HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.6 Pedestrian Safety Improved (2) 5
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
MEETING DATE : April 25 , 1983
SUBJECT Improved Pedestrian Safety at Signalized
Intersections
EXHIBITS ATTACHED Memo from City Traffic Engineer , dated April 20 , 1983
RECOMMENDATION n r � 1 ) Review and accept Traffic Engineer ' s Report and
take no further action at this time .
2 ) Direct Staff to include pedestrian walkways in
future improvements to Amador Valley Boulevard
and San Ramon Road intersection . -
FINANCIAL STATEMENT : None
DESCRIPTION At its meeting of February 11 , 1983 , the City Council
asked Staff to report on Cm. Hegarty ' s request for
improved pedestrian safety at Amador Valley
Boulevard/Donahue Drive and at Amador Valley
Boulevard/San Ramon Road .
The attached report from the City Traffic Engineer
contains his comments and recommendations .
------- ---------- ------------------------------ -------------------- -- ------ -
COPIES TO :
ITEM NO . ;r.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Richard, Ambrose
FROM: Chris D. Kinzel
DATE: April 20, 1983
SUBJECT: Pedestrian/Vehicular Conflict at Signalized Intersections
At the last City Council meeting, Councilman Hegarty expressed concern
regarding possible unsafe conditions for pedestrians at two signalized
intersections - Amador Valley Boulevard at Donohue Drive and Amador
Valley Boulevard at San Ramon Road. I subsequently discussed this
matter with Councilman Hegarty to pinpoint the area of concern.
At the Donohue Drive intersection , pedestrians crossing Amador Valley
Boulevard have a pedestrian pushbutton and a WALK signal . The WALK is -
displayed during the same time that traffic on Donohue Drive has a green
signal display. During the green signal , motorists can make right or
left turns or continue straight across the street. The right or left _
turns cross crosswalks which could have pedestrians crossing under WALK
conditions . During this conflict, pedestrians have the legal right of
way although they may be intimidated and/or disregarded by motorists.
,,This condition and conflict potential is typical of virtually all
signalized intersections with protected pedestrian movements. The
variation from intersection to intersection is with the relative volume
of pedestrians and motorists and the geometric configuration of the
intersection itself. At Donohue Drive, the intersection is relatively
standard in configuration with moderate volumes of pedestrians and
vehicles .
/n general , pedestrians and motorists are both given simultaneous and
yet conflicting GO messages because they can clearly see one another and
safety problems ,in the form of accidents rarely occur under these
circumstances . While the pedestrian has the legal right of way, for
safety purposes, it, is the pedestrian' s responsibility to be alert for
motorists who fail to yield their right of way. It is possible for
motorists to be primarily concerned with other automobile traffic at the
intersection and inadvertently not see pedestrians.
The solution to the particular problem outlined is to ensure that
motorists and pedestrians alike are alert and act in a lawful fashion.
Our experience has been that no additional signs , markings or changed
signal operation can bring this about. There is an advantage in
treating similar intersections with similar installations and this
intersection is treated in a standard fashion.
Occassionally, crosswalks are omitted and pedestrians are forced to
cross at a safer side of the street. In even rarer cases, pedestrians
are given an exclusive signal phase during which time all vehicular
traffic movement stops. The elimination of a crosswalk in this case
-1-
would not seem to be beneficial and the consideration of an exclusive
pedestrian phase would be congestion-producing and annoying to motorists
alike who would likely soon disobey the intent of such a provision.
The other possible conflict involving motorists is one in which
pedestrians are crossing the artery ( in this case Amador Valley
Boulevard) and vehicular traffic on Amador Valley Boulevard with a red
light makes a right turn on red across the crosswalk with a WALK signal .
Again, motorists in this situation must legally yield to all pedestrians
but may ignore or inadvertently not see such a pedestrian . The
theoretical solution to this is a NO RIGHT TURN ON RED sign .
Unfortunately, again the experience for the use of this sign to attempt
to regulate or eliminate pedestrian/vehicle conflicts is poor. The
reason for such a sign is not readily apparent to motorists and is
frequently violated. In addition, most motorists are not expecting to
see such a sign and simply do not see it. Therefore, the use of NO
RIGHT TURN ON RED sign is very ineffective and not recommended. No
other changes are recommended at the intersection at this time.
At the San Ramon Road-Amador Valley Boulevard intersection, similar
issues of pedestrian versus vehicle conflicts are involved. In this
case, these issues are complicated by the presence of generally higher
speed traffic, an adult crossing guard during portions of the day, and a
complete lack of improvements such as sidewalks , concrete curb and
gutter, etc. In addition, pedestrian walkway areas are not improved or
defined.
At this location, there is a very high level of advance warning signing
(for school age pedestrians) and a need for improved vehicular capacity.
In a separate item, the City Council is considering the long term and
short term improvements recommended for San Ramon Road at and near this
intersection. This intersection is a high priority location needing
street and signal improvements. When such improvements are installed,
it will also be appropriate to improve pedestrian provisions in the area
including defined walkways and appropriate pedestrian refuge areas. At
this intersection , it is recommended that no changes to signing or
striping be made at this time but that the Council include improvements
for pedestrians in its consideration for an intersection improvement
project.
1
-2-