The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - TSP - 2008.05.08a 1. CALL TO ORDER AGENDA May 8, 2008 7:00 p.m. — Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —April 10, 2008 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State -Local Agency Open Meeting Law) prohibits the Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a "Request To Speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Commission Chairperson may limit speakers to three minutes each. 7. CURRENT BUSINESS 7.1 Commission Appeals Process 8. INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF 8.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 8.1.1 In -pavement Illuminated Crosswalks —Verbal Report (Attachments included) 8.1 .2 Bellevue Avenue/ California Drive Intersection —Verbal Report (Attachments included) 8.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report 8.2.1 Selective Enforcement List —Verbal Report 8.3 Commissioners' Comments and Concerns 8.3.1 Traffic &Parking Technology Seminar Series —Discussion (Attachment included) 8.3.2 Miscellaneous Comments and Concerns Traffic Safety & Parking Commission - Agenda May 81 2008 Page 2 9. COMMUNICATIONS Report by Staff or Commissioners of citizen concerns or complaints regarding traffic, safety and parking issues that are within the Commission's jurisdiction. 10. COMMISSION &COMMITTEE REPORTS 10.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee 10.2 Miscellaneous Reports 11. ACTION ITEMS 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ADJOURNMENT -2- MINUTES -ITEM 5 The City of Burlingame CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, April 10, 2008 Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Dan Conway, Chair Michael Bohnert, Vice Chair Jerry McDonnell Mark Noworolski Stephen Warden ►hGTit Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Visitors: None 1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 3 5 ROLL CALL. 5 of 5 Commissioners present. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Motion: To accept the minutes of March 13, 2008 as submitted. M/S/C: Warden/McDonnell; 5/0/0 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1 7. CURRENT BUSINESS 7.1 Commission Appeals Process Mr. Chou recommended the Commission to review the draft Commission Appeals Process Policy document and conduct discussion to create a final draft. There was lengthy discussion regarding the appeals process for items that would go back to the Commission for review. It was determined that a six-month "hold" time period would be adopted in which the Commission would not take action on an appeal from the public. The Commission agreed that the six-month time period would prevent unnecessary or unwarranted requests for appeals from immediately returning. It was aIso agreed that issues would remain closed for the six-month period unless it is placed on the agenda by a Commissioner. Finally, it was agreed that if an item was returned to the Commission by a Commissioner's request, that a new six-month period would be started after that point. The Commission agreed that for appeals to City Council, a fee would be included. This would be similar to ones currently implemented by other City commissions. It was also agreed that the policy document would not specify a particular dollar amount, but would instead refer to the current amounts on the City's master fee schedule. 8. INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF 8.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 8.1.1 Commission Procedures Policy —Distribution Mr. Chou presented the Commission with the final draft of the Commission Procedures Policy for the record. 8.1.2 TDA and Other Grant Applications —Verbal Update Mr. Chou reported that the City did not make the selected list for the current round of TDA grant funding for bike maps. Mr. Chou report ed that staff submitted two grant applications from the Green Street —Clean Storm Drain Runoff Grant program. One application was to redesign the front portion of the Donnelly parking lot (Lot C). The second application was for bulb outs on Bloomfield Road at Vernon Way and Plymouth Way. Mr. Chou stated that the City was awaiting the official results of the submissions. 2 8.1.3 In -pavement Illuminated Crosswalks — Verbal Update Mr. Chou stated that the City had to go through an evaluation process to determine the best locations for in -pavement illuminated crosswalks. He reported that staff was evaluating the crosswalk on California Drive and Highland Avenue, by Christy's Cafe for this type of installation. Commissioner Warden reiterated the need for an evaluation of in -pavement illuminated crosswalk on Burlingame Avenue in front of the Apple Store. Discussion continued over the conditions for considering installation of new in - pavement illuminated crosswalks. Mr. Chou explained that the typical installation was generally for mid -block crosswalk locations. He added that the location at California and Highland fit the evaluation criteria. 8.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report None 8.3 Commissioners' Comments and Concerns 8.3.1 Traffic &Parking Technology Seminar Series —Discussion Commissioner Noworolski suggested that the next series — Parking Technology in the 21St Century focus on two perspectives — from a City perspective and from a driver's perspective. Commissioner Noworolski hoped that the next series be a luncheon sponsored by a business. Discussion occurred as to whom the target audie�ice would be and rile best time of day and day of week to generate attendance from such an audience. It was suggested that the series precede a regular TSPC meeting or be in a public setting where the public happens to come upon the session i.e., farmers market, etc. Commissioner McDonnell suggested that the series be a half day program and to involve other departments, such as street cleaning, to reach a wider audience. Commissioner Warden suggested that if the City continued to have .low attendance, then it should consider discontinuing the series. Commissioner Bohnert reported that he recently attended a Rotary meeting in which a speaker hired by the County presented an executive summary on being a sustainable County. Commissioner Bohnert felt the speaker's K3 presentation was very informative; and, if tailored for Burlingame would be beneficial for the series. He added that he would follow up with the speaker for the possibility of emailing a presentation to the Commission for review and possible presentation. 8. 3.2 Commission Quad Program —Discussion Commissioner Warden.stated that Burlingame is a small community where the Commissioners can take full responsibility of the entire city. He recommended that the Quad Program be discontinued. He added that matters can be handled by sub -committees appointed by the Chair, as they have been in the past. He said that this would allow all Commissioners the opportunity to work in various areas of the City. Chair Conway stated that he has heard more comments against the Quad System as opposed to those that favor it. He noted that if a Quad System were to continue, it would need to be properly administered. Chair Conway It that, given the size of the city, he supported eliminating the Quad System. Motion: To eliminate the Quad Program and have staff remove all references to the Quad Program from the City website. M/S/C: Warden/Bohnert; 4/1/0 (Noworolski abstained) 8.3.3 Miscellaneous Commenfis and Concerns Commissioner McDonnell expressed concern for his personal information being published on the website. He inquired about the possibility of getting a Burlingame email address and omitting his residence address and phone number from the website for his particular circumstance. Mr. Chou will follow-up on this matter with the City's Information Technology (IT) staff and the City Clerk. 9. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Chou advised the Commission that the items discussed below should have been under 8.3.3 Miscellaneous Comments and Concerns. Commissioner Warden stated that Autohaus Exec, on California Drive, has been storing vehicles on the street and have had vehicles parking on the street for sale. He said vehicle information was provided to the Police Department to determine who the registered owners of the vehicles were. He suggested that Sergeant Williams have the DMV investigate the matter rather than through Code Enforcement. Mr. Chou said that he would coordinate with Sergeant Williams on this matter. Commission Bohnert reported that crosswalk signs appeared to be missing for eastbound Broadway at Paloma Avenue. He said it was on the western crosswalk corner. Commissioner Noworolski requested staff look into a new curb ramp at th'e new crosswalk by Ray Park. He also asked staff to look into a red curb zone at the same location to improve visibility. Mr. Chou replied that staff was aware of the need for the curb ramp and that new curb ramps would be included at that location as part of a larger program. He said that by programming this location into a larger program, there would be some increased cost savings during construction. 10.COMMISSION &COMMITTEE REPORTS 10.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee The committee did not meet this evening and will be meeting next week. 10.2 Miscellaneous Reports ►hC•1i 11. Future Agenda Items Chair Conway reviewed the items for future agendas: ® Look at appeals process. ® Intersection design information for the California Drive/Bellevue Avenue intersection. ® Design information on the illuminated crosswalks at Calfornia Drive and Highland Avenue. 12.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m. 5 � 'i � TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION APPEALS PROCESS I. Appeals The Chair will announce the rights of appeal of tl Commission following a final decision. Per: Commission decision te-G�nsit should con�a`ct Department the next business day to make'`'su fees, and time requirements are understpti�d. II. Appeals Process Back To Commission A. 'Appeals from the Public - Any;deterrr the Commission shall stand for a pe be a six-month.moratorium on appea the ,:.Commission will not entertain: public for appeals on that particular i�e�s%j� as established by the �s in�ere'sted in appealing a ,. . Public��NQ:tks -Engineering that the appeal process, any ration antl/or alecison made by od of six months. 'There shat for that particular. master, anc �y requests direc#ly from the for the �x-n B. Reviews �' from' the ,:Commission —' Any '; Commisseon .member may .�w request that a ;previously acted -on ma#er,be revisiteal for review,' �;., . .:..ti.v .. ._ 1. ', A Commissioner may request, meeting, that a matter 'be review based on new or changing'I evid� ti bearing on the matter and the d� �v `� ;. previous meeting. A vote will t. �:..•� ��s wapprove fhe_revisting of the: mat mnatior be take end have �y have a direct votetl on at the on whether to it placed on 'the 2. The Commission.: Chair has the authority to have a matte placed: directly on a subsequent agenda for the next regula meeting. A vote will then be taken on whefher to :'approve the revisiting of the master and have it placed on the agenda fo the next regular meeting:: Approved on above in Section B-1 and B 2, if applicable, after -being reviewed `er will be subject to a new six:' III. Appeals Process To City Council A. After a determination and decision by the Commission, any person may appeal the Commission decision to the City Council. An appeal must be filed by the end of the next City Council meeting to the office of the City Clerk: The following must be submitted in order for the appeal to be effective: C� 1. The appeal must be in writing. 2. It must be submitted to both the Public Works —Engineering Department and to the office of the C�t�'C:I:�I ��,f w:;:ys;... f.". ti� ""�" titi%r""ti 3. A required fee must be included to tlYe subrri�r�sion to the City Clerk. The fee amount shall. be deterrriri�red.,b�r the City's:{Free Schedule. (If a request for review or an ,;appeal is presented �r`;�a�,vocated by a Commissioner or staff, nq;iy"�:es are required.) -��rti��,�::-; At its next regular meeting following `t:'.�:_�l �• , . council, or at any meeting thereafter to wh the council shall conduc't��°h�arin thereon: the council shall make a'C%d�fit��it order d approve, disapprove or mb�"�,ify'tti`isti��d.�r of 1 eal or the suspension by the the matter may be continued, �te�r having held such hearing, Yr`rrin.rrg the matter and may -2- Approved on mission. 9"q Devices California Ave Crosswalk System Layout Spot Devices, Inc. 1433 Kleppe Lane Sparks NV 89431 P: X888) 320-0008 F: (888) 320-0007 spotdevices.com 2 roral M. I IV, I P44 LW4 ral Ll WAI rraffic Signal Intersection Evaluation Draft Final Report Prepared for A iii �t i i L, Associate TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS December 17, 2007 Ira 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4 4.1 4.2 5 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND........................................................................1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ... CITY PROVIDED DATA.....................................................................................................2 EXISTING TRAFFIC OPERATIONS......................................................................................2 ACCIDENTHISTORY.........................................................................................................2 FIELDOBSERVATIONS......................................................................................................2 ISSUESTATEMENT............................................................................................................3 POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS....................................................................................................3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL ALTERNATIVE................................................................................4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS............................................................................4 SYNCHRO ANALYSIS........................................................................................................4 TRAFFICSIGNAL..............................................................................................................5 OTHER FEASIBLE INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVES...............................................8 ROUNDABOUT..................................................................................................................8 HALF ROUNDABOUT......................................................................................................11 RECOMME NDATIONS ...... COST ESTIMATES ................. TRAFFIC SIGNAL ALTERNATIVE.....................................................................................14 ROUNDABOUT................................................................................................................15 IiAI.,F ROUNDABOUT......................................................................................................16 Appendix A Appendix B Appendices SIGNAL WARRANT STUDY SYNCHRO LOS CALUCULATIONS p:Ip106106274-001 tetap budingamelreportsldraRreportlburlingame 2006 tetap-drag reportdoc This report was prepared under the Transportation Engineering Technical Assistance Program (TETAr) for the City of Burlingame. This report discusses the operation of existing California Drive/Bellevue Avenue intersection, in City of Burlingame, the operational analysis and feasible improvements to make it a more efficient and safer intersection. In this report, order of magnitude cost estimates for the potential feasible operational improvements are provided. Any comments received will be addressed in the Final Report. The project intersections California Drive/Bellevue Avenue and Bellevue Avenue/Lorton Avenue are owned and operated by the City of Burlingame and are located adjacent to residential and commercial land use. Figure 1 illustrated project intersections. This project entails: ® Observe current traffic operations at the project intersections, California Drive/Bellevue Avenue and Bellevue Avenue/Lorton Avenue during AM and PM peak periods; ® Conduct vehicular and pedestrian turning movement counts and 24 -Hour approach tube counts; ® Perform traffic signal warrant analysis to verify a traffic signal warrants at the project intersection; ® Perform intersection analysis using analysis software; and ® Develop conceptual design plans for the project intersections. Dutfngamn Ciry Haag Figure 1 Project Study Intersections California Dive/Bel%vue Avenue Traffic Signal and Intersection Evaluation TETAP -Draft Report 7 Bunhpamo ' HoteY� Washington Park j( O�nS mw Cham�rot �Commerro December 77, 2007 P ` s t l 1 2.1 City Provided Data City staff provided the following information. ® Accident reports for the period 3/15/04 to 3/15/07 ® CAD drawing with the project intersections MTC staff provided the following information: ® Synchro analysis of the traffic signal network in the vicinity for the AM and PM peak periods 2.2 Existing Traffic Operations The existing project intersections are stop controlled at California Drive/Bellevue Avenue. Another stop sign controls eastbound traffic on Bellevue Avenue. Due to the close proximity of the two intersections, the area is functioning like an extended intersection, with multiple conflicting points. 2.3 Accident History Over the period of three years April, 2004 to April, 2007 there were five (5) accidents recorded at the intersection of California Drive/Bellevue Avenue/Lorton Avenue and one (1) accident recorded at the California Drive/Bellevue Avenue. 2.4 Field Observations Based on the field observations conducted during AM and PM peak periods on December 14, 2007, January 16, 2007 and December 11, 2007, the following observations can be noted: ® Pedestrian push buttons were installed for activation of the in -pavement crosswalk flashers along the crosswalk on California Avenue; ® Pedestrian crossing warning signs were installed on the roadway with protective pavement markers at half way of the crosswalk across California Avenue; ® Sam Trans bus stops were located on both directions of California Avenue at the project intersection; ® Occasionally, the drivers were observed not to respect pedestrian right -of --way even when in pavement flashers were on; ® The traffic flow at this location was observed to be satisfactory with the existing stop control. There was no major queuing problem for any of the vehicle movement at the time the observations were conducted. Except that the westbound left -turners from California Drive/Lorton Avenue experienced slight delay waiting for a vehicle gap in the eastbound traffic. The delay appears to be more significant than it is actually because of the queuing of the vehicles in the short storage length, California Drive/Bel%vue Avenue Traffic Signal and Intersection Evaluation TETAP -Draft Report 2 December 77, 2007 ® The westbound left -turners on California Avenue were observed occasionally stopping on the crosswalk while waiting to turn and blocking the pedestrians crossing the street, ® Considerable pedestrians were observed crossing Lorton Ave at the project intersection where currently there is no existing crosswalk; ® One pedestrian was observed running across California Drive east of the existing crosswalk; ® Around 5:00 pm during the PM peak period, the traffic appeared to be heavy; ® It was observed that the loading zone in front of Stack's was being used for carpet cleaning vehicles for Stack's and Valet Parking stops for Trio Salon situated across the street; and ® The existing metered parking spot west of the existing fire hydrant is situated in the turning path of the eastbound right turners from Lorton Avenue to California Drive, 2.5 Issue Statement After consulting City Staff and from the field observations, made the following issue statements can be made: ® Uncontrolled traffic flow on California Drive gives an opportunity for drivers to speed and poses a threat to the crossing pedestrians in spite of the existing in -pavement flashers; ® The existing in -pavement flashers might not clearly visible for upstream drivers when the traffic is heavy, ® There is no refuge island for pedestrians crossing California Drive. This means, the pedestrians conflict with westbound traffic, westbound left -turners and eastbound traffic on California Drive, ® Too many conflicting movements are concentrated at the California Drive/Bellevue Avenue/Lorton Avenue making it unsafe for all the road -users; and ® Short segment between California Drive/Bellevue Avenue/Lorton Avenue and Bellevue Avenue/Lorton Avenue queues very quickly due to delays experienced by westbound left -turners from California Drive/Lorton Avenue and uncontrolled traffic flow from Lorton Avenue. 2.6 Potential Solutions Potential solutions include: ® Improve pedestrian safety by slowing down the traffic on California Drive; ® Provide other pedestrian crossing warnings where appropriate; ® Segregate the conflicting movements as much as possible; ® Reduce the delay experienced by the by westbound left -turners from California Drive/Lorton Avenue; and ® Maximize the throughput of the short segment between California Drive/Bellevue Avenue/Lorton Avenue and Bellevue Avenue/Lorton Avenue to minimize delays and queues, California Drive/Bel%vue Avenue Traffic Signal and Intersection Evaluation TETAP -Draft Report 3 December 77, 2007 OKS Associate TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS 3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL ALTERNATIVE The objective of the City through this project is to explore more efficient and safer means of pedestrian and vehicular traffic control through the use of traffic signal. Signal warrant analysis and Synchro analysis was conducted to explore the feasibility of the traffic signal alternative and to analyze the impacts of new traffic signal on the existing traffic signal network in the vicinity. 3.1 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis The signal warrant analysis conducted with the known information about the project intersections shows that MUTCD Signal Warrant 1: Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume and Signal Warrant 2: Four -Hour Vehicular Volume are satisfied with volumes on California higher than required 900 vph and volumes on Lorton Avenue higher than required 100 vph. Hence a traffic signal is warranted at this location. A detailed Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis is provided in Appendix A. 3.2 Synchro Analysis Year 2004 Regional Signal Timing Program (RSTP) Synchro analysis files were provided by MTC was used in the analysis of the new traffic signal. The analysis shows that a new traffic signal at the intersection A California Drive/Bellevue Avenue/Lorton Avenue has no negative impacts on the operation of other traffic signals on California Drive. The intersection levels of service during AM and PM peak periods are provided in Table 3.1 and 3.2 respectively. Detailed Synchro calculations of levels of service for the existing conditions and with the proposed new traffic signal are provided in Appendix B. Table 3.1 AM Peak Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Existing With new Signal LOS Delay LOS Delay Oak Grove & California Dr D 39.5 D 39.5 Burlingame Ave & California Dr C 2051 B 18.6 Howard & California Dr C 22.6 C 22.7 Bayswater & California B 14.0 B 14.0 Peninsula & California Dr B 17.0 B 17.0 Bellevue Avenue & California Dr A 4.4 California Dive/Bel%vue Avenue T�aflic Signal and Intersection Evaluation TETAP - Draft Report 0 December 77, 2007 Table 3.2 PM Peak Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Existing With new Signal LOS Delay LOS Delay Oak Grove & California Dr D 50.6 D 50.6 Burlingame Ave & California Dr B 16.3 B 1209 Howard & California Dr C 24.5 C 24.0 Bayswater & California A 7.9 A 7.7 Peninsula & California Dr B 15.3 B 15.7 Bellevue Avenue & California Dr A 6.5 3.3 Traffic Signal Option #1 illustrates the Traffic Signal alternative. This alternative achieves almost all the potential solutions mentioned in section 2.6 to provide efficient and safer means of pedestrian and vehicular traffic control. The alternative includes the following features: ® No change in the existing pedestrian and vehicular movement patterns except for the type of control; ® Provides safer pedestrian crossings through pedestrian pushbuttons and pedestrian signal heads; ® Coordinated phasing of vehicular movements so that the throughput of the intersection is optimized; ® No changes to the existing parking availability; ® Could potentially increase rear -end collisions because of the new traffic signal. The following project notes correspond to the note numbers of the Traffic Signal alternative: 1. Install signal Pole with mastarm, signal heads and luminarie. 2. Install signal pole with mastarm, signal heads, pedestrian signal heads, pedestrian push buttons, and luminaire 3. Install signal Pole with mastarm, and signal heads 4. Remove "STOP" sign and sign post 5. Install signal pole with signal heads 6. Install signal pole with signal heads, pedestrian signal heads, pedestrian push button, and luminaire 7. Remove bus stop sign and relocate it to the new pole at the new bus stop location 8. Remove existing bench and relocate it to the new location California Drive/Bel%vue Avenue TrafFc Signal and Intersection Evaluation TETAP -Draft Report December 77, 2007 9. Install new pull boxes 10. Install new conduit and cables 11. Remove existing pedestrian signs and protective raised pavement markers 12. Remove in -pavement flashers 13. Install Stop bar 14. Install new median curb 15. Remove pavement markings 16. Relocate the bench to new bus stop location California Drive/Bel%vue Avenue Traffic Signal and Intersection Evaluation TETAP - Draft Report December 77, 2007 pv O D =3 in v fn O n ploof rOr in tD n N � O� m O l� O N N � O� D rn O r W � O v 1/ 00 4 OTHER FEASIBLE INTERSECTION ALTERNATIVES Two other potential intersection alternatives were considered for the project intersections to consolidate or integrate multiple intersections into one functioning intersection. Both the alternatives presented in this section are feasible to implement at the project intersections. 4.1 Roundabout Option #2 illustrates the roundabout alternative for the project intersections. AutoTurn analysis was conducted for all the legal maneuvers with passenger car, bus and a vehicle larger than fire truck to find out the feasibility of the roundabout. All the vehicles tested could successfully negotiate the maneuvers. According to the FHWA corporate research and technology, the following are the typical benefits of a well designed roundabout. • Fewer crashes and less delay than stop and signal -controlled intersections • Cost-effective way to improve intersection safety • Increased traffic capacity and improved traffic flow • No signal equipment to maintain • Aesthetic benefits This alternative features provide the following benefits: • One lane roundabout eliminates conflicting traffic caused by left turns. The traffic enters or exits only through right turns and hence the substantially reduces the occurrence of severe crashes; • Mountable curb delineating vehicular path and roundabout allows safe maneuver of occasional larger vehicles, • Yield signs placed at the entry approaches of California Drive, Bellevue Avenue, and Lorton Avenue control entering traffic; channelized approaches deflect traffic into proper one-way counterclockwise flows and geometric curvature of the circular road and angles of entry slow the speed of the vehicles; • The safety of pedestrians is considerably increased by the slow speeds of vehicles, shortening of pedestrian crossings, and refuge provided by channelized islands, • The bus -stops on both approaches of California Drive are shifted prior to the lane transition from two lanes to one lane. The alternative requires the following changes for the existing configuration: • Elimination of some existing parking spaces; • Relocation of bus stops; • Relocation of existing fire hydrant on the east corner of the California Drive/Lorton Avenue. California Drive/Bel%vue Avenue Traffic Signal and Intersection Evaluation TETAP -Draft Report r December 77, 2007 OKS Associate TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS The following project notes correspond to the note numbers of the Roundabout alternative: 1. Install new "Pedestrian Crossing Ahead" sign and post. 2. Install "Roundabout" sign and post. 3. Install new bus stop sign and post. 4. Remove existing sign and post 5. Relocate bus shelter and bench 6. Install new curb ramp 7. Remove pedestrian push button post 8. Remove parking space/stall 9. Install new high visibility crosswalk 10. Remove in -pavement flashers 11. Install "Yield" pavement markings 12. Install new "Yield" sign and post 13. Remove sign California Drive/Bel%vue Avenue Traffic Signal and Intersection Evaluation h9/'- Draft Report December 77, 2007 INN \\' / n �y IN %t 0NINNN (n C LIN f IN rri ' O m i 4 CU 00 L^ ?, ..., h Y qI 4 Y / C IN NIq ' IN y of J _N7 �., n i iN NI IN L co IN IN 114, INA,, / stO v eI r `IN a > In f umi In K tn� 0 o N ' j , c/ 4.2 Half Roundabout Option #3 illustrates the half roundabout alternative. This option provides most of the benefits of a roundabout alternative without compromising the speed on California Drive and without as many physical improvements as needed for the roundabout alternative. The following are the features included in the half roundabout alternative: ® Eliminate left turn from westbound California Drive to Bellevue Drive/Lorton Avenue ® Provide left turn from westbound California Drive to Bellevue Avenue ® Tighten the curb radius of west side curb to reduce the speed of right turning vehicles from eastbound California Drive to Bellevue Avenue ® Eliminate existing median island and replace it with half -roundabout, providing sufficient width for a two lane segment between California Drive and Bellevue Avenue ® Extend the south side curb, to make the segment of road between Bellevue Avenue and Lorton Avenue one-way Street allowing in and out access to the small parking lot next to "Trio Salon" from Lorton Avenue ® Provide channelized islands to deflect traffic into proper lanes The following project notes correspond to the note numbers of the Half -roundabout alternative: 1. Install "Do Not Enter" signs on new sign post 2. Install "Yield" sign on new sign post 3. Remove Sign and sign post 4. Install Thermoplastic 4" Solid White Line 5. Install Thermoplastic arrows 6. Install concrete curb for pedestrian refuge 7. Install concrete curb for pedestrian refuge 8. Install pole with flashing beacon and pedestrian crossing sign 9. Install median curb 10. Install ADA curb ramp 11. Install "Yield" marking 12. Install "STOP" marking 13. Install "Yield" sign 14. Relocate Bus stop sign 15. Relocate existing bench for bus stop 16. Install Thermoplastic "BUS ONLY" markings 17. Install Crosswalk Option #3 Insert Figure California Drive/Bel%vue Avenue Traffic Signal and Intersection Evaluation TETAP - Draft Report 11 December 77, 2007 If C) /if rtdemot, 0 Lo of "oh Ou do Mods f o N Zoo �" /4 �¢of / , do d/ Add - �do E. ?. , , do de did3% ,v ,� .� NN �door . d (:: Nd, f- , , Y� ' pyo /, o of\\ _ \`��\ doodood FO \ /\\` / / \ ` \ (/ J of d \ \i /Ir / dooddo,d doodood pIN /��/ '\� \ // o v u. ---"� v LAI (D do Endoodood, (Df/ to tw % i ?21. rD O �/ ��f / f {1�` \ -- Nod NN — if \\T dopNd \/ w do Ni \� O Nd All three alternatives presented in this report are potential feasible alternatives to achieve more efficient and safer means of vehicular and pedestrian movements at the project intersections. All three alternatives are recommended in the order of preference based on engineering, safety and aesthetics perspective. 1. Roundabout: The geometry of the roundabout accomplishes the reduction of the speeds at the intersection and thereby increases the safety of all the road users. At the same time, the traffic capacity is increased by improving the traffic flow. This alternative is the most expensive one compared to the three alternatives. The price could be reduced considerably if pavement markings are used for channelization instead of concrete islands. This alternative could be tested for a period of time, with striping and/or channelization devices prior to the permanent installation. This alternative provides the City for beautifying the northeastern gateway of its vibrant downtown. 2. Traffic Signal: The alternative of traffic signal provides coordinated control of the vehicular and pedestrian movement through traffic signals without any change to the existing roadway geometry or configuration. This alternative is the second most expensive of the three alternatives presented and would require regular operation and maintenance. There is a change that rear -end collisions might increase with the regulation of traffic flow on California drive. 3. Half -roundabout: This alternative is the least expensive of the three potential feasible alternatives. The segregation of conflicting movements and the reconfiguration of the intersections have advantages over the existing conditions. However, the uncontrolled short weaving segment at entrance of half -roundabout might be of safety concern. California Drive/Bel%vue Avenue Trak Signal and Intersection Evaluation TETAP - Draft Report 73 December 77, 2007 6 COST ESTIMATES The following are the cost estimates for planning level budgetary estimates. The order of magnitude cost estimated for traffic signal, roundabout and half -roundabout are $292K, $677K, and $256K respectively. The cost of roundabout and half -roundabout alternatives can be lower than these cost estimates if the channelization is achieved through the use of pavement striping instead of concrete islands. 6.1 Traffic Signal Alternative Item no. Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Amount 1 Install signal Pole with mastarm, signal heads and luminarie. EA $15,000 1 $15,000 2 Install signal pole with mastarm, signal heads, pedestrian signal heads, pedestrian push buttons, and luminaire EA $20,000 2 $40,000 3 Install signal Pole with mastarm, and signal heads EA $14,500 1 $14,500 4 Remove sign and post EA $150 6 $900 5 Install signal pole with signal head EA $9,000 3 $27,000 6 Install signal pole with signal heads, pedestrian signal heads, pedestrian push button, and luminaire EA $18,000 3 $54,000 7 Remove the bus stop sign and relocate it to new post EA $400 1 $400 8 Relocate bus stop bench EA $100 1 $100 9 Install new pull box EA $1,800 10 $18,000 10 Install new conduit and cables LS $6,000 1 $6,000 11 Remove existing pedestrian signs and protective raised pavement markers EA $500 2 $1,000 12 Remove in -pavement flashers LS $1,000 1 $1,000 13 Install Stop bar LF $6 50 $300 14 Install concrete curb with landscaping/Nigh visibility pavement markings LS $10,000 1 $10,000 15 Remove pavement markings LS $200 1 $200 16 Traffic Controller, Service with cabinets LS $20,000 1 $20,000 Subtotal $208,400 Mobilization (10%) $20,840 Signs and Traffic Control 10% $20,840 Contingency (20%) $41,680 Total $291360 California Drive/Bel%vue Avenue Traffic Signal and Intersection Evaluation TE1/1 P - Draft Report December 77, 2007 Item no. Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Amount 1 Install pedestrian Crossing sign and sign post EA $500 6 $3000 2 Install roundabout channelization signs EA $400 4 $1,600 3 Install sign post and bus stop sign EA $500 2 $1,000 4 Remove sign post and sign EA $150 5 $750 5 Relocate bus shelter and bench LS $3,000 1 $3000 6 Install ADA Curb ramp EA $3,000 8 $24,000 7 Remove pedestrian push button post EA $500 1 $500 8 Remove parking spaces LS $100 1 $100 9 Install Crosswalk LS $1,600 1 $1600 10 Remove in -pavement flashers LS $1,000 1 $1000 11 Install "Yield" Marking EA $120 4 $480 12 Install signs post and "Yield" sign EA $650 4 $2,600 13 Remove existing bus stop sign EA $150 1 $150 Earthwork LS $65,000 1 $65,000 Pavement Structural Section LS $150,000 1 $150,000 Drainage System LS $10,000 1 $10,000 Utility relocation allowance Ls $50,000 1 $50,000 Subtotal $309,180 Mobilization (10%) $30,918 Contingency (20%) $61,836 Total $676,934 California Drive/Bel%vue Avenue TrafFc Signal and Intersection Evaluation TETAP - Dra1t Report 75 December 77, 2007 6.3 Half Roundabout Item no. Item Description Unit Unit Cost Quantity Amount 1 Install "Do Not Enter' signs on new sign post EA $500 2 $1,000 2 Install "Yield" sign on new sign post LF $400 1 $400 3 Remove Sign and sign post LF $150 6 $900 4 Install Thermoplastic 4" Solid White Line LF $3 1000 $3,000 5 Install Thermoplastic arrows EA $120 3 $360 6 Install concrete median for pedestrian refuge LS $5,000 1 $5,000 7 Install pole with flashing beacon and pedestrian crossing sign EA $6,000 2 $12,000 8 Install Channelization Island LS $4,000 1 $4,000 9 Install ADA curb ramp EA $3,000 1 $3,000 10 Install "Yield" marking EA $120 2 $240 11 Install "STOP" marking EA $120 1 $120 12 Install "Yield" sign EA $500 1 $500 13 Relocate Bus stop sign EA $200 1 $200 14 Relocate existing bench for bus stop LS $3,000 1 $3,000 15 Install Thermoplastic "BUS ONLY" markings EA $750 1 $750 16 Install Crosswalk LS $1,000 1 $1,000 Earthwork LS $40,000 1 $40,000 Pavement Structural Section LS $4,000 1 $4,000 Drainage System LS $5,000 1 $5,000 Utility relocation allowance Ls $50,000 1 $50,000 Subtotal $170,470 Mobilization (10%) $17,047 Signs and Traffic Control 10% $17,047 Clearing and Grubbing 10% $17,077 Contingency (20%) $34,094 Total $255,705 p:Ip106106274.001 tetap burlingamelreportsldraRreportlburlingame 2006 tetap•draR report.doc California Drive/Bel%vue Avenue Traffic Signal and Intersection Evaluation TETAP -Draft Report 76 December 77, 2007 NOT Page 1 of 1 PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine From: Mike Bohnert [mbohnert@cashin.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 3:05 PM To: PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine; 'Dan Conway' Cc: 'Tina King' Subject: Traffic Sustainability Seminar Hi Guys, I spoke with Tina from the Sustainable San Mateo County Organization. This will be her first presentation on "traffic" for a specific city so she does not have prepared slides or any set agenda for the presentation. We did brainstorm some ideas that may be interesting. Weare thinking approx 25 minutes or so plus some time for questions. Here is a quick glance of what we thought would be good: 1. Intro—who she is and about her organization. About sustainability and it's importance. 2. Traffic in Burlingame and how it affects the "sustainability" of our city and county...how it affects the pollution, the economy, infrastructure, population health, etc... 3. Ways that we—as residents of Burlingame—can make our city more "sustainable" through transportation alternatives. 4. A look at what is being done on the state, county and local govt level to improve traffic problems and improve transportation. I am CC'ing Tina to this email—Tina—please add anything that I may have missed. Thanks all, Mike Mike Bohnert Realtor Cashin Company 1412 Chapin Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 W) MikeBohnert.com D) 650.403-1202 C) 650.504-2378 F) 650.348-1674 5/5/2008