Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-14 - AGENDA REPORTS - TRAFFIC ISSUES VIA PRINCESSA (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: UNFINISHED BUSINESS DATE: March 14, 1995 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC ISSUES ON VIA PRINCESSA DEPARTMENT: Community Development Anthony J. Nisich4E� At the July 12, 1994 regular Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to re-examine the adopted speed limit on Via Princessa between Rainbow Glen Drive and Whites Canyon Road after La Mesa Junior High School is open for session. In addition, the Council directed staff to conduct a study to determine the need for a traffic signal at Via Princessa/May Way and Via Princessa/Gregory Lane. The school was opened for session on January 3, 1995. The current student attendance is 600 who are all seventh grade students. The school is anticipated to reach its maximum capacity of 1,000 students in September 1995, which will include eighth grade students. Staff has completed a detailed traffic study which provides information on the speed survey reevaluation and the signal warrant studies (see attached). Speed Limit Reevaluation: The existing speed limit of 45 mph on Via Princessa was established in June 1994 according to an Engineering and Traffic Survey (a radar survey) as required by the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 627. New speed samples were collected and compared with the samples which were used for establishing the existing posted speed limit. The analysis of the speed samples showed that there has been little change in the speed data on the subject roadway (see the attached Traffic Study for detailed information). The review of the collected speed data and the limited accident data since the opening of Via Princessa in June 1994, does not support the reduction of the speed limit. New speed samples collected on Rainbow Glen Drive also verified the existing adopted speed limit of 35 mph should be maintained. A Citywide speed survey of all arterial streets will begin shortly to confirm or potentially modify any speed limits based on conducting Engineering and Traffic Surveys. These two street segments will also be included in that study for adoption by the City Council in June 1995. Signalization Versus Speed Control: In various Council meetings, it has been suggested that traffic signals should be installed at May Way to discourage speeding. It should be mentioned that should traffic signals be installed at May Way in the future, it would probably have little effect on the speed of traffic. Due to the relatively low volume of traffic out of May Way, the traffic signal would operate in the green mode for Via Princessa during all times, unless when triggered by a left turning vehicle. Agenda item: %r TRAFFIC ISSUES ON VIA PRINCESSA March 14, 1995 - Page 2 Education and Enforcement: Staff has used the PARET speed display unit along Via Princessa and Rainbow Glen Drive in the past and will continue its assignment in the future to inform the motorists of the speed limit. Staff also continually works with the Sheriffs Department to conduct selective enforcement of the speed limit on these roadways. Truck prohibition signs were also recently installed on Via Princessa west of Whites Canyon Road and on Rainbow Glen Drive south of Soledad Canyon Road. The Sheriffs Department has been contacted for selective enforcement of the truck route violations. Suggested Route to School: Staff coordinated with the school officials and prepared a "Suggested Route to School" map for La Mesa Junior High School. The map was delivered to the school to be distributed to all students and parents or guardians (see Exhibit B attached with the Traffic Study). All official traffic signing and striping near the school has been implemented according to the route to school map., Status of the Signal Design at May Way: Staff has taken the initiative to proceed with the design of a future traffic signal at May Way. The plans are 90% complete and require minor modifications due to conflicts with underground utilities which may affect the design and location/type of signal poles. Although no funds have been allocated for this traffic signal in the current year'sbudget, the completion of the design plan will reduce the one-year duration of the signal's installation by six months. In an effort to further expedite this process, staff proposes to preorder the signal poles upon completion of the design plans. This strategy will enable staff to install a signal at this location within approximately three months of approval by the City Council. The cost for ordering the poles is estimated at $15,000. The total cost of the signalization improvements is about $130,000. Staffs conversations with B&V Enterprises, the developer of the property at the end of May Way, and the review of the agreement between the School District and B&V Enterprises indicate that the School District is responsible for 35% of the cost of the signal and the developer for the other 65%. The School District officials, however, indicate the shared costs refer to all other street improvements and not the traffic signal. In any case, staffs understanding is that the developer is in the process of selling the remaining property soon and possibly record a map in 1995., At that time the obligation will accrue to install the signal, subject to satisfaction of the traffic signal warrants. Due to the complexities about the funding obligation, staff believes that it might be helpful if the Council appoints a Councilmember to work with staff and the School officials to resolve the funding disputes in an effort to expedite the installation of the signal once the signal is warranted and approved for installation by the City Council. Signal Priority List: Staff proposes to develop criteria for preparing a Signal Priority List for adoption by the City Council. As the number of requests for traffic signals increases, the City needs to develop a system to review the requests and allocate funds for installation of traffic signals where they are needed most. The priority list would also function as a critical element of the City's risk management program associated with traffic safety at intersections. The ranking of intersections and the thoughtful allocation of limited funding resources for traffic signal projects will protect the City from tort liability claims when accidents occur at candidate intersections. TRAFFIC ISSUES ON VIA PRINCESSA March 14, 1995 - Page 3 Signal Warrants: Traffic signal warrant analyses were conducted at the subject intersections based on the review of traffic and pedestrian counts, accidents, traffic delays, and the observation of the traffic conditions in the field. The analyses showed that none of the standard signal warrants are satisfied at any of the two intersections at this time. However, staffs evaluation indicates that it is possible that only one of the signal warrants, which is based only on the review of traffic volumes in one single hour, might be satisfied for the intersection of Via Princessa and May Way when the school reaches its maximum capacity in September 1995. Observation of Traffic Operations: Staffs field observations indicated that the traffic volumes on Via Princessa are relatively low for a secondary/four lane street. The observation of peak school hour traffic operations showed that during a 15 to 20 minute interval, a maximum of 10 to 15 cars may line up in the left turn pocket on Via Princessa to enter May Way. This situation is not any different than a signalized intersection like Bouquet Canyon Road/Espuella Drive, where the left turning vehicles make their turns at the same time as the opposing traffic. During these times, there were sufficient gaps in the Via Princessa traffic for the motorists to make left tuns into and out of May Way. Overall, approximately 75% of all traffic exiting May Way entered Via Princessa with less than 10 seconds of delay. Under signal control, all left turn traffic might have to wait approximately 60 to 90 seconds before accessing Via Princessa. The traffic exiting May Way would gain little benefit from signalization under present traffic conditions. Comparison of Traffic Volumes: The traffic volumes at the subject two intersections are compared with some of the other intersections near schools, as well as with other intersections which are currently under investigation for potential traffic signals. Staff is investigating these intersections as a result of requests from the residents, the school districts, or due to the occurrence of repeated accidents at some locations. Traffic Volumes Entering Intersection Daily AM PM 1. Intersections In This Study Via Princessa near May Way 9,400 516 699 May Way 700 163 134 Via Princessa near Gregory Lane 8,500 630 804 Gregory Lane 1,400 171 80 2. Intersections Near Schools Orchard Village Road near Dalbey Drive 21,800 1,240 1,995 Dalbey Drive (Signalized) 2,103 261 324 Bouquet Canyon Road near Espuella Drive 39,460 2,911 3,387 Espuella Drive (Signalized) N/A N/A N/A McBean Parkway near Alegre Drive 21,560 1,462 1,853 Alegro Drive (Unsignalized) 691 68 60 TRAFFIC ISSUES ON VIA PRINCESSA March 14, 1995 - Page 4 3. Unsienalized Intersections Under Study Soledad Canyon Road near Solamint Road Solamint Road Sand Canyon Road near Lost Canyon Road Lost Canyon Road Soledad Canyon Road near Hidaway Avenue Hidaway Avenue Traffic Volumes Entering Intersection Daily AM PM 34,000 2,385 2,796 1,273 163 91 9,020 624 701 1,391 251 237 39,500 2,559 3,161 2,021 71 226 As can be seen from the above, the traffic volumes at the Via Princessa intersections are generally less than those at the other intersections. Staff believes that in order to protect the City against potential liability, a priority and ranking system needs to be developed as described above, which would help the City appropriate funds to locations where signals are needed most. Based on the review of the traffic signal warrants and field investigations, a traffic signal is not recommended at any of the two intersections studied in this report at this time. Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Appoint a Councilmember to work with staff and the School District officials to discuss other strategies to address traffic safety concerns near the School, and focus on resolving funding responsibilities between the School District and B&V Enterprises in an effort to expedite the installation of the signal once the signal warrants are met and the signal installation is approved by the City Council; and direct staff to: 2. Continue the assignment of the PARET speed display unit on Via Princessa and Rainbow Glen Drive periodically, and work with the Sheriffs Department to conduct selective enforcement of traffic speeds and truck violations on both streets. 3. a. Develop a "Signal Priority List" report for adoption by the City Council which would contain criteria to rank and prioritize candidate intersections for signalization. b. Complete the traffic signal warrant analyses at all intersections where requests for traffic signals have been filed with the City. c, Monitor the traffic signal warrants at the May Way intersection in Fall 1995, after the school reaches its maximum student enrollment. d. Prepare a report for City Council consideration which ranks and recommends potential intersections which should be considered for signalization. Traffic Study BJ:AY:Ikl roaad \aN;aaay.a Traffic Issues on Via Princessa March 1, 1995 Page 5 guard, as the students are at an age when they are feeling their independence. Also, some students use their bicycles to cross the street which imposes a difficulty for the crossing guard to monitor their activity. The existing speed limit of 45 mph on Via Princessa was established in June 1994 according to an Engineering and Traffic Survey (a radar survey) as required by the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 627. Although residences exist in the vicinity of Via Princessa, the street cannot be considered a residence district according to the CVC for radar enforcement purposes, as the residences' driveways are not fronting the street. The Sheriffs Department will not be able to enforce speed limits using radar, if the speed limits are not supported by the radar study. Based on the direction from the City Council, staff collected new speed samples on Via Princessa between May Way and Gregory Lane after the opening of the school to test the validity of the previously adopted speed limit. The summary of the speed samples is listed below and is compared with the previous speed survey in June 1994: Date 85th Percentile 10 Mile Pace M (Before school opening) 06/20/94 46 mph 38-47 mph (72%) (After school opening) 01/31/95 48 mph 39-48 mph (73%) As shown above, there has been little change in the 85th percentile speed (Critical Speed) or the 10 mile pace in the speed range. The review of the collected speed data and the limited accident data since the opening of Via Princessa in June 1994, does not support the reduction of the speed limit. A Citywide speed survey of all arterial streets will begin shortly to confirm or potentially modify any speed limits based on conducting Engineering and Traffic Surveys. This street segment will also be included in that study for adoption by the City Council in June 1995. Staff has used the PARET speed display unit along this street segment in the past and will continue its assignment in the future to inform the motorists of the speed limit. Staff also continually works with the Sheriffs Department to conduct selective enforcement of the speed limit on this roadway. Truck prohibition signs were also recently installed on Via Princessa west of Whites Canyon Road and the Sheriffs Department has been contacted for selective enforcement of the truck route violation. Attachment: Exhibit A (Vicinity Map) Exhibit B (Suggested Route to School) BJ:AY:Ikl tm/fictolamor.oy CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Anthony J. Nisich, City Engineer FROM: Bahman Janka, City Traffic Engineer DATE: March 1, 1995 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC ISSUES ON VIA PRINCESSA I�T�SN At the July 12, 1994 regular Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to conduct a study to determine the need for a traffic signal at Via Princessa/May Way and Via Princessa/Gregory Lane after La Mesa Junior High School is open for session. In addition, the Council directed staff to re-examine the adopted speed limit on Via Princessa between Rainbow Glen Drive and Whites Canyon Road. The school was opened for session in January 1995. Attached Exhibit "A (vicinity map) shows the subject road, and the intersections in the vicinity of La Mesa Junior High School. Via Princessa is a four lane east/west secondary roadway with a two-way left turn lane and left turn pockets at the intersections. Also, the roadway has a curb/gutter and sidewalk on each side. May Way is a two-lane north/south street with curb/gutter and sidewalk on each side. The street forms a "r' intersection with Via Princessa to the north and is controlled by a stop sign. There are school crosswalks on the west and south legs of the intersection which are in accordance with the "Suggested Route to School" map which was adopted for this school (see attached Exhibit B). All standard traffic signing and striping has been implemented according to the Suggested Route to School map. Also, the northbound direction of May Way is striped for separate left turn and right turn pockets. The street terminates about 1,650 feet south of the intersection. La Mesa Junior High School is located at the end of May Way and has two direct accesses onto the street. Gregory Lane is a two-lane north/south street with curb/gutter and sidewalk on each side. The street also forms a "T" intersection with Via Princessa to the south and is controlled by a stop sign. School crosswalks are not painted at this intersection, as the "Suggested Route to School" map directs students to use the May Way intersection for crossing the street. La Mesa Junior High School was opened for session on January 3, 1995. The school's current student attendance is at 600 (all seventh -grade students). The school is anticipated to reach its maximum capacity of 1,000 students in September 1995, which would include eighth grade students. Staffs observation of the site indicated that the primary transportation means for students are private vehicles. In addition, four school buses and three City buses are currently serving the school. Traffic Issues on Via Princessa March 1, 1995 Page 2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Standard traffic signal warrants established by the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) were used to assess the potential need for signalization at the intersections of Via Princessa/May Way and Via Princessa/Gregory Lane. The warrant analyses take into account the 24-hour and peak -hour volume counts, pedestrian counts, traffic delay, reported accidents that are susceptible to correction by the installation of a traffic signal, and the observation of the traffic operations at the intersections. Warrant Types: Currently there are eleven different warrants that are used to assess where the installation of traffic signals might be appropriate.. Traditionally, most agencies across the country, evaluate signalization needs based on the types of warrants that require certain minimum traffic volumes in at least eight hours of a typical day. Several years ago, however, new warrants were added which are based on the traffic volumes occurring at an intersection only during four hours or even during one single hour of a typical day. As such, a greater challenge is imposed on the traffic engineers and the decision makers to evaluate various factors before recommending a traffic signal. It should be mentioned, however, that the satisfaction of one or more warrants does not necessarily indicate that the intersection "must" be signalized. The purpose of the warrants is to help identify the locations which "might" benefit from signalization. On the other hand, however, federal and state standards prohibit public agencies from installing traffic signals where at least one or more of the standard warrants is not satisfied. Via Princessa/Gregory Lane: 1. Traffic Volumes: The traffic volumes entering the intersection are about 8500 vehicles per day form Via Princessa and about 1400 vehicles per day from Gregory Lane. Staffs observation of the traffic operations during the peak hours showed that the majority of the traffic from Gregory Lane turns left onto Via Princessa with less than ten seconds of delay. The relatively low traffic volumes on Via Princessa provides adequate gaps for motorists to access Via Princessa. 2. Pedestrian Volumes: Although the "Suggested Route to School' map directs students to use the May Way intersection to cross Via Princessa, some 20 students were observed crossing at or in the vicinity of Gregory Lane in the morning school hour, and some 15 students in the afternoon school hour. 3. Accidents: A review of the reported accidents to the Sheriffs Department showed two right- angle type accidents at this intersection, both in July 1994, shortly after the opening of Via Princessa to Whites Canyon Road. Both accidents were caused by motorists exciting Gregory Lane and failing to yield the right of way to Via Princessa traffic. Speeding was not reported as the cause of accidents by the Sheriffs Department. The unfamiliarity of the motorists to Traffic Issues on Via Princessa March 1, 1995 Page 3 the new/changed traffic conditions could have contributed to the accidents. An accident also occurred immediately west of the intersection in June 1994, only a few days after the opening of Via Princessa. According to the Sheriffs report, the existence of some sand on the roadway might have contributed to the roll-over type accident. 4. Warrants: Based on the review of the above and the field conditions, none of the signal warrants evaluated at this intersection is satisfied. Via Princessa/May Way: 1. Traffic Volumes: The traffic volumes entering the intersection are about 9400 vehicles per day form Via Princessa and only about 700 vehicles per day from May Way. Staffs observation of the traffic operations during the peak hours showed that the majority of the traffic from May Way turns right onto Via Princessa with less than ten seconds of delay. The relatively low traffic volumes on Via Princessa provides adequate gaps for motorists to enter or exit Via Princessa without any significant delay. The traffic volumes reach as high as 140 to 160 vehicles per hour on May Way during the school hours, but drop to 20's and 30's during other hours. 2. Pedestrian Volumes: Very few or no students were observed crossing at or in the vicinity of May Way in the morning school hour. Some 15 students were observed crossing the street in the afternoon school hour. Accidents: A review of the reported accidents to the Sheriffs Department showed only one accident on Via Princessa west of the May Way intersection in November 1994, before the school's opening. According to the testimony provided to the Sheriffs Department, the driver had indicated that he had seen an object on the roadway and in an attempt to avoid hitting the object had lost control and collided with the exiting wall on the north side of the street. 4. Warrants: Based on the review of the above and the field conditions, none of the signal warrants evaluated at this intersection is satisfied at this time. Due to the presence of school-age pedestrians at this intersection, a special warrant established for use in school areas was also evaluated at this intersection. To assume a worse case scenario, and due to the fact that this intersection is designated as the official crossing on the "Suggested Route to School" map, the pedestrian counts crossing Via Princessa at or near May Way and Gregroy Lane were combined and used for the evaluation. The school crossing signal warrant is not satisfied for this intersection. 5. Future Conditions: As previously noted, the school's attendance is anticipated to increase from the present 600 students to 1,000 students in September 1995. The future vehicle and pedestrian volumes were projected for the Via Princessa and May Way intersection and the signal warrants were again analyzed. Based on these projections, only the warrant that is based on one single peak -hour volume conditions might be satisfied in the future. Traffic Issues on Via Princessa March 1, 1995 Page 4 Other Considerations at May Way: This type of traffic control device is sometimes used at mid -block crosswalks in downtown areas where there is a high volume of pedestrians using a crosswalk throughout the day. The signals would only control the major street traffic and would operate in green mode unless activated by a pedestrian push-button. The Caltrans Traffic Manual, however, requires that if the signal warrants are satisfied based on school pedestrians, the entire intersection shall be fully signalized. The consideration of this type of control is, therefore, not applicable at this intersection. Furthermore, the pedestrian volumes are far below the requirements set by the warrant. 2. Flashing Beacons The Caltrans Traffic Manual also establishes warrants for installation of flashing beacons near schools. The warrant is satisfied when the crossing is on the "Suggested Route to School," and a minimum number of vehicles and pedestrians go through the crosswalk during two hours of each day. The number of vehicles and pedestrians present at the intersection during the school's peak hours do not satisfy the warrant. Moreover, the effectiveness of flashing beacons has been questionable when used in school areas. They have been more effective when used to warn motorists of a permanent roadway feature, like an intersection located beyond a hill, a sharp curve, or a traffic signal not expected by the approaching motorist. In school areas, the beacons would only operate during the times when school age pedestrians use the roadway. Normally, school authorities are designated to operate the flashing beacons near schools. In that case, an inter -agency agreement would need to be executed in order to assure designation of a responsible adult to operate the beacon controls and to fulfill legal liability requirements. Due to its limited effectiveness and not meeting the established warrants, this type of installation is not recommended. 3. Adult Crossing Guard The warrants adopted by the City Council for adult crossing guards are based on Caltrans established warrants and are only applicable to elementary schools. In addition, a recent legislation has repealed the requirement that would obligate only the City to provide adult crossing guards. The City Council, however, has continued to fund the adult crossing guard program for the existing locations. Currently, the City has assigned some 22 guards at various locations serving elementary schools throughout the City. The average cost of an adult crossing guard is about $8000 per year. The budget for adult crossing guards is administered through the Public Works Department. The school district could assign a crossing guard at this location, if it finds that the guard would help serve its needs and if it can provide the funding to support the program. In general, however, it might be difficult to monitor and cross junior high students by a crossing Traffic Issues on Via Princessa March 1, 1995 Page 5 guard, as the students are at an age when they are feeling their independence. Also, some students use their bicycles to cross the street which imposes a difficulty for the crossing guard to monitor their activity. SPEED LIMIT REEVALUATION The existing speed limit of 45 mph on Via Princessa was established in June 1994 according to an Engineering and Traffic Survey (a radar survey) as required by the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 627. Although residences exist in the vicinity of Via Princessa, the street cannot be considered a residence district according to the CVC for radar enforcement purposes, as the residences' driveways are not fronting the street. The Sheriffs Department will not be able to enforce speed limits using radar, if the speed limits are not supported by the radar study. Based on the direction from the City Council, staff collected new speed samples on Via Princessa between May Way and Gregory Lane after the opening of the school to test the validity of the previously adopted speed limit. The summary of the speed samples is listed below and is compared with the previous speed survey in June 1994: Date 85th Percentile 10 Mile Pace (%) (Before school opening) 06/20/94 46 mph 38-47 mph (72%) (After school opening) 01/31/95 48 mph 39-48 mph (73%) As shown above, there has been little change in the 85th percentile speed (Critical Speed) or the 10 mile pace in the speed range. The review of the collected speed data and the limited accident data since the opening of Via Princessa in June 1994, does not support the reduction of the speed limit. A Citywide speed survey of all arterial streets will begin shortly to confirm or potentially modify any speed limits based on conducting Engineering and Traffic Surveys. This street segment will also be included in that study for adoption by the City Council in June 1995. Staff has used the PARET speed display unit along this street segment in the past and will continue its assignment in the future to inform the motorists of the speed limit. Staff also continually works with the Sheriffs Department to conduct selective enforcement of the speed limit on this roadway. Truck prohibition signs were also recently installed on Via Princessa west of Whites Canyon Road and the Sheriffs Department has been contacted for selective enforcement of the truck route violation. Attachment: Exhibit A (Vicinity Map) BJ:AY:Ikl tmJfowiumar.ay ..S, em COG ATER D0. 3 5 A 9'rro $ 1/ r 1 cRESr DR �y y AL ��'y0 �x ?.,' CANYON HS -� �p�.'^ ON' d ` C•�AU+AY ST �i RORTH OAKCONT O .m PARK I HS. uERALOCREE a---BABINGTONST�---RWrR`ST P� lt7 Py OAKMC - FOOR-OAKS- ST'- ST 'a u CEDAR R EK ST o� - _ DR % CEDARCREEK - ¢ $T w fa1FaEATHEIR ST �� FAIRNEATHER '< ST DELIGHT W ST Y v o P DELIGHT b S7 ST JOYHIUSE ST - NEpF1OD$F Y ST—�\ P K > Y o LO ROC '< ST i53 �ZOS00 m - Z, IFF <z c 1, S. DRY FF ST P A FpNCHON ° E� a o w o -Kw PL LE < ,LE LN x zoo ieSt S w w CALLA WY ST 8 < --- CaLLA ----- Inc a — JR NS CCi - 5 E STILLMOR } WELL- NELLHAVEN S S s GILBERT �y a OR �� C7F Q CANYON n NEARBRDOK ST yX _. CC �} oy\ - 19 AN ON t s A i 'Pn\ 19 PL P Sn•.` 19300 o o 18900 Speed Limit r' cc u VIREO Ci I ti T Evaluation S ua= ----= a a PARX HUTCRACKER CT _ ;I SMALLN CT 1. 2 5 O{ - LIZABETH _-/� RIDE $ \�QA1EP00(CbTfl LL CT ^.3' 3 C(� WY o BRUGES __i----- RT -[T- --= - LL PI-' -- BLACKBIRD ` T a Study Intersection '° e �i ! tr .- Via Princessa/Gregory Lane PL xT Fl STA i �kF �tq Sly Study Intersection I �" ` �•I i U Via Princessa/May Way L m La Mesa )A,y o I Jr. High 4 SNE JACANA CT 1 ..,.,' d41 ;4 \C Ci , _ - • i M OS - - ur[ f^ l ..r�S� „ �, •� `� EP\.fid i-`�_.—.__ t-rA �RpACE1 IK_ILI�`L < p. CAgOy fR1ENDLY V LEY •Y,r-�_�AV£�w' Df{�� o't.. �C•T GOLF RSE ',y T o,YK SP.oP� p`(,S_ j9Ap0 ,Lbs PANISH _ ��'F `�♦ .SOAK DR �'PUIN OR 4�$ ,',A ,S ry. ST S OR y0J� et�k g'�.. . PAlEI) (� C `y, Cry C,p ` `__ �♦ kKEI nV,D(wP CSAurt `♦ - �•S- y`' O A OR OA. D ! 9 �� ,p0♦ Hp. �S oq �N! I �. Fo ' @ 9 �q,,/5� 9L C♦ O r 4 _ _ - \� :SJq\Q�� P� rit♦o� i. - S`fAAP .,.. - �W r.tIA oynV\ z Py �i i N.TS. Exhibit "A" No Scale ;December 1994) LEG"Nt' �w r tr::. ., v ias �. tiJ..._ j...... t. (� nm• �+.. �o tu.cr uts•°•=.. noose ammo• w+m• SUGGESTED ROUTE TO SCHOOL PLAN for La Mesa Junior High School Exhibit Pare. tai This map shows the suggested ornssmgs to he used from each blockin your school walking attendance area. Following th,• arrows, select the best mute from your home to thesdiool and mark it with a colored pencil or crayon.This is the route your child should take loalrUlt yourchild yr u . this and m L-m.s It, -L, of locations shown.. You and your child should hecomn familiar with the rnute by walking it ygether. f )hscrve marked Cross- walks, slap. signs, Lrallie signals, rith,r traffic contrnly, and, most oral), traffic. Crossing points have been located at these controls whenever passible, eventhough a lunger walk may some-timeshe necessary. Pleasereview with yourchild proper street crossing and the Use and meaning or pedestrian crossing indications at traffic signals, Parents should Use extreme caution when picking -up and dropping off students.. Uunot double park and avoid having children crass lhe,street to Rel from the school to the car. This information is provided for guidance only: 'The safety Of ,your child rests entirely with you, the, parent: The mformatinn provided is not intended to guarantee that the routes shown are absolutely sore: Padres de Familia: Estemaps Is indica la ruts, miss Segura de cnda cuadrt f manzana en el area de su escuela. Siguiendo las llech as Ln el" maps, selecci6ne la ruts mAs convenience dC9u case a la escuela y marquela con One linea gruesa:: Esta .serA la que su(-) ni6o(s) deher6(n) seguir. Par favor dirijA a sti nidu.,. a user esti rata sn•mpre y. a cruzar Ise cslles solamentC en Ins lugarr, s indicadns.: Unt -d y' su(s) ni6n(s) deb n..n familianxa,e can rsta ruga rrcnrriendnla juntcs.. Observen las Wales de canesmarcadas con cruceros para peatone. y to nabs importance. y tengan Is precaun6a de no cruzarcuendo hays trAncn. Los cruccros pars p,mtonex Inns sido instal d v on aquc[Ins luK:ires dande s,, Lin dei. minado que an mos necestin as La ru us de su v a s la es c u e la tale F sea mss larga, peso es la mAs segura.. Par favor ense6e a sutsr Wo(s) a cruzar lav calles curredamcnle leyenda y r yp tandn los letrerm. semaroras y se6ales para peatnnes- Los padres deberanurar mucha precauci6n cunndo recngea y ticj.,n ;, estudizntrs. Pea favor no r,taciene ru niche on media rj., lu calls pia mn"n mumenln.. Tampco pramibe ilu, nin, saliendu do la'ICUCIa, Lengan qui: y -,U it Ia cid L• pari ahorder. su autum601. Esta inforri es proporcionada para guiarlo(s) solamentc: La seguridad de su(s) hijo(s) depende de astedes 1t padres. Esta informad6n no garantiza que. las rutas indicadas lean absclutamente seguras.