year 2013/14 Transportation Development Act Article 3
Pedestrian /Bicycle Project Funding
Findings
Page 1 of 1
That the City of Dublin is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation
Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, nor is the City of Dublin legally impeded
from undertaking the project(s) described in "Attachment B" of this resolution.
2. That the City of Dublin has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the
project(s) described in Attachment B.
3. A review of the project(s) described in Attachment B has resulted in the
consideration of all pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and
right -of -way permits and clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the
project(s).
4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right -of -way permits and clearances
for the projects described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be
concluded in a manner and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for
the use of the TDA funds being requested.
5. That the project(s) described in Attachment B comply with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections
21000 et seq.).
6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description(s) of the project(s) in Attachment B,
the sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of
the project(s).
7. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are for capital construction and /or
design engineering; and /or for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed
to motorized traffic; and /or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes;
and /or for the development or support of a bicycle safety education program; and /or
for the development of a comprehensive bicycle and /or pedestrian facilities plan,
and an allocation of TDA Article 3 funding for such a plan has not been received by
the City of Dublin within the prior five fiscal years.
8. That the project(s) described in Attachment B which are bicycle projects have been
included in a detailed bicycle circulation element included in an adopted general
plan, or included in an adopted comprehensive bikeway plan (such as outlined in
Section 2377 of the California Bikeways Act, Streets and Highways Code section
2370 et seq.).
9. That any project described in Attachment B that is a "Class I Bikeway," meets the
mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the
California Highway Design Manual.
MTC Prog. & Alloc. Section April. 2005 TDA Article 3 Claim Applications Appendix A Page 3
10. That the project(s) described in Attachment B are ready to commence
implementation during the fiscal year of the requested allocation.
11. That the City of Dublin agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the
project(s) and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the
public.
MTC Prog. & Alloc. Section April. 2005 TDA Article 3 Claim Applications Appendix A Page 4
Resolution No. 13
Attachment B
page 1 of 1
TDA Article 3 Project Application Form
Fiscal Year of this Claim:2012 /13 Applicant: City of Dublin
Contact person: Obaid Khan
Mailing Address: Public Works, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
E -Mail Address :obaid.khanadublin.ca.aov Telephone:925- 833 -6630
Secondary Contact (in event primary not available) William Lai
E -Mail Address :William.lai(cDdublin.ca.gov Telephone: 925-833-6630
Short Title Description of Project: Installation of Accessible Pedestrian Signals at four intersections for
Pedestrian safety.
Amount of claim: $ 28.964
Functional Description of Project: The project will enhance pedestrian access by installing
Accessible Pedestrian Signals to aid visually impaired pedestrians to cross
controlled intersections in a safe manner
Financial Plan:
List the project elements for which TDA funding is being requested (e.g., planning, environmental,
engineering, right -of -way, construction, inspection, contingency, audit). Use the table below to show
the project budget. Include prior and proposed future funding of the project. If the project is a
segment of a larger project, include prior and proposed funding sources for the other segments.
Project Elements: Environmental, Engineering, Construction, Inspection, and Contingency
Funding Source
I All Prior FYs
I Application FY
Next FY
Following FYs
Totals
TDA Article 3
No
$28,964
C. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria pursuant to Chapter
$28,964
list all other sources:
D. Has the project been reviewed by a Bicycle Advisory Committee? (If "NO," provide an explanation).
N/A
E. Has the public availability of the environmental compliance documentation for the project (pursuant to
N/A
1.
recorder? (required only for projects that include construction).
F. Will the project be completed before the allocation expires? Enter the anticipated completion date of
Yes
2.
G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has the claimant
Yes
arranged for such maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other than the Claimant is to
3.
Totals
$28,964
$28,964
Project Eligibility:
YES ? /NO?
A. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? (If "NO," provide the approximate
Yes
date approval is anticipated).
B. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? If "YES," provide an explanation on a
No
separate page.
C. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria pursuant to Chapter
N/A
1000 of the California Highway Design Manual? (Available on the internet via: http: / /www.dot.ca.gov).
D. Has the project been reviewed by a Bicycle Advisory Committee? (If "NO," provide an explanation).
N/A
E. Has the public availability of the environmental compliance documentation for the project (pursuant to
N/A
CEQA) been evidenced by the dated stamping of the document by the county clerk or county
recorder? (required only for projects that include construction).
F. Will the project be completed before the allocation expires? Enter the anticipated completion date of
Yes
project (month and year) December 2013.
G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has the claimant
Yes
arranged for such maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other than the Claimant is to
maintain the facility provide its name: )
MTC Prog. & Alloc. Section April. 2005 TDA Article 3 Claim Applications Appendix A Page 5
Explanation for D. This project does not have a bicycle infrastructure element, and it
does not impact bicycle infrastructure
MTC Prog. & Alloc. Section April. 2005 TDA Article 3 Claim Applications Appendix A Page 6