Loading...
02-06-1996 - Traffic Committee Minutes - 01/16/96N City of West Covina Memorandum TO: City Manager and City Council j AGEPMA � FROM: Thomas M. Mayer, Secretary ITEM NO. C-5a DATE February 6, 1996 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MINUTES ® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER he the Minutes of the Traffic Committee Meeting held on January 16 19961! Attached g ry , Thomas M. Mayer, Sec t Traffic Committee TMM:gc TRAFFIC:trafmmo Attachments d '* Traffic Committee Meetia January 16, 1996 j REGULAR MEETING OF THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE j CITY OF WEST COVINA TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1996 2.00 P.M. l POLICE .DEPARTMENT Present: Lt. Schimanski, PD; Tom Mayer and Gordon Williams, Building and Engineering Department L REQUEST: I Leaf Clark, 1311 Peppertree Circle 91792 l THAT SPEED BUMPS BE INSTALLED ON THE 2100 BLOCK OF EVENINGSIDE DRIVE: ' SUMMARY: The City periodically received requests for the installation of speed bumps and/or speed humps. The City does not install speed bumps nor speed humps. These devices are not recommended by the California State Traffic Manual. Tests of these devices have revealed numerous problems: l l TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: THAT THE REQUEST TO INSTALL SPEED BUMPS BE DENIED. I THAT A DOUBLE YELLOW STRIP WITH RAISED MARKERS AT EIGHT FEET ON CENTER BE INSTALLED ALONG THE THREE HORIZONTAL CURVES BETWEEN PARKSIDE CIRCLE AND BRENTWOOD DRIVE. II l THAT A PRIMA FACIE 25 MPH SPEED LIMIT BE POSTED ATI TWO LOCATIONS ALONG BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND APPROACHES. II. THAT THE MUNICIPAL CODE BE REVISED DELETING THE 30 MPH LIMIT• FOR EVENINGSIDE DRIVE. THAT THE CITY'S RADAR TRAILER BE USED TO EVALUA RESULTS OF THESE ACTIONS. REOUEST: City Initiated. THAT THE ON THE S( FEET WES'. AVENUE A' SUMMARY: This Traffic 1 meeting. Sta Grovecenter � their property parking restri Committee aI houses as recu THE tQUEST FOR PARKING AND STOPPING TO BE PROHIBITED UTH SIDE OF BADILLO STREET FROM LARK ELLEN TO 600 AND ON THE NORTH SIDE FROM 570 FEET EAST OF VINCENT THE CITY LIMIT TO LARK ELLEN AVENUE BE HELD OVER. h .ommittee request was held over for further study from the November T contacted the Faith Community Church, Covina Valley Hospital and ;hool Administrations regatding the proposed parking restrictions abutting As of January 11, all three responded to survey. They are opposed to :tions abutting their property. At its November meeting, the'ITraffic )roved parking prohibitions on the south side adjacent to the residential ested by the residents. TRAFFIC: jan%sum Traffic Committee Meetings' January 16, 1996 II. REQUEST: (continued) TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE REQUEST FOR PARKING AND STOPPING TO BE PROHIBITED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BADILLO STREET FROM LARK ELLEN TO' 600 FEET WEST AND ON THE NORTH SIDE FROM 570 FEET EAST OF VINCENT AVENUE AT THE CITY LIMIT' TO LARK ELLEN AVENUE BE DENIED. III. REQUEST: Mr. and Mrs. Victor Perilla 127 North Maplewood Avenue 91790 THAT THE EXISTING CONCRETE WALKWAY (PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT) BETWEEN MAPLEWOOD AVENUE AND VINCENT AVENUE ABUTTING THE NORTH SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE 10 FREEWAY BE REMOVED (VACATED). SUMMARY: The walkway functions as a transportation link from Maplewood Avenue to Vincent Avenue. The Traffic Committee reviewed the same request during 1993. Staff has conducted a postcard survey of the residents that may be inconvenienced by the removal of the concrete walkway. Of the 56 postcards returned, 31 were opposed and 22 were in favor of the removal of the walkway. It is apparent that there is still considerable objections to removing the walkway. Under Section 8300 et al of the State Street and Highways Code, a public hearing is, required to proceed with a vacation of this easement. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE REQUEST BE DENIED. THAT THIS MATTER BE REFERRED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING THE LEGAL ABILITY TO VACATE THE EASEMENT WITH A SEPARATE FOLLOW UP REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. IV. REQUEST: City Initiated. THAT CONDITIONS AT THE WESTBOUND APPROACH TO THE r i INTERSECTION OF AMAR ROAD AND TEMPLE AVENUE BE REVIEWED. SUMMARY: A previous review of congestion associated with the existing westbound left turn lane on Amar Road at Temple Avenue was completed in November 1990. In November of 1990, Traffic Committee concurred with staff and recommended that the exiting left turn lane be extended to 240 feet in length. The total estimated costs to complete the lane extension is $60,000. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE LEFT TURN LANE TO 240 FEET IN LENGTH ON THE WESTBOUND APPROACH OF AMAR ROAD TO TEMPLE AVENUE BE GIVEN CONSIDERATION AS PART OF FUTURE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS. TRAFFIC: jan%sum Traffic Committee Meeting t January 16, 1996 V. REQUEST: City Initiated. ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY OF AROMA DRIVE. SUMMARY: 'I The effective enforcement of posted speed limits with radar on certain streets requires that an Engineering and Traffic Survey must have been completed within the previous five years. III a. Prevailing Speeds (MPH) ' Critical Approach Speeds II Recommended Street Segment 1995 Existing Limits 1990 1995 10 mph Speed Speed Limit 85% (mph) 85% (mph) Pace Limit Azusa Avenue to N/A 43 30 to 39 55 40 Donna Beth Avenue Donna Beth Avenue to N/A 42 31 to 40 55 40 Galster Park Galster Park to N/A 35 26 to 35 55 i� 35 Donna Beth Avenue it TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: j� II THAT THE SPEED LIMIT ON AROMA DRIVE BE REDUCED FROM 55 MPH AS SHOWN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING LIMITS: AZUSA AVENUE TO GALSTER PARK 40 GALSTER PARK TO DONNA BETH AVENUE 35 MPH VI. REQUEST: County Initiated. I ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY FOR THE STREET SEGMENT OF LA PUENTE ROAD BETWEEN NOGALES STREET AND SENTOUS AVENUE. ouT ur _-w This Traffic Committee request was reviewed during December of 1994. However, Los Angeles County has completed a review of their segment of La Puente Road between Nogales Street and Sentous Avenue. According to their findings, a five mile per hour reduction of the established speed limit is warranted because of an excessive accident rate. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE SPEED LIMITS ON LA PUENTE ROAD BE REDUCED FROM 45 MPH AS SHOWN BETWEEN THE' FOLLOWING LIMITS: NOGALESj STREET TO SENTOUS AVENUE 40 MPH TRAFFIC:jan%sum j i Traffic Committee Meeti> y January 16, 1996 VII. REQUEST: City Initiated. THAT A LEFT TURN LANE OR A TWO-WAY LEFT TURN LANE BE INSTALLED ON CITRUS STREET AT THE CORTEZ PARK DRIVEWAY APPROACH. THAT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL BE INSTALLED ON CITRUS STREET AT THE CORTEZ PARK DRIVEWAY APPROACH. SUMMARY: Staff has prepared several' drawings. The first drawing shows the existing conditions. There are several alternative drawings of left turn lanes and continuous. (two-way) left turn lanes.. All the alternatives will require prohibition of parking and stopping. THAT THE REQUEST BE .D OVER FOR FURTHER STUDY. iv TRAFFIC:jan%sum Traffic Committee - January 16, 1996 I. REOUEST: Leaf Clark, 011 Peppertree Circle 91792 THAT SPEED BUMPS BE INSTALLED ON THE 2100 BLOCK OF. EVENINGSIDE DRIVE. FINDINGS: The City periodically received requests for the installation of speed bumps and/or speed humps. The City does not install speed bumps nor speed humps. These devices are not recommended by the California State Traffic Manual. Tests of these devices have revealed numerous problems. Vehicle operators often swerve or steer around such devices. Some vehicle operators will actually accelerate when traversing speed bumps to reduce discomfort. The operators of smaller vehicles (motorcycles, bicycles and scooters) may lose control of their vehicles when traversing even relatively mild grade changes. According to 'the Institute of Transportation Engineers; "The control of speeding in residential neighborhoods, while maintaining acceptably safe street and roadway conditions, is a wide -spread concern which requires persistent law enforcement effort.I The inability of posted speed limit signs to curb the intentional violator, leads to frequent demands for installation of "speed bumps" in public streets and alleys. However, actual tests of various experimental designs have demonstrated the physical inability of a speed bump to control all types of light weight and heavy weight vehicles successfully. California courts have held public lagencies liable for personal injuries resulting from faulty designs. Increased hazard to the unwary; challenges to the dare- devils, (disruption of the movement of both emergency and service vehicles; and undesirable increase in noise have caused speed bumps` to be officially rejected as a standard traffic control device.) " The Traffic Committee completed an extensive review of speed bumps and speed humps earlier this year. The report is attached. THAT THE REQUEST BE DENIED. THAT THE REQUEST QUEST TO INSTALL SPEED BUMPS BE DENIED. THAT A DOUBLE YELLOW STRIP WITH RAISED MARKERS AT EIGHT FEET ON CENTER BE INSTALLED ALONG THE THREE, HORIZONTAL CURVES BETWEEN PARKSIDE CIRCLE AND BRENTWOOD DRIVE. THAT A PRIMA FACIE 25 MPH SPEED LIMIT BE POSTED AT TWO LOCATIONS ALONG BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND APPROACHES. THAT THE MUNICIPAL CODE BE REVISED DELETING THE 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT FOR EVENINGSIDE DRIVE. THAT THE CITY'S RADAR TRAILER BE USED TO EVALUATE THE RESULTS OF THESE ACTIONS. TRAFFIC:jan%rep. I 1 0 TO: City Manager and City C FROM: Patrick J. Glover City Engineer/Public W SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL SUMMARY: In response to the City Cc performed further researc bumps. Humps are being success and with some me INTRODUCTION Until the 1970's, the effects of motor veh environments were largely neglected. Sri have increasingly brought these effects to transportation officials. Many local gove pressure to reduce the speed and volume real and perceived safety and quality of li City of West Covina Memorandum icil AGENDA ITEM NO. D-2 Director DATE February 7, 1995 ® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER RT ON SPEED HUMPS mcil's request, staff has I on the installation of humps and used by other cities with some traffic on the quality of urban residential then, however, a number of converging forces attention of both citizens and local rents are finding themselves under intense traffic on neighborhood streets to address both issues. While neighborhood streets are typically public property, many residents feel an "ownership" of their streets and often vocalize objections of drivers from outside their neighborhood who appear to be speeding or are discourteous. Speed humps were developed with the intent of reducing speeding in residential neighborhood. It is probably necessary to first distinguisl familiar speed bumps. A speed hump is I 1 is a cross-section drawing showing two Speed humps normally have a maximum 1 approximately 12 feet. Speed bumps con roadways, are generally from three to six From an operational stand -point, humps a vehicles. between speed humps as opposed to the, more amatically different from a speed bump. Figure Tical speed bumps and a typical speed hump. :fight of three to four inches with a travel length of ionly used in parking lots and on some private aches in height with a. length of one to three feet. I bumps .have critically different impacts on Within typical residential speed, humps create a gentle vehicle rocking motion that causes : -.me driver discomfort and results in most vehicles slowing to near 15 mph at the hump and �J-25 mph between properly .spaced humps in a system. At higher speeds, a hump jolts the vehicle suspension, its occupants and/or cargo. A speed bump, on the other hand, causes significant driver discomfort at typical residential speeds, and generally -results in vehicles slowing to 5 mph or less at the bump. At high speeds, bumps tend to have less overall vehicle impact because non -rigid suspensions will quickly absorb the impact before the vehicle body can react. In general, bicycles, motorcycles, and other vehicles with rigid or near -rigid suspensions are more susceptible to damage and loss of control from humps and bumps than vehicles with flexible suspensions. However, speed humps generally represent a lesser risk to those vehicles than do speed bumps. The Fire Department advises that speed bumps and humps can permanently damage the frame of a fire truck. Speed bumps cause more problems than benefits and are generally discouraged. Speed humps, on the other hand, are being used in a few locations with varied results. Therefore, the remainder of this report will only concern speed humps and not speed bumps. 1 HISTORY Speed humps were originally developed it Research Laboratory (TRRL) in Great Bri and several vehicle types operating over a parabolic profile hump was developed. S. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United cities in the United States are installing sp Installations of speed humps began in the the early 1970's by the Transportation and Road ain. TRRL tested various hump sizes and shapes range of speeds. From this work, the TRRL ice then, speed humps have been tested in Europe, tates, and other countries. A growing number of ed humps on minor residential streets. lnited States during 1979. la f City Manager and City Council February 7, 1995 Page Two HISTORY (continue) A great deal of testing has been done on the effects of road humps. Some cities have adopted a design which is 12 feet in. length and 2 5/8 inches to 3 inches in height. The cities that have installed speed humps use designs that are almost identical. However, the accompanying pavement markings and warning signs can be quite different. Staff has attached Figure 2 which illustrates some of the standard speed humps and their associated signs and pavement messages.'' ANALYSIS I ! There are positive and negative aspects associated with speed humps. The following summarizes these aspects. i. Traffic diversion to collector and arterial streets. I - Typical drivers humps. Few reported cla large settlements humps. slow when crossing and no 'reports of iciated with speed Increased noise levels from jolted I suspension systems and from repeated f deceleration and acceleration of vehicles crossing speed humps. Traffic diversion to other nearby residential streets. 6 ' Emergency response time increase for police, fire, paramedic, and ambulance.. o- Drivers familiar with effects of speed humps may not slow at all. Immature drivers may actually accelerate when crossing a speed hump for thrills. i Inhibits street sweeping at and near the humps.- - --- Increases costs if street maintenance requires resurfacing or utility trenches cross the speed hump. f Vehicles with relatively rigid suspension systems will experience more discomfort when crossing a speed hump. Small vehicles and vehicles with relatively small wheel radii such as scooters, bicycles, and motorcycles have an increased probability of loosing control. Driver may off-track or swerve their vehicles to try to get one tire into the gutter and thereby reduce the discomfort. 1� The pavement markings and signs . installed it '; with speed humps may be considered an eyesore. lb City Manager and City Council February 7, 1995 Page Three ANALYSIS (continue) Staff included 178 California cities in a p humps. Staff received 117 replies. Tab] the cities have policies that allow the inst installed speed humps. Seventy-nine citie tcard survey regarding their policies toward speed 1 lists the results of this survey. Thirty-four of ation of speed humps. Thirty-eight cities have have not installed- speed humps on public streets. The guidelines for the installation of speed humps vary from city to city. However, certain standard requirements appear in most. Specifically, speed- humps can only be installed on minor residential streets. No arterials or+collector streets may have speed humps. The street must have a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph and be 40 feet or less in width curb to curb. Although 34 cities presently have policies allowing speed humps most have relatively few speed humps installed. The only city with numerous speed humps is Pasadena which has 347, Pasadena has a waiting list for speed humps and more are installed each year. Only 8 cities have between 15 and 49 speed. humps. The primary reason that many of the cities have few speed humps is that their criteria is somewhat difficult to satisfy. Some example of these criteria are that a spot speed study must verify that the Critical Approach Speed (85 %) is between 30 and 35 mph, that traffic volumes exceed 2000 or 3000 ADT, that the street segment be at least 1/4 mile in length uninterrupted by stop signs and traffic signals, that a petition be circulated by the requestor showing that 67 % of the abutting property owners favor the speed humps and that the requestor be required to pay for the installation of the speed humps: In general, the installation of speed humps is becoming more popular with the public. Many people perceive them as an effective traffic control device to reduce vehicle speeds. The State Department of Transportation will not designate speed humps as a traffic control device but has recently designated them as a roadway design feature. If the State Department of Transportation had designated speed humps. as a traffic control device, Caltrans would have had to develop a standardized design, installation warrants and/or guidelines regarding where and under what conditions they might be installed. T} -� typical driver will reduce his speed when crossing the hump but immediately thereafter he will accelerate. Overall, the prevailing speeds of vehicles are reduced. However, the noise from vehicles constantly'accelera+ing and-the=j©lted suspension systems --seems to be a common complaint. Although the diversion of vehicles to other streets may not be desirable, it is often the case in practice and. is apparently the next greatest concern. Vehicle off tracking (gutter running), inhibiting street sweeping, lengthening emergency response time and increased street maintenance are not considered serious problems by the survey respondents. Liability concerns are not borne out by the experiences reported from cities that have speed humps. If there is a very high level of neighbor] humps can be of some benefit. Accordi have relatively few. The City of Brea c humps and yet they only have a total of large numbers of speed humps at 347. 65 % of the property owners approving i achieve given the horizontal street align 3d support and an actual speeding problem, speed to Table 1, most cities that allow speed humps one of the first California cities to install speed ne. Only the City of Pasadena has a relatively though Pasadena policy requires a petition with speed humps, that number is probably easy to nt characteristics of many of Pasadena's streets. lc 1 City Manager and City Council February 7, 1995 Page Four ANALYSIS (continue) h' . Most of Pasadena's residential streets are aligned in a right angle block grid. The grid pattern provides residential streets that have horizontal alignments along relatively long tangents. Because it is the topography of the road that influences the prevailing speeds, residential streets with horizontal alignment on long tangents lend themselves to higher prevailing speeds. Higher prevailing speeds along minor residential streets will increase neighborhood support for speedi humps and may increase their efficiency. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact if speed humps are not installed. If speed humps are used, each speed hump including signs and pavement markings costs approximately $2,000. If the requestor(s) pay for the installation costs, the City will only incur minor costs for stationary and postage for the Traffic Committee 'to process the survey for each request. CONCLUSION In weighing the advantages and disadvantages of using speed humps as well as the information obtained from 117','; other cities, it ''appears that the use of speed humps is still experimental. The research on speed humps by Caltrans and Los Angeles County is still in. progress. Since speed humps are not a recognize traffic control device and not recommended by the Fire Chief, the City should continue with the existing policy of not using humps and bumps as speed control - devices. ALTERNATIVE One alternative is to direct staff to develop a demonstration project on speed humps so. that the City can determine for itself the desire to use or not use speed humps. Prior to any installation, the proposed demonstration project, including neighborhood input, would be - bought back to the City Council for approval. It is recommended tl and bumps as speed latrick J. slovl City Engineer/I PJG:GW:gc AGENDA:spcdhump.agn Attachments ON iat City Council continue to use the existing policy of not using' humps control devices. is Works Director Id • SPEED HuINIP TYPICAL SPEED 15 MPH Adelanto X Agoura X Anaheim X Apple Valley X Arcadia X Baldwin Park X Banning X Bell X Bellflower X Berkeley X Beverly Hills X Bradbury X Brawley X Brea X Buena Park X Campbell X Carlsbad X Carpinteria x Carson X Cathedral X Cerritos X Chino X Claremont X Clovis X are existing Comments 'es Na X N/A X 16 Uses 2 5/8" Hump X 2 X N/A X N/A X N/A Installed humps only in alleys. X N/A z X N/A X N/A X 10 Drug traffic area and traffic problems are two criteria for, speed humps. X 8 Four streets. X 3 Installed against the recommendation of the City Engineer. X N/A Have not addressed the problem. X 9 First city in U`',A to:install speed humps. No particular problems. X N/A X 1 Reduced speed. and shifted traffic. X N/A City Council stated that speed humps are undesirable. X N/A X N/A Council has rejected such request - usually because of neighborhood objections. X N/A X N/A X N/A Will not consider until approved by Caltrans. X 1 Try to stay away from it due. to liability. X 6 Will send packages regarding speed humps. lg Juu; yuu naWe a nave you rnstarrea u r es, policy regarding "Speed Humps" How the installation of on anv streets Many "speed humps existing City Yes No Yes, ! No Comments Commerce X X N/A Dohave a few in City parking facilities. Compton X X `; 16 Corona X X 10 Three streets - install 13 years ago. They no longer install them. Council will never do it again. Coronado X X N/A Will not install unless they become recognize by State Department of Transportation and MUTCD. Costa Mesa X X ; 13 Located on three streets. Culver City X X 4 In mist of demonstration project. Cupertino X X 7 Speed humps work, but be careful where you place them'. Desert Hot Springs X X N/A Diamond Bar X X N/A They deny requests for speed humps. Downey X X N/A They are currently reviewing speed humps. Duarte X X N/A El Cajon X X N/A Escondido X X N/A Fontana X X N/A They are considering the Modesto approach - i.e. The requestor, pays. Fountain Valley X r X N/A They are presently reviewing a policy. Fullerton X X N/A Garden Grove X X N/A Have a policy but :have been directed not to install humps G A at this time. Glendale X X N/A Grand Terrace X E, X N/A Lomita X r X N/A Los Alamitos X X N/A Los Angeles X X : 15 Plan to expand to 30 . + this . year through gas tax.money . !' or resident's money. lh Lynwood Maywood Mission Viejo, Monrovia Montclair Montebello Monterey Park Moorpark Moreno Valley Morro Bay National City Needles Newport Beach II Norco Oceanside Ontario Oxnard Palmdale Palos Verdes Estate Paramount Pasadena Pismo Beach Placentia Pomona Port Hueneme Poway Rancho Cucamonga Do you have a' Have you installed` If Yes, policy regarding "Speed Humps" How the installation of .on any streets? Many speed humps ? are existing Yes No Yes >No Comments X X N/A X X N/A X X 17 Seven streets - have reduced complaints of speeding. X l X N/A X X N/A X X 12 X X N/A Several requests but none j met their criteria. X X N/A X X N/A X X N/A Presently investigating installing them on one street. X X 20 Installed in pairs. X I X N/A. X X 10 Program was killed by Council in part because of traffic diversion. X X 3 Controversial - Not recommended by the Traffic Engineer. ..: X N/A X X N/A Discouraged because of liability. concerns. X X N/A X X N/A Prohibited by Ordinance. X X N/A X X 40 X X 347 _ Popular - city has many long straight residential streets. X X N/A X X 8 Very effective if used under right circumstances. X X N/A X I X N/A Strongly discourage. X X -3 X X N/A Policy not to install based on City Attorney's advise. 1i speea nurnps r are existing k f Gity Yes No Yes No Comments Rancho Mirage X X N/A f Rancho Palos Verdes X X N/A Traffic Committee will review speed humps by July 1, 1995. Redlands X X N/A Redondo Beach X X 1 One location by park does not work and people use it for a crosswalk. Riverside X X 2 Discourage it. Rosemead X X N/A San. Bernardino X X N/A San Buena Ventura X X N/A San Clemente X X. N/A San Fernando X �1 X N/A. However, they may develop a policy. San Gabriel X X N/A San Jacinto X X N/A San Jose X xi 2 Speed humps lower property values. San Juan Capistrano X . X ,: 10 Use a petition format with a 67% approval requirement. San Luis Obispo X X 4 Noise problem. Works for . speed control. San Marino X i' X N/A City Council has stated "no speed -'humps" Santa Ana X X ; 7 Santa Barbara X X 6 At 400' O.C. as demonstration project - will be evaluated in future. Santa Fe Springs X �; X N/A Santa Maria X X N/A Will not install because of liability concerns. Santa Paula X X 1; 23 Santee X X N/A Policy is that they not be installed. Seal Beach X i X N/A Sierra Madre X ;' X N/A Currently. reviewing speed humps. Signal Hill X X N/A Simi Valley X X ;: 49 Spread over 22 streets. South El Monte South Gate South Pasadena Stanton Temple City Thousand Oaks Torrance Tustin Upland Ventura Vernon Victorville Villa Park Vista Walnut Westminster Yorba Linda Yucaipa Do jyou have a Have you installed If Yes, policy regarding "Speed Humps" How the installation of on any streets? Many "speed humps"? are existing Yes No Yes No Comments X X N/A No one has met the criterion - including a petition. X X N/A X X N/A X X N/A X X N/A X X 12 X ! X N/A X X N/A X ( X N/A However, three are existing in alleys. X , X. 3 Discourage it after being reviewed. X + X N/A X X N/A. X X N/A X X 1 Four more humps under construction - still need to develop guidelines. X X N/A Requests have not met n requirements. X 1 X 5 Rarely are approved. X X 8 Five more speed humps will be installed. X X N/A DATE OF SURVEY VEHICLES OBSERVED RANGE OF SPEEDS 10 MPH PACE SPEED CITY OF WEST COVINA SPEEDZONESURVEY EVENINGSIDE DR. STREET CLASSIFICATION - ARTERIAL p 1/12/96 POSTED SPEED LIMIT N/A 105 50TH PERCENTILE SPEED 29 15 TO 51 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED 35 ✓� 24 TO 33 PERCENT IN PACE SPEED 67.62 STANDARD DEVIATION 5.69 1i SPEED NUM ACCUM ACCUM (MPH) BER PERCT PERCT PERCT -------- --+----+----+----+----+----+----+ 15 0 0.00 0.00 100 .......+ 16 0 0.00 0.00 - •••••••• - 17 1 0.95 0.95 95 .., + 18 0 0.00 0.95 - - 19 2 1.9.0 2.86 90 + 20 3 2.86 5.71 - - 21 2 1.90 7.62 85 + 22 3 2.86 10.48 - - 23 2 1.90 12.38 80 + 24 6 5.71 18.10 - - 25 8 7.62 25.71 75 + 26 7` 6.67 32.38 - - 27 8 7.62 40.00 70 + 28 7 6.67 46.67 - - 29 7 6.67 53.33 65 + 30 7: 6.67 60.00 - - 33. 7 6.67 66.67 60 + 3._2 8 7.62 74.29 - - 33 6 5.71 80.00. 55 + 34 5 4.76 84..76. - - 35 5 4.76 89.52 50 + 36 -5: 4.76 94.29 - - 37 1 0.95 95.24 45 + 38 1 0.95 96.19 - - 39 1 0.95 97.14 40 + 40 .0 0.0.0 97.14 - - 41 0 0.00 97.14 .35 + 42 0 0.00 97.14 - - 43 0 0.00 97.14 30 + 44 0. 0.00 97.14- 45 1 0.95 98.10 25 + 46 0 0.00 98.10 - II - 47 1 0.95 99.05 20 + 48 .0 0.00 99.05 - - 49 0 0.00 .99.05 15 + 50 0- 0.0.0. 99.05 - - 51 0.95 100.00.`:. 10 + 52 0 0.`00 10.0.00- 53 :0 0.00 100.00 15 + 54 .0 0.00 100.00 - - 55 0`. 0.00 100.00 0..:. + +---- .-+---------+----+----+----+---.-+----+ 11 Traffic Committee Meeting January 16, 1996 H. REQUEST:. City Initiated. THAT THE REQUEST FOR PARKING AND STOPPING TO BE PROHIBITED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BADILLO STREET FROM LARK ELLEN TO 600 FEET WEST AND ON THE NORTH SIDE FROM 570 FEET EAST OF VINCENT AVENUE AT THE CITY LIMITi TO LARK ELLEN AVENUE BE HELD OVER. FINDINGS: This Traffic Committee request was held over for further study from the November meeting. The south side of Badillo Street between Vincent Avenue and Lark Ellen Avenue is abutted by a 6 foot block wall from Vincent Avenue to 2000 feet east. The remaining 600 feet to Lark Ellen Avenue abuts the •Grovecenter Elementary School. The masonry wall is congruent with the rear property lines of the single family homes which face Elgenia Street. The first 570 feet of curb along the north side of Badillo Street east of Vincent Avenue is under the jurisdiction of Covina. The remaining 2000 feet to Lark Ellen Avenue is within the City limits of West Covina. The Faith Community Church and Covina Valley Community Hospital abut the north side of Badillo Street within West Covina. During the Planning Commission Public Hearing for their use permit, Faith Community Church had no objections to prohibiting parking along the abutting portion of Badillo Street. The reactions of the hospital and the school are unknown at this time. They will be losing their abutting street parking privileges on Badillo Street. However, the abutting single family homes along the 2060 foot south section of Badillo Street will not be affected because the masonry wall blocks access from their lots. Staff contacted the Faith Community Church, Covina Valley Hospital' and Grovecenter School Administrations regarding the proposed parking restrictions abutting their property. As of January 11, all three responded to survey. They are opposed to parking restrictions abutting their property. The Traffic Committee recommended that parking and stopping be prohibited along the south side of Badillo Street from Vincent Avenue to 2000 feet east at their November meeting. Staff has prepared a work order for the installation of the necessary signs along that. segment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE REQUEST_ FOR PARKING AND STOPPING TO BE PROHIBITED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BADILLO STREET FROM LARK ELLEN TO 600 FEET WEST AND ON THE NORTH SIDE FROM 570 FEET EAST OF VINCENT AVENUE AT THE CITY LIMIT TO.LARK ELLEN AVENUE BE DENIED. THAT THE REQUEST FOR PARKING AND STOPPING TO BE PROHIBITED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BADILLO STREET FROM LARK ELLEN TO 600 FEET WEST AND ON THE NORTH SIDE FROM 570 FEET EAST OF VINCENT AVENUE AT THE CITY LIMIT TO LARK ELLEN AVENUE BE DENIED. i 2 West Covina, California January 16, 1996 Mr. Thomas M. Mayer Principal Engineer 1444 West Garvey Avenue P.O. Box 1440 West Covina, CA 91793 Dear Mr. Mayer: PLEASE PRESENT THIS LETTER AT THE TODAY's MEETING (1/16/96 @ 2:00 PM) AS'I,I CAN NOT BE PRESENT. This is in response to your letters dated January 8, and January 9, Recommendations from the Traffic Committee and the Staff. THW YOU. II 1996, enclosing the report and According with the Staff recommendation where they mentioned that `if the walkway were removed or closed, it is highly questionable whether conditions would change appreciably. The masonry block wall and chain link fence surrounding the freeway can �be scaled relatively easily by a teenage individual" because that will be the easy and only way to get to other side of the street". We believe that our request have had been misunderstood, we don't want just the walkway/easement be closed and turn this area in an "enclosed dumping alley': Our request is it to" vacant" the easement, and also,; remove the existing chain link and build up a block wall, on the North side of the Interstate 10 Freeway, closing the Enter/Exit on Vincent Ave. The other Enter/Exit on Maplewood Ave. we will extend our iron fence,to the end: Doing this it would give us the opportunity to extend our back and front yard out to its �f illest; as we will remove our existing side block wall by our house. Also this will be beneficial to the'City of West Covina because the City would not have to pay monthly maintenance cost of the easement. On October 18, 1995; Mr. Steve Herfert, West Covina Mayor returned my call of October 117, 1995 and suggested for me to talk to our neighbors which resulted a survey of 96 signatures, supporting the enclosure of the easement. I was told that.the City of West Covina would not be mailed the'' postcards to the apartment buildings during this survey, just for protection, because most of these individuals are the cause of the problems that this area has at the present time. No matter how many times ,City of West Covina does a survey to enclose the easement; the results will be the same; while the City of;;West Covina keep on sending out the postcards to the apartment buildings. P We will appreciate your attention and cooperation in resolving this problem. We await your response. Sincerely, Wael,tea ~GGL�C�ct_�Z Blanca Vilma Perilla 127 N. Maplewood Ave. West Covina, CA 91790 (818) 332-6528 cc: Mr. Steve Herfert, Mayor Patrick Glover, Traffic Committee Staff Committee 3a 1026 MAPLEWOOD AVENUE i C9 a� r-1 Q CQ .j i 1 j j j j II���III Il�lllii II,ilpf�ll I('I'li II �(II ,' , I �iil, Ili,�ll �I II! � � I II`IL i •IIIII I �I�iii�,i I�II�I!I,� illljll!�'' IIIIIII',I�i , illlill.lii, � Iliilll�li Illill, :.jj, �' 'COMMERCIAL STORES PARKING LOT AREA - = -- -- ❑ Traffic Committee Meeting January 16, 1996 III. REQUEST: Mr. and Mrs. Victor Perilla 127 North Maplewood Avenue 91790 THAT THE EXISTING CONCRETE WALKWAY (PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT) BETWEEN MAPLEWOOD AVENUE AND'VINCENT AVENUE ABUTTING THE NORTH SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE 10 FREEWAY BE REMOVED (VACATED). FINDINGS: This request was held over from the December Traffic Committee. meeting to provide an opportunity for the requestor to address the Traffic Committee. The Traffic Committee reviewed the same request during 1993. At that time, staff completed a postcard survey of the residences that might be affected by the'closure of the walkway. The majority of the responses to the postcard survey were opposed to the closure of the walkway. The minutes of that Traffic Committee meeting are attached.. The request was accompanied by a petition with 110 signatures of residents within or near this neighborhood. The attached base map denotes the residences represented by the signatures on the petition. Although the petition reads that the "easement be removed", the walkway is within this easement and the intent is to remove the walkway in its entirety. The concrete walkway provides pedestrian access to Vincent Avenue from the intersection of Maplewood Avenue and Garvey Avenue North. If the walkway were closed, pedestrians would have to walk north on Maplewood than west on Workman Avenue and south on Vincent Avenue. The alternate route is 1400 feet further in length to access the identical location on the east side of Vincent Avenue. Renderings of the walkway 'and the abutting structures are attached. Staff has completed a postcard survey of the residents that may be inconvenienced by the removal of the concrete walkway. The residences contacted are outlined Ton the attached base map. A letter and a self addressed, pre -stamped postcard were mailed to each single family home and apartment within the. area outlined the attached map. The owners of the apartment buildings were also contacted. There were a total of 190 letters mailed to residences, businesses and property owners. As of December 12, 1995, 56 postcards were returned. Of the 56 postcards returned, 31 were opposed and 22 were in favor of the removal of the walkway. Three of the residents returning postcards did not care if the walkway were removed. The results of the postcard survey are shown on the attached tabulation and denoted on the attached base map. It is apparent that there is still considerable objections to removing the walkway. The vacation of public pedestrian easements are controlled under Sections 8300 et al of the State Streets and Highways Code. Since the easement is used by the public, a public hearing is required to proceed with a vacation of the public easement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE REQUEST BE DENIED. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE REQUEST BE DENIED. THAT THIS MATTER BE REFERRED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING THE LEGAL ABILITY TO VACATE THE EASEMENT WITH A SEPARATE FOLLOW UP REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. TRAFFIC jan%rep. . 3 low EMEMPSOMIMMIN, Al n --—--GREjNGAL! —ST— ec 2 0 — Jig .a-.. ! 7 r,, �Pw 4!! • I ce In..'—. ° 4 I ?ae _ 9.{''• .� /J i 20 �S r s.�• S6 +� S7 yI S? S9 EG N' r/ ,:6p /9 C o C ° � C o F ;•e of q' C �� r ^ <&..'. t7• 26 ww .;. /4 /9 . I aY 2 V73/ ° R tl.e u B 7av 27 AT skra. f_^ �9 0 e P Vl Qv I �7 ass el r r� 28 • �S I os /6 /7 V .rc '3 ?2 .➢2/ ` v pt° 8 �� I n[ •°• /n s �: I Zd cnSTREET— . _ � , 014,, k � O3zo Wiz, It. „ '_ t� •�� .—..v.E.�ivcss w I .. NIJS W 1k r ' .tea � � 2c �• .aoa� �'' ,1`'Z ` ,7/5 � ~2atrJ~ v p a 'a w a•t' �. 3[9 w I re wr x ar aa:ayc' r 0•w 3/B .167 p r0�0 ,° W �p ^ ,,3 k 1 x::9� Y �J.i 32ry J ..+ P ,ss S'aJd d2 .�� �.io �29 �'► 7 O 70 7. 7l.19 11 J: ild JOf Q 4 DO ♦ [,. : tzar' �+sr Joo 0 Pv Imo' , ' • S I ;JS� .iQ� 41 v� m/ 9 $' �A ^ ; `O n J sOssc•r �'�•'ti` '+R. tt'err.�s+..ta ,:•' • r v N ti �+ ry�a.c a L Q WGRKMAN, AVENUE --� w _ wW7 a•Z _ rF 6P`fi9apa Fa 03' «84h C3 62' B/ 80 7t9 776�3.2 //6 ° ' 6 �;v 50' I So' p sn Q N Zs P.. R .�, ' T ,," - h5`' ;� zrR A 'C t m ce. //7 >aa a; p F/' M -9- /4 I % r ,w Ey 0D,- 6 qF 62 r� M n n, o 5h 78 7H/D °9: .6' $ O LOs /2 Q 22.E � .pry Pr r ]' Fe � ♦ I 0!„�a. 6� ` �, � � h `R �' I W 50 -13 ti ^ 6/ 5B 57 S6 5S S4 49 /246 56 S1 O. /+�' 49 60 5o v 52 54� 56Q T- �` fe' ti aN a r oi. 9-III 20; 36 ' 43 46b 47 46 45 TAY dg 4/ �e�.•ar.a. 7l G, •� � Go'73• r . 1.13 /n �'•��. r �'' �v1 O C Gr9i Se. ev ec..w' r.0 v/O�_ .a�'�ve ba• n .. .. n - be• $S{S R ,.i3 34N 3Spi 36r°, 371; PBS 39S 40 �. /. fOF4/.h 1 P to r'� r� rV ry (�\° o, `I A cL e r :. '.:7-•LC� ti ° • sr C�► .ui '!°ca re.ue' 7f*- S Z t ��Nzp P. PiIbb 19. :, �, J y0 1 i2 _ Nl/E �� i R-1 Apartment Owners No Address on Postcard ::.......................................' 10 ad 56 `6 VINCENT POSTCARD RETURNS I3e [ - r.R " Q 7 E / '� - 89 86 8a 6r61 g7 C ?-2-3 z 2 4 2 ` 3 w- - 5 Q B ` 2-5 N- s rDA v 2 (� 6 �49 Ord J o c�1 '9 0 i O r 21 N v" I 7 6 I © I o o Z O I 2A6 '- LN T .1 C� oro "o 0 48 ry l rJ /-'1� /� M �"' \--i- a' o ' >> w -� S 12 • (] .p: �7 n�' I » L-l/ �yfV� (V-�'` O o �1 .__` _L --.. �.�_ -�, •\ .S-r L�'•\!r I'� ��Z. ._.�`07.7 I - i.�/i 130 /L{ 3 A�� a 9t9 33 /O N QQ33 O CJ -` c -- - ALLEY Y32 '/ c�. 3C o (r -7 p 1S C 97Z7Alf �. • GARVE`Y aN� 10 0 cl, VAIL T$ 64, F to f Pmt,04 1�1I� or 1 'c' I iD Fl 66 67, 6e I 4;Lp 7/, 76P 73 Nt 7"P, Ae, AmIt. I 4o. 11 -1 - I- - F, , W. Is. Af r7 INUMO 4,9 .469 46 JR/ all I OIF vo.ar 62 4! . Z 011 it e 44- .4 C -W 7 � aswettra. W AL WWA 7 Q A I Q -0000'. Ap or /03.7!' b" ter' n r-7w pp_ ALLEY ACV7 To INC Z A., A , /7 /46 ti of: pe vy � -1 0 Traffic Committee Meeting • January 16, 1996 IV. REOUEST: City Initiated. THAT CONDITIONS AT THE WESTBOUND APPROACH TO THE INTERSECTION OF AMAR ROAD AND TEMPLE AVENUE BE REVIEWED. FINDINGS: A previous review of congestion associated with the existing westbound left turn lane on Amar Road at Temple Avenue was completed in November 1990. Specifically, the number of westbound left turning vehicles exceeds the capacity of the existing left turn lane during the peak hours. A left turn lane provides a refuge for vehicles awaiting' an opportunity to execute a left turn. Removing left turning vehicles from the through travel lanes mitigates congestion and reduces the probability of rear end collisions. The westbound left turn pocket at the intersection of Amar Road with Temple Avenue is 100 feet in length. This represents a maximum storage capacity for approximately six passenger vehicles. In November of 1990, staff video taped all vehicle movements at this intersection during peak hours. Staff recommended extending the left turnpocket to 240 feet which will provide sufficient storage capacity for left turning vehicles during the peak hours. In November of 1990, Traffic Committee concurred with staff and recommended that the exiting left turn lane be extended to 240 feet in length. The extension of this left turn lane will require the reconstruction of a portion of the existing raised and landscaped median on Amar Road. The total estimated cost to, complete the left turn lane extension is $60,000: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE LEFT TURN LANE TO 240 FEET IN LENGTH ON THE WESTBOUND APPROACH OF AMAR ROAD TO TEMPLE AVENUE BE GIVEN CONSIDERATION AS PART OF FUTURE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS. TRAFFIC CO-24 1ITTEE RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE .LEFT TURN LANE TO 240 FEET IN LENGTH ON THE WESTBOUND APPROACH OF AMAR ROAD TO TEMPLE ' AVENUE BE GIVEN CONSIDERATION AS PART OF FUTURE CAPITAL . IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS. TRAFFIC : jan%rep. 4 0 Traffic Committee November 13, 1991 V. Meeting Request'I City initiated THAT CONDITIONS AT AVENUE BE REVIEWED. F. d'ncts 1. THE INTERSECTION OF AMAR ROAD AND TEMPLE The staff review of traffic conditions associated with the Woodgate Drive street closure revealed some peak hour congestion at the intersection of Amar Road and Temple Avenue.) Specifically, the number of westbound left turning vehicles exceeds the capacity of the existing left -turn pocket.I The westbound left -turn pocket at the intersection of Amar. Road .with Temple Avenue is 120 feet in length. This represerits.a maximum storage capacity of six (6) to seven (7) vehicles. The segment of Amar Road:between Azusa Avenue and Nogales Street has recently been.re-striped to provide one (1) additional through travel lane both east and westbound. This segment of Amar Road now has three (3) through travel lanes in both directions and left -turn pockets separated by a raised median island. These additional travel lanes have mitigated much of the congestion along this.segment of Amar Road. However, during the peak hour, the number of vehicles on the westbound approach of Amar Road turning left ;at Temple Avenue exceeds the capacity of the left -turn pocket. Vehicles waiting to.turn left form a platoon that extends beyond the existing left -turn pocket into the adjacent westbound through lane. The platoon blocks the through lane causing periodic bottlenecks for westbound traffic during the peak volume hours. Staff has video-recorded.ail vehicle movements at this intersection during the peak hours. An extension of"the left -turn pocket to 240 feet will provide sufficient storage capacity, for left -turning vehicles during the peak hours. The extension of this left -turn pocket will require the reconstruction of a portion of the existing raised and landscaped median island on Amar Road. THAT THE LEFT -TURN POCKETON THE WESTBOUND APPROACH OF AMAR ROAD TO TEMPLE AVENUE BE ''RECONSTRUCTED AND EXTENDED TO 240 FEET IN LENGTH. 4a Traffic Committee Meeting November 13, 1990 TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE LEFT -TURN POCKET ON THE WESTBOUND APPROACH OF AMAR ROAD TO TEMPLE AVENUE`BE RECONSTRUCTED AND EXTENDED TO 240 FEET IN LENGTH. 4b • Traffic Committee Mee • January 16, 1996 V. REOUEST:. City Initiated ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY OF AROMA DRIVE. i ; INTRODUCTION: The effective enforcement of posted speed limits with radar on certain streets requires that an Engineering and Traffic Survey must have been completed within the previous five years. The Basic Speed Law, as denoted in the California Vehicle Code, is as follows: "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a :highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety Hof persons or property. " (Amended Ch. 252, Stats. 1963. Effective September 20, 1963.) The majority of drivers comply with the law but disregard regulations which they consider unreasonable. A small segment of the population is repeatedly inclined to be reckless, unreliable, or have faulty judgment and must be controlled by enforcement. According to the California State Traffic Manual: I "The speed limit normally should be established at the first five mile per. hour increment below the 85 percentile speed. " "Only when roadside development results in traffic conflicts and unusual conditions which are not readily apparent to drivers, are speed limits somewhat below the 85 percentile warranted. " "Section 22358.5 of the Vehicle Code states that it is the intent of thel Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readilpparent to the drive, in the. absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning. " "Short speed zones of less than half a mile should be avoided, except in transition areas. "Speed limits should be established. preferably at or near the 85 percentile speed, which is defined as that speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. The 85 percentile is often referred to as critical speed. Pace speed is defined as the 10-mile increment of speed containing the largest number of vehicles. " "Speed, limits set at or slightly below the 85 percentile speed provide, law enforcement officers with a means of controlling the drivers ' who will not conform to what the majority considers reasonable and prudent. " 1 TRAFFIC:jan96rep. 1 5 Traffic Committee Meeting* - January 16, 1996 V. REQUEST: (continued) "Speed limits higher than the 85 percentile are not generally considered reasonable and safe and limits below the 85 percentile do not facilitate the orderly movement of traffic. Speed limits established on this basis conform to the consensus of those who drive highways as to what speed is reasonable and safe, and are not dependent on the judgment of one or a few individuals. " "The establishment of a speed limit of more than 5 miles per hour below the 85 percentile (critical) speed should be done with great care as this may make violators of a disproportionate number of the reasonable. majority of drivers." FINDINGS: The following is a summary of the pertinent items required in the engineering and traffic survey. A recommended speed limit in bold print denotes a recommended change of the established speed limit. The first table entitled "Prevailing Speeds" lists the Critical Approach Speeds (85 %) for 1995. The second and third tables show the 1994-95 accident history including the accident - rates ,for both mid -block and intersection collisions. a. Prevailing Speeds (MPH) Critical Approach Speeds Street Segment 1995 Existing Recommended Limits 1995 10 mph Speed Speed Limit 85% (mph) Pace Limit Azusa Avenue to 43 30 to 39 55 40 Donna Beth Avenue Donna Beth Avenue to 42 31 to 40 55 40 Galster Park Galster Park to 35. 26 to 35 55 35 Donna Beth Avenue b. Accident .Records The following analysis of the accident history for Aroma Drive is in accordance with the procedures outlined in "Guidelines for Uniform Traffic Controls" distributed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The phrase "accident rate", shown in the column headings is defined as the number of accidents per million vehicles entering an intersection or per million vehicle miles along a street segment. The "County Expected Rate" is defined as the anticipated number of accidents that would generally occur at an intersection or along a segment of highway with similar conditions. The County Expected Rate factors are calculated from data derived from a series of charts using parameters such as intersection controls, traffic volumes and approach conditions. These charts have been "prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works according to the findings of a study of the accident records and traffic conditions throughout Los Angeles County. The City Rate is calculated using recorded accident history and traffic volumes from the calendar years 1994 and 1995. The Priority Rating is defined as the ratio of the City intersection accident rate to the expected County accident rate. TRAFFIC:jan%rep. 6 • Traffic Committee Meeti January 16, 1996 V. REQUEST: (continued) County guidelines classify as excessive any accident rate that exceeds 1.6 times ithe County expected rate determined from the . Countywide experience charts. If the City mid -block accident rates are in excess of 1.6 times the County expected rate, a' 5 mph reduction of the speed limit may be justified. An excessive accident rate will be denoted in bold print. 1. MID -BLOCK ACCIDENT - JANUARY 1994 TO DECEMBER 1995 County City Expected Accident Accident No. of Rate Rate Priority Limits Accidents A/MVM * A/MVM * Rating Azusa Avenue to Donna Beth Avenue 1 3.23 2.5 1.29 Donna Beth Avenue 1 .2.41 2.5 0.96 to Galster Park Galster Park to 0 0. 2.5 0 Donna Beth Avenue *Denotes accidents per million vehicle miles. j County City Expected Accident Accident No. of Rate Rate_ Priority Cross Street Accidents A/MV ** A/MV ** Rating Azusa Avenue 9 0.575 0.575 1.0 Donna Beth Avenue 0 0.. .14 0.0 Galster Park 1 0.475 .89 0.533 * Denotes accidents per million vehicle miles. ** Denotes accidents per million vehicles entering the intersection. None of the mid -block nor intersection accident rates is excessive. C. Physical Conditions 1. Horizontal Alignment The horizontal alignment along Aroma Drive is on curve. The shortest radii along the horizontal curve is 235. feet. L. Vertical Alignment - The 'maximum vertical rade is +7 % . All others are less g than ±5 3. Roadside Friction - Most; of the abutting development consists of multi -family housing. Sidewalks are existing along most of Aroma Drive. d. There are no conditions that are not readily apparent to the driver. TRAFFIC:jan%rep. 7 Traffic Committee Meeting January 16, 1996 V. REQUEST: (continued) e. Analysis The Critical Approach Speeds along Aroma Drive do not exceed 45 mph. None of the accident rates are excessive relative to the County expected. accident rates. f. Conclusions According to the guidelines in the California Traffic Manual, the speed limit on Aroma Drive should be established at 40 mph between Azusa Avenue and Galster Park and at 35 mph along the segment between Galster Park and Donna Beth. Avenue. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE SPEED LIMIT ON AROMA DRIVE BE REDUCED FROM 55 MPH AS SHOWN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING LIMITS: AZUSA AVENUE TO GALSTER PARK 40 MPH GALSTER PARK TO DONNA BETH AVENUE 35 MPH TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE SPEED LIMIT ON AROMA DRIVE BE REDUCED FROM 55 MPH AS SHOWN BETWEEN. THE FOLLOWING LIMITS: AZUSA AVENUE TO GALSTER PARK 40 MPH GALSTER PARK TO DONNA BETH AVENUE 35 MPH TRAFFIC.jan%rep. 8 , Traffic Committee Meeting January 16, 1996 VI. REOUEST: County Initiated. ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY FOR THE.STREET SEGMENT OF LA PUENTE ROAD BETWEEN NOGALES STREET AND SENTOUS AVENUE. INTRODUCTION: The effective enforcement of posted speed limits with radar on certain streets requires that an engineering and traffic survey must have been completed, within the previous five years. The majority of drivers comply with the law but disregard regulations which they consider unreasonable. A small segment of the population is repeatedly inclined to be reckless, unreliable, or have faulty judgment and must be controlled by enforcement. According to the California State Traffic Manual: "The speed limit normally should be established at the first five mile per hour increment below the 85 percentile speed. " "Speed limits should be established preferably at or near the 85 percentile speed, which is defined as that speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. The 85 percentile is often referred to as critical speed. Pace speed is defined as the 10-mile increment of speed containing the largest number of vehicles. " "Section 22358 of the Vehicle Code states that it is the intent of the Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to the driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning. " FINDINGS: A Traffic and Engineering Survey of this segment of .La Puente Road was reviewed by the Traffic Committee during December of 1994 However, Los Angeles County has completed a review of the portion of La Pue,,t Road between Nogales -Street and Sentous Avenue under their jurisdiction. Accor%ling to the attached letter, a five mile per hour reduction of the established speed limit Pis warranted because of an excessive accident rate along the portion ,a.;deir Los Angeles County jurisdiction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE SPEED LIMITS ON LA PUENTE ROAD. BE REDUCED FROM 45 MPH AS SHOWN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING LIMITS: NOGALES STREET TO SENTOUS AVENUE 40 MPH TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE SPEED LIMITS ON LA PUENTE ROAD BE REDUCED FROM 45 MPH AS SHOWN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING LIMITS: NOGALES STREET TO SENTOUS AVENUE 40 MPH::::] TRAFFIC: jan%rep. 9 v HARRY W. STONE, Director • i COUNTY OAF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 900 SOUTH FREMIONT AVENUE ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331 Telephone: (818) 458-5 100 i ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P,O,BOX 1460 ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460 IN ASE October 19, 1995 REFER TO E: REFER TO FILE: T - 2 Mr. Thomas W. Mayer OW&E%C4-1IEERMG Principal Engineer City of West Covina OCT Z 3 1995 1444 West Garvey Avenue West Covina, CA191793-2716 Dear Mr. Mayer: LA PUENTE ROAD,;BADILLO STREET, AND ORANGE AVENUE ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC (E & T) SURVEYS We have reviewed the speed limits proposed by the West Covina Traffic Committee for those segments of La Puente Road, Badillo Street, and Orange Avenue which are jurisdictionally shared by the County Iand the City of West Covina. As you know, Section 22359 of the California Vehicle Code requires all authorities sharing jurisdiction, of a roadway to adopt the same speed limit. Based on the information provided in your report, we concur with the recommendation to retain the! existing 45 mph speed limit ' on Badillo Street between Orange Avenue and the City of West Covina boundary, the existing 35 mph speed limit on Orange Avenue between San Bernardino Road and Badillo Street, and the existing 40 mph speed limit on Orange Avenue between Badillo Street and the City of West Covina boundary (see enclosed E & T Survey). As discussed with your staff,.we do not concur with the Committee's proposal to raise the speed limit on La Puente Road between Nogales Street and Sentous Street from 40 mph to 45 mph. Although our radar speed checks indicate the prevailing speed on this roadway is 46 mph, we recommend the speed limit remain posted at 40 mph due.to the higher than expected accident rate (see enclosed E & T Survey). 9a Mr. Thomas M. Mayer October 19, 1995 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jeff Pletyak of our Traffic and Lighting Division, Traffic Investigations and Studies Section, at (818) 458-5909. Very truly yours, HARRY W. STONE Director of Public Works i i RONALD*J. ORNEE Deputy Director JFP:lg WESTCOV Ent. Traffic Committee Meeting ! • i. . . December 20, 1994 I I. REQUEST: i, City Initiated. ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY OF LA PUENTE ROAD. INTRODUCTION: The effective enforcement of posted speed limits with radar on certain streets requires that an Engineering and Traffic Survey must have been completed within the previous five years. The majority of drivers comply with the law but disregard regulations which they consider unreasonable. A small segment of the population is repeatedly inclined to be reckless, unreliable, or have faulty judgment and must be controlled by enforcement. According to the i California State Traffic Manual: "The speed limit normally should be established at the first five mile per hour increment below the 85 percentile speed." "Speed limits should be established. preferably at or near the 85 percentile, speed, which is defined as that speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. The 85 percentile is often referred to as critical speed. Pace speed is defined.as the 10-mile increment of speed containing the largest number of vehicles. " "Section 22358 of the Vehicle Code states that it 1s the intent of the Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to the driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning." FINDINGS: The following is a summary of the pertinent items required in the Engineering and Traffic Survey. a. Prevailing Speeds (MPH) Critical Approach 1994 Existing Street Segment Speeds 10 mph Speed Recommended Limits Pace (MPH) Limit (MPH) Speed Limit (MPH) 1990 1994 85% 85% (mph) (mph) Nogales - Sentous 45 46 34 to 43 40 45 Sentous - East City Limit 45 50. 39 to 48 45 45 b. Accident Records The following analysis of the accident history for La Puente Road is in accordance with the procedures outlined in "Guidelines for Uniform Traffic Controls" distributed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. County guidelines classify as excessive any accident rate;. that exceeds 1.6 times the County expected rate determined from the County -wide experience charts. If the City mid -block accident rates are in excess of 1.6 times the County expected rate, a 5 mph reduction of the speed limit may be justified. This is to say that if the Priority Rating meets or exceeds 1.6, a 5 mph reduction of the speed limit from the critical approach speed (85 %I) may be justified. 9c DecWrep • Traffic Committee Meeting December 20, 1994 I. REQLTEST: (continued) 1. MID -BLOCK ACCIDENT - JANUARY 1993 TO DECEMBER 1993 County F, City Expected Accident Accident No. of Rate Rate Priority Limits Accidents A/MVM * A/MVM * Rating Nogales - Sentous 0 0 1.9 0 Sentous - East City 0 .0 1.9 0 Limit * Denotes accidents per million vehicle miles. None of the mid -block accident rates are excessive. 2. INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS - JANUARY 1993 TO DECEMBER 1993 F[ Cross Street No. of Accidents City Accident Rate A/MV ** County. Expected Accident Rate A/MV ** Priority Rating Nogales 1 0.06 0.80 0.08 Sentous 1 0.18 0.62 0.29 Paseo Del Caballo 0 0 0.25 0 Forecastle 1 0.31 0.30 1.03 Whitingha n 0 0 0.30 0 Flemington 0 0 1 0.32 0 ** Denotes accidents per million vehicles entering the intersection. None of the intersection accident rates are excessive. C. Physical Conditions 1. Horizontal Alignment - There are two horizontal tangents along these segments of La Puente Road. 2. Vertical Alignment - The maximum grade is 2.5%. 3. Roadside Friction - There are signalized intersections at Sentous and Nogales. There are several driveway approaches between Nogales and the east City limits. d. There are no conditions that are not readily apparent to the driver. e. Analysis The Critical Approach Speeds (95 %) have increased relative to 1990. The established speed limit between Nogales Street and Sentous Avenue should be increased to 45 mph... to remain in compliance with the California- Traffic Manual. 9d Traffic Committee 1 December 20, 1994 I. REQUEST: ( f. The retention of the existing speed limit on'La Puente Road between La Puente Road and the east City limit will still provide reasonable speed limit. However, the segment between Nogales Street and Sentous Avenue should be increased to 45 mph. This will also provide a uniform speed limit, 1. THAT THE SPEED LIMITS ON LA PUENTE ROAD BE ESTABLISHED AS SHOWN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING LIMITS: NOGALES STREET TO SENTOUS AVENUE 45 i 2. THAT THE SPEED LIMITS ON LA PUENTE ROAD BE RETAINED AS SHOWN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING LIMITS: SENTOUS A� ENUE TO EAST CITY LIMIT 45 3. THAT THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE FINDINGS BE FORWARDED TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR THEIR CONCURRENCE. 1. THAT THE SPEED LIMITS ON LA PUENTE ROAD BE ESTABLISHED AS SHOWN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING LIMITS: NOGALES 2. THAT BETW SENTOUS, 3. THAT ANGE'. TO SENTOUS AVENUE 45 SPEED LIMITS ON LA PUENTE ROAD BE RETAINED AS SHOWN THE FOLLOWING LIMITS: WE TO EAST CITY LIMIT 45 TRAFFIC COMMITTEE FINDINGS BE FORWARDED TO THE LOS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR THEIR ENCE. Dec%rep 9e Traffic Committee Meeting January 16, 1996 i VII. REOUEST: City Initiated. THAT A LEFT INSTALLED ON APPROACH. TURN LANE. OR CITRUS STREET A TWO WAY LEFT TURN. LANE BE AT THE CORTEZ PARK DRIVEWAY THAT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL BE INSTALLED ON CITRUS STREET AT THE CORTEZ PARK DRIVEWAY APPROACH. FINDINGS: Citrus Street is a north/south minor arterial with 60 feet of pavement between curbs. There are two 11 foot wide through travel lanes and one 8 foot wide parking lane along both the north and southbound approaches on this segment of Citrus Street. The Critical Approach Speed (85 %) along this segment of Citrus Street is 45 mph and the speed limit is posted at 40 mph. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along this segment of Cortez Street is 17,000 vehicles each day., It is unknown how many vehicles execute left turns into the Cortez Park driveway approach. However, when football and/or baseball leagues are active, the number of vehicles using the parking area in Cortez Park increases dramatically. Staff will conduct traffic counts at this driveway approach when the baseball season begins during March. The traffic counts. are necessary to complete the warrants for a traffic signal installation. However, it is highly unlikely that a traffic signal will be warranted at this location. Staff has prepared several attached drawings. The first drawing shows the existing conditions on Citrus Street between the Interstate 10 freeway and Cortez Street. There are, several alternative drawings of left turn lanes and continuous (two-way) left turn lanes. All of these alternative plans requires that parking and stopping be prohibited along various lengths of the abutting curb. Depending on the location of the left turn lane relative to the centerline of the street parking restrictions are required on one or both sides of Citrus Street. It is not possible to. maintain minimum lane widths without prohibiting parking along one or both sides. Abutting property owners and* residents are rarely receptive to giving up their. -abutting on street parking privileges. However, staff will contact the abutting residents and property owners to acquire their reactions.: -- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE REQUEST BE HELD OVER FOR FURTHER STUDY. TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE REQUEST BE HELD OVER FOR FURTHER STUDY. TRAFFIC:jan96rep. 10 EXISTING STkIP[N(; (GARVEY SO. - CORTEZ ST.) CORTEZ PARK 85% (1994) = 45 NIPH TAPER RATE: 45:1 . CITRUS-ST. FOOTBALL FIELD PA KI E c� o x ]CHRIS T LUTHERAN N •• PARKINGEA AREA SCHOOL POKING > x 9 Ep o cn 25 • is Il0"R ;1, 0'` O S Efly LEFT: l TTURN LANES CORTEZ'PARK (GARVEY SO. - CORTEZ ST.) 85% (1994) = 45 MPH TAPER RATE: 45:1 FOOTBALL FIELD J CHRIST LUTHERAN p p PARKING SCHOOL PARKING AREA AREA STREET EXISTING EXISTING RED CURB RED CURB ' TAPER - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 w 30, TO- - re - - - - _ nB' TAPER - - - - - - - m N a e' EXISTING EXISTING itCUR$`:'.. < _Ili',,_, 374' PROPOSED RED CURB BASEBALL FIELD Ll P-� PROPOSED TWO WAY I,EF'T TURN LINE .(GARVEY SO. - CORTEZ ST.) CORTEZ PARK 85% (1994) = 45 MPH TAPER RATE: 45:1 1 FOOTBALL FIELD PA E a yCHRISP LUTHERAN N • PARKING SCHOOL PARKING AREA AREA EF by m z HJ • i i-.—a G i c - i — — — — — — — — — — — --- • O- - - - - -� - - - - - - - — • • c 601 q ® ®Ws 2612q � •o 2609 F p 260 � 2616 E c o z rn m D a 2610 200' PROPOSED • RED CURD 1595' PROPOSED RED CURB 4 BASEBALL FIELD - - - - - - - - - o - - - - - - I r PROPOSED ',1'dY0 WAY LEFT TURN LANE 4. CORTEZ PARK (GARVEY SO. - CORTEZ ST.) 85% (1994) = 45 MPH TAPER RATE: 45:1 1625. ','PROPOSED RED CURB cu e CITRUS ST. FOOTBALL FIELD PA E 0 N • PARKING ]CHRIST LUTLUERAN SCHOOL PARKING x AREA AREA .7. ONE 0 lr .1r 0 w • it ink i ,E LJL1 BASEBALL FIELD 0 -h PROPOSED TWO WAY LEFT TURN LANE CORTEZ PARK a BASEBALL FIELD EXISTING •