RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_02_21_04_Whitley_Collins_CrosswalkCrrYOF
TO:
FROM:
DATE:.
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL M~~/~~
TOM ODOM,DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKSifv
FEBRUARY 21,2012
CONSIDER TRAFFIC CONTROL ALTERNATIVES FOR
THE CREST ROAD AT WHITLEY COLLINS
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER &.
Project Manager:Nicole Jules,Senior Engineer 'i\ff
RECOMMENDATION
Consider traffic control alternatives for the Crest Road at Whitley Collins pedestrian
crossing with staff recommending Option F -Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon System
with advanced Rapid Flash Beacons.
BACKGROUND
In November 2009,City Staff received a request from a resident to install a stop sign at
the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive.Subsequent to receiving the
request,the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC)met on several occasions to discuss the
merits of installing a stop sign.After many meetings and public testimony,the TSC
voted to support staff's recommendation to install a high visibility crosswalk,a
pedestrian-activated flashing beacon and high visibility advanced pedestrian crossing
signs.The City Council at its September 21,2010 meeting adopted Resolution No
2010-84 which established traffic controls at the intersection of Crest Road at Whitley
Collins Drive.On November 15,2011,City Council approved the construction plans
and contract documents to construct the improvements and awarded a construction
contract to Traffic Development Services for the project.
The construction contracts have been executed by the City and the contractor,
however,the project has been put on hold,pending the results of council direction.
DISCUSSION
The proposed improvements at Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive include 4-1
installation of a high-visibility marked crosswalk with an overhead flashing beacon that
is pedestrian-activated.In advance of the pedestrian-activated beacon will be high-
visibility signs advising the motorists of the presence of pedestrians.This project was
presented and discussed at the Traffic Safety Commission and subsequently approved
by the City Council.
At the direction of City Council,the project was put on hold until City Council had an
opportunity to review the project components and discuss possible alternatives,if
feasible.Staff has reviewed the elements of the current project and examined options
and alternatives that could be considered to modify the project to address expressed
concerns.
Project Alternatives
Due to overwhelming public input regarding the project and the nature of the
improvements,the City's Consulting Traffic Engineer,Willdan,provided an overview of
the curreht project as well as alternatives to be considered.The proposed options or
alternatives include:
Option A -Current Project
This option allows the Council to proceed with the current project without any
modifications.
Option B -Maintain Existing Conditions
This alternative provides the council with the option of not proceeding with the current
project and maintaining the conditions in the field as they are today.
Option C -Installing High Visibility Crosswalks Only
This alternative examines modifying the current project to include installation of high
visibility crosswalks only and not including a flashing beacon system.
Option D -Constructing Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons
This alternative modifies the current project by replacing the traditional overhead
flashing beacon system with a newer sleeker system that has a rapid-flash component
for high motorist awareness and visibility.
Option E -Advanced Yellow Flashing Beacon
This option allows the current project to be modified by adding an additional flashing
yellow beacon in advance of the proposed overhead beacon at the pedestrian crossing.
STAFF RECOMMENDS:
Option F -Constructing Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons with Advanced Rapid
Flash Beacons
This option is similar to Option D but with the added advanced warning of a rapid flash
beacon.This option modifies the current project by replacing the traditional overhead
flashing beacon with the modern sleeker rectangular rapid flash technology.The
Rectangular Rapid Flash technology is works well in foggy conditions and with the
enhancement of an advanced beacon,motorists will be alerted well in advance of a
pedestrian crossing.This option is an enhancement to Option D and is preferred over
all other options.
4-2
Option G -In-Roadway Warning Lights (IRLW's)
This alternative modifies the current project by including In-Roadway Warning lights
along the perimeter of the crosswalk for increased motorist awareness of pedestrians.
Attached to this staff report is Willdan's analysis of the alternatives and options for the
proposed pedestrian crossing at Crest Road at Whitley Collins Drive.As concluded in
Willdan's report and consistent with staff's recommendation,Option F is the preferred
option if council chooses to proceed with the project.Modifying the current project to
include elements of Option F would require a change order to the contractor and a
potential increase in the project cost.
Public Opinion
At the time public meetings were held for this project,many members of the community
expressed both support for and opposition towards the project.Below is a summary of
the expressed opinions regarding the project:
Support for the project
•Chip Meyers (Originator of request to install a stop sign &crosswalk.Also
submitted a petition with 53 signatures)supports improving safety at the
intersection.
•Marnie Gruen -Ridgecrest Intermediate School PTSA (3/5/10 email letter)
supports a safe crossing at the intersection while addressing the fog condition.
•Louise Meyers,5687 Sunmist Drive (public testimony at 3/22/10 TSC mtg)
supports a stop sign and crosswalk.
•Steve Wilson,29710 Whitley Collins (public testimony at 3/22/10 TSC mtg)
supports slowing down vehicles on Crest Road.
•Mesa Palos Verdes HOA -Erin Lamonte (support letter &public testimony)
supports safety improvements at the intersection.
•Ridgecrest Intermediate School-Principal Pat Corwin (support letter via email)
supports a crosswalk and safety improvements.
•Hilltop Nursery School (3/22/10 Letter)supports having a stop sign and
concerned about the fog.
•Soleado Elementary School (3/16/10 Letter)supports improving safety for
children and improved safety in foggy conditions.
•Saint John Fisher Parish (3/18/10 Letter)support improving safety for children
Opposed to the project
•Ray Mathys (September 16,2010 letter,public testimony 9/21/11 CC mtg)
opposed to interrupting traffic on Crest Road and concerned about increased
accidents.But supports having a flashing yellow light.
•Joe Locascio (public testimony 9/21/11 CC mtg)Concerned about the fog and
creating a "false sense of security"for pedestrians.
•Barry Hildebrand (email 1/10/12,12/15/11,6/27/10)opposed to the project for
fear of increasing a hazard to pedestrians.
Attached to this staff report are copies of the support/opposition letters and emails that
were received.
4-3
CONCLUSION
As presented,staff has provided options for consideration to modify,enhance or
maintain the current project.After evaluating the viable options,staff concludes the
Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon with advanced Rapid Flash Beacons are the preferred
option to proceed with.This option is an enhancement to the current project with the
use of new technology and sleeker,less obtrusive equipment.With City Council
direction,staff requests moving forward with the project but modifying the project
components to include Option F as described in this staff report and Willdan's report.
FISCAL IMPACT
Adopting staff's recommendation may not result in an impact to the FY 2011-2012
budget.Proceeding with Option F,staff will direct Willdan to modify the design plans to
incorporate the new project components and a change order will be issued to Traffic
Development Services for a change in project scope.The project budget is $80,000
and Traffic Development Services contract for the current project is $41,244.
Considering the costs to modify the project elements,it is anticipated that no fiscal
impacts will be realized.
Attachments:
Willdan's Analysis of Options for Pedestrian Crossing on Crest Road at
Whitley Collins Drive,February 9,2012.
Su pportlOpposition correspondence
4-4
WILLDAN'S ANALYSIS REPORT
4-5
extending
your
reach
February 15,2012
Ms.Nicole Jules
Senior Engineer
Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Subject:Analysis of Options for Pedestrian Crossing on Crest Road at Whitley Collins
Drive
Dear Ms.Jules:
The City is currently planning to install a high visibility marked crosswalk on Crest Road at
Whitley Collins Drive that includes pedestrian-activated overhead flashing beacons to better
alert motorists to the presence of pedestrians in the crosswalk.There have been renewed
concerns expressed by some residents,however,regarding the need for a marked crosswalk,
and the project has been put on hold to allow the City to reassess the project elements.Willdan
Engineering was requested by the City to review the project elements and possible alternative
actions.The results of our review are summarized in this report.
Existing Conditions
Crest Road is an east-west 4-lane Arterial street with Class II bike lanes and is divided by a
raised center median.The posted speed limit is 45 mph and the adjacent land use is non-
fronting residential.Parking is not allowed on either side of Crest Road,by way of erected No
Parking Any Time signs.Whitley Collins Drive is a north-south 2-lane residential street with a
prima facie speed limit of 25 mph.Raised center medians divided Whitley Collins Drive at the
main intersections.Parking is allowed on both sides of the street.Whitley Collins Drive
provides a direct connection between the pocket residential neighborhood (Island View)south
of Crest Road and Ridgecrest Intermediate School,which is one-half mile north of Crest Road,
between Northbay Road and Highridge Road.
The intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive is a 4-legged intersection with stop
signs on Whitley Collins Drive and no controls on Crest Road.There are no existing marked
crosswalks at the intersection.There are,however,existing pedestrian warning signs on the
east leg of the intersection for westbound traffic.Controlled marked crosswalks are available
one-third mile to the west,at the signalized intersection of Crest Road and Highridge Road,and
one-quarter mile to the east,at the four-way stop controlled intersection of Crest Road and
Crenshaw Boulevard.
Another existing condition that should be noted is weather.This area is prone to heavy fog,
which can reduce the visibility of pedestrians and a crosswalk.
Engineering I Geotechnical I Environmental I Sustainability I Financial I Homeland Security
562.908.6200 I 800.499.4484 I lax:562.695.2120 I 13191 Crossroads Parkway North,Suite 405,Industry,CA 91746-3443 I www.willdan.com4-6
Ms.Nicole Jules
Pedestrian Crossing,Crest Rd.at Whitley Collins Dr.
February 15,2012
Page 2
State Laws &Regulations Regarding Pedestrians and Crosswalks
There are several sections of the California Vehicle Code (CVC)that define/regulate crosswalks
and pedestrians.Relevant sections are discussed below and attached for reference.
CVC Section 275 defines a crosswalk as either the part of a street within the extension of
sidewalks at an intersection or the part of a street distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing,
except where pedestrian crossings are prohibited.This means that even if there are no painted
crosswalks at an intersection,there are still "unmarked"crosswalks that must be respected as if
they were "marked"crosswalks.
CVC Section 467 defines a pedestrian as a person who is afoot or who is using either a means
of conveyance propelled by human power other than a bicycle or is using an electric personal
assistive mobility device.This includes persons in motorized or unmotorized wheel chairs,in
strollers or using skateboards.
CVC Section 21106 notes that local authorities may,by ordinance or resolution,establish
crosswalks between intersections (mid-block crosswalks)and may install signs prohibiting
pedestrians from crossing in an unmarked crosswalk or mid-block.
CVC Section 21950 provides for pedestrians having the right-of-way in a crosswalk,but also
says that pedestrians have certain responsibilities,as well.
•Drivers shall yield to pedestrians crossing the roadway within any marked or unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection (unless pedestrian crossings are prohibited)and shall
exercise all due care when approaching.
•It notes that a pedestrian still has a duty of using due care for their own safety.
•Pedestrians may not suddenly leave the curb and walk or run into the path of a vehicle
that is so close as to cause immediate hazard.This means that if the pedestrian is stuck
in this situation,the pedestrian,not the driver,will be at fault and incur any associated
liability.No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a crosswalk.
CVC Section 21951 notes that when a vehicle is stopped for a pedestrian in a crosswalk at an
intersection,it is illegal for another driver to go around the stopped vehicle.
CVC Section 21950.5 notes the procedure that must be followed if a marked crosswalk is going
to be removed.An existing marked crosswalk may not be removed unless notice and an
opportunity to be heard is provided to the public at least 30 days prior to the scheduled removal.
In addition to any other public notice requirements,the notice of the proposed removal must be
posted at the crosswalk to be removed.The notice must note that the public can provide input
and how they can do it.
CVC Section 21457 states that a flashing red light is a stop signal and when used in a traffic
signal or with a traffic sign,it is the same as a stop sign.Also,that a flashing yellow light is a
caution signal and a driver does not have to stop,but must proceed through the intersection or
past the signal with due caution.
CVC Section 21949 states that it is the policy of the State that safe and convenient pedestrian
travel and access,whether by foot,wheelchair,walker or stroller,be provided to the residents of
4-7
Ms.Nicole Jules
Pedestrian Crossing,Crest Rd.at Whitley Collins Dr.
February 15,2012
Page 3
the state.Also,that it is the intent of the Legislature that all levels of government work to
provide convenient and safe passage for pedestrians on and across streets,increase levels of
walking and pedestrian travel,and reduce pedestrian fatalities and injuries.
Traffic-related signs,striping,markings and traffic signals are also regulated by the State in the
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).The California MUTCD is a
modified version of the federal MUTCD,which is produced by the U.S.Department of
Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),and must be followed by all states.
The CA MUTCD provides requirements and guidelines for installing traffic control devices.
Alternatives Analysis
Seven alternatives,listed below,were analyzed regarding possible improvements to the
unmarked,uncontrolled crosswalk on Crest Road at Whitley Collins Drive,including the planned
project.Each option is described and discussed in the paragraphs that follow.Exhibits
illustrating each Option are attached.
•Option A -Current Project
•Option B -Maintain Existing Situation (No Project)
•Option C -High-Visibility Marked Crosswalk
•Option D -Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
•Option E -Advance Red or Yellow Flashing Beacons
•Option F -Advance Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
•Option G -In-Roadway Warning Lights (IRWLs)
Option A -Current Project
The City Council has approved the installation of a marked crosswalk with an overhead flashing
beacon system.Plans have been prepared and a contractor has been retained for construction.
The City would proceed with the installation of the overhead flashing beacon system,as
designed should the Council not select another alternative.
The pedestrian crossing design consists of two round yellow flashing beacons mounted over the
roadway,with one set of beacons for each direction on Crest Road.The overhead flashing
beacons are visible from a distance and alert motorists to possible vehicle-pedestrian conflicts.
The system is designed to be pedestrian-activated and is solar powered.A high visibility,
ladder-striped,white crosswalk is also to be installed,as well as signs and pavement markings
in advance of the crosswalk.
It should be noted that since this option has been approved by the City Council,the plans
prepared,and a contractor retained,the City would be responsible for expenses already
incurred by the contractor should the Council decide not to proceed with this option .
•WILLDANI:\<:::..}Engineering4-8
Ms.Nicole Jules
Pedestrian Crossing,Crest Rd.at Whitley Collins Dr.
February 15,2012
Page 4
Option B:Maintain Existing Situation (No Project)
The intersection currently has no marked crosswalks,but has an unmarked crosswalk on each
leg.Motorists are required are required to yield to pedestrians in both m~rked and unmarked
crosswalks.The City's previous studies indicate that pedestrians cross Crest Road at this
intersection,and there are few school pedestrians.The Sheriff's Department reports that
drivers do not often yield to pedestrians at this location.This is typical of crossings on high
speed roads that do not have a large volume of pedestrians or high-visibility pedestrian warning
systems.
Nearby marked crosswalks are available at Crenshaw Boulevard and at Highridge Road.
Crenshaw Boulevard is approximately one-quarter mile east of Whitley Collins Drive,and the
intersection is stop-controlled in all directions.Highridge Road is approximately one-third mile
west of Whitley Collins Drive and the intersection is controlled by a traffic signal.
Positive Features:
1.No cost to the City (except costs related to not proceeding with the project)
2.Pedestrians have the right-of-way in the existing unmarked crosswalks at the
intersection
3.Without marked crosswalks,pedestrians are more likely to exercise due caution
before crossing
Negative Aspects:
1.Pedestrians at this intersection are not very likely to use the marked crosswalks at
Highridge Road and at Crenshaw Boulevard
2.Does not alleviate residents'concerns for a safer crossing
3.Drivers do not currently respect the pedestrians right-of-way and often do not yield
to pedestrians
Option C -High Visibility Marked Crosswalk
A high visibility marked crosswalk would be installed,which includes "ladder striping"to make
the crosswalk more visible to motorists,and advance limit lines to encourage traffic to stop
before reaching the crosswalk.
Positive Features:
1.Less costly to install than the project and Options 0 - G
2.Designates a point at which pedestrians are to cross -concentrates pedestrians
on one side of the intersection,making them more visible to drivers
3.Advance warning signs and pavement markings alert drivers to crossing and may
result in more drivers yielding to pedestrians
4.Second step in increasing crosswalk safety
5.Crosswalk makes pedestrian right-of-way more obvious to motorists and studies
show that such improvements result in greater driver compliance
4-9
Ms.Nicole Jules
Pedestrian Crossing,Crest Rd.at Whitley Collins Dr.
February 15,2012
PageS
Negative Aspects:
1.May require additional treatments to adequately alert drivers to pedestrian
presence.Uncontrolled crosswalks are not recommended on multilane streets
with speeds greater than 40 mph and high traffic volumes,without other measures
designed to enhance driver awareness of the crossing and/or provide active
warning of pedestrian presence.
Although the speed limit on Crest Road is 45 mph,the traffic volumes are relatively
low,so this criteria does not strictly apply.This option does include measures to
enhance driver awareness,however,active warning should also be considered
due to the high speeds and fog.
Option D ...Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB)are user-actuated yellow LED indications that
supplement warning signs at uncontrolled marked crosswalks.They can be activated by
pedestrians manually by push button or passively by a pedestrian detection system.RRFBs
differ from standard beacons in that each RRFB contains two high-intensity yellow lights that are
rectangular in shape,and flash in a irregular wig-wag pattern similar to emergency,
maintenance,and service vehicles.Since they are installed on the pedestrian warning sign,
they tend to draw the driver's eye to the crosswalk.Standard yellow flashing beacons are
round,may consist of only one yellow blinking light,and are typically mounted at the top of a
post or mounted overhead on a mast arm.RRFBs are reported to be very visible and effective
in fog.
It should be noted that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)recently granted Caltrans
interim blanket approval for use of RRFBs by all local government agencies in California.Since
these are considered experimental devices,this interim approval includes reporting conditions
that must be adhered to.
Positive Features:
1.Brings attention to possible vehicle-pedestrian conflicts
2.Similar to standard (round)flashing beacon system
3.Pulsating rapid flash feature
4.Studies show them to be more effective than standard yellow flashing beacons
5.More in line with the height of the driver's eye,making it more noticeable than
overhead yellow flashing beacons or In-Road Warning Lights
6.The system can utilize solar power or utility power
7.Reported to be visible and effective in fog
Negative Aspects:
1.May not be as effective over time,as newness wears off,but less likely than for
yellow flashing beacons
2.Usage should be limited to locations with the most critical safety concerns -since
their effectiveness is also related to their uniqueness,as more are installed,they
all become less effective.
4-10
Ms.Nicole Jules
Pedestrian Crossing,Crest Rd.at Whitley Collins Dr.
February 15,2012
Page 6
Option E -Advance Red or Yellow Flashing Beacon
Option E could be added to Option A.Advance flashing warning beacons are yellow lights used
to supplement advance warning signs.Warning beacons may be mounted ,over the roadway or
on the side of the roadway.
Red advance flashing beacons cannot be used to supplement warning signs because a red
flashing light indicates a stop condition,and drivers must treat it like a stop sign.A red advance
flashing beacon is not recommended for use with this project.
Positive Features:
1.Calls attention to the advance warning sign
2.Alerts driver to possible vehicle-pedestrian conflicts ahead
Negative Aspects:
1.May be costly to interconnect the advance warning beacon with beacons at the
intersection
2.Not as effective as Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons,particularly in fog
Option F -Rapid Flashing Beacons with Advance Rapid Flashing Beacons
Option F is similar to Option D,in that a RRFB would be installed at the crosswalk.This would
be an enhancement to Option D,with an additional RRFB installed in advance of the crosswalk.
Positive Features:
1.Brings attention to possible vehicle-pedestrian conflicts and supplements the
RRFB at the intersection
2.Similar to standard (round)advance flashing beacon system,but more effective
3.Higher in driver's sight line than in-roadway warning lights
4.Addition of advance RRFB reported to be particularly effective in alerting motorists
to pedestrians/crosswalk in fog
5.The system can utilize solar power or utility power
Negative Aspects:
1.May not be as effective over time,as newness wears off,but less likely than for
yellow flashing beacons
2.Usage should be limited to locations with the most critical safety concerns -since
their effectiveness is also related to their uniqueness,as more are installed,they
all become less effective
3.May be costly to interconnect the advance RRFB to the RRFB at the intersection
Option G -In-Roadwav Warning Lights
In-roadway warning lights (IRWL)are special types of warning lights embedded in the roadway
surface,adjacent to the crosswalk.When activated the lights serve to warn road users that they
•
,.::.},'.'.:;,t.".·WlllDAN I:::<,"l Engineering4-11
Ms.Nicole Jules
Pedestrian Crossing,Crest Rd.at Whitley Collins Dr.
February 15,2012
Page?
are approaching a condition that might not be readily apparent.The system can be activated by
pedestrians manually by push button or passively by a pedestrian detection system.
Positive Features:
1.Brings attention to possible vehicle-pedestrian conflict
2.Pulsating flashing patterns alert drivers better than the usual yellow flashing
beacons
3.In-roadway lights are installed the entire length of the crosswalk,on both sides
4.Very effective at night,dawn and dusk.
5.Reported to be effective in fog
e.Systems can be hardwired or wireless and can utilize solar power or utility power
Negative Aspects:
1.Lower than RRFB in driver's sight line
2.Not as effective during the day as at night
3.Systems are proprietary,so the City may be restricted to one manufacturer and
vendor
4.Installation in advance of crosswalk in not an option
5.Some systems require replacement after street resurfacing
6.High maintenance costs to keep the system components operating properly
7.More expensive than most other options
Summary
As can be seen,there are pros and cons to each option.Although the current project is
certainly acceptable,the Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons are a superior option but
unfortunately,were not authorized for use in California at the time the project was designed.
Now that the RRFB are available for use and given that the RRFBs are more effective than the
regular flashing beacons coupled with the fact that they are more visible in foggy conditions,we
recommend that the project be upgraded to Option F.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the assistance and
cooperation afforded to us during the course of this study.If you have any questions,please
contact me at (714)978-8225 or ruthsmith@willdan.com
Very truly yours,
WILLDAN ENGINEERING
Ruth Smith,TE,PTP
Project Manager
4-12
California Vehicle Code (CVC)
Pedestrian &Crosswalk-Related Sections
CVC Section 275 Crosswalk
Crosswalk
275."Crosswalk"is either:
(a)That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary
lines of sidewalks at intersection where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right
angles,except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street.
(b)Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other
markings on the surface.
Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section,there shall not be a crosswalk where
local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing.
eve Section 467 Pedestrian
Pedestrian
467.(a)A "pedestrian"is a person who is afoot or who is using any of the following:
(1)A means of conveyance propelled by human power other than a bicycle.
(2)An electric personal assistive mobility device.
(b)"Pedestrian"includes a person who is operating a self-propelled wheelchair,motorized
tricycle,or motorized quadricycle and,by reason of physical disability,is otherwise unable to
move about as a pedestrian,as specified in subdivision (a).
Amended and repealed Sec.4,Ch.979,Stats.2002.Effective January 1,2003.Operative March 1,2003.
Repeal operative January 1,2008.
Amended Sec.3,Ch.404,Stats.2004.Effective January 1,2005.
Repealed (as amended by Sec.4,Ch.404,Stats.2004)Sec.3,Ch.106,Stats.2007.Effective January
1,2008.
Amended (as amended by Sec.3,Ch.404,Stats.2004)Sec.2,Ch.106,Stats.2007.Effective January
1,2008.
evc Section 21106 Establishment of Crosswalks
Establishment of Crosswalks
21106.(a)Local authorities,by ordinance or resolution,may establish crosswalks between
intersections.
4-13
(b)Local authorities may install signs at or adjacent to an intersection directing that pedestrians
shall not cross in a crosswalk indicated at the intersection.It is unlawful for any pedestrian to
cross at the crosswalk prohibited by a sign.
Amended Ch.417,Stats.1959.Effective September 18,1959.
eve Section 21457 Flashing Signals
Flashing Signals
21457.Whenever an illuminated flashing red or yellow light is used in a traffic signal or with a
traffic sign,it shall require obedience by drivers as follows:
(a)Flashjng red (stop signal):When a red lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent flashes,a
driver shall stop at a clearly marked limit line,but if none,before entering the crosswalk on the
near side of the intersection,or if none,then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where
the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering it,and
the driver may proceed subject to the rules applicable after making a stop at a stop sign.
(b)Flashing yellow (caution signal):When a yellow lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent
flashes,a driver may proceed through the intersection or past the signal only with caution.
Amended Ch.413,Stats.1981.Effective January 1,1982.
eve Section 21949 Legislative Declaration Pedestrians
Legislative Declaration:Pedestrians
21949.(a)The Legislature hereby finds and declares that it is the policy of the State of
California that safe and convenient pedestrian travel and access,whether by foot,wheelchair,
walker,or stroller,be provided to the residents of the state.
(b)In accordance with the policy declared under subdivision (a),it is the intent of the Legislature
that all levels of government in the state,particularly the Department of Transportation,work to
provide convenient and safe passage for pedestrians on and across all streets and highways,
increase levels of walking and pedestrian travel,and reduce pedestrian fatalities and injuries.
Added Sec.6,Ch.833,Stats.2000.Effective January 1,2001.
eve Section 21950 Right of Way at Crosswalks
Right-of-Way at Crosswalks
21950.(a)The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the
roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection,
except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
(b)This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her
safety.No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into
the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.No pedestrian may
unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
4-14
(c)The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk
shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action
relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.
(d)Subdivision (b)does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for
the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at
an intersection.
Amended Sec.8,Ch.833,Stat5.2000.Effective January 1,2001.
CVC Section 21950.5 Removal of Marked Crosswalk Notification
Removal of Marked Crosswalk:Notification
21950.5:(a)An existing marked crosswalk may not be removed unless notice and opportunity
to be heard is provided to tne public not less than 30 days prior to the scheduled date of
removal.In addition to any other public notice requirements,the notice of proposed removal
shall be posted at the crosswalk identified for removal.
(b)The notice required by subdivision (a)shall include,but is not limited to,notification to the
public of both of the following:
(1)That the public may provide input relating to the scheduled removal.
(2)The form and method of providing the input authorized by paragraph (1).
Added Sec.9,Ch.833,Stat5.2000.Effective January 1,2001.
evc Section 21951 Vehicles Stopped for Pedestrians
Vehicles Stopped for Pedestrians
21951.Whenever any vehicle has stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway the driver of any other
vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.
4-15
-------
-------------
w
M
;/
~
'!:!
-s
--(0-
'!:!
~
ROAD
::><::J L':---J;J :::><::..L _
\I
V
1\
1\
m>
WHITLEY COLLINS DR
III IIX
I
I
~
'!:!
'!:!
-!2
CREST
...J..,..::><--I---------
Option A
Current Project
(Ladder-Striped Crosswalk &Overhead
Flashing Beacons)
•'~:'"::::'''WILLDAN I
:,,':",/Engineering
Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive
Pedestrian Crossing
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
4-16
//'
No Scole
-------
----~----
~
ROAD
::><::J =_-p.J :::><::~_
1/
V
fI
1\
~w
WHITLEY COLI.:.INS DR
III IIX
I
\
~
~
CREST
_1.::><::::- -:'::><::
---------
__U;)_
- - --- ----~-I ~~==~~:2g-....L~-+d~-~-----.:..=-~=~,\j:1'----;'"a ~=---------
I
Positive Features:
1.No/low cost to City
2.Pedestrians have the right-of way in unmarked crosswalks
3.Pedestrians more likely to exercise due caution
Negative Aspects:
1.Pedestrians less likely to use marked crosswalks at
Highridge Road and at Crenshaw Boulevard
2.Does not alleviate residents'concerns for safer crossing
3.Drivers do not currently yield to pedestrians
Option B
Maintain Existing Situation
(Unmarked Crosswalk)
•':::'~:j WlllDAN I
:"."'.'.c,:,Engineering
Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive
Pedestrian CrossIng
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
4-17
No Scale
----
//'
-------------
~
~
!::!
~
~
-'S
-"'-~
ROAD
::>c:::::J L..=--1iJ
:::><::..1-_
\ I
V
fI
1\
m'
WHITLEY COLLINS DR
III IIX
I
\CREST
-----II---
F
-~=~-.=
_I -'I i1:!i I
:::=__;~:~t ~-}'ilS-+-__",,-"""E:__l><-: -..~- - -""I
- I _ __::::><:~I,,--;fi./
Positive Features:
1.Less costly to install than the project and Options D-G
2.Designates a point at which to cross
3.Advance signing and striping alert drivers to crossing
4.Second step to increasing crosswalk safety
5.Crosswalk makes pedestrian right-of-way more obvious to
motorists than Option B
Negative Aspects:
1.May require additional treatment to better alert drivers
2.Pedestrians less likely to exercise due caution
Option C
High Visibility Marked Crosswalk
(Ladder Striping &Advance Limit Lines)
•::n:WlllDAN I
::",.,.,$:Engineering
Crest Roed end Whitley Collins Drive
Pedestrian Crossing
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
4-18
No Scole
//'
---------
"!:!
ROAD
::::::",,:::::J l...:-1i.J :::::><::~_
1\I
V
1\
1\
I
WHITLEY COLLINS DR
III IIX
I
\
7'
CREST
I:;;:-!-iiE I_:].--0 _§'-+I - - - --~---- -='_~..t--.!=--i:- - - - -!Ii
___:"_~Jt~-:--::--_:_-1 ,~~'I --7 =:~~~tJ ~
-~-><_::--•"--,::----
:_--~--~--
Positive Features:
1.Brings attention to possible vehicle-pedestrian conflicts
2.Similar to standard (round)flashing beacon system
3.More effective than standard yellow flashing beacons
4.More in line with driver's sight line
5.Reported to be visible in fog
6.Can utilize solar or utility power
Negative Aspects:
1.Effectiveness may degrade as newness wears off
2.Usage should be limited to critical locations
Option D
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(Added to Option C)
•':f"':::'~WILLPAN I
\.A i:,Englneenng
Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive
Pedestrian Crossing
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
4-19
//'
No Scole
'!:!
-"'-'!:!
ROAD
::><::J L..:_-p.J :::><::...L _
1\I
V
fI
1\
~w
WHITLEY COLLINS DR
III IIX
I
\
'!:!
CREST
----I f------
~-'-"~~_:_~;r;~~~-':t~~;'i~-+---7 3==-~
_J t ~-><: •~'"~,~--::><~'"I I ~~~~==-II ~~=-
Option E
Advance Flashing Beacon
(Added to Option A,Current Project)
Negative Aspects:
1.May be costly to interconnect advance warning beacon to
beacons at crossing
2.Not as effective (high intensity)as Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons especially in fog
Positive Features:
1.Calls attention advance warning sign
2.Alerts drivers to possible vehicle-pedestrian conflicts
ahead
••.'~':O:".:.':".':;.WlllDAN I
""..::":,,Engineering
Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive
Pedestrian Crossing
City ofRancho Palos Verdes
4-20
No Scale
//'T
i::!
ROAD
::><::J L..:_pJ :::><:::.L _
1/
V
fI
1\
~w
WHITLEY COLLINS DR
III IIX
I
I
.x,'.'
%
CREST
..1-::><--I
__~_"-=:I\~~~i»t-4I=-+--7 ~~-~-~~~
____:::::I •"-~--""'"----
-----
---
Negative Aspects:
1.Experimental device requiring "before"and "after"study
2.Effectiveness may degrade as newness wares off
3.Usage should be limited to critical locations
4.May be costly to interconnect advance RRFB to RRFB at
crossing
Positive Features:
1.Calls attention to possible vehicle-pedestrian conflicts ahead
2.Similar to standard (round)warning beacons
3.Higher in driver's sight line than in-roadway warning lights
4.Addition of advance RRFB reported to be particularly
effective in alerting motorists to pedestrians/crosswalk in fog
5.Can utilize solar or utility power
Option F
Advance Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
(Added to Option 0,Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon)
•..••."?'..'?';.WlllpAN I
".,"..)".Engineering
Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive
Pedestrian Crossing
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
4-21
No Scale
----
//'
'!:!
ROAD
::>c::::.J L':-""J;J :::::::":::::..1.-_
1\I
V
1\
1\
~~
WHITLEY COLLINS DR
III IIX
I
ICREST
----II------E -:-:§::I
-'l :"'-I - - - -_0--____~:~~_~~__:1J+--7-=1 ~~-~~t!~-*1~'"- -~--
Option G
In-Roadway Warning Lights
(Added to Option C,High Visibility Marked Crosswalk)
Negative Aspects:
1.Lower than RRFB in driver's sight line
2.Not as effective during the day
3.Systems are proprietary
4.Advance installation is not an option
5.Some systems require replacement after street
resurfacing
6.High maintenance costs
7.More expensive to install
Positive Features:
1.Brings attention to possible vehicle-pedestrian conflicts
2.Pulsating flashing patterns better alert drivers
3.In-Roadway lights are installed the entire length of
crosswalk
4.Effective at night,dusk,and dawn
5.Reported to be effective in fog
6.Can be hardwired or wireless and can utilize solar or
utility power
•"T;~':"·WlllDAN I~:!'A Engineering
Crest Road and Whitley Col/ins Drive
Pedestrian Crossing
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
4-22
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION CORRESPONDENCE
4-23
Nicole Jules
From:Steve Wolowicz [stevew@rpv.com]
Sent:Tuesday,March 23,20109:09 AM
To:carolyn.lehr@att.blackberry.net;'Nicole Jules';'Ray Holland'
Subject:FW:Stop Sign/Crosswalk on Crest at Whitley Collins intersection action needed
Attachments:Letters of Support,Resident Petition,2005 RPV study.pdf
Carolyn,Ray and Nicole,
It appears that there has been some recent action and interest by local
residents on this item.When someone has a moment please send us (the
Council)a brief summary of this issue.
Thanks,
Steve
Steve Wolowicz
Mayor
Rancho Palos Verdes
Phone 310-378-9911
email --stevew@rpv.com
from:Chip Meyers [mailto:chipmeyers1967@yahoo.com]
Sent:Monday,March 22,2010 10:13 PM
To:Traffic@rpv.com
Cc:Nicole Jules;Brian.Campbell@rpv.com;Knox,Christopher M;Douglas.Stern@rpv.com;
Anthony.Misetich@rpv.com;tom.long@rpv.com;stevew@rpv.com
Subject:Stop Sign/Crosswalk on Crest at Whitley Collins intersection action needed
Dear Traffic Commissioners,
The intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive has been discussed by the Public
Works Department,the Traffic Safety Commission and the City Council for many years.
However,there has been no action taken and after tonight's meeting,and despite testimony,
letters,and signatures,there continues to be no real solution forthcoming from the Traffic Safety
Commission.
At the conclusion of this evening's meeting,it appears that the Traffic Safety Commission,upon
the recommendation of staff,agreed to merely post pedestrian crossing signs in this intersection,
despite the fact that residents,a school principal and the Sheriff himself testified that cars are
traveling through this unmarked intersection at speeds in excess of 60 mph and that this
intersection poses a great danger to pedestrians and motorists.Was there also a recommendation
to do a study to see if a crosswalk,stop sign or stop light is warranted?It was not clear due to
the simultaneous discussion of the budget concerns over studies,the fact that there is only one
engineer and the disjointed phrasing of the motion.I couldn't follow what was actually voted on
quite frankly and would like to see the minutes just to be clear.I also found it disturbing that the
only staff recommendation report on an agenda item that was not available for public viewing
this evening was the one pertaining to the Crest Road/Whitley Collins Stop Sign Request.
As pointed out at the Traffic Safety Commission this evening,a traffic study was already
perfonned on this comer in 2005 by the same Public Works Department that the City Engineer at
1/]2120]2 4-24
1 a~~.t.VI J
the meeting Ms.Nicole Jules works for currently.Yet,even when questioned at the meeting about the
prior report by Commissioner Shawn Nejad,she brushed it off,not acknowledging that there was a
specific report done on this specific intersection.She rather made it seem trivial in nature and more of a
generalized study of the entire city.As a refresher,for those not on the Commission in 2005,which is
most of you,the Traffic Safety Commission approved a Traffic Signal Priority List for the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes prepared by Jack Rydell,PTOE consultant traffic engineer and the Public Works
Department.This List was based on the Citywide Traffic Signal Installation Procedure developed by the
Traffic Safety Commission at the request of the City Council.
The Traffic Signal Priority List ranked the need for new traffic signal installations at uncontrolled
intersections.The List included 11 locations that were identified as justifying new traffic signal
installations within the City.The intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins was included on that
list and ranked #3 out of the 11 locations.This list was approved and sent to the City Council.If the
Crest Road and Whitley Collins intersection warranted a safety light back in 2005,it certainly warrants a
stop sign now in 2010 does it not?The study of the Crest Road and Whitley Collins intersection was
performed on August 4,2005 and it looked at a variety of warrants and found that many were satisfied
there to justify'a traffic signal.These warrants included vehicular volume,pedestrian volume,school
crossing,crash warrant,speed points and special conditions such as visibility.Why does a whole new
study need to be done since this intersection is on the currently stop light priority list?Why is Public
Works Department Senior Engineer ignoring the results of the prior study?Why are we wasting
taxpayer dollars to re-invent the wheel?Why is something not finally being done at this intersection to
prevent an unfortunate eventual deadly accident??????????????
Further,the pedestrian study that Ms.Jules presented this evening seems to be missing the point.It is
not valid in light of the fact that this is such a dangerous,uncontrolled intersection,that pedestrians
won't take the chance to cross there.Even the gentleman who opposed the stop sign (without giving a
reason for his opposition)admitted that he won't even cross since it is so dangerous.He suggested that
students should walk a !4 mile extra out of their way from Island View up to Highridge to cross Crest
Road.Further,what this study did expose was the incredible amount of vehicles that pass through this
intersection during the peak school hours.Why didn't Nicole Jules mention the vehicular traffic
results?She only mentioned the number of cars making lefts and rights during a one hour period,but
failed to mention the amount of actual traffic driving through the intersection during the peak school
hours (7-9 a.m.and 2-4 p.m.).The traffic counters told us that they tracked over 3,500 vehicles during
peak school hours.This means that more than 1 million vehicles per year pass through that intersection
during school hours,and probably over 3 million vehicles total over the course of a year!This
Commission thinks that a couple of pedestrian crossing signs is going to alleviate the danger and
probable loss of life as well as property at this intersection?
The Traffic Safety Commission and Department of Public Works,Senior Engineer,are on notice with
respect to the dangers that this intersection presents in its uncontrolled state.You've heard from
residents,principals,parents and the Sheriff himself.There is overwhelming support for a stop sign,as
evidenced by the letters of support and the 60 plus signatures on a petition signed just today.This
Commission is supposed to act in the best interests of the community and it is currently doing this
community a great disservice by not doing more than just placing a few signs and debating about
whether or not there is funding to do yet another study.This intersection is a liability to the City and no
one has offered any reason why a stop sign should not be placed here.
Finally,ifmoney is the issue 1 will gladly put up the money myself for a stop sign and pedestrian
crosswalk at this intersection.There is unconditional support from residents,school administrators and
city leaders to put a stop sign.Please demonstrate that our city government will take action once and for
all on issues that the residents have consistently stressed need to be resolved,and that you are listening
1/12/2012 4-25
to taxpayers who have been clearly asking for resolution on this issue for many years.
Regards,
Chip Meyers
1/12/2012
1 <10~J VJ J
4-26
Petition:
We~the undersigned,caU on the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to jrnmediare~place a stop sign ahd
crosswalk on Crest Road at the intersection of Whitley Collins to prevent injury/death from acdderrts,
as weir as to create a safe way for children and residents to cross thIs dangerous intersectf(m without
na rm from oncom iog traffic.
50~4 'De)D(~rO;x KPl.I KPV,
~nP!5-HdrrJ ~,t)r,R-f/V fl-ts'
~~,~'¢~Il--NIJr tWA
~JJ,/,4/...//Jj;~""SJ;I 'l.-!"7ti'''f1"N~~-;lJt:~/p?t<tA 9"Z;!¥"1~'lWJ'f !-J-u....,r
t!r;.'dz,.A-r {)tll.lMt'r....2(jlz~H.>tI~~Cll 1)1<)]:('lIe>fcUJ{k()~i Q...
4-27
Petition:
We,the undersigned,call on the Qty of Rancho Palos 'Ven.les to immediately place a stop sign and
crosswalk on Crest Road at the lnternedlon of Whitley Collins to prevent injury/death from accIdents,
as well as to create a safe way fur children aM residents to cross this dangeroU$Intersec:t:lon without
harm from oncoming traffic.
Y..l ..a,
IV".)
~o
HOAfParerlt
l("t1 01 rr lv.w1
~;f)I;
Name Address
4.Ji1Q...~.:LJ.).(;f:;,J;.......u:~,..........~~~:.L.!::;,;U-!:~~..;.p..~~_-:""'-+~"-l-~~r
t ·mlt·f-~~::::L..I.£:~~:...---2,j~"JJtJ~~l,L..~L..L~-..:J~~~·'.£.":...:.1_.~~
No /taer
~,C c',':,1>;>\.<,
.~.
4-28
Petition:
We,the undeffiigned,call on the aty of Rancho Palos Verdes In immediately place a stop sign and
crosswalk on Crest Road at the intersection of Whit1ey Collins to prevent injury/deal:h from aa:idents,
as well as to create a safe way for children and residents to cross this dangerQus intersection without
hllrm from oncomIng traffic,
,HOA/ParernNameAddress
6e\J~5A~~)790)~MI{h ~fJtI
VttU)Y\r~h Ii f/c'7 e~e.£.tl t+/I:f~/
~t::;a);:::;;;'7t1i~:~~
,..t/:,
30 ·lb
tV~11.'''11 £At)r
/J l .0'1&C::K r.r~r+&
tl.19rt~.-L (
A,\'O'1 t0i;f
Il \~(
,.(\'~1'"CM)r
fl..:./)'1Ir W )(
I
qc;2--7 t-i ((.io7 u;'1(J/
-+-,~;r...;..........11;",;~';;':"":';=;""""---.i"""-==;"'--"'~~.L-.-.~=::;:::""'=--4~":::;"'_.......I'f~o..;:;;.z.;......':..,7'1_"fl •.CJ,u//I)r
9uZ )f"tt 1'P<;I(~)i......:..l.~~~_~~_--:;.~_~~r..::;l-.-=.=-=:.,:::.......:~--'-....;..
4-29
....-0-'&'-'.&"""
Nicole Jules
From:Marnie Gruen [marniegruen@me.com]
Sent:Sunday,March 07,20103:13 PM
To:Traffic@rpv.com
Cc:Maryan Kang;Patrick Corwin;Susan Pond Siess;Nicole Jules
Subject:Whitley Collins and Crest Road Intersection comments from Ridgecrest Inter/"Qediate School PTSA
From:Marnie Gruen,Ridgecrest Intermediate PTSA
March 5,2010
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Commission
Mr.David Kramer,Chair
Ms.Lynn Swank,Vice Chair
Mr.Bryan Klatt
Mr.Shawn Nejad
Mr.Stanislav Parfenov
Dear RPV City Traffic Commissioners,
I spoke with Senior Traffic Engineer Nicole Jules this afternoon and she
recommended that I clarify in writing the Ridgecrest Intermediate PTSA
position regarding the intersection of Whitley Collins and Crest
Road.Please enter this letter into the official record.
It is my understanding that at the February 22,2010 Traffic Commission
meeting,Ms.Jules indicated that the Ridgecrest PTSA and school
administration are not advocating for a stop sign at Whitley Collins and
Crest Road.While this was an accurate statement,it does not fully
represent our position and concerns.
I met with Mr.Chip Meyers and Commissioner Nejad last April to
discuss a number of safety issues regarding safe routes to school for our
student body.To my knowledge,we did not have a City response
from that meeting.On December 3,2009,our PTSA (through me)
contacted Ms.Jules regarding an accident that day at Whitley/Crest,
to again advocate for the City to recommend safety improvements
there.We noted that a number of students cross Crest there each
day,even though there is no crosswalk present.This letter is to inform
you that we still actively seek a report from the City as to what safety
improvements could reasonably be undertaken at this intersection to
improve conditions for both parent drivers and students.Ridgecrest
1/12/2012 4-30
Principal,Pat Corwin,this week indicated the same in writing to Ms.Jules.
Per my over the counter conversation today with Ms.Jules,I am now aware
that during the 2/22 meeting the Mesa Palos Verdes HOA stated opposition
to a stop sign at this intersection.We certainly want to be respectful of our
HOA neighbor's position regarding a stop sign.We have not advocated for
anyone particular solution.However,we respectfully ask the City to give
due consideration to the number of auto incidents at this intersection and
the 36 students who live south of Crest/east of Highridge.We request that
the City look into the matter and report to us potential remedies that would
provide a safer route to school for the 30 affected families who travel that
direction to Ridgecrest each day.
Sincerely,.
Mamie Gruen,RIS PTSA Traffic Safety Chair
Maryan Kong,RIS PTSA President
Cc.Pat Corwin,RIS Principal;Maryan Kang,PTSA President;Susan Seiss,RIS
PTSA 4th VP;Nicole Jules,RPV Senior Traffic Engineer
1/12/2012 4-31
September 14,2010
City of Rancho Palos Verdes ~-mt~A
~/.PALOS
--:..'<,i'UERDES
b
nomeowners ASSOClallon
P.O.BOX 2236
PALOS VERDES PENINSULA,CA 90274
RE:Staff Recommendation for intersection of Whitley Collins and Crest Road to be heard by City Council on September
21,2010
Dear Sirs,
The Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners Association Board met on September 13,2010 to review the Staff
Recommendation dated June 28,2010 to the Traffic Safety Commission from Nicole Jules to Ray Holland regarding the
stop sign request at Crest and Whitley Collins Road.
Mesa PV HOA consists of over 400 homes with paid membership of typically 85%to 90%of our residents.We care
deeply about the safety of our families and guests so traffic concerns are always a key point of conversation at every
meeting.Your P.E.Senior Engineer Nicole Jules has kept us informed of the process that the City was undertaking to look
at traffic and safetY,issues within our neighborhood,including the above intersection and at Ridgecrest Intermediate
School.While we are fully aware that you cannot find a solution that will please everyone,we are confident that you
have taken appropriate steps prior to making the recommendations to Traffic Safety Commission.
Mesa PV HOA would like to support the finding of Staff that neither a stop sign nor traffic signal is warranted for this
intersection.Our Board would like to ask Staff for additional data that substantiates the recommendation for a marked
crosswalk and pedestrian-actuated flashing beacon at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins.Our discussion
raised several issues including concerns that such a system may give false security while crossing and request that Staff
provide justification of this recommendation.We respect the expertise of Staff and feel that we will be better equipped
to inform our Mesa residents of the facts surrounding this recommendation.
The petition submitted contained 19 signatures from Mesa area residents;14 are inactive members of the HOA and five
residents represented by the Homeowner Association.We do believe that our Board membership,representing ten
zones of our neighborhood,is a better representation of our residents'viewpoint of how to handle this intersection.
Ms.Jules is also in receipt of correspondence from Mr.Pat Corwin,Principal of Ridgecrest Intermediate School,dated
March I,2010 accepting whatever recommendation that the City Staff would make regarding this intersection,deferring
to their expertise.
We appreciate the time and attention you have given to evaluate any potential safety concerns and have faith that the
City Council will affirm Staff's recommendation for our neighborhood and dismiss the appeal for a stop sign or traffic
signal.
Sincerely,
Erin LaMonte
President
Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowner Association
On behalf ofthe Board
310-541-8330
4-32
....-O-.l """....,1.
Nicole Jules
From:Pat Corwin [corwinp@pvpusd.k12.ca.us]
Sent:Monday,March 01,20103:47 PM
To:nicolej@rpv.com
Subject:Whitley Collins /Crest Road Intersection
Nicole,
As a follow-up to our telephone conversation today,I wish to reiterate my concerns regarding the
intersection of Whitley Collins and Crest Road and the dangers it presents for drivers and
pedestrians commuting to and from Ridgecrest.As principal,I wish to acknowledge with
appreciation,the assistance we have received from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.Ten years
ago,the Traffic Commission deemed it appropriate to place a traffic light at Crest and Highridge
to address similar issues of concern with the opening of our campus and the related challenges
that come with increased traffic flow.
In April of last year,two of our PTSA reps met with Commissioner Shawn Nejad to discuss our
traffic flow pattern and a concern regarding the Collins/Crest intersection.We are anxiously
awaiting the findings of any study that may have been conducted to determine if additional
measures might be taken to reduce the present danger.Recen t accidents coupled with what
appears to be an increased volume of foot and vehicular traffic may warrant further safeguards.
Our hope is to work with the city to remedy the situation.We recognize you to be the experts
and will honor your recommendations.Our goal,as is yours ...safety first!
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Pat Corwin
Further,with the recent collision that occurred and reports of of similarA collision at the
intersection occured
Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District
1/12/2012 4-33
HiUtop Nursery Schoof
5702 Crest Road
Rancho Palos Verdes..CA 90275
March 22,2010
To Whom Jt May Concern..
My name is Patricia Ravas-Tabares and'am the Administrative Director of Hilftop
Nursery School.We are Jocated on the corner of Whitley Collins Dr.and Crest Rd.
Our center serves children ages 2 to 6 years of age.
Over the years,many of the parents that are dropping off and picking up their
chUdren from our schoof have had dose calfs trying to turn at this intersection
safelv.During foggy mornings,this intersection is especiaUy dangerous,not only
to our families and children but to the entire surrounding community.
I feel that an easy and cost effective solution to this problem would be to have a
stop sign instafled.This would slow traffic traveling both east and west of Crest
Rd.and would also alJow trave'ers to make feft turns safefv_
Co rdia fly,
~~~-~
Hilltop Nursery School
5702 Crest Rd.
Rancho PaJos Verdes,Ca 90725
(310)377-9644
prayas@aol.com
4-34
Dear Members ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes Trnmc Committee,
Sincerely,
1 am writing on behalf of the safety ofthe students and families ill the Soleado
Elementary school coml'\1unity,We arc advocating for the placement of a stop sign
on Crest Road at the intersection of Whitley 'Collins Drive.This intersection poses <I
gTt~at danger to pcdesttians and motorists alike.Students cross Crest Road at
Whitley Collins walking between their 8chool and home,1n addition.Wht'lll fog is
present,this intersection poses iU1 cven greater danger as it is nearly impo/;sible to
see oncoming tratlic when making It tum from Whitley Collins onto Crest Road.1
myself have had 3 near collision at this intersection.
In the interest of public safety and espociuUy tor the safety oftlla children who live
in the area,I urge you 10 cons1de:r this request and take action,Plca.'ie feel free to
contact me should you have any questions.
Kevin Allen
Principal.Soleado Elementary School
ISoleado Elementary School
I
I MaTCh 16,2010
I
I
I
!
·1
I
I
G<ibr,el:fll!llil
Mel:l!;J€'
t :ic I)P~rki ~s
CI€'1<.
[Jor,l M.t:e 1,1 R ,1sa
Pr~SI~CJ"
[);:lvia l.r·:.,~bl,'l
Vice Preslcenl
I<"",i'l W.Allar,
F'rl.,dMI
B~.rl)ar<l LL,cky
Me-rnbc"
27eoo Long1iIJ Drive
Rancho P~lus 'v'N(/!lS
C.1lifol ~lh.90/7 5·J909
(:1Wj :l77-'j~(j4
(310)54~-091 ~r AX
Supr"i""/l:'rw'c.rt!
(31D)U'!·0732
8!"$il1/;1~S SO.'·,'ices
(.11 ~i 1!i1-1306
Educalronai Se'~'iccr.
t31'-'~7Df-?919
Nl.l!r~tm ReS()UrCXM
(310)791-<!84ii
{'up,';Sf1.r.-'ico$
{310,i 318·197f
4-35
"~'~'.--~
SAINT JOHN FISHER PARISH
"CELE8RATING l!f=E IN THE liGHT Of'CHRIST"
Man.;h 18,2010
Dear M~mbcrs or th~Rancho Palos Verd~:;Traffic Committee,
r am ""'THing in support of the placement of a ~I<lp sign on Crest Road at the intersection
or Whitley Coil ins Drive.In t.be interest of public ~afety and especially lor the safety of
L!Jt:children who live in the area,1 urge you to consider this ~4uest and lake action.
Sillccrcl y,
~.£.-tZL~~/l~IfPJ~cha
P,tri.sh Admilli~tnltor,St.John Fisber Church
5448 CREST ROAD ..RANCHO PALOS VmOES,CALIFORNIA 90275-502.7
"P"PARISH OFFICE (31 0)377·5571 -FM (31 0)377-6303 -E-MA[L:INFO@lS.JF,ORG ~
4-36
4-37
Ray W.Mathys
5738 Whitec1iff Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)377-3713
MathysRW@ao1.com
September 16,2010
To:Mayor Steve Wolowicz and members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Subject:Traffic control at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive
CREST ROAD is one ofRPV's major thoroughfares.Its function is to permit vehicular
traffic between Crenshaw Blvd.and Hawthorne Blvd.to flow in both directions in the
most expeditious way possible.Crest Road enables traffic to bypass the high school
congestion at Hawthorne and Silver Spur,as well as the traffic entering and leaving the
Peninsula Center.In the event of an emergency,Crest Road can provide the means by
which the area can be expeditiously evacuated.Emergency vehicles use Crest Road
daily to rapidly reach the destinations where they are needed.Crest Road is a vital link in
the City's traffic circulation pattern and,therefore,needs to be kept in its current
uninterrupted,free-flowing condition.
The intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive has the characteristics of being
simply a mid-block location where a residential collector street just happens to enter onto
a major right of way.Traffic speeds past Whitley Collins just as if the entryway wasn't
even there.This intersection does not have the look or feel of a "real"intersection as
does the one at Highridge.
TRAFFIC CONTROL
These conditions need to be taken into consideration when attempting to deal with the
difficult and risky maneuver of making a left tum onto Crest Road from Whitley Collins
during peak traffic hours.To begin with,any traffic control device that would have the
ii7lpact ofintcrr-upting the £Tow of traffic on Crest'Road is simply notwarranted:Should
any such device be installed,it would create a far greater potential accident condition
than that which exists at this location at the present time.All the traffic studies that have
been made over past years have arrived at this same conclusion.For this reason,then,I
have difficulties with the staff's recommendation of installing a pedestrian-activated
flashing yellow light with a highly visible crosswalk at this location.I have visited a
similar traffic control arrangement that is located on 25 th Street and Moray Ave.in San
Pedro.This location is at the beginning of a commercial area where traffic has slowed to
between 25 and 35 miles per hour.I drove through the intersection,both ways,several
times to pace the speed of the traffic through this area.I inquired from a resident two
doors from this location as to how the system is working.I was told that the street is
crossed "very cautiously."Since the light is yellow,and not red,motorists do not feel
obligated to stop for pedestrians.More often than not,they simply drive on past.I
waited until traffic thinned out,pushed the button,and made my way across the street.
4-38
As 1 moved across,the cars stopped in the lane 1 was in but the others drove past in both
directions.1 found it a little scary,which made me understand what the resident meant
when he said they cross "very cautiously."
With traffic at that location being alerted to cars moving in every direction,including
through traffic to and from Western A venue,conditions are entirely different from the
ones at Crest and Whitley Collins.On Crest,the traffic is barreling past the Whitley
Collins entryway at speeds twice that of those at the Moray Ave ..and 25 th Street location.
In addition,we know how dangerous marked crosswalks can be.Pedestrians have been
known to assume they have the right of way and simply walk out into the path of
oncoming vehicles.The idea of a marked crosswalk at this location makes me more than
a httle nervous.
In addition,I'm not sure what fast-moving traffic on Crest Road is expected to do when
they see a yellow light start to flash and some pedestrian stepping off the curb to start
walking across the street.If the motorist slows down and stops at what appears to be a
mid-block location,he is bound to run the risk of being rear-ended.We know this to be
the case where unwarranted stop signs are installed.The same potential problem would
exist with cars stopping in what appears to be the middle of nowhere.In addition,if the
light required a pedestrian to activate it and there is no one available at the time when a
vehicle is attempting to make a left turn onto Crest Road,the light wouldn't be of much
use.Frankly,1 would rather see a continuous flashing yellow light with a radar gun
attached to advise the motorists of their excessive speed while at the same time alerting
them to the possibility of a pedestrian crossing and/or a vehicle in the process of exiting
Whitley Collins onto Crest Road.Flashing yellow lights serve as advisory signals.They
should not be expected to serve as stoplights.
STREET IMPROVEMENT HIS TOR Y
The Traffic Committee was formed approximately two years after the City was
incorporated.I was one of the people selected to serve on the first Committee and did so
for eight years.We all took our job very seriously.
One of its first projects was to work on the improvement of Highridge Road from
Hawthorne Blvd.on up the hill past the Highridge apartment area.This area was used
repeatedly during the election as an example of what was not wanted throughout the rest
of the community.Only the north half of the street was paved at the time.The Traffic
Committee decided that two things had to be accomplished with whatever improvements
were to be made.
The first consideration was to deal with the traffic congestion that was generated by the
high residential density of the development in the immediate area.The second one was
that the street had to work to draw attention away from the unattractiveness of all the
stucco in the area.The Committee decided that by duplicating the semi-rural ambiance
of the wide median on P.Y.North in the vicinity of the reservoir it would provide the
improvements needed to accomplish their objective.The 22-foot wide,well-landscaped
4-39
median provided both the detraction from the unattractive area as well as reducing traffic
congestion by enabling left tum maneuvers to be made in two steps.The plan has worked
beautifully for all these years.
Crest Road was also paved on the north side only at that time.Since the use of a 22-foot
wide,landscaped median,worked so well on Highridge to improve the traffic flow as
well as promote the image of RPV being a semi rural community,the Traffic Committee
recommended that Crest Road be improved in the exact same way as Highridge Road.
Unfortunately,there was no money at the time and therefore the Crest Road
improvements had to be deferred until such time as the south side of the street was
developed to obtain the funds.
This development took something like eight or ten years to happen,and by that time there
had been a complete turnover of personnel at City Hall.Charlie Abbott was the new
head of Public Works and his engineer,George Wents,was in charge of drawing up the
Crest Road street improvement plans.George,being unaware of the previous approved
plans to duplicate the Highridge design,proceeded to draw up the plans for Crest Road
with a 13-foot-wide median.I happened to catch the discrepancy and advised George of
the error.George argued vehemently that the street had to have a ]3-foot-wide median.I
argued just as vehemently that the 22-foot-wide median was needed for all the traffic
control reasons that worked so well on Highridge.The discussion finally concluded with
Charlie Abbott,George Wents and myself meeting at the corner of Crest and Whitley
Collins to resolve the issue.After much discussion,Charlie suggested we split the
difference and go with an 18-foot-wide median.Compact cars were big at the time and
my thinking was that a 15-foot car could fit in an 18-foot space,which would a]]ow it to
make a left turn maneuver in two steps.So,we settled on the]8-foot-wide median.
Although an ]8-foot-wide area is physically adequate for a two-step left turn maneuver,it
has turned out that menta]]y,it does not work for most drivers.The width was further
reduced,psychologically,by the left-turn pockets design being moved 4 feet in from the
travel lane to a narrow 4-foot-wide raised median.The area between the left turn lane
and the adjacent travel lane was outlined with buttons.A 4-foot-wide raised median
section does not provide the psychological safety barrier needed by most drivers to make
a left turn maneuver in two steps.The design effectively reduced the median,
psychologically,to that of a 13-foot-wide median.It simply doesn't work as intended.
PROPOSED MEDIAN EXPANSION
In July of]999,on behalf of the Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners Association,a plan to
expand the median on Crest Road at Whitley Collins to 22 feet in order to implement
right turn maneuvers from Whitley Collins Drive onto Crest Road was presented to the
Traffic Committee.The plan,being somewhat out of the ordinary,was met with the
usual doubts that come with deviating from the norm.Most of the rejections were pretty
much unfounded but one had merit.The plan could encourage the other four or five
developments along Crest Road to request that similar improvements be made to their
accesses to Crest Road.There was no money budgeted for such work.However,for the
4-40
purpose of assisting school traffic,a signal was installed at the intersection of Crest Road
and Highridge Road.This provided school traffic with a safe and trouble-free route to
the Ridgecrest School site via the Whitley Collins entryway off Highridge.In so doing,
the drivers could avoid the problems associated with using the Whitley Collins entryway
at Crest Road.The money needed to install the signal had been provided by the
developments along the south side of Crest Road.The installation provided school traffic
with a safe and expeditious travel route to and from the Ridgecrest school site.The
signal works great for school traffic but it is of little or no help in assisting Mesa residents
in their efforts to make safe left turns onto Crest Road from Whitley Collins during peak
traffic hours.Therefore,I would like to revive the plan that was proposed in 1999 and
work with Staff and the Traffic Commission to see if an acceptable solution can be
arrived at to effectively address the problems at the Crest Road/Whitley Collins
intersection.
Thank'you for your assistance in addressing this important matter.
cc:Nicole Jules,P.E.Senior Engineer
4-41
Nicole Jules
From:bjhilde@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday,January 10,2012 12:43 PM
To:nicolej@rpv.com
Subject:Fwd:Crosswalk at Whitley-Collins and Crest Road
Hi Nicole,
Sorry I missed you on original e-mail.
I originally sent this to you on Christmas Eve,but told you it was really for 1/1/12.I just
recently heard that the project is still moving forward and that concerns me.
Who among you will be the first to acknowledge that Mathys and Hildebrand were right
when a child gets injured (or worse)at that spot.In my 8 years on the TC
and by observations since then,I can honestly say that I never saw anything so
technically wrong perpetrated on the people in order to quiet one loud voice.
Barry Hildebrand,P.E.
310-377-0051
-----Original Message-----
From:bjhilde <bjhilde@aol.com>
To:c1ehr <c1ehr@rpv.com>;CC <CC@rpv.com>
Cc:MathysRW <MathysRW@aol.com>;eglamonte <eglamonte@cox.net>
Sent:Sat,Dec 24,2011 4:54 pm
Subject:Fwd:Crosswalk at Whitley-Collins and Crest Road
Ladies and Gentlemen (for when you come back after 1/1/12),PLEASE NOTE:I
attempted to send this to members of the Traffic Safety Commission with no luck.Can
someone in Ms Lehr's office please get it to each of them.The city's web site is
incorrect.
Several of you got this e-mail from me a few weeks ago,but I am re-sending it because
I believe that this project is of major importance to the (un-)safety of school children
from Ridgecrest School.My friend,Ray Mathys,expressed similar concerns to you in
his letter dated!16 September 2011.We both believe that going ahead with this project
will increase the probability of a child being injured or killed at this site sometime in the
future as a direct result of the project.Please take our voicings into consideration and
put this project on the shelf.Thank you.
Barry J.Hildebrand
310-377-0051
Award Construction and Construction Management/Inspection Services Contracts for the Crest
Road at Whitley Collins Drive Pedestrian Crossing Project (Jules)
Recommendation:1)Approve the construction plans and contract documents on file at the
Public Works Department for the Crest Road at Whitley Collins Drive Pedestrian Crossing
Project;2)Award a construction contract to Traffic Development Services in the amount of
$41,244 for the project;3)A ward a professional services contract to Willdan Engineering in the
1112/2012 4-42
··0-- ---
amount of$16,160 for project construction management and inspection services;4)Authorize staff to
utilize an additional 10%($5,740.40)for contingency;and,5)Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute the agreements..
The above is from the CC agenda of 15 Nov 2011,which item,I was told,has been approved by the
Cc.I believe that time will show that this is an ill-advised alteration to a very busy street,and my hope
is that some child is not maimed or killed as a result This quasi-intersection is deceptive in that it looks
like a true intersection to a pedestrian,but not so to the motorist who is tooling along at 40-50 MPH.
The trouble comes because young kids (even at the age of Ridgecrest students)tend to believe that
pushing a button causes the world to flip in their favor,but unlike their GameBoys,etc.it doesn't.
Because drivers have a different perception of that quasi-intersection from those trusting (of technology)
kids,the latter will probably be the ones to make the fatal mistakes.In San Pedro one block west of
Western Avenue (25th St @ Moray Ave),the city of L.A.installed a similar crosswalk actuated by
pedestrians pressing a button OR (unfortunately)by a car turning the corner and setting off the
crosswalk lights via an overhead sensor.As a result,there are so many false alarms that drivers have
come to ignore the flashing lights because there are hardly ever any pedestrians in the crosswalk.The
same will befall this Crest Road crosswalk for a different reason:Kids are poor judges of distance and
speed so you can expect to see lots of false starts into the crosswalk.When drivers detect an unoccupied
but flashing crosswalk,they will become as jaded as the San Pedro drivers.Then watch out!!!
A much better solution is one of the following
I)Have children cross at Highridge/Crest,a fully controlled intersection.
2)Have Ridgecrest parents form a "walking schoolbus"like they do at Dapplegray School on PVD
North,and escort kids to safe locations.
/\Yours for safer RPV streets,
Barry Hildebrand
3I 0-377-005 I
1/12/20 12 4-43
Nicole Jules
From:bjhilde@aol.com
Sent:Thursday,December 15,2011 3:18 PM
To:Traffic@rpv.com;nicolej@rpv.com;todom@rpv.com
Cc:CC@rpv.com;MathysRW@aol.com;CLynch@rwglaw.com
Subject:Crosswalk at Whitley-Collins and Crest Road
A ward Construction and Construction Management/Inspection Services Contracts for the Crest
Road at Whitley Collins Drive Pedestrian Crossing Project (Jules)
Recommendation:1)Approve the construction plans and contract documents on file at the
Public Works Department for the Crest Road at Whitley Collins Drive Pedestrian Crossing
Project;2)Award a construction contract to Traffic Development Services in the amount of
$41,244 for the project;3)Award a professional services contract to Willdan Engineering in the
amount of$16,160 for project construction management and inspection services;4)Authorize
staff to utilize an additional 10%($5,740.40)for contingency;and,5)Authorize the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute the agreements.
The above is from the CC agenda of 15 Nov 2011,which item,I was told,has been approved by
the Cc.I believe that time will show that this is an ill-advised alteration to a very busy street,
and mvhope is that some child is not maimed or killed as a result This quasi-intersection is
deceptive in that it looks like a true intersection to a pedestrian,but not so to the motorist who is
tooling along at 40-50 MPH.The trouble comes because young kids (even at the age of
Ridgecrest students)tend to believe that pushing a button causes the world to flip in their favor,
but unlike their GameBoys,etc.it doesn't.Because drivers have a different perception of that
quasi-intersection from those trusting (of technology)kids,the latter will probably be the ones to
make the fatal mistakes.In San Pedro one block west of Western Avenue (25th St @ Moray
Ave),the city of L.A.installed a similar crosswalk actuated by pedestrians pressing a button OR
(unfortunately)by a car turning the corner and setting offthe crosswalk lights via an
overhead sensor.As a result,there are so many false alarms that drivers have come to ignore the
flashing lights because there are hardly ever any pedestrians in the crosswalk.The same will
befall this Crest Road crosswalk for a different reason:Kids are poor judges of distance and
speed so you can expect to see lots of false starts into the crosswalk.When drivers detect an
unoccupied but flashing crosswalk,they will become as jaded as the San Pedro drivers.Then
watch out!!!
A much better solution is one of the following
1)Have children cross at Highridge/Crest,a fully controlled intersection.
2)Have Ridgecrest parents form a "walking schoolbus"like they do at Dapplegray School on
PVD North,and escort kids to safe locations.
/\Yours for safer RPV streets,
Barry Hildebrand
310-377-0051
1/12/2012 4-44
Nicole Jules
From:Bjhilde@aol.com
Sent:Sunday,June 27,20103:31 PM
To:Traffic@rpv.com
Cc:nicolej@rpv.com
Subject:STOP signs on Crest At Whitley Collins
Dear Chair Swank and Traffic Commission,
I read with some apprehension New Business Item 1 on your agenda for tomorrow
night.I believe that this is a terrible idea and should be defeated:
1.The location has the appearance of being "mid-block"even though it isn't
and one cardinal rule in TE is NEVER PUT A CROSSWALK IN A MID-BLOCK
LOCATION ..The intersection of Whitley Collins with Crest does not "JUMP OUT"to
drivers on Crest,and thus you can expect to see a lot of tire-braking marks if STOP
signs are indeed installed there.(hopefully no blood stains on the asphalt)
2.If the proponent(s)of this idea wants to cross Crest so that they can walk the
South side for exercise,I'd suggest walking the North side to either Crenshaw or
Highridge where the may cross Crest in a safer manner.
3.Crosswalks,in general,are "false-security"devices (no matter how many
flashing beacons accompany them)and I would hate to see a child maimed or killed
while attempting to cross such a heavily traveled street.
Plrase defeat this idea tomorrow night for safety on our streets.
Thanks,
Barry Hildebrand (former member of the TC)
3560 Vigilance Drive
RPV
310-377-0051
1/12/2012
---0 - - - - -
4-45