The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_SR_2010_09_21_06_Establishing_Pedestrian-Activated_Traffic_ControlsMEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: Staff Coordinator: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL RAY HOLLAND,DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ~ SEPTEMBER 21,2010 ESTABLISHING PEDESTRIAN-ACTIVATED TRAFFIC CONTROLS ON CREST ROAD AT WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGE~.g,...0... Nicole Jules,Senior Engineer~ RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No.2010-xxx establishing traffic controls on Crest Road at Whitley Collins Drive and authorize the expenditure of $28,726.00 for the purchase of a pedestrian activated flashing beacon system. BACKGROUND In November 2009,City Staff received a request from Mr.Chip Meyers 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 three occasions to discuss the merits of installing a stop sign.Below is a summary of the TSC meeting dates and action: Traffic Safety Commission Meetings Summary Date TSC Action February 22,2010 Deferred item to following meeting pending receipt of statistical information regarding vehicle and pedestrian volumes March 22,2010 Directed staff to Initiate a traffic engineering study to determine if a stop sign or other control device is warranted.Also,in the interim, directed staff to install pedestrian crossing signs at the northeast and southeast quadrants of the intersection June 28,2010 Supported staff's recommendation to install a high visibility crosswalk,a pedestrian-activated flashing beacon and high visibility advanced pedestrian crossing signs. 6-1 Crest Road at Whitley Collins Pedestrian Crossing September 21,2010 Page 2 At the March 22,2010 TSC meeting,Mr.Meyers attended the meeting and submitted for the record a signed petition bearing 53 signatures in support of a stop sign on Crest Road at Whitley Collins Drive.Mr.Meyers also submitted support letters in favor of the stop sign request from Ridgecrest Intermediate School parents,Saint John Fisher School and Hilltop Nursery School.Copies of the petition and support letters are included as attachments.Mr.Pat Corwin,Principal of Ridgecrest Intermediate School spoke at the March 22,2010 TSC meeting and stated that the school is supportive of whatever recommendation staff makes to improve the safety of the intersection. The neighboring HOA's,Mesa Palos Verdes HOA and Island View HOA,support staff's recommendation of providing a safer crossing opportunity for pedestrians at the subject intersection.A copy of the letter from the Mesa Palos Verdes HOA is included as an attachment. At the June 28,2010 TSC meeting,the Commission voted unanimously to support Staff's recommendation of installing a crosswalk,a pedestrian-activated flashing beacon and advanced signs for the improved safety of pedestrians. DISCUSSION Crest Road is an 80-foot wide divided Arterial roadway with two lanes in each direction and left-turn pockets at most intersections.The posted speed limit is 45 mph.There is one signalized intersection at Highridge Road along Crest Road between Hawthorne Boulevard and Crenshaw Blvd.The intersection of Crest Road at Hawthorne Blvd is signalized and the intersection of Crest Road at Crenshaw Blvd is an all-way stop controlled intersection. Crest Road at Whitley Collins Drive is a two-way stop-controlled intersection,where the minor street Whitley Collins has stop signs for both approaches and Crest Road is uncontrolled.The stop sign request from Mr.Meyers is requesting to install stop signs on Crest Road at Whitley Collins,thus creating an all-way stop controlled intersection. Whitley Collins Drive is classified as a local residential roadway that is 50 feet wide with raised concrete landscaped medians.The prima facie speed limit for Whitley Collins Drive is 25 mph.Whitley Collins Drive is the primary school route roadway for Ridgecrest Intermediate School located on Whitley Collins Drive at Northbay Road. The intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive currently operates at acceptable levels of service during the AM and PM peak hours.Traffic counts were taken at the intersection and revealed that the number ofturning vehicles was too low to trigger the need to stop traffic on Crest Road.Adequate gap opportunities on Crest Road currently are sufficient enough to allow access from Whitley Collins Drive.An all-way stop control warrant analysis,based on the City's adopted stop sign installation policy,was conducted for the location and concluded that installation of a stop sign on Crest Road is not warranted at this time. During the public hearing process via the TSC,residents have expressed concerns about 6-2 Crest Road at Whitley Collins Pedestrian Crossing September 21,2010 Page 3 vehicles speeding on Crest Road.Crest Road being an arterial roadway,the speed limit is established by the 85th percentile speed range based on an Engineering and Traffic survey. Additionally,the analysis included looking at warrants and guidelines for installation of a marked crosswalk.Due to the current pedestrian activity (approximately 20 pedestrians during the morning peak hour),a marked crosswalk is warranted.Although a legal crossing in its current state,driver awareness of pedestrian presence should be heightened through high-visibility warning devices such as a flashing beacon and high visibility signage and striping to improve pedestrian safety.Warrants for the installation of flashing beacons were also considered and met.Flashing beacons are sometimes installed at an intersection or in conjunction with a warning sign in advance of a situation that is not readily apparent to the driver.The flashers will serve the purpose of drawing attention to an uncommon condition. The City currently has 5 flashing beacons citywide:two adjacent to Mira Catalina Elementary school,two along PVDE near Miraleste Intermediate School and one on southbound Hawthorne Blvd to advise motorists of an upcoming signalized intersection. A review of the collision history at this location revealed 3 reported accidents during the last five years ending February 2010.Per the Lomita Sheriff's Department,all three accidents were broadside collisions and there were no reported injuries or fatalities in the accidents. Visibility was measured at the intersection Crest Road at Whitley Collins Drive.Both roadways are relatively flat at the intersection with clear lines of sight for all turn movements during prevailing conditions.Although,on a foggy day,this intersections visibility is severely reduced to only a few feet due to the dense blanket of fog that enters this area frequently. As staff is recommending,the use of high-visibility warning devices complete with LED rapid flash technology and high intensity signage and striping reflectivity will aid the motorist at identifying warning devices adequately to make proper timely decisions while driving. Based on the current pedestrian activity,the intersection's proximity to three schools in the area,the necessary link provided by the intersection to a pedestrian school route,and the need to heighten motorists'awareness of pedestrian activity,it is recommended that a pedestrian crosswalk,pedestrian-activated flashing beacon system and high-visibility "Watch for Pedestrians"signs is installed at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. CONCLUSION Adopting Staff's recommendations will result in Resolution No.201 O-xxx which establishes a pedestrian crosswalk,a pedestrian-activated flashing beacon,and advanced warning signs at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive resulting in improved safety, visibility and pedestrian access. ALTERNATIVES As an alternative,the City Council may choose to take no action at this time or continue this item to a future Council meeting.No action would result in staff not proceeding with 6-3 Crest Road at Whitley Collins Pedestrian Crossing September 21,2010 Page 4 any modifications to the intersection. FISCAL IMPACT The cost to procure and install the pedestrian-activated flashing beacon system is approximately $28,726.This includes $12,326 for the labor to install the system and $16,000 to purchase the flashing beacons,signs,posts,conduit and wires.The labor would be completed by the City's current traffic signal maintenance contractor as an approved change order to their current contract and the equipment would be purchased in accordance with the City's purchasing guidelines through the informal bid process for procuring products.The cost for painting the crosswalks is approximately $400 and the work will be completed by the City's striping contractor.The initial costs are summarized below: Initial Costs No.Item Cost 1 Painted Crosswalk $400 2 Rapid Flash Beacon and siQns $16,000 3 Installation (labor)$12,326 Total $28,726 Consideration was given to the maintenance costs that will be incurred as a result of the recommended action.The table below summarizes the anticipated on-going costs associated with maintaining the system after installed: Annual Maintenance (on-going)Costs No.Item Cost 1 Painted Crosswalk $100 2 Rapid Flash Beacon and signs $420 3 Installation (labor)$0 Total annual costs $520 The recommended action will not result in a negative fiscal impact.All costs related to the installation and maintenance of the crosswalk,pedestrian-activated flashing beacon and signs will be paid for from the Traffic Management program of the approved FY 10- 11 budget. Attachments:Resolution No.2010-xxx Vicinity Map Pedestrian Crossing Rapid flash system brochure Copies of Traffic Safety Commission Staff Report and Meeting Minutes Email Correspondence Stop Sign petition and support letters Mesa PV Letter Letter from Lynn Swank,TSC Chair 6-4 RESOLUTION NO.2010-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ESTABLISHING A PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK,PEDESTRIAN-ACTIVATED FLASHING BEACON AND ADVANCED WARNINGS SIGNS ON CREST ROAD AT WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS,Section 21351 of the California Vehicle Code authorizes the City to place and maintain,or cause to be placed and maintained,such appropriate signs, signals or other traffic control devices as may be necessary properly to indicate and carry out the provisions of the Vehicle Code or local traffic ordinances or to warn or guide traffic;and NOW,THEREFORE,IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 10.04.010 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE,THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS; Section 1.A pedestrian crosswalk,pedestrian-activated flashing beacon and advanced warning signs are hereby established on Crest Road at Whitley Collins Drive. Section 2.The City Clerk is hereby ordered to file certified copies of this Resolution with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's office. Section 3.The pedestrian crosswalk,pedestrian-activated flashing beacon and advanced warning signs established in Section 1 of this Resolution shall become effective upon posting of the appropriate signs and markings. Section 4.The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes does hereby authorize and direct the City Manager to cause signals and signage to be erected indicating where the pedestrian crossing is established. PASSED,APPROVED and ADOPTED this __day of 2010. STEFAN WOLOWICZ,Mayor 1228671-1 6-5 ATTEST: CARLA MORREALE,City Clerk State of California ) Cou nty of Los Angeles )ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I,Carla Morreale,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,hereby certify that the above Resolution No.2010-_,was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on ,2010. City Clerk 1228671-1 6-6 6 - 7 Description The Rectangular Rapid Flashing Seacon (RRFfB)System combines industry-leading durability and brightness with the Spot Devices System Infrastructure Management Apoo plications (SIMA)suite,a set of secure Web- based tools for remote,enterprise-wide supervi- sion of all Spot Devices systems. Operation Installed on roadside poles,the RRFS remains dark until a pedestrian activates the system by pressing a pushbutton.Once the system is acti- vated,rapidly flashing amber beacon lights provide a bright warning to motorists.The system also provides an additional flashing amber light which indicates to the pedestrian the system is active. Highlights (",:..Optional audible announcements assist sight-impaired pedestrians i>·High-efficiency,bright,rectangular LED indicators Local cross-street communication eliminates the need for trenching in the street '",:,.Pole-mount controller simplifies installation SIMA-enabled (see back) i':"·AC or solar power ;::2 year warranty System Components SC315 or SC320 controllers ,;:SB430 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Crosswalk signage i>Push buttons or microwave detectors ~!.Optional additional lighted peripherals Applications Crosswalks Sll~t DEV~CES 1455 Kleppe Lane Sparks,NV 89431 888.520.0008 Toll Free 888.520.0007 Fax www.spotdevices.com 6-8 SIMA ..The Spot Difference The Web-based suite of System Infrastructure Management Applications (SIMA),allows for remote management of one to thousands of systems.SIMA provides automatic,real-time diagnostics;proactive e-mail alerts;and a GPS-based map that shows vehicle locations in real time. SIMA is accessed via a secure Web site.Authorized users may gain access from virtually any browser-enabled device,without the need for installing client-side software. SIMA Diagram ~U~~ .'. ~.destrian Safety System p PI =Public Internet VPN =Virtual Private Network Spot Controller Snot~""'''''''''''''''''''''z,z,.•.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. DEVICES 1455 Kleppe Lane Sparks,NV 89431 888.520.0008 Toll Free 888.520.0007 Fax www.spotdevices.com Arrive Safely 6-9 ~I!~l DEVICES Wednesday,September 15,2010 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Nicole Jules 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Dear Nicole, Thank you for the opportunity to quote the provision and installation of a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB)system to Rancho Palos Verdes.The RRFB has consistently demonstrated compliance rates of over 80%-greatly increasing the safety of mid-block crosswalks. This proposal includes detailed information about the system as well as a diagram of the proposed system and a complete equipment list: •Company information •Product information •Diagram for the proposed system I hope that you find the enclosed materials informative.Please contact me if I can answer any additional questions. I will follow up shortly. Kindest regards, Mike Young Spot Devices,Inc 888.520.0008 ext.8428 mikey@spotdevices.com 1455 Kleppe Lane •Sparks,NV 89431 888.520.0008 P 775.351.1681 P • www.spotdevices.com 6-10 SPOT DEVICES RRFB SYSTEM PROPOSAL Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Advantages of the Spot Devices RRFB and School Zone Safety Systems II Simple,effective,and safe solution II Web-based remote monitoring-see beacons activate on the map III Easy to install,with all equipment mounting to a standard 1A or 1B pole Web-Based System Monitoring and Control 200912010 Calende, Year 200912010 C'''n&lr Year SRe o AllSlles o~~;~:~~i:~uiC;;ct;;L~~::;~lna ~:~n010 Calendo•••. -~~,-~."."_.-".<",,~.''-~_.''~'-'-~',-~"",,-,,-,'~--".'_~-""~'.-.~",".•..,•.".••."-."." o E<llson E1em."",ry N.e.acon ::;:;0 .-"""'-N"_""""""-',,>","'-"",.-',','.,..•.•~.~,_.~.<.'_ o Ellison ElemenlaryS.Beacon :;~~ld ..,,-"".,.,_-_. o ~~:~~:'ln'lWaY Foundatian :;~~ld ~:~12010 Catendar ••,..-.-~'<.•.,.,;._~•.•,•.,.,-'.'.-,'.',."".',..-",.«_.•.__"_••_.~_,"._."_'__._.~-e._._.""_,_.,_..•_~'_ o JaWon Elementarl E.ee.con ~~a7o~ld ~:~~J2010 Calendar ",,-••-.~••••._~_._.•~.•._..•__.•,·_·".._·_~·"~~··_c.,_.--~.~._~_.~,"._-._.y~.-."'_,_~~ o Jackaon E'amenlory It Beacon ::~~ld ~~12010 CaJanda• .._.-'"~......''-..~"~"~.~-_.__~.~~"-.-,"'..·.c •...,......•. o Jaman Eto",.n'.,!S e••<on ~~_":,.~ld 20091:2010 Colan d•• Siles Spot Devices 2 www.spotdevices.com 6-11 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon System Image Crest Road @ Whitney Collins System Layout Spot Devices 3 www.spotdevices.com 6-12 Spot Devices Crest Road @ Whitney Collins System Layout 4 T·· ··········.·.·····.··········.<.·············... ",i"' ~..•...'•.'.'.'.'.•.'••....••i.•...~ www.spotdevices.com 6-13 Crest Road @ Whitney Collins System Equipment List Item number Description Quantity Unit SC320025-C SC315S:Solar Beacon Controller,2.5"Pole 3.00 Ea SC322023 SC315:Solar system,20W 2.5"Top-mount,35 Ahr batter 3.00 Ea SB110015 RRFB,Gen2,Large,wI single ped signal,incl.mounts 2.00 Ea SB110016 RRFB,Gen2,Large,wI dual ped signal,Incl.mounts 2.00 Ea SC320026 Spread Spectrum Local Wireless Activation 3.00 Ea PL102005 2.5"Pole mount kit,flange,anchor bolts,washers &nuts.5.00 Ea P PL102221 Pipe,2.5"X10',S40,1 Side Threaded,Galv 2.00 Ea PL 102225 Pipe,2.5"X14',S40,1 Side Threaded,Galv 1.00 Ea PL102224 Pipe,2.5"X13',S40,1 Side Threaded,Galv 2.00 Ea SG101102 Sign,W11-2 Crosswalk sign,30"sides,with mounting 5.00 Ea bolts SG101103 Sign,W16-7p Left down arrow sign 12"height,with 2.00 Ea mounting SG101105 Sign,W16-9 "Ahead"sign 12"height,with mounting bolts 2.00 Ea SG101046 Sign,W66B "Double Down Arrow"12''x24'',YGR 2.00 Ea PB101131 Polara Bulldog Pushbutton with LED and tone,R62E 1.00 Ea slgnw/RIG PB101132 Polara Bulldog Pushbutton with LED and tone,R62E 1.00 Ea sign wI LE PB101134 Polara Bulldog Pushbutton with LED and tone,R62E 1.00 Ea NOTE:Price quotes in U.S.Dollars and are based on quantities shown,and are guaranteed for 180 days,unless otherwise noted. Contact Manufacturer for requite if quantities change.Standard delivery terms are 6 to 8 weeks unless otherwise indicated or the order includes nonstandard items.Prices quoted FOB Spot Devices,Sparks,NV.Terms,2%-10,net 30 days pending credit verification.Visa &MC accepted. Spot Devices 5 www.spotdevices.com 6-14 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: BY: DATE: SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION RAY HOLLAND,DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS NICOLE JULES,P .E.SENIOR ENGINEER FEBRUARY 22,2010 CREST RD AT WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE STOP SIGN REQUEST RECOMMENDATION Initiate a traffic engineering study to determine if a stop sign is warranted for the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. BACKGROUND The City received a request from Mr.Chip Meyers requesting traffic control at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive.Mr.Meyers met with staff and has sent several email correspondences indicating the reasons for the request.(see attached email correspondence). DISCUSSION The City has a stop sign policy that when requests are received,the policy must be adhered to.A traffic engineering study is needed to establish the numerical inputs for the study.The variables that are considered when installing a stop sign include traffic volumes,accident history,roadway classification,and visibility. Staff,therefore recommends initiating an engineering study to conclude whether the installation of a stop sign is warranted at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. Attachments:Attachment A -Chip Meyers email correspondence 6-15 Nicole Jules From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Chip Meyers [chip@fandom.com] Monday,January 25,2010 6:34 PM Nicole Jules nejad2@aol.com Re:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes If I did not email you this morning you would never have told me about the meeting tonight to speak on items "not on the agenda"?I will speak when properly notified and ON the agenda,as we discussed.So I will plan to be there in February,what is the exact date? On 1/25/2010 9:53 AM,Nicole Jules wrote: >No.you are not on the agenda. >You will speak on items Not on the Agenda. >This item WILL be scheduled for the February Agenda. >Assuming the chair agrees. > >City of Rancho Palos Verdes >Nicole Jules,P.E. >Senior Engineer >Department of Public Works >30940 Hawthorne Blvd >Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 >310.544.5275 >310.544.5292 fax > >-----Original Message----- >From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chip@fandom.comJ >Sent:Monday,January 25,2010 9:41 AM >To:Nicole Jules >Cc:nejad2@aol.com >Subject:Re:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes > >Thanks for the advance notice.So am I on the agenda then to speak and >what is the procedures,etc ..? I had hoped that we would have >something prepared in advance. > > > >-----Original Message ---- >From:Nicole Jules<nicolej@rpv.com> >To:Chip Meyers<chip@fandom.com> >Sent:Mon,January 25,2010 9:35:59 AM >Subject:RE:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes > >Tonight at 7pm >City Hall Community Room > > >City of Rancho Palos Verdes >Nicole Jules,P.E. >Senior Engineer >Department of Public Works >30940 Hawthorne Blvd >Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 >310.544.5275 >310.544.5292 fax > >-----Original Message----- >From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chip@fandom.comJ >Sent:Monday,January 25,2010 9:14 AM 1 6-16 >To:Shawn Nejad >Cc:Nicole Jules >Subject:Re:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes > >You also said that I was going to be speaking at your next traffic >meeting,when is that? > >Chip Meyers wrote: > »What does your working with Marnie Gruen have to do with what we »discussed,especially at whitley Collins and Crest?Thats great that »you are trying to improve signage at around the school,but what »about what we discussed and what I have been asking for or about for »months now? » » »Nicole Jules wrote: » »>Hi Chip. »>I'm working with Marnie Gruen right now trying to improve signage »>and striping around the school. »>I'll check back with you after my meeting with her. »>thanks »> »>City of Rancho Palos Verdes »>Nicole Jules,P.E. »>Senior Engineer »>Department of Public Works »>30940 Hawthorne Blvd »>Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 »>310.544.5275 »>310.544.5292 fax »>-----Original Message----- »>From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chip@fandom.comJ Sent:Monday,January 25, »>2010 8:55 AM »>To:Nicole Jules »>Subject:Re:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes »> »>Please let me know where we stand on everything we discussed over a »>month ago at your offices.Thanks »> »>Chip Meyers wrote: »> »> »»Hi Nicole. »» »»I hope you had a good holiday season. »» »»I wanted to follow up with you on our meeting back on Dec 17th so »»we can move forward on the items discussed.Please let me know next »»steps so we can get this done. »» »»Thanks. »» »»Chip Meyers wrote: »» »» »»>Good to meet you in person Nicole,I am looking forward to working »»>with you to implement safety improvements for the kids and the »»>entire community around Ridgecrest. »»> »»>My cell is 310-382-4695 if you need to reach me or you can email »»>me here. »»> »»>I am here to do anything you need to insure we make these changes, »»>so please let me know what you find out about petitions,etc .. »»> 2 6-17 »»>Have a great holiday. »»> »»>Regards, »»> »»>Chip Meyers »»> »»>Nicole Jules wrote: »»> »»> »»»I'm available from 10-10:30 tomorrow »»» »»»City of Rancho Palos Verdes »»»Nicole Jules,P.E. »»»Senior Engineer »»»Department of Public Works »»»30940 Hawthorne Blvd »»»Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 »»»310.544.5275 »»»310.544.5292 fax »»» »»»-----Original Message----- »»»From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chip@fandom.com]Sent:Wednesday, »»»December 16,2009 2:31 PM »»»To:Nicole Jules »»»Subject:Re:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes »»» »»»What about tomorrow morning first thing?Please let me know your »»»availability,thanks »»» »»»Nicole Jules wrote: »»» »»» »»» »»»>Hi Chip, »»»>City Hall will be closed from December 24th 2009 through January »»»>3,2010,reopening our doors on Monday January 4,2010. »»»> »»»>I am more than happy to meet with you outside of the holiday »»»>closure »»»> »»»> »»»period. »»» »»» »»» »»»>City of Rancho Palos Verdes »»»>Nicole Jules,P.E. »»»>Senior Engineer »»»>Department of Public works »»»>30940 Hawthorne Blvd »»»>Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 »»»>310.544.5275 »»»>310.544.5292 fax »»»> »»»>-----Original Message----- »»»>From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chip@fandom.com]Sent:Wednesday, »»»>December 16,2009 1:37 PM »»»>To:Nicole Jules »»»>Subject:Re:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes »»»> »»»>Please let me know if you have time the week of December 28th to »»»>get together,thanks. »»»> »»»>Chip Meyers wrote: »»»> »»»> »»»»Thanks Nicole for getting back to me.Could you and I meet to 3 6-18 »»»»go over »»»» »»»» »»»>this?maybe we can go through the process for both in person. »»»>Let me know what might work for you,thanks »»»> »»»> »»»»---On Wed,12/9/09,Nicole Jules<nicolej@rpv.com>wrote: »»»» »»»» »»»» »»»»>From:Nicole Jules<nicolej@rpv.com> »»»»>Subject:RE:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes »»»»>To:"'Chip Meyers'''<chip@fandom.com> »»»»>Date:Wednesday,December 9,2009,2:34 PM Hi Chip,Thank you »»»»>for circling back. »»»»> »»»»>1)The process to request a crosswalk/stop sign at Whitley »»»»>Collins/Crest is outlined in our City's Neighborhood Traffic »»»»>Calming Manual (12/2008). »»»»>An engineering study would have to be initiated that evaluated »»»»>the pedestrian traffic as well as the vehicle traffic to see »»»»>if Federal warrants are met.The Traffic Safety Commission »»»»>would weigh in on the results of the engineering study and »»»»>forward a recommendation to City Council for consideration. »»»»>This is typically a several month process. »»»»> »»»»>2)The City has crossing guards at two locations in town: »»»»>Miraleste »»»»>Intermediate School and Silver Spur Elementary School.The »»»»>Miraleste Intermediate crossing guard is funded by the school »»»»>district and the Silver spur crossing guard is funded by the »»»»>City.The initial crossing guard program predates almost »»»»>everyone here at the City,so I must do some digging around to »»»»>find out how the program was started.Nonetheless,if more »»»»>crossing guards are needed,the City Council would have to »»»»>make a budget policy decision to fund them.Unfortunately, »»»»>there are inherent problems with having residents fund public »»»»>safety programs. »»»»> »»»»>3)In regards to the other improvements around the school,the »»»»>City has scheduled the re-striping work during the Winter »»»»>break. »»»»> »»»»>I hope this was helpful.Let me know how you would like to »»»»>proceed. »»»»> »»»»> »»»»>City of Rancho Palos Verdes Nicole Jules,P.E. »»»»>Senior Engineer »»»»>Department of Public Works »»»»>30940 Hawthorne Blvd »»»»>Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 »»»»>310.544.5275 »»»»>310.544.5292 fax »»»»>-----Original Message----- »»»»>From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chip@fandom.comJ Sent:Wednesday, »»»»>December 09,2009 1:35 PM »»»»>Cc:nicolej@rpv.com »»»»>Subject:Re:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes »»»»> »»»»>Nicole »»»»> »»»»>I did not hear back from you so I wanted to reach out again. »»»»> »»»»>1.What can be done about putting in place a process to get a »»»»>crosswalk/stop sign at Whitley CollinS/Crest? 4 6-19 »»»»> »»»»>2.What can be done about getting additional crossing guards »»»»>at Ridgecrest? »»»»> »»»»>I am willing to fund this if there are budget issues,but I »»»»>need the city to step in and help me get this going. »»»»> »»»»>Please let me know,thanks. »»»»> »»»»>Chip Meyers wrote: »»»»> »»»»> »»»»»Thanks Shawn for the note. »»»»» »»»»»There is an accident again right now at Whitley »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>Collins/Crest »»»»> »»»»»intersection.I am sure if you look into the traffic »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>records for the »»»»> »»»»»past 5 years at this intersection you will find far »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>too many.If we »»»»> »»»»»don't do something fast which has to include a stop »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>sign and cross »»»»> »»»»»walk,there is going to be multiple tragic accidents »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>and then it will »»»»> »»»»»be too late.Sorry for being dramatic on these issues »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>but this can't »»»»> »»»»»be ignored any longer and action is needed now.I am »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>coming to you »»»»> »»»»»because you are on the Traffic/Safety Board and the »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>Traffic/Safety »»»»> »»»»»Board has to act in concert with whomever you think »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>needs to be »»»»> »»»»»involved.Tell me what we need to do,I am ready to do »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>whatever work »»»»> »»»»»it takes to get the additional crossing guards at »»»»» »»»»» 5 6-20 »»»»>Ridgecrest and tne »»»»> »»»»»stop sign/crosswalk at this dangerous intersection. »»»»» »»»»»Officer Knox,in terms of illegal driving behavior at »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>Ridgecrest.What »»»»> »»»»»can we do to deputize a group of parents who can deter »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>this type of »»»»> »»»»»behavior by providing tickets,citations,etc ...? »»»»» »»»»»Please let me know,thanks. »»»»» »»»»»Shawn Nejad wrote: »»»»» »»»»» »»»»»>Hi Chip, »»»»»> »»»»»>In fact last night we had a meeting,and I asked »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>Nicole about your »»»»> »»»»»>email.It seems that she had not received your »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>email that I had »»»»> »»»»»>forwarded to her.This issue really should start »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>at the public woks »»»»> »»»»»>department.If need be then the issue will be »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>brought up to the »»»»> »»»»»>Traffic Committee.I am going to forward your »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>email again to Nicole »»»»> »»»»»>and ask her to get in touch with you.Also please »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>feel free to send »»»»> »»»»»>her an email atnicolej@rpv.com. »»»»»>As for illegal traffic behaviors,you can directly »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>call the Sheriff »»»»> »»»»»>department.They are very responsive,most »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>probably deputy Knox who »»»»> »»»»»>is well familiar with the Ridgecrest school and »»»»»> »»»»»> 6 6-21 I wanted to follow up with you on this.Let me »»»»>the neighborhoou will »»»»> »»»»»>look into it.I will forward a copy of this email »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>also to deputy Knox. »»»»> »»»»> »»»»»>Please let me know if you have any other »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>questions. »»»»> »»»»> »»»»»>Best. »»»»»> »»»»»>Shawn Nejad »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»»>-----Original Message----- »»»»»>From:Chip Meyers<chip@fandom.com> »»»»»>To:Shawn Nejad<nejad2@aol.com> »»»»»>Sent:Wed,Dec 2,2009 1:39 pm »»»»»>Subject:Re:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>Palos Verdes »»»»> »»»»> »»»»»>Hi Shawn, >> »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>know a good time to »»»»> »»»»»>discuss what we can do on the 3 items below. »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>Thanks »»»»> »»»»»>Shawn Nejad wrote:>Hi Chip,>Hope you are »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>doing well.I forwarded »»»»> »»»»»>your email to the city traffic>engineer.Let »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>me talk to her next »»»»> »»»»»>week and see what we can do.>Best.>> »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>Shawn Nejad> »»»»> »»»»»>-----Original Message----->From:Chip Meyers »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»><chip@fandom.com »»»»> »»»»»><mailto:chip@fandom.com» »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»»To:Shawn Nejad<nejad2@aol.com »»»»» »»»»» »»»»»><mailto:nejad2@aol.com» »»»»»> 7 6-22 Please let >2. »»»»»> »»»»»Sent:Sun,Nov 15,2009 3:25 pm> »»»»»Subject: »»»»» »»»»»>Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes Hi Shawn,> »»»»»>> I hope all is well with you.>>1.I wanted »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>to reach out to in regards »»»»> »»»»»>to having RPV provide 2>additional crossing »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>guards for crosswalks »»»»> »»»»»>at Ridgecrest.RHE already>provides 2 »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>crossing guards for two other »»»»> »»»»»>crosswalks on their city>property,but there »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>are 2 other areas that »»»»> »»»»»>need crosswalks that are an>immediate danger »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>to students at »»»»> »»»»»>Ridgecrest and if we don't act quick>there »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>will be a tragic »»»»> »»»»»>accident at some point.The crossing guards are »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»»needed at NorthBay »»»»» »»»»»>and Whitley Collins and then also at Stoncrest and »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»»Whitley Collins. »»»»» »»»»»>The times needed would be from 7-8am and 2:15-3:15 »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»»each day »»»»» »»»»»>Mon-Fri.Can you help me in securing this from the »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>city?> »»»»> »»»»»>me know what the process is for this.> »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>Also,do you have a »»»»> »»»»»>contact at the Lomita Sheriff Department that I »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»»can talk with about »»»»» »»»»»>having Sheriff's police the whitley Collins> »»»»»> 8 6-23 >3.Lastly,I >I look forward »»»»»> »»»»>corridor for parents »»»»> »»»»»>stopping in no stop areas as well as doing> »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>illegal u-turns that are »»»»> »»»»»>creating major traffic congestion and hazards> »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>during the dropoff »»»»> »»»»»>and pickup time zones?> »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>would like to speak with you »»»»> »»»»»>about putting a stop sign on>Whitley Collins »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>and Crest and having a »»»»> »»»»»>crosswalk so kids can walk>across the street »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>without running for »»»»> »»»»»>their lives.This would be>basically give the »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>Whitley Collins/Crest »»»»> »»»»»>block a 4 way stop sign.> »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>to hearing from you on »»»»> »»»»»>these issues,thanks.> »»»»»> »»»»»> »»»»>Chip Meyers> »»»»> »»»»» »»»»» »»»»> »»»»> »»»» »»»» »»»> »»»> »»»> »»» »»» »»» »»» »»» »»> »»> »» »» »> »> »> »> »> »> >Regards,> 9 > 6-24 »> » » > > > 10 6-25 Nicole Jules From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Chip Meyers [chip@fandom.com] Monday,January 25,2010 6:39 PM Nicole Jules nejad2@aol.com;David Kramer Re:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes Nobody is expecting a stop sign to installed arbitrarily or because little ole me requested it.That is why I have been trying to find someone over at the Public Works department for some time now that would help me get the process moving instead of making me go around in circles.This is a major death trap and I have been requesting help in this process for a long time now.I am willing to do the work to get this done but don't want my time wasted.And you don't need to thank me for contacting MY public works department in the name of safety for motorists and children,this is something that should have been done long ago. Lastly,what is the status with getting crossing guards on Northbay during school hours? On 1/25/2010 10:04 AM,Nicole Jules wrote: >As mentioned earlier and in our previous communication,a stop sign can not >be installed arbitrarily or just because you've requested it. >Your item will be placed on the February agenda as stated before and the >Traffic Safety Commission will advise you of the next steps,as outlined in >the Neighborhood Traffic Calming manual. > >Thank you for contacting the Public Works Department. > >City of Rancho Palos Verdes >Nicole Jules,P.E. >Senior Engineer >Department of Public Works >30940 Hawthorne Blvd >Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 >310.544.5275 >310.544.5292 fax > >-----Original Message----- >From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chip@fandom.coml >Sent:Monday,January 25,2010 9:38 AM >To:Nicole Jules >Cc:nejad2@aol.com >Subject:Re:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes > >If School Safety and Safety in general truly is a priority to the city,then > a stop sign needs to be put immediately on Crest at whitley Collins.You >told me at the meeting that because this was a safety issue the Neighborhood >Traffic Calming Manual would not apply and that I did not need to get a >petition,etc ...which I was ready to do immediately over a month ago.Time >can no longer be wasted here,the procedures need to be put in place >immediately to get this stop sign at this intersection or children and motor >vehiclists will be injured or killed. > >Let me know immediately what the plan is on this,not to wait for you to >engage your striping/signing contractor which has nothing to do with my >discussions with you.I want to make sure all is in place so that come that >February traffic meeting it can be finalized that a stop sign will be put >there as soon as physically possible. > > > >original Message ---- >From:Nicole Jules<nicolej@rpv.com> 1 6-26 >To:Chip Meyers<chip@fandom.com> >Sent:Mon,January 25,2010 9:19:43 AM >Subject:RE:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes > >School Safety and Safety in general is a priority to the City. > I need to engage our striping/signing contractor immediately for the >improvements around the school. >Your request,however,requires a procedure of which I outlined in our >meeting and is also outlined in the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Manual. >Although Crest Road is associated with several neighborhoods,similar >procedures do apply.In fact,we would have to invoke the 500'radius rule. >Your request will be added to the February TSC agenda. >Assuming the chair of the commission feels otherwise. >The TSC will hear your request and consider the facts and determine the next >steps. > I hope this is helpful. > >City of Rancho Palos Verdes >Nicole Jules,P.E. >Senior Engineer >Department of Public Works >30940 Hawthorne Blvd >Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 >310.544.5275 >310.544.5292 fax > >-----Original Message----- >From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chip@fandom.comJ >Sent:Monday,January 25,2010 9:10 AM >To:Nicole Jules >Subject:Re:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes > >What does your working with Marnie Gruen have to do with what we >discussed,especially at Whitley Collins and Crest?Thats great that you >are trying to improve signage at around the school,but what about what >we discussed and what I have been asking for or about for months now? > > >Nicole Jules wrote: > »Hi Chip. »I'm working with Marnie Gruen right now trying to improve signage and »striping around the school. »I'll check back with you after my meeting with her. »thanks » »City of Rancho Palos Verdes »Nicole Jules,P.E. »Senior Engineer »Department of Public Works »30940 Hawthorne Blvd »Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 »310.544.5275 »310.544.5292 fax »-----Original Message----- »From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chip@fandom.comJ »Sent:Monday,January 25,2010 8:55 AM »To:Nicole Jules »Subject:Re:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes » »Please let me know where we stand on everything we discussed over a »month ago at your offices.Thanks » »Chip Meyers wrote: » » »>Hi Nicole. 2 6-27 »> »>I hope you had a good holiday season. »> »>I wanted to follow up with you on our meeting back on Dec 17th so we »>can move forward on the items discussed.Please let me know next steps »>so we can get this done. »> »>Thanks. »> »>Chip Meyers wrote: »> »> »»Good to meet you in person Nicole,I am looking forward to working »»with you to implement safety improvements for the kids and the entire »»community around Ridgecrest. »» »»My cell is 310-382-4695 if you need to reach me or you can email me »»here. »» »»I am here to do anything you need to insure we make these changes,so »»please let me know what you find out about petitions,etc. »» »»Have a great holiday. »» »»Regards, »» »»Chip Meyers »» »»Nicole Jules wrote: »» »» »»>I'm available from 10-10:30 tomorrow »»> »»>City of Rancho Palos Verdes »»>Nicole Jules,P.E. »»>Senior Engineer »»>Department of Public Works »»>30940 Hawthorne Blvd »»>Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 »»>310.544.5275 »»>310.544.5292 fax »»> »»>-----Original Message----- »»>From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chip@fandom.comJ Sent:Wednesday,December »»>16,2009 2:31 PM »»>To:Nicole Jules »»>Subject:Re:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes »»> »»>What about tomorrow morning first thing?Please let me know your »»>availability,thanks »»> »»>Nicole Jules wrote: »»> »»> »»> »»»Hi Chip, »»»City Hall will be closed from December 24th 2009 through January 3, »»»2010, »»»reopening our doors on Monday January 4,2010. »»» »»»I am more than happy to meet with you outside of the holiday closure »»» »»» »»» »»>period. »»> »»> 3 6-28 »»> »»»City of Rancho Palos Verdes »»»Nicole Jules,P.E. »»»Senior Engineer »»»Department of Public Works »»»30940 Hawthorne Blvd »»»Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 »»»310.544.5275 »»»310.544.5292 fax »»» »»»-----Original Message----- »»»From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chip@fandom.com]Sent:Wednesday, »»»December 16,2009 1:37 PM »»»To:Nicole Jules »»»Subject:Re:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes »»» »»»Please let me know if you have time the week of December 28th to »»»get together,thanks. »»» »»»Chip Meyers wrote: »»» »»» »»» »»»>Thanks Nicole for getting back to me.Could you and I meet to go over »»»> »»»> »»»> »»»this?maybe we can go through the process for both in person.Let »»»me know »»»what might work for you,thanks »»» »»» »»» »»»>---On Wed,12/9/09,Nicole Jules<nicolej@rpv.com>wrote: »»»> »»»> »»»> »»»> »»»»From:Nicole Jules<nicolej@rpv.com> »»»»Subject:RE:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes »»»»To:"'Chip Meyers'''<chip@fandom.com> »»»»Date:Wednesday,December 9,2009,2:34 PM »»»»Hi Chip, »»»»Thank you for circling back. »»»» »»»»1)The process to request a crosswalk/stop sign at Whitley »»»»Collins/Crest is »»»»outlined in our City's Neighborhood Traffic Calming Manual »»»»(12/2008). »»»»An engineering study would have to be initiated that »»»»evaluated the »»»»pedestrian traffic as well as the vehicle traffic to see if »»»»Federal warrants »»»»are met.The Traffic Safety Commission would weigh in on »»»»the results of the »»»»engineering study and forward a recommendation to City »»»»Council for »»»»consideration.This is typically a several month process. »»»» »»»»2)The City has crossing guards at two locations in town: »»»»Miraleste »»»»Intermediate School and Silver Spur Elementary School.The »»»»Miraleste »»»»Intermediate crossing guard is funded by the school »»»»district and the Silver »»»»spur crossing guard is funded by the City.The »»»»initial crossing guard 4 6-29 »»»»program predates almost everyone here at the City,so I »»»»must do some digging »»»»around to find out how the program was started.Nonetheless,if more »»»»crossing guards are needed,the City Council would have to »»»»make a budget »»»»policy decision to fund them.Unfortunately,there are »»»»inherent problems »»»»with having residents fund public safety programs. »»»» »»»»3)In regards to the other improvements around the school, »»»»the City has »»»»scheduled the re-striping work during the Winter break. »»»» »»»»I hope this was helpful.Let me know how you would like to »»»»proceed. »»»» »»»» »»»»City of Rancho Palos Verdes »»»»Nicole Jules,P.E. »»»»Senior Engineer »»»»Department of Public Works »»»»30940 Hawthorne Blvd »»»»Rancho Palos verdes,CA 90275 »»»»310.544.5275 »»»»310.544.5292 fax »»»»-----Original Message----- »»»»From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chip@fandom.comJ Sent:Wednesday, »»»»December 09,2009 1:35 PM »»»»Cc:nicolej@rpv.com »»»»Subject:Re:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos »»»»Verdes »»»» »»»»Nicole »»»» »»»»I did not hear back from you so I wanted to reach out »»»»again. »»»» »»»»1.What can be done about putting in place a process to get »»»»a crosswalk/stop sign at whitley Collins/Crest? »»»» »»»»2.What can be done about getting additional crossing »»»»guards at Ridgecrest? »»»» »»»»I am willing to fund this if there are budget issues,but I »»»»need the city to step in and help me get this going. »»»» »»»»Please let me know,thanks. »»»» »»»»Chip Meyers wrote: »»»» »»»» »»»» »»»»>Thanks Shawn for the note. »»»»> »»»»>There is an accident again right now at Whitley »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> »»»»Collins/Crest »»»» »»»» »»»»>intersection.I am sure if you look into the traffic »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> »»»»records for the »»»» 5 6-30 »»»» »»»»>past 5 years at this intersection you will find far »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> »»»»too many.If we »»»» »»»» »»»»>don't do something fast which has to include a stop »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> »»»»sign and cross »»»» »»»» »»»»>walk,there is going to be multiple tragic accidents »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> »»»»and then it will »»»» »»»» »»»»>be too late.Sorry for being dramatic on these issues »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> »»»»but this can't »»»» »»»» »»»»>be ignored any longer and action is needed now.I am »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> »»»»coming to you »»»» »»»» »»»»>because you are on the Traffic/Safety Board and the »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> »»»»Traffic/Safety »»»» »»»» »»»»>Board has to act in concert with whomever you think »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> »»»»needs to be »»»» »»»» »»»»>involved.Tell me what we need to do,I am ready to do »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> »»»»whatever work »»»» »»»» »»»»>it takes to get the additional crossing guards at »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> »»»»Ridgecrest and the »»»» »»»» »»»»>stop sign/crosswalk at this dangerous intersection. »»»»> »»»»>Officer Knox,in terms of illegal driving behavior at 6 6-31 »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> »»»»Ridgecrest.What »»»» »»»» »»»»>can we do to deputize a group of parents who can deter »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> »»»»this type of »»»» »»»» »»»»>behavior by providing tickets,citations,etc ...? »»»»> »»»»>Please let me know,thanks. »»»»> »»»»>Shawn Nejad wrote: »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> »»»»»Hi Chip, »»»»» »»»»»In fact last night we had a meeting,and I asked »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»Nicole about your »»»» »»»» »»»»»email.It seems that she had not received your »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»email that I had »»»» »»»» »»»»»forwarded to her.This issue really should start »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»at the public woks »»»» »»»» »»»»»department.If need be then the issue will be »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»brought up to the »»»» »»»» »»»»»Traffic Committee.I am going to forward your »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»email again to Nicole »»»» »»»» »»»»»and ask her to get in touch with you.Also please »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»feel free to send »»»» »»»» »»»»»her an email atnicolej@rpv.com. »»»»»As for illegal traffic behaviors,you can directly 7 6-32 I wanted to follow up with you on this.Let me »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»call the Sheriff »»»» »»»» »»»»»department.They are very responsive,most »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»probably deputy Knox who »»»» »»»» »»»»»is well familiar with the Ridgecrest school and »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»the neighborhood will »»»» »»»» »»»»»look into it.I will forward a copy of this email »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»also to deputy Knox. »»»» »»»» »»»» »»»»»Please let me know if you have any other »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»questions. »»»» »»»» »»»» »»»»»Best. »»»»» »»»»»Shawn Nejad »»»»» »»»»» »»»»»-----Original Message----- »»»»»From:Chip Meyers<chip@fandom.com> »»»»»To:Shawn Nejad<nejad2@aol.com> »»»»»Sent:Wed,Dec 2,2009 1:39 pm »»»»»Subject:Re:Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»Palos Verdes »»»» »»»» »»»» »»»»»Hi Shawn, »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»know a good time to »»»» »»»» »»»»»discuss what we can do on the 3 items below. »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»Thanks »»»» »»»» 8 6-33 >> »»»»»Shawn Nejad wrute:>Hi Chip,>Hope you are »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»doing well.I forwarded »»»» »»»» »»»»»your email to the city traffic>engineer.Let »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»me talk to her next »»»» »»»» »»»»»week and see what we can do.>Best.>> »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»Shawn Nejad> »»»» »»»» »»»»»-----Original Message----->From:Chip Meyers »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»<chip@fandom.com »»»» »»»» »»»»»<mailto:chip@fandom.com» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>To:Shawn Nejad<nejad2@aol.com »»»»> »»»»> »»»»»<mailto:nejad2@aol.com» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>Sent:Sun,Nov 15,2009 3:25 pm>Subject: »»»»> »»»»> »»»»»Traffic issues for Ridgecrest/Mesa Palos Verdes »»»»»Hi Shawn,>> I hope all is well with you.>> »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»to reach out to in regards »»»» »»»» »»»»»to having RPV provide 2>additional crossing »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»guards for crosswalks »»»» »»»» »»»»»at Ridgecrest.RHE already>provides 2 »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»crossing guards for two other »»»» »»»» »»»»»crosswalks on their city>property,but there »»»»» »»»»» 1.I wanted 9 6-34 Please let >2. »»»»» »»»»are 2 other areas that »»»» »»»» »»»»»need crosswalks that are an>immediate danger »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»to students at »»»» »»»» »»»»»Ridgecrest and if we don't act quick>there »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»will be a tragic »»»» »»»» »»»»»accident at some point.The crossing guards are »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>needed at NorthBay »»»»> »»»»> »»»»»and Whitley Collins and then also at Stoncrest and »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>Whitley Collins. »»»»> »»»»> »»»»»The times needed would be from 7-8am and 2:15-3:15 »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>each day »»»»> »»»»> »»»»»Mon-Fri.Can you help me in securing this from the »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»city?> »»»» »»»» »»»»»me know what the process is for this.> »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»Also,do you have a »»»» »»»» »»»»»contact at the Lomita Sheriff Department that I »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»>can talk with about »»»»> »»»»> »»»»»having Sheriff's police the Whitley Collins> »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»corridor for parents »»»» »»»» 10 6-35 >3.Lastly,I > I look forward »»»»»stopping in no stop areas as well as doing> »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»illegal u-turns that are »»»» »»»» »»»»»creating major traffic congestion and hazards> »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»during the dropoff »»»» »»»» »»»»»and pickup time zones?> »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»would like to speak with you »»»» »»»» »»»»»about putting a stop sign on>Whitley Collins »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»and Crest and having a »»»» »»»» »»»»»crosswalk so kids can walk>across the street »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»without running for »»»» »»»» »»»»»their lives.This would be>basically give the »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»Whitley Collins/Crest »»»» »»»» »»»»»block a 4 way stop sign.> »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»to hearing from you on »»»» »»»» »»»»»these issues,thanks.> »»»»» »»»»» »»»»» »»»»Chip Meyers> »»»» »»»» »»»»> »»»»> »»»»> »»»» »»»» »»»» »»»> »»»> »»»> »»» »»» >Regards,> 11 > 6-36 »»» »»» »»> »»> »»> »»> »»> »»> »» »» »> »> » » » » » » » > > > 12 6-37 PiliCEPJED Cit)"or Rancho Palos Verdes DEC 14 2009 PmJLICWORKS DEPARTMENT ~~Xuw1 "-J ~~We em Silver Spur Elementary School-5500 Ironwood Street -Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 December 12,2009 Dear Nicole and the City of RPV, On behalf of the children,parents and community of Silver Spur Elementary School,I would like to thank you for providing us with a new,Safety Crosswalk Marker.It is placed each morning in the crosswalk by our school and helps a great deal with our school traffic.Our children are definitely much safer as they arrive and leave school each day. We are so appreciative of the city's support of our school.Thank you,again,for your generous contribution. Very sincerely, ~CIv0-~'~ Gail Chelebian Silver Spur PTA President cc:Meriam Wilhelm,Principal 6-38 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: BY: DATE: SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION RAY HOLLAND,DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS NICOLE JULES,P .E.SENIOR ENGINEER Y"r MARCH 22,2010 CREST RD AT WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE STOP SIGN REQUEST RECOMMENDATION Initiate a traffic engineering study to determine if a stop sign is warranted for the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. BACKGROUND The City received a request from Mr.Chip Meyers requesting traffic control at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive.Mr.Meyers met with staff and has sent several email correspondences indicating the reasons for the request.(see attached email correspondence). DISCUSSION The City has a stop sign policy that when requests are received,the policy must be adhered to.A traffic engineering study is needed to establish the numerical inputs for the study.The variables that are considered when installing a stop sign include traffic volumes,accident history,roadway classification,and visibility. Staff,therefore recommends initiating an engineering study to conclude whether the installation of a stop sign is warranted at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive. Attachments: 6-39 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PROJECT:CITYWIDE DATE:WEDNESDAY,MARCH 17,2010 PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE E/W CREST ROAD FILE NUMBER:1-AM 15 MINUTE TOTALS 700-715 0 0 14 10 37 2 2 0 0 0 79 2 715-730 4 0 18 35 47 0 3 0 0 1 127 14 730-745 12 1 30 86 68 0 0 0 1 1 259 83 745-800 14 0 27 19 97 3 2 0 0 0 183 7 800-815 4 0 26 10 67 2 1 0 0 0 120 2 815-830 3 0 20 8 68 0 0 0 1 0 138 2 830-845 5 0 27 9 78 0 2 1 3 0 137 3 845-900 3 0 20 7 79 0 0 0 3 1 137 2 1 HOUR TOTALS 700-800 30 1 89 150 249 5 7 0 1 2 648 106 1288 715-815 34 1 101 150 279 5 6 0 1 2 689 106 1374 730-830 33 1 103 123 300 5 3 0 2 1 700 94 1365 745-845 26 0 100 46 310 5 5 1 4 0 578 14 1089 800-900 15 0 93 34 292 2 3 1 7 1 532 9 989 A.M.PEAK HOUR 34 1 101 0715-0815 .J 1 L 106 t t 150 689 ~III 279 CREST ROAD 2 5 +~ I i r 0 6 WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA,CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 6-40 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PROJECT:CITYWIDE DATE:WEDNESDAY,MARCH 17,2010 PERIOD:02:00 PM TO 04:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE EIW CREST ROAD FILE NUMBER:1-PM 15 MINUTE TOTALS 200-215 1 0 11 18 75 0 2 0 1 0 70 2 215-230 2 0 10 34 73 1 2 1 1 0 76 6 230-245 16 3 22 32 79 3 1 2 1 1 90 10 245-300 5 1 31 26 104 1 2 1 0 1 128 5 300-315 2 0 20 32 139 3 0 0 1 0 112 4 315-330 3 0 20 12 114 0 0 0 2 1 82 1 330-345 3 0 11 17 106 2 2 0 0 1 77 1 345-400 3 0 18 19 98 0 1 0 1 1 86 1 1 HOUR TOTALS 200-300 24 4 74 110 331 5 7 4 3 2 364 23 951 215-315 25 4 83 124 395 8 5 4 3 2 406 25 1084 230-330 26 4 93 102 436 7 3 3 4 3 412 20 1113 245-345 13 1 82 87 463 6 4 1 3 3 399 11 1073 300-400 11 0 69 80 457 5 3 0 4 3 357 7 996 M.D.PEAK HOUR 26 4 93 0230-0330 ~1 L 20 t t 102 412 ..lIII 436 CREST ROAD 3 7 ++ I i r 4 3 3 WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA,CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 6-41 PEDESTRIAN -BICYCLIST COUNT RESULTS CLIENT: PROJECT: DATE: PERIOD: INTERSECTION N/S EIW FILE NUMBER: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITYWIDE WEDNESDAY,MARCH 17,2010 07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE CREST ROAD 1-PED/BIKE-AM 0700-0715 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0715-0730 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0730-0745 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0745-0800 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0800-0815 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 0815-0830 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0830-0845 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0845-0900 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0700-080 0 0 1 0 0715-0815 0 0 2 1 0730-0830 0 0 3 1 0745-0845 0 0 3 1 0800-0900 1 0 2 1 THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA,CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 PHONE 626.446.2877 FAX 6-42 PEDESTRIAN -BICYCLIST COUNT RESULTS CLIENT: PROJECT: DATE: PERIOD: INTERSECTION N/S EIW FILE NUMBER: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITYWIDE WEDNESDAY,MARCH 17,2010 02:00 PM TO 04:00 PM WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE CREST ROAD 1-PED/BIKE-MD BICYCLt<IS5jTSffitfwe;sT1 0200-0215 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0215-0230 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0230-0245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0245-0300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0300-0315 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0315-0330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0330-0345 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0345-0400 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 BICYCLISTS 0200-0300 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0215-0315 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0230-0330 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0245-0345 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0300-0400 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA,CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 PHONE 626.446.2877 FAX 6-43 PEDESTRIAN -BICYCLIST COUNT RESULTS CLIENT: PROJECT: DATE: PERIOD: INTERSECTION FILE NUMBER: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITYWIDE WEDNESDAY.MARCH 17,2010 07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM N/S WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE EIW CREST ROAD 1-PED/BIKE-AM PEDESTRIANS ~ BICYCLISTS ~ 0700-0715 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0715-0730 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0730-0745 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0745-0800 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0800-0815 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 0815-0830 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0830-0845 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0845-0900 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0700-0800 0 0 1 0 0715-0815 0 0 2 1 0730-0830 0 0 3 1 0745-0845 0 0 3 1 0800-0900 1 0 2 1 THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA.CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 PHONE 626.446.2877 FAX 6-44 CHAPTER 1.-Safety Effect"of Marked Versus Unmarked Crossw(lllrS at Uncontrolled ...Page 1 of9 TFHRC Home>Safety>Safety Publications>Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations Final Report and Recommended Guidelines>Chapter 1 CHAPTER 1.BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION Pedestrians are legitimate users of the transportation system,and they should,therefore,be able to use this system safely and without unreasonable delay (figure 1).Pedestrians have a right to cross roads safely,and planners and engineers have a professional responsibility to plan,design,and install safe and convenient crossing facilities. Pedestrians should be included as design users for all streets. As a starting point,roads should be designed with the premise that there will be pedestrians,that they must be able to cross the street,and that they must be able to do it safely.The design question is,"How can this task best be accomplished?" Providing marked crosswalks traditionally has been one measure used in an attempt to facilitate crossings.Such crosswalks commonly are used at uncontrolled locations (Le.,sites not controlled by a traffic signal or stop sign)and sometimes at midblock locations.However,there have been conflicting studies and much controversy regarding the safety effects of marked crosswalks.This study evaluated marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations and offers guidelines for their use. ""'....---Figure 1.Pedestrians have a right to cross the road safely and without unreasonable delay. HOW TO USE THIS STUDY Marked crosswalks are one tool used to direct pedestrians safely across a street.When considering marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations,the question should not be simply,"Should I provide a marked crosswalk or not?"Instead,the question should be,"Is this an appropriate tool for directing pedestrians across the street?" Regardless of whether marked crosswalks are used,there remains the fundamental obligation to get pedestrians safely across the street. In most cases,marked crosswalks are best used in combination with other treatments (e.g.,curb extensions,raised crossing islands,traffic signals,roadway narrowing,enhanced overhead lighting,traffic calming measures).Marked crosswalks should be one option in a progression of design treatments.If one treatment does not accomplish the task adequately,then move on to the next one.Failure of one particular treatment is not a license to give up and do nothing.In all cases,the final design must accomplish the goal of getting pedestrians across the road safely. WHAT IS THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A CROSSWALK? httn'//n,u,u,tfhrt"'or",/"",f'",hrlnnh,,/()L11 ()()/()1 ht"",6-45 CHAPTER 1.-Safety Effer +"of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswr"-s at Uncontrolled ...Page 2 of9 The 2000 Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance (Uniform Vehicle Code)(Section 1-112)defines a crosswalk as:(1) a."That part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs,or in the absence of curbs,from the edges of the traversable roadway;and in the absence of a sidewalk on one side of the roadway,the part of a roadway included within the extension of the lateral lines of the existing sidewalk at right angles to the centerline. b.Any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface." Thus,a crosswalk at an intersection is defined as the extension of the sidewalk or the shoulder across the intersection,regardless of whether it is marked or not.The only way a crosswalk can exist at a midblock location is if it is marked.Most jurisdictions have crosswalk laws that make it legal for pedestrians to cross the street at any intersection,whether marked or not,unless the pedestrian crossing is specifically prohibited. According to Section 38.17 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),crosswalks serve the following purposes:(2.) "Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections,and on approaches to other intersections where traffic stops. Crosswalk markings also serve to alert road users of a pedestrian crossing point across roadways not controlled by traffic signals or STOP signs. At intersection locations,crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk." The MUTCD also provides guidance on marked crosswalks,including: •Crosswalk width should not be less than 1.8 meters (m)(6 feet (ft)). ..Crosswalk lines should extend across the full width of the pavement (to discourage diagonal walking between crosswalks). ..Crosswalks should be marked at all intersections that have "substantial conflict between vehicular and pedestrian movements." •Crosswalk markings should be provided at points of pedestrian concentration,such as at loading islands, midblock pedestrian islands,and/or where pedestrians need assistance in determining the proper place to cross the street. The MUTCD further states that:"Crosswalk lines should not be used indiscriminately.An engineering study should be performed before they are installed at locations away from traffic signals or STOP signs." However,the MUTCD does not provide specific guidance relative to the site condition (e.g.,traffic volume,pedestrian volume,number of lanes,presence or type of median)where marked crosswalks should or should not be used at uncontrolled locations.Such decisions have historically been left to the judgment of State and local traffic engineers. Furthermore,practices on where to mark or not mark crosswalks have differed widely among highway agencies,and this has been a controversial topic among researchers,traffic engineers,and pedestrian safety advocates for many years.More specific safety research and guidelines have been needed on where to mark or not mark crosswalks at uncontrolled locations. Designated marked or unmarked crosswalks are also required to be accessible to wheelchair users if an accessible sidewalk exists.The level of connectivity between pedestrian facilities is directly related to the placement and consistency of street crossings. Why Are Marked Crosswalks Controversial? There has been considerable controversy in the United States about whether marked crosswalks increase or decrease pedestrian safety at crossing locations that are not controlled by a traffic signal or stop sign.Many 1_.........__.1/L.L'1_••.1 __~_L __'-__.,._/A A ..AA IA 1 1 ~6-46 CHAPTER 1.-Safety Effe('+"of Marked Versus Unmarked Crossw'..c;at Uncontrolled...Page 3 of9 pedestrians consider marked crosswalks as a tool to enhance pedestrian safety and mobility.They view the markings as proof that they have a right to share the roadway,and in their opinion,the more the better.Many pedestrians do not understand the legal definition of a crosswalk and think that there is no crosswalk unless it is marked.They may also think that a driver can see the crosswalk markings as well as they can,and they assume that it will be safer to cross where drivers can see the white crosswalk lines. When citizens request the installation of marked crosswalks,some engineers and planners still refer to the 1972 study by Herms as justification for not installing marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations.@ That study found an increased incidence of pedestrian collisions in marked crosswalks,compared to unmarked crosswalks,at 400 uncontrolled intersections in San Diego,CA.Questions have been asked about the validity of that study,and the study results have sometimes been misquoted or misused.Some have misinterpreted the results of that study.The study did not conclude that all marked crosswalks are unsafe,and the study also did not include school crosswalks.A few other studies have also tried to address this issue since the Herms study was completed.Some were not conclusive because of their methodology or sample size problems,while others have fueled the disagreements and confusion on this matter. Furthermore,most of the previous crosswalk studies have analyzed the overall safety effects of marked crosswalks but did not investigate their effects for various numbers of lanes,traffic volumes,or other roadway features.Like other traffic control devices,crosswalks should not be expected to be equally effective or appropriate under all roadway conditions. Where Are Crosswalks Typically Installed? The practice of where to install crosswalks differs considerably from one jurisdiction to another across the United States,and engineers have been left with using their own jUdgment (sometimes influenced by political and/or public pressure)in reaching decisions.Some cities have developed their own guidelines on where marked crosswalks should or should not be installed.At a minimum,many cities tend to install marked crosswalks at signalized intersections,particularly in urban areas where there is pedestrian crossing activity.Many jurisdictions also commonly install marked crosswalks at school crossing locations (especially where adult crossing guards are used),and they are more likely to mark crosswalks at intersections controlled by a stop sign.At uncontrolled locations,some agencies rarely,if ever,choose to install marked crosswalks;other agencies install marked crosswalks at selected pedestrian crossing locations,particularly in downtown areas.Some towns and cities have also chosen to supplement selected marked crosswalks with advance overhead or post-mounted pedestrian warning signs,flashing lights,"Stop for Pedestrians in Crosswalk"signs mounted at the street centerline (or mounted along the side of the street or overhead),and/or supplemental pavement markings. STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE Many highway agencies routinely mark crosswalks at school crossings and signalized intersections.While questions have been raised concerning marking criteria at these sites,most of the controversy on whether to mark crosswalks has pertained to the many uncontrolled locations in U.S.towns and cities.The purpose of this study was to determine whether marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations are safer than unmarked crosswalks under various traffic and roadway conditions.Another objective was to provide recommendations on how to provide safer crossings for pedestrians.This includes providing assistance to engineers and planners when making decisions on: •Where marked crosswalks may be installed. ..Where an existing marked crosswalk,by itself,is acceptable. ..Where an existing marked crosswalk should be supplemented with additional improvements. •Where one or more other engineering treatments (e.g.,raised median,traffic signal with pedestrian signal) should be considered instead of having only a marked crosswalk. ..Where marked crosswalks are not appropriate. The results of this study should not be misused as justification to do nothing to help pedestrians cross streets safely. Instead,pedestrian crossing problems and needs should be identified routinely,and appropriate solutions should be selected to improve pedestrian safety and access.Deciding where to mark or not mark crosswalks is only one consideration in meeting that objective. This final report is based on a major study for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)on the safety effects of pedestrian facilities.The report titled,"Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled 6-47 CHAPTER 1.-Safety Effe('''~of Marked Versus Unmarked Crossw'"<;at Uncontrolled ...Page 4 of9 Locations:Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines"also was prepared as a companion document.(~J PAST RESEARCH Studies of the effects of marked crosswalks have yielded contradictory results.Some studies reported an association of marked crosswalks with an increase in pedestrian crashes.Other studies did not show an elevated collision level associated with marked crosswalks,but instead showed favorable changes.As to the negative findings,assertions were made that marked crosswalks somehow induced incautious behavior on the part of pedestrians,triggered perhaps by what they thought the markings signified.The following paragraphs describe the findings of some of these studies. Crash Studies An early and oft-quoted study in California performed by Herms investigated pedestrian crash risk at marked and unmarked crosswalks.(~)This study evaluated pedestrian crashes at 400 intersections where at least 1 crosswalk was painted and another was not.There are thousands of other intersections in San Diego,CA,where neither crosswalk was painted or both were painted,but those were not included in the Herms study.That study rightly emphasizes the difficulty of "maintaining equivalent conditions"in comparing marked and unmarked crosswalks,and lists 12 factors to try to address such difficulties.Since the study was confined to intersections that had one marked and one unmarked crosswalk across the same main thoroughfare,it is not surprising that the vehicle traffic exposure was quite similar between the marked and unmarked crosswalks.However,pedestrian volume was three times as high on the marked crosswalks as on the unmarked crosswalks.Herms stated: "Evidence indicates that the poor crash record of marked crosswalks is not due to the crosswalk being marked as much as it is a reflection on the pedestrian's attitude and lack of caution when using the marked crosswalk."@ The Herms study,however,does not say what evidence the author had in mind regarding incautious pedestrian behavior.No behavioral data was presented.Other authors have advanced similar assertions with regard to pedestrian behavior in marked crosswalks. One of the issues involved in this crosswalk controversy relates to questions on the warrants used in San Diego,CA, to determine where to paint crosswalks.Specifically,the warrant directive for San Diego (January 15,1962), established a point system calling for painting crosswalks when:(1)traffic gaps were fewer rather than more numerous;(2)pedestrian volume was high;(3)speed was moderate (not low,not high);and (4)other prevailing factors were present,such as previous crashes.Thus,it is possible that crosswalks may have been more likely to be painted in San Diego,CA,where the conditions were most ripe for pedestrian collisions (compared to sites which were unmarked).This could at least partly explain the increase in pedestrian crashes at marked crosswalks in the Herms study.Furthermore,the city of San Diego did not eliminate the use of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations based on the results of this study.The study recommended against the indiscriminate use of markings at uncontrolled locations.It should be mentioned that the Herms study did not distingUish whether the results would have differed,for example,for two-lane versus multilane roads,or for low-volume versus high-volume roads. Gibby et al.later revisited the issue.(2)Their report contains a thorough review of the literature and also includes an analysis of pedestrian crashes at 380 highway intersections in California.These intersections were picked after a detailed,multistep selection process in which more than 10,000 intersections were initially considered,and all but 380 were excluded.Their results showed that pedestrian crash rates at these 380 unsignalized intersections were 2 or 3 times higher in marked than in unmarked crosswalks when expressed as crash rates per unit pedestrian-vehicle volume.This study had the advantage of including a relatively large sample of intersections in cities throughout California,which may have minimized any data bias resulting from crosswalk marking criteria.However,it should be mentioned that,as with the Herms study,the Gibby study also did not determine how the results (between marked and unmarked crosswalks) might have differed for two-lane versus multilane roads,and/or for roads with low average daily traffic (ADT) compared to high ADT. Other studies have been conducted to address this issue.Gurnett described a project to remove painted stripes from some crosswalks following a bad crash experience.(2)This was a before-after study of three locations that were 6-48 CHAPTER 1.-Safety Effert<;:of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswr"<;at Uncontrolled...Page 5 of9 selected for crosswalk removal because they had a recent bad crash record.After removing the crosswalks,crashes decreased.Such results do not show the effect of removing the paint,but are very likely the result of the well-known statistical phenomenon of regression to the mean.It is also not clear whether pedestrian crossing volumes may have dropped after the marked crosswalks were removed.(§) Another study of marked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections was reported by the Los Angeles,CA,County Road Department in July 1967.(Z)The county reported results of a before-after study of 89 intersections.Painted crosswalks were added at each site,but the basis for selecting those sites was not mentioned.Pedestrian crashes increased from 4 during the before period to 15 in the after period.The before-after design in this study is preferable to a treatment-control model in this instance,and better takes the selection effect into account.All sites that showed crash increases were intersections with an ADT rate above 10,900.Thus,at sites with a lower ADT rate,no change in pedestrian crashes was seen.Also,rear-end collisions increased from 31 to 58 after marked crosswalks were added.The report stated that rear-end collisions increased as traffic volume increased.Nevertheless,the study showed more pedestrian crashes after painting the crosswalks than before for the sites with ADT rates above 10,500. The study could have been enhanced by including an analysis of crashes within a comparison group of unpainted sites during the same time period.It is not clear whether pedestrian volumes may have increased at the crosswalks after they were marked.(Z) In contrast to the studies described above,Tobey et al.reported reduced crashes associated with marked crosswalks.@ They examined crashes at marked and unmarked crosswalks as a function of pedestrian volume (P) multiplied by vehicle volume (V).When the P times V product was used as a denominator,crashes at unmarked crosswalks were found to be considerably overrepresented;crashes at marked crosswalks were underrepresented considerably.Communication with the authors indicates that this study included controlled (signalized)as well as uncontrolled crossings.It seems likely,therefore,that more marked crosswalks than unmarked crosswalks were present at controlled crossings,which could at least partially explain the different results compared to other studies. The study methodology was quite useful for determining pedestrian crash risk for a variety of human and locational features.However,the study results were not intended to be used for quantifying the specific safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks for various traffic and roadway situations.(§) In 1996,Ekman conducted an analysis of pedestrian crashes at zebra crossings compared to crossings with traffic signals and also to crossings with no facilities.(Q)Zebra crossings in Sweden (figure 2)consist of high-visibility crosswalk markings on the roadway,accompanied by zebra crossing signs (figure 3).The study included 6 years of collected pedestrian crash data from crossings in five cities in southern Sweden along with pedestrian counts,traffic volume,and other information for each of the three types of pedestrian crossings. Figure 2.A zebra crossing used in Sweden. Figure 3.Sign accompanying zebra crossings in Sweden. The rate of pedestrian crashes was found to be higher (approximately twice as high)at intersections which had zebra crossings,compared to locations that were signalized or had no facilities.Further,pedestrians age 60 and above were most at risk,followed by pedestrians below age 16 (see figure 4).The author also controlled for motor vehicle traffic and found similar results.(~) 6-49 CHAPTER 1.-Safety Effe,,4-<:of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswr "Ii at Uncontrolled ...Page 6 of9 50 40 (])....... C'iJ 300:: ..c (f) C'iJ 20....u 10 0 Zebra Crossing -- 0<16 years •16-60 years I]60+years Si gnalized No Faci liti es Crossing Figure 4.Pedestrian crash rates for the three crossing types by age group. In a 1999 study involving the relationship between crashes or conflicts and exposure,Ekman and Hyden compared intersections with and without zebra crossings on major streets in the cities of Malmo and Lund,Sweden.Among other conclusions,the study found that "Zebra crossings seem to have higher crash rate than approaches without zebra,"and "The increased crash rate for approaches with zebra crossings is only valid on locations where the car flow is larger than 10 cars per hour."Conflict rates were about twice as high with zebra crossings compared to crossings with no control.The authors reported that the dataset did not include enough sites with car exposure greater than 250 cars per hour.The study also found that the positive effects of pedestrian refuge islands "seem to be stronger than the negative effect of zebra crossing,at least in the lower region of car exposure."This finding supports the safety benefit of having a raised pedestrian refuge island at pedestrian crossings.(10) Yagar reported the results of introducing marked crosswalks at 13 Toronto,Canada intersections.(11)The basis for selecting the particular intersections was not described.A before-after study was conducted,and it was found that crashes had been increasing during the before period and continued to increase after crosswalks were installed.It is not apparent from the graphs that there was any change in slope associated with the time of painting the crosswalks; it would appear that marking the crosswalks did not have much of an effect on crashes.However,the author points to an increase in tailgating crashes at the intersections after crosswalk painting.He also reports that the increased crashes during the after phase seemed to be entirely explained by an increase in crashes involving out-of-town drivers.Perhaps the increase in crashes by out-of-town motorists was because they were not expecting any change in pedestrian or motorist behavior of the local residents,who may have been more familiar with the new markings. However,no behavioral data was included in the study. In summary,there are no clear-cut results from the studies reviewed to permit concluding with confidence that either marked or unmarked crosswalks are safer.The selection bias (on where crosswalks are marked)could certainly affect the results of a given study.Units of pedestrian crash experience were also inconsistent from one study to another.Another important question relates to whether analyzing sites separately by site type (e.g.,two-lane versus multilane road,high volume versus low volume)would produce different results on the safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks. Behavioral Studies Related to Marked Crosswalks In addition to crash-based studies,it is also important to review studies that evaluate the effects of crosswalk marking 6-50 CHAPTER 1.-Safety Effel'~~of Marked Versus Unmarked Crossw'"<:;at Uncontrolled ...Page 7 of 9 on pedestrian and motorist behavior.Such review can reveal changes in behavior,which can lead to crashes for different crosswalk conditions.The following paragraphs discuss some of these behavioral studies. Katz et al.conducted an experimental study of driver and pedestrian interaction when the pedestrian crossed a street.(12)The pedestrians in question were members of the study team,and they crossed a street under a variety of conditions (960 trials).It was found that drivers stop for pedestrians as a function of several variables.Drivers stop more frequently when the vehicle's approach speed is low,when the pedestrian is in a marked crosswalk,when the distance between vehicle and pedestrian is greater rather than less,when pedestrians are in groups,and when the pedestrian does not make eye contact with the driver.Thus,the marked crosswalk is a specific factor in positive driver behavior in this study. A study by Knoblauch et al.was conducted to determine the effect of crosswalk markings on driver and pedestrian behavior at unsignalized intersections.(13)A before-after evaluation of crosswalk markings was conducted at 11 locations in 4 U.S.cities.The observed behaviors included pedestrian crossing location,vehicle speed,driver yielding,and pedestrian crossing behavior.It was found that drivers approach a pedestrian in a crosswalk somewhat more slowly,and that crosswalk usage increases,after markings are installed.No evidence was found indicating that pedestrians are less vigilant in a marked crosswalk.No changes were found in driver yielding or pedestrian assertiveness as a result of adding the marked crosswalk.Marking pedestrian crosswalks at relatively low-speed, low-volume,unsignalized intersections was not found to have any measurable negative effect on pedestrian or motorist behavior at the selected sites (which were all two-or three-lane roads with speed limits of 56 or 64 kilometers per hour (km/h)or 35 or 40 miles per hour (mi/h)). In a comparison study to the one discussed above,Knoblauch and Raymond conducted a before-after evaluation of pedestrian crosswalk markings in Maryland,Virginia,and Arizona.(14)Six sites that had been recently resurfaced were selected.All sites were at uncontrolled intersections with a speed limit of 56 km/h (35 mi/h).The before data were collected after the centerline and edgeline delineations were installed but before the crosswalk was installed. The after data were collected after the crosswalk markings were installed.Speed data were collected under three conditions:no pedestrian present,pedestrian looking,and pedestrian not looking.All pedestrian conditions involved a staged pedestrian.The results indicate a slight reduction in vehicle speed at most,but not all,of the sites.Overall, there was a significant reduction in speed under both the no pedestrian and the pedestrian not looking conditions. (Note:This study and the 2001 behavioral study by Knoblauch et al.mentioned above were both conducted as part of the larger FHWA study conducted in conjunction with the current study described here.) These studies found pedestrian behavior to be,if anything,slightly better in the presence of marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks. Certainly the results showed no indication of an increase in reckless or incautious pedestrian behavior associated with marked crosswalks.All of the sites used in the Knoblauch studies were two-lane and three-lane roads,and all had speed limits of 56 or 64 km/h (35 or 40 mi/h).No formal behavioral studies were found which have studied pedestrian and motorist behaviors and conflicts on roads with four or more lanes with and without marked crosswalks.Such multilane situations may pose different types of risks for pedestrians,particularly where high traffic volume exists and/or where vehicle speeds are high. Finally,Van Houten studied factors that might cause motorists to yield for pedestrians in marked crosswalks.(15)He measured several behaviors at intersections in Dartmouth,Nova Scotia,where interventions were introduced sequentially to increase the "vividness"of crosswalks.Researchers added signs,then a stop line,and then amber lights activated by pedestrians and displayed to motorists.The percentage of vehicles stopping when they should increased by up to 50 percent.Conflicts dropped from 50 percent to about 10 percent at one intersection,and from 50 percent to about 25 percent at another.The number of motorists who yielded increased from about 25 percent to 40 percent at one intersection,and from about 35 percent to about 45 percent at another.(15) Behavioral Studies Related to Crosswalk Signs and Other Treatments The preceding discussion of the literature has dealt primarily with the safety and behavioral effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections.Of course,a wide variety of supplemental measures have been used with or without marked crosswalks at pedestrian crossing locations in the United States.Examples of these treatments include: ..Pedestrian warning signs on the approach and/or at the crossing. «I Advance stop lines with supplemental signs (e.g.,"Stop Here for Crosswalk"). f!Rumble strips on the approaches to the crosswalk. 6-51 CHAPTER 1.-Safety Effe"<-'"of Marked Versus Unmarked Crossw"-';;at Uncontrolled ...Page 8 of9 •Pedestrian crossing pavement stencils on the approach to the crosswalk. •In-pavement flashing lights (activated by push-button or by automatic pedestrian detectors). •Flashing beacons. •Variations of overhead pedestrian crosswalk signs.Such signs may be warning or regulatory and may be illuminated and/or convey a message when activated (examples of such signs are shown in figures 5-10). ..Crosswalk lighting. •Raised medians or refuge islands. •Flat-topped speed humps (sometimes called speed tables)where pedestrians may cross the street on the raised flat top. •Traffic-calming measures such as curb extensions and lane reductions. ..Various combinations of these and other measures. •Traffic signals (with pedestrian signals)are sometimes added at pedestrian crossings when warranted. Numerous research studies have been conducted in the United States and abroad in recent years to evaluate such treatments and/or to summarize research results.Some of these include: • A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and Abroad.(16) •Pedestrian Safety in Sweden (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/international.htm).(17) ..Research,Development,and Implementation of Pedestrian Safety Facilities in the United Kingdom (www.walkinginfo.orglrd/international.htm).(18) •Canadian Research on Pedestrian Safety (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/international/htm).(19) ..Pedestrian Safety in Australia (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/international.htm).(20) •Dutch Pedestrian Safety Research Review (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/inernational.htm).(21) In addition to these research summaries,several other documents,which describe a wide range of pedestrian and traffic calming measures,include: ..Pedestrian Facilities User Guide:Providing Safety and Mobility (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/international.htm).(22) ..Alternative Treatments for At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings (http://www.ite.org/bookstore/index.asp).(23) ..Traffic Calming:State of the Practice (http://www.ite.org/traffic/tcstate.htm#tcsop).(24) The study described in this report was primarily intended to compare the safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations.It did not focus on evaluating various signs,traffic calming,or other measures and devices.Instead,several companion studies were conducted as part of the larger FHWA effort,which presents evaluation results of innovative devices.These research reports may be found atwww.walkinginfo.org/rd/devices.htm. Figure 5.High visibility crossing with pedestrian Figure 6.Experimental pedestrian regulatory crossing signs in Kirkland,WA.sign in Tucson,AZ. 6-52 TO: FROM: BY: DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION Approve staff's recommendation to install a marked crosswalk and a pedestrian- actuated flashing beacon at the intersection of Whitley Collins Drive and Crest Road and forward to City Council for approval and authorization. BACKGROUND In November 2009,the City received a request from Mr.Chip Meyers requesting a stop sign at the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins Drive.Mr.Meyers met with staff and has sent several email correspondences indicating the reasons for the request.(See attached email correspondence). Subsequent to meeting with Mr.Meyers,the request was heard by the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC)on February 22,2010.At the conclusion of that meeting,the TSC voted to postpone any action regarding Mr.Meyer's request and asked staff to provide statistical data regarding the intersection of Whitley Collins Drive at Crest Road and prepare a report and recommendation for the following meeting. At the March 22,2010 meeting,staff presented a follow-up staff report that included traffic volume count information,accident history and crosswalk warrant analysis for the intersection of Whitley Collins and Crest Road.At that meeting,Deputy Knox presented the results of a crosswalk surveillance that he conducted March·5,2010 for about 90 minutes.As a result,6 citations were issued to motorists for failing to yield to a pedestrian and excessive speeding. Deputy Know concluded that the intersection of Whitley Collins and Crest Road is a legal crossing for pedestrians but that motorists need to be informed when pedestrians are present. Additionally,Mr.Meyers presented a petition containing over 60 signatures in support of a stop sign and crosswalk at the intersection of Whitley Collins Drive and Crest Road.The petition was not given to staff at the meeting but was emailed later that night.Additional email correspondence regarding the meeting was from Mr.Meyers to members of the City Council. Copies of the petition and email correspondence is included as an attachment to this staff report. 6-53 Whitley Collins at Crest Road Traffic Study June 28,2010 Page 2 The TSC at the March 22,2010 meeting,directed staff to initiate a traffic engineering study to determine if a stop sign or any other device is warranted and install pedestrian crossing signs at the intersection of Whitley Collins Drive and Crest Road. Pedestrian crossing signs were installed on April 22,2010. DISCUSSION As a result of the request,staff conducted multiple warrant analysis including stop sign warrants,crosswalk warrants and traffic signal warrants to determine the most appropriate controls for this location. Stop Sign Warrants The City's policy for installation of stop signs at a 4-legged intersection involving a major street and a minor intersecting street typically considers only a two-way stop.That is, stopping traffic only on the minor street approach.In the case of Whitley Collins at Crest Road,Whitley Collins is the minor street approach and Crest Road is the Major street approach. The request is for an All-way stop at the intersection,thus resulting in installation of stop signs on Crest Road.Per the City's policy, All-way stop control is most effective when applied to intersecting streets with close to equal traffic volumes.Special consideration should be given to locations that have significant unusual visibility or physical conditions.All-way stops should only be installed after all less restrictive methods of traffic control or modifications are deemed ineffective or unfeasible.All streets considered should have as close to equal traffic volumes as possible.Generallv.4-legged intersections should have no less than a 60140 split and 3-legged intersections no less than a 70130 split.An all-way stop should be considered when any of the following criteria are satisfied: 1.Where a traffic signal is justified and the need for traffic control at the intersection is urgent.all-way stop control can be used as an interim device while arrangements are being made to install a traffic signal. 2.Available sight distance is less than that dictated by the prevailing traffic speed (sight distance triangle)for pedestrians and vehicles crossing the higher volumes street 3.Five or more reported accidents of a type susceptible to correction by the installation of an all-way stop have occurred within a twelve-month period. Types of accidents susceptible to correction include broadside and left- turn collisions. 4.Volume Warrant -Local Streets a)Total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average 180 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day:and. 6-54 Whitley Collins at Crest Road Traffic Study June 28,2010 Page 3 b)The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the minor street for the same 8 hours must average at least 72 vehicles per hour. 5.Volume Warrant -Arterial Streets a)The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any eight hours of an average day;and. b)The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same eight hours with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the peak hour. c)When the 85th percentile approach speed of the major street exceeds 40 miles per hour.the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements. 6.Any unusual physical or geometric conditions that cannot be effectively addressed by less restrictive methods. An All-way stop control is not warranted at the intersection of Whitley Collins and Crest Road due to the following: •Traffic volume split is 2211/276 or 89:11.This ratio exceeds the recommended 60:40 split in traffic volumes. •A traffic signal is warranted,however not critical.See the traffic signal warrant section below. •Only three (3)reported collisions have occurred within the past 3 years. Crosswalk Warrants Crosswalks are warranted at this location. Staff is recommending installation of high-visibility crosswalks combined with pedestrian-activated flashing beacons and advanced pedestrian crossing signs. Traffic Signal Warrants A traffic signal warrant analysis was conducted at this location and of the eight warrants, two components were satisfied.The results are seen below: Warrant 1 -Eight Hour Vehicle Volume Warrant 2 -Four Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3 -Peak Hour Warrant 4 -Pedestrian Volume Warrant 5 -School Crossing Warrant 6 -Coordinated Signal System Warrant 7 -Crash Experience Warrant Not Warranted Not Warranted Warranted Not Warranted Not Warranted Warranted Not Warranted 6-55 Whitley Collins at Crest Road Traffic Study June 28,2010 Page 4 Warrant 8 -Roadway Network Not Warranted The two warrants that were satisfied confirm the observations that have been made at the subject intersection.During the peak hours,traffic exiting the minor roadway onto the major roadway can be difficult due to the high volume of traffic on the major arterial as well as the speeds (as indicated with Warrant 3).Additionally as seen with Warrant 6,because Whitley Collins is located between two major intersections,Crest at Highridge and Crest at Crenshaw,there are very few gap opportunities because the Crest at Crenshaw intersection is stop-controlled and there is a constant stream of traffic along Crest Road.If the intersection of Crest at Crenshaw were signalized,then gap opportunities could be created through signal coordination and timing. In conclusion,being sensitive to the current budget situation,staff is recommending installation of high-visibility crosswalks,flashing beacons and advanced pedestrian crossing signs as the recommended control for Whitley Collins at Crest Road. Attachments: Email Correspondence Stop Sign Policy Traffic Signal Warrants 6-56 Nicole Jules From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Mayor, LYNN SWANK [Iynn.swank@cox.net] Tuesday,March 23,2010 2:55 PM stevew@rpv.com nicolej@rpv.com;rayh@rpv.com;c1ehr@rpv.com;CMKnox@lasd.org;tom.long@rpv.com; douglas .stern@rpv.com;anthony.misetich@rpv.com;brian .cam pbell@rpv.com; chipmeyers 1967@yahoo.com Resident Letter Re:Whitley Collins/Crest Road At last evening's TSC meeting,one of the agenda items was a continued item from our February TSC Meeting.The Whitley Collins/Crest Road intersection was discussed at the February meeting and testimony was heard from two residents,Chip Meyers and Joe Locascio representing the Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners' Association.Emails were also received and presented in the agenda material. The TSC postponed action on the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins pending receipt of staff's report of statistical information and deferred this item to the March TSC Meeting. As requested the staff and Sheriff's Department undertook additional study and the Whitley Collins intersection was agendized for the March TSC Meeting.Staff and the Sheriff gave their report,Commissioners asked questions of staff and the public was then invited to give their comments.There were five speakers,including Mr.Meyers.He had letters and a petition with him which he did not distribute before,during or after the meeting,and the only public record of this material are the excerpts Mr.Meyers choose to read to the TSC.I requested that he give a copy of this correspondence to staff.Nothing was sent until I opened his email this morning containing the letters. The TSC took all of the information presented,including that which we received for the February meeting,and discussed all of the options available to us in accordance with the Traffic Procedures Manual.After reviewing the information based on these further studies,the TSC agreed with Staff's recommendation to initiate further studies and explore further options. To address the issue regarding pedestrians,the TSC requested staff to place pedestrian signs on Whitley Collins and Crest to caution motorists that the intersection was used by pedestrians.This action could be taken by Public Works without City Council approval and Staff agreed to do this immediately. Those residents with immediate concerns have two existing alternatives to use before a more permanent action,if appropriate,is taken.A traffic light exists at Highridge and there is a crosswalk at Crest.While using these options may require extra time,they are available immediately.Closing Whitley Collins to Crest is unjustified given these alternatives,and a stop sign is not considered a traffic calming solution for speeders. project priority and funding are issues that can only be addressed by the City Council. Currently there are three traffic related studies in progress and all were submitted prior to the Whitley Collins request.Without more funding for staff and their related recommendations for expenditures to address any traffic safety issues identified by the studies,the Council must decide the priorities and provide the appropriate funding. I hope I have provided you with a summary of this resident's concerns and TSC actions.We all agree that traffic safety is a priority and I believe that all actions taken thus far are appropriate and consistent with City guidelines and procedures. Please call Nicole Jules,Sr.Engineer or myself (310-377-1256)if you need more information. Lynn Swank Chair,TSC 1 6-57 From: Sent: To: Cc: Page 1 of2 Nicole Jules Chip Meyers [chipmeyers1967@yahoo.com] Monday,March 22,2010 10:13 PM Traffic@rpv.com Nicole Jules;Brian.Campbell@rpv.com;Knox,Christopher M;Douglas.Stern@rpv.com; Anthony.Misetich@rpv.com;tom .Iong@rpv.com;stevew@rpv.com Subject:Stop Sign/Crosswalk on Crest at Whitley Collins intersection action needed Attachments:Letters of Support,Resident Petition,2005 RPV study.pdf D 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 RoadlWhitley Collins Stop Sign Request. As pointed out at the Traffic Safety Commission this evening,a traffic study was already performed on this comer in 2005 by the same Public Works Department that the City Engineer at 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.Ifthe 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 6/24/2010 6-58 Page 2 of2 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 ofthe 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 y,;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,if money is the issue I 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 to taxpayers who have been clearly asking for resolution on this issue for many years. Regards, Chip Meyers 6/24/2010 6-59 HiUtop Nursery Schoof 5702 Crest Road Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 March 22,2010 To Whom It May Concern, My name;s Patricia Ravas~Tabares and'am the Administrative Director of Hilltop Nursery School.We are located on the corner of Whitley CoUins Dr.and Crest Rd. Our center serves children ages 2 to 6 years of age. Over the yearst many of the parents that are dropping off and picking up their children from our school have had dose caUs trying to turn at this intersection safely.During foggy mornings,this intersection is especially dangerous,not on'v to our families and chUdren but to the entire surrounding community. I feel that an easy and cost effective sofutlon to this problem would be to have a stop sign installed.This would stow traffic traveling both east and west of Crest Rd.and would also allow travelers to make left turns safefv- Co rdia fly, ~~~-~ Hilltop Nursery School 5702 Crest Rd. Rancho PaJos Verdes,Ca 90725 (310)377-9644 pravas@aof.com 6-60 27!!OO Long~iU Drive Rancho P~I(Js Vrlr(f~5 Cillifol~lia 90?7S';i9()9 (3H;o)3n.iH~54 (31 0)54~-O~11 0 FAX K~vi'l W.AII~r, Prill,.~ir.<ll lJor,1 M.~e 1,1 r-:1l)sa Pr~ol~~I" n('.1 ....ia l.r·~.1:bl,n \lire Pn:1slGcnt t::IC'l Pl:'rki~s CI,,'1( G",br,eEfl I,'tllt Mel:'lb"r B"ri)ar;;LLoCky' ~).l:'rnbc· Supr"i.-Ilf;!r!dcl't! (3'10)Mi!·0732 8!;~I"less so.··.'ices (.110)f!j1-1306 EdUc&llonrH Ser~'i.::or. t310j 7Ii1-?919 J-IWN111 Re,~0(/roo$ .~31G)7fjH94~ PLlp,'i St!rdco$ (310j J!3·1Ji7f I Soleado Elementary School I I MarcllI6,2010 I I. Dear Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes Tntffic Committee.• I am writing on behalf of the safety ofthe sludents and families in the Soleado I ElementarY school community.We arc advocating for the placcnleIlt of a stop sign on Crest Road at the intersection of Whitley 'CoUins Drive.This intersection poses a I great danger to podesttians alld motorists alike,Students cross Crest Road at I ,Wh.itley Collins walking hel ween their school and honle.In addition,whf;ln fog is pTesent,this intersection poses IUl even greater danger as it is nearly impo~sible to see oncoming tl'atlic when making a tum from Whitley Collins onto Crest Road.1ImyselfJlOvehad•near cnllision at this inteJ=~ion. In the intcresl of public safety and especially for the safel)'oftl1o children who live I',in the area,I lJI'ge you 10 consider this request and lake action.Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Kevin Allen Principal.So leado Elementary School 6-61 SAINT JOHN FiSHER PARISH "CELEBRATING L1 ..1::IN THE liGHT Of'CHRfST" .March 18,2010 Dear Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Committee, l am v..'rHing in supporl of the placement of a ;f.;IOp sign on Cl"est Road at the intersection or Whitley ColI ins Drive.Tn tile interest of public ~afety and especlally lor the safety of lilt:children who live ill the area,1 urge you to consider this T'l;quest and lake action. Sincercfy, .~L~.[:-t2L~ Gayle .Plccha P.tri.sh Admini~tratol'>St.John Fisher Churcb 5448 CREST ROAD -RANCHO PALOS VE:RDES,CALIFORNIA 90275-5027 "&'-PARISH OFFICE (31 0)377·5571 -FAX (31 0)377-6303 -E-MAIL:INFo@SJF .ORG ~ 6-62 Petrtion: We,the undersigoed,can on the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to jmmedlate~place a stop sign and crosswalk on Crest Road at the intersection of WhiiJey CoJllns to prevent injury/death rtom accidents, as well as to create a safe way far children and residents to cross thfs dal'lgerolJs intersection withOut harm from oncoming traffic. 50~Lf De.l.ocro;x Ko{.I t<.PV I .::nPs·Ht:JY17 6c..{)y,R-flV QJ;.!e!.~.~~il--N iJr I1l>PI ~~J,/'4/v'/J-k'/SJ Z·I<:)tj-H"N.:tC;F7~~...1?V;{A 9i:ll rtF ~\O'i01:J'r 1~'C1.vJ 7'r >' Eic'dZ.A·Y {)lll.lMi"'C·2fl1Z-,:>lJ.·tI~&c/r ;~f<l?('tiD f4tJckoe:1 ~"- 6-63 Petjti(Jn~ We,the undersigned,cellon the CitY of Rancho Palos Verdes M immediately place a step sign and crosswalk on Crest Road at tile intersection of Whitiey CoUins to prevent:injury/death from accidents, as well as to create a safe way for children and residents to cross this dangerous Intersectlon without harm from oncoming traffic. HOAIParent l.~"1+0Ar rr f4AW1 (;()i; DC~ Name ~~.,.lII:.::k.:L..I,lJZ"l.~~-..::.j-II:::....~~:.J::,;&..l....!::-1~~....pta...r..-&---:l~~-+-lVWvr t mlt-1-~~~.J..l~~c........--.-,;tk(l~.Jl.4J~UJL...~:....L~~!J!!J.~~-'~~:"":'--~~ No l!Pee ~,-C (',,"7 ;::>\~, .~. 6-64 Petition: We,the undersigned,call on the aty of Rancho Palos Verdes tD immediately place a stop sign and crosswalk on Crest Road at the inmrsection of Whitfey COllins to prevent injury/death from accidents, as weI!as to create a safe way for children and residents to cross this dangerfJUS intersection without harm from oncomIng traffic. Name Ack:lress HOAJParenl tV()L1.:'?ti.CAtJ J' .f 7 K:c ),Olf CM.r r t1:9l ttAA.J...({C1 t G:dH ({la ( I(~'I)'1J!r CM)1 fl.:,/)rr UVr )( eto ""'7 t-i ({,it)7f {;,tot Jr ~~~....,I;".;:~';':"':";::;";""_-J~~I....JU.=':'-L.-..J.c..s.=:.::..::...:::;:......,..,=--+~..=;,.-_---"f_cl...;;;;.z._"~7ilf.....~I1..l :!J,lC4)r' 9112 )S"'IlI·PJ.1{~~'i~...l;C,..,;;-..."~_:"...::.:...;.,,o...._--::;.~_~~:..u-.....=~:.:::.-..;.;..;.............._ f::t.u~5M~)7~oJ-~",If A ~fv VttU.N\Y'u.-h f)f/b7 e'~£k'H (3.,+,I f.fl~1 ~i::J ;:::~c~'!i~S '"t/i, ~o lb 6-65 \.:.:-,.-...i 12111D3 ".-&--_.'-j -.' ---- ."""...V.,,..Dr i 1IJ2:l,IJ~ Dr :12:lr06 , I IIlMbow III-A ~'SII» " I T)QJ;l=1C S.GNAL INtTAI.I.A.TIONPItIORIl'V US1 ~-L~:"\~~~.!~I=i-w~~r=.!.::___ --T"~.-=tP--=--~-~~!...to::~..-H24)~~~l s~,ai~21._.......- I a !l 0 G I 1(l .1l,1~~,B74:!{'It:\~?a •;1;;~ -.+-o-h--+-ot.10 I 11,770 , 1,40.-3f -..<J:l2 17~4 '411'4 ~!0 _.......l '.l I -"if~\'VJP'....p ~"l i:f:~• '6-~'"~J:~~.,>.~"~')t "P ot~X\..'J Attachment B 6 - 6 6 Nicole Jules From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Request for Stop Sign on Crest... Chip Meyers [chipmeyers1967@yahoo.com] Wednesday,March 24,20107:08 PM stevew@rpv.com LYNN SWANK;nicolej@rpv.com;rayh@rpv.com;clehr@rpv.com;CMKnox@lasd.org; tom .Iong@rpv.com;douglas .stern@rpv.com;anthony.misetich@rpv.com; brian.campbell@rpv.com Re:Resident Letter Re:Whitley Collins/Crest Road Request for Stop Sign on Crest Road at Whitley Collins Intersection.doc Mr.Mayor, Please see attached letter of response.Thank you. Chip Meyers On 3/23/2010 2:55 PM,LYNN SWANK wrote: >Hi Mayor, > >At last evening's TSC meeting,one of the agenda items was a continued >item from our February TSC Meeting.The whitley Collins/Crest Road >intersection was discussed at the February meeting and testimony was >heard from two residents,Chip Meyers and Joe Locascio representing the Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners' >Association.Emails were also received and presented in the agenda material. >The TSC postponed action on the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley >Collins pending receipt of staff's report of statistical information >and deferred this item to the March TSC Meeting. > >As requested the staff and Sheriff's Department undertook additional >study and the Whitley Collins intersection was agendized for the March >TSC Meeting.Staff and the Sheriff gave their report,Commissioners >asked questions of staff and the public was then invited to give their >comments.There were five speakers,including Mr.Meyers.He had >letters and a petition with him which he did not distribute before, >during or after the meeting,and the only public record of this >material are the excerpts Mr.Meyers choose to read to the TSC.I >requested that he give a copy of this correspondence to staff.Nothing was sent until I opened his email this morning containing the letters. > >The TSC took all of the information presented,including that which we >received for the February meeting,and discussed all of the options >available to us in accordance with the Traffic Procedures Manual. >After reviewing the information based on these further studies,the >TSC agreed with Staff's recommendation to initiate further studies and explore further options. > >To address the issue regarding pedestrians,the TSC requested staff to >place pedestrian signs on Whitley Collins and Crest to caution >motorists that the intersection was used by pedestrians.This action >could be taken by Public Works without City Council approval and Staff agreed to do this immediately. > >Those residents with immediate concerns have two existing alternatives >to use before a more permanent action,if appropriate,is taken.A >traffic light exists at Highridge and there is a crosswalk at Crest. >While using these options may require extra time,they are available 1 6-67 >immediately.Closing Whitley Collins to Crest is unjustified given >these alternatives,and a stop sign is not considered a traffic calming solution for speeders. > >Project priority and funding are issues that can only be addressed by >the City Council.Currently there are three traffic related studies >in progress and all were submitted prior to the Whitley Collins >request.Without more funding for staff and their related >recommendations for expenditures to address any traffic safety issues identified by the studies,the Council must decide the priorities and provide the appropriate funding. > >I hope I have provided you with a summary of this resident's concerns >and TSC actions.We all agree that traffic safety is a priority and I >believe that all actions taken thus far are appropriate and consistent >with City guidelines and procedures. > >Please call Nicole Jules,Sr.Engineer or myself (310-377-1256)if you >need more information. > >Lynn Swank >Chair,TSC > > 2 6-68 Chip Meyers 5687 Sunmist Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 March 24,2010 Mayor Stefan Wolowicz City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Re:Stop Sign Request on corner of Crest Road &Whitley Collins Dear Honorable Mayor, I am writing to you in response to Commissioner Lynn Swank's e-mail as I hope to enlist your and other council members'assistance in moving forward the placement of a stop sign/crosswalk at the corner of Crest Road and Whitley Collins.Unfortunately Ms.Swank and the other members of the TSC are ill informed ofthe situation because the Public Works Staff has not provided them with the proper knowledge and documentation to take the action that is required,which is a great disservice to the community and the residents of RPV. Let me point out that neither last month's minutes nor the staff recommendation report was available for viewing to the general public on the City's website prior to Monday's meeting.In fact,the staff recommendation report was not even made available to the general public at the meeting itself (although every other agenda item's information was placed on the table in the lobby for public viewing and review in case anyone would like to comment on them).As of today,neither the agenda for the February meeting nor the staff reports from the February or March meetings is posted on the City's website (there are also no 2010 minutes at all available for viewing).As for the letters of support from the principals of St.John Fisher,Hilltop Preschool,Vista Grande Elementary and Soleado Elementary, and the petition containing the signature of 60+area residents and parents,I read these items into the record and provided scanned copies to the entire Board at 10:00 p.m.this Monday evening,probably close to when the meeting had adjourned.In addition Principal Pat Corwin of Ridgecrest Middle School spoke during the meeting that he supports action at this intersection.These items and testimony were intended to demonstrate the wide support for a stop sign or other traffic control device on that corner since staff engineer,Nicole Jules,had said on more than one occasion that there was "no support for a stop sign"at this intersection,and most recently stated to a gentleman who's family experienced a traumatic incident at that intersection that there was "no appetite for a stop sign"{incidentally he spoke compelling in favor or a stop sign at the Monday meeting). Commissioner Swank indicates in her e-mail that the TSC reviewed all ofthe information received and discussed all of the options available and the TSC members agreed with Staff's 6-69 recommendation.However,when the agenda item was called,at least one or two of the commissioners asked Ms.Jules where the report was.After searching through her stack of papers for the meeting,she found the report lodged in between the pages of last month's minutes.The minutes from Monday's meeting should reflect this fact.How can the TSC vote on a staff recommendation when they have not had the proper time to review the report?I'm assuming that this does not follow the proper notice procedure required by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which I can only presume follows the same types of standard procedures (a la Robert's Rules of Order)that other governmental entities and Boards that have an obligation to the public must follow.I also question whether or not Staff gave the TSC historical information to review prior to Monday's meeting.The fact that there had been a 2005 engineering study completed at this intersection seemed to come as new information to most of the TSC members.One ofthe Commissioners even asked Ms.Jules if a study had indeed been done in 2005 after one of the public speakers had referenced it,indicating that he did not know anything about it. In addition,the TSC did not actually vote in favor of the recommendation that was stated on the written agenda for Monday's meeting.The Staff recommendation,according to the agenda,was to "review historical information and crosswalk warrants to consider initiating a traffic survey/'not to install pedestrian crossing signs.Yet,that was Ms.Jules recommendation verbally at the meeting and that is what the TSC voted to approve.Again,without actually seeing the staff recommendation report, it was difficult for me to understand how a review of historical information and crosswalk warrants to considering doing a traffic survey is the same thing as recommending the placement of pedestrian crossing signs.What happened to a discussion about a stop sign being placed at that corner?The agenda item properly reflects the subject matter of the request to the TSC ("Stop Sign Request -Corner of Crest @ Whitley Collins),however,the Staff's recommendation and vote on the matter does not. Since you have perhaps not been privy to all of the previous written and verbal communication with Ms.Jules and myself,or with the minutes from the February and March meetings,I will attempt to summarize the problems and concerns with this intersection and the reasons that a stop sign is justified at the corner of Crest Road and Whitley Collins: •The traffic safety issue at this intersection goes beyond the pedestrian issue and the fact that people are speeding down this stretch of road in excess of 15 mph over the speed limit.Ms.Jules continues to ignore this fact. ~Although a stop sign is not a traffic calming solution for speeders,high traffic speed is just one of the warrants that justify a stop sign or traffic light at this intersection per the City's Traffic Control Procedures since speeding motorists have difficulty judging gaps in traffic on high speed streets. @ The other warrants that are present,in addition to speed,were identified in the 2005 Staff report of this intersection and led to this intersection being prioritized for a traffic signal. 6-70 ~In 2005,the Staff Senior Engineer and the Public Works Department completed a comprehensive three phase engineering study of the conditions present at the corner of Crest Road and Whitley Collins.The Citywide Traffic Signal Priority Procedure and the Caltrans Traffic Signal Warrants found in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)were used and followed. ~Staff and the TSC concluded that a traffic signal at this intersection was justified in accordance with the Citywide Traffic Signal Installation Procedures.This Traffic Signal Priority list was submitted to the City Council and received on April 29,2006. ~The intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins was ranked in the top 3 intersections in this City in need of a traffic signal. @ Ms.Jules and her staff completed a new vehicle volume count last week which demonstrated that during the school peak hours of 7-9 a.m.and 2-4 p.m.,more than 3,500 vehicles pass through the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins.This figure is much higher than the vehicle volume count completed in 2005. C!l In light of budget issues to fund traffic signals,a multi-way stop sign is a more affordable traffic measure.I HAVE ALSO OFFERED TO FUND FULLY THE STOP SIGN AND CROSSWALK PERSONALLY IF NEED BE. e The Caltrans manual provides that where traffic signals are warranted and needed,a multi-way stop sign may be an interim measure while arrangements are being made for signal installation. @ These warrants include: o heavy traffic volume (testing two weeks ago indicated 3,500 cars going through this intersection during peak school hours,which is much higher than what was even recorded in 2005 and this heavy volume causes excessive delay or conflict for those trying to exit Whitley Collins or crossing Crest Road) o crash experience (there have been accidents on this corner in the past 3 years, most recently a vehicle did not slow down as it exited Crest Road on to Whitley Collins and ended up on the neighbor's lawn) o school crossing (preschool is adjacent to intersection and this intersection is located 5 blocks from Ridgecrest Intermediate School and is a designated school route to Ridgecrest for dozens of middle school students living south of Crest Road,for Ridgecrest carpool patterns,the PVPTA shuttle uses this intersection to bring students to Ridgecrest,and the nearest traffic signal on Crest Road is approximately 1/3 mile,in excess of the standard of 600 feet),and other special concerns such as the fact that there are currently no posted school zone or reduced speed signs at the entrance to Mesa Palos Verdes from Crest Road) o pedestrians experience excessive delay and danger in crossing Crest Road and the distance to the nearest traffic signal on Crest Road is approximately 1/3 mile,far in excess of the standard of 300 feet) o the location is along a well-traveled City Bikeway Path o Other special conditions - 6-71 ..school within 1,000 feet of the intersection (Hilltop preschool is located adjacent to the corner) "intersection is located in a high density residential area (there are more than 400 homes in Mesa Palos Verdes alone) "decreased visibility (fog,median landscaping and curve of the road limit visibility) "Restricted sight distance (has to be at least 450 feet according to the AASHTO and Ms.Jules at Monday's meeting indicated that there was not adequate sight distance at this corner). "The Pedestrian Study presented at Monday's meeting was flawed and the conclusion is unreasonable. o Ms.Swank and the rest of the TSC members are probably unaware that each of the alternate intersections suggested for crossing are located 1/4 mile (Crenshaw)to 1/3 mile (Highridge)from the Whitley Collins crossing.The City is asking those with disabilities that live in Mesa Palos Verdes to travel an extra 1/4 mile out of their way to access the PVPTA bus stop or the public access trails. o Residents testified that there is significant delay experienced for pedestrians to cross this intersection and Sheriff Knox's report validated this fact and the fact that cars are failing to yield or stop for pedestrians trying to cross. o Staff's "pedestrian study"presented on Monday evening covered only a 1 hour period in the morning and afternoon not during peak school hours.These 1 hour periods are not representative of what actually occurs at this intersection since most of the pedestrian student traffic occurs after school,not prior to school as more kids are in a hurry and get a ride to school in the morning.My kids (and our neighbor's kids)go by car to school in the morning but walk home from school in the afternoon). o I witnessed a group of 20 middle school students last Friday after school crossing at this very intersection and it resembled the video game "frogger"as they ran out into the Crest Road "highway." o Bicycle traffic was not included in this analysis even though the intersection is an official City Bikeway and middle school students ride their bikes to school through that intersection. The TSC's vote to approve the Staff's recommendation for pedestrian crossing signs ignored historical information and warrants analysis performed for the 2005 engineering study,the new, updated vehicle volume counts computed last week,Sheriff Knox's testimony at Monday's meeting,and was based on a quickly done and flawed pedestrian study. 6-72 I strongly urge you to consult with the City Attorney/Counsel on the liability that this inaction poses for the City especially in light that this has been documented as an issue for over 5 years.The fact that there is ample studies/documentation on this intersection,and that there has been no action,puts the City and the people involved in my opinion at risk for potential litigation for past and unfortunately future inevitable accidents.It should also be known that I requested from Ms.Jules about 6 months ago crossing guards for dangerous unattended crosswalks around Ridgecrest(Rolling Hills Estates already provides crossing guards at other crosswalks),and that Ms.Jules was unaware of any policy regarding crossing guards and said she would get back to me on it.It goes without saying that I have received no communication since and am still waiting for a response on that issue as well. I would like to meet with you personally to discuss all of the above so we can take the necessary action once and for all before something tragic happens.Please let me know your availability.In the meantime I would respectfully ask you to instruct Staff to immediately post on the City's website the minutes ofthe February and March meetings,as well as the staff recommendation report and Deputy Knox's Powerpoint presentation. Respectfully Submitted, Chip Meyers 6-73 Nicole Jules From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mr.Wolowicz, Chip Meyers [chipmeyers1967@yahoo.com] Friday,April 23,2010 10:52 AM Steve Wolowicz 'LYNN SWANK';nicolej@rpv.com;rayh@rpv.com;c1ehr@rpv.com Re:Resident Letter Re:Whitley Collins/Crest Road I wanted to follow up with on this as it has been a month. I have noticed at this intersection there was a pedestrian sign installed but that does not resolve any of the issues the residents,schools,and sheriff have clearly stated that exist in regards to this intersection.In the time and cost it took to install those signs we could have had a stop sign installed and all would be resolved. Please let me know an update on this situation,thanks. Regards, Chip Meyers On 3/25/2010 10:49 AM,Steve Wolowicz wrote: >Mr.Meyers, >Thank you for your letter regarding the intersection at Crest Road and Whitney Collins. Your comments along with memos from Ms.Swank and Ms.Jules are a good deal of information to digest.Concurrent with this email I am sending a request to obtain further comments from city staff.However,due to the volume of materials related to the next two council meetings (next Tuesday's meeting is regarding the Marymount expansion)I am not able to devote any substantial time on this topic for the next several weeks.I hope to follow-up with you and city staff shortly after that time.Please understand that no one member of the Council can direct action to be taken,only to inquire as to the elements of the respective issue.Further any substantive dialog or decisions will continue to be by staff and the TSC;this topic would find its way to the Council based on the results of their meetings and resulting community responses.During the interim period feel free to copy me on any further correspondence that you send to staff or the TSC. >Regards, >Steve Wolowicz > >Steve Wolowicz >Mayor >Rancho Palos Verdes >Phone 310-378-9911 >email --stevew@rpv.com > > > > > > 1 6-74 Nicole Jules From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Chip Meyers [chipmeyers1967@yahoo.com] Thursday,April 29,2010 1:01 PM Steve Wolowicz 'Nicole Jules';'Ray Holland';'Carolyn Lehr';'LYNN SWANK' Re:Resident Letter Re:Whitley Collins/Crest Road Thanks for the note.I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to me and certainly understand you have better things to do in overseeing all of RPV. The reason I contacted you is because based on what I and others have witnessed at TSC meetings the "staff'does not prepare the TSC sufficiently so they are unable to make qualified decisions.More importantly,the "staff"is unresponsive and does not do their homework.So if I can't contact my Mayor to ask for help in getting resolution to a situation that I guarantee if left in "staff"hands won't get resolved,then I need to figure out another plan of action. Yes,the response "staff"gave you is par for the course from "staff". That "Staff is proceeding in the direction of fully evaluating this location for proper control in conjunction with working with the neighboring HOA and Ridgecrest Intermediate School"is certainly not the response I welcome but it is not unexpected based on past behavior. Also,why wouldn't "staff"be working with me?I am only the person who collected 60+ signatures of residents that live in this area,that got signatures of support from St. John Fischer,the preschool at the corner,the Principal of Ridgecrest,who brought in a neighbor who's kids were nearly killed,etc .....Further,what is the specific date of when this evaluation will be complete,can't they even give a timeframe or is that too much work to ask from them?I am still waiting on that crossing guard information that "staff"had no idea about more than 6 months ago when first requested,so maybe this will just dangle in the wind like that request but I can't let it. Those "high visibility"pedestrian crossing signs have only added to the danger,not one car stopped for myself and my 3 sons as we stood there for approximately 20 minutes earlier this week and certainly nobody can see much of them when there is fog which is about 30%of the time.I believe if anything those signs will give some pedestrians a false sense of security that they can cross safely with cars at 60mph+barreling down this street which has turned into a freeway.This is not 1970 when the current empty nesters who might not want any action for unknown reasons moved into this city and when traffic and development were drastically much less. If anyone had read the email and documentation I sent and provided,one would see that the city has already studied this intersection and made recommendations long ago.But why do it again and waste my taxpayer money for more studies so this TSC can make recommendations on a problem that has plagued this intersection for years?Makes no sense Mr.Mayor. "staff"should be informed as well that the majority of residents in my area do not belong to this so called HOA that one man claims to represent,nor are supportive of this one man's claims that a stop sign is a bad idea and not needed without him giving any clarity or reason behind that statement.On the contrary;educators,residents,our own Sheriff department,have clearly articulated in writing why it it is absolutely needed to prevent needless injury and god forbid deaths at what the city clarified in a report already many years ago as #3 most problematic intersections that need action. So I guess I will keep fighting the good fight until this gets done and take it in a different direction.I wish you much success and hope that you and the city council take a hard look at how "staff"is representing/servicing your city to it's residents moving forward and make improvements to the process.Once again,thank you for your time and I will keep you updated on my progress on resolving this issue once and for all. Regards, Chip Meyers 1 6-75 On 4/24/2010 2:56 PM,Steve Wolowicz wrote: >Mr.Meyers, >Once again,thank you for your recent email.Staff has just replied >to my previous queries and recent follow-up request.I was told that >in addition to meeting with you last December that you attended the >TSC meetings in February and March TSC meetings.As you know during >that meeting on March 22nd The TSC concurred with the "Staff >recommendation to proceed with an engineering study to determine what >types of control,if any,are warranted at the intersection of Crest >and Whitley Collins,and in the meantime install pedestrian crossing >signals.n I've just been advised that "Staff is proceeding in the >direction of fully evaluating this location for proper control in >conjunction with working with the neighboring HOA and Ridgecrest >Intermediate School.n Further the Sheriff's department is conducting >operations to evaluate the effectiveness of the recently installed >high visibility pedestrian crossing signs.You will be able to express >your opinions and recommenda > >tions at the TSC meeting when Staff and the TSC react to the study and any resulting recommendations.While it may not be completely satisfactory I suggest that your comments will be more appropriately directed to the TSC and Staff until that time.Until this issue is actually before the Council I can only be a relay between your questions and Staff responses. >Regards, >Steve Wolowicz > >Steve Wolowicz >Mayor >Rancho Palos Verdes >Phone 310-378-9911 >email --stevew@rpv.com > >-----original Message----- >From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chipmeyers1967@yahoo.comJ >Sent:Friday,April 23,2010 10:52 AM >To:Steve Wolowicz >Cc:'LYNN SWANK';nicolej@rpv.com;rayh@rpv.com;clehr@rpv.com >Subject:Re:Resident Letter Re:Whitley Collins/Crest Road > >Mr.Wolowicz, > >I wanted to follow up with on this as it has been a month. > >I have noticed at this intersection there was a pedestrian sign >installed but that does not resolve any of the issues the residents, >schools,and sheriff have clearly stated that exist in regards to this >intersection.In the time and cost it took to install those signs we >could have had a stop sign installed and all would be resolved. > >Please let me know an update on this situation,thanks. > >Regards, > >Chip Meyers > >On 3/25/2010 10:49 AM,Steve Wolowicz wrote: > »Mr.Meyers, »Thank you for your letter regarding the intersection at Crest Road »and Whitney Collins.Your comments along with memos from MS.Swank »and Ms.Jules are a good deal of information to digest.Concurrent »with this email I am sending a request to obtain further comments »from city staff.However,due to the volume of materials related to »the next two council meetings (next Tuesday's meeting is regarding 2 6-76 »the Marymount expansion)I am not able to devote any substantial time »on this topic for the next several weeks.I hope to follow-up with »you and city staff shortly after that time.Please understand that no »one member of the Council can direct action to be taken,only to »inquire as to the elements of the respective issue.Further any »substantive dialog or decisions will continue to be by staff and the »TSC;this topic would find its way to the Council based on the »results of their meetings and resulting community responses.During »the interim period feel free to copy me on any furt » »her correspondence that you send to staff or the TSC. »Regards, »Steve Wolowicz » »Steve Wolowicz »Mayor »Rancho Palos Verdes »Phone 310-378-9911 »email --stevew@rpv.com » » » » » » » > > > > > > 3 6-77 Nicole Jules From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Folks, Carolyn Lehr [clehr@rpv.com] Wednesday,March 24,2010 1:05 PM 'Steve Wolowicz';'LYNN SWANK' 'Ray Holland';'Nicole Jules' RE:Resident Letter Re:Whitley Collins/Crest Road I just spoke to Nicole,who is out in the field on another matter,asked me to send a message along to you.She and Ray Holland are discussing the resident's letter for follow up action.Nicole will of course keep Chair Lynn Swank apprised. Thank you, Carolyn Lehr City Manager City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 clehr@rpv.com -(310)544-5202 This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination, distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. -----Original Message----- From:Steve Wolowicz [mailto:stevew@rpv.com] Sent:Wednesday,March 24,2010 10:45 AM To:'LYNN SWANK' Cc:'Ray Holland';'Nicole Jules'i clehr@rpv.com Subject:RE:Resident Letter Re:Whitley Collins/Crest Road Lynn, Thank you for your summary report;it is helpful in learning about the issue.From your comments it appears that this will be studied by staff and the TSC.Let us know if there will be a recommendation that will be sent from the TSC to the Council for further action. Steve Steve Wolowicz Mayor Rancho Palos Verdes Phone 310-378-9911 email --stevew@rpv.com -----Original Message----- From:LYNN SWANK [mailto:lynn.swank@cox.net] Sent:Tuesday,March 23,2010 2:55 PM To:stevew@rpv.com Cc:nicolej@rpv.com;rayh@rpv.comi clehr@rpv.comi CMKnox@lasd.org;tom.long@rpv.comi douglas.stern@rpv.comi anthony.misetich@rpv.comi brian.campbell@rpv.comi chipmeyers1967 @yahoo.com Subject:Resident Letter Re:whitley Collins/Crest Road Hi Mayor, 1 6-78 At last evening's TSC meeting,one of the agenda items was a continued item from our February TSC Meeting.The Whitley Collins/Crest Road intersection was discussed at the February meeting and testimony was heard from two residents,Chip Meyers and Joe Locascio representing the Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners' Association.Emails were also received and presented in the agenda material. The TSC postponed action on the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley Collins pending receipt of staff's report of statistical information and deferred this item to the March TSC Meeting. As requested the staff and Sheriff's Department undertook additional study and the Whitley Collins intersection was agendized for the March TSC Meeting. Staff and the Sheriff gave their report,Commissioners asked questions of staff and the public was then invited to give their comments.There were five speakers,including Mr.Meyers. He had letters and a petition with him which he did not distribute before,during or after the meeting,and the only public record of this material are the excerpts Mr.Meyers choose to read to the TSC.I requested that he give a copy of this correspondence to staff.Nothing was sent until I opened his email this morning containing the letters. The TSC took all of the information presented,including that which we received for the February meeting,and discussed all of the options available to us in accordance with the Traffic Procedures Manual.After reviewing the information based on these further studies,the TSC agreed with Staff's recommendation to initiate further studies and explore further options. To address the issue regarding pedestrians,the TSC requested staff to place pedestrian signs on Whitley Collins and Crest to caution motorists that the intersection was used by pedestrians.This action could be taken by Public Works without City Council approval and Staff agreed to do this immediately. Those residents with immediate concerns have two existing alternatives to use before a more permanent action,if appropriate,is taken.A traffic light exists at Highridge and there is a crosswalk at Crest.While using these options may require extra time,they are available immediately.Closing Whitley Collins to Crest is unjustified given these alternatives,and a stop sign is not considered a traffic calming solution for speeders. Project priority and funding are issues that can only be addressed by the City Council. Currently there are three traffic related studies in progress and all were submitted prior to the Whitley Collins request.Without more funding for staff and their related recommendations for expenditures to address any traffic safety issues identified by the studies,the Council must decide the priorities and provide the appropriate funding. I hope I have provided you with a summary of this resident's concerns and TSC actions.We all agree that traffic safety is a priority and I believe that all actions taken thus far are appropriate and consistent with City guidelines and procedures. Please call Nicole Jules,Sr.Engineer or myself (310-377-1256)if you need more information. Lynn Swank Chair,TSC 2 6-79 Nicole Jules From: Sent: To: Subject: Nicole, Brian Campbell [b.camp@cox.net] Monday,June 21,2010 1:41 PM 'Nicole Jules' FW:Stop Sign/Crosswalk on Crest at Whitley Collins intersection action needed This is from Chip.Do you know who is in charge of getting the web site up to date when meetings happen?If he is correct,we probably should be able to do it quicker. Thanks, Brian Brian Campbell Councilman City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-7400 office 310-702-8009 cell 888-855-9619 fax www.linkedin.com/in/brianthomascampbell www.palosverdes.com/rpv NOTICE:The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s)is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential and/or privileged.If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient,unauthorized use,disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited,and may be unlawful.If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail,and delete the original message and all copies from your system. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chipmeyers1967@yahoo.com] Sent:Monday,June 21,2010 10:42 AM To:Brian Campbell Subject:Re:Stop Sign/Crosswalk on Crest at Whitley Collins intersection action needed Hi Brian, Thanks for your that there is a new traffic study being completed at some point. One thing I would ask if you could help on is getting residents of this city updated materials online by the committees.In this day and age,city government not having timely information readily available at your fingertips shortly after it happens is unwarranted and just plain old typical government worker apathy. 1 6-80 *http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/traffic_committee/Minutes/index.cfm?sub=2010 is a good example of this by the "Staff"who runs the show over at the Traffic Committee. The last minutes up on this link are from February,surely there must be more minutes from the past 3 months meetings already approved that could be made available to the residents of RPV. *http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/traffic_committee/Agendas/index.cfm?sub=2010 has listed the most recent agenda as April's meeting.There are no agenda's for May up which took place a month ago,nor is there one for June's meeting yet which is a week away I believe.It would be helpful for the agenda's to be online prior to the meeting one would think,so the residents could be aware of what will be discussed and be prepared or choose to attend. *http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/traffic_committee/Follow_Up_Agendas/index.cf m this link has follow up agendas most recently from 2007.Possibly this is a non relevant link as surely if it was relevant there would be updates posted here over the past 3 years. Appreciate as always your help in making the RPV government a more efficient and productive body. Best, Chip 2 6-81 STATEMENT OF INTENT This policy is intended to establish a set of guidelines for the purpose of evaluating requests for stop signs in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.The policy is intended to supplement the Caltrans warrant system for the installation of stop signs by specifically addressing a variety of situations with straightforward criteria.The California Vehicle Code sections 21351,21354 and 21355 provide the authority for a local agency to place and maintain stop signs on local streets including designating any intersection under its jurisdiction as a stop intersection and to erect stop signs at one or more entrances.The policies presented are intended to reflect the needs of the local community for additional right-of-way assignment while retaining the integrity of the use of stop signs through their judicious use. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Stop signs are used to establish right-of-way at an intersection,reduce delays and decrease accidents.The installation of stop signs or other traffic control devices must be based upon a documented need for vehicle control. Documenting the need for stop sign installation should incorporate the warrants established by the State of California and the criteria set forth in this policy. Satisfaction of a warrant is not a guarantee that a stop sign is needed.Nor is the fact that a warrant is not satisfied an assurance that stop sign control would not be beneficial.With the warrants serving as the basis for evaluation,sound engineering judgment and all pertinent facts should be considered in decisions related to the installation of stop signs. When being considered,it should be noted that stop signs can create unnecessary vehicular stops,increased delay,and add to fuel consumption and air pollution if used improperly.The installation of stop signs can also increase undesirable noise in residential neighborhoods,create an illusion of safety and result in increased disregard for traffic controls. Additionally,stop signs are generally not considered effective speed control devices on local streets.Rather,stop signs are intended to assign right-of-way to traffic.This is a common misconception,as often people believe stop signs will help to control speeds. 1 6-82 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS In certain cases,conditions may exist which are not adequately addressed by the criteria presented hereafter.In these cases,special consideration should be given to the applicability of stop sign controls to the intersection.However,other, less restrictive measures should be considered before installing all-way stops. Examples of conditions warranting special consideration include: 1.Extreme pedestrian visibility problems. 2.In new developments where a traffic signal installation may be under consideration but not yet approved. 3.A street that is in proximity to a school,fire department,church,park or any area of high public use. 4.Steep curves or inclines that could be considered an additional restriction to visibility 5.Other considerations as may be deemed appropriate by engineering or technical studies. CRITERIA The following presents the definition of terms and guidelines for the evaluation of locations within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes for stop sign control.As appropriate,separate criteria are presented to address residential neighborhood and local street situations versus locations along arterial roadways. Typical Locations 3-Legged or lET"Intersection -An intersection typically comprised of one through street and a terminating street.Often the terminating street is referred to as "the stem of the T".In this case,typically only one-way stops (stopping traffic approaching on the terminating street)and all-way stops are considered. 4-Legged Intersection (Arterial Street/Local Street)-An intersection generally comprised of a major through street (typically a collector arterial or higher arterial)and a minor intersecting street.In this case,typically only two- way stops (stopping traffic on the minor street approaches)are considered. 4-Legged Intersection (Local Street/Local Street)-An intersection generally comprised of two minor streets with neither street necessarily considered a through street.In this case,typically either two-way or all-way stops are often considered. Intersections With More Than 4 legs -A special case location that generally has more than two streets intersecting at the same point.This type of 2 6-83 intersection often requires unique analysis to evaluate the conditions and provide appropriate recommendations.Specific criteria for this situation are not included in this policy in recognition of the special circumstances. General Criteria Two different terms are used to describe roadways in the context of these gUidelines.The following definitions apply: Local Street -This term refers to a roadway that carries relatively low volumes of traffic and is not considered an arterial street.This classification includes those streets that meet strict residential street definitions (per the California Vehicle Code)and streets that do not meet this strict definition but are not included in the City's arterial street system. Arterial Street -Refers to the functional classification of the roadway based on the General Plan designation of the roadway.All of the following roadways are considered to be arterials in increasing functional order:collector arterial,minor arterial,major arterial and principal arterial. One-way Stop Control (T-Intersectionsl If anyone of the following criteria is satisfied,a one-way stop should be considered: 1a)(Local/Local)On the terminating street at its intersection with a through street where application of the normal right-of-way rule is unduly hazardous as evidenced by accidents susceptible to correction with stop signs. 1b)(Arterial/Local)On the minor street at its intersection with a through arterial. 2.On a city street at its intersection with a state highway (State responsibility). 3.On a street where the safe approach speed to the intersection is less than 10 miles per hour. Two-way Stop Control (4 or More Legged Intersections) If anyone of the following criteria is satisfied,two-way stop control should be considered: 1.When available sight distance is less than that dictated by the prevailing traffic speeds (sight distance triangle). 2.Three or more accidents of a type susceptible to correction by a two-way stop sign installation within a twelve-month period. 3 6-84 3.The total peak hour intersection volumes exceeds 100 vehicles All-way Stop Control (3 or More Legged Intersections>. All-way stop control is most effective when applied to intersecting streets with close to equal traffic volumes.Special consideration should be given to locations that have significant unusual visibility or physical conditions.All-way stops should only be installed after all less restrictive methods of traffic control or modifications are deemed ineffective or unfeasible.All streets considered should have as close to equal traffic volumes as possible.Generally,4-legged intersections should have no less than a 60/40 split and 3-legged intersections no less than a 70/30 split.An all-way stop should be considered when any of the following criteria are satisfied: 1.Where a traffic signal is justified and the need for traffic control at the intersection is urgent,all-way stop control can be used as an interim device while arrangements are being made to install a traffic signal. 2.Available sight distance is less than that dictated by the prevailing traffic speed (sight distance triangle)for pedestrians and vehicles crossing the higher volumes street 3.Five or more reported accidents of a type susceptible to correction by the installation of an all-way stop have occurred within a twelve- month period.Types of accidents susceptible to correction include broadside and left-turn collisions. 4.Volume Warrant -Local Streets a)Total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average 180 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day:and, b)The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the minor street for the same 8 hours must average at least 72 vehicles per hour. 5.Volume Warrant -Arterial Streets a)The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any eight hours of an average day;and, b)The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same eight hours with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the peak hour. 4 6-85 c)When the 85 th percentile approach speed of the major street exceeds 40 miles per hour,the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements. 6.Any unusual physical or geometric conditions that cannot be effectively addressed by less restrictive methods. 5 6-86 California MUTCD (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 including Revisions 1 and 2,as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-1.Warrant 2,Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Page4C-9 J: 0-500>, J: () 1-«400 w O w CC CCO- 1-0-300(1)« CC W 0:2 200z:::::>_-4 :2~'115, CC 100W 'SO J: C) J: 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note:115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-2.Warrant 2,Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70%Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE ~64 kmlh OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)I -L-=::r=:==;:;=~'BO-,'60 J:400 0-> I J: ~300 1-0wce WOoceo.~«200 ce W 0 2 ~3 2~100 d::. W J: CJ I 200 300 400 500 600 700 BOO 900 1000 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note:80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Chapter 4C -Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals January 21,2010 6-87 California MUTCD (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 including Revisions I and 2,as amended for use in California) Page 4C-IO Figure 4C-3,Warrant 3,Peak Hour :r:600 0->.500::r: (.) 1-«wO 400wO: 0:0- 1-0-(/)«300o:W 0:2z::::>200--' :2g d::100w:r: (!) :E ~r--.....~ "'~"'"2 OR MORI LAN,S &2,OR M10RE lANES......../ ............................. '" .........">i(2 OR MORE LiNES i 1 LINE.................r---........-<............t:>/1 LANE &1 LANEr--..-~............-..........k .............r--.-:--r--.'150 '100 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note:150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4,Warrant 3,Peak Hour (70%Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE +&G4 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)I I -+-~-+----2 OR MORE LANES &2 OR MORE LANES I I I I 2 OR MORE LANES &1 LANE """"'='f----~___olo""--I---r----i---+----1 1 Lf.NE &1 LANE "'if- 100 ~_.__.~.._--._-_.•_-'100 '75 __...__.J __ 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 ::r: 0->. ::r:400(.) tu~~[300t;~ a:W ~~200 :2~ d: W::r: (!) I MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note:100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Chapter 4C -Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals January 21,2010 6-88 California MUTCD (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 including Revisions 1 and 2,as amended for use in California) Page 4C-ll mph mph RURAL(R) URBAN (U) '7 Figure 4C~101 (CA).Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 1 of 4) COUNTDATE B~I_11~(j~Q~___ CALC DATE _ DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE _ Major SI:CJZe..S,\~Op..b Critical Approach Speed "\S Minor SI:W\A (1'le\f Lou..,tV ~Critical Approach Speed .as: Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic>64 km/h (40 mph)~}or In built up area of isolated community of <10,000 population 0o our o NO 0 100%SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0 oMINIMUMREQUIREMENTS80%SATISFIED YES 0 NO (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R APPROACH 1 2 or More IIIIIII HLANES Both Approaches 500 350 600 420 Maior Street (400)(280) (480) (336) Highest Approach 150 105 200 140 Minor Street (120)(84)(160)(112) WARRANT 1 -Eight Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED YES (Condition A or Condition B or combination of A and B must be satisfied) Condition A -Minimum Vehicle Volume "'(A our 100%SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0 oMINIMUMREQUIREMENTS80%SATISFIED YES 0 NO (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R APPROACH 1 2 or More IIIIIII HLANES Both Approaches 750 525 900 630 Major Street (600) (420)(720) (504) Highest Approach 75 53 100 70 Minor Street (60)(42)(80)(56) ~Condition B -Interruption of Continuous Traffic Combination of Conditions A & B SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0 REQUIREMENT CONDITION V FULFILLED TWO CONDITIONS A.MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 80%AND,Ves 0 No 0 B.INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC Atm.AN ADEQUATE TRIAL OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD Ves 0 No 0CAUSELESSDELAYANDINCONVENIENCETOTRAFFICHASFAILED TO SOLVE THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Chapter 4C -Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals January 21,2010 6-89 California MUTCD (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 including Revisions I and 2,as amended fOfuse in California) Page 4C-12 Figure 4Cw101 (CA).Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 2 of 4) our SATISFIED*YES 0 NO 0 tJ/ARecordhourlyvehicularvolumesforanyfourhoursofanaverageday. 2 or 1//HAPPROACHLANESOneMore Both Approaches -Major Street Higher Approach -Minor Street 'AII plotted points fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1.(URBAN AREAS)Yes 0 No 0 Qa.All plotted points fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-2.(RURAL AREAS)Yes 0 No 0 WARRANT 2 M Four Hour Vehicular Volume WARRANT 3 M Peak Hour (Part A or Part B must be satisfied) PART A (All parts 1,2,and 3 below must be satisfied for the same one hour,for any four consecutive 15 M minute periods) SATISFIED YES Gr'No 0 SATISfiED YES 0 NO lit"'" 1.The total delay experienced by traffic on one minor street approach (one direction only)~ controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane Yes 0 No I:!r approach.or five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach:AND 2.The volume on the same minor street approach (one direction only)equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes;AND Yes 0 .. No G?" 3.The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. Yes ~No 0 PARTS SATISFIED YES ~NO 0 2 or .(a'H APPROACH LANES One More ",. Both Approaches -Major Street 2-&'2." Higher Approach -Minor Street L 1'51.1 our The plotted point falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3.(URBAN AREAS)Yes 0 No 0 00.The plotted point falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-4.(RURAL AREAS)Yes ~No 0 The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Chapter 4C -Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals January 21,2010 6-90 California MUTCD (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 including Revisions 1 and 2,as amended for use in California) Page 4C-13 Figure 4Cs101 (CA).Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 3 of 4) WARRANT 4 -Pedestrian Volume (Parts A and B Must Be Satisfied) SATISFIED YES 0 NO ~ 1. 2. Part A (Parts 1 or 2 must be satisfie~tfy /SATISFIED YES 0 NO rn--Hours --.> Pedestrian Volume Any hour.:::190 Yes 0 No,5'.;20 OR any 4 hours.:::100 Yes 0 No lid- Adequate Crossing Gaps '0 ~"1 AND <60 gaps/hr Yes 0 No 0 Pedestrian Volume Any hour.:::95 Yes 0 No IiY'" .QB Any 4 hours.:::50 Yes 0 No r;;...... A!llQ ped crossing speed <1.2rn1s (4 f1Jsec)Yes 0 No ....- 8.MQ <60 gaps/hr Yes 0 No :i ...... Part B SATISFIED YES ~O 0 AND,The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater Yes """""No 0 than 90 m (300 ft)W' ,QB.The proposed traffic signal will not restrict progressive traffic flow along the major street.Yes [Jf'No I YES ~O 0 YES ~NO SATISFIED YES 0 NO GY' SATISFIED YES 0 NO ~ ur ps <Minutes 8NQ Children>20/hr ap/Minutes and #of Children .,..f>. Ho Gaps Minutes Children Using Crossing 'UJvs1'1"Minutes Number of Adequate Gaps Ga School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street I hr \0_ WARRANT 5 -School Crossing (Parts A and B Must Be Satisfied) Part A G AND.Consideration has been given to less restrictive remedial measures.Yes 0 No [B""'" Part B SATISFIED YES [!('"NO 0 The distance to the neare,t traffic signal along t~e major street is greater than 90 m (300 ft)\t)CO "'0 (Al..rA~lr..~£.~'~W~~("'&''\J'Yes [if'"No 0 ,QB.The proposed signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.\J Yes Gr"No 0 The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Chapter 4C -Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals January 21,2010 6-91 California MUTCD (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 including Revisions 1 and 2,as amended for use in California) Page 4C-14 WARRANT 6 •Coordinated Signal System (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) Figure 4Cu 101 (CA).Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 4 of 4) SATISFIED YES ~0 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL ~300 m (1000 ft)N~ft,slHiLtt.E~ft,W ~06.ft Yes~oD On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction,the adjacent traffic control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning.Yes~D----------------------------------.Q.B.On a two-way street.adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation. WARRANT 7 •Crash Experience Warrant (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) SATISFIED YE.S 0 NO ~ Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to YesD No!]' .. reduce the crash frequency. REQUIREMENTS Number of crashes reported within a 12 month period Yes 0 No I:i}-susceptible to correction by a traffic signal.and involving injury or damage exceeding the requirements for a reportable crash.-------------------------------------------------50R MORE REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONS V Warrant 1,Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume ONE CONDITION QR.Warrant 1,Condition 8-YesO NoGr"-SATISFIED 80%Interruption of Continuous Traffic QR.Warrant 4,Pedestrian Volume Condition Ped Vol ~152 for any hour 00.Ped Vol ~80 for any 4 hours WARRANT 8 •Roadway Network (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) SATISFIED YES 0 NO IiY"'" MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES -ALL APPROACHES .;FULFILLEDREQUIREMENTS During Typical Weekday Peak Hour 24'e1 __Veh/Hr and has 5-year projected traffic volumes that meet one or more Yes~1000 Veh/Hr of Warrants 1.2,and 3 during an average weekday. ~-----------------------1--1 OR During Each of Any 5 Hrs.of a Sat.or Sun ___Veh/Hr CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR MAJOR ROUTE A ROUTEB Hwy.System Serving as Principal Network for Through Traffic ~-------------------------------- Rural or ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~&~~~~~~~~--------- Appears as Major Route on an Official Plan ;". Any Major Route Characteristics Met,80th Streets YesO No~ The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Chapter 4C -Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals January 21.2010 6-92 California MUTCD (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 including Revisions 1 and 2,as amended for use in California) Figure 4Ce 102 rCA).Traffic Count Worksheet Page 4C-15 Number of Lanes 2- Pedestrians Total"I Peak ®2..5'I \!fD-.0 ;1:~]j U\Not to Scale~...g --.>t:-Insert North Point ~.:!I ~t1::a:N --:r tr -Co.--.>t:-(tl .Sl;8:7 --0 ~::a:en ..--«.......- I ,I A AM Peak PM Peak Total' /I \\"-I ISO 11 0 2.12.$:2.1.::t:.~..../t ........::t:.U'Cll Cll ~~OJ r----12.11 14~~1"115"I cf '::J"0-\I)l/)A l/)c:AM Peak PM Peak Total'c:Cll /~-I (;"1"7 I \2-I Cll l/)';::I10to I to I \lM 1-"'-E l/) OJ 1i)r---~--OJc:OJ {(tf3~)(~~("1~)c: Cll '0 I~9 Il\'~I\\1:)\1---"C j~OJ a> <4-0-•rJ a..•'00'$'$L-~I 1...I ~I·s 1-"r L-a>~t ~OJJ:J ....,/...I:;:J:JE'*'"\\I E :::l -(iQ'1)(*'t~S )(\132.)...I :::lZIIIz-. f'"]j an ~~DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT~---.......-Dist.L Co lA Rle __PM __.>t:-(tl 0 C.tl.e;:;T ~w~"'rlL~~8:.,..~~::a:-Co.r---.......-Intersection Give Name .>t:-~4n~O ~o.l,,~O~dA.s(tl "Entire Count Period 8:-a ~f'-::a:City«-~(l1lloPedestrians\Mgt:> Day DateTotal"I Peak\'I \0 ]d1Y\qt\m l-In.llr to ~ourNumberofLanes\2.PiV\~W'\ Total Volume AM peak---:-l~_l S-'---'~B:=-.!:....:.~_.,....,.....:-l~"'-i1"--'lfL- Hour Volume PM Peak 1.:&0 ..~:SO 1I1~ Hour Volume Chapter 4C -Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies January 21,20 I0 Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals 6-93 California MUTCD (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 including Revisions 1 and 2,as amended for use in California) Page 4C-16 Figure 4CA 103 (CA).Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Average Traffic Estimate Form) mph mph RURAL(R) URBAN (U) 1 COUNT DATE _---I.<!3:...J.(--'t1;...:':.;..10=-_ CALC DATE _ DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE _ Major St:e...a..esr !Z\")Critical Approach Speed yS- Minor St:W'I\."1l..E.-'1 CollA.N S Critical Approach Speed '2$"" Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic>64 km/h (40 mph)[}or In built up area of isolated community of <10,000 population 0o (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic -See Note) URBAN .............................RURAl............................Minimum Requirements EADT CONDITION A -Minimum Vehicular Volume ~JA Vehicles Per Day Vehicles Per Day Satisfied Not Satisfied on Major Street on Higher-Volume Minor Street Approach(Total of Both Approaches)(One Direction Only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Urban Rural Urban RuralMajorStreetMinorStreet 1.....................................1.....................................8,000 5.600 2,400 1,680 ?nr Mnr"....1......9,600 6,720 2,400 1,680 \2.or More .......................T2 nr More ......................~9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 .....................................2 or More ........................8,000 5.600 3,200 2,240 CONDITION B •Interruption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles Per Day l>J(A Vehicles Per Day on Higher-Volume Satisfied Not Satisfied on Major Street Minor Street Approach(Total of Both Approaches)(One Direction Only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Urban Rural Urban RuralMajorStreetMinorStreet 1.....................................1.....................................12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 or More.......................1.........................................14,400 10,080 1,200 850 2 or More ........................2 or More ........................14,400 10,080 1,600 1.120 1.....................................2 or More ........................12.000 8,400 1,600 1,120 Combination of CONDiTIONS A +B Satisfied Not Satisfied 2 CONDITIONS 2 CONDITIONS 80%80% No one condition satisfied,but following conditions fulfilled 80%or more ........... A B Note:To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where it Is not reasonable to count actual traffic volumes. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Chapter 4C -Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals January 21,2010 6-94 California MUTCD (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 including Revisions I and 2,as amended for use in California) Table 4C-1.Warrant 1,Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Page 4C-17 Condition A-Minimum Vehicular Volume Vehicles per hour on higher-volume Number of lanes for Vehicles per hour on major street minor-street approach moving traffic on each approach (total of both approaches)(one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100%"80%"70%:56%<1 100%"80%1'70%'56%'1---------------- 1.................1.................500 400 350 280 150 120 105 84 2Qr more ...1.................~480 420 336 150 120 105 c:ifu(20rmore ...2 or more ....;)480 420 336 200 160 140 112 1.................2 or more ....500 400 350 280 200 160 140 112 Condition B-Interruption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles per hour on higher-volume Number of lanes for Vehicles per hour on major street minor-street approach moving traffic on each approach (total of both approaches)(one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100%"80%1,70%'56%"100%"80%h 70%<56%"---------------- 1.................1.................750 600 525 420 75 60 53 42 2 or more ...1.................900 720 630 504 75 60 53 42 (2 or more ...2 or m ~720 630 504 ~80 70 56 I .................~or more ....600 525 420 1 80 70 56 "Basic minimum hourly volume. t Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures. .May be used when the major-street speed exceeds ~64 kmlh or exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a I population of less than 10,000. <J May be used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the major· street speed exceeds ~64 kmlh or exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000. (This space left intentionally blank) Chapter 4C -Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals January 21,2010 6-95 PEDESTRIAN -BICYCLIST COUNT RESULTS CLIENT: PROJECT: DATE: PERIOD: INTERSECTION N/S EIW FILE NUMBER: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITYWIDE WEDNESDAY,MARCH 17,2010 07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE CREST ROAD 1-PED/BIKE-AM 15-MIN PERIOD 0700-0715 0715-0730 0730-0745 0745-0800 0800-0815 0815-0830 0830-0845 0845-0900 PEDESTRIANS NORTH 1::1'\;::11 I ",vv VVl::.~I A I B Ie·.D o 0 2 1 \ 1 0 4 0 ~ 1 0 3 0 ~ o 0 2 1 S o 0 3 1 'f 3 0 2 0 t' o 0 7 O? 1 0 3 0 ~ BICYCLISTS EAST l;:>u\Jrn WEST <A ....·...1»E,l .••••C D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 PEDESTRIANS 1-HOUR PERIOD 0700-0800 0715-0815 0730-0830 0745-0845 0800-0900 NORTH A 2 2 4 3 4 o o o o o .............···~D~" C 11 2 12 2 10 2 14 2 15 1 BICYCLISTS A> '"'~v, C '....'" 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 1 1 0 2 1 THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA,CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 PHONE 626.446.2877 FAX 6-96 PEDESTRIAN -BICYCLIST COUNT RESULTS CLIENT: PROJECT: DATE: PERIOD: INTERSECTION FILE NUMBER: CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITYWIDE WEDNESDAY,MARCH 17,2010 02:00 PM TO 04:00 PM N/S WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE EIW CREST ROAD 1-PED/BIKE-MD PEDESTRIANS 15"MtN NORTH .........,.,. 1;1"\'>1 -"'....'...- PERIOO A 1<<lik·.·.·•••···0 I) 0200-0215 1 0 0 0 0215-0230 1 0 0 0 0230..0245 0 0 0 0 0245-0300 0 0 0 0 0300-0315 0 0 0 0 0315-0330 0 0 0 0 0330-0345 0 0 1 0 0345-0400 0 0 2 0 PEDESTRIANS 1"HOI:JR ............ .~ PeRIOD A lEI C .•••··.0< 0200-0300 2 0 0 0 0215-0315 1 0 0 0 0230-0330 0 0 0 0 0245-0345 0 0 1 0 0300-0400 0 0 3 0 THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA,CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 PHONE 626.446.2877 FAX BICYCLISTS NORTH EAST 1.C!l'\IITI.I WEST A <s e •••• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 BICYCLISTS .......-'8"e} weST Aii D 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 6-97 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PROJECT:CITYWIDE DATE:WEDNESDAY,MARCH 17,2010 PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE EIW CREST ROAD FILE NUMBER:1-AM 15 MINUTE TOTALS 700-715 0 0 14 10 37 2 2 0 0 0 79 2 715-730 4 0 18 35 47 0 3 0 0 1 127 14 730-745 12 1 30 86 68 0 0 0 1 1 259 83 745-800 14 0 27 19 97 3 2 0 0 0 183 7 800-815 4 0 26 10 67 2 1 0 0 0 120 2 815-830 3 0 20 8 68 0 0 0 1 0 138 2 830-845 5 0 27 9 78 0 2 1 3 0 137 3 845-900 3 0 20 7 79 0 0 0 3 1 137 2 1 HOUR TOTALS 700-800 30 1 89 150 249 5 7 0 1 2 648 106 1288 715-815 34 1 101 150 279 5 6 0 1 2 689 106 1374 730-830 33 1 103 123 300 5 3 0 2 1 700 94 1365 745-845 26 0 100 46 310 5 5 1 4 0 578 14 1089 800-900 15 0 93 34 292 2 3 1 7 1 532 9 989 A.M.PEAK HOUR 34 1 101 0715-0815 ~1 L 106 t \'"t 150 689 --,Q1 ~~~..279 ~rZ3t CREST ROAD 2 5 ~1 ~ I i r 0 6 WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA,CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 6-98 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES PROJECT:CITYWIDE DATE:WEDNESDAY,MARCH 17,2010 PERIOD:02:00 PM TO 04:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE EIW CREST ROAD FILE NUMBER:1-PM 15 MINUTE TOTALS 200-215 1 0 11 18 75 0 2 0 1 0 70 2 215-230 2 0 10 34 73 1 2 1 1 0 76 6 230-245 16 3 22 32 79 3 1 2 1 1 90 10 245-300 5 1 31 26 104 1 2 1 0 1 128 5 300-315 2 0 20 32 139 3 0 0 1 0 112 4 315-330 3 0 20 12 114 0 0 0 2 1 82 1 330-345 3 0 11 17 106 2 2 0 0 1 77 1 345-400 3 0 18 19 98 0 1 0 1 1 86 1 1 HOUR TOTALS 200-300 24 4 74 110 331 5 7 4 3 2 364 23 951 215-315 25 4 83 124 395 8 5 4 3 2 406 25 1084 230-330 26 4 93 102 436 7 3 3 4 3 412 20 1113 245-345 13 1 82 87 463 6 4 1 3 3 399 11 1073 300-400 11 0 69 80 457 5 3 0 4 3 357 7 996 M.D.PEAK HOUR 26 4 93 0230-0330 .J 1 L 20 t t 102 , 1q(412 ~"\~~..436 CREST ROAD 3 7 t ~ I i r 4 3 3 WHITLEY COLLINS DRIVE THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA,CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 6-99 According to the American Automobile Association more children die in the United States as a result of motor vehicle incidents than from disease. Twenty five percent of these deaths were young pedestrians under 10 years of age.The city of Rancho Palos Verdes offers a few recommendations to help parents get their children to school safely. A IlpIDlIIIpIIIiIle tolMm ......-4lrilIePJleJd..AJlClrIIIIolft-"~ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Contact the City of Rancho Palos Verdes: Public Works Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca 90275 (310)891-3206 To request traffic enforcement call the Lomita Sheriff at (310)891- 3206 ;0 I:\) ~(") :::r ;:::+:°'<'1J w a~o ."0eo ,AJcn.j:>.'1J1:\)<oc~ CDIO"::T 3.1:\)=0CD~n'1J Sf'::T ~~ .....000~3~cn CDcn<8OJo~I\.)-CDa. -....1<-0 CDC1I?-:-cn '1J I°'1JCDcn-_I:\) CD I:\)ncoCD CD ~"thekeyto~·~safe City of Rancho Palos Verdes 6 - 1 0 0 Tips for Biking Bicycles are considered vehicles and as such are expected to know and obey the rules of the road. )0>Ride in the same direction as the other traffic. )o>Wear a helmet. )0>Stop,Look and listen before crossing the street. )O>Ride in designated bike lanes or on side walks when possible. .-,:.-.~".;,,,;.-...~•..,-.~;.:....,..--.--.--.,~;~~••,y"",..".'".'• •.....",.("".\,.\.4""."",,""".....L"".""."........ Setting A Good Example As a parent,it is important for you to set a good example for children.Children learn by watching and imitating.Your actions as a pedestrian, bicyclist and driver speak louder than your words of caution. Crosswalks We receive many requests to install crosswalks around schools.Unfortunately,we have not necessarily found that crosswalks improve pedestrian safety.Many pedestrians gain a false sense of security when crossing at a marked crosswalk and do not always use caution wisely.As a result marked crosswalks are rarely installed in mid-block locations or uncontrolled intersections. '4§,;",'-.~"-"'--~"-.(.,..~.V;;;;:=.Y.""--...".,,,.•••~•.•_'5<-~•••.•,...••...•••,••.-,""."-'"".•~.•~ Community Participation There are usually several options available to improve traffic and pedestrian safety concerns. The best solutions come from a partnership among school officials,law enforcement,traffic engineers,local government and the community. Their cooperation and expertise and your involvement will help provide a safer school environment. ~.• •.<..,t"'., ..%.~,~ ~.~.'2't'~.•"f'~_.~i:~~,,;~ft~' Tips for Walking )0>Teach and practice safe walking habits. )o>Designate the safest walking routes. )O>Point out possible traffic hazards. )0>Use side walks when possible. )o>Always walk facing traffic if a sidewalk is not available. )o>Use crosswalks to cross the street. )0>Look both ways before crossing the street. )o>Chiidren under the age of 10 do not usually have the skills to walk alone in traffic areas. •.""',,,,".)c..• ~~'~'~'~''C'-'''''''~~~'~'~~'~>:;~~''';~'''":'"'7':"'~'~0'~.'''''''''~' .SlOW SCHOOL lONE Tips for Driving As a you drive your child to and from school, we suggest the following to minimize traffic hazards and increase school area safety: )o>Check with the school for special pick up and drop off areas and times. )0>Carpool with neighbors to reduce the number of cars at the school. )0>Comply with the speed limit in the school zones. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, neighborhood residents typically drive 10 mph faster than the posted speed limit in school zones.Parents of children attending the local area schools are the typical school zone speed violators. SCHOOL AREA SAFETY Each school in the Rancho Palos Verdes area is unique and so are their school traffic safety issues.Today more and more parents are diving children to school.This is especially true in areas where the area schools are not within walking or biking distance.This often causes traffic congestion on roads. Furthermore,parents double park or stop on sidewalks,thus blocking visibility for children and other motorist.Another common problem is parents loading and unloading children across from the school,allowing children dash across the busy street. 6 - 1 0 1 Sent: To: Cc: Page 1 of5 Nicole Jules From:Melissa Murphy [melissam@rpv.com] Wednesday,September 15,2010 11 :38 AM 'Chip Meyers' stevew@rpv.com;Traffic@rpv.com;'Shawn Nejad';citymanager@rpv.com; brian.campbell@rpv.com;'LYNN SWANK' Subject:RE:Whitley Collins/Crest Road stop sign request Mr.Meyers: Thank you for providing your concerns.The installation of additional stop signs was not found to be warranted at this location.Installing stop signs at locations where they are not warranted can have negative ramifications.Staff refers to the 2010 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices when conducting our analysis and arriving at our conclusions.We are more than happy to provide you copies of the relevant sections that pertain to the installation of stop signs or the proper application thereof,including the fact that they should not be used for speed control.Nonetheless,the Traffic Safety Commission and Staff felt that the installation of a more visible crosswalk and flashing beacons will help to alert motorists travelling on Crest Road of the presence of pedestrians crossing Crest Road at Whitley Collins,which was one of the main concerns expressed to the Commission. The paving work,and related construction work in the right-of-way,that you referred to was scheduled so that as much of it as possible could be completed in the areas adjacent to Ridgecrest Elementary before the start of classes on August 31,2010.The school registration day on August 24,2010 was also taken into consideration in the scheduling of the resurfacing work in that area.This work is part of a routinely scheduled pavement maintenance program,which prevents more costly,intensive repairs from needing to be made in the future.Work was not able to be performed prior to the month of August as you suggested,since the funding for the project became available at the beginning of the Fiscal Year (July 1,2010)and the project has to go through a competitive bid process (with set times for advertising and notification of the request for bids).After the award of the contract,the Contractor made every effort to begin work as quickly as possible in the areas adjacent to this school.As far as the duration of the work in the Whitley Collins area,it should be noted that there are many phases to the work being done,since it not only includes a 2-step process for the actual resurfacing in many areas,but also a great deal of preparatory work.This includes work done to remove tree roots that are raising the pavement,curb and gutter,and sidewalk,as well as the installation of root barriers to help prevent this from occurring again in the future.Furthermore,the work was divided among streets in each area,so that residents would not have to park their vehicles too far away from their homes.While this is aimed at lessening the inconvenience to the residents,it also increases the duration of the total project.Finally,we are striving to obtain a high-quality finished product,and so this may mean that certain areas must be corrected by the Contractor,but we feel that that is more beneficial to the residents than leaving them with a sub-standard product.We appreciate the patience and cooperation of the residents,and have received a great deal of positive feedback thus far. Thank you, Melissa Murphy Associate Engineer City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 melissam@rpv.com 9/15/2010 6-102 Page 2 of5 310.544.5256 From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chipmeyers1967@yahoo.com] sent:Monday,September 13,2010 9:06 AM To:Melissa Murphy Cc:stevew@rpv.com;Traffic@rpv.com;'Shawn Nejad';citymanager@rpv.com;brian.campbell@rpv.com;'LYNN SWANK' Subject:Re:Whitley Collins/Crest Road stop sign request So let me get this straight.Public works is proposing to waste taxpayer money again instead of opting for a simple cost effective solution?Nobody asked to have their time nor money wasted,a simple stop sign would have sufficed and that is all anyone who signed the petition or showed up at the Traffic Committee meetings or wrote letters in support of change at this intersection,requested. As I have to park my car once AGAIN on Whitely Collins because of the incompetence of a city public works department to get construction done in my area that has dragged on incredibly OVER 3 weeks,that SHOULD have been done over the Summer when school was NOT in session,and that is UNNECESSARY compared to the other desperate needs in this city,I am reminded that I we all know better than to rely on pensioned and for unknown reasons,protected government workers to do the right thing in smart and efficient manner for the actual citizens that pay their salaries. Enough is enough though,and now the stop sign is a small issue compared to the one that will be addressed. On 8/26/2010 9:30 AM,Chip Meyers wrote: Thanks for the note Melissa. Do the proposed improvements by your department and Engineer Jules consist of placing a Stop Sign on Crest? On 8/26/20108:58 AM,Melissa Murphy wrote: Mr.Meyers: Thank you for contacting the City;your comments have been received.As was discussed at the Traffic Safety Commission meeting held on July 26,2010,Senior Engineer Jules has met with two vendors to receive cost estimates for the proposed improvements at Whitley Collins at Crest Rd and this item is anticipated to go to City Council for approval on September 21,2010.You will be notified once this Council date is confirmed for this consent item.Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Thank you, Melissa Murphy Associate Engineer City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 melissam@rpv.com 310.544.5256 9/15/2010 6-103 Page 3 of5 From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chip-meyers1967@yahoo.com] sent:Wednesday,August 25,20103:06 PM To:LYNN SWANK Cc:stevew@rpv.com;Traffic@rpv.com;Shawn Nejad;citymanager@.r:py,_l;<;>m;Qrjan.campbell@IP"y.com Subject:Whitley Collins/Crest Road stop sign request Ms.Swank, I wanted to follow up on the status of providing a stop sign at the intersection of Whitley Collins and Crest Road. School is back in session less than a week from now and it would appear we will be entering another school year with the same inaction we have had over the past few years at this dangerous and crowded intersection. As I left my house this morning,the irony of the inaction on this situation continues to puzzle me and hundreds of other residents in this area,especially when some genius in the Public Works schedules major paving and construction on Whitley Collins for this week.Call me crazy,but didn't we have the entire Summer to get whatever they thought needed to be done completed long ago,and not have it done during the week where 1000 kids registered at Ridgecrest yesterday and are starting school on Tuesday????But then again,Keystone Cops hijinks is par for the course with the RPV Public Works department it would seem. Sorry to digress,back to the multi year request for a 4 way stop sign at the intersection of Whitley Collins and Crest: 1.Per the city's policy,an all way stop control is applied in the manner that "special consideration should be given to locations that have signficant unusual visibility or physical conditions".This intersection does. 2.An all way stop should be considered when ANY,not all,of the following criteria are satisfied: Available sight distance is less than that dictated by the prevailing traffic speed(sight distance triangle)for pedestrians and vehicles crossing the higher volumes set.It must be adequate to both left and right,it's not.It also needs to add additional gaptime for four lane highway with radian.This intersection fits the criteria 3.In the Traffic Signal Installation Priority List report that was done 5 years ago,this intersection received the 3rd highest score in the entire city in terms of needing a traffic signal,with a score of 34 points. 4.Sight distance equals length at roadway ahead visible to the driver and must be at least 450 feet or more. Jules of Public Works even concluded that there are visibility issues with sight distance at this intersection such as if the clear sight distance is greater than ten times the speed limit.This is straight from the March 22 2010 commission minutes. 5.Whitley Collins is 1500 feet from Crenshaw blvd and 2000 feet from highridge road so it clearly within the ratio.The speed limit is 45 mph requiring a clear visibility of 450 feet. 6.Curve in road and fog conditions as well as landscaping in median create site obstructions on approach onto lane from Crest and visa versa. 7.There is also a reduced speed zone sign upon entry to Mesa Palos Verdes,goings from 45+to school zone residential of 25+mph 8.Many of the citations Deputy Knox has written are over 60 mph+ 9/15/2010 6-104 Page 4 of5 9.In the Traffic meeting that was held on June 28th that I was unable to attend,the minutes state: *Jules discussed the petition that was signed and submitted and pointed out that it would be considered invalid per the City's neighborhood traffic calming manual procedures.Nothing was explained as to why this is the case. *Jules further explained that the Public Work staff has installed a crosswalk signage to help alert drivers to pedestrian activity at this location.Jules has once again wasted everyone's time and money.and has now put more lives in danger as it is evident from many that the cars barreling down the road do not obey these signs but puts more lives in danger from a false sense of security.In the time and money she wasted.a stop sign could have been implemented and the issue closed. *Jules continued by discussing the analysis that was completed for the stop sign warrant,which found the intersection to not be warranted for stop signs to stop traffic on Crest Road.Nothing was explained as to why a STOP sign would not STOP traffic. *Jules discussed the analysis of implementing a traffic signal at this intersection and explained that it met only two out of the eight warrants(#3 and #6) Nobody has EVER requested a traffic signal,just an additional stop sign.Why does Jules continue to waste the taxpayer and committee's time with discussion on a request never requested? *Jules stated a stop sign should not be used as a speed control device.Well common sense would say that if a car has to stop they would slow their speed but possibly I am missing something obvious here. *Commissioner Kramer asked Jules to describe what a high visibility crosswalk is.Jules explained that it is a crosswalk with a zebra style paint marking,which can be found in several other locations in the City.Commissioner Kramer requested that the lights flash only when the button is pressed by a pedestrian.Commission Kramer asked Jules what is the price difference between the installation of a new traffic signal at this intersection and the high visibility crosswalk recommended by staff.Here we go again,because Jules has given incorrect information and put in her report that a request for traffic signal was requested instead of being accurate in terms of a stop sign,we can't even have an accurate debate on the costs between a stop sign and a high visibility crosswalk,thus the commission does not have the facts at their disposal and are they are forced to choose an option that was not even requested. *Commission Parfenov asked Jules if the crosswalk would be painted white,not yellow,due to the proximity of the nursery school on Crest Road.Jules replied that the crosswalk would not be painted yellow,since the children attending the nursery school are driven there.How does Jules know this or is this something that just popped in her head?I on the other hand have talked to the owner of the school and the fact is if this intersection was safe,kids would walk there but because it is a death trap and not safe people don't cross there regularly. 9/15/2010 6-105 Page 5 of5 *Jules added the most of the walkers that she had observed crossing Crest Road at this intersection(observed during three separate occassions)were elderly people getting their exercise in the morning,along with only a few school age children in the afternoon.Again,if the intersection was safe to cross people would cross it and because it is not safe most dont dare risk frogger,so of course the volume will be small she witnessed.Also,how long did, Jules observe?10 mins,20 mins.5 hours at a time.etc..?that would be helpful to understand how long she observed on 3 separate occasions. *Commissioner Nejad asked Jules if any nearby treest would block the view of the lights.Jules responded that only minimal amount of trimming of the tree branches if any would be needed to ensure none oare blocking the view of the flashing beacons.How does she know this,has she ever pulled out of Whitley Collins onto Crest during a busy time?why are there any trees at all in this middle divider that potentially blocks people from seeing traffic turning left onto Whitley Collins from Crest? *Commissioner Nejad asked Jules if there has been any communication with the Principal in regards to this Staff report and recommendation.Jules reported that she sent a copy of the Staff Report to the Principal but has not heard back.Jules added that she has also not heard back from the requester,but that she personally sent him a copy of the meeting agenday to make sure that he,which would be me,informed of tonight's meeting.She only sent me a copy of the meeting agenda AFTER I had to personally go to Councilman Brian Campbell about the inaction on this situation from the city.She sent it to me on 6:53 pm on the Wednesday prior to alert me of a Monday meeting,and then sent me the staff report on that Friday afternoon.I was out of town that week and got back that Sunday night if I had been given proper notice like more than 4 days I would have changed my plans and made changes to my schedule to attend that meeting absolutely. I look forward to hearing from you on all this. Regards, Chip Meyers 911512010 6-106 Nicole Jules From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Chip Meyers [chipmeyers1967@yahoo.com] Thursday,April 29,2010 1:01 PM Steve Wolowicz 'Nicole Jules';'Ray Holland';'Carolyn Lehr';'LYNN SWANK' Re:Resident Letter Re:Whitley Collins/Crest Road Thanks for the note.I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to me and certainly understand you have better things to do in overseeing all of RPV. The reason I contacted you is because based on what I and others have witnessed at TSC meetings the "staff'does not prepare the TSC sufficiently so they are unable to make qualified decisions.More importantly,the "staff"is unresponsive and does not do their homework.So if I can't contact my Mayor to ask for help in getting resolution to a situation that I guarantee if left in "staff"hands won't get resolved,then I need to figure out another plan of action. Yes,the response "staff"gave you is par for the course from "staff". That "Staff is proceeding in the direction of fully evaluating this location for proper control in conjunction with working with the neighboring HOA and Ridgecrest Intermediate School"is certainly not the response I welcome but it is not unexpected based on past behavior. Also,why wouldn't "staff"be working with me?I am only the person who collected 60+ signatures of residents that live in this area,that got signatures of support from St. John Fischer,the preschool at the corner,the Principal of Ridgecrest,who brought in a neighbor who's kids were nearly killed,etc .....Further,what is the specific date of when this evaluation will be complete,can't they even give a timeframe or is that too much work to ask from them?I am still waiting on that crossing guard information that "staff"had no idea about more than 6 months ago when first requested,so maybe this will just dangle in the wind like that request but I can't let it. Those "high visibility"pedestrian crossing signs have only added to the danger,not one car stopped for myself and my 3 sons as we stood there for approximately 20 minutes earlier this week and certainly nobody can see much of them when there is fog which is about 30%of the time.I believe if anything those signs will give some pedestrians a false sense of security that they can cross safely with cars at 60mph+barreling down this street which has turned into a freeway.This is not 1970 when the current empty nesters who might not want any action for unknown reasons moved into this city and when traffic and development were drastically much less. If anyone had read the email and documentation I sent and provided,one would see that the city has already studied this intersection and made recommendations long ago.But why do it again and waste my taxpayer money for more studies so this TSC can make recommendations on a problem that has plagued this intersection for years?Makes no sense Mr.Mayor. "staff"should be informed as well that the majority of residents in my area do not belong to this so called HOA that one man claims to represent,nor are supportive of this one man's claims that a stop sign is a bad idea and not needed without him giving any clarity or reason behind that statement.On the contraryi educators,residents,our own Sheriff department,have clearly articulated in writing why it it is absolutely needed to prevent needless injury and god forbid deaths at what the city clarified in a report already many years ago as #3 most problematic intersections that need action. So I guess I will keep fighting the good fight until this gets done and take it in a different direction.I wish you much success and hope that you and the city council take a hard look at how "staff"is representing/servicing your city to it's residents moving forward and make improvements to the process.Once again,thank you for your time and I will keep you updated on my progress on resolving this issue once and for all. Regards, Chip Meyers 1 6-107 On 4/24/2010 2:56 PM,Steve Wolowicz wrote: >Mr.Meyers, >Once again,thank you for your recent email.Staff has just replied >to my previous queries and recent follow-up request.I was told that >in addition to meeting with you last December that you attended the >TSC meetings in February and March TSC meetings.As you know during >that meeting on March 22nd The TSC concurred with the "Staff >recommendation to proceed with an engineering study to determine what >types of control,if any,are warranted at the intersection of Crest >and Whitley Collins,and in the meantime install pedestrian crossing >signals."I've just been advised that "Staff is proceeding in the >direction of fully evaluating this location for proper control in >conjunction with working with the neighboring HOA and Ridgecrest >Intermediate School."Further the Sheriff's department is conducting >operations to evaluate the effectiveness of the recently installed >high visibility pedestrian crossing signs.You will be able to express >your opinions and recommenda > >tions at the TSC meeting when Staff and the TSC react to the study and any resulting recommendations.While it may not be completely satisfactory I suggest that your comments will be more appropriately directed to the TSC and Staff until that time.Until this issue is actually before the Council I can only be a relay between your questions and Staff responses. >Regards, >Steve Wolowicz > >Steve Wolowicz >Mayor >Rancho Palos Verdes >Phone 310-378-9911 >email --stevew@rpv.com > >-----Original Message----- >From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chipmeyers1967@yahoo.com] >Sent:Friday,April 23,2010 10:52 AM >To:Steve Wolowicz >Cc:'LYNN SWANK'inicolej@rpv.comirayh@rpv.comiclehr@rpv.com >Subject:Re:Resident Letter Re:Whitley Collins/Crest Road > >Mr.Wolowicz, > >I wanted to follow up with on this as it has been a month. > >I have noticed at this intersection there was a pedestrian sign >installed but that does not resolve any of the issues the residents, >schools,and sheriff have clearly stated that exist in regards to this >intersection.In the time and cost it took to install those signs we >could have had a stop sign installed and all would be resolved. > >Please let me know an update on this situation,thanks. > >Regards, > >Chip Meyers > >On 3/25/2010 10:49 AM,Steve Wolowicz wrote: > »Mr.Meyers, »Thank you for your letter regarding the intersection at Crest Road »and Whitney Collins.Your comments along with memos from Ms.Swank »and Ms.Jules are a good deal of information to digest.Concurrent »with this email I am sending a request to obtain further comments »from city staff.However,due to the volume of materials related to »the next two council meetings (next Tuesday's meeting is regarding 2 6-108 »the Marymount expansion)I am not able to devote any substantial time »on this topic for the next several weeks.I hope to follow-up with »you and city staff shortly after that time.Please understand that no »one member of the Council can direct action to be taken,only to »inquire as to the elements of the respective issue.Further any »substantive dialog or decisions will continue to be by staff and the »TSCi this topic would find its way to the Council based on the »results of their meetings and resulting community responses.During »the interim period feel free to copy me on any furt » »her correspondence that you send to staff or the TSC. »Regards, »Steve Wolowicz » »Steve Wolowicz »Mayor »Rancho Palos Verdes »Phone 310-378-9911 »email --stevew@rpv.com » » » » » » » > > > > > > 3 6-109 Nicole Jules From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mr.Wolowicz, Chip Meyers [chipmeyers1967@yahoo.com] Friday,April 23,2010 10:52 AM Steve Wolowicz 'LYNN SWANK';nicolej@rpv.com;rayh@rpv.com;clehr@rpv.com Re:Resident Letter Re:Whitley Collins/Crest Road I wanted to follow up with on this as it has been a month. I have noticed at this intersection there was a pedestrian sign installed but that does not resolve any of the issues the residents,schools,and sheriff have clearly stated that exist in regards to this intersection.In the time and cost it took to install those signs we could have had a stop sign installed and all would be resolved. Please let me know an update on this situation,thanks. Regards, Chip Meyers On 3/25/2010 10:49 AM,Steve Wolowicz wrote: >Mr.Meyers, >Thank you for your letter regarding the intersection at Crest Road and Whitney Collins. Your comments along with memos from Ms.Swank and Ms.Jules are a good deal of information to digest.Concurrent with this email I am sending a request to obtain further comments from city staff.However,due to the volume of materials related to the next two council meetings (next Tuesday's meeting is regarding the Marymount expansion)I am not able to devote any substantial time on this topic for the next several weeks.I hope to follow-up with you and city staff shortly after that time.Please understand that no one member of the Council can direct action to be taken,only to inquire as to the elements of the respective issue.Further any substantive dialog or decisions will continue to be by staff and the TSCi this topic would find its way to the Council based on the results of their meetings and resulting community responses.During the interim period feel free to copy me on any further correspondence that you send to staff or the TSC. >Regards, >Steve Wolowicz > >Steve Wolowicz >Mayor >Rancho Palos Verdes >Phone 310-378-9911 >email --stevew@rpv.com > > > > > > 4 6-110 Nicole Jules From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Request for Stop Sign on Crest... Chip Meyers [chipmeyers1967@yahoo.com] Wednesday,March 24,20107:08 PM stevew@rpv.com LYNN SWANK;nicolej@rpv.com;rayh@rpv.com;clehr@rpv.com;CMKnox@lasd.org; tom .Iong@rpv.com;douglas.stern@rpv.com;anthony.misetich@rpv.com; brian.cam pbell@rpv.com Re:Resident Letter Re:Whitley Collins/Crest Road Request for Stop Sign on Crest Road at Whitley Collins Intersection.doc Mr.Mayor, Please see attached letter of response.Thank you. Chip Meyers On 3/23/2010 2:55 PM,LYNN SWANK wrote: >Hi Mayor, > >At last evening's TSC meeting,one of the agenda items was a continued >item from our February TSC Meeting.The Whitley Collins/Crest Road >intersection was discussed at the February meeting and testimony was >heard from two residents,Chip Meyers and Joe Locascio representing the Mesa Palos Verdes Homeowners' >Association.Emails were also received and presented in the agenda material. >The TSC postponed action on the intersection of Crest Road and Whitley >Collins pending receipt of staff's report of statistical information >and deferred this item to the March TSC Meeting. > >As requested the staff and Sheriff's Department undertook additional >study and the Whitley Collins intersection was agendized for the March >TSC Meeting.Staff and the Sheriff gave their report,Commissioners >asked questions of staff and the public was then invited to give their >comments.There were five speakers,including Mr.Meyers.He had >letters and a petition with him which he did not distribute before, >during or after the meeting,and the only public record of this >material are the excerpts Mr.Meyers choose to read to the TSC.I >requested that he give a copy of this correspondence to staff.Nothing was sent until I opened his email this morning containing the letters. > >The TSC took all of the information presented,including that which we >received for the February meeting,and discussed all of the options >available to us in accordance with the Traffic Procedures Manual. >After reviewing the information based on these further studies,the >TSC agreed with Staff's recommendation to initiate further studies and explore further options. > >To address the issue regarding pedestrians,the TSC requested staff to >place pedestrian signs on Whitley Collins and Crest to caution >motorists that the intersection was used by pedestrians.This action >could be taken by Public Works without City Council approval and Staff agreed to do this immediately. > >Those residents with immediate concerns have two existing alternatives >to use before a more permanent action,if appropriate,is taken.A >traffic light exists at Highridge and there is a crosswalk at Crest. >While using these options may require extra time,they are available 5 6-111 >immediately.Closing Whitley Collins to Crest is unjustified given >these alternatives,and a stop sign is not considered a traffic calming solution for speeders. > >Project priority and funding are issues that can only be addressed by >the City Council.Currently there are three traffic related studies >in progress and all were submitted prior to the Whitley Collins >request.without more funding for staff and their related >recommendations for expenditures to address any traffic safety issues identified by the studies,the Council must decide the priorities and provide the appropriate funding. > >I hope I have provided you with a summary of this resident's concerns >and TSC actions.We all agree that traffic safety is a priority and I >believe that all actions taken thus far are appropriate and consistent >with City guidelines and procedures. > >Please call Nicole Jules,Sr.Engineer or myself (310-377-1256)if you >need more information. > >Lynn Swank >Chair,TSC > > 6 6-112 From: Sent: To: Cc: Page 1 of5 Nicole Jules Chip Meyers [chipmeyers1967@yahoo.com] Monday,September 13,20109:06 AM Melissa Murphy stevew@rpv.com;Traffic@rpv.com;'Shawn Nejad';citymanager@rpv.com; brian.campbell@rpv.com;'LYNN SWANK' Subject:Re:Whitley Collins/Crest Road stop sign request So let me get this straight.Public works is proposing to waste taxpayer money again instead of opting for a simple cost effective solution?Nobody asked to have their time nor money wasted,a simple stop sign would have sufficed and that is all anyone who signed the petition or showed up at the Traffic Committee meetings or wrote letters in support of change at this intersection,requested. As I have to park my car once AGAIN on Whitely Collins because of the incompetence of a city public works department to get construction done in my area that has dragged on incredibly OVER 3 weeks, that SHOULD have been done over the Summer when school was NOT in session,and that is UNNECESSARY compared to the other desperate needs in this city,I am reminded that I we all know better than to rely on pensioned and for unknown reasons,protected government workers to do the right thing in smart and efficient manner for the actual citizens that pay their salaries. Enough is enough though,and now the stop sign is a small issue compared to the one that will be addressed. On 8/26/2010 9:30 AM,Chip Meyers wrote: Thanks for the note Melissa. Do the proposed improvements by your department and Engineer Jules consist of placing a Stop Sign on Crest? On 8/26/20108:58 AM,Melissa Murphy wrote: Mr.Meyers: Thank you for contacting the City;your comments have been received.As was discussed at the Traffic Safety Commission meeting held on July 26,2010,Senior Engineer Jules has met with two vendors to receive cost estimates for the proposed improvements at Whitley Collins at Crest Rd and this item is anticipated to go to City Council for approval on September 21,2010.You will be notified once this Council date is confirmed for this consent item.Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Thank you, Melissa Murphy Associate Engineer City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works Department 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 melissam~[RY.com 9/15/2010 6-113 9/15/201 0 310.544.5256 From:Chip Meyers [mailto:chiRmeyers1967@yahoo.com] sent:Wednesday,August 25,20103:06 PM To:LYNN SWANK Cc:stevew@rRv.com;Traffic@rRv.com;Shawn Nejad;citymanager@rRv.com; brian .camRbell@rRv.com Subject:Whitley Collins/Crest Road stop sign request Ms.Swank, I wanted to follow up on the status of providing a stop sign at the intersection of Whitley Collins and Crest Road.School is back in session less than a week from now and it would appear we will be entering another school year with the same inaction we have had over the past few years at this dangerous and crowded intersection. As I left my house this morning,the irony of the inaction on this situation continues to puzzle me and hundreds of other residents in this area,especially when some genius in the Public Works schedules major paving and construction on Whitley Collins for this week.Call me crazy,but didn't we have the entire Summer to get whatever they thought needed to be done completed long ago,and not have it done during the week where 1000 kids registered at Ridgecrest yesterday and are starting school on Tuesday????But then again,Keystone Cops hijinks is par for the course with the RPV Public Works department it would seem. Sorry to digress,back to the multi year request for a 4 way stop sign at the intersection of Whitley Collins and Crest: 1.Per the city's policy,an all way stop control is applied in the manner that "special consideration should be given to locations that have signficant unusual visibility or physical conditions".This intersection does. 2.An all way stop should be considered when ANY,not all,of the following criteria are satisfied: Available sight distance is less than that dictated by the prevailing traffic speed(sight distance triangle)for pedestrians and vehicles crossing the higher volumes set.It must be adequate to both left and right,it's not.It also needs to add additional gaptime for four lane highway with radian.This intersection fits the criteria 3.In the Traffic Signal Installation Priority List report that was done 5 years ago,this intersection received the 3rd highest score in the entire city in terms of needing a traffic signal,with a score of 34 points. 4.Sight distance equals length at roadway ahead visible to the driver and must be at least 450 feet or more.Jules of Public Works even concluded that there are visibility issues with sight distance at this intersection such as if the clear sight distance is greater than ten times the speed limit.This is straight from the March 22 2010 commission minutes. Page 2 of5 6-114 Page 1 of3 Nicole Jules Chip Meyers [chipmeyers1967@yahoo.com] Wednesday,August 25,2010 3:06 PM LYNN SWANK stevew@rpv.com;Traffic@rpv.com;Shawn Nejad;citymanager@rpv.com; brian .campbell@rpv.com Subject:Whitley Collins/Crest Road stop sign request From: Sent: To: Cc: Ms.Swank, I wanted to follow up on the status of providing a stop sign at the intersection of Whitley Collins and Crest Road.School is back in session less than a week from now and it would appear we will be entering another school year with the same inaction we have had over the past few years at this dangerous and crowded intersection. As I left my house this morning,the irony of the inaction on this situation continues to puzzle me and hundreds of other residents in this area,especially when some genius in the Public Works schedules major paving and construction on Whitley Collins for this week.Call me crazy,but didn't we have the entire Summer to get whatever they thought needed to be done completed long ago,and not have it done during the week where 1000 kids registered at Ridgecrest yesterday and are starting school on Tuesday????But then again,Keystone Cops hijinks is par for the course with the RPV Public Works department it would seem. Sorry to digress,back to the multi year request for a 4 way stop sign at the intersection of Whitley Collins and Crest: 1.Per the city's policy,an all way stop control is applied in the manner that "special consideration should be given to locations that have signficant unusual visibility or physical conditions".This intersection does. 2.An all way stop should be considered when ANY,not all,of the following criteria are satisfied: Available sight distance is less than that dictated by the prevailing traffic speed(sight distance triangle) for pedestrians and vehicles crossing the higher volumes set.It must be adequate to both left and right, it's not.It also needs to add additional gaptime for four lane highway with radian.This intersection fits the criteria 3.In the Traffic Signal Installation Priority List report that was done 5 years ago,this intersection received the 3rd highest score in the entire city in terms of needing a traffic signal,with a score of 34 points. 4.Sight distance equals length at roadway ahead visible to the driver and must be at least 450 feet or more.Jules of Public Works even concluded that there are visibility issues with sight distance at this intersection such as if the clear sight distance is greater than ten times the speed limit.This is straight from the March 22 2010 commission minutes. 5.Whitley Collins is 1500 feet from Crenshaw blvd and 2000 feet from highridge road so it clearly within the ratio.The speed limit is 45 mph requiring a clear visibility of 450 feet. 9/1512010 6-115 From: Sent: To: Cc: Page 1 of2 Nicole Jules Chip Meyers [chipmeyers1967@yahoo.com] Monday,March 22,2010 10:13 PM Traffic@rpv.com 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 Attachments:Letters of Support,Resident Petition,2005 RPV study.pdf D 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 ofthis 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 performed on this comer in 2005 by the same Public Works Department that the City Engineer at 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 9/15/2010 6-116 Page 2 of2 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 'l4 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,if money is the issue I 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 to taxpayers who have been clearly asking for resolution on this issue for many years. Regards, Chip Meyers 9/15/2010 6-117 Petition: We~the undersigned,can on the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to jmmedlate~place oil stop sign alld crosswalk on Crest Road at the Ink!rsed:ion of Whitley CoJflns to prevent injurv/death from acddents, as welt as to create a safe way for children and residents to cross thIs dangerous intersection without harm from oncoming ttaffic. c:iCOd z..t('y ()illJl'-1 t",[ MIILL ftr;.G~;_I Ilt-{I 6-118 Petition~ We,the undersigned,call on the Oty of Rancho Palos Verdes t()immediately place a stop sign and crosswalk on Crest Road at the Intel"S'eCtlon of Whltl6Y CoUlns b>preti'ent:injury/death from accidents, as well as to create a safe way fur chlidAln and residf;!nts to cross this dangerous Inrersectlon without harm from oncoming traffic. HOAIParern tC~"11f'Y:1)"t~ (;()I; AddressfUme gMoS\Ac.b\...Xi\f-!ih1'"/SHY}MI~i f)v.((r_V _ YVle::'('J t IL _\1:)"1 k 5(,.'"l\.ll fl r<17 v '?oo k+:v~);{a.u.cf-.:ML \tJWe.c1lf\Dr r-N ;4(<'~bMtvvt1 '·ifl.f.1 I I I'1\ /,1 ..tbAOJ tlMddhi J ')£~1 kAt;·tJ"g I}~.d~Rev IV cJ ~,::~~~~&~~:..-----~.=.=-.~ 3'C~w d\.U...l..,J;:Cf(!S:U},/l1tlj·J.)Y'Ie )b ...a .~. 6-119 Petition: We,the unden:;igned,call on the Oty of Rancho Palos Vr!!rdes tD immediatelv place &stop sign and crosswalk on Crest Road at the intersection of Whi~ey COllins to prevent irgurv/dei!ltll from accidents. as well as to create a safe way for children and residents to cross this dangerQUS Intersection 'WIthout harm from oncoming traffic. Name Address ~p V'.1(.•c~,r 1 'fv..A .rt .K .P\../.tt:~tIe.D V 9a~7..r (l;tJt,t~j" l ,'O/"lCM)( .Nd 1<P V nit·,)H~ If..v No No /t>-&LCA{.J'("' .l -r Rc J l)1f CA.,t.r r d.:"qrtt>A.-L (1<\,o,;t~J f (l :1)( ;(~tJ1*~)r fl..:./)<fir UVr )( tic;1--7 e;((.io;U,'iJr """'~"';:"--I;.,;~:';";"':';:::;"':;""_---.l&";:::;""""".L..Il..l.=';;".L.,.....,.~=:;:::..,..,.~--,~:..::::;.._---,fli-o....;;.z.;"'''.l:o,7_¥1'l.1 :!J,U;'lt-)f 90z.~).>""tll·pt:tJ(J\.t'~·i -:..J~---::~_~~_--lr;~_""""";p.....!iu..t-~=;..::......;;.;..;.....---,_ f?.to ,. ,(~"tfl1.t t ( lie U~S~~.2 7'1 oJ-hc&.M If 1h.~f tI 'DttU'/v\r~h J)';1(;,7 RirYte.fk·t1 d-+.I I?fl~/ ~~j :;:~::z!7i:':~£ 6-120 .'I Attachment B TRAFFIC SUiNAL INlTAllATIONPFCfOlltftV US, ,...,__l I , a4 :M II -.I .1 ..---I .,...--. - I I 20 ... '-+~ti p I H~-"+:,_~U,1Co ~,__':nU ,-"'r-~~-3-._~~;;~j tI ~29 [ ~D I 0 1\0 I Il.~'Ull 3 i w .llIl1 4.35.!"",.q",.,i i 27 •I ! I I I I..I •Iii i_D",.1l1vd lInll'llI«Ilf\II,. 2.It«WII1lIrna IIWd tIIll LH lit...Dr :~1 ~20 3 Cl'll;""~~WI1II«II C.....d'.8kft)~1,~G 1!1 !1.1 II,,__.'"-¥.l!!l.3:!!!!.-=~--'::'";==~.:E!=-""';~j,....Illl!!l!!L'='==":'-i 3 PVIlS lind fIVD'E 12fllt111 1,2,'a 1I 2 a (l\-..,.-..__.--_- -..------,-:'."_..----_..-,. ,.'G PVllh,,_MINI«IIIeI:lt 8.~~i 1,=,,;a (I 1 ..CI (l G ill 1l,1~!!,B~4:•,ll&:15 ."I B lpVgS_.~lIltlr lVlIM 1,2 0 0 2 II -0 0 11.7]Q :1.a--Hoi 4 ;oIl!'..~0 ••oj !.,:;.I':-:~.::-,-j~:,,:~;!~-;-:-I--;:'-;:, i=9~_~~.~~l~.~c 1.~!I----~-~W--a-+I-D-H~O~~!-~-~-+--~+~----+-~--a~I~~==~-~--- .11 PIIDhodFgrnltllllr :1211105 2 a ;'~i 0 <l 1\aI 0 1::.1~:iJl~.. 4,..,...'"1~t:rHIl\"'alldC_wlllwll .t..'SIll3 '1.2,.a :~.-0 ;CI &o~l lhru StPblR'I~lIr moe{>.\~,...------+-----1.....-r--.,.............;,;,;;;........,~--_!__'Ir_____--+--+--~-~-+--*-.........:1-.~'!'!iI'I"1 .i.,.ElQh1.MLl"VlIIII0fJI.rValU'll8 T'4------+----i+-~----+-+-__:_---4r_~_:_-.....:..-+-__t ~~~r.t~u:;,;~~i;;;.;··._----'".._.--....:....----"'---1;--""-~' ;l.Pe.~·~a.t . : •:04.Po"~~II"1IoIU,'!\ll ;~-""";""";---iI--1--+~--1-----..JI-+~",---\--._-~-'-":"""~+-:t,..J.+.:aff'l-::-*"--+4~"-';;;11"1'"t'----I1----..-·5":-sCiiDCiCiiii,;;q·------..·'.....-----..-............-...... 8 .COQNlIMtellS~hlllr~.;..,I ~~..t---t-----2o'Id'-;r.;----;..-""""'r------I ~:.'...~~_Cnl_l_h_.;~?t..._.._'. .-=_..._.:.___,----......:--'u;V,;r::-if-"'-:::":-,..,J.--t- 8·F!a8l!'_N...war\I !! \)"C"~~~..":AtW.If~o ""~S ~0 uv- '6 ~';f}r ~~~~ 'J>.jJ f ~v~~'Irt o-t x\..~, 6 - 1 2 1 Hintop Nursery Schoof 5702 Crest Road Rancho Palos Verdes#CA 90275 March 22,2010 To Whom It May Concern~ My name is Patricia Ravas~Tabares and I am the Admfnistrative Director of HiUtop Nursery School.We are located on the corner of Whitfey CoJUns Dr.and Crest Rd. Our center serves children ages 2 to 6 years of age. Over the yearsl many of the parents that are dropping off and picking up their chUdren from our school have had dose caUs trying to turn at this Intersection safelV.DUring foggy mornJngsl this intersection is espedatly dangerous,not onlv to our families and chlJdren but to the entire surrounding community. I feel that an easy and cost effective soJutlon to thIs problem would be to have a stop sign Installed.This would slow traffic traveling both east and west of Crest Rd.and would also allow travelers to make Jeft turns safelv- CordiaflYI ~~~-~ HlUtop Nursery School 5702 Crest Rd. Rancho Palos VerdesJI Ca 90725 (310)377-9644 prayas@aof.com 6-122 27!!OO Long'lilJ Drive Rancho Palus VN<I~5 Califol:lia 90nS·~909 (3'iD)377 Jjl!.!:l4 (310)54:;-091!i F"AX t<~\li'l W.Aller, F'ri.,·::ir.al !.lor.l M.t:e la Fh)sa Prt;SI::J~I'\ IJ3via L.r'::.'l:bl,n Vice Pnlsldenr t:::Ic 'I Pl:lrki P.~ Clao1( G~ibr,eEf1;I~tlll Membe' B"rl)ar.3 Ll!Ck~' M!:lrnbc' ~p8rimM:Flr.:!._tlumbem &tpr,II;·I/I;lf/dc.rt! (31Dj Jrld.0732 8!:slires$So.'·,'ices (310)1!i1-1306 EducatIOna,'.';'e'~fccll (310j 7D1-?919 J'/umarJ ReSollroos (310)791-294? f'lJpii SeNicc$ (310)318·1971 iSoleado Elementary School I I March 16,2010 I I, Dear Members of the Rancho Palos Verdes Tntffic Committee.• I am writing on behalf of the safety ofthe students and families in the Soleado II ElementarY school community.We arc advocating for the placement of a stop sign on Crest Road at the intersection of Whitley 'Collins Drive.This intersection poses a great danger to podestlians and motorists alike.Students cross Crest Road at Whitley Collins walking between their school and hon,e.In addition,when fog is present,this intersection poses an even greater danger as it is nearly impolilsible to see oncoming tJ'atlic when making a tum from Whitley Collins onto Crest Road.I my8elfhave h(K!a near collision at this intersection. In the lutcre8t of public safety and espcciaUy for the safety oftbc children who live in the area,I urge you to consider this request and take action.Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Kevin Allen Principal,So leado Elementary School 6-123 SAJNT JOHN FISHER PARISH "CELEBRATING LIFE IN THE LIGHT Of'CHRfST" Man.:h 18,2UlO l)l1:~tr Members or the Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Conunittce, I am VI-'rHing in support of the placement of a ~l()p sign On Cl"est Road at the intersection or \Vhitlcy Collins Drive.Tn the interest of public safety and especially lor the safety of lbe children who live hI the area,I urge you to consider this request and lake action. Sincerely, ~~.l:-tZL~ Gayle .Plccha Parish Admil'li~trator>St.John Fisher Church 5448 CREST ROAD -RANCHO PALOS VERDES,CALIFORNIA 90275-5027 ..PARISH OFFICE (31 0)377·5571 ..FAX (31 O)377-6303 ...EMA[L:INFO@S,JF .ORG ~ 6-124 September 14,2010 City of Rancho Palos Verdes .~_.MESA ~.,.'.PALOS -.{,.~ERDES b Homeowners Association 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 1,2010 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 of the Board 310-541-8330 6-125 September 21,2010 Mayor and City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes Re:Whitley Collins/Crenshaw Blvd.Intersection Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, On June 28,2010 the Traffic Safety Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council a traffic measure to provide a traffic change at the corner of Whitley Collins and Crenshaw Boulevard.This action was based upon staff studies and recommendation,public input, input from the Lomita Sheriff's Department,a traffic study by the City's traffic consultant,and several meetings held by the Traffic Safety Commission to discuss this intersection and determine if the requested action was warranted.The Commission first requested staff to provide immediate signage,which consisted of large pedestrian crossing signs,at the intersection which allowed staff the necessary time to conduct further study.Based upon further study it was concluded that some additional changes could be made. The additional changes include a pedestrian-activated,high-visiblity flashing beacon,a marked crosswalk and advanced signed to alert motorists to reduce speed when pedestrians are present. The Traffic Safety Commission supports the recommendations as presented to City Council. Sincerely yours, ~~~ Lynn Swank,Chair Traffic Safety Commission 6-126