Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/19/2001, C6 - MARGARITA AREA NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (NTM) PLAN council Mseti"De,e lune l9,2001 j acEnaa RepoRt C I TY OF SAN L U IS O B 1 S P 0 FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Public Works Director l� Prepared by: Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planne* SUBJECT: MARGARITA AREA NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT(NTM)PLAN CAO RECOMMENDATION: By resolution, adopt the Margarita Area NTM Plan that calls for the installation of stop signs on Margarita Avenue at three intersections. DISCUSSION 1. Background. Over a two-year period, residents of the Margarita Neighborhood and City Transportation Staff have been working on a plan to slow traffic speeds on Margarita.Avenue. This effort has resulted in an NTM plan that calls for the installation of stop signs and associated pavement markings to create all-way stop intersections on Margarita.Avenue at Calle Alicita, Calle Estelita, and Calle Malva (see Attachment 1, Exhibit A). Consistent with the City's Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines (1998), the following steps were taken to develop this draft plan. a. Initial Neighborhood Contacts: in December 1999, the Public Works Department received sufficient requests for action from Margarita Area households to initiate the NTM process for this neighborhood. b. Survey of Traffic Conditions: by mid-2000 the Transportation Staff had completed au analysis of traffic conditions on Margarita Avenue (see Attachment 2) and concluded that motorists are driving faster than stipulated by City NTM standards (36 mph observed vs. 25 mph City standard). C. Distribute Initial Ballots: in June 2000, Margarita Area residents received a ballot that asked them whether they supported the preparation of an NTM Plan to address traffic speeding concerns. At that time, about 29% of the area's total households (including detached dwellings, condominiums, and apartments) supported the preparation of a Plan — see Attachment 3. d. Develop an Initial Concept: throughout summer and fall 2000, staff and interested Margarita Area residents (the "Action Team") met to discuss options for slowing traffic speed. The residents chose the installation of three stop signs as the preferred solution. Other options that were discussed included: speed humps, additional police enforcement, stop signs, "bulbouts," and "chicanes" (see NTM Guidelines provided in Council Office for examples). After team members talked with their neighbors, they felt that that installing stop signs would be a more acceptable way of slowing traffic. While speed humps are effective, motorists dislike them. Bulbouts and chicanes are expensive and may not be any more C�-- 1 Council Agenda Report: Margarita Avenue NTM Plan Page.2 effective as stop signs. Since Margarita Avenue is only used by neighborhood residents, any attempt to reduce traffic speed will need neighborhood support. . e. Circulate Neighborhood Petition: in March and April 2001, a petition to install three stop signs on Margarita Avenue was circulated throughout the neighborhood by Action Team members. Of the 278 households(estimate of"occupied dwellings'), 147 o r 53% supported the proposal. Attachment 4 shows the households that supported the installation of the stop signs. In general, support was strong from residents of single-family dwellings and condominiums and less strong, but significant, from apartment residents. f. Neighborhood Meeting: all neighborhood residents were invited to a meeting held on May 16, 2001 at a resident's home. About ten people attended, asked questions about various options for slowing traffic, and appeared to support the stop sign proposal. 2. Evaluation of Alternatives. All traffic management plans have positive and negative aspects. Concerning this particular proposal, staff supports the installation of stop signs because they are inexpensive.and easy to install, will have some effect on slowing traffic, and appear acceptable to neighborhood residents. Other alternatives were considered: a. Road Humps (similar to those installed on Broad and Augusta Streets) will more effectively slow traffic. However, they cost about $2,000 per hump to install and must be placed every 300 feet or so to be effective. Humps also incrementally reduce the rasponse time for emergency vehicles. b. landscaped Traffic Circles require motorists to slow down to drive around them. However, they would not work for Margarita Avenue because the street has a wide median that houses the overhead high voltage lines and each separate traffic lane is already.relatively narrow. C. A Chicane might be considered that requires motorists to shift their line of travel from one side of the travel lane to the other. This change can be accomplished by extending the curbs on either side of the street to, in essence, change it from a straight to a "wave" alignment. This solution is costly because of the amount of curb work involved. Chicanes will also require the removal of curb parking along Margarita Avenue, which is well used by residents and visitors to the neighborhood. d. Enhanced Police Enforcement would not require changing the street's design, but would generally not be effective in sustaining lower traffic speeds. Police enforcement is effective in curtailing flagrant violations of the vehicle code but not changing the every day driving behavior of neighborhood residents. Also,enhanced enforcement it is costly to sustain. 3. Plan Monitoring. Installing stop signs at intersections with low traffic volumes may introduce issues of traffic safety. If motorists fail to fully stop at sign-controlled intersections, collision rates could increase. Staff proposes that traffic conditions along Margarita Avenue be monitored for at least one year after the stop signs are installed and that they be regularly enforced. If data suggest Council Agenda Report: Margarita Avenue NTM Plan Page-3 that collision rates have increased, then the neighborhood and City Council should consider alternative methods for slowing traffic. Also, the neighborhood may wish to pursue other traffic calming measures if the stop signs have not achieved the desired speed reduction results. These specific monitoring provisions have been included on Attachment 2. FISCAL IMPACT Installing stop signs and associated pavement markings will cost approximately $300 per intersection or a total of$900. The Public Works Street Crew will do this work. Funding for these installations will come from the Neighborhood Traffic Management account. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may: 1. Decide not to adopt a NTM Plan for Margarita Avenue. 2. Modify the proposed plan to include alternative features. 3. Continue consideration and direct staff and/or the neighborhood Action Team to consider alternative traffic calming activities. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Resolution adopting the Margarita Area Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan including Exhibit A: Margarita Area Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Attachment 2: Traffic Conditions on Margarita Avenue Attachment 3: Results of Initial Vote to Support Preparing an NTM Plan Attachment 4: Map Showing Household Support for Installing Stop Signs LT veryone\CouncitAgendaReports\MargaritaAreaNTMPIan C�-3 A T .C. M_E NT I RESOLUTION NO. (2001 Series) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING A NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT(NTM)ACTION PLAN FOR THE MARGUERITA RESIDENTIAL AREA WHEREAS, in June 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution 8811 that establishes guidelines that direct how Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans should be prepared; and WHEREAS, consistent with these adopted guidelines, residents of the Margarita Avenue area east of Higuera Street have worked with City Transportation Staff to prepare a draft NTM Plan for Margarita Avenue which calls for the installation of stop signs at three four-way intersections; and WHEREAS, residents of the Margarita Avenue have circulated a petition that requested that area households support the draft NTM plan, that 53% of the area's households signed such a petition in support of the plan,and that this level of support exceeds the minimum levels required(51%); and WHEREAS; the City Council finds that the preparation of the Plan is consistent with the standards and protocol contained within the NTM guidelines adopted by Resolution 8811 and that the installation of stop signs is a reasonable method for pursuing City NTM goals along this particular corridor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby: 1. Adopts the Margarita Area Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan, attached as Exhibit A, - and directs the Public Works Department to install improvements called for by the plan. On motion of Council Member , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of June 2001. Allen K. Settle, Mayor - C �_ � � U Resolution No. (2001 Series) Page 2 ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: J e . Jo e , CK Attorney ■ \ [ K e ^ w« E $ @ ° 2 - ■ g / / ] j • « � � / } 2 � u ( 2 ` e ©� )2 ) � \ ^� 0 2 � . ° © C ■ o = a2 4 ) A.2 � g . _ m. /\ « 2 / / / .0 cn 0 S % / moo ; ) � [KEEL. � | 2 � toll � � � �` � ATTACHMENT 2 Neighborhood Traffic Management: A Survey of Margarita Avenue BACKGROUND Residents living in the 300 block of Margarita Avenue contacted the City's Public Works Department regarding vehicle speeds along the street. The residents felt that motorists are traveling at speeds exceeding the posted speed limit and that these speeds were inappropriate for a residential area. One resident also complained about motorists driving across the median and tearing up the grass. Margarita Avenue serves a residential area that includes a Planned Unit Development (PUD), town houses, apartments, and single-family homes. On-street parking is permitted on the right side of both travel lanes along the entire corridor. Along the 300 block of Margarita Avenue, private driveways serve single-family homes. Along the remainder of the street, access to housing is provided from cross streets intersecting Margarita Avenue at right angles. EVALUATION STANDARDS AND PARAMETERS Margarita Avenue is an east-west street with two-way travel. East-west travel is separated by a,30- foot turf-covered median. Margarita Avenue originates at South. Higuera Street at a signalized intersection and terminates about 1/3 mile east of its origin. The City's General Plan Circulation Element classifies Margarita Avenue as a Residential Collector street. This classification has desired performance standards of 3,000 Vehicles Per Day (VPD) and a speed maximum desired ,speed of 25 miles per hour(mph). STUDY ELEMENTS The entire length of Margarita Avenue was the focus of this study and was divided into three segments of approximate equal length. Traffic monitoring equipment was placed in both travel directions at approximately the 210s,270s, and 300s range of addresses—see the following map for approximate locations where monitoring equipment was installed. t/1 fit Y � � r 4 _. DATA COLLECTION Traffic monitors were installed oh March 14, 2000. This equipment began collecting data at 12 noon on the 14'' and terminated at 12 noon on the 16`l' — a total of 48 hours. Data was collected during midweek, Tuesday—Thursday, to record "typical" traffic volumes and speeds. Table 1 summarizes the traffic volume on Margarita Avenue. Staff suspects that the data provided by the monitoring equipment placed in the 270s address range may be erroneous and that the operation of the equipment may have been disrupted by the overhead high voltage electric utility service located in the median along Margarita Avenue. Therefore, the traffic volumes for this central street segment were estimated based on data collected at the two opposing ends of the street. Table 1:Traffic Volume ehicles Per Da Segment Eastbound Westbound TOTAL 210S 2664 2620 5284 270S* 1693 1665 3358 3305 722 748 1470 Corridor 1693 1678 3371 Average Volume estimated by averaging volume data from the 210&330 blocks. The average traffic volume recorded nominally exceeds the City's standard of 3000 Vehicles Per Day (VPD) established in the Circulation Element. The western segment of the corridor exceeded the Element's standards by approximately 75 percent while the mid section of the corridor only moderately exceeded the Element's standards by approximately 10 percent. The eastern portion of the corridor experienced very low traffic volume—less than half of the Element's standards: TRAFFIC SPEED The City's General Plan Circulation Element establishes 25 mph as the maximum desired speed for Residential Collector. Vehicular speeds recorded during the study period exceeded this standard. The 85`hl percentile speeds recorded in the 210s segment were 35 mph in both directions. The 85`h percentile speeds recorded in the 330s segment were 35 mph in the eastern direction and 30 mph in the western direction. The 85`h percentile speeds in the mid section, 270s, were 40 mph in the eastbound direction and 38 mph in the westbound direction. Table 2 summarizes the vehicular speeds recorded during the study period. Table 2:Traffic Speed(85th Percentile Speeds) Segment Eastbound Westbound d AVERAGE 210s 35 mph 35 mph 35 mph 270S* 40 mph 38 mph 39 mph 330S 35 mph 30mph 33 mph Corridor Average 37 mph 34 mph 36 mph Vehicular speeds were obtained by an in-field radar survey conducted on Tuesday April I 1 at 3:00 pm. Staff was in the field for 45 minutes conducting this speed survey. t An 85h Percentile Speed means that 85 percent of the motorists traveling along a street are moving at that speed or slower. CONCLUSIONS Traffic speeds along Margarita Avenue significantly exceed the Circulation Element standard of 25 mph by about 11 mph, which is somewhat surprising since the one-way travel lanes are relatively narrow and include on-street parking. Based on these findings, the Margarita Avenue area is eli ig ble for efforts to better control traffic speeds as part of the City's Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. The average traffic volume along Margarita Avenue nominally exceed the Circulation Element standard of 3,000 vehicles per day by about 400 vehicles. Since Margarita Avenue currently provides the only access into the neighborhood and is used exclusively by neighborhood motorists, there are currently no options for reducing traffic volumes. Based on these findings, the Margarita Avenue area is not eli ig ble for NTM efforts to reduce traffic volume. ATTACHMENT 3 June 28,2000 Brent Johnson 289 Via La Paz San Luis Obispo, CA 9340 Subject: Neighborhood Traffic Management In the Margarita Avenue Area Dear Mr. Johnson: As promised, in late May, the City Transportation Staff mailed out ballots to all households that gain access from Margarita Avenue. Residents were asked to vote on whether they supported the preparation of a Traffic Management Plan that addresses problems with speeding traffic along Margarita Avenue. Here are the results of this voting process: Demographic Factor #of Responses Percentage(%)of Total Households in Area Total#Households Received Ballots (1) 278 100% Total Number of Ballots Returned 100 36% Number of Households VOTING YES 82 29% Number of Households VOTING NO 18 1 6% I)There are a total of 286 households I the area; 8 units were vacant at the time ballots were delivered As show above 29% of the Margarita Area households supported the preparation of an Action Plan. Of those that returned their ballots (100), the vast majority (82%) supported the preparation of an Action Plan. Since the City's guidelines requires at least a 25% response in support of preparing a plan and a 29% supporting response was received, the City will pursue the creation of an "Action Team"and work with the team on a solution to the traffic speeding concerns. Given your past interest in solving your neighborhood's traffic concerns, we encourage you to volunteer your time to participate in action team deliberations. The next step will be to arrange a meeting of those who have volunteered to be team members. Stay tuned for more details. Sincerely, Terry Sanville Principal Transportation Planner Telephone: (805) 781-7178 FAX (805) 781-7198 e-mail tsanville(a,slocity.org c'Lo, i ATTACHMENT 4 MAP SHOWING SUPPORT FOR INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS � I t - - Aa_ o Note: identification of respondants on Alicita, Camellia and Estelita represent individual apartment response and not entire property. Of the 121 total number of apartments,47 signed the petition supporting the NTM proposal. i ab-11 r" I ��81111111111111111I� �������� �IIIII III � city ® S� �ls ®�1 SPO 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 June 7, 2001 Duane Sumrall 334 Margarita Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SUBJECT: Margarita Area Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (adding stop signs). , Dear Mr. Sumrall: The San Luis Obispo City Council will consider the Margarita Area Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (adding stop signs) at the Tuesday, June 19, 2001 meeting at 7:00 p.m., City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. Other agenda items may be held before or after this item. Please know that if you challenge this action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. For additional information or questions concerning this item, please contact the Public Works Department at 781-7178. The Council agenda report with recommendation by staff will besent to on the Wednesday before the meeting. Please call the City Clerk's Office at 781-71 2 if you would prefer to pick up the agenda report_. S, rely I I L Lee Price, CM City Clerk c: Terry Sanville OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410.