Loading...
01-17-1995 - "Children at Play" SignsCity of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA. ITEM NO. D-1 TO: City Manager and City Council DATE . January 17, 1995 ®PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER FROM: Patrick Glover City Engineer/Public Works Director SUBJECT: "CHILDREN AT PLAY" SIGNS SUMMARY: At the City Council meeting on January 3, 1995, staff was requested to supply more detailed information on "Children at Play" signs to assist the City Council in its consideration of the Traffic Committee's recommendation to continue the existing policy of only installing approved traffic control devices on City streets. pf-Ilowwww= On January 3, 1995, the City Council considered the December 20, 1994 Traffic Committee Item V which included; a request for the installation of "Watch for Children" or "Children at Play" signs. on Loma Vista Street, east of Astell Avenue. The staff report included some brief comments- and an attached informational, report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers regarding the problems. and -pitfalls. associated., with : "Slow,- Children: at Play" signs or other similar messages. The Traffic Committee -recommendation was to deny the request for the installation of a "Children at Play" or "Watch for Children" sign. The City Council requested an expanded report regarding these types of signs. BACKGROUND RESEARCH: i Staff has researched Federal; State and local laws, .regulations and: standards,. tolprovide as much factual background as possible. The following is relevant information found concerning traffic control devices in general and "Children at Play" or similarly worded signs. 1) In 1966, under authority, granted by Congress, the United States Secretary of Transportation decreed that traffic control devices on all streets. and highways in each State shall- be in substantial conformance with standards issued or . endorsed 'by the Federal Highway Administrator. 2) The United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration publishes the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways", (MUTCD). Prior to.1977, the "Children at Play" sign was accepted for use as an " "other warning sign" but the sign was not "standardized". MUTCD expresses a "fear that it would be misused for speed control attempts. and would be disregardedeven when placed in areas of real need". In 1977, an accepted and standardized sign for designated children's play areas (the "Playground Sign") was approved. The sign is intended to warn of a high concentration of young children at a designated play area (i.e., playground, tot lot or similar facility). The sign is a yellow diamond, depicting two children on a see -saw (see attachment). Concurrently, the "Children at. Play" sign became no longer an, accepted sign. An "accepted sign" is one which is acknowledged as existing and is approved for limited use. A "standardized" sign is one which is included within the uniform manual and can be used by all entities. 3) The California State Traffic Manual section on traffic control devices is primarily a repetition of the federal manual with minor modifications to reflect unique State concerns. This manual includes the "Playground Sign" but does not include any references to "Children at Play" or similar signs. City Council Report January 17, 1995 Page Two 4) The Uniform Vehicle Code has the following provision for the adoption of a uniform manual of traffic control devices: "The State Highway Agency shalli adopt a manual and specification for a uniform system of traffic control devices consistent with the provisions of this act for. use upon highways within this State. Such uniform system shall correlate with and so far as possible conform to the system set forth in the most recent edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, and other standards issued or endorsed by the Federal Highway Administrator." - 5) A telephone survey of 24 local cities , (list attached) regarding the use of "Children at Play" or similarly worded signs resulted in the: finding that none of them use these signs. However, three old signs were found in Azusa and, in questioning the Traffic Engineer, it was found that the use of the signs stopped over ten years ago and the signs that are still up are not being maintained and will not be replaced as they deteriorate. If there are other signs in the surveyed cities, they probably pre -date the "Playground Sign". The signs found in Azusa were yellow rectangles worded "Watch Out for Children". It is interesting to note that- these signs . did not. conform to, the shape and wording. for the then: "accepted` "Children at Play" sign. Two of the signs were adjacent to City parks and the third was on a residential street in. the San Gabriel Canyon. 6 Staff was unable to find any studies iconcerning, the effectiveness of "Children at Play" I or other similarly worded signs. This, is understandable since these signs were never "standardlzed". 7) To, staffs knowledge, the City of West. Covina. has never used "Children at Play" or similarly worded signs. LN D - Federal and State law, regulations and standards are intended to create an understandable and consistent system of traffic control devices. The average driver has to recognize and understand the function and meaning of a vast amount of traffic control devices. Although a. "Children at Play" -or similarly worded sign appears rather simple,. the average driver does not have a commonly accepted understanding of what the sign means. It could mean there are children playing in the street, or there could be a playground nearby, or the speed limit has changed or any number of other things. Along with all the other informational input while driving, the non- uniform sign could be confusing or distracting. The overriding concern is safety. A confused or distracted driver may not be a safe driver. ` In recognition of the benefits of having uniform traffic control devices, the Traffic Committee recommended not changing the current policy of only using "accepted" and "standardized" (Le, approved) traffic control devices on City streets. The Traffic Committee recommendation is based on sound engineering judgement and is considered appropriate. In addition, it was felt that a "Children at Play" sign would encourage children to play in a public street. Installing traffic control devices that are not approved can potentially affect City liability. The City Council may use its judgement to arrive at a final decision that differs from the Traffic Committee recommendation. The various laws, regulations and standards are worded so that, governing bodies can deviate from uniform traffic control devices. However, as a means of discouraging the use of non -uniform traffic control devices, some added finding or reason is needed to justify a deviation. ME City Council Report January 17, 1995 Page Three There are two 1. Install "Playgrow potentially high conce designate the affected intended use of this sig are not desirable. 2. Install "Children at in a public street and to some other wording ma for Children" is prefer, should be doing all the play in the street. However, in the City Council wou use of an "other wai Devices requires that wording, the sign j requirements for wan that the use- of warn es to the Traffic Committee recommendation: " signs which are "accepted" and "standardized", where there is a ration of young children. The City Council would have to officially ections of public streets as *children's play areas". This is. not the and the repercussions to officially mixing vehicles and children together lay" or similarly worded signs. To avoid encouraging children to play Lvoid instilling some false sense of security in the children and parents, be more appropriate. Using Azusa as an example,. the wording "Watch le. The sign would reinforce to the driver an action which the driver sne, while not directly implying that children are being encouraged to ordance with the Federal Manual. on Uniform Traffic Control. Devices, have to make a finding that a "special condition" exists, warranting the g sign In addition, the State Manual on Uniform Traffic Control "Engineering Study" of each location "must" be done. Except for the st otherwise conform to shape, color, size, placement and other g signs. The sign would be a yellow diamond. Also, MUTCD cautions signs. should not be "excessive"` so as to "lose their. effectiveness".. If the`- City Council wereto authorize the use of such a sign, the City Council. should refer this matter to they; Traffic Committee for development of a. recommendation on "special conditions` for subsequent. City Council adoption. There is no definition. within -Federal or State manuals of "special conditions"'. Therefore, this matter is -left to local discretion. At present, staff, receives approximately 30 verbal requests per year for this type of sign. After advising the requestor of the current City policy in reference to. "Children at Play"' signs, there is rarely a written request made to the Traffic Committee. However, if this alternative was approved, the number of written requests would most likely significantly increase.. FISCAL EWPACT: ; ; If the City Council does not change the existing City policy, there would be no fiscal impact. If the City Council were to authorize using "Watch for Children" signs, the approximate cost to initially fabricate and- install each sign is $245. The sign is typically replaced once every seven years at an approximate cost of $129. Assuming 30 requests per year, the annual cost would gradually increase from about $7,350 in the first year to about $11,220 in the seventh year. Eventually, after' signs are installed to cover all the "special conditions% the ongoing annual cost would be about $4,000. The funding to cover these costs would come from Gas Tax,. if available, or General Funds. The cost involved in the remainder of this fiscal year could be absorbed within the current operating budget of the Maintenance Department, through a reduction in the amount of street resurfacing or other reductions in controllable cost centers. To reduce the fiscal impact on the City, the requestor of the sign(s) could be required to pay for the initial installation cost of the sign(s). City Council Report January 17, 1995 Page Four CONCLUSION: While there are alternatives to the Traffic Committee's recommendation to continue the City's current policy, Staff s professional opinion recommends against using them for liability, fiscal, and safety concerns. _ RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the.City Council approve continuing the existing policy of only installing approved traffic control devices on . City Streets. A4- /Patrick J. Glo City Engineer/Public Works Director PJG: GW:lw /attachments- ire. CITY OF ALHAMBRA CITY OF AZUSA CITY OF BALDWIN PARK CITY OF BURBANK. CITY OF CHINO CITY OF CLAREMONT ,CITY OF COSTA MESA CITY OF COVINA CITY OF DOWNEY CITY OF EL MONTE CITY OF FULLERTON CITY OF GLENDALE CITY OF GLENDORA CITY OF LAVERNE' CITY OF MONROVIA CITY OF MONTEBELLO CITY OF MONTEREY PARK CITY OF ONTARIO CIT-Y OF PASADENA; CITY" OF POMONA. - - - -- CITY OF SANDIMAS' CITY OF UPLAND CITY OF WESTMINSTER CITY OF WHITTLER