Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.2 AVB Traffic Study CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 27, 1984 SUBJECT Public Hearing: Traffic Study - Amador Valley Boulevard/Village Parkway to Dougherty Road EXHIBITS ATTACHED Memorandum from Traffic Engineer; Strip Map will be displayed at meeting; Petition from Residents; Draft Ordinance RECOMMENDATION~f~Receive Staff Report Open Public Hearing Receive Public Testimony Close Public Hearing Approve Staff Recommendations Below FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Cost of implementing Staff recommendations is as follows: 1. Reconstruct pavement, median and curb improvements (See Capital Improvement Program 1984-85) $340,000 2. Landscape Median (See CIP 1985-86) 255,000 3. Crosswalk marking, striping, signs (sufficient funds are budgeted this year) 1,500 4. Radar equipment (Application for funds made with State Office of Traffic Safety $1,500-$2,500 per unit DESCRIPTION : At the City Council meeting of November 14, 1983, residents of Amador Valley Boulevard requested the City Council to consider the following traffic control measures and street improvements for Amador Valley Boulevard~ Installation of stop signs at the intersections a. Brighton Drive/Amador Valley Boulevard b. Penn Drive/Amador Valley Boulevard c. Ann Arbor Way/Amador Valley Boulevard 2. Landscape the median dividers on Amador Valley Boulevard. Maintain the existing speed limit of 25 mph and utilize radar to enforce the speed limit. ~ The City Council directed Staff to meet with the residents after the Amador Valley Boulevard Traffic Study was completed. On January 26, 1984 Staff met with approximately thirty residents from Amador Valley Boulevard to discuss the Traffic Engineer's findings. At that meeting, residents requested 1) ordinance limiting the use of Amador Valley Boulevard by trucks; 2) that the Traffic Engineer address school pedestrian routes; and 3) that the median not be narrowed because of their fear that the City might stripe Amador Valley Boulevard for four lanes in the future. The residents did not concur with Staff regarding the placement of stop signs at one intersection rather than the three originally requested. Since that meeting, the Traffic Engineer has met with School Officials and made pedestrian counts. It is recommended that the crosswalks be painted yellow and signed designating these crosswalks as School Crosswalks and further that they be limited to the York Drive and Penn Drive intersections. Staff also redesigned the plan line presented to the residents, to incorporate curb extensions into the street at all intersections with Amador Valley Boulevard between Village Parkway and Brighton Drive. It is Staff's position that these curb extensions will accomplish the following: 1. Protect the parking lanes from use as travel lanes by motorists ITEM NO. ~° ~7 COPIES AGENDA STATEMENT: to Dougherty Road Page 2 Traffic Study - Amador Valley Boulevard - Village Parkway 2. Shorten crosswalks and allow better visibility of, and for pedestrians waiting to cross the street 3. Allay the fears of residents that Amador Valley Boulevard could be easily restriped to accommodate four travel lanes in the future 4. Reinforce the residential character of Amador Valley Boulevard. RECOMMENDATION Staff would recommend that the City Council take the following actions with respect to Amador Valley Boulevard: Short Term Maintain the 25 mph speed limit through the developed residential area on Amador Valley Boulevard. Waive reading and adopt urgency ordinance establishing a 3 way stop at Penn Drive and Amador Valley Boulevard and a vehicle weight limit of three tons. o Authorize installation of school crosswalks across Amador Valley Boulevard at York Drive ar, d Penn Drive, eliminating all others between Village Parkway and the railroad tracks. Adopt Plan Line for Amador Valley Boulevard between Village Parkway and Dougherty Road with the following features~ Two 12 foot travel lanes (one in each direction) Two 8 foot parking lanes with curb extensions at intersections (one on each side of street) Two 5 foot bikelanes (one in each direction) One 14 foot median with protected left turn lanes Authorize purchase and utilization of radar equipment if City receives State Office of Traffic Safety Grant. Long Term Reaffirm inclusion of Amador Valley Boulevard (Village Parkway to Dougherty Road) street improvements in Fiscal Year 1984-85 Capital Improvement Program. o Reaffirm inclusion of median landscaping project for Amador Valley Boulevard (Village Parkway to Dougherty Road) for 1985-86. MEMORANDUM DATE: February 16, 1984 TO: City Manager City Engineer FROM: SU BJ ECT: Chris D. Kinzel Citizen Traffic Concerns on Amador Valley Boulevard - As you know, the City of Dublin received a petition from residents of Amador Valley Boulevard at its Nove~er 14, 1983, meeting. The petition and subsequent discussion presented a number of issues related to traffic conditions along the street. Inasmuch as TJKM and Santina and Thompson had already commenced a Plan Line Study for Amador Valley Boulevard along its entire length, we have focused our attention during the past few weeks on the section of Amador Valley Boulevard between · Village Parkway and Dougherty Road. It is my recommendation that this section be considered separately from the rest of Amador Valley Boulevard not only due to the focused citizen concern on the easterly section but also because of the possible impact on the westerly section of proposed access to the 1-680 freeway. In addition to the concerns raised at the original council meeting and by the petition, additional discussion among the residents and the City staff was held at a public meeting at the Frederikson School on January 26, 1984. This meeting was very well attended by residenCs, most of whom live along Amador Valley Boulevard, and considerable discussion was held with regard to the specific traffic concerns. Briefly, the citizens' requests are as follows: 1. Amador Valley Boulevard should not be widened to accommodate more than its current two lane divided status. 2. The existing 25 mile per hour (mph) speed limit on Amador Valley Boulevard should not be increased. 3. Radar equipment should be used by the Police Department to enforce the 25 mph limit. 4. Through truck traffic should be prohibited on the porCion of Amador Valley Boulevard east of Village Parkway. 5. STOP signs stopping Amador Valley Boulevard traffic should be installed at the intersections of Ann Arbor Way, Penn Drive and 'Brighton Drive. City Manager & Engineer -2- .- February 16, 1984 The remaining portion of this memo will address these five points. Drawings have been prepared by Santina and Thompson which depict a proposal to improve traffic conditions along Amador Valley Boulevard. In addition to the speed and volume of traffic, concerns of residents relate to noise, vibration, and the safety of pedestrians and residents backi.~g into the street. In addition, visual inspection indicates that the street is in deteriorating physical condition and needs to be structurally rehabilitated. The proposal is to retain the existing two lane street, to increase the distance between the traveling vehicles and the adjacent homes, to provide a buffer zone between the traveling vehicles and parked vehicles which will also serve bicycle traffic and traffic backing into the street, and to enhance the visibility of pedestrians crossing Amador Valley Boulevard. This would be accomplished by narrowing the existing median from its approximate 20 to 22 foot width to a 14 total width. The median would be heavily landscaped and left turn lanes would be provided at each intersection. The parking lane would be designated as a standard 8 foot width and a 5 foot buffer zone would be designated between the parking area and the through traffic lane. This buffer zone has been proposed to be designated as a bicycle lane although alternatively it could be left undesignated and serve only the purpose of providing extra space for maneuvering into and out of parking areas and driveways. It was the feeling of residents that by designating it specifically as a bike lane, this might encourage the use of bicyclists or conversely not be a safe area for bicyclists. Our recommendation is that, in balance, the bike lanes would the preferred designation of the street space even though they would not be heavily used by bicyclists. The residents were very concerned that with the pavement width increased from its present situation, there would be a temptation to pass on the right or to form two lanes in each direction, thus having a deFacto four lane street. There is no intention to convert Amador Valley Boulevard to a four lane street in this area due to the negative environmental consequences to the nearby residents of being exposed to increased traffic that might result from a four lane street. In a practical sense, it would be impossible to designate Amador Valley Boulevard as a four lane street without removing on-street parking, which we would perceive to be a problem for the adjacent residents. In order to ensure that the roadway cannot function as a four lane roadway during those periods of the day when on-street parking may not occur, the proposed improvement plans have been modified since the public meeting to accommodate pedestrian refuge areas at each intersection. These pedestrian refuge areas protrude out into the parking lane and effectively preclude a four lane street from occurring, even on a defacto basis. These protrusions or "bulbs" have an even greater advantage of providing a high level of visibility between pedestrians about to cross Amador Valley Boulevard and motorists traveling along the street. These bulbs are depicted on the Plan Line drawings and in some cases require the removal of some parking along the residential frontage. In most cases, parking is available on the side street for City Manager & Engineer -3- February 16, 1984 the resident whose parking has been removed by the protrusion. If not, the proposed design is felt to have such a significant safety advantage that it is outweighs the disadvantages of the lost parking stalls. The protrusions are located on all marked pedestrian crossings of Amador Valley Boulevard and are also indicated to be located near a present or proposed street light. We are proposing that the existing 25 mph speed limit not be changed. This is in accordance with the desires of the residents. However, our radar surveys made in the area indicate that roughly 90 to 95 percent of all motorists are violating the existing 25 mph speed limit. The residents themselves indicated at the meeting what we have observed in our field studies - that it is difficult to. travel at 25 mph speed§ and that speeds in the vicinity of 30 or even 35 mph are generally not felt by the residents unsafe. However, of greatest concern to the residents are those violators who are traveling in the 35 to 50 mph speed limits (or above) which represent roughly 15 to 20 percent of all motorists. During periods of increased enforcement, those motorists traveling greater than 35 mph would undoubtedly receive the greatest attention on the part of enforcing traffic officers. A 25 mph limit is appropriate along Amador Valley Boulevard because of the residential nature of the street along with the resulting driveways, parking maneuvers, and pedestrian crossings of the street. We concur with the residents that radar enforcement would be useful on Amador Valley Boulevard. This is also the case on other streets throughout the City of Dublin. As you know, the City of Dublin has requested a grant from the State of California Office of Traffic Safety for a comprehensive citywide traffic study which would include funds for the purchase of a radar set to be used for both engineering and enforcement purposes. The City has not received word from the Office of Traffic Safety as to whether such a grant will be made to the City. Should the grant not be forthcoming, it would be our recommendation that the City Council budget funds in the 1984-85 fiscal year budget to purchase equipment so that radar enforcement can be commenced on Amador Valley Boulevard and other Dublin streets. In the meantime, the Dublin Police Department has been quite active on Amador Valley Boulevard. In the section of Amador Valley Boulevard between Village Parkway and Stagecoach Drive, 306 moving citations were issued by the Police Department during 1983. This represents 14 percent of the total 2,169 moving citations issued by the Police Department during 1983 throughout the City. We also concur with the residents that through trucks should be prohibited from Amador Valley Boulevard. Since this is a residential street and since alternative routes are available for commercial trucks, it is appropriate to restrict this street to automobile traffic and to trucks which must make deliveries within the immediate neighborhood. Through truck traffic (defined as trucks which have no pickup or delivery on either Amador Valley Boulevard or in neighboring residential sections) would be prohibited. The City of Dublin currently does not City Manager & Engineer -4- February 16, 1984 have a truck route ordinance. It is our recommendation that the City Council establish such an ordinance which would allow weight limit restrictions to be placed on certain streets in the City. In our opinion, the streets within the City which should be designated to accommodate through truck traffic would be Dougherty Road, Dublin Boulevard, and San Ramon Road. A few other streets such as Village Parkway between Dublin Boulevard/Amador Valley Boulevard and Amador Valley Boulevard between San Ramon Road/Village Parkway along with Sierra Court and Sierra Lane might be considered for truck routes. Since these streets all connect with one of the three proposed truck routes, any truck having business along one of those streets could use the street legally even if not designated as a truck route. It is recommended that the City Council instruct the staff to prepare a draft truck route ordinance for consideration by the City Council. The residents requested STOP signs to be installed along Amador Valley Boulevard at three locations - Ann Arbor Way, Penn Drive and Brighton Drive. Following the neighborhood discussion, it became clear that the reasoning behind these requests was to reduce speeds along Amador Valley Boulevard, to reduce the traffic volumes along the street by making the use of Amador Valley Boulevard less attractive due to the stops, and to provide some increased measure of protection for pedestrians crossing the street at intersections regulated by new STOP signs. As we have previously reported to the Council, STOP signs along important streets are generally ineffective in either reducing speeds or in diverting through traffic from the route. As was acknowledged to the residents at the time of the public meeting and as is described in the proposed General Plan analysis of Amador Valley Boulevard area, a serious and significant land use planning error was made years ago when Amador Valley Boulevard was created with the dual function of an arterial street as well as a local residential street. These dual functions are mutually incompatible and provide for, at best, a continuing annoyance on the part of the affected residents or, at worst, potential safety hazards to residents and motorists alike. Our experience on Davona Drive has been that STOP signs installed to curtail speeds or to redirect through traffic have not been effective. On Davona Drive, the City of Dublin installed STOP signs for these purposes in 1982. In 1983, TJKM conducted radar speed studies along Davona Drive at identical locations where Alameda County had conducted similar surveys prior to the installation of STOP signs. In all cases there was no reduction in speeds along the street. Generally, STOP signs only affect the speeds of traffic within approximately 100 feet or so of the STOP sign and some motorists seem to speed away from the STOP signs to make up for lost time or due to the annoyance. Unfortunately, many motorists do not stop at all thereby increasing the potential for traffic accidents involving side street vehicles or even pedestrians who expect compliance with the STOP sign regulation. For this reason, we would consider very carefully all the ramifications of new STOP signs along a street such as Amador Valley Boulevard. STOP signs should be installed where the volume of traffic on both streets are fairly heavy City Manager & Engineer -5- February 16, 1984 and where in the absence of such signs, the assignment of right-of-way is questionable or safety hazards might result. The attached Figure 1 indicates the estimated 1984 traffic volumes on Amador Valley Boulevard. In this case, it is shown that traffic volumes are highest on the side streets at Penn Drive and at Brighton Drive. At the neighborhood meeting, a suggestion was made t~at traffic volumes at Brighton Drive approached the point where STOP signs would be justified. AFter discussion, it was agreed by those residents present as well as the technical staff that placing the STOP signs at Penn Drive instead of Brighton would be preferred due to the pedestrian crossings, the specific traffic movements at the intersection, and the location of Penn Drive with respect to other streets within the neighborhood. (In-the future, traffic signals will be installed at Stagecoach Drive at the expense of the developer.) However, traffic volumes on other streets do not indicate a need for STOP signs at the present time. In order to address the issue of pedestrian safety, TJKM conducted detailed pedestrian surveys in the area. Existing pedestrian crosswalks are located as shown in Figure 2. They were installed by Alameda County to serve student and other pedestrian traffic in the vicinity of three schools - Frederikson, Cronin and Wells. Current levels of usage appear to be about 20 per day crossing Amador Valley Boulevard at each of four locations (York, Emerald, Burton, and Penn). These estimates are based on information provided by the Murray School District and on observations of pedestrian traffic made by TJKM. According to the school district, Frederikson School will continue to operate 7th and 8th grade classes throughout the remainder of this year, then reduce to 8th grade only (with about 160 students) in September 1984, and close entirely in June of 1985. This will increase the number of students needing to cross Amador Valley Boulevard by about 40 in 1984-85 and by about 70 in 1985-86, according to school district estimates. In order to adequately accommodate the expected number of students, it is recommended that crosswalks be consolidated at the Penn Drive and York Drive locations, and the existing crosswalks at B~urt.on Drive and Emerald Drive be removed. Since Wells Intermediate School will serve a much larger attendance area with the closing of the Frederikson School, the crosswalks at both York Drive and at Penn Drive are expected to receive heavy usage by school children and should be designated as yellow-marked school crosswalks. Construction of the pedestrian "bulbs" which are planned will reduce street width by 8 to 16 feet and provide improved sight distance and visibility of pedestrians at these crossing locations. In conclusion, we are in general concurrence with the concerns expressed by residents in the petition and subsequent discussion at the neighborhood meeting. Amador Valley Boulevard should be retained as a two lane street, and the 25 mph speed limit should be retained and City Manager & Engineer -6- February 16, 1984 enforced through the use of radar equipment. In addition, truck traffic should be prohibited along the street and STOP signs installed at the Penn Drive intersection. Additionally, pedestrian crossings at other locations should be modified and the street continually monitored for both traffic and pedestrian safety. jt DOUGHERTY RD. 200 .STAGECOACH 0 3,400 > BRIGHTON 0 o 0 ~ 2,800 PENN BURTON 0 o 200 - ANN ARBOR 1,700 o EMERALD 0 0 ! 2,000 YORK 0 0 0 VILLAGE PKWY. CITY OF DUBLIN ESTIMATED 1984 TRAFFIC VOLUMES ~~ FIGURE AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD '~ I Walnut Cr®ek! Cl. // I I I I I I TAMARACK Z BLVD. Z Z bJ n Existing Pedestrian Xing to be removed. Proposed School Pedestri(3n Xing (Yel Iow) CITY OF DUBLIN AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS Creek, Cs. FIGURE 2 AMADOR VALLEY BLVD. ~IK£ LANE PARKING LANE ./ '~ E X l S E ,'~S lDENA I~ ~ ~ C~OSS IWALIC~ L M£DIA N ? ;T. CURB ~ '= ~o' OF CURE ,S/DE~',,qLK-~ CD3112 SIDEWALK TRAN ITION DETAIL N.T.S. PREPARED BY: ~ SANTINA & THOMPSON INC. I : CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS INC. PP,£ITION IN SUPPORT OF AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR Abt~DOR VALLEY BLVD. We the undersigned are concerned citizens of the City of Dublin, Alameda County, State of California. We are her~eby petitioning the Dublin City Council and Alameda Board of S~pervisors to cancel their "Master Plan" for Traffic Control on Amador Valley Boulevard and instead consider the following plan which emphasize~ safety, traffic speed control, and neighborhood improvements. The plan simply stated includes three basic points which we the undersigned subscribe to: 1) The placement of Sto~ Signs where Ann Arbor Way and Penn Street -~~°' intersect with Ama--d-~ Valley Boulevard in an effort to provide safety to both vehicles and pedestrians (school children for example) traveling in both directions. 2) The landscaping of the medium divide of Amador Valley Boulevard in an effort to improve the neighborhood scenic value. This would also include a continual maintenance of the divide strip to keep it clean of trash. 3) The posting of a speed limit of 25 miles per hour along the entire Amador Valley Boulevard with appropriate radar enforcement by the Dublin Police Department. Although the speed limit is now 25 miles per hour along most sections of the boulevard, this speed limit would be enforced with the aid of radar surveillance so as to catch speeding vehicles that now average 40 miles per hour. In addition, we the undersigned do not want: 1) A widening of Amador Valley Boulevard as proposed by the City to accomodate more traffic. 2) An increase of the speed limit to 30 miles per hour, or higher. 3) A costly increase to the taxpayer as proposed by the City's "Master Plan" on Am~dor Valley traffic which has been estimated to run as high as $400,000 to achieve fruitless objectives. This petition was circulated by: Joseph Martin Name 7017 Amador Valley Blvd. Address 833-8084 Phone Numbe~ Date Terry Cu!ley 7029 Amador Valley Blvd. 828-0232 Date 1. Name ~ddress Print Signature Phone Date RECEIVED NOV $1983 CITY OF DUBLI;'-] ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follews: SECTION I. WEIGHTS OF VEHICLES AND LOADS SECTION 1 Permissible Weights: General. The permissible weights of vehicles and their loads operated or moved upon those streets hereinafter designated shall be the weights fixed by this Ordinance. SECTION 2 Permissible Weights: Signing. The City Engineer shall erect and maintain suitable signs notifying the public of the permissible weights of vehicles and their loads operated or m.uved upon those streets hereinafter designated. SECTION 3 Permissible Weiqhts: Exceptions. No regulation adopted in this Ordinance shall prohibit any commercial vehicles coming from an unrestriced street having ingress and egress by direct route to and from a restricted street when necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares, and merchandise from or to any building or structure located on the restricted street or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the actual and bona fide repair, alteration, remodeling, or construction of any building or structure upon the restricted street for which a building permit has previously been obtained. No regulation adopted in this Ordinance shall aply to any vehicle owned by a public utility or licensed contractor while necessarily in use in the construction, installation, or repair of any public utility. SECTION 4 Amador Valley Boulevard. On Amador Valley Boulevard, between Village Parkway and Dougherty Road the permissible gross weight of vehicles and their loads shall be three tons or less. SECTION II. Article 4, relating to "Stop Intersections", of the Alameda County Ordinance Code previously adopted by the City of Dublin is amended by the addition of Section 6-81.9 and 6-81.10 to read: ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS Page 2 ~. Stop Mandatory On Ail Approaches; Amador Valley Boulevard and Penn Drive SECTION III. IMMEDIATE EFFECT This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its enactment because the adoption and immediate effect thereof is necessary in order to protect vehicular and pedestrian safety. SECTION IV. POSTING OF ORDINANCE The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Dublin on this 27th day of February, 1984 by the following votes AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MAYOR Attest: By CITY CLERK