The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-02-13 - AGENDA REPORTS - WHITES RD AND DELIGHT SIGNAL (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: UNFINISHED BUSINESS John E. Medina DATE: February 13, 1990 SUBJECT: WHITES CANYON RPAD AND DELIGHT TRAFFIC SIGNALIAND CROSSWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works BACKGROUND The City Council, at its regularly scheduled meeting of January 9, 1990, approved a staff recommendation to retain the existing level of control at Whites Canyon Road and Delight Street and remove the existing crosswalk markings across Whites Canyon Road at the intersection. A thorough traffic study concluded that a traffic signal was not justified based on nationally recognized standards. This study also found a light volume of pedestrian traffic in the crosswalk and more importantly that the crosswalk was redundant. There are several opportunities to cross Whites Canyon Road either side of Delight Street with the protection of a traffic signal. Furthermore, studies have found that the crosswalk markings can create a false sense of security in pedestrians causing them to exercise less caution than they might otherwise demonstrate were it not for the white stripes. The key to this recommended action is the fact that removal of .the crosswalk marking in no way removes the lawful ability to cross; it merely removes the false sense of security and possibly the incentive to cross in favor of other more suitable locations. At its regularly scheduled meeting of January 23, 1990, the Council agreed to reconsider the matter in light of the receipt of a substantial petition and other input from the community indicating that a signal was needed for traffic safety. Several specific points were made in the community's request. They are: • Comment: The signal is needed for the safety of automobile traffic entering the highway (Whites Canyon Road) or turning left into Delight Street. • Response: Recent studies disclosed a substantial volume of side street traffic. The vast majority of this traffic (96 to 97%) makes a right turn onto Whites Canyon Road, creating little or no need for the signal. A fairly substantial volume of northbound left turns are also made at the intersection. This turn is made relatively easy by the existing gaps in traffic created by traffic signals "upstream" from this location. Agenda Item: Page 2 • Comment: The signal is needed to protect pedestrians crossing Whites Canyon Road at this location. • Response: Recent studies found a relatively light volume of pedestrian traffic crossing Whites Canyon Road at this location. There are existing signals at Ranier Street and Nadal Street north of the intersection and at Stillmore Street and Pleasantdale Street south of the location. The Ranier and Nadal signals are approximately 1,000 feet and 2,000 feet respectively north of Delight Street. The signals at Pleasantdale and Stillmore are about the same distances respectively south of the intersection. These signals are available to accommodate all school-age pedestrians attending all public schools in the area. The crossing at Delight Street is therefore redundant. The attached map shows these signalized locations. Recent observations have confirmed that very few school-age pedestrians use the Delight Street crossing. Discussions with the Saugus Union School District officials disclosed that, with the exception of a few (up to 10) elementary school pupils, no attendees from either Cedar Creek School or Honby School need to cross Whites Canyon to attend these schools. The exception involves children living in the Americana Apartment complex at the northwest corner of Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street. According to the school authorities, few of these pupils actually walk, and those who do are instructed to cross Whites Canyon Road at Nadal Street. • Comment: The signal is needed to control speed along Whites Canyon Road. • Response: A well-designed and operated traffic signal is responsive to all traffic, including pedestrians. These signals, working on their own or as part of a system, need to be responsive to platoons of traffic proceeding along the highway. Every effort is made to minimize interruption of the traffic flow from the safety and convenience point of view as well as from the noise and air pollution aspect. Consequently, well-designed and operated signals are not expected to slow prevailing speeds along any highway. They are intended to assist in the regimentation of platoons which can be very helpful at creating and maintaining gaps in traffic flow for access and turns at uncontrolled locations. Recent speed measurements taken at various locations along Whites Canyon Road have shown the prevailing speed of traffic to be effectively the same between the existing signals as it is in the vicinity of Delight Street. These data are summarized below: Whites Road between 85th Per. 43.0 mph Nadal Street and Ranier Street Average 37.0 (1-25-90) 10 -mile 32 to pace 41 mph Whites Canyon Road at 85th Per. 47.5 mph Delight Street Average 42.6 mph (11-15-89) 10 -mile 37 to pace 46 mph . ,Page 3 Whites Canyon Road between Pleasantdale St. & Stillmore St. (1-25-90) 0 85th Per. 45.0 mph Average 38.0 mph 10 -mile 34 to pace 43 mph The time of day, grade and curve of the roadway can have some affect on prevailing speeds. Recent enforcement efforts can also affect motorist's behavior. Overall, the differences are not considered particularly significant. • Comment: A signal will be needed when Whites Canyon Road is connected to Plum Canyon Road and access to Bouquet Canyon Road is provided. • Response: The volume of traffic on Whites Canyon will no doubt increase dramatically upon the opening of Whites Canyon Road and Plum Canyon Road. This is expected to occur in conjunction with the extension of Whites Canyon Road and Via Princessa south of Soledad Canyon Road to join Highway 14 and Sierra Highway. The current target date is November, 1992. It is possible that a signal, with left turn phasing, would be needed at that time. It is equally possible that the existing signals at Ranier Street, at Pleasantdale Street and at Stillmore Street will need to be modified at that time to add left -turn phasing. Those questions deserve additional study as the November, 1992 date arrives. The pedestrian crossing question, however, remains essentially unchanged. Regardless of the volume of traffic on Whites Canyon Road in the future, pedestrians, particularly school pupils, should be encouraged to cross at the existing signals near their respective schools. The Pleasantdale signal is immediately adjacent to the Santa Clarita Boys and Girls Club. If the City Council wishes to install a fully traffic -responsive traffic signal at the intersection, one may be installed for approximately $110,000, including engineering and construction. The work would take approximately one year to complete. Since none of the existing crosswalk markings or advance warning would be left in their current location when the signal is installed, it is strongly recommended that the existing crosswalk be removed in the interim in order to reduce the potential for pedestrian accidents at the intersection during the design and construction period. Crosswalks and pedestrian equipment would be included in the signal design. RECOMMENDATION Based on the recent reevaluation of traffic conditions at Whites Canyon Road and Delight Street, it is recommended that the City Council reaffirm its January 9, 1990 approval of staff's original recommendation to retain the existing level of .traffic controls and remove the crosswalk markings across Whites Canyon Road at the intersection. ATTACHMENT Whites Canyon Road and Delight Street Map .10,� 'oo>% R ol 11 CANYON �o H 5 'Od rORrr e..f C $ c5, '•SG.w2♦ B Si T R i www1ER a ,CcDARCRE-K ELEM A T a N 0 �n ST � � rouR 0.0s ' 1 -AIRVFA7r«. iT NO u»E=xi" a>{ ud / 500 79 7e I 9 79 TB♦ I � I •V i �Lc nGAA '1 SIERRA VISTA .1p NIGH SCHOOLS \ 1 , CF�'19] ; \\ \c\ STILLY GRE 5j,c Rc.RvKw . 0 'ss 2 8 0 7 9_,.-,4 w 6 - E S 11 SIE C16 T. T R1Sr 1..5 .v I'-- N0 -,�n \'--\ _ 5 9 3 1 i u B 6 8 ♦ - I In 1 1 �� ///) � �� DEL IWIr 17 y rt—uUSE 1> f1a ^I I O -E -OC- 37 RTCL lFF o � a m NC AL L AI W� w 1 1\ [ALLA 1W I� o VIOL: - 0 m M o 6 o S 9 2 \ \ 1 R N U 2 9 6 1 5 '- 1 ...., � ❑ ,�x�'s�i�io Slyhal 0 574 J GS/�i ��s Cys• ,�� P. N O Z 5 w B 6 6 7 9 3 ARSROOK ,<,.lii TR i ii i r h C s' rR .o M G 2 9 to 0 7 o