Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 SRRD PedOvrCrssng { CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT City Council Meeting Date: July 27, 1987 SUBJECT: Pedestrian Overcrossings on San Ramon Road Request from Murray School District EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1) Pedestrian Separation Structure Warrants from Caltrans Traffic Manual 2) Letter from Murray School District 3) Draft Response RECOMMENDATION: n Respond to Murray School District with cost figures and warrants for pedestrian overcrossings. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Approximately $3,500 for pedestrian study. Cost of overcrossings is estimated to be $200,000 to $400,000 each. DESCRIPTION: As a response to the environmental review of the proposed San Ramon Road improvements between Alcosta Blvd. and Silvergate Drive, the Murray School District Board sent a letter of concern regarding school age pedestrian safety and recommended that the City of Dublin investigate the feasibility of pedestrian overpasses at Shannon Ave.. and at Amador Valley Blvd. The City Council directed Staff to prepare a report on the costs associated with such a study. TJKM, the City's Traffic Engineer, states that a study of the two intersections for pedestrian overcrossing structures would cost approximately $3,500. The cost of a pre-fabricated, stair-accessed structure would cost approximately $200,000, and a ramped one, about $400,000. Attached is a copy of the Caltrans warrants (guidelines) from the State Traffic Manual for Pedestrian Separation Structures. Caltrans recommends that six conditions be met in order to justify separation structures. For the crossing at Shannon Ave. , Conditions 5 and 6 are not met, as there is a controlled (signalized) crossing at this intersection, and there is a crossing guard in addition to the signal. The other four conditions may or may not be met. For the crossing at Amador Valley Blvd. , Conditions 2, 5, and 6 are not met. Based on these criteria, it is highly unlikely that a study would recommend pedestrian separation structures. An additional point is that since the distance up and over the structure is much further than simply crossing the street, children would tend to continue using the signal to cross. This situation would then become less safe, as the the existing crossing guard would no longer be justified at the Shannon intersection. • Staff recommends that a letter be sent back to the Murray School District outlining the facts as explained in this report and suggesting that if the school district wishes to pursue the study, they commit a share of the money to fund the study and, if the pedestrian separation structures are found to be warranted, that the district share the cost of the structures. ITEM NO. !e / COPIES TO: Murray School District TJKM SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY As noted in Section 10-03.4, an adequate crossing gap in approaching traffic should occur randomly at an average rate o£ at least once each minute during the school crossing periods. 10-07.4 Special Conditions "A School Safety Patrol ~_all not be assigned where inadequate stopping sight distance prevails, unless /lashing yellow beacons are installed for operation during School Crossing hours. Adult Crossing Guard 10-08 10-08.1 General Adult Crossing Guards are a supplemental tech- nique and not a traffic control device. They may be assigned (CVC 9815) at designated school crossings, to assist elementary school pedestrians at specified hours when going to or from school. The following suggested policy for their assignment applies only to crossings serving elementary school pedestrians on the "Suggested Route to School." 'An Adult Crossing Guard should be considered when: 1. Special problems exist which make it necessary to assist elementary school pedestrians in cross- lng the street, such as at an unnsnally complicat- ed intersection with frequent turning move- ments and high vehicular spccds; or 2. A change in the school crossing location is immi- nent but prevailing conditions require school crossing supervision for a limited time and it is infeasible to install another form of control for a temporary period. 10-08.2 Warrants for Adult Crossing Guards Adult Crossing Guards normally are assigned where official supervision of elementary school pedestrians is desirable while they cross a public highway on the "Suggested Route to School", and at least 40 elementary school pedestrians for each of any two hours daffy use the crossing while going to or from school. Adult crossing guards may be war- ranted under the following conditions: 1. At uncontrolled crossings where there is no al- ternate controlled crossing within 600 feet; and a. In urban areas where the vehicular traffic volume exceeds 350 in each of any two daffy hours during which 40 or more school pede- strians cross while going to or from school; or b. In rural areas where the vehicular traffic vol- , ume exceeds 300 in each of any two daffy hours during which 30 or more school pede- strians cross while going to or from school. Whenever the critical approach speed ex- ceeds 40 mph, the warrants for rural areas · should be applied. ~.. At stop sign controlled erossings: a. Where the vehicular traffic volume on undi- vided highways of four or more lanes exceeds 500 per hour during any period when the school pedestrians are going to or from school. 3. At traffic signal-controlled crossings: a. where the number of vehicular turning movements through the school crosswalk ex- ceeds'300 per hour while school pedestrians are going to or from school. b. Where there are circumstances not nor- mally present at a signalized intersection, such as crosswalks more than 80 feet long with -no intermediate refuge, or an abnor- marly high proportion of large commercial vehicles. 10-09.1 General Pedestrian Separation Structures eliminate vehic- ,ilar-pedestrian conflicts but are necessarily limited to selected locations where the safety benefits clearly balance the public investment. Separation structures. are supplemental techniques for providing school pedestrian safety and are not traffic control devices. 10-09.2 Warrants Pedestrian Separation Structures should be consid- ~'p~d~i~ri~'~ 'seParation st~fijre's 10-09 ;~; ered where the following conditions, are fulfilled. 1. The prevailing conditions that require a school pedestrian crossing ~nnst be sufficiently perma- nent to justify the separation structure; and P.. The location must be on the "Suggested Route to School" at an uncontrolled intersection or midblock location along a freeway, expressway or major arterial street where the width, traffic speed and volume make it undesirable for pede- strlan., to cross; and Traffic Manual 3. Revision of the "Suggested Route to School" or the attendance boundaries to eliminate the con- flier is infeasible; and 4. Physical conditions make a separation structure feasible from an engineering standpoint, in- clucling pedestrlun channelization to ensure us- age of the structure; and SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY 10-7 10-1979 15. Adjacent controlled school pedestrian crossings are more than 600 feet from the proposed struc- ture and would'require total out-of-direction walking distance of at least 1200 feet; and 6. Bus transportation, tralYic signals, adult crossing guards or other means of resolving the school pedestrian-vehicular conflicts are impractical. Pedestrian Walkways 10-10 10-10.1 General School pedestrian safety problems are not limited to crossing locations and may occur where physical condidtions require students to walk in or along rural or suburban roadways. Where students walk on the roadway, a shoulder width of six feet is desirable along both sides so that they may walk facing oncoming traffic. Where a pe- destriun walkway is provided, and is at least four feet wide and physically separated from the travelway, it may be limited to one side of the roadway. This measure is a supplemental technique, not a traffic control device. 10-10.2 Warrants A Pedestrian Walkway should be considered when all of the following conditions are fulfilled: 1. The highway lies on the "Suggested Route to School"; and g. Existing road shoulders outside the traveled way are less than five to six feet wide; and 3. More th~n Il0 school pedestrians use the route while walking to or from school and vehicular traffic exceeds 100 per hour during those peri- ods of the day; and 4. The governing board of the school district offi- cially requests the pedestrian walkway im- provements; and 5. Bevision of the "Suggested Boute to School" or the attendance boundaries to eliminate the con- dition is impractical. School Area Parking & Loading COntrols 10-11 10-1 !.1 General School sites may require traffic signs and curb markings to control vehicle parking and loading. In all such cases, the traffic investigation should include direct consultation with the school staff. 10-11.2 Applications - The following types of signs and curb zone murk- ings may be applicable: 1. Time Limit parking of two hours or less on school days. 2. Parking prohibition during specified times/(i) days along school frontage or school approaches for adequate visibility of walkways, gates, en- trances, crossings and unfenced grounds; or for adequate passenger, bus and commercial load- ing; or for unrestricted walkway access on a school approach. a. "No Stopping", "No Parking" or "No Stop- ping-Buses Excepted" during specified times or days. b. Temporary parking prohibitions or restric- tions for special events to minimize congest- ion and delay during periods of extra heavy traffic demand. Street Closures are authorized (CVC 21102) by local ordinance or resolution on streets crossing or dividing school grounds when necessary for the protection of persons attending school. Curb Markings-Whenever local authorities enact local parking regulations and indicate them by the use of paint upon curbs, the follow- ing colors only shall be used: m J?ed-indieates no stopping, standing Or parking, except that a bus may stop in a red zone marked or signposted as a bus loading zone. b. l~e~/o~- indicates stopping only for loading or nnloading passengers or freight for time limit specified. c. I~Tffte-indicates stopping only for loading, URRAY SCHOOL DISTRICT June 5, 1987 BOARD OF T~U~i~'LS EDRA O. COLEMAN PATRICIA R. FERREJRA ANN IR. HENDERSON LENORA A. HOLMES L~SET~ A. HOWARD ~UPERINTENDENT RICHARD F. COCHRAN Dublin City Council P.O.Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: p, E C E I.V E UUN 5 ¢~,'. Ci: E As evidenced by the need to widen and improve San Ramon Boulevard, the traffic on that highway continues to increase. We are concerned about the safety of pedestrians, particularly school age children who must cross San Ramon Boulevard going to and from Nielsen School, Wells Intermediate School, Dublin High School, Christian Center School, St. Raymond's School, Shannon Center, or the shopping areas of Dublin. .. By formal action of the Board of Trustees, we urge you {o investigate the feasibility of constructing pedestrian overpasses at Shannon and Amador Valley Boulevards. We believe this .is the only way of assuring a safe means of crossing San Ramon Boulevard. Hopefully, this can be accomplished..before a %ragic accident happens in our.community.~. City Manager YEdra Coleman, President Beth~oward, Clerk II '~_/(~-./L..c~/./-. ~-.~/~ P~tri cia Ferrei ra, 'Member Ann Henders6n, ~ember olmes, Member July 28, 1987 Murray School District Board of Trustees 7416 Brighton Drive Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Your Letter of June 5, 1987 Pedestrian Overcrossing Structures on San Ramon Road Honorable President and Members of the School Board: Thank you for your letter of June 5th requesting a feasibility study regarding pedestrian overcrossings for two intersections on San Ramon Road. The City's Traffic Engineer has estimated that the cost of such a study would be $3,500. The estimated cost of the facilities themselves would be $200,000 each for stair- accessed structures, or $400,000 each for ramp-accessed structures. A copy of the Caltrans criteria for pedestrian separation structures is enclosed. A review of these criteria indicates that these two intersections do not meet the minimum warrants for installation, based on the fact that there is already signalization at each intersection and a crossing guard at Shannon Avenue. Further, it is anticipated that children would continue to use the signalized crossings as being a shorter walk than using the overpasses. This situation would be less safe at Shannon Avenue since the crossing guard would be replaced by the structure. If you still feel the need for the study, the City would like to ask whether the District is willing to pay half the cost of the study. If the study were to indicate the overcrossings are warranted, would the District be willing to pay half the cost of the structures? office. If you have any questions, please feel free to call my Sincerely yours, LJJ/gr Linda J. Jeffery Mayor