HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1983/07/12 Item 22 � t
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 22
Meeting Date 7/12/83
ITEM TITLE: Report on reevaluat on of City policy on painted crosswalks
SUBMITTED BY: City Engineer (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
REVIEWED BY: City Manager
At their May 10, 1983, meeting the City Council directed the Safety Commission
to readdress the City's policy on painted versus unpainted crosswalks. They
requested new observations on those areas where churches, social groups, or
shoppers cross the street. The Council also requested that Safety Commission
study the savings of painting one line (a stop bar only) versus two lines at
intersections. The policy on installation of pedestrian crosswalks was
adopted by Council on April 25, 1978 (see attached) . Since then the Traffic
Engineer has been reevaluating the crosswalks obscured by street resurfacing
and eliminating those that do not conform to the policy. The City's auto/
pedestrian accident rate has steadily decreased since the adoption of the
policy.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council retain the City's crosswalk policy.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On June 9, 1983, the Safety Commission
voted 4-0 to support the retention of the City's crosswalk policy.
DISCUSSION:
In 1972 the City of San Diego completed an extensive study to evaluate marked
versus unmarked crosswalks. This study indicated that marked crosswalks had
accident rates twice as high as unmarked crosswalks. In response to this
study, the City Council adopted the attached policy on installation of painted
crosswalks. The following is the history of pedestrian/auto accidents in the
City of Chula Vista:
Number of
Year Pedestrian Accidents
1976 39
1977 51
1978 40
1979 38
1980 32
1981 32
1982 35
Page 2, Item 22
Meeting Date 7/12/83
As can be seen, in the last four years the yearly number of pedestrian/auto
accidents has been decreasing. While the crosswalk policy may not be fully
responsible for the reduction, the Traffic Engineer feels it has had a
positive influence. Since crosswalks used by church pedestrians, social
groups, or shoppers are painted the same as other marked crosswalks, driver
and pedestrian reactions will be similar to other crosswalks. The Traffic
Engineering Division cannot recommend any special handling of these proposed
crosswalks.
One other concern presented by the City Council was the cost of installing
marked crosswalks instead of stop bars at intersections controlled by stop
signs or traffic signals. To date, the Traffic Engineer has not reevaluated
or removed any marked crosswalks at these locations. Our crosswalk policy is
patterned after the City of San Diego. They have been removing all unneeded
marked crosswalks with successful results. Therefore, unless otherwise
directed, the Traffic Engineer will be reevaluating the crosswalks obscured by
street overlays at controlled (stop signs, traffic signals) intersections. If
a crosswalk is not needed, only one line -- a stop bar -- will be painted.
This will save approximately $67 per year per crosswalk.
FISCAL IMPACT: Annual maintenance cost per crosswalk is $90. Annual
maintenance cost for a stop bar (one line only) is $23.
DWW:nr/
WPC 0496E
by the C y Cc,uncil of
Chula Vista, California
Dated
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 11
For meeting of 4-25-78
TITLE Resolution 9036 Adopting a Council Policy for the
Installation of Pede'—an Cross-
walks /
,3.4ITTED BY Director of Public Works/City Engineer fl)
jjV 1)/1
;N EXPLANATION (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED YES_ NO N)
During the past few years, the staff has received many requests
for the installation of pedestrian crosswalks throughout the
City. Each request was evaluated by staff on an individual
basis without the aid of a formal policy or system of warrants.
Adoption of such a policy will create a uniform analysis for each
proposed location.
Staff is recommending that the attached Policy for the Installa-
tion of Pedestrian Crosswalks be used to evaluate requests for
crosswalks. These policy and warrants are essentially the same
as used ay the City of San Diego and will allow staff to evalu-
ate locations for potential crosswalks against an established
set of standards and criteria.
As with other warrant systems presently being used by the City
(for traffic signals and stop signs) , it is intended to use the
policy and warrants as guidelines for the installation of cross-
walks and not as a strict set of standards which must be satis-
fied in order for a crosswalk to be installed.
The attached policy discusses the advantages and disadvantages
of installing marked crosswalks. The purpose of the policy is
to provide a means of evaluating the locations for the installa-
tion of crosswalks in weighing items such as safety, convenience
and traffic progression.
EXHIBITS
Agreement Resolution_r Ordinance Plat_ Notification List_
Other ,.- ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: Attached Submitted on
'INANCIAL IMPACT
None
-'rRF RECCi!MENCATION
'»rte e City of Chula Vista's Policy for the Installation c
eras tr _.,n Cro;,wali,s.
_ cm r:3.,ion ;otr.; .-1 :1 ni:.. I 73 th-
r!:..La .,r_a' .; ;'o �:.-eta__..__ n �=
co�tr:an ,. .atecs. -) c
A J J p L
City _,..-:,..1
of
Chula Vita, California
nated 41• a C• 9S'
' ` ` ORIGINAL .
C• OF U/ n V 3TA
CC'`I a PUI ICY
n ^� j -�! _ T _
C v �. r i�.. I G
DATE
OF PEDESTRIAN CROSS?'ALKS
11 ° 4
E: ED •
•
PURPOS
The purpose of this policy is to establish minimum criteria for
the installation of non-school pedestrian crosswalks at inter-
sections :which are not controlled by stop signs or traffic signals.
J
PO _C_
A. —1 v n t /"-a s•.,
In general , marked crosswalks have the following advantages :
1. Nay help pedestrians orient themselves and find their way
across complex intersections .
2 . -:av help show .pedestrians the shortest route across traffic.
3. nay h _a show Pedestrians the rout e with least e:no Sure
to vehicular traffic and traffic conflicts.
4. May help position pedestrians where they can be seen best
by oncoming traffic.
5 . __ay help ut" i - the presence of luminaires to improve
pedestrian nighttime safety.
. �.n.nay help ch n=-,1 .-, and limit pedestrian traffic to scecific
local cns .
! . .l y a_,. in enforcing pedestrian crossing regulations .
:,:ay act in a limited mann,_.,-, as a warning device and T...em_n_-'=
to . _o s t.. that .t...._J is a lcca ten ,4-s l._ _al. con-
flicts can be t'. _ ` . ...•
:n generaL , - orcoswals hay'"_' th- folla.. _, ,4 : sad•:antageS :
t 1. cause _edest_ fans to .ha' e a false sense of security and to place _hamsel .ems in a hane_ _e s osi t_on with re
sect to •v eniculer traffic.
•
..r`i.:: a-t!
. .
• .
kow ORIGINAL ytt...-
CITY CF CHULA VISTA
KIICY
PC' ICY 17FFE'TIV:
PA.71t.
I DAT7
• INSTALLA7IC:: OF P=STRIAN CROSSWALKS
20f4
•
•
•
2. Na': cause the pedestrian to think that the motorist can and
will stop in all oases , even when it is impossible to do so.
3. May .cause a greater number of rear-end and associated col -
lisions due to pedestrians not waiting for gaps in traffic.
4 . May cause an increase in fatal and "serious injury" acci-
dents.
5. :.:ay cause a disrespect for all pedestrian regulations and
traffic controls.
6. Unwarranted and poorly located marked crosswalks will c-P=te
an increased expense to the City taxpayers for inst= 11 ' on
and maintenance costs which may not be justified in terms
of imoroYed public safety.
C. Warrants
In order to for a marked crosswalk, a location must
meet the following four criteria and rate 16 points or more
under the following point system:
1 .
Crosswalks will not be installed where the pedestrian
volume is less than 10 pedestrians per hour during the
peak pedestrian hour.
2 . Aonrcech SI:ep,-.1 Warrant
Cr-so • a7 :s will not be installed on r-oadways wh 4-hP
speeds are in excess of 4
.- roach use-c: shall be d-:--min-d ty aoo-oy-d en-
seed tecnni7ues . •
Crcasw ' s wL1' not be installed unless the motorist
hao an ' .._ 2_ . ._::. vi,2w of all pedestrians at the pro-
: oosad arcsswalh slte , for a distance not less than 200 '
• ap-..-..roach.Lng from each on. Sites with grades ,
curs end other cian restricte featl:res will require
•
, •- •
. - . ORIGIrIE ;-
C1- , „_
PDI CI
r,..
INS=LATION OF ?_°TD:STRI-N CROSS ALMS 1 1 ✓r ! _
•
•
4 . Ili u—ination
Proposed crosswalk site must have adequate crosswalk
lighting in existence or scheduled for installation
rcr to the installation of the crosswalk.
1 5. Point S"item
a. Pedestrian 1iolu_..e W`__ant
Point °_s 4c^ . L
Cri`��� cn Pedes rian To-, ; 13oi-ts
I �
The ---,1 number of pedestrians 0-10 0
crossing the street under study 11-30 2
during the peak pedestrian hour- 31-60 4
This includes pedestrians in 61-90 6
both crosswalks at an 9' -100 8
__„n. Crosswalks will not be Over 100 10
installed where the ped volume
(peak ped hour) is 10 or less. Maxim= 10
b. General Conditions warrant Points
(1) Will clarify and define:, pedestrian. 2
routes across complex intersections
(2) Will channelize Pedestrians into a 2
si;niiicantly shorter oath.
• ( 3) Will Position pedestrians to be seen 2 t
by moorls�s .
( ) Will t o" s t_ an to e: coS'c
to fewer vehicles .
I ,
•
Ut-uta,p,
•
CITY CF C.:il rt VISTA
Lrl L i .. � r1
COIL h-tid 1 CY
l::s :ox ?'•'..,5. f , CROSS . r I:v
'r, l
f ' c:4 `I
c. Gan Time Warrant -
Average Nunther
of Gaps per 5-
Criterion Minute•i Period Points
rl__. Period
Th.= nu.-her of uni. eaed 0 - 0. 99 10
vehicle time gads ecual 1 - 1. 99
to or exceeding the re- 2 - 2. 99 6
g• ref pe est_-an cross- 3 - 3 . 99 4
y7 time in an averace 4 - 4 . 99 2
five-minute period during 5 or over 0
the peak vehicle hour.
Maximum 10
Co' JL_a_..._ons
(1) Pe-es•t-_an Crossing Time
4.0 _�' `-eV
r se•,-"`
•
(2) Average .,umber of Gaol per Five-Minute Period 7
_ Total i:s`D1e Gan Tim,.
Time m_ in S,-con,--as
_
?e est , ` Crossing ime x 12
Dro- _si ns
(1) The above criterion is based on a one-Pour fief d
survey cCniiao_n I
of twelve five-minute -
(2) All roadways h:vine a raised median painted or a painted
median (t-foot mini=m width) will b e nsi -ed
CC d
as two sc_;`_rat'o roadways , if the pedestrian has
a _ ..: . :. d J1„CC to stand cu: o= 0- th o=
•
•
• _
SQL,.._. _ �,