The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.2 AVB/StarwardSftyRecmndAGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: CITY CLERK September 7, 1999 SUBJECT: Amador Valley Boulevard / Starward Drive Intersection Safety Recommendations Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: 1) 2) 3) 4) Report from TIKM Location diagram Speed survey for Amador Valley Boulevard Diagram showing narrowing of Starward Drive RECOMMENDATION: 1) 3) Provide direction regarding use of "zebra stripes" and/or relocation of crosswalks. Provide direction regarding any "long-term" improvements. Provide direction regarding a change of speed limit for Amador Valley Boulevard. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Sufficient funds were budgeted in the Street Maintenance Operating Budget to perform the signing and striping work which has been completed. Estimated costs for other improvements are indicated in the Description below. If the City Council directs Staff to proceed with any of these unbudgeted improvements, funds would need to be appropriated for the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 or budgeted for a future Year. DESCRIPTION: At the May 4, 1999, meeting, the City Council received a report regarding safety issues at the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Starward Drive. The City Council suggested a number of potential improvements, which have been reviewed by Staff and TJKM, the City's traffic consultant. TJKM has prepared a report, Attachment 1, which evaluates a variety of potential improvements as to whether they will improve traffic safety in the vicinity of this intersection. Short Term Improvements (See Diagram, Attachment 2) The short term improvements consisted of signing and striping changes as detailed in Attachment 1. All of these improvements have been made except that the "zebra striping" of the crosswalk has been delayed COPIES TO: Gordon Lure, TJKM ITEM NO. g:~agenmisc\avb&starward#2 pending a decision as to whether the crosswalk should remain in place. (See final paragraph of Attachment 1.) Staff requested that TJKM conduct a speed and engineering survey (Attachment 3) in order to support the second item listed in this section, "Replace Speed Limit 35" sign with "Speed Limit 30." The survey indicates that a 30 mph speed limit would be appropriate. The Municipal Code provides that changes in speed limits be adopted by ordinance. If the City Council wishes to approve a speed limit change, Staff will distribute the appropriate public hearing notices and prepare a draft ordinance for the next meeting. Long-Term Improvements Roadway Geometrics- narrowing of Starward Drive (see Attachment 3). This option could be accomplished by the extension of raised sidewalk at an estimated cost of $15,000. Traffic Signal'Modification (not discussed in TJKM's report): It is possible to modify the traffic signal at Amador Valley Boulevard and Donohue Drive to remove the two poles at the median noses in order to eliminate additional obstructions to a driver's view. This would involve installing two larger mast-arm poles for the east- and westbound traffic in order to relocate the left turn signal heads to the mast arms, similar to the Dublin Boulevard/Sierra Court intersection. The median poles also carry the safety lighting (street lighting) for this intersection, which would have to be replaced by lights on the traffic signal poles. Current signal design practice eliminates median signal poles, and so this improvement would also update the intersection. It appears there is sufficient "salvage" from intersections being redesigned along Dublin Boulevard in the Santa Rita Area to provide most of the equipment for such a modification; however, the estimated cost of pole foundations and labor would be approximately $25,000. Staff is applying to the State for a hazard elimination grant to perform this type of work at several intersections. Projects applied for at this time would not be funded for about three years, and so if the City Council were interested in accomplishing this item in the near future, funds would need to be appropriated. Lighted Crosswalks: As noted in TJKM's report, there is some question as to whether a lighted crosswalk would be beneficial at this location. If the City Council is interested in further information, Staff would try to obtain studies or documented results from other jurisdictions. The estimated cost of a lighted crosswalk, depending on options and roadway width, is $14,000 to $20,000, plus ongoing maintenance and energy costs. Items That Are Not Recommended Rumble Strips: This device is not typically used in advance of a crosswalk and may create other problems or cause complaints. "Speed Limit 25 When Children Are Present" signs: These signs are for use only in school zones and would be unenforceable if installed on Amador Valley Boulevard at the library. Flashing Beacons: This device appears not to be appropriate for the type or frequency of pedestrian traffic crossing Amador Valley Boulevard. Page 2 Removal of Crosswalks: This is not recommended, as pedestrians would probably not walk the extra 300 to 600 feet to use a signalized crosswalk. Recommendation: As noted above, the "short term" modifications (striping and signing changes) have been made. Staffis requesting that the City Council provide direction regarding (1) the use of zebra striping and/or relocation of crosswalks, (2) the "long term" improvements, and (3) the proposed change of speed limit on Amad6i')¥alley Boulevard. Page 3 Transportation Consu~ants MEMO August 30, 1999 To: Cringer Russell City of Dublin Lori Hileman via Gordon Lure 'o~ From: Subject: TIKM Project No.: 157-001 T90 Amador Valley Boulevard/Starward Drive Safety Study BACKGROUND Earlier this year, there was a traffic accident involving a westbound vehicle on Amador Valley Boulevard (AVB) and a pedestrian crossing from the northwest comer of AVB/Starveard Drive toward the southwest comer. In the wake of this accident and in anticipation of traffic generated by the S~ s~gle-family residential development, City Cotmeil directed that Staffeonduet traffic studies at the intersection of AVB/Starward Drive. Per Staff's dirootion, we have reviewed other alternatives to improve pedestrian safety at the inter~eetio~ of AVB/Starward Drive and AVB/Albertson's Driveway. Our findings are summarized as the following types of alternatives: Implemented Alternatives Feasible Alternatives Alternatives that are not recommended. The purpose of the alternatives is to improve pedestrian safety by directing pedestrians to the prfferred location to cross AVB, warning drivers of the possibility of pedestrians crossing AVB at either Smrward Drive or the Albertson's Driveway, and improving sight distance between pedestrians a~d drivers. IMPLEMENTED ALTERNATIVES Installed "NO PED CROSSING/USE CROSSWALK" (R49): To encourage pedestrians to use the marked crosswalks and prohibit them fi'om crossing AVB at unmarked locations, standard NO PED CROSSING/USE CROSSWALK sign~ were installed on the northwest and southwest comers of AVB/Stavwaxd Drive and AVB/Albertson's Driv~ay. Relocated Donohue Drive sign: To improve sight distance around the curve for westbound drivers on AVB, the Donohue Drive sign facing ea~tbomad vehicles in the median has been relocated to the light pole in the median above the signal head on the west leg of AVB at Donohue Drive. Removed "ON LEFT ARROW ONLY" 0R73) signs: Both ON LEFT ARROW sig (one facing westbound traffic and one facing eastbound traffic) have been removed. The ON LEFT ARROW sign is outdated and no longer needed for left turn signals. 423~- I-[acienda Drive, Suite 10t, Pleasunton. California 945§8- Pleasanto. and Santa Rou Ginger Russell August 30, 1999 City of Dublin Page 2 Installed larger pedestrian symbol (VC54A) sign: To emphasize the possibility of pedestrians crossing AVB at Sta~vard Drive, the standard 30'x30" ADVANCE PEDESTRIAN SYMBOL sign facing westbotmd truffle on the north side of AVB, west of Donohue have b~cn replaced with a larger 36"x 36" ADVANCE PEDESTRIAN SYMBOL sign. Relocated reflective object marker: To create a larger refuge area on the median for pedestrians crossing AVB within the crosswalk at Starward Drive, the 6" x lg" (Type K) object marker with th.r~ yellow r~flo~tors in the median have been reloc.~ted onto the adjacent ligl~t pole. An 18" x 18" yellow (Type N) object marker can be installed in lieu of the Type K object marker on the light pole. · Installed pedestrinn crossing (W54) sign: A pedestrian crossing sign has been installed on the north _eide of AVB facing westbound vehicle~ at the Albert.~n'g cro~mllc FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES Short-Term Paint Zebra Stripes: Paint 12" bars perpendicular to the crosswalk (zebra stripes) within the crosswalks at AVB/S~rward Drive and AVB/Albertson's Driveway in order to make the crosswalks mor~ apparent to drivers. Replace "SPEED LIMIT 35" sign with "SPEED LIMIT 30": Radar speed surveys conducted on May 19,1999 indicate that the posted speed limit can be 30 mph AR~ the Engineering and Traffic Survey has been finalized and approved for this segment of AVB, the "SPEED LIMIT 35" sign can b~ r~placed with "SPEED LIMIT 30". Furthermore, ~ac, h of the "30 MPH" advisory speed plates mounted below thc existing curve warning signs should be removed after the posted speed limit has been reduced to 30 mph. Long-Term ln~xn,ements The following long-term improvement would require civil engineering expertise and may be costly. Narrowing of Starward Drive: Currently, the southbound approach of Starward Drive is wide enough to accommodate vehicles turning IeR and right onto AVB at the same time. Therefore, a pedestrian using the existing crosswalk across Starward Drive may be exposed to two southbound vehicles. However, this exposure may not occur very often. In order to reduce the potential for vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at this location, it may be possible to narrow ~he southbound approach of Smrward Drive to one lane by "bulbing" fl~e corner just a~ the approach and creating a "lr~n,ition" along the west side of S~vard Drive. However, civil engineering expertise is required to evalu~e drainage and structural issues. Furthermore, traffic observations should be made to document how o~en pedestrians crossing Smrward Drive encounter two southbound vehicles. Lighted Crosswalks: Some imerest was expressed in lighted or "strobing" crosswalks that have been employed by some other jurisdictions. The lighted crosswalk is typically used to warn approaching motorists of'pedestrians crossing the street within marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections. The lighted crosswalk consists of a series of flashing light units that are embedded in the pavement adjacent to a marked crosswalk. The lights reflect toward the oncoming traffic to warn drivers of a pedestrian's presence. Ginger Russell City of Dublin August 30, 1999 Page 3 An experimental lighted crosswalk was tested at three sites in the City of Santa Rosa in 1994 and 1995. The results of these tests conclude that: - The concept of flashing amber lights embedded in the pavement at uncontrolled cross~alks clearly has a positive effect in enhancing driver awareness of crosswalks and modifying driving habits to be more favorable to pedestrians. - The experimental lighted crosswalk scans to be particularly effective at locations whore there is at least a moderate flow of pedestrians (100 pedestrian cro~sing~ per day). ~ At speeds less than 35 mph, drivers seem to be able to respond properly if at least 400 feet of sight distance is provided to the crosswalk. The cost of installing a lighted crosswalk is estimated to be $14,000 to $20,000 depending on power source, the type of activation devices used, and the width of the street. There would also be an ongoing power and maintenance cost, especially when the street is overlaid and all the lights need to be replaced. Based on tests results described above, a lighted crosswalk on the east leg of Amador Valley Boulevard at Smr~-ard Drive may be beneficial. However, a pedestrian count should be conducted for at least four hours to determine approximately how many pedestrians may benefit from a lighted ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE NOT RECOMMENDED The following alteroatives w~re explored, but are not recommended due to the di~culty m implementing them. Each of these alternatives is described below. Rumble Strips: Rumble Strips are bands of raised material or inderttations formed or grooved in the traveled way. The purpose of rumble strips are to call the motorist's attention to standard warning or regulatory devises or otherwise alert drivers by transmitting sound and vibration through the vehicle. Rumble strips should not be used unless standard tn~c control devices have been thoroughly evaluated and doctunented and their use is considered the only reasonable solution to the identified problem. The significant disadvantages to the use of rumble strips across the travel lanes are as follow: Neaflyy merchants may be subjected to continuous noise and vibration prompting citizen's complaints. All motorists are subjected to the noise and vibration, whereas only a few are in need of this effect to be alerted. Motorists may take unusual maneuvers to avoid rumble strips. Rumble s~rips are not typically located prior to a crosswalk. They are mostly used at ends of freeways, in advance of toll booths, within a construction zone in advance of workers, and in advance ofa 'T" intersection where the motorist is not expecting to stop. · "SPEED LIMIT 25'/"WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT" signs: These signs are for use only in school zones and would not be enforceable if installed on AVB at the library. Hashing Beacons: A flashing beacon consists of one or more traffic signal sections with a flashing indication in each section. A flashing beacon on AVB would be considered a H~rd Identification Flashing Beacon. This type of flashing beacon shall be used only to supplement an appropriate warning or regulatory sign or marker. The beacon should be operated only during those hours when Ginger Rus~ll August 30, 1999 . Ci~ of Dublin pa eSg_~- the hazard or regulation exists, in this ease during peak pedestrian hours, which do not appear to be consistent from day to day. Given the proximity o£the traffic signals at Donohue Drive, the installation of flashing beacons may cause driver confusion. Removal of Cros.nwalk at AVB/Starward Drive: To encourage pedestr/ans to cro~s AVB at the signals at Donohue Drive, the existing crosswalk across the east leg of AVB can be removed and standard NO PED CROSSING/USE CROSSWALK signs can b~ installed on the northeast and southeast comers of AVB/Statward Drive. However, this action is not recommended since pedestrians will most likely continue to cross at Star~m'd Drive rather than walk an additional 300 to 600 feet to reach theft destination. The removal of the crosswalk would probably r~-qult in the removal of pedestrian warning signs at Stanvard. It is preferable to have pedestrians cross at the existing signed and marked crosswalk, than to cross illegally. C;~my documentt~nemo~ro.aw~t_lk. 1 $7001T90 Install-.~ R49 Install R49 -'~ Install R49 -+ Paint longitudinal '~ ~ strlpes ' ...... Replace 30" x 30" -"' - - W54A with 36" x 36", : ' Relocate r ~' , ...... or 48" x 48~' ..... , , ~'~.F,~'A ........ , .... · (Oonohue O~~,/~l?_._/ Street Name $1~n- ,.~; ?see below Move Type K mark. to '~'- adlacent pole · Remove R7.3-s!gne Remove R73 "ON LEFT ARROW ONLY" signs Relocate Donohue Drive sign above the signal head. Not to Scale Amador Valley Boulevard/Starward Drive Safety Improvement Measures 157.001.Tg0-5/g9. LH Figure 1 City of Dublin Speed Limit Engineering/Traffic Survey Street: Location of Survey Date Taken Posted Speed Pace Speed % In Pace, Above, Below Critical Speed (85%) Range of Speeds Width (ft):. Average Daily Traffic: ~~.~,.:.-.:,.:~ ..~.:.~., i"..~:.,~:~:~:,'.:!:::s~:.:.:'..~.:~,:.:*?..:~.:.:::.::~:;.?. No. of Lanes (Both Directions): 'Z~/~0_0. Date Taken: /M~,,,~ Io - Special Conditions (Parking, Roadway Alignment, Land Use, School Area, etc.): ~o~47.t~~ .... , .. ~. , · · · · .... . , ..'.'d.::"~.. ~-,.*--&q~:~.*....%,...:~.~..:,~.~,~.~.,-.~.~.' .. Accident Period Analyzed: I [I/*~-_ ~{~].~9 - ' ..... Number of A~den~ (List toal ~d each year): II {'~g- 6: '9~- 6) ~ - Number of Speed-Related AccidenU ~otal & each year): ~. ('90 - [/ _5~- tJ ~lculated Accident Rate: ~. ~' Statewide Avmge Rate: ~. ~ Study Prepared By: re,e: ~ [ ~.~ / ~o) ....... Approved By:. F P( Map: STARWARD DR./AMADOR VALLEY BLVD. IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSAL #1 RAISED CURB EXTENSION ESTIMATED COST: $15,000