HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2006.04.13TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY HALL, 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7:00 P.M.
THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 2006
AGENDA SUGGESTED
ACTION
1 CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m
2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3 ROLL CALL
4 CURRENT BUSINESS
4.1 ACTION ITEMS
4.1.1 Minutes for March 9, 2006 Approve
4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.2.1 Primrose Road/Howard Avenue - Designation of 24-
minute Green Zones on.
Discussion with
verbal report only
4.2.2 Adeline Drive/Mercy High School - Traffic Studies.Discussion with
verbal report only
4.2.3 Devereux Drive/BernalAvenue - Evaluate need for
stop signs or actions to slow traffic.
Discuss and review
staff report.
4.2.4 Ray Drive - Speed survey Discuss and review
staff report.
4.2.5 Broadway - Evaluate lighted crosswalks or other
enhancements at 1 100 block Broadway.
Discuss and review
staff report.
4.2.6 Broadway/Paloma Avenue - Evaluate need for stop
signs.
Move to Pending
Item-Awaiting more
favorable weather for
a warrant study.
4.2.7 Broadway - Evaluate ways to slow traffic speeds.Discuss and review
staff report.
5 ACKNOWLEDG]VIENT OF NEW ITETUS Acknowledge request
and accept testimony
l-
b FROM THE FLOOR Acknowledge request
and accept testimony.
7 INFORMATION ITEMS
7.2 From Council to Commission/Staff Acknowledge and
agendize where
necessary.
7.3 From Staff to Commission
7.3.1 Traffic Engineer's Report
7.3.1.1 PeninsulaAvenue/Us101 Overpass Status
Repod
Verbal update only
7.3.1.2 Broadway/Us1 01 Overpass Status Report Verbal update only
7.3.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report Verbal update only
7.3.3 Other City Staff Reports
7.4 From Commission to Staff
7.4.1 Reports of citizen complaints or requests Direction to statf
7.5 Comments and communication Direction to staff
7.6 Next Regular Meeting: May 11, 2006 Announcement of
expected absences
8 INACTIVE OR PENDING ITEMS
8.1 Easton Drive - Eucalyptus tree at Easton and Cabrillo Pending Easton
Creek Sewer
construction.
8.3 Carmelita AvenueNancouver Avenue - Evaluate crosswalks
installation.
AGENDUM ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING - May 11,2006
7.1 Bicycle Safeq lssues in Burlingame
8.2 Adeline Drive/Balboa Avenue - Evaluate crosswalk
enhancemenls.
9
li
I
I
9.1 ltems requiring written staff reports Direction to staff.
10 ADJOURNMENT
.7a7
MEMORANDUM
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
To:Traffic Safety and Parking Commission
From:Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer
Date:April 10,2006
Subject: March 9,2006 Meeting Minutes
Please note that the meeting minutes for the March 9,2006 meeting are not included in this agenda
packet - again... Those Minutes will be delivered to the Commission under separate cover before
the April 13 meeting.
Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this may cause.
,+€-
3-27-2AE 2.@EPV FROM RAGSDALE 65A34A57A1
VIA FACSIMILE AND UMTED STATES MAIL
March 27,2006
lv{r. Augustine Chou, City Traffic Engineer
Traffic, Safety and Parking Commissioners
CityHall
50I Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA g4010
Re; Metered Shon-Term parking on primrose at Howard
Dear Traffic, Safety and Parking Commissioners and Mr, Chou:
I am writing to follow up on our request for metered short-term
Burlingame United Methodist Church (BUMC).
we are happy ro report that the Board of Trustees of the BL {ci has met and
agreed that metered short-term parking on Primrose and is a good idea for theconvenience and sa-fety ofthe children in our nursery school and chorus groups.
However, the Board requests that the 24 minute limitation be on Saturdays asthe BTIMC holds n umerous events for which both its private lot and Lot C fill upand those spots are needed for longer term parking. These spots the church areespecially useful for the older members of the congregation. As the young children,
any time these resid ents can avoid crossing the street is helpful. From theBoard President 's conversation with Mr. Chou, it sounds like an exception is apossibility
Thank you for your time and patience with this process. Leslie is authorized torepresent the interests of all of the undersigned it the Commissi rneeting. She is
available for the April 13 meeting. Please contact her at the phone numberor e-rnail address tr> let her know if this issue will be on the at that time, Also, if
near the
or Susanyou need any additional information, please
Lindstrom at the below phone numbers.
contact either Leslie
Very truly yours,&; !.^t-t*-lr**
Susan Lindstrom
President, Board o'[Trustees
Burlingame United Methodist Church
1443 Howard Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
(6s0) 34s-2850
A*erut 4-z- i
P_2
I
I
i
,i
I
,l
I
3-27-2AG 2.O7PM FROM RAGSDALE 654348i5741
Jeanne
I'{.rqr 4L/- 'ry-.A-
Leslie Marden Ragsdale
UMC Nursery School and peninsula Girls Chorus parent
1509 Los Montes l)rive
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 348-5001 main
(650) 348-s701 fax
lggli e-rag qdal e@ c o-.pcast. n el
/fv,, l4l,t( u"c
h^oMary Wart
Executive Director
CALL Prirnrose
Director
LIMC Nursery School
(^
CatlU
Penii
Fouil
BfF.J
,U h/.**L'(r^,
y Wesolek
der and Arristio Direotor
rsula Girls Chorus
:i
:l
.t:r
I
I
I
I
I
,l
i
I,I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;l
,i
:l
.!
q
,
I
Ad
I
1
-.\
d
t
,
{"r-{il
xal
x-,\/
q
l i.r/l\- ir;
&%
2.,*
t
a /t,
#h
I
&: ..iffiro.^l
a
1i A3
a
1
,/
z
Meeting
Date:April 13, 2006
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT
STAFF REPORT
SUBMITTED BY
Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission
April 7, 2006
Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer
Agenda ltem 4.2.3
Devereux Drive/Berna! Avenue - Stop Signs & Other Speed Gontrols
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends installing 40' to 60' of centerline striping at the approaches of
Devereux Drive and Bernal Avenue. Staff also recommends the use of the radar speed trailer, to be
posted periodic for eastbound Devereux Drive, as well as for southbound BernalAvenue.
Staff does not recommend installation of stop signs since they do not meet minimum warrant
requirements.
DISCUSSION: The residents of Devereux Drive and Bernal Avenue submitted requests, via a
Councilmember, for the City to consider implementing some type of speed control, with the possible use
of stop signs at the intersection of these two streets.
Staff conducted a stop sign warrant study and determined that the minimum warrant conditions were not
met. No accidents have been reported over the past 12 months to indicate that a collision-prone
condition currently exists. Likewise, traffic volume counts are not so excessive that there is rightof-way
confusion at the intersection. Field investigations also revealed that the approach of northbound Bernal
already is controlled by a stop sign. Both eastbound and westbound approaches on Devereux Drive are
uncontrolled. Yellow, school crosswalks are also present across the approaches of Bernal and
westbound Devereux.
These conditions are similar to those found at the intersection of Ray and Quesada. The general
complaint and concern of the residents of both areas is the perceived high speeds of drivers. Given this
situation, staff believes that certain mitigations are necessary to slow drivers down as they drive through
these neighborhoods. Staff believes that a combination of engineering and limited enforcement can
address the problem.
From an engineering standpoint, centerline striping of the approaches may force drivers to stay in their
respective lanes when negotiating turns through the intersection. As a result, this will force drivers to
slow down in order to safely complete the maneuver. Additional signage is not recommended since
school/pedestrian crossing signs are currently posted at the approaches to the intersection already.
Marked crosswalks also already exist at two of the three approaches. Staff feels that further
enhancement of these crosswalks in not necessary for three reasons.
1) There is no increased usage by new pedestrians.
2) The majority of the traffic turns from Devereux to Bernal, and vise versa.
3) The primary complaint is in regards to speeding vehicles as they make turning maneuvers.
Crosswalk enhancement is for situations where drivers need to be fully warned about the presence of
pedestrians crossing their direction of travel. This is not the case at Devereux and Bernal.
ln terms of speed enforcement, the periodic use of the radar speed trailer may help to alert inattentive
drivers of their speed. Due to the unusually long inclement weather, staff has not been able to conduct
speed studies to veriff whether or not approaching vehicle speeds are excessive and significantly above
the prima facie limit of 25 mph.
Staff cautions that the use of unwarranted stop signs will not solve concerns for speeding, and that stop
signs are not the correct mitigation to speeding issues. Staff also cautions that the resident's perception
of speeding vehicles may b the result of a few scofflaws rather than the majority of drivers. lf, however,
this is the situation, there is little that can be done to address this short of expensive Level 3 traffic
calming measures such as construction of bulbouts and neckdown/chokers at the intersection.
Currently, the City does not have sufficient funding for such capital projects.
S:A Public Works Directory\TsP Commission\Staff Reportsu006\04-1 3-06 Devereux-Bernal Stops.doc
&
t
l
1
d';l
{t
t
E
t
L
rynq
h'
t i
t
ry
#pq*
F
a
I*I
*\*it
)
*
I
*l
F
V
]
EI
.lt F
r
'
!
It
&
rla
,n
1I
Ij
I
d
r'a
s
-lr-
\
7
c..
{l
Y
*
{
*7:
E!A
ru
\
a
f
r1
I
-3
/
*
.!
T **w
t
.c
L.r
I
I
il
ra
srAN DAR: XI'T-"HI;II =,,o,,,
o *
WARRANTS
(MODIFIED FOR BURLINGAME FROM STATE TRAFFIC MANUAL)
MAJOR STREET: Devereux Drive
MINOR STREET: Bernal Avenue
AT LEAST ONE (I) WARRANT MET:YES NO
WARRANT I
WARRANT 2
WARRANT 3
TRAFFIC WARRANT
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTED
URGENT PENDING INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL
ACCIDENT HISTORY WARRANT GURLINGAME)
THREE (3), MODIFIED FROM 5, OR MORE REPORTED
ACCIDENTS IN A I2-MONTH PERIOD. ACCIDENTS
OF TYPE CORRECTABLE BY SIGNS. RIGHT ANGLE
AND LEFT TURN COLLISIONS ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO
CORRECTION.
MINIMUM VOLUME WARRANT (BURLINGAME)
BOTH A. AND B. MUST BE MET
A.
SATISFIED
X NOT SATISFIED
x
SATISFIED
NOT SATISFIED
SATISFIED
NOT SATISFIED
TOTAL VEHICULAR VOLUME ENTERING INTER.
SECTION FROM ALL APPROACHES, AVERAGES
MORE THAN 300/HR FOR ANY ErGHT (8) HOURS
OF AVERAGE DAY. (MODIFIED FROM 5OO)YES 15? NO
COMBINED VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN VOLUME
FROM MINOR STREET MUST AVERAGE AT LEAST
120/HR (MOprFIEp FROM 200) FOR SAME ErGHT (8)
HOURS AS "A" WITH AN AVERAGE DELAY TO MINOR
STREET TRAFFIC OF AT LEAST 30 SECONDS PER
VEHICLE DURING THE MAXIMUM HOUR. YES 87 NO
x
B,
BURLINGAME
The CiA of Burlingome
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Tel:(650) 558-7230
Fax:(650) 685-931 0
CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 940,I O-3997
CORPORATION YARD
Tel:(650) 558-7670
TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION MEETING
7:00 p.m., Thursday, April 13, 2006
City Hall, Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road
The Traffic Safety and Parking Commission will be evaluating stop signs or other
traffic measures to help slow vehicle speeds at the intersection of Devereux Drive
and Bernal Avenue. This item will be discussed during the next Traffic
Commission meeting on Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in Burlingame City
Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Council Chambers.
Your attendance is encouraged as the Commission welcomes residential input on
this important issue. lf you are unable to attend this meeting, you may submit your
written comments by postal mail to Traffic. Safety and Parking Commission. 501
Primrose Road. Burlingame. CA 94010 or submit an email message to Mr.
Augustine Chou , the Burlingame Traffic Engineer, at achou@burlingame.org. All
written comments will be fonruarded to the Commission.
lf you have any questions or need additional information about this notice, please
call 650-558-7230.
STOP SIGNS & OTHER TRAFFIC MEASURES
FOR THE INTERSECTION OF
DEVEREUX DRIVE & BERNAL AVENUE
NOTICE. PU LIC IV TINGEE
S:\A Public Works Directory\TsP Commission\Respons€ & Notification Letters to Requ€sts\Public Notice - 4-13-06 Devereux-Bernal Stops.wpd
Meeting
Date: April 13, 2006
STAFF REPORT
Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission
April 7, 2006
Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer
Agenda ltem 4.2.4
Ray Drive - Speed Survey
SUBMITTED BY
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends periodic posting of the radar speed trailer on Ray Drive, with
no further recommended action at this time.
DISCUSSION: Staff conducted a radar speed study on Ray Drive, between Quesada Way and Monte
Corvino Way. Fifty sample vehicles were recorded during a morning off-peak hour. The 85 percentile
speed was calculated as 25 mph. The lowest speed recorded was 15 mph and the highest speed
recorded was 27 mph. Currently, the prima facie speed for Ray Drive is 25 mph. The environmental
conditions were such that the weather was clear and dry, and there were only two parked vehicles along
the curb of the study zone so that roadway travel was unimpeded.
Based on accepted traffic engineering practices, the recorded speeds on Ray Drive are not considered
excessive. Staff does caution, however, that this data was collected on a "dry" day between 3 or more
consecutive rainy days. Because the bay area has experienced so many consecutive rain days over the
past 30 days, driving habits may have been influenced such that vehicle speeds are lower than would be
anticipated under more normal seasonal conditions.
S:APublicWorksDirectory\TsPCommission\Staff Reports\2006\04-13-06Ray SpeedStudy.doc
Street: Ray Drive (btwn Quesada/Monte Corvino)
Between Quesada Drive and Monte Corvino WayCross Streets or Additional lnformation:
Sample Size: 50
Posted Speed Limit 25 mph
Direction: both
troo
o
o-
10Oo/o
90%
80%
70%
60%
50Yo
4Oo/o
30o/o
20o/o
1lYo
lYo
Eoo
(,4
tu
-g
E
o
Date of Speed Survey:4t6t2006
Cumulative Percent Vs. Speed (MPH)
15 30
Percent Vs. Speed (MPH)
,g \$ .f .l,L .fl .bs A ,)6 A dt' f u$ ?j' b!
Speed (MPH)
20 25
Speed (MPH)
35
25o/o
20%
15%
lOo/o
5%
0o/o
50th Percentile
90th Percentile
85th Percentile
1Oth Percentile
10 MPH Pace Speed (MPH)
Percent in Pace Speed
Percent Over Pace Speed
Percent Under Pace Speed
Standard Deviation
23 MPH
26 MPH
25 MPH
20 MPH
18 Through 27
98Yo
0o/o
2o/o
2.73
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
1
0
0
2
5
I
10
6
6
6
5
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.lYo
10.0o/o
2.QYo
20.lYo
12.0o/o
12.00/o
12.00/o
10.lYo
8.0Y0
8.00
0.0%
0.004
0.0Y0
0.0%
0.0%
0.00/o
0.0Y0
0,00/o
0.lYo
0.0%
0.0%
0.lYo
0.lYo
0.0%
0.00/o
0.0Y0
0,0%
0.lYo
0.lYo
0.0%
0.00/o
0.0%
0.0o/o
0.0%
0.lYo
0.0o/o
0.0%
0.0%o
2.0%
2.0o/o
2.00/o
6.0%
16.0o/o
18.0o/o
38.0%
50.0%
62.0%
74.0%
84.lYo
92.0o/o
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Totals: 50 100o/o
Timeof SpeedSrr"y,_]0:00l{M
Crrm PernenlSoeed
Meeting
Date:April 13. 2006
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STAFF REPORT
SUBMITTED BY
Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission
April 7, 2006
Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer
Agenda ltem 4.2.5
Broadway - Lighted Crosswalks and Other Enhancements at 1100 block
REGOMMENDATION: Staff recommends installation of reflectorized buttons at the crosswalk as
enhancements to increase visibility. Staff also recommends that the Commission request the future
pedestrian/bicycle subcommittee include this location for future evaluation of a lighted crosswalk project.
BACKGROUND: During a special study session in January, Council received input from various
citizens and businesses regarding pedestrian safety issues on Broadway. The Council received
comments and suggestions and forwarded all traffic safety related items to the Traffic Engineer and the
Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. lssue requiring staff level responses were handled by the
Traffic Engineer, while issues requiring TSPC review were forwarded to the Commission at the March
meeting. Certain items were immediately agendized for the April meeting, while others were set for
subsequent meetings.
DISCUSSION: The current Broadway configuration is the result of a $7 million streetscape project
completed in 2002. New landscaping, diagonal parking stalls, sidewalk treatment, signage, and painted
crosswalks were elements of the project. All the crosswalks along Broadway are currently only
delineated by paint.
The 1100 block of Broadway is bound by California Drive and Laguna Avenue, with Chula Vista Avenue
intersecting at the midpoint of Broadway. The intersection has no stop signs and is otherwise
uncontrolled. While Broadway is bi-directional with one lane of travel for each direction, Chula Vista
Avenue is a one-way street with traffic directed southbound, away from the Broadway intersection. The
intersection is also the location of a Walgreen's pharmacy. A marked crosswalk currently exists across
Broadway on the western approach.
Because of the streetscape design, visibility of pedestrians at this crosswalk may be reduced due to
street trees, shrubbery, and other landscaping. ln order to accommodate diagonal parking stalls on the
west side of Broadway, the corners at this intersection extend into the travel lane creating a bulbout
configuration at the crosswalk.
The configuration of the intersection in conjunction with the streetscape improvements, make this
particular crosswalk appear more as a mid-block crosswalk rather than a typical intersection crosswalk.
Additionally, this crosswalk is located immediately in front of an established "pedestrian generato/' such
as a pharmacy. Given these facts, additional crosswalk enhancements would be appropriate.
Staff does not support the installation of a lighted crosswalk system at this time. Funding is not available
for such a project; and, a more detailed pedestrian study would need to be conducted to determine if
grants application is both feasible and eligible. The City is planning to create a dedicated
pedestrian/bikeways subcommittee specifically put together to consider and review potential grant-
funded projects for pedestrians and bicycles. Staff recommends that the Commission request this
location be included for project consideration once the subcommittee is established.
S:A Public Works Oirectory\TsP Commission\Staff Reportsu006\04-13-06 Broadway-Walgreen Crosswalk.doc
RLI
Meeting
Date:April 13, 2006
STAFF REPORT
Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission
April 7, 2006
Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer
Agenda lfelm 4.2.7
Broadway - Traffic Speed Reduction
SUBMITTED BY
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT
RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not recommend any additional measures.
BACKGROUND: During a special study session in January, Council received input from various
citizens and businesses regarding pedestrian safety issues on Broadway. The Council received
comments and suggestions and forwarded all traffic safety related items to the Traffic Engineer and the
Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. lssue requiring staff level responses were handled by the
Traffic Engineer, while issues requiring TSPC review were forwarded to the Commission at the March
meeting. Certain items were immediately agendized for the April meeting, while others were set for
subsequent meetings.
DISCUSSION: Staff conducted a field analysis of the current traffic situation on Broadway. The results
are that Broadway is congested with traffic from mid-morning until late afternoon on a typical weekday.
Vehicle speeds cannot reach above 15 mph during such conditions because of the numberof vehicles.
Speeding was not observed to be a widespread condition, but rather one in which an occasional
impatient or disrespectful driver was observed doing. Radar studies could not be effectively conducted
since a large majority of vehicles traveled below the 15 mph recording threshold.
Additional signs are not recommended since Broadway already has numerous signs posted for parking
limits, parking availability, parking lot locations, one-way traffic, no left-turns, and no u-turns. Staff
believes that more signs would only lead to more sign "pollution", thereby causing drivers to ignore a
majority of the posted signs.
Based on the field studies, staff does not see additional need for speed enforcement on Broadway.
Similarly, streetscape improvements have already implemented several traffic calming measures such
as bulbouts and chokers at the intersections. Additional mid-block traffic calming measure such as
chicanes or mid-block crosswalks are not necessary and would require removal of already high-demand
on-street parking. Roadway obstructions such as speed humps or undulations are also not
recommended for business districts since they can interfere with parking and turning maneuvers.
S:A PublicWorks Directory\TsP Commission\Staff Reports\2006\04-13-06 Broadway-Speed Reduction.doc
. Have a One Community, One Book program
' cityWeb side should have links to ah orlanizations and contiact info for them' Eliminate the city equipment and vehiclei pr*"J in the back of washington park andreplace with park facilities
Proceed with a specific Area pran for downtown Burringame (3)' lncorporate facirity improvements with this pranning processo create town square around train station (p", M;i; Dreiring,s prans)o Limit size of stores, as Los Artos and univarteyoo
lntroduce more opportunities for the public to comment at council meetings (forexample, pubtic would have liked to comment during council,s shared servicesdebate)
lmprove surface quality of streets (4). Get rid of major dips, such as on Howard Avenue. Repave areas where major work has been done
Police department needs to be more responsive (4)' shourd be abre to cafl when Lions ciub events iet out of hando Should be ticketing.for illegat teft tums, such as at Ralston and El Camino' Ridicurous to ca, g11 when peopte ,r rt*iing .""v"ring' Lots of comments about officersrelaxing undei euLryptus trees on california Drive' suggestion: lnstatt cameras like they rrie on Hiilsdale or signs saying there arecameras, even when theie aren,t
' 9top giving Brush and other crubs "kid grove" treatment (3)' Restore community poricing, with office-rs on foot and bikes. lmprove customer service ind responsiveness at counter
Require residents to have back ftow or popper vatues on sewer lines to preventbackflow, as Hillsborough does (2|. Like Hillsborough, subsidize half of the cost, up to g1,200
Reinstate lap hours for public at Burlingame High pool
clean up sidewatks.and parking lots on and around Burtingame Avenue (4)' They are filled with cigarefte butts and litter (example: lot behind sephora)o Sidewalks need steam cteaning. Use sidewalk sweeper more often
' Make merchants more responsible for cleaning up in front of their stores
a
a
white crosswalk lines (should ,3S schoolsFix dangerous crossing on Easton near Easton bra nch library (huge tree ), trestlebridgeacross tracks on California that has no railroad and cyclist
s3
, Carmelitia and Sanchez; no one can see
lmprove crosswalks
the crosswalks outlined in brick;at intersections
. Make crosswalks more visible on
crossing at Carolan and Morrell
safety bariers,
ller"t 4 .z "S
t-=
j
i
I
I
I
Doris
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Terry -
Here are my suggestions:
Tactical
Dream
lgr.V rupa [terry@terrynaget.comt
Friday, January 21,2O(i6 ZSZ eU '
council@burlingame.org; dmortensen@burlingame.org
Another suggestion
1- More _flashing crosswalks (tike the one outboth ends of Broadway and Burlingame Ave. f,.ry.guickly with increased foots t.raffic andBurlingame Ave Eo Washington park. you needto walk to Ehe Ave to spend tlrier money!
side of Sbacks). put one ofbet they'Il pay for themselvessales tax revenue. Also fromto get Lhose AYSO, etc famalies
2- New blood involved in city hall3- Tovrn Ha1l meetings Ehac are open Eo discussion and engaging- The cu=entmeeting is somewhaE akin Eo PoriLburo meeti"g- --e"irrfully stale with al1incumbents interest.s and.no open agenda itemi. Arl votes are for itemspreiously discussed. quite sirametit a"tuafiy.
Best,
Jamie
1
Iley-L 4.2-5
ffi
IVIEIVORANDUTVI
As time permits, please advise your teams to attempt selective enforcement.
Time of
Violation Des tion Location Offense Date orted
Stop Sigr Trousdale 0830 02/r4106
Speeding Skyline Night Hours 02116/06
22350YC Speeding 1300 Blk ofN
Carolan
0900 and later 02t23/06
22350YC Speeding Oak Grove
near BHS Pool
Moming
school hours
02/23t06
219s0(a) VC Yield to Ped in
Crosswalk
Morrell and
Carolan
0730 and
1600 to 1630
04104106
22101(d) VC Straight from Left
Tum Lane
WB Broadway
at Califomia
A11 tlay, but
specifically
1500to 1600
04112/06
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Patrol Sgts
Shepley
04n3t06
Selective Enforcement
22450yC
22350yC
FIRST YEAR
n
Alcohol-
lnvolved
Fatalities
Alcohol-
lnvolved
lnjuries
Hit & Run
Fatal
Collisions
Hit & Run
lnjury
Gollisions
Nighttame
Fatal
Collisions
Nighttime
lnjury
Collisions
Fatalities BAC
.08 or above
Checkpoints
Requested?
Atherton PD 4 (0 Yes
Belmont PD 0 2 0 0 0 4 0
Brisbane PD 0 4 0 2 0 2 0
Broadmoor PD 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Burl PD ' :16 (1 I 2
CHP Redwood City
CHP'San' Fraii6isciirl'
3 91
-;i--::-l;i::l:
0 29 1 91 3
Colma PD I 0 0 0 1 1
Daly Gity PD 0 0 5
East Palo AIto PD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Foster Gitv PD 0 2 0 0 0 4 0
illsborough PD
Menlo Park PD
0
-__*-2
0 0
0
0,0
I
0
EJ
0----2
Millbrae PD 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Yes
Pacifica PD : l ' ,t0 ::r:6 v
Redwood City PD 0 22 0 26 0 0
San Bruno PD 0 4 0 14 Yes
San Garlos PD 0 11 0 B 0 6 0
San Mateo PD 0 0 .'' ,'20 0 15
San Mateo Cty SO 0 7 0 1 0 5 0 Yes
13 (,
0l
241
0l 131 (
tl'
Speed Limits Reduced on Three Roadways
In November of 2005, the City of Burlingame prepared a survey of 41 of our main
roadways. A survey is performed approximately every five years. The purpose is to
determine what the safe speeds for the driving public are.
Usually, the survey supports the current speed limits. However, the current
survey results demonstrated that three sections of roadway should have their posted speed
limits reduced from 35 MPH to 30 MPH. These sections of roadway, along with the
criteria for the 30 MPH speed limit, include:
California Dr- between Burlingame Av and Murchison
Accidents, pedestrian and bicycle usage, driveways for residences and
businesses, four traffic signals, and narrow lane widths
Rollins Rd - between the cities of San Mateo and Millbrae
Accidents, lack of shoulders s/of Broadway, and big rig traffic n/of
Broadway
Airport Blvd - between Lang and Bayshore Blvd
Accidents, recreational use which generates pedestrian and bicycle usage,
and leftAj-turns turns are permitted with limited visibility due to center
medians and sharp curvatures of the roadway
Downtown Parking Permit Program - 90 Day Trial
The DBID and the City of Burlingame staff have been developing a parking
permit program for the Burlingame Ave downtown. Permits willbe available May 3'd.
A limited number of permits will be sold on a first come first serve basis. After 90 days
the program may be expanded and/or modified based on the feedback the city receives.
Permits can be used in areas designated as long term parking. There are two goals
of this program. First, it will encourage merchants, restaurateurs, and employees to park
on the outskirts of the Burlingame Avenue business area. This should increase parking
inventory for customers. Second, it should also provide an easier parking system and
result in less frustration for all parties. This program should also reduce the number of
issued parking citations and the necessity to carry money to pay parking meters and pay-
by-space machines.
Permits can be transferred between cars, so any car displaying a permit does not
need to pay the designated meters and/or pay-by-space machines.
Permits can be purchased at the DBID office for $40.00 a month. The office is
located at 1204 Burlingame Av #6 - (650)344-9118.
to:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Cateqorv 1
1 1 Officers
Commander Floyd
Sergeant Shepley
RADAR Training
4t3t?006
Chief Van Etten
Commander Matteucci
RADAR TRAINING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
On March 13th, I met with Traffic Commissioner Stephanie Garret. She advised that officers who have not
attended the POST RADAR class do not meet the legal requirements for testifying in the use of RADAR. Thus,
their RADAR citations are subject to dismissal. Due to this conversation, I surveyed the PD to determine which
officers have attended the POST course. I broke the respondents down into four categories. These categories
are as follows:
'l) Officers who have not attended a POST RADAR course and would like to attend a POST course.
2) Officers who have attended a POST RADAR course and would like to attend again.
3) Officers who have attended a POST RADAR course and do not wish to attend again'
4) Officers who have not attended a POST RADAR course and do not wish to attend a POST course
Cateqorv 2
5 Officers
c rv3
10 Officers
Cateqorv 4
7 Officers
cc:
Burl ingame Residential Traffi c
Calming Program
Aqendao Program historyo Program goals. Application process. Description of the program. Comparison with other cities. Stop signso Funding situationo Summary
.l
:,r
a
History of the Program
Program developed in 2000-01.
TSPC reviewed and recommended
program to City Council in late 2002.
Program adopted by City Council in
lVarch 2003.
a
a
Program Goals
- Use specific Traffic Calming measures to alter driver
behavior and reduce vehicle speeds or volumes
thereby enhancing pedestrian safety.
- To have procedures and measures that will enhance
the quality of life in the City's neighborhoods by
mitigating the negative impacts of vehicular traffic on
the residential streets.
Process
Receive initial request from residents.
Pre-application meeting between residents and staff.
Circulation of a petition for consideration. (10 signatures must be obtained before
submission to the City.)
Preliminary analysis and priority ranking. (Based on traffic volume, speeds, and
accident history.)
Neighborhood subcommittee or representative's workshop to discuss preliminary
analysis.
Project development meeting between neighborhood subcommittee/representatives.
Project presentation to entire neighborhood. (Consensus must be reached to
proceed further.)
Recommendation to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission.
Recommendation to City Council by the TSPC when appropriate.
a
a
a
Program
Purpose of the program:
- lmprove pedestrian safety by changing driver behavior,
resulting in lower vehicle speeds or volumes.
City uses the "3-Es" concept -
- Education
- Enforcement
- Engineering (Level 1 thru 4)
Has action/mitigation decision structure using
"levgls".
Has public involvement and input in the decision
process.
a
a
a
a
Education
Communitv Outreach
AppliCatiOn: Use of neishborhood meetings,
printed literature, sign campaign, and Neighborhood
Speed Watch program to address speeding
problems.
Advantages.
lnvolves and empowers residents.
Works well with other mitigations.
No negative effect on emergency services.
Disadvantages:
Can be expensive and time-consuming.
May take time to be effective.
Effectiveness may decrease over time.
o ESt. COSI: varies depending on scope.
WHEI{ Y-OU SEE KIDS,
'"}sLour trownf,
&rrD. t!r,l a Cda grr".?
UUANT TO MEET COPS?
w*.CetSlrwtsilriits.on{l Crly o{ Ssn ,!r{
Education
Sp ecific Traffic Calminq Srons
a
o
o
Application : speciric sisns
informing the public that traffic calming
measure have been implemented in the
area.
Advantages:
lnforms and alerts drivers to presence of
devices.
lmprove safety and effectiveness of
technique and/or devices being used.
Disadvantages:
May add to sign clutter.
Effectiveness may decrease over time.
o Est. Cost: $2oo - $4oo per sisn
Enforcement
Traditional Spe ed Enforcement
o
a
a
ApplicatiOn: tn residentiat areas
where speeding problems have been
reported.
Advantages:
Useful educational tool.
Good public relations tool.
Useful where spot speed reduction is
desired.
No negative effect on emergency services.
Disadvantages:
Requires periodic enforcement.
Effective for limited durations.
o ESt. COSt: Approx. $75lhr per officer
I
*#
I
Enforcement
Radar Speed A/lonitorins Trailer
o Application: tn areas where
speeding problems have been identified,
but actual police enforcement is not critical.
o Advantages:
o
Useful educational tool.
Good public relations tool.
Useful where spot speed reduction is
desired.
No negative effect on emergency services.
Disadvantages.
Requires periodic enforcement.
Effective for limited durations.
o Est. Cost: $2o,ooo - $32,ooo per unit
Engineeri ng
Traffic Control: Srqns and Devices - Level 1
o
o
o
o
Regulatory signs
("Speed Limit" or "Speed Checked by Radar")
Advantages:
Clearly indicates prima facie speed limit.
Reminds drivers of the speed limit.
Low cost installation.
D isadvantages.
No effect as a "stand alone" device.
May add to sign clutter.
Est. Cost: $2oo per sign
t
't\
Engineeri ng
Traffic Control: Srqns and Device,s - Level 1
lViscellaneous Signso
("Slow-Residential Street"/"Drive Slow-Save Lives")
a
o
o
Advantages.
May reduce vehicle speeds.
May increase driver awareness
Relatively low cost.
Disadvantages.
Sign are not enforceable.
Overuse can decrease effectiveness.
Effectiveness may decrease over time.
Est. Cost: $2oo - $soo per sisn
LIMIT
I
Engineeri ng
Traffic Control: Srqns and Devices - Level 1
a
o
o
o
Turn prohibitions
("No Left-Turns", "No U-Turns")
Advantages:
Redirect traffic to main streets.
Reduces cut-through traffic.
Low cost installation.
D isadvantages.
May divert traffic to other streets.
May add to sign clutter.
Requires enforcement.
Potentially high violation rate w/o
enforcement.
Est. Cost: $2oo per sign
lrtr{rtt
I
:
I !i I
1
Engineeri ng
I
o
o
o
o
Traffic Control : S I ns and Devices - Level 1
Rumble Strips
Advantages.
Reduces speeds through vibration
and audible warnings to drivers.
Low cost .
Disadvantages:
lncreased noise.
Problematic for motorcyclists and
bicyclists in incorrectly installed.
ESt. COSt: $5oo per instattation
Engineeri ng
Traffic Con ttgl; Srqns and Device,s - Level 2
o
o
o
Roadway Striping or
Narrowing Lanes
Advantages.
Relatively quick implementation.
Easy modification.
May reduce traffic speeds.
lncreased bicycle and pedestrian safety.
Disadvantages:
I ncreased maintenance.
Residents may oppose striping neighborhood
street.
May limit or restrict on-street parking.
a ESt. COSI. $to - $zs per tinear foot
E
q!
l.i
Engineeri ng
Traffic Control: Stgns and Device,s - Level 2
Centerline Striping
Advantages.
o
a
o
o
Guides traffic within designated lanes.
Narrowing effect on residential streets can
result in slower speeds.
Relatively low cost installation.
Disadvantages:
Can increase potential for sideswipe
accidents.
Residents may oppose striping
neighborhood street.
ESt. COSI: $t o - $2s per tinear foot
F
I
!
I
,,n.*
t",
s
,1
.i
Engineeri ng
Traffic Control : S igns and Devices - Level 2
o
o
a
o
Pavement [\4arkings
Advantages:
Supplement to speed limit signs.
May help reduce speeds.
Disadvantages:
Not enforceable by themselves.
lncrease in maintenance costs.
Est. Cost: $2so-$3oo per marking
t\
1..
, i ".
a
o
Engineeri ng
Traffic Control : Phvsical Features - Level 3
Chokers or Bulbouts
Advantages:
Narrowing affect slows vehicles.
Reduced turning radii slows turning traffic.
Reduces crossing distance for pedestrians.
Landscaping opportu nities.
lnterrupts straight curb lines, slowing traffic.
Disadvantages.
Can reduce on-street parking.
Potential maintenance and drainage issues.
Utilities may require costly relocation.
Can restrict or impede large vehicle access.
Est. Cost: $5o,ooo-$Bo,ooo per unit
a
o
Engineeri ng
Traffic Control: Ph vsical Features - Level 3
o
o
o
Chicanes
Advantages:
Reduced vehicle speeds by removing straight
line of sight.
Landscaping opportun ities.
Accommodates emergency vehicle access.
Disadvantages:
Reduces or eliminates on-street parking.
I ncreased maintenance.
Can impact driveway access.
Residents may oppose striping neighborhood
street.
Est. Cost: $3o,ooo - $60,000o
,': ,'
.rJ '' i ,
I
' tii.-
.4i'
a
a
Engineeri ng
Traffic Control: Phvsical Features - Level 3
a
o
Reduces speeds.
Relatively inexpensive costs.
Self-enforcing.
Disadvantages:
Questionable aesthetics.
Can cause discomfort for people with disabilities.
Can reduce emergency vehicle response times.
Possible noise due to braking and accelerating
vehicles.
Potential damage to emergency vehicles and injury
to emergency personnel.
May attract skateboarders.
Est. Cost: $2,ooo-$2,500 per unit
Speed Humps
Advantages:
/.:.'l
. r,l
*s;gjr'
, {o- ,l
._ :.
a. -"", *^SCrl
I .&r. '
a
qt
a
-e -\' --\-
H.JM>
O
o
Engineeri ng
Traffic Control: Phvsical Features - Level 3
Speed Cushions
Advantages.
Reduces speeds.
May reduce traffic volumes.
Self-enforcing.
Does not disrupt emergency or transit
vehicle access.
Disadvantages:
Low aesthetic appeal.
Potentially divert traffic to other streets.
May require removal of on-street parking
to align large vehicles over cushions.
Est. Cost. $3,500 - $5,ooo
a
a
,..
t
I
a-t-
\r
.- r . t -_" l,'
!.
.ksin
It
;
rl
a
o
o
Engineeri ng
Traffic Control: Phvsical Feature,s - Level 3
Speed Tables or Raised
Crosswalks
Advantages:
Effectively reduces speeds.
Smooth transition for large vehicles.
Self-enforcing.
I ncreased visibility for pedestrians.
Disadvantages.
Low aesthetic appeal if no texturing is used.
Texturing application may be expensive.
Pedestrians may assume motorists will
automatically yield.
Possible noise due to braking and
accelerating veh ictes.
o Est. Cost: $2,ooo - $3,soo per unit
$
i.A..
't,t
, , Irl
.'1 \\',
";r lt.ls:
o
o
o
Engineeri ng
Traffic Control: Phvsical Features - Level 3
Raised lntersection
Advantages:
Reduces speeds.
Self-enforcing.
Enhances pedestrian safety.
Aesthetically pleasing with decorative work.
Disadvantages:
Potential drainage problems.
May divert traffic to nearby streets.
Expensive.
Can reduce emergency vehicle response times.
a ESt. COSI: $so,ooo - $60,000 per intersection
.*II
I
ir r.
o
o
o
o
Engineeri ng
Traffic Control: Phvsical Features Level 3
Traffic Circle
Advantages:
Effectively reduces vehicle speeds.
Reduces collision potential.
Better side street access.
Landscape opportunity.
Disadvantages.
Expensive.
Can restrict or impede large vehicle access.
ESt. COSI. $15,ooo - $2s,ooo per rocation
I
:.t)t'
'i{"
Engineeri ng
Traffic Control : Ph vsical Feature,s - Level 4
o
O
a
Cul-de-sac
Advantages:
Effectively reduces vehicle speeds.
Reduces collision potential.
Better side street access.
Landscape opportu nity.
Disadvantages:
Expensive.
Can restrict large vehicles if improperly designed.
o Est. Cost: $1 ,ooo - $4o,oo0 per rocation
Engineeri ng
Traffic Control: Ph vsical Features - Level 4
o
o Street Closure
Advantages:
Eliminates cut-through traffi c.
Reduces crossing distance for pedestrians.
Reduces confl icts at intersections.
Landscape opportu nity.
Disadvantages:
Restricts vehicular access, even for residents.
No effect on vehicle speed beyond intersection.
Can restrict large vehicles if improperly
designed.
May divert traffic to other residential streets.
ESt. CoSt: $1o,ooo - $20,000 per tocation
o
O
o
o
a
Engineeri ng
Traffic Control: Phvsical Features - Level 4
l\4edian/Diverter
Advantages:
Red uces cut-through traffic.
Reduces vehicle speeds with narrow lanes.
Increase traffic safety by proper lane usage.
Disadvantages:
Possible elimination of on-street parking.
Restricts residential driveway access.
Expensive.
Can restrict large vehicles if improperly
designed.
o ESt. COst: $15,ooo-$2s,000 per rocation
'r4.-<
'5,t..&'
- ki'a{r.' .rr.i .:.til;
r.t -
:, *--*-G,,*
i. ."
,; l#,
:.r'I
o
o
a
Engineeri ng
Traffic Control: Phvsical Features - Level 4
Woonerf
Advantages.
Reduces vehicle speeds.
Reduces traffic volume.
Aesthetically pleasing and provides a
more "European" environment.
Landscape opportunity.
Provides a public space for social
interaction.
Disadvantages:
Very expensive.
Mixed pedestrian and vehicular traffic
can make for safety concerns.
Concept not generally seen in the U.S.
o Est. Cost: $2oo,ooo+
I
f,-:
t,r
t:f.,
,!
!
I
tre
,
frr,l ,: :t&t.,-tutlL-'t.l . irJ tir:
, riir:i,li tI
: ! l'
*
"h-a
Review of Other California Cities
and their Programs
City of San Jose
City of lVlountain View
Town of Danville
City of San Mateo
City of Alameda
City of Los Gatos
City of Pittsburg (CA)
City of La l\ilesa
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
How does Burlingame's Program
compare?
The City's program is comparable to the others.
Many programs list common_ly identifiable physical components,
such as speed humps or traffic circles.
Som.e programs, such as City of San Jose, have strong
emphasis on the education component.
- Presentation folders
- Lawn signs
- Bumper stickers
- Messages on litter bags
- Multilingual Safety Tip sheets for drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists
- Messages on bus tails & transit shelters
- Media advertisements (print & radio)
- Classroom kits (Class banners, posters, flyers)
a
a
What About STOP Signs?
Not for speed control.
Not a Traffic Calm ng device or measure.
- Where STOP signs are identified in certain programs, lhey are onlv
recommended for consideration upon completion of a warrant study
{@ warrant conditions are met.
. State warrant conditions adopted by
Burlingame:
- Accidents
- Volumes.
- Temporary measure for traffic signals.
Alternatives to STOP signs
. Education.
. Enforcement.
Engineering.a
ia
a
a
Funding
No current funding for Traffic Calming Program due
to competing CIP interests and budget constraints.
Similar programs are typically funded for between
$200,000 to $800,000 annually, depending on
program scope and size of city.
Prior to economic downturn, Burlingame previously
budgeted $1 00,000 annually.
Funding Alternatives
No new funding:
- Minor signs, striping, and markings work.
- Traditional speed and radar trailer enforcement.
Educational program with $50,000 funding:
- Staff time for specific Traffic Calming neighborhood meetings.
- Production and distribution of brochures, bumper stickers, lawn signs,
and other educational material.
- Specially fabricated Traffic Calming/Neighborhood signs.
- Staff time for establishing Neighborhood Speed Watch programs.
Neighborhood funded program with staff support:
- Level 1 through Level4 mitigations.
Joint City/Neighborhood funded program :
- Level 1 through Level 4 mitigations.
- Example: Dwight Road-Peninsula Avenue gateway/bulbout project.
Summary
- No single, "silver bullet" solution to speeding
on residential streets.
- Speed and volume reduction can be achieved
using various combinations of Traffic Calming
mitigations.
a
a
a
Feedback
Comments
Direction
\