Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTSC Packet 07-08-2010CITY OF SARATOGA TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Study Session AGENDA DATE: July 8, 2010 TIME: 6:30 PM - 9:30 PM LOCATION: Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Call to Order Roll Call: Biester, Bustamante, Coulter, Guichard, Kane, Kirk, and Vita Report on Posting of the Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 2, 2010. Accept Agenda Items: No additional items may be added pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Oral & Written Communication Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes. Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda. Approval of Draft Minutes Draft Traffic Safety Commission Minutes for May 13, 2009 Sheriff's Report to the Commission Discussion Items 1. Crosswalk policy 2. Community signs 3. Safe route to school training 4. Stop sign warrant description Announcements by Commissioners and Staff Adjournment to Next Regular Meeting Thursday, September 9, 2010 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability - related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 408.868.1269 or ctclerk.@saratoga.c,:i.us Requests must be made as early as possible and at least one full business day before the start of the meeting. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of material provided to the Traffic Safety Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Public Works Department at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the Public `works office at the time they are distributed to the Traffic Safety Commission. Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Public Works Analyst for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on July 2, 2010 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at vvv w.saratoga.ca.us. CITY OF SARATOGA TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Draft Action Minutes DATE: May13, 2010 TIME: 6:30 PM - 9:30 PM LOCATION: Administrative Conference Room 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Call to Order at 6:32 p.m. Roll Call: Biester, Bustamante, Coulter, Guichard, Kane, Kirk, and Vita Absent: None Staff: Transportation Engineer Hervol, Director Cherbone & Analyst Borel Report on Posting of the Agenda: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 7, 2010. Borel Reports Accept Agenda Items: No additional items may be added pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. Kirk Reports Oral & Written Communication Any member of the public may address the Commission about any matter not on the agenda for this meeting for up to three minutes. Commissioners may not comment on the matter but may choose to place the topic on a future agenda. No speakers Approval of Draft Minutes Draft Traffic Safety Commission Minutes for March 11, 2010. APPROVED 5-0 Sheriff's Report to the Commission Lt. Shervington reports New Business 1. Traffic Matrix #246 - Peter Joachiam (9:00 p.m.) Issue: Speeding on Bank Mill Road Action: TSC will make recommendation MOTION: Recommend that lower tree branches be trimmed at the northwest corner of Bank Mill where it intersects with Stoneridge Drive. APPROVED 5-0. 2. Traffic Matrix #250 - Dave Walb (6:50 p.m.) Issue: Request No Parking on Pierce Road Action: TSC will make recommendation (No action taken 011 this item, TSC and resident found possible alternative) 3. Traffic Matrix #251- Gisa Abiog (7:15 p.m.) Issue: Requests Stop signs on Quito Road Action: TSC will make recommendation MOTION: Recommend speed limit street legends on Quito Road where the speed limits change; ask the Traffic Engineer to investigate locations for radar feedback signs, and have the TSC review the locations at the next meeting. APPROVED 7-0. 4. Traffic Matrix #252 - Dexter Hermstad (9:10 p.m.) Issue: Requests Keep Clear legends on Miller Avenue Action: TSC will make recommendation MOTION: Recommend no action be taken at this time. APPROVED 7-0. 5. Review of Circulation Element with Pedestrian, Equestrian, Bicycle & Trails Advisory Committee (8:00 p.m.) TSC and PEBTAC review Draft Circulation Element - Michael Fossati, Assistant Planner facilitates and Fehr & Peers answers questions and notes comments. Announcements by Commissioners and Staff Adjournment at 9:35 p.m. to the Next Regular Meeting Thursday, July 8, 2010 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability - related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 408.868.1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us Requests must be made as early as possible and at least one full business day before the start of the meeting. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of material provided to the Traffic Safety Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Public Works Department at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the Public Works office at the time they are distributed to the Traffic Safety Commission. Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Kristin Borel, Public Works Analyst for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on May 7, 2010 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Children Safety Signs - Children At Play Signs and Warning Signs Children Safety Signs Products > Children Safety Signs m Child Safety Signs (9512) Item 2 V Cart: 0 Them, $U 00 • $25.UU until rree smppmg. Children can't always recognize a dangerous situation when it comes to cars and other motor vehicles. The most reliable child may step out in front of a passing car to catch a bouncing ball or meet a friend. In such a situation, only the driver can prevent a tragic accident. But an uninformed driver may not be prepared. Posting a Child Safety Sign will alert drivers and help keep your children protected. • Choose from a variety of Child Safety Signs to warn drivers in driveways and around schools and parks. • Make sure passing cars drive slowly and cautiously where children are playing. Free Child Safety Sign CA 011 Download this sign and print it yourself. For free! More Info... Also See ... • Playground Signs • Crime Watch Signs • School Safety Signs • No Drugs / No Guns Signs • Driveway Signs • Seat Belt Reminders Show All Products Mouse over each sign to see a preview of pricing and materials available. Most designs are available in both non -reflective and reflective constructions. Click the appropriate design to see these variations on the next screen. Most designs are sold in several sizes, as well. Caution Children At Play zoom Buy now Slow zoom Buy now zoom Caution Drive Slowly Slow School Drug Free School Slow, Children at Play Caution, Children at Buy now zoom Buy now Zone zoom Buy now:- Play (Mother ... zoom Buy now ':zoom Buy now: - Slow, Children Slow, Children at Play Caution, Children at Notice Do Not Leave School Bus Sign Caution Watch for Children Left zoom Buy now (red) Play (red) Children ... Buses Have Right of Children Unattended Will Be zoom Buy now zoom Buy now R zoom Buy now' Way zoom Buy now zoom Buy now LAYI ( tN PARKIN‘ It CHILDDEAF ARIA Children Prohibited Deaf Child Area Playing in ... _zoom Buy now NO Young tuns at work No Idling. Young Lungs at Work. zoom Buy now zoom Buy now: - No -Idle Zone, It all adds up to ... zoom Buy now Fluorescent Child Safety Signs (25699) zoom Buy now Deaf Child Sign Drive Slowly Children Idle Free Zone (with Dog Poop Signs No Idling. Children zoom Buy now :° Playing ... graphic) Kids at Play, Keep Breathing ... zoom Buy now: zoom Buy now Poop Away zoom Buy now. zoom Buy now: - PLEASE DRIVE SLOWLY E i' OUR CHILDREN Please Drive Slowly We Love (heart ... zoom Buy now: Slow Down Sign Slow Down Kids & Pets at Play zoom Buy now. STUDEN DROP - N PICK-UP' AREA STUDENT PICK t AND DROP OFF AREA Student Drop -Off and Student Pick Up and Unattended Children Pick -Up Area Drop Off Area Will Be Given ... zoom Buy now zoom Buy now' zoom Buy now: Show All Products 1 of 3 6/30/2010 1:52 PM Children Safety Signs - Children At Play Signs and Warning Signs http://www.mysafetysign.com/Safety-Signs/Child-Safety-Signs.aspx Caution Children At Play zoom Buy now zoom Buy now. zoom Buy now:• zoom Buy now:. Pedestrian Crossing Web. Symbol Children Crossing zoom Buy now: Symbol Watch Out For Watch For School Bus Stop Just $100 delivered. Delivered Price, Only Children (child ... Pedestrians Ahead Best deal online. $100! Best Deal on zoom Buy now Bicycle Symbol zoom Buy now School School Ahead Arrow Bike Xing zoom Buy now` (supplementary sign) zoom Buy now =- zoom Buy now= zoom Buy now; zoom Buy now Ped Xing zoom Buy now, Crosswalk Safety Signs (25700) Slow Student Crossing Slow Pedestrian Crossing Stop Pedestrian Crossing zoom Buy now: zoom Buy now (with ... zoom Buy now:. Caution Watch for Children, ... Caution: Yield to Pedestrians Sign CAUTION STUDENT CROSSWALK School Bus Sign Buses Only zoom Buy now zoom Buy now:• Ped Caution Student Stop For Pedestrian In Crosswalk Crosswalk zoom Buy now zoom Buy now PEDESTRIANS PROHIBITED PES Show All Products Bikes Yield to Peds zoom Buy now Keep Left Pedestrians / Pedestrians Prohibited Slow Pedestrian Crossing Stop Pedestrian Crossing Right ...zoom Buy now; • (with ... zoom Buy now: zoom Buy now zoom Buy now < zoom Buy now zoom Buy now` Stop: Go Double Sided Stop: Slow Double Sided Stop: Stop Double Sided Yield Here to Pedestrians Yield Here to Pedestrians Yield Here to Pedestrians Sign Sign Sign (Left ... (Left ... (Right ... zoom Buy now: zoom Buy now: zoom Buy now' zoom Buy now a zoom Buy now: zoom Buy now • Yield Here to Pedestrians (Right ... zoom Buy now McGruff® Child Safety Signs (26656) Show All Products e YIE YiE act • 2 of 3 6/30/201.0 1:52 PM Original Be Alert Children at Play caution signs for the driveway! http://www.childsafety.com/ I invented the Be Alert Children at Play sign in 1994, out of a need to protect my own four children. I looked at other children at play signs that are permanently affixed to the poles for so long that I thought to myself "the kids must be off to college by now!" Childsafety.com was the first to come up with the concept of designing a children at play sign that is only to be put out when the children are out at play. This children at play sign that is put out only when the children are at play is less likely to become an everyday fixture that motorists eventually ignore. Since the creation of the this portable children at play drivewaysign other companies have copied the concept, but none have chosen the brighter yellow, or have made the sign to look like a character of a child holding the children at play sign. It is important to note that yellow is the first color the eye sees. I have taken extra steps be sure the children at play sign stands out to the public. Our yellow is brighter than any other sign on the market. It is a custom color which cost more to manufacture. I also use a thicker corrugated plastic for more durability. Other children at play signs have a mustard color which is darker therefore does not stand out as much and is made with a thinner material. When I tested the children at play sign for its effectiveness, myself and 3 other moms could actually hear the motorists take their foot off the gas pedal. This Original Be Alert Children at Play signs help protect your children. These portable driveway signs help alert speeding motorists to slow down while your children are at play." 4 of 5 6/30/2010 1:56 PM Transrt Synthis Report RES CH BRARY ERVICES Effectiveness of "Children at Play" Warning Signs Prepared for Bureau of Highway Operations Traffic Engineering Section, Traffic Design Unit Prepared by CTC & Associates LLC WisDOT Research & Library Unit September 25, 2007 Transportation Synthesis Reports are brief summaries of currently available information on topics of interest to WisDOT staff throughout the department. Online and print sources for TSRs include NCHRP and other TRB programs, AASHTO, the research and practices of other transportation agencies, and related academic and industry research. Internet hyperlinks in TSRs are active at the time of publication, but changes on the host server can make them obsolete. To request a TSR, e-mail research@lotstatalvi,t s or call (608) 261-8198. Request for Report WisDOT is engaged in an effort to reevaluate and update its policies regarding roadside warning signs related to children, such as "Children at Play," "Blind Child," "Deaf Child," etc. We were asked to review research on the effectiveness of these types of signs to better ground WisDOT's policy decision. Summary There is no evidence that special warning signs of this sort reduce driver speeds or crash rates. This is the unanimous conclusion of the many credible sources we located on this topic. This claim is supplemented by a number of often -cited "common sense" observations that such signs do not give clear and enforceable guidance to drivers, provide a false sense of security to parents and children that may increase risk, expose the government to liability, give the false impression that areas without such signs do not have children, represent an unnecessary cost that then propagates as additional signs are requested and violate the principle that signage should be based on engineering, not political, decision making. These arguments are used most frequently against Children at Play signs, and many of them—such as the arguments that CAP signs encourage playing in the street and that if in one location with children they should properly be in all locations—do not apply to Deaf Child, Blind Child, Handicapped Child or Autistic Child signs. These latter signs receive much less explicit discussion in the sources we located. The National Research and Guidelines section of this TSR presents positions on child -related traffic warning signs with papers by U.S. DOT, FHWA, NCHRP and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Though these all discourage the use of such signs, none of them cites specific research demonstrating that these signs are ineffective, and one source, the ITE Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities entry below, implies that no such studies exist, stating that "No accident -based studies have been able to determine the effectiveness of warning signs." State and Local Research and Practices contains a brief representative sampling of state and local positions on this topic. While many areas make use of these signs, we located no explicit defenses on engineering grounds for their use. A common theme is the ongoing struggle to explain to members of the public that their requests for these types of signs are based on faulty assumptions about their effectiveness. Many of the sources we located refer generically to multiple "studies" that have shown special warning signs to be ineffective, but despite extensive research we were unable to identify any specific projects meeting this description. National Research and Guidelines FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2000) hilvilmutcd,fhwadot.:ovikno-millennium 06,14,0 I littn„ A search of the MUTCD found no instances of "CAP," "watch for children," "slow children," "blind child" or "deaf." Related guidance includes the following: • From Section 2C.02, Application of Warning Signs (htielmutedthwa.clot,p-ovilITIVI/2003r1 /part 2,/part2c „WI:14sec t on2( 02): "The use of warning signs should be kept to a minimum as the unnecessary use of warning signs tends to breed disrespect for all signs." • From Section 2H.03, Regulatory and Warning Signs (htuELnutcd. fhwa,dot. Roy/KM/2003r Upart2/part2h.htm#section2H03): "All regulatory and warning signs installed on public roads and streets within recreational and cultural interest areas shall conform to the requirements of Chapters 2A, 2B, and 2C" (the chapters on general, regulatory and warning signs). • CAP or other message signs are not specifically prohibited as long as they conform to the standard shape (diamond) and colors (black letters on yellow background) and as long as no symbols are used. Some state -specific MUTCD supplements (such as in New York) present the option of a CAP or similar sign. Institute of Transportation Engineers: Traffic Control Devices Handbook (2001) Paper copies are available from the WisDOT library. Page 444 states that "Agencies should avoid the use of CAUTION — CHILDREN AT PLAY or SLOW CHILDREN nonstandard signs since such signs may imply 'that the involved jurisdiction approves of streets as playgrounds, which may result in the jurisdiction being vulnerable to tort liability." (This quote is reproduced and expanded in FHWA Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation: Pedestrian Signing and Pavement Markings at htt :I/safety ,t11 w a d ot, goWyed, bikeittniveourselswiess I 4, h tm To determine the original research basis for these claims, we noted that this source cites ITE's Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities (below) for the claim that using CAP signs "may result in the jurisdiction being vulnerable to tort liability," whereas this latter source, in its comments on CAP signs, refers back to this one. Page 444 also states that "there are conditions where selected traffic control devices may be considered, such as around parks, or conditions where children may have disabilities and drivers need to take extra care." This implies that Blind/Deaf/Handicapped/Autistic Child signs may be appropriate in some circumstances, though no evidence is cited on the effectiveness of these devices. ITE: Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities (1998) hup://safetv,tliwa,dotgov,TED BIKE ldoesidesigti sa fety,,,pdf Chapter 4, Pedestrian and Motorist Signing, states (page 42 of the PDF): "No accident -based studies have been able to determine the effectiveness of warning signs. However, this is understandable because of the complex nature of events leading into each accident." Of the 41 agencies responding to a questionnaire used in preparing this report, four reported that "all types of pedestrian -related signs and pavement stencils were helpful," while some agencies "responded that they use these devices in the hope that they will provide some benefit to pedestrians." (See page 39 of the PDF.) Also on page 39: "Signs should only be installed when they fulfill a need based on an engineering study or engineering judgment. In general, signs are often ineffective in modifying driver behavior, and overuse of signs breeds disrespect and diminishes effectiveness. Unnecessary signs and posts represent a hazard to errant motorists and may cause an obstruction to pedestrians and bicyclists. Furthermore, unnecessary signs are a waste of taxpayer dollars, represent an ongoing maintenance cost, and are a source of visual blight." NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 139: Pedestrians and Traffic -Control Measures (1988) Paper copies are available from the WisDOT library. This report, quoting an earlier version of the Traffic Control Devices Handbook than the one listed above, says "Nonuniform signs such as `CAUTION—CHILDREN AT PLAY,' `SLOW—CHILDREN,' or similar legends should not be permitted on any roadway at any time... the removal of any nonstandard signs should carry a high priority." NC :1' Synthesis of Highway Practice No. 186: Supplemental Advance Warning Devices (1993) Paper copies are available from the WisDOT library. This report gives examples of numerous related signs currently in use. A specific example of a CAP sign is given on pages 38-39: "The device is not considered effective, but installation of the sign satisfied parent and political leaders. Generally, the residents and homeowners' organization must pay to have this sign installed. The use of this sign and its variations has been discouraged by many agencies because the message implies that it is acceptable for children to be playing in the street. It is nonstandard due to the use of a symbol not contained in the MUTCD." U.S. DOT Message Points (February 11, 2002) Paper copies are available from the FHWA. Please send a request to Fred Ranck, Fred sanek d 1wa.dot.gov. This communication states U.S. DOT's position on CAP signs, which is to conform to MUTCD standards. Highlights include: ® Studies of the effectiveness of CAP signs by ITE, TRB and FHWA to date do not demonstrate a reduction in crashes involving children nor a reduction in speeds. (Note: ITE and FHWA staff were unaware of any studies.) ® From an ITE "traffic tips" series that answers residents' commonly asked questions about signs, etc.: "...studies made in cities where (CAP) signs were widely posted in residential areas showed no evidence of having reduced pedestrian crashes or vehicle speed." Several cities report that measured speeds on residential streets experienced no decrease after the installation of CAP warning signs. Further, several cities reported no decrease in the incidence of traffic crashes involving a child hit in the street after the installation of CAP warning signs. Fred Ranck of FHWA also states that "Children at Play" is not an appropriate message for a warning sign; rather "Watch for Children" is an appropriate message consistent with other warning sign messages. State and Local Research and Practices We have included some comments on CAP and other signs by state governments; state DOT research programs, including tech transfer efforts; and communities. Most sources agreed with the information from national sources. We have presented such exceptions as we were able to locate. We did not fmd any references to research supporting the use of these signs or other cogent arguments against the national stance regarding these signs. Multiple States More or less identical arguments repeating the national points made above appear in a number of state DOT tech transfer documents, including Massachusetts (htto://www.ecs.urnass„edt.Vbayst;ate_roads/newsle -slg 1i i,p . f), New Hampshire (httil is «02 ,-1 tt: l), California (c r - .tech r .ns1ea .ber eief.edulne vsi. i1er1"O5 i. si4 rs. ia) and Minnesota (l l _' , ,mr it .a . ?t ' Nth ' -1 1 1 v t ). This source states that "most collisions involving children are not actually caused by driver behavior (which this sign has very little demonstrated effect on), but by unsafe, erratic actions by children... The CHILDREN AT PLAY sign may well be understood by kids and families as a suggestion that it is acceptable for children to play in the street, and thus, by producing a false sense of security, be counterproductive. Furthermore, CHILDREN AT PLAY signs tend to propagate through neighborhoods, popping up on every block that has a child living on it. Signs lose credibility with motorists when they appear too often. Instead of being extra diligent, drivers tend to ignore the signs, particularly if no children are playing near the CHILDREN AT PLAY signs. When these signs appear too often, they raise questions like: If there is no sign does that mean there are no children present and no need to watch for children?" Alaska Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska, Traffic Department FAQ t-tl W . . ni. It fic t fro This FAQ asks: "Are there any guidelines for the installation of Children at Play signs?" Alaska DOT answers: "Yes. Children at Play signs are typically posted on neighborhood streets directly located off higher speed roadways." This approach may bypass many of the national arguments against the use of these signs. Colorado/Wyoming 2006 Section Activities Report: Colorado/Wyoming Section of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (2007) 1?t i : 1A `} W,ite.O1 g'eIe te{ '" ) t € ? 5 { : I il-12 29 € w :l )1 .pdf This report states that "nonuniform signs such as `Caution—Children at Play,' `Slow—Children' or similar legends should not be permitted on any roadway at any time," presenting the national reasons and citing the FHWA 1983 Traffic Control Devices Handbook. According to the ITE Journal, May 1988, "Children at Play signs may make parents feel more secure but they don't work and they carry no enforcement value." Colorado LTAP Newsletter, Spring 2004 little . itM l ,c 1, a o.edu n vt getter 'hexisietter Sprint2,04. , On page 3, this newsletter addresses the Web site question, "What does MUTCD say about `Children at Play' signs?" It repeats the national arguments and gives the additional argument, drawing from the TRB report Maintenance Management of Street and Highways Signs that deviating from the MUTCD (which does not include Children at Play and similar warning signs) is a bad idea because "about 29 percent of tort liability lawsuits against highway departments are related to traffic signing." Florida Florida Technology Transfer Traffic Information Program Series (TIPS), from the Florida Section (District 10) of the Institute of Transportation Engineers isi.tt7.'`:ITictra1 .s.cL,ui.,ecaft 3`ans or-t"wol Topicsitips..:3tin Two TIPS are relevant to this TSR: • "Won't a Children at Play sign help protect our kids?" (hit mete ::..isn :e.. 11 .eduitra n soorta tiro' `oi es/1;ip s, h tro ) This tip states that "studies made in cities where such signs were widely posted in residential areas show no evidence of having reduced pedestrian crashes, vehicle speed or legal liability. In fact, many types of signs which were installed to warn of normal conditions in residential areas failed to achieve the desired safety benefits. Further, if signs encourage parents with children to believe they have an added degree of protection—which the signs do not and cannot provide—a great disservice results... . Specific warnings for schools, playgrounds, parks and other recreational facilities are available for use where clearly justified." • "Why are traffic engineers reluctant to install Deaf Child or Blind Child warning signs?" (tt :/).tr js. aL.edu/tran.,:;pprt4tion'tmicsltigs,12tp*74) This tip gives the following reasons against using nonstandard, highly specific signs of this sort: o A Deaf Child or Blind Child sign does not describe where the child might be. Most streets within a residential area have children who react in the same way, and each driver must be aware of all children in a neighborhood environment. o These signs provide parents and children with a false sense of security that their children are safe when playing in or near the street. o When the novelty of such a sign wears off, the signs no longer attract the attention of regular passersby. o Unique or unusual warning signs are a target for vandals and souvenir hunters and have a high replacement cost. o Unique message signs have no legal meaning or established precedent for use in basic traffic engineering references. Their use is discouraged because of both the lack of proven effectiveness and undesirable liability exposure. o Many traffic engineers feel that special warning signs are warranted at a location adjacent to a school for the deaf or for the blind, and have considerably more merit than those at a location where a deaf or blind person may only cross occasionally. Maine 3.6.3 "Special" Warning Signs: "Children At Play," "Deaf Person," "Disabled Person," "Horse Crossing," etc. httpftww i ma in eslovirndotivvorkincz- k This regulation states that "...the driving public does not react favorably or positively to these signs in most cases. In the late 1990s, the MaineDOT changed its policy on the installation and maintenance of these signs. It is virtually impossible for the MaineDOT to keep track of every handicapped person, playing child and crossing horse in every town along all state roads.... Knowing that these signs are generally ineffective, MaineDOT does NOT advise the use of these signs because allowing one sets precedence and generates many more requests and creates a new fmancial burden on the municipality." Michigan Speed Control in Residential Areas t ..fir ' ' 'it , etra ic1 o u m eats/ t 'a ' }05_3, :) Page 24 of the PDF states: "Special warning signs such as `Children at Play,' `Watch for Children' or others that warn of normal conditions are not effective in reducing speeds in residential areas," among other of the standard national arguments against these signs. It continues: "The MMUTCD provides standards for signs warning drivers that they are approaching recreational facilities such as parks and playgrounds. However, there is not enough evidence to determine the effect of these warning signs on vehicle speeds." (Reference: Michigan Department of Transportation and the Michigan State Police, Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1994 edition.) City of Troy, Mich.: "How about a `Children at Play' sign?" w,cx itt ` tio'.%i ii.v " fi lw 1 inc€ r g _ f i `, `t %204 `':,2( I"v,htr According to this document, "Studies made in cities around the nation where such signs were widely posted in residential areas show no evidence of having reduced pedestrian crashes, vehicle speed or legal liability." According to research in the City of Troy: "Studies in the City of Troy have also shown very low effectiveness of the sign and therefore have not installed them in the past several years. Before and after studies showed no reduction in speeds." Minnesota Frequently Asked Questions, Office of Traffic, Safety and Operations f ://www . .ot, state, m u.s t ., _�- `f aS sizni trr yr! Question: "I would like to have a 'deaf child/blind child/slow children at play' sign installed on my street/highway near my home. How do I get this accomplished?" Answer: "Mn/DOT does not install this type of sign on state highways since it is not enforceable (it is a warning sign) and it can lead to a false sense of security. If you are requesting signing on a city street, contact the city offices." North Carolina Traffic Engineering Policies, Practices and Legal Authority Resources NCDOT will install these signs upon receipt of a formal written request meeting certain criteria: ® Blind Child Area Signing: 1 rM, iot,orgle hip r , i.0 _.?„pdf ® Autistic Child Area Signing: .itt- vw .cdc. ..o fpreconstruc;t to 01B- /tem,i'Topics/•'A-.t $/A- ® Deaf Child Area Signing. hnp-//www0 2..._p. df This strategy seems typical of a number of states. According to rtwp:;.'ww ne ot,org€i 1preco tructit:af c(t i p i o}. gcs/C-05/C-05 mrn,i `, "Children Playing warning signs are not approved for use on the state highway system right of way. These signs tend to promote a false sense of security for the children and encourage them to actually play in the roadway, since traffic is warned of their presence." Ohio Slow Children at Play Signs tlft ° t:t TE< 2 tndies el C1 According to this policy, "These signs are not used by Ohio Department of Transportation on the rural state highway system and ODOT discourages others from using them." This text is repeated in the Office of Traffic Engineering Traffic Engineering Manual, page 19 of the PDF: l tt " t st to o tt ,'traffic, i i i o i� s 1j art_{ t .t wb oir" € `� 20for%2QQ72007,42 df Virginia A Look at What Some States are Doing. "Deaf Child Area" Signs Available in Virginia (1988) From AASHTO QUARTERLY, Vol. 67, No. 4, p. 13. Paper copies are available through the transportation library system. VDOT officials have developed a policy that allows the use of Deaf Child Area warning signs. Parents of hearing-impaired children can request these signs through the VDOT residency for the area where the sign is desired. The request must be supported by medical certification of the child's hearing loss. The signs will be allowed on nonlimited access roadways of the primary or secondary system. Jurisdictions maintaining their own streets and highways are encouraged to use similar guidelines for the use of these signs. West Virginia Traffic Engineering Directive 225: "Children at Play" Signing (1999) atti: 'wwwmmw v°doi.cc corn/en as 3nee -ins ariu a k/Tm-iti cal at1 F[)22S.pd This directive states that "since the other signing alternatives convey to motorists specific regulations or warning or more permanent roadway conditions rather than conditions that may exist at unspecified times, Children Present signs should only be installed after all the other alternatives have been considered." CHILDREN AT PLAY Sign Policy An often heard neighborhood request concerns the posting of generalized warning signs with "Children at Play", "Slow Children" or other similar messages. Parental concern for the safety of children in the streets near home, and a misplaced but wide -spread public faith in the ability of traffic signs providing protection, often prompt these requests. Some cities have posted "Children at Play" signs in residential areas despite studies showing that generalized signs warning of normal conditions such as children in a residential area fail to achieve the desired safety benefits. Studies made in cities where such signs were widely posted in residential areas showed no evidence of having reduced pedestrian collisions, vehicular speeds, or legal liability. "Children at Play" signs may give parents and children a false sense of security as the sign is assumed to provide protection, which in reality it does not. Drivers already expect the presence of children in residential areas, especially at certain times, and studies show that devices attempting to warn motorists of normal conditions or conditions that are not always present fail to achieve the desired safety benefits. Due to these serious considerations, Federal standards no longer include "Children at Play" signs. Special conditions such as warnings of school zones, playgrounds, parks and other recreational facilities, do warrant signing, as these are not easily anticipated by drivers. Parents also seem to believe such signs may help reduce speeds. There is no evidence that these signs prevent accidents or reduce the speed of vehicles. Unfortunately, we have found all too often that most of the traffic problems within a neighborhood are caused by the residents in that area. Perhaps exerting sufficient social pressure on the offender or slowing the pace of modern life might alleviate most of these traffic problems. Most importantly, parents should teach children the dangers of playing in or near roadways and strongly discourage them from doing so. Children should not be encouraged to play in the street. Federal standards reject these signs because they openly suggest that playing in the street is acceptable. Since children live on nearly every residential block, if used, the signs would have to be placed on each street and would eventually become "invisible" to most drivers. In addition, blocks with no signs might imply that no children live there, so it is all right to speed. Page 1 of 3 CHILDREN AT PLAY Sign Policy Q: Are "Children at Play" signs effective? A: "Children at Play" signs tend to create a false sense of security for parents and children who believe the signs provide added protection when motorists, particularly local ones, actually pay little attention to them. The use of "Children at Play" and similar signs are not a recognized traffic control device by the State of Tennessee. The signs are a direct and open suggestion to parents and children that playing in or beside the roadway is safe. Q: Will "Children at Play" Signs Help Slow Traffic? A: Signs are used to guide and direct motorists. Unnecessary signs can confuse, distract and irritate motorists. Use of unnecessary signs can promote a lack of respect for all signs. The best example is the "Children at Play" sign. While it may seem that this sign would protect neighborhood youngsters, facts indicate otherwise. Although some communities have posted these signs in residential areas, no evidence exists to prove that these signs help reduce pedestrian accidents or lower speed. Q: How can I make my neighborhood a safe place for children to play? A: Signs that are not necessary confuse drivers and encourage disrespect for all signs. However, signs should be posted, for school zones, pedestrian crossings, playgrounds, and other recreational areas, where a need exists. Warning signs can be effective tools if used sparingly and only to warn motorists of uncommon hazards that are not apparent to drivers. Most importantly, parents should never allow their children to play in the street. Neighborhood parks are available in many residential areas where children can play safely with proper supervision. Q: How do I get speed limits lowered for children playing in the streets? A: Again, parents should not allow their children to play in the street. The roadways are installed specifically for the movement of motorized vehicles. Concerned citizens often request lower speed limits on residential streets where children are residing. The statutory speed limit on most residential streets is 20 MPH. Requests can be made on the City website at cityofwhitehouse.com. Page 2 of 3 CHILDREN AT PLAY Sign Policy Q: What is the City's policy on "Children at Play" signs? A: The City should not install "Children at Play" signs for the following reasons: 1. These types of signs are not recognized by the State or Federal Highway Administration as official traffic control devices. 2. Placing these signs would suggest that the City allows children to play in the street. The City is unable to assume this responsibility due to the obvious liability associated with it. SL$AV ClittOft EN AT PLAY Remember CHLDREN AT PLAY " signs • ARE GENERALLY DISREGARDED BY:* MOTORISTS • GIVE PEDESTRIANS A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY 11 meatummommenuarateammosmammainematmematwa Page 3 of 3 Children at Play Signs As described in. Section 2C.02 of the MU-T(7D, the purpose of warning signs is to inform drivers of a condition they are likely to encounter con- sistently. The use of Playground signs (W15-1) alerts drivers to locations where children can be expected. This sign should be used only in. advance of a location adjacent to the roadway designated for children's play, creating the potential for a high concentration of children. W154 Wanting signs should be uniformly designed and used; generailv symbol messaue signs are recommended. Children at Play and variations such as Slow—Children, Watch Children, and Caution—Children signs are not consistent and may confuse drivers. The MUTCD does not recommend the use of these nonuniform signs. Special warning signs, such as those described, or similar warnings, such as Deaf Child, intend to warn drivers and reduce vehicle speeds. However, many studies have shown that vehicle speeds are primarily determined by roadway conditions and environment, not signing. Overuse of these signs or placement in non warranted situations .may cause drivers to ignore the intended message. More positive means of speed control in neighborhoods may be accomplished with traffic calming measures described in the article "Traffic Calming Mea- sures" (G9) in this manual. Some jurisdictions have developed guidelines for the installation of special warning signs, such as the Deaf (-Mild sign. These guidelines usually require medical certification of hearing loss and include a maximum age stipulation. .perhaps 0 to 12 years of age—assuming that this signing will no longer be necessary once the child reaches that age. This stipulation also assures that signing will be removed once the need has passed. These guidelines also generally restrict the use of Deaf Child signs to non -access re- stricted roadways. More pertinent information on this topic can be found in the appendix, children at/Jia)' signs (2.1 2001 Start your Engines: The Walking School Bus Funded in part with a major grant from Measure B — your half cent transportation sales tax Parent surveys Primary reasons children were not allowed to walk to school: • Fear of strangers • Traffic Hazards • Time and Convenience of driving Item 3 Our Program 2007-2009 50 schools - Berkeley, Oakland, Unincorporated Areas 2009 - 2011+ 90 schools - Countywide Parent surveys Primary reasons children were not allowed to walk to school: • Child considered too young to walk alone Solution: The Walking School Bus! • Only method that increases behavior on a daily basis • Easily combined with other encouragement activities • Low cost • Highly visible Walking School Bus Training o Pedestrian safety • Planning the routes • Rosters & sign ups • Publicity & Visibility (Vests, etc.) • Tak to princpaI and key parents • Find out where students Hve o Assess topography Creative Recruitment • The drect approach: stand in front of school ~ Word of mouth — parents are your best recruters o Find parents not already committed to other projects • Marketing 2 Keep it fun and support the effort • Constant reinforcement • Contests and event • Monthly walk and roll to school days Nora Cody, Director Safe Routes to Schools Alameda County Partnership (510) 740-3150 ext. 323 Local champions are key • Must have on ste coordinator ~ Consistent support and communication from Safe Routes to Schools program • Buy -in from principal • No cookie -cutter approach — every schoo is different • Be flexible and creative air • Parent engage development are • Sustainability = ongoing support . 3 Palo Alto Safe Routes to Schoo Why We Drive National Trends: - Increase in multiple car families - Cultural change/habit - Increased traffic volumes on school routes - Growth in dual career and single parent families - Fear of abduction Local Factors: - School closures/creation of choice schools resulted in wider attendance areas and longer commutes for many children - Elimination of school bus service What Auto Reliance Does to Schools/Community • PAUSD schools weren't designed to carry high volumes of autos — Driveways, surrounding city streets, parking lots lack capacity for the auto volumes that many campuses currently generate. • Reduces community safety and accessibility for those who can't drive. • Generates noise and carbon pollution. • Undermines community health general well- being. Driving Trends • Thirty years ago over 66% of America's children walked or biked to school. Today, only 13% walk and bike to school • cusp,,,.-c...cmtaaFlaronli. 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 US 30 Years Ago US Today What Auto Reliance Takes from Children • Freedom/Self-Reliance/Pleasure • Learning/Practice Safety Skills • Fitness/Health • Readiness to Learn In School • Environmental Stewardship • Time for Connection — With Family, Friends, Community Safe Routes to School Goal: Create and sustain a city/school/community partnership: • to reduce risk to students en route to and from school • to encourage more families to use alternatives to solo driving more often Safe Routes to School • City/School Traffic Safety Committee — omoialauvisoryuuuvto PAUSD and CPA. Meets monthly. It is the primary venue for members to bring issues forward for problem—solving. — Members: PAPD, CPA Transportation, PAUSD, PTA • City/School Liaison Committee — Policy-making venue to raise larger policy issues. Safe Routes Task Force meets with City Council and BOE members and high-level stafffrom PAUSD & CPA. 4 E's: Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Encouragement « ' Education • Classes: — "Safe Moves" K-2 Pedestrian Safety Classes — 3rd Grade Bicycle Education Program _ Grade Traffic Safety Refresher Classes — 6th Grade "Drive Your Bike" Classes — Middle School Bike Skills Four E's: Education, Enforcement, EngineeringEncouragement Engineering—CPA & PAUSD collaborate to create operalional and physical improvements to the infrastructure surrounding schoos, reducing speeds, and estabHshing safer crosswatks and pathways. CPA-Responsibe for public street safety PAUSD-Responsibte for school ste safety 4 E's: Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Encouragement Education Teach lifelong traffic safety skffls and the benefits of using alternative transportation. 4 E's: Eduomtkon, Enforcemmnt, Engineering, Encouragement Education: Parents (key decision -makers) • "Bringing Up Bicyclists" classes • Quarterly PTA newsletter messages • Traffic Safety Handbooks • Palo Alto Safe Routes to School web site www.saferoutes.paloaltopta.orq Engineering Projects ~ ' "��roaawa|�a�'�pmgxs'gna — Palo Verde ~ MP Library Connectors ~ HSR BFlProcess • Bike path/bike racks • Speed Trailer — Rotates for all schools 2 Current Engineering Projects • Oregon Expressway Intersection Safety • Charleston/Arastradero Plan • Stanford/EI Camino Real Intersection • Embarcadero/Paly Safe Crossing • PAUSD Long-term Facilities Planning Making the Link: Walking, Biking, Carpooling, +Riding the Bus = Healthy, Green, Safer, FUN 4 E's: Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Encouragement Enforcement—Partner with PAPD to enforce traffic laws and ensure safety of school bound children. — Dedicated PAPD Traffic Team • 29 Adult Crossing Guards 4 E's: Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Encouragement Encouraging Alternatives Promote benefits of walking, biking, and other alternative modes.(29 TSRs) Encouraging Alternative Modes • October Walk & Roll events • April Earth Day events • Bike to Middle School events • Pedaling for Prizes (Gunn) • Rainy Day Carpool Promotion • Messages to parents: Back to School, a -news, school newsletter) • Carpool Matching Programs • Advocate for and publicize public transit availability (City shuttles, VTA) PAUSD Growth Impacts City Streets – PAUSD is intensifying use at multiple sites, especially secondary school sites. – This creates additional traffic impacts on city streets: spillover parking, congestion, safety. – Surrounding street systems do not have adequate ROW for additional capacity. 3 • Current bell time surge at Gunn: equivalent of over 1.200 vehicles entering per hour (7:40-8:00am) • Two primary intersections serving Gunn and PARC, Miranda and Gunn are already at LOS F. PAUSD Expansion Plans • Gunn High School +311 students (16% increase) • Palo Alto High School +518 students (29% increase) • Jordan Middle School +140 students (13% increase) • Garland Elementary School (on hold) • JLS Middle School +126 students (11% increase) • Fairmeadow Elementary School + -106 students (25% increase) • Ohlone Elementary School + — 64 students (12%) PAUSD Neighborhood Schools Since 1994, despite increased enrollment, PAUSD has not seen a significant increase in vehicle trips at neighborhood schools due to increased alternative mode choices by students. PAUSD Neighborhood Schoob: Enrollment d How Gatto School 166]-]066 Gunn High School Expansion PAUSD is building for projected 16% enrollment growth at Gunn. <hom CEOA. ESA No. 209002.4/19/2010) - 1,948 students in 2008-9 - 2,259 students in 2018 Mitigation plans for auto impacts of this expansion rely on continued increases in percentage of students using alternative modes, especially walking and biking to school. PA Bucking The National Trend • Currently 44% of PAUSD's elementary school children usually walk, bike, or scooter to school. • 10% ride a bus or carpool. • 46% are usually driven to school in a single family car. 70 60 50 40 30 20 ■ US 30 Years US Today PAUSD Today Ago PAUSD Choice Schools Current programs don't seem to work as well at choice schools where walking and biking is not an option for many families who travel farther. Choice schools may be an ideal place to pilot carpool/bikepool matching programs. PAUSD Schoob with Choice Programa: Enrollment and How Gatto School189.2006 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% Gunn and Paly: Students Biking to School (%) 5% - 0% 198611993 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200512006 2007 2008 2009 ® Gunn 20%I 11% 14% 10% 14% 15% 18%1 24 % 26% 31% 33% Paly 33%1 25% 16% 11% 11% 12% 14%1 17% 1 16%1 22 % 26% 30% 32% Formula for Healthy Community Environment: 4Es +1 E+A • Education • Enforcement • Encouragement • Engineering • Evaluation & Advocacy "Democracy is not a spectator sport." 80% 70% 60% 50% 5 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% PAUSD Middle Schools: Students Biking to School (%) 1985 1991 1993 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Public Works Department MEMO TO: Traffic Safety Commission FROM: Kristin Borel DATE: July 8, 2010 RE: Stop Sign Warrant Requirements Item 4 Here is a draft description that Fehr & Peers provided us on Stop Sign Warrants that we can develop to distribute to the public. The determination and need for the installation of a stop -sign at an unsignalized intersection is typically based on guidance from the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which is based on the federal document, but refined by Caltrans for use in California. Stop -signs should be installed after a review of site conditions, and engineering judgment should be used to evaluate the location for the following conditions: • Intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of- way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law • Street entering a through highway or street • Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area • High speeds, restricted view, or crash records indicate a need for control by the STOP sign The MUTCD also specifies where stop signs should NOT be used, including for speed control or on a major street unless justified by an engineering study (showing that the conditions listed above are met). They should be installed so that a minimum number of vehicles have to stop (a Yield sign may also be considered). The following are considerations that might influence the decision regarding the appropriate street upon which to install a STOP sign where two streets with relatively equal volumes and/or characteristics intersect: • Stopping the direction that conflicts the most with established pedestrian crossing activity or school walking routes • Stopping the direction that has obscured vision, dips, or bumps that already require drivers to use lower operating speeds • Stopping the direction that has the longest distance of uninterrupted flow approaching the intersection • Stopping the direction that has the best sight distance to conflicting traffic