Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-31 City Council (15)TO: City of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:JULY 31, 2000 CMR:338:00 MIDBLOCK CROSSWALK GUIDELINESSUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Transportation Commission recommends adoption of the attached proposed guidelines for evaluation of requests to install mid-block crosswalks (Attachment A). Criteria for the proposed guidelines take into consideration attributes such as traffic volumes, speed, pedestrian volumes, location, and types of treatment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION From time to time staff receives requests for establishment of mid-block crosswalks. Appraisal of these requests is hampered by the lack of evaluative criteria for mid-block crosswalks. On April 17, 2000, Council considered a staff report (CMR:216:00) recommending installation of a mid-block crosswalk on East Meadow Drive. Council referred this request to the Planning and Transportation Commission for review and asked that the Commission consider a set of criteria by which this and other such requests may be evaluated. The proposed Mid-block Crosswalk Guidelines provide a set of objective criteria for appraisal of the desirability of implementing a mid-block crosswalk. The guidelines encourage the use of treatments to enhance the safety of otherwise qualifying locations, including measures such as median refuges, raised crosswalks, and pedestrian-actuated lighted crosswalks, rather than merely painting parallel lines on pavement. In addition, the guidelines streamline the administrative process with respect to mid-block crosswalks by delegating to staff, within the framework established by Council, the decision as to whether specific locations merit a mid-block crosswalk. COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION On July 12, 2000, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed staff recommendations on mid-block crosswalk installation guidelines. The staff report prepared for the Commission is appended as Attachment B. The Commission endorsed the staff recommendation by a 5-1 vote, with substitution of the term "significant pedestrian CMR:338:00 Page 1 of 2 generators" for the term "special pedestrian generators" as a possible determinant of crosswalk location, along with the addition of the term "major employers" in the list of examples of such generators. ATTACHMENTS A.Mid-Block Crosswalk Guidelines B.Planning and Transportation Commission Report dated July 12, 2000 C.Minutes of July 12, 2000 Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting PREPARED BY: Joseph Kott, Chief Transpott~on Official DEPARTMENT HEAD: Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ]EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:338:00 Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT A Proposed Mid-Block Crosswalk Guidelines The Planning and Transportation Commission and City Transportation staff recommend the following mid-block crosswalk guidelines for Council adoption. Traffic Volumes - Traffic volumes for a two-lane roadway should not be greater than 12,000 vpd. Uncontrolled mid-block crosswalks should not be considered for four-lane undivided roadways carrying more than 12,000 vpd. 2.Speed - Uncontrolled mid-block crosswalks should not be considered where the 85th percentile speed is greater than 40 mph. 3.Pedestrian Volume - The pedestrian volume should have a minimum of 40 pedestrians per hour or 25 pedestrians per hour for each of 4 hours. Location - Mid-block crosswalks should be located, as much as possible, midway between stop or signal controlled intersections. Exceptions may be made based on the following: presence of significant pedestrian trip generators/attractors directly across from each other on both sides of a street that otherwise meet criteria 1 through 3 above. Examples of significant pedestrian trip generators/attractors are schools, senior citizen facilities, community facilities such as community centers or libraries, and major employers. These exceptions should be made only when enhanced or special treatments are made to the location to ensure safer crossing. Types of Treatment - Special treatments include one or more of the following: raised crosswalks, bulbouts, median refuges, and actuated warning systems. Each of these treatments shall be considered for possible implementation at any qualifying mid-block crosswalk location. The above are guidelines to be referred to in evaluating requests for mid-block crosswalks. However, a mid-block crosswalk may be marked at locations not meeting these guidelines if the Chief Transportation Official deems that unique circumstances, such as those listed in criterion 4 above, warrant the installation. ATTACHMENT B TRANSP OR TA TION DIVISION 2 STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Christopher Thnay DEPARTMENT: July 12, 2000 Proposed Mid-Block Crosswalk Guidelines Planning RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission adopt the proposed guidelines for evaluation of requests to install mid-block crosswalks. Criteria for the proposed guidelines take into consideration attributes such as traffic volumes, speed, pedestrian volumes, location, and types of treatment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Palo Alto follows State policies and the California Vehicle Code. The Code requires us to follow the national guidelines outlined in the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Traffic Manual. Traffic control devices include signallights, traffic signs, and paint markings. The Caltrans Traffic Manual covers all aspects of the placement, construction, and maintenance of every form of approved traffic control. The guidelines prescribe five basic requirements for all devices. They must: fulfill a need command attention convey a clear, simple meaning command respect of road users give adequate time for proper response The Caltrans manual emphasizes "uniformity" of traffic control devices. A uniform device conforms to the regulations for dimensions, color, wording and graphics. The standard device should convey the same meaning at all times. Consistent use of traffic control devices protects the clarity of their messages. As stated in the Caltrans manual, uniformity must also mean treating similar situations in the same way. These general points should be kept in mind when considering mid-block crosswalks. H:\cmrs\p-tcVnidblock_poticy,doc Page 1 of 6 Definition of Crosswalk Crosswalks are either "marked" or "unmarked." The Califomia Vehicle Code defines a "crosswalk" as the portion of a roadway at an intersection, which is an extension of the curb and property lines of the intersecting street, or is any other portion of a roadway which is marked as a pedestrian crossing location by painted lines. A marked crosswalk is any crosswalk that is delineated by white or yellow painted markings placed on the pavement. All other crosswalk locations are, therefore, "umriarked." How are crosswalks’used? At any crosswalk (marked or unmarked) drivers must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians. Crosswalks are marked mainly to encourage pedestrians to use a particular crossing. Studies conducted on the relative safety of crosswalks tend to support minimal iristallation of marked crosswalks. Recent Studies of Marked Crosswalks In 1970, the City of San Diego studied 400 intersections at which there were both marked and unmarked crosswalks. The results were surprising. Although 2½ times as many people used the marked crosswalks, 6 times as many accidents occurred in the marked crosswalks. It is important to note, however, that effects of special treatments, such as s~face lighted or raised crosswalks, were not considered in this study. A pedestrian safety study in 1997 by the City of Long Beach, reported 8 times as many accidents in marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks. Other studies in other cities have supported these results. The above studies contributed to the prevailing idea in the traffic community that marked crosswalks may give a false sense of security. Many recent studies have been conducted to ascertain the validity of this assumption. Particularly, a 1999. study by the Univers!ty of North Carolina and a 1997 study by the City of Santa Ana (largest sample study of its kind) have shown that the above opinion has not been proven.. However, the results of extensive review also indicate the research result is still inconclusive in some areas, especially regarding uncontrolled, unmarked crosswalks. The two recent studies on marked versus unmarked crosswalks reveal the following: There are no significant safety differences found for roadways carrying less than 12,000 vehicles per day (this practically applies to all local streets in Palo Alto). Unmarked crossing locations generally appear to have better safety records for roads with more than two lanes and with traffic levels above 12,000 vehicles per day (vpd). Marked locations were found not to be significantly safer than unmarked locations for any similar volume range and roadway type. Raised. medians and other special design features may be effective in producing better safety records for marked locations. New treatments, such as actuated warning H:\cmrs\p-tcVnidblock_policy.doe Page 2 of 6 systems and raised crosswalks may also be effective for improving safety experience at marked .locations. Accident frequency in marked uncontrolled crosswalks is heavily related to vehicular traffic volume. Accidents are rare for sites with traffic volume lower than 2,700 vpd, while 94 percent of all accidents occurred at crossings with more than 6,000 vpd. Four-lane undivided roadways carrying more than 12,000 vpd tend to have the least satisfactory pedestrian accident experience. The Santa Ana study indicates accident rates per pedestrian drop significantly with increased pedestrian volume. This suggests that locations with low pedestrian volume would be most effective for elimination of markings. Existing Policy of Surrounding Cities A survey of cities in the surrounding area generally indicates a reluctance to marked uncontrolled crosswalks. Some cities, like Sunnyvale, have actually been engaged in a process of removing uncontrolled marked crosswalks for the past 15 years. City of Sunnyvale - The City of Sunnyvale has removed most of its uncontrolled mid- block crosswalks in the past 15 years and continues to "chip away" at removing the remainder, according to the City Traffic Engineer. The underlying assumption is that pedestrians are more careful and safe when crossing the street without the false sense of security provided by the two painted white lines. City of Walnut Creek - The City policy is not to install mid-block crosswalks. Motorists expect crosswalks at intersections, not mid-block, and pedestrians use more caution where there are no painted lines. The policy is to encourage pedestrians to cross at the nearest intersection for their .own safety. Exceptions to this policy are made only when a large number of pedestrians need to be directed to one place to cross. City of Santa Clara - The Staff Engineer believes that crosswalks, especially mid- block crosswalks, give the pedestrian a false sense of security. Most drivers do not expect pedestrians at mid-block. The Santa Clara is more inclined to install mid-block crosswalks in industrial areas, because the operators of some facilities insist on having them although there are not that many pedestrians in the area. Thus far the City of Santa Clara has not had any problems with the mid-block crosswalks installed. Santa Clara does not install mid-block crosswalks in residential areas. City of V~ntura - The Ventura guidelines stipulate a minimum peak pedestrian crossing volume of 40 pedestrians per hour (pph) or 25 pph for each of any 4 hours. The Ventura Guidelines also stipulate that uncontrolled crosswalks should not be installed where the 85th percentile speed exceeds 40 mph, or where three or more lanes in one direction must be crossed. However, a crosswalk may be marked at H:\cmrs\p-tc~nidblock_policy.doc Page 3 of 6 locations not meeting these requirements if the City Transportation Engineer deems that unique circumstances warrant the installation. The Ventura Guidelines further stipulate that mid-block crosswalks should be located between intersections a minimum of 1,000 feet apart, that reasonable pedestrian demand be concentrated in an area at, least 300 feet from the nearest intersection, that a high pedestrian generator be nearby, and that no alternative controlled crosswalk be within one block of the proposed location. City of Mountain View - Mountain View has the following write-up on their web page. In most cases a pedestrian in a crosswalk has the right-of-way over a vehicle, especially over a vehicle making a right or left turn. However, a pedestrian cannot legally enter a crosswalk if a vehicle is so close to the crosswalk that it could cause a hazard to the pedestrian. Unfortunately, it appears that pedestrians behave differently in mid-block crosswalks than elsewhere. Many studies have been performed showing that pedestrians will step into a mid-block crosswalk without regard to the location or speed of vehicles approaching the crosswalk. These pedestrians assume they have the right of way and that all vehicles will come to a complete stop in advance of the mid- block crosswalk. Without the mid-block crosswalk, pedestrians are much more careful, looking for any oncoming vehicles, and only try to cross the street when it is very safe to do so. From the above discussion, one can see that research on the merits of installing mid- block crosswalks is inconclusive. It is likely, however, that all jurisdictions surveyed will install mid-block, uncontrolled crosswalks only when there is compelling evidence to do SO. Existing Mid-Block Locations in Palo Alto, There are several mid-block crosswalk locations around the city. All of the locations are well used and generally located in a mid-block location between two controlled intersections. Examples.are: Homer Avenue at the Old Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) and Whole Foods Market - Homer Avenue is a one-way street that carries approximately 7,000 vpd. The crosswalk at the old PAMF site was well used when the site was open and the Whole Foods crosswalk continues to be used by many pedestrians. Visibility is good and since Homer Avenue is one-way, pedestrians have to look in only one direction before crossing. Forest Avenue near Downtown Library - This crosswalk is centrally located between two stop sign controlled intersections at Ramona Street and Bryant Street. Pedestrians going to the library, police station and City Hall generally use it. We have not received any complaints about this intersection. H:\cmrs~p-tc~nldblock...policy.doe Page 4 of 6 Fabian Way at Loral Space Science Main Building - The c~:osswalk was put in several years ago after detailed evaluation. Several hundred people used the crosswalk each day to access the main buildings on each side of Fabian Way. The crosswalk includes pedestrian refuge island in the median, as well as highly visible advance pedestrian crossing sign and striping on the street. The mid-block crosswalks at the above locations are strategically located and well used by many pedestriahs. This accounts for the nominally low accident rates, since motorists come to expect that pedestrians frequent these locations. Proposed Mid-block Crosswalk Guidelines Staff recommends the following mid-block crosswalk guidelines for consideration: Traffic Volumes - Traffic volumes for a two-lane roadway should not be greater than 12,000 vpd. Uncontrolled mid-block crosswalks should not be considered for four- lane undivided roadways carrying more than 12,000 vpd. Speed - Uncontrolled mid-block crosswalks should not be considered where the 85~ percentile speed is greater than 40 mph. 3.Pedestrian Volume - The pedestrian volume should have a minimum of 40 pedestrians per hour or 25 pedestrians per hour for each of 4 hours. Location - Mid-block crosswalks should be located, as much as possible, midway between stop or signal controlled intersections. Exceptions may be made based on the following: presence of special pedestrian trip generators/attractors directly across from each other on both sides of a street that otherwise meeting criteria 1 through 3 above. Examples of special pedestrian trip generators/attractors are schools, senior citizen facilities, and community facilities such as community centers or libraries. These exceptions should be made only when enhanced or special treatments are made to the location to ensure safer crossing. Types of Treatment - Special treatments include one or more of the following: raised crosswalks, bulbouts, median refuges, and actuated warning systems. Each of these treatments shall be considered for possible implementation at any qualifying mid- block crosswalk location. The above are guidelines to be referred to in evaluating requests for mid-block crosswalks, However, a mid-block crosswalk may be marked at locations not meeting these guidelines if the Chief Transportation Official deems that unique circumstances, such as those listed in criterion 4 above, warrant the installation. H:\cmrs\p-tckrnidblock_policy.doc Page 5 of 6 POLICY IMPLICATIONS Comprehensive Plan Installation of crosswalks (not necessary mid-block crosswalk) is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Goal T-3: "Facilities, Services, and Programs that encourage and Promote Walking and Bicycling." It is specifically supported by Program T-32: "Improve pedestrian crossings with bulbouts, small curb radii, street trees near corners, bollards, and landscaping to create protected areas." Safe and convenient pedestrian crossings encourage .walking. Pedestrian travel is environmentally beneficial, energy- efficient, and supports public health through exercise. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Installation of crosswalks and related signing is considered to be a minor operational improvement and is therefore categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. section 15301, Therefore, no environmental assessment is required. NEXT STEPS Once these guidelines are approved, staff will use it as a basis to evaluate requests for installation of mid-block crosswalks.. Prepared by: Christopher Thnay, PE, Acting City Traffic Engineer Reviewed by: Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official Division Head Approval: ~h~Kott~2hief Transportation Official H:\cmrs\p-tc~’nidblock_policy.doe Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT C DRAFT EXCERPT PLANNING AND TRANSPOR TA TION COMMISSION VERBA TIM MINUTES JULY 12, 2000 NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearings: 2.Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossing Policy: Proposed criteria or conditions to be met for establishing mid-block crosswalks. Mr. Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official: Madam Vice Chair and Members of the Commissions we have an item before you tonight on mid-block crosswalk placement policy. The City of Palo Alto at present does not have guidelines for the creation of mid-block crosswalks. We are occasionally asked to implement these facilities and we have an instance in fact in the next agenda item in which we have a recommendation for that implementation. This request of the Commission is very much in the spirit of your desire to have a role in setting policy rather than in each instance making decisions about particular facilities and installations. We are under direction from Council to remand to you for your consideration guidelines on mid- block crosswalk placement. Based on your recommendations and Council decision we will implement those guidelines and hopefully create, in the implementation, a fair, objeqtive and rational approach to this issue. One that really is handled more at the Staff level case by case than at the policy level, which strikes me as being more appropriate. Your Staff report indicates the criteria we are recommending. For the benefit of the audience I’d like to show and review some of the criteria we are recommending to the Commission for your consideration. The criteria are based on our review of the literature in this matter. I would say in general that there is a surprising lack of difference in safety results between marked and unmarked crosswalks. There is a very good study that has recently been done at University of North Carolina which treated a lot of variables including traffic volumes, cross section of roadway, and pedestrian volumes. There is not a whole lot of difference. However, the North Carolina study indicated that special treatments including raised crosswalks, pedestrian actuated lighted crosswalks, raised medians, pedestrian refuge medians, did seem to make a difference in making the location safer. But the mere striping of the location either at an intersection or mid- block didn’t seem to have much affect. In fact, at higher traffic volumes, counter-intuitively, marking the crosswalk apparently in statistical terms makes it less safe. So we are recommending the Planning Commission’s consideration and then on we hope to Council for Council action the following criteria that would apply. We would consider mid-block crosswalks in the event traffic volumes are below 12,000 vehicles per day. That the road cross section be two through lanes not four. Based on the evidence we’ve Page i of i0 read, a four lane cross section mid-block crosswalk is not a good combination for safety. That speeds be at 85th percentile below 40 miles per hour. That pedestrian volumes be a minimum of 40 pedestrians per hour at the peak hour of count or 25 pedestrians per hour for each of four hours in a counting period. In terms of location, the suggested guideline is that the location be as close to mid-block, if you will, between two intersections as possible. Partly because this is the most efficient, midway is the best location in terms of access. Secondarily we wanted to make sure that there is enough time for both motorists and pedestrians to react after, for example, a motorist makes a turn at an intersection or proceeds through after having stopped. However, we can’t always have a precise mid-block placement. There are pedestrian generators, that is schools, libraries, community centers, etc., that may not be precisely at mid-block. If there are two locations that generate and attract pedestrian trips they may not be in fact at mid-block. However, if they are directly across the street from each other they are very likely to attract pedestrian trips rather than the nearby intersection. In fact the further away that intersection the less likely it is to attract pedestrian trips. So we think that exactly mid-block is a good guideline but sometimes we can’t always meet that standard and we’d like to have discretion. Discretion in particular in reference to pedestrian generators. We’ve listed a few here, schools, senior citizen facilities, libraries, community centers. Particularly when these facilities are flanking each other across a roadway we would recommend that in mid-block applications that the only crossing treatments allowed would be special treatments, not just painted lines. We think the evidence on this, based on safety studies, is compelling. Special treatments are a mixed bag and include things that have been in place for a long time; for example raised median refuges are not new at all. These actuated warning systems, I call them runway lighted systems, are newer. These treatments seem to be much more effective in fact than just painting the mid-block location. We would suggest that these guidelines be taken into consideration but that there be an override provision for locations not meeting all of these guidelines. If the Chief Transportation Official deems that there are certain unique circumstances that warrant the installation. That provision is really based on the reality that each location is unique and we can’t possibly anticipate all the variables that may show themselves in a particular request. Certainly the spirit of our treatment of these things would be based on the criteria listed above. We would not violate the speeds or the vehicle volumes in particular. Those are very important in the road cross section. So with that I would be happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. Any questions? Commissioner Schink: I’ve got a quick question. Can you give me an example of a road with 12,000 vehicle trips daily? Mr. Kott: I wish I had a handy-dandy vehicle volume map. 12,000 vehicle trips per day is a busy collector, a very busy collector or a less busy arterial. Commissioner Schink: Like Waverley Street? Mr. Kott: I would see maybe Hamilton at 12,000, I’m not sure. It may be a little bit more than that. Page 2 of i0 Commissioner Schink: Okay. Mr. Ed Gawf, Director, Planning and Community Environment: north of Waverley or in that Waverley area is about 11,000. Commissioner Schink: Okay. Mr. Gawf: It may be southwest of Waverley. Commissioner Schink: Commissioner Bialson: Actually, I think Hamilton just Phyllis made a note here for me that Homer is at 8,000. Thanks Phyllis. Any other questions? Pat. Commissioner Burt: Joe, under the types of treatment I notice that night visibility issues were not specifically addressed such as lighting or tree trimming of lighting. Is that something that would also be considered? Mr. Kott: Yes. That’s one of many other variables including sight distance, particularities of road geometry, curvature and so forth that would need to be considered. We would just as a matter of course make certain that the location has adequate sight distance both day and night. The warning signs would be reflectorized signs. Commissioner Bialson: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: Who pays for the installation? Mr. Kott: The typical installation would be City paid. The next agenda item though concerns a particular application and in that case the applicant, though not really a formal applicant, but the entity requesting the mid-block crosswalk has agreed to pay for design and installation of the crosswalk. Commissioner Cassel: I really don’t understand why a building sitting on a corner could be in any way described as mid-block unless it was extremely large. I think an example of the problems we’ve been having with that circumstance is in fact the one that’s on Homer at Whole Foods. We’re having a lot of problems because it is coming close to the edge. Mr. Kott: It is very difficult I think when you do have a location that is not far from an intersection but people persist in crossing anyway. We’re just not convinced that people will change their behavior in that regard. Commissioner Cassel: But if it’s just as safe what difference does it make? Mr. Kott: I suppose that if you’re able to work out a design that you know is safer and you know people are crossing at that location anyway, you’ll get some marginal improvements in safety. We would not recommend the painted crosswalk at mid-block locations any more, I don’t think. Commissioner Bialson: Any other questions? Bonnie. Page 3 of i0 Commissioner Packer: Is what I hear you say that simply a painted mid-block crossing is essentially more dangerous than having nothing at all? Mr. Kott: Yes. Commissioner Packer: In many situations. Mr. Kott: In many situations it is, at least based on the statistics, based on the literature. I think there are other variables that come into play. The studies we’ve seen are based on very large samples. San Diego’s 400 intersections. The North Carolina study was many thousands of locations. But there are a lot of other variables. The way I look at it is that vehicle speed makes a big difference. If you have very low vehicle speeds, very good sight distance, and a lot of pedestrian generation, you are going to have a safe location. Commissioner Packer: Okay, then to make the mid-block crossing safer you would only install them with lots of these devices to bring attention to the crossing. Mr. Kott: One big advantage of doing, for example, a raised median refuge is that you can fix to the raised median a reflectorized warning sign that will draw attention to the location. The median will do so too to some extent and the higher the pedestrian volumes the more driver attention gets drawn to the location. Commissioner Packer: My question is in South Palo Alto there are a lot of these long streets that there are very few place you can cross. So jaywalking, if you will, is the only way to get from place to place. Middlefield around Mid-Town is another example of that. I’m sure Middlefield is above the 12,000 so it would not qualify for one of these things. Mr. Kott: Yes it is. Commissioner Packer: Would you be thinking of going beyond, being more proactive and looking for situations where it would be appropriate to make areas more pedestrian friendly by installing these kinds of things instead of waiting for people to ask for them on an ad hoc basis? Would the Transportation Department be looking at some of these areas in Town? Mr. Kott: I think that we would and in particular when we want to encourage people to walk. If the people perceive crossing to be unsafe or if they know that the alternative is a long detour they just either are likely to make a less safe crossing or they won’t walk. It is certainly City policy to encourage pedestrian travel for a lot of reasons. We’re very interested in treatments that enhance the safety. The raised crosswalk is a fine one. Forgive me, not the raised crosswalk in the particular case you talked about. The raised median is a fine one because it allows not only the refuge in the middle, but pedestrians only look to cross one lane at a time in a two lane application. So they only have to worry about looking in one direction at a time. It simplifies their task tremendously. It allows them then to regroup and stop briefly at the refuge and look the other way. Again, the refuge is a device that calls attention to itself with signage that’s enhanced. So we like that solution a lot. We would certainly recommend that in a lot of different applications. Page 4 of i0 Commissioner Packer: Could that raised median also be a traffic calming device in certain situations as well? Mr. Kott: The raised median is marginally a traffic calming device. It is more a pedestrian safety device. What it does is narrow the driver’s perceived field of operation, if you will, and any narrowing like that causes drivers to drive more safely. Commissioner Packer: One final question. Has the department received any other requests around Town? What is the nature of the demand, if you will? Mr. Kott: Anecdotally I’m told there is a lot of latent demand. In truth we haven’t really received many requests for mid-block crosswalks. That may be a function of what amounts to our active discouragement of mid-block crosswalks. I don’t know. Commissioner Packer: Thank you Joe. Commissioner Bialson: Owen. Commissioner Byrd: Joe, do the actuated warning systems qualify as controlled or uncontrolled mid-block crosswalks? Mr. Kott: They could be applied in either case. Controlled means you’ve got a stop sign or a signal. There is an active control of the vehicle you might say. An actuated lighted crosswalk could be deployed in the case say of Whole Foods, it could be deployed at any given intersection. Commissioner Byrd: Here is why I ask. Not knowing that this was going to be on our agenda, I was in Boulder, Colorado two weeks ago visiting a friend who happens to be the mayor who got elected on an alternative transportation platform. Among other things we discussed this. They just installed an actuated warning system mid-block crosswalk and he made me go see it. This is all true. It was terrific. It’s got these little lights and when you get to the crosswalk you push the button and the lights blink and the cars stop in both directions. It’s on a four lane arterial with well more than 12,000 vehicles a day. They stopped and we walked across. I just though it was a terrific technology and Em wondering if that qualifies as a controlled crosswalk. Mr. Kott: Using that device? Commissioner Byrd: Yes. Mr. Kott: It doesn’t substitute for a stop sign or a traffic signal if that’s the question. It certainly does enhance safety considerably and visibility. Commissioner Byrd: What is the difference between a row of blinking yellow lights at grade versus an unlit stop or yield sign higher up? Doesn’t the row of yellow blinking lights qualify as a control mechanism? Mr. Kott: Drivers are obligated to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks whether they are painted or lighted or raised or a raised median, whatever the treatment is. We do have an Office of Traffic Page 5 of i0 Safety (OTS) grant in for a lighted crosswalk in Palo Alto. I regret to say that Berkeley already has one. So we are not ahead of Berkeley. Commissioner Byrd: One more question. Under location you give examples of special pedestrian trip generators or attractors. Why aren’t large to mid-size businesses included on that list if they are mid-block? I’m thinking in the East Meadow Circles there are large buildings across from each other some of which may be related business functions and there is no nearby intersection. Mr. Kott: I think we are attempting to call attention to locations which are likely to have pedestrians that perhaps need a little more protection, i.e., senior citizens, some students, certainly younger students and the like. Commissioner Byrd: But isn’t the volume of pedestrian demand also relevant? Mr. Kott: It certainly is. In fact as I said earlier Commission Byrd, the higher the pedestrian volume the safer the location because drivers become sensitized to pedestrians and anticipate them. Commissioner Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Joe, would another way to characterize the criteria that you were just describing as you are looking at the hazard level whether it be from volume of pedestrian or the particular pedestrian category that is at risk, children or elderly or some other special group. Mr. Kott: That’s a very good way of looking at it, yes. Commissioner Burt: Also I was very glad to see the comparison of the traditional studies that had claimed that crosswalk markings necessarily increase the likelihood of pedestrian hazards by marking them and the more recent studies that seem to refute that. One question that came to my mind was in the historic studies and they are still part of the thinking I take it on the subject, was it ever evaluated whether the marked crosswalks were placed in locations that were perceived to be greater hazards to begin with? Mr. Kott: No. There were a number of problems with those studies, and that’s one of them. Commissioner Burt: Second, under the types of treatment folks were bringing up the Whole Foods situation and both there and in some other locations in the City I’ve seen that not only is there a need to facilitate a safe crossing location there may be in certain locations need to discourage strongly adjacent jaywalking. I would hope that we would include consideration of barriers to jaywalking if we’re going to put a mid-crosswalk to do things whether it be from a bar or something like that on the curbside that would discourage folks from jumping across 20 feet up from the crosswalk, like they do at Whole Foods. Mr. Kott: Yes. Commissioner Butt: Finally, in addition to bulb outs are you looking at curb painting to improve sight lines where bulb outs may not be feasible? Page 6 of i0 Mr. Kott: Yes, we would be willing to do that depending on the conditions. Commissioner Burr: Great. Coro_missioner Bialson: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I’m wondering if there are minimum standards upon which you would put in a facility of this sort. Clearly if you can cross Middlefield Road there is no crosswalk anywhere from Colorado to Loma Verde because it is unsafe to put in a walk. So those of us who live in that section have no choice but to cross that road because we aren’t walking all the way from Colorado to Loma Verde to get across the street to go to the bus. So that’s considered safer to cross than it is some other spots. They are presuming you are not crossing kids. Are there minimums at which it becomes unreasonable to put this effort into the process? And how frequently can you see these happening? In an area where there are several industries across the street from each other, might you not have one every 100 or 200 or 300 feet? Mr. Kott: I suppose that’s possible. I think it is really important to have a fair amount of discretion built into the criteria, into the guidelines, which is what we are recommending. In terms of treating different roadways, just as a footnote, we’re doing a study on Charleston Road. Charleston Road has a problem with inadequate numbers of crossing locations. One of the draft recommendations, which hasn’t really been reviewed by this Commission yet, is to implement a couple of roundabouts at un-signalized intersections. The roundabouts would have the effect because of the use of the islands, they are called splitter islands, of creating pedestrian refuges on an arterial. It is a pretty interesting idea. A couple of them would really create much better crossing conditions on Charleston. So these guidelines won’t really lock us into not doing anything on streets like Middlefield. There are other things that we could do. Commissioner Cassel: I guess I’m really concerned about the reverse problem here. Obviously something creative and different has to happen there. What are the minimum standards upon which you’re going to put effort into doing something? Mr. Kott: There are some.practical standards. One of them is fiscal. We simply just don’t have budget to implement raised medians or raised crosswalks or actuated lighted crosswalks willy- nilly. What we are likely to have is a prioritized list and we’ll likely propose that list every year to our capital improvements program sub-committee for funding for the public.funding side of it. There may be some instances as we have tonight where we could get private funding. In my own view, for what it’s worth, if the private funding is offered and if the result is some enhancement of safety then it is very beneficial from a benefits/cost standpoint from the public side. We’re limited in terms of the Staff time we can devote to appraising and evaluating and field work and the fiscal limitations. Commissioner Bialson: Thank you Joe. I’d like to go to the public input at this time. I have one card from Bob Moss. Mr. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Palo Alto: Thank you Commissioner Bialson, Commissioners. I was quite interested in this because I was involved in the original request for the crosswalk on Meadow which we’ll be discussing in a few minutes. When I read the Staff report and based Page 7 of i0 also on my personal experience one of the things that came across was that crosswalks actually are more dangerous than just leaving the street as it is and trusting that people will have good judgment to watch the cars. That a crosswalk can give you a false sense of security and if it’s not done carefully and properly you actually increase not decrease the risk. Let’s talk about the three existing mid-block crosswalks because each of them has some unique characteristic. The one on Homer was put in explicitly because when Whole Foods was put in they had no place to park. So they had to put the parking lot on the other side of the street which meant they had to have a crosswalk in front of the store. The one fight across the street here is right where the Police Station, a public facility, and City Hall join another public facility, the library. The one on Fabian which I’m very familiar with was put in because Fabian is a racetrack. It is four lanes wide and the average speed on that is probably close to 40 miles per hour. We have about 3,000 people that live in those buildings on either side of the street. The east side of the street is where the cafeteria is so we have literally hundreds of people going back across that street every day, especially at lunch time. I can tell you from personal experience that about a quarter of the cars that come down Fabian go buzzing right through the crosswalk whether there is anybody standing there or not. So the fact that there is a crosswalk there does not mean it is safe to cross the street. It means it’s safe to start across very carefully and watch what that idiot coming down the street is going to be doing to you. So crosswalks are by no means a panacea. Let me talk about some of the specifics that are posed in the guidelines. Several of you pointed out 12,000 cars a day is a very high-volume street. There are only probably halfa dozen streets outside of the immediate Downtown area and E1 Camino and Alma that carry that traffic volume. So I think you should be reducing the threshold to 8,000 cars a day. At 12,000 cars a day if you’re talking uniform traffic 24-hours a day you have a car passing every seven seconds. That’s a lot. So I think you ought to be lowering the threshold perhaps to 8,000 or 10,000 cars. Second, when you talk about mid-block I like what Ventura did. Mid-block should mean mid- block. At least 1 O0 yards or 1 O0 meters from the corner. The reason is that people who are approaching, especially a stop sign or leaving a corner stop sign, do not expect to have a crosswalk and pedestrians angling across the street right as they get to the corner. They are thinking the crosswalk is going to down a ways. So again, this increases the danger. The final thing is as several of you pointed out, there is no specific criteria for need. Is it in a dangerous situation? Have you had problems with traffic? Have you had close calls with pedestrians? Is there a demonstrated problem in the area? If there is no demonstrated problem putting a crosswalk in may create one. Now, you can argue whether the new data or the old data is more accurate as to whether crosswalks accentuate or reduce hazards but I think all of us have had experiences trying to cross the street in crosswalks. It is not a slam-dunk. People who visit California are always astounded at our willingness to actually step off the curb and step into the street. Sometimes so am I. I would just say be cautious about it because I’m afraid that we’re going to end up with more problems than we solve. Now one of the questions that was asked is are there going to be more people coming in. Last night we had a Cable Co Op Board meeting and I mentioned this was on the agenda tonight to Ken Allen. He said, I want one. My law office is on Lytton and we have buildings on both side of the street. If we are going to be putting mid-block crosswalks in, I want a mid-block crosswalk on Lytton. How many more are we Page 8 of i0 going to have coming out of the woodwork? I think you have to be very careful about how you set these criteria so you don’t create more problems than you solve. Thank you. Commissioner Bialson: Thank you Mr. Moss. Does anyone else from the public want to speak on this issue? If not I’ll close the public portion of the hearing and turn to the Commission for discussion. Would anyone like to begin? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I like the guidelines all except one thing. I’m extremely concerned about this allowing crosswalks so close to the corner. We have it at Whole Foods. We have to deal with it at Whole Foods. I cannot see us creating more of those kinds of problems. It would be nice if there was a minimum threshold but I don’t see how we could work that out. I would like to see this pass as proposed with some minimum guideline from the corner of 200 feet or something of that sort. So that people have a chance, as they come around the corner, to see these and react for the pedestrians. Commissioner Bialson: So you would like an additional guideline or elucidation of the guideline? Commissioner Cassel: That is must be 200 feet from the corner. Commissioner Bialson: Alright. Anyone else? Pat. Commissioner Burt: I think I would like to continue to give Staff the discretion on the distance from the corner. As much as we all acknowledge that for example, Whole Foods is a problem, the crosswalk that is there is problematic but it was placed there to address an obvious and fairly acute problem with the parking lot directly across the street. I can’t foresee a trnuly effective solution other than a mid-block crosswalk but I certainly can envision that with the types of treatments that Staff is recommending that that sort of not-a-corner crossing could be made appreciably safer than it is today. So I would like to continue to give Staff those latitudes. In addition, I do think that many of the types of treatments do provide additional traffic calming. Bonnie had asked about the medians and while they are marginal the raised crosswalks I think are very effective traffic calming devices and the bulb outs are acknowledged as effective traffic calming devices. So I think that there are benefits especially in locations like Whole Foods that will get the dual benefits of safer crossing and slower traffic speeds by incorporating these treatments. Ms. Wynne Furth, Senior Assist. City Attorney: I was just going to say that while I don’t know as much about the vehicle code as Joe suggests, and I wish I did, marked crosswalks do have another effect not just on car behavior but pedestrian behavior. They make it legal to cross. For the compulsively law abiding this can be useful. Commissioner Bialson: Owen. Commissioner Byrd: My one bit of word-smithing is in guideline number four regarding location. In the third line, I’d rather define the presence of significant pedestrian trip generators as opposed to special. Then in the final sentence, give examples of significant pedestrian trip generators to include everything that is listed there as well as major employers. I’m not persuaded that exceptions are only appropriate when you’ve got two related school buildings on Page 9 of i0 either side of the street. If you’ve got a major employer and they’ve got lots of employees going back and forth across the street all day it ought to be considered. Commissioner Bialson: I don’t see anyone else wanting to speak. Would you care to make a motion on this? Jon Commissioner Schink: I’ll move the Staff recommendation with the changes that Owenjust made. Commissioner Bialson: Second? Commissioner Packer: I’ll second it. Commissioner Bialson: Thank you Bonnie. Commissioner Cassel: Owen would you consider a 200 foot setback from the comer so that it is more likely to be mid-block or nearer the mid-block? I like your other changes. Commissioner Schink: It’s my motion and I wouldn’t accept that. Commissioner Bialson: Discussion of the motion? Seeing no need for discussion at this point since no one wishes to talk let’s have a vote. All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) All against please say nay. Commissioner Cassel: I’m going to oppose it because I think we’re getting to close to the comers. Commissioner Bialson: Okay, that motion carries with five Commissioners voting for it and Commissioner Cassel against it, and Commissioner Schmidt not in attendance. Next is item number 3 on the agenda. Comments from Staff. Page i0 of i0