Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.6 Pedestrian Safety Improved 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-