Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0241.093, - April 15, 1993 HONORABLE CIT¥ COL~CIL PalQ Alto, California Attention: policy and Services committee PI.AN FOR FURTHER ACTION ON SCHOOL SAFETY IS~.uES AND STUDY CORRIDORS Members ot the council: Report In Brief This report provides a discussion ot staff's recommendations regarding the pr-ocess a,nd priorities for further action on school safety issues, including follow-up work on the Meadow/Charleston study area and study of school ~afety issues in other areas of the City~ staff recommencls that the Policy and services Committee endorse an action plan for furthE'_r study of school safety issues based on the follo~ing priorities: priority 1 3 4 CMR! 241! 93 Aqtivity F.esponse to site-specific safety issues and requests from individual schools, as referred through the city/School Traffic Safety Committee Implementation of recommendations from the MeadowlCharle6ton Sch~l Corridor Safety Study Application of recommended actions from the Meadow/Charleston Study to other areas of City Identification and prioritization of other potential stuC3y areas, in consultation 'With the City/School Traffic Safety Committ~e. Report to the Council at the. same time as the six-month Status Report on implen1entation of the Meado'W/ Charleston corridor study recommendations. ----,------. ~ ! - BACKGROUND In february 1992, Co\~ncil directed staff to proc€!?'d .... i th a focused 3tudy of the Meadow/Charlestor. School Commute Corridor. '?he Council motion also referred the issue of further study of other corridors to the Policy and Services Committee. In a Ja.nuary 1993 status report on the Meado'..r/Charleston study (CMR 142!93), staff proposed that the Policy and se!.'"vices Committee first revie~ the F'inal Study Repc,rt and staff recommendations for the Meadow/Charleston Scho':i'l Corridor Study at its March meeting, and then consider the subject of future study corridors at its April 20th meetinq. DISCUSSION In the staff report (CMR:144:92 1 attached) submitted to council in early 1992 on ways to conduct a study of school safety issues. three approaches to the study precess were identified: (l} the focused. (Meadow/Charleston) corridor study, (2) a Major Streets Corridor study, or (3) a Comprehensive C-it~ide study. The estimated costs (from $20,000 to $80 1 ~OD} and durat.ion {four to eight months) of the alternatives var:pd, ba~cc on the scale of the studies. The Council's de~ision to direct staff to first study the Meadow/Charleston Corridor respor.ded to the community's highest priority concerns and the I'ost achievable, shortsst-term project. The referral to the Policy and Services committee regarding futurE potential study areas ac"kno\iledged the interest expressed by some members of the community in similar treatment of other areas of the community. At this time, as compared to when the Meado .. /Charleston study began, the Council, staff, and public have a more thorough understanding of the study process and the resources and time commitment required. Given the recent experience with the Meadow/Charleston study, staff now estimates that a new consultant study on the. sca.le of the Meadow/Charleston study \Io'ou1d take from 9-1l months to complete and would cost no less than $30,000 for consultant s~rvices pi'.JS 325 person hours of staff time. Also, sta.ff is no .... involved with many more p:cojects directly related to school safety issues, than a year ago, These projects vary from routine assignments and liaison functions ~ith the scheel community, to implementation of several capital improvement program projects. The Meadow/Charleston study alone has genera~ed a sUbstantial number of follow-up assignments that are discussed below. A decision to embark upon a ne .... corridor study should be evaluated in the context of these competing demands upon staff resources. Undertaking a new study would have the effect of reducing the staff time that would normally be directed to othe_r priority assignments. The following is a discussion of these areas of involvement and staff's assessment of their relative priorities. CMR:241:93 L- -. 4/15/93 Page 2 -. , - ~.neral School Safety ISS'..1JL~ As part of the TransPQrt~tion Divisionis routine activities, stafr mai~tains a dialogue with, and responds to ~equests from, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), city/School Traffic safety cODl.!ilittee, individual schools, and PTA groups throughout the year on a variety of traffic safety issues. These are generally site­ specific issues related to trafti:::: circulation and parkingr safety patrols, adult crossing guards, traffic controls, etc .• in the vicinity of individual schools. These issues are usually raised through the city/Scnool T:-affic Safety Committee, for analysis and evaluation by the Transportation Division. During the course of a typical year, staff is invclved ~ith several such issues. At the present time, staff has received requests from Palo Verde School and El Carmela School rega~ding safety problems in front of the SChools. Staff conducts field observatiol".s, collects field data, and develops recommendations for improvements, if warranted. In addition, there are pending issues related to access t,o Palo Alto High School, including the installation of .e pedestrian signal on Embarcadero Road between Palo Alto High School and To'Wn ar.d Country Village Shopping CI?nt.er (a proposed new capital Improvement Program project for 1993-94) I and discussions 'With the PAUSD regarding th.~ feasibility of opening a neW' drivewa:t onto £1 Camino Real. staff believes that the issues raised through t.he city/School Traffic Safety Committee~ which acts as a forum for resolving school safety concerns, are a high priority; and the current process of addres~in9 such issues on a case-by-case basis should continue. FoJ,loW'",:,,"Ul;) on the Meadow/Charleston Stuc1y ReCOmI!lenQ..atigD...§. The ME'-adoW'jCharlestoJ"l. study has resulted in seve.ral specific major recommendations that. staff 'liill need trJ pursue, subject to approval by Council ano. availability of fur.ding, in the next one to two years. Am~ng these 2re the following: • Install a Traffic Signal at Meadow Drive and Waverley Street • Conduct a feasibility stUdy of pedestrian/bicycle grade separations at railroad crossings on school commute corridors. • Work 'With Cal trans on feasibility. scope and cost of intersection and traffic sign~l improvements on E1 Camino Real at Maybell, Los Robles Avenue and Arastradero Road l for future Capital Improvement program projects. CHR:2U:93 4/15/93 Page 3 • Initiate discus3io!'ls '\II'ith Barron Park }.s50ciation on bikeway improvems.nts along Los Robles Avenue an.d pedestrian improvements along Lo~ Robles and Maybell Avenue. • Conduct a High Accident Locations study y.eaI'ly, tor all intersections on routes to s~hool ~lth five or more accidents per year. -rhese recommendations were developed '\II'ith the cooperation and support of the Stanford Middle School comm~nity and other neighborhood interests. They will require substantial staff time to pursue, develcp and implement. The school comnunity is anxious to r~ave the City move forward expeditiously with these safety improvements. If Cou~cil were to direct that another study of the magnitude of the Meado'W/Charlcstcm study receive priority, staff 'WQuld not be able to concurrently pursue these issues as effectively, and the time"Cable for il:lplementation 'Wo\11d be extended. Even if another safety st,udy were assigned to a consultant, as 'Was the Me'3dow/Charleston study, staff's responsihilities in sOliciting and awarding a cor.sultant contract, monitoring the consultant's 'Work, arranging and coordinating the public participation process, etc. would allow less time for pursuit of these projects. Staff believes that the recommendations from this study are important safety impro ..... ementsi their implementation remains the highest priority for the community; and they should be purs'.Jed diligently over and above other major studies at this time. Applicati.on of Meado .. /Ch~.rle§_ton Recommendations to_mOth_er Areas Sever-al of the recornI!lendations generated by the consultant ft:)r the: Meadow/Charleston study have applic.ability cit:)' .... dde or in ,:lthe.r school comm.ute corridors. EX2.mple3 of actions that '.'-ould be pursued by the Transpor-tation Division include: • Adoption of the re ..... ised Adult Crossing Guard warrants. • Increase all-red phase, nWalk-indi~ations and pedestrian clearance intervals at intersections along El camino Real. • Conduct a Higt_ Accident [.ocations study yearly ~ for all intersections on routes to school ..... ith five or mOI'e accid~nts per year. • Identify and repaint ~aded pavenent legends. • Educate employers and employees in Stanford Research Park of the location of schools and school commute routes. =:241:93 4/15/93 Page 4 , ..... M ........ ~~ .. _:.. ___ ~._ The city/School Traffic Safety Committee has requested that staff take a proactive role in making all schools and PTAs aw~re of these and all other Meado\.'/Charlestcn study recommendations I and to actively encourage each school cotmlunity to identify areas of concern where OTle or more of the recommended measures could be 'Warranted. 'l'hese requests 'Would require short, issue-specific field studies by the 'l'ransportation Division, and recommer.dations which would be fOIiiarded back thro .... gh the C:i ty I School Traff ic Safety committee to City staff or the PAtTSD. Through this process. staff would learn more about the magnitude and scope of concerns in other school conunute corridors. Some issues, whi~h might otherwise be folded into a "corridor studyn, could be resolved satisfactorily at this level. New Study cOrridors Last year, there was a clear consensus that a study of t~e commute corridor between the Barron Park neighborhood (and other residential areas east of the CalTrain right-of-way, and :; .L~ Stanford Middle School was the first priority. The issues of safety at the railroad crossing a~d the major arterial streets, Alma Street and E: camino Real, were clearly defined. At the same time, while there was some community interest, in principle l in pursuing more expansive studies that encompassed more or all of the commute rOl.ltes traveled by Palo 1\1 to school Children, such other "corridors" vere not as clearly identified and defined. During informal discussicns staff has had with the Meadow/Charleston Advisory Committee and the City/School Traffic Safety Committee during the past year, no specific focus areQ or corridor has been identified to staff as the next highest priority for another in-depth study. Generally, safety issues related to elementary schools are dealt w~th through the normal channels of the city/School Traffic Safety Cummitte2. Some areas have b~en mentioned as potential study candidates, including the Arastradero Road corridor to Gunn High School l the commute across Oregon EXprQSSway or Embarcadero Road to Jordan Middle School, access to Palo "-1 to High ~chC'Ol, and the commute routes from east of Middlefield Road to J. L. stanford Middle Schocl. ALl are larger areas traversing major-ar-ter ial streets, traveled by middle and high school students. While this list might indicate support for a Mmajor streets" study, it is likely that some safety imprcvements along these routes would be pursued through the applicatiDn of the MeadC\i/Char1eston study findings. Examples '".'ould include possible ne'W adult crossing guard stations, traffic signal timing or ph~,6ing improvements~ etc. Therefore, as a next step, staff believes it would be important to hold fUrther discussions with the school conunur,ity r in consultation wi th the city I School Tratf ic Safety Corrut'li ttee, to determine the CMR:241:93 4/15/93 Page 5 kc~-:L-· . -, .. ~ ..... ~ ..... .: .. ' .- .. "' demand for# and priority of, other are~s ·which may benefit from a focused study. This effort eQuId be handled in conjunr.tion ...... ith the out!"each efforts regarding the applicability of the Meadow/Charleston findings in other areas. Staff is scheduled to return to the City council after 5i)( months "With a "progress report" on the imple::nentation of the Me.adow/Charleston study recommended actions. At the same time, staff .... ould be able to pr-ovide :a more complete picture of the priorities and demand for ~ew corridor studies~ staff is currently involved at different stages of discussion and implementation ot sevE!'ral school safety studies and improvement projects~ These range from routine activities, such as the work generated through discussions 'With t~e city/Schnol Traffic Safety Committee, to implementation of capiTal improvement projects generated from the MeadOW/Charleston study {as described above), or in separate discussions ~ith the Palo Alto Unified School District (e.g., Embarcadero pedestrian traffic signal). Staff feels it is important to maintain tha routine City/School liaison function, and to demonstrate sustained progress toward implementation of the Meadow/Charleston improvements as the highest priority assignments. staff proposes that prior to returning to the City Council ~ith a progress report on the implementation of the MeadOW/Charleston recommendations in six months I staff 'Would conduct meetings and further outreach to the school community to apply the more universal recommendations in other attendance areas and to identify school commute corridors .... hich may require future ir.-depth study~ RECOMMENDATION staff recommends that the Policy and Services Com~ittee endorse and recom..lt!en,j to the city Council the action plan as outlined in t.nis report for study of Echool safety issues, based on the following priorities: 1 2 3 CMR:241:9) ~j,if:f~Zl·· . ·'-;7' Activity Response to site. specific safety issues and requests from individual schools as referred through the City/School Traffic Safety Committee, Implementation of recommendations of the Meadow/Charleston School Corridor Safety study, Application of recommended actions from the Meadow/Charleston study to other areas of City, and 4/15/93 Pdge 6 ~.-. -'>.-'i " . <f~~~'~1{t - - • ----------~~ 4 Identification and prioritization of other potential s~udy arEas, in consultation with the City/School Traffic safety COlnro.ittee, and report to the Council at the same time (November 19931 as the six month Status Report on implementation of the Meadow/ charleston Corridor study reco~~endations. Respectfully submitted, ,~/l~ GAYLE LIKENS senior • Transportation ~; /, //, IUY~ A'. ../~'<-ry KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR:144:92, city/School Pedestrian safety Study, February 1992 CC: Jim Brown, PAUSD Superintendent of Schools City/School Liaison Committee City/School Traffic Safety committee MeadowjCharleston Commute corridor Study Advisory committee PTA Safety Representatives PAUSD Principals CMR:241:93 4/15/93 Page 7 • - Feb:n:.ary 6, 1992 HONOF~BLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California ~ITY (SCHOOL PEDESTRIA.~ SAFETY STUDY Members of the council: REPORT IN BRIEF ,-.-~--~-' ATTACHMErH The purpose of this report is to respond to an earl fer council direction regarding the scope of a study to address pedestrian safety issues for school children. This report outlines three alternative approaches that such a study might folloW' and recommends that council direct staff to proceed with a city/school Pedestriar. Safety study that focllses on the Meadow/Charleston Commute Corridors between Barron Park and Jane Lathrop stanford (JLS} middle school, with the following understanding: a. Staff will work 'With the city/School Traffic Safet:.t Committee to ensure that the study process includes participation by appropriate representatives from the affected schools, ?TAs, and the Schoel District; and b~ The amount of the consultant contract f(~r this study is not to exceed $25,000 and ~ill be developed and executed by the Cit)~ Manager, as provided in the PdIo Alto Municipal C~1e, ~ithout furthe= review and approval by Council~ staff also recommends that ceur>.cil adopt the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attacnment 1) to provide funding for the study~ On December 9, 1991, the Council passed a motion which incl uded the follcl'wing: "Support a pedestrian safety study of the critical travel corridor& used by Palo Alto school children. Direct staff to prepare a scope of the propos~d study and to vork ~ith the CMR: 144: 92 -.;: ------------------------~--~ School Cistrict, its Traffic Safety co:m:mittee and others in drafting the scope." Inclu~ed as Attachm~nt 2 is a ~emorandum dated December 5, 1991, trom council Members Mike Cobb and ':ean McCown regarding this matter. This memo was part of a series of actions that resulted from various mee'tings at1d discussions fol1o .... ing a tragic ac.::ldent in whiCh ~ JLS student .... as killed by a train at the Meadow railroad crossing. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES Staff has revie~ed this matter and concluded that there are three basic approaches that co~ld be followed. These three approaches are described i~ Attachment J and summarized below. Approach 1: Approach 2: Approach 3: Meadow/Charlesto~ Commute Corridors between~ar~9n Park and JL$ This approach would"have a small/limitad study area, include only affected schools and address all issues of concern. CitYWide M~lli __ Street Corridors This approach ~ould have a large/citywide study area~ include all schools and address only maj'or street issues of concern. Comprehensiv~~~~ide Corridor Study This approach ~ould have a large/citywide study area, include all schools and address all issues of conCErn. While the scala of the st'..l.dy \o.'ould vary significantly fOl" the three approaches, the conduct of the stud)~ 'I,mula be sirnilar for each approach and include the following elements: • Issue IdentificB,tion • Data Collection and Analysis • Evaluation of Alternatives • Conclusions and Recommendations • Action Plan Attachment 4 provides a brief description of each of the above. Irrespective of which approach is selected, consultant resources to assist in the study process ~ill be required. Once a decision is made regarding which approach to follow, staff will proceed with CMR: 144: 92 2/6/92 Page 2 j t , • 1 t • •. the solicitation, evaluation, selection and a,"'ard of contract for consultant services. This procedure is outlined in Attacr~ent 5. This pre-study procedure normally takes approximately fout months to accomplish. However, if the cost of the consultan~ contract does not exceed $25,000, the City Manager h.as the authority to exp.cute the contract, without the further review and approval of the council. This could shorten the time it would take to retain the services of a -consultant from four It'lo!'l.ths to two months. The time it takes to conduct of the required consul tan't scale of the study. The assistance, as well as the study, is as follows: the study itself, as well ~s the cost services is directly related to the dollar cost of required consultant time requirF.!d to complete the actu.al Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach ) $20,000-$30,000 $50,.00.0-'$60,000 $80,000-$90,000 3-4 months 5-6 months 6-8 :months The above time periods, for each of the three approaches, repre~ent the amount of ti&e it would normally take to conduct such a study, and do not include the t'JO to four roor..th period requirE"d for the retention of consultant services, nor the ili,pact of the summer school closure period. Shown below is a summary schedule for each approach sho~ing the period for retention of a consultant and the dur~tion of the actual study. inclusive of the impact of the summer school closure: FEB MAR APR MAY JUN-SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN' FEB MAR APR MAY Alm.roach 1 Retain Cons. 0-------0 Conduct Study 0------////----000000 Approach 2 Retain Cons. 0--------------0 Conduct study ////0------------------00000 Approach 3 Retain Cons. 0--------------0 Conduct Study ////0----------------------0000000000 KU o begin/end CMR: 144: 92 ------continue fill inactive 2/6/92 Page 3 '- - GENERAL COMMENTS The initial discussion regarding su~h a s~udy was clearly directed toward the small:er study area represented by Approach L Subsequent discussion about the study suggests a comprehensive citywide study reprezented by Approach 3 would more nearly reflect some com:munity expe::o:tations. Approach 2 represents a middle ground that addresses only major street issues but on a citywide ba&is. Each approach is valid, but will have different results. ~nicheve~ approach is selected, it is impcrtant that expectations ere appropriately scaled. These alternativ~ approaches ~e~e presented and discussed at the January 16, 1992 meeting of the city/school Traffic Safety Connnittee. The people present expressed a general interest in ta~inq a more co~prehensive citywide approach, but also recogniz&d the Meadow/charleston JLS/Barron ParX area of Approach 1 as being the highest priority area. These alternative approaches were also presented and discussed at the city/School Liaison Committee meeting on January 28, 1992. All four ~embers expressed their preference for Approach 1, as being more readily achievable and focusing on the highest priority area of concern, Staff believes that Approach 1 is the preferred way to proceed. This approach is readily achievable~ responds directly to specific expressed concerns~ and addresses ~ high priority area of concern. General traffic and pedestrian issues related to school access in other areas of the City would continue to be addressed and resolved as part of the ongoing activities of the City/School Traffic Safety committee~ Approach 1 also offers the opportunity cf shortening the time it would take to retain the services of a consultant fron four months to two mor.ths. \t!'hile thg consultant selectior, process would still involve solicitation, evaluation and s~lection 01") a competitive basis, the Cit}' Manager has the authority to execute contracts up to an amount of $25.000 \.rithout the revie'orl and approval of the Council. This shortened time period WO'.11d permit data collection to occur prior to school closure in June and completion of the full study in early fall. For Approaches 2 and J, the actual study could not begin until mid-September. The necessary flinds to provide a total of $25. COO for this study ar-e proposed to come from the follo.ing two sources: {l) $3,000 fro~ an existing Transportation Division line item that prQvides resources for traffic ~ccident and safety studies, and (2) $22 /000 from the Reserve for Capital projects. The attached Budget Amendment Ordinance provides for the transfer of $22,000 from the Reserve for Capital Projects into the Transportation Division CMR:144:92 2/6/92 Page 4 - budget, tor the purpose of funding t~is specific study. RECOMMENDATION Statt recommends that Cour.cil direct sta:ff to proceed with a city/school pedestrian Safety study, in gene~al conformance ~ith Approach 1 as presented in this staff r~port, ~ith the following understanding: a.. Staff ... il1 *,ork with the City/School Traffic Sa.fety cotmni ttee to ensure that the study process includes participdtL:m by appropr-iate representat.ives from the affected schools, PTAs, and the school District, b. The amount of the consultant contract for this study is not to exceed $25,000 and will be developed and executed by the city Manager, or his designee, as provided in the Palo Alto Municipal code, without further review and approval bl the City Council. Staff also recommends that council adept the attached Budget Amendment Ordinance (A~tachment 1) transferrin9 $22,000 from the Reserve for Capital Projects to the Transporta~ion Division budget, in order to provide funding for the study. Respectfully submitted, ~- Chief Transp ~ation Official !'!ARVIN L']jVE AY KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Diz'ector of Planning and Community Environment L. kif ~~ I JUNE FLEMING (h~ !jSistant Ci ty "~ger Attachments: 1. Budget Amendment Ordinance 2. Memorandum from council Members Mike 3- 4. 5. =ean McCown (December 5, 1991). AlternatiVe Study Area Approaches Scope of Study Study Process and Ti~eline cc: City/School Liaison committee City/School Traffic Safety COlTliitittee cobb and Palo ~to Unified School District Superintendent James Brown PTA Safety Committee Representatives CMR:144:92 2/6/92 Page 5 , - ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINli, ... "'lCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE ern OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE' BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION TO THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION TO CONDUCT A PEDESTRIAN SAFETY STUDY WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article II! of the Chartel of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 24, 1991 Qid adopt a budget for fiscal year 1991-92, and WHEREAS, the City Council haG directed staff to proce~d a city/school Pedestrian Safety Study that focuses on Meadow/Charleston Commute Corridors between Barron Park and Lathrop stanford HiddlQ School; and with the Jane WHEREAS, additional funds irl the amount of $22,000 'Would have to be incorporated in the Planning Department._ Transportation Division budget to accomplish this needi NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN 4S follows: SECTION 1. The sum of Twenty-Two Thousand Dollars ($22,000) is hereby appropriated to Contract Se~vices in Traffic Operations proqraa in the Transportation Divisio'/l of the Planning Department and the Reserve for Capital Projects is correspondingly reduced~ SEC'I'I9N 2. This transaction 'Will reduce the Reserve from $5,320,031 to $5,298,031 as of February 3, 1992. SECTION;]. 'fhe Ccuncil of the City ot Palo Alto hert:=.by finds that the enactment of this ordinance is not a project -<Jnder the california Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no envi:r'onmen­ tal impact assessment is necessary. SECTION 4. Hunte ipal Code. adoption. As provided in Section 2.04.375 of the Palo Alto this ordinance shall become effective upon INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: I\BSEliT: ATTEST: APPROVED: C.lty Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Asst& city Attorney APPROVED: city Manager D1rector of Finance Director of Planning and Community Environment 91-2.13 I ATTACHMENT 2 MEMORANDUM December 5, 1991 TO: Our Colleaguas FROM: Council Members Hike Cobb and Jean HcC_oW'n City Representatives to city/School Liaison committee SUBJECT: Report ~ro. city/School Li.ison committee The Alma/Meadow railroad crossing was among the issues discussed at the November 2E, 1991 :meeting of the City/School Liaison Committee4 As a result of the discussion l committee members voted to recoDllllend to thei~ respective bodies that adult crossing guards (not sworn police officers) be funded [or the Meadow and Charleston railroad crossings arxi that a study of the critical travel corridors used by school children be initiated. Therefore, we are asking that the Council: 14 Direct that the city Manager vork ~ith the Superintendent of the Palo Alto unified School District to assure immed.iate shared funding for qualified adult crossing g'.lards at the Alma/Meadow and Alma/Charleston railroad crossings. 2. support a pedestrian safety study of "the critical travel corridors used by Palo Alto seheol c:r"lildren~ Direct staff to prepare e scope of the proposed stUd)' and to work with the school cistrict, its traffic safety committee and others in drafting the scope. The PAUSD Board of Education approved comparable recommendations at its meeting of December J, 1991. . --.. ,---, .. "._,---- ATfACHMENT 3 CITY/SCHOOL PEDESTRl<l.N SAFEn' STI'DY DRAFT ALTER"IATIVE STUDY AREA COl\'CEPTS Text orCoundl Assignment: "Support a pedestrian safety study of the cdr.kal trave! conidors used by Palo Aha school children. Direct staff to prepare a scope of the propos~d study and to work ~ith the school district,. its traffic safety committee and others in drafting the scope." This would he a fvcused study of t!1e twa co;nmlJle rO:Jtes tha: involve at grade I::.l!lroad crossings frOIT'. the Barron Park and wes.t of EI Camino Real neighborhoods to JLS ~ .. !jddle Schoo!. n.e study are'" would inclL<de the signalized and un:>ign:.!ized cro:5sings of El Camino l!~d by JLS, Gurm and l1.ianOl Brione~ J.nd Hoover elementary school su,;dent~, the Meadow Drive and Charleston Rend con";J·.jrs, through the railroad and Alma Street crOSSings to the school entrar:ce.s.. This approach WQuid include all major aneri;).1 streelS which are crossed by eler.1en:ary and middle school stude!l!s, v.ith secDnd<J.ry focus 001 high schoo~ crossings. The a:te~ial ciJrril.~or:i wouTd include Alma Streei (including T<:ii:roJd crossings). EI CalIlino Re~l. EIT'.bJ.rc<1dero Road, Page !\'fili and Oregon F..xpn::ssWci}. Chadeston anl~ J...raslrfldero Rr;.;'.ds, L'nl',ersity Avenue, Middlefield Roact, San Antonio ROJd. By definition,. this approach would not encomp85s student commute corrid·.Jrs on coIIeclor and local neighborhood streets ~ithin the school attendance areas, nor would it focus on school safety is.:iUe:s related to the immediate .. "ic.inity of the school site, except as they may pertain to the major street system. Those schools whose attendance area boundaries require students to cro~s any of these arterials would be included in the study. The,S.:! inciude the fom secondary sch:ooJs and the follo'Wing elementary sthDOk Addison, Duveneck, ""'alter Hays, Fairmeadow, EJ CarrneJo, luana Briones, Escondida, <.md. oistrict-wide schools:, Hoover and Ohione. " .~~ • , ~ 1 1 I I ;- \ Approach #3: Comprehensh·t Cl£ywid~ __ Co rrido{" Stud,,· This stud)' would encoJ7lpa'is (111 schools and all school commu.e: r()Ll!es. in Palo AiTa, regardless of the street ciassification, This study could address. s.afe:y nmcerns shared by mo!"-e. than (lne school community as wen CJ; issues related I..!niquely to one school attend;mce area. The process afidentifying the issues and soliciting input from ea;:h participating scl,ool couId be time consuming. Should each schc-o: participate and produce a lengthy list of concerns, it will likely be necessary to prioritiz.e the :ssues and/or address the stt!dy in muItipie phases. I ATTACHMENT 4 CI1Y/SCHOOL PEDESTRL-.N SAFETI' SrrDY SCOPE OF STUDY DRAFT ]~ Issue Identific:ation This phase of the study inval ... ,~s working with re.presentat:ves of indivjdl.!al schocls. the PTA. PAUSD administration, and the City/Schoo: Traffic Sn.fet'::-' Commin~e, t·'.J identify lssues and concerns which need to be analyzed. ll. Data Collf:ctian and Analysis This ph~se in ... olv~s collectinn 'of pertinei-:t traffic engineering cat::. including tiaffic volumes1 bicycle and pedes.trian cOl.!nts, accider,t di..ltil, traffic .... ~C'lations, speed sur .... eys, field observatlor;~, street geometries, etc. It further incilldes coilectinj: pertinent informatiDn from the s.::::hool district regardirlg :;htt:ndanc~ areas., enrolJ mer:t pro.\e.:tions, transportation policies, etc, and information from other 8,gen,::;es and jurisdictions that have control over areas in question (e.g., Caitruns, Salllr:ern PacifIc"'C<lllrain JPB, S<lllta Oara County, private property owners). All data is ar,alyzed and findings summarized for evattl3tlon. TIl. E",aluation or Alternatl'r'cs In this phase of the study, potential alrernati\·e solutions (short, mech:H'f' and iO:lg-te:rm) are identified, conceptual plans and prdiminury cost eSilrn(Jtf'S-prepared and fea:.fbil;t)' of implementation eVJ.luated. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations This phase irwolves determination of the preferred aitemative.i, priO{j!ization of aiternati-ves for implementation and prepannion of a finai repo~t 'wHn recommendations for consideration bv the Cr'l'.r'School Liai5C'n Committee, Cit)' CouncJ1 and School Board. •• V. Ae1iQn P Jan The lmp1ementatirJn tirnelinc ~ill be based upon the dec;sions of the City Council at the end of the stOJdy. The City or other res.ponslble agencies v.ill implement impro<,'ements on an ongoing basis within the framework of exi$ting budgets. Olher mid-to-lcng range improvements win mos.t likely r.eed to be programmed into the Capital Impro,:ement Program. Project that invoive other public agencies and jurisdictions will require comdi!lZltior, and outside funding. - .'-.' ATIACHMENT 5 Cln/SCHOOL PEDESTRL>.N SAFETY STUDY STUDY PROCESS A."m TIMELI:>E '."" P. A .--, ". .. f ~.... ..:1 1. Step 1: Define Scope of Study (3-4 weeks) Soticit views and ideas from the City/Schoo! Safety Committee and PAt;SD representatives; fannulate a preferred'approacb tf) study Present various approaches with comments to tbe City/School Liaison Committee Decision by City Council Oil study approach 2. Su~p 2: Develop ~pe of Sen-ices lind Request for Proposals (3·4 weeks) Approval of Budget Amendment Ordh-,ance by City Councll Preparat~on of Request for Proposals 3. Stel' 3: Consultant Selectioc Pnxess (12·14 weeks) Issue Letters of Intent Send cut Request for Proposals to consl<!tants responding to Leiter of Intent Evaluate proposals Formation of Selection Advisory Committee Consultant rnterview~ by Selec!ion Advisory Comminee Referral of Consultant Selection to Fin:J.nce Committee Negotiation of Contract Award of Contract by Cit), Council 4. Step 4: Conduct ACWOiI Study (3·8 months) B"le content of the ~tudy wouid follow the oU11me on the preceding: page. The time required tc complete cons.L!1tant work will vary according: to the scope of work. Approach Cost Estimate Time Frome Meadow/O:arleston Corridors 520)000-$30,000 c:..:..:..."---f--=-=:..:..:.cc.:...:.:.:~--+ 3·4 months Major Streets Corridors $50,000-$60,000 5·6 months Cornprehen3lve Cityv.-ide Study $80,000-$90,000 6-8 montbs General Notes 1. Role of City/School Traffic SaCet"j Committee The CityrSchooJ Trafftr. Safety Committ~e will be invchied and s(:rve as. an advls.ory committee through cut the study proce!l.!;. In this role, the committee could mal!'ltain its existing str ... cture j designate a subcommittee to work with city staff, or expand its membersnip on a temporary basis to include representa.!ives from all interested schools. 2. lnvoheme-!lt of Private Sc~OOI5 Students attending private schools may use many of the S:1me rDut~S as. students in the PAUSD. Repres.entativt:s frow private schooh. could b.: in .... ited to p<.mkipate in the study as part of the advisory committee or in some otha way.