| Home > Neighborhood Traffic Management Program |
|
|
|
|
|
Minutes of the BEECHER LANE Meeting
1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The first meeting for the Beecher Lane Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) project began at 6:35 p.m. on February 26, 2004, at the Stevenson Ranch Elementary School Multi-purpose Room, 25820 N. Carroll Lane, Stevenson Ranch, CA.
2. ATTENDEES AND PRESENTER
The following persons were in attendance: Mr. Bob Haueter, representing Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich Mr. Joel Falter, Project Manager, Katz, Okitsu and Associates, consultant/presenter Los Angeles county Department of Public Works, Traffic Investigations Section: Mary McChesney, Kari Allen, and Pat Ashburn Officer Wendy Moore, representing the Newhall California Highway Patrol office Capt Phil Arreguin of the LA County Fire Dept Approximately 20 neighborhood residents were in attendance.
3. MEETING NOTES
Ms. McChesney began the meeting by welcoming the attendees and introducing the staff and guests in attendance.
Mr. Falter presented a Power Point slide show describing the NTMP goals, objectives and process. He reported on the results of their field observations and input from discussions with area residents that the principal concerns appear to be with respect to excessive speeds and presence of cut-through traffic associated with school drop-off and pick-up activities. Mr. Falter presented the results of data obtained from traffic counts and speed measurements on Beecher Lane over several days of observations.
Mr. Falter presented suggestions for various measures to involve education, enforcement, and engineering practices to address the traffic concerns. These measures included: radar speed trailer deployment, installation of neighborhood advisory signs, and the installation of speed cushions, curb extensions, center medians, and/or traffic circles at various locations. The pros and cons of each measure were discussed in terms of effectiveness and restrictiveness. Mr. Falter indicated that implementation of one or more of these measures could be accomplished as Phase 1, which would be followed by an adjustment period and reevaluation of traffic conditions to determine their effectiveness. Based on the results of the Phase 1 actions, those features implemented in a temporary fashion could be converted to permanent installations as Phase 2, including adjusting or augmenting the program as needed.
A period of Questions and Answers followed the slide show presentation. The following questions and comments were received from the audience:
1. “Is the actual 25 mph posted speed limit correct on Beecher Ln, or should it be lower?” Response: State law prescribes certain speed limits, including the 25 mph speed limit for qualifying residential streets. Based on an engineering review conducted by Public Works, the posted speed limit on these residential streets is appropriate. In addition, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the CHP have jointly approved the use of radar speed enforcement on Beecher Lane.
2. “What are the design parameters of speed humps?” Response: Speed bumps are usually the abrupt and severe vertical obstacles used in parking lots to control speeds. The speed hump has a vertical roadway profile generally approved by engineering design that is about 2-5/8 inches high, 12 feet long from front to back, and traverses the entire width of the travel lanes. This design is approved for use in public roadways. However, the LA County Fire Department has opposed their use on county roadways, especially streets serving as primary emergency response routes into a neighborhood (such as Beecher Lane), unless other measures have proven ineffective at reducing a problem of excessive speeds. Speed cushions are a variation on the speed hump design that consist of a number of side-by-side raised pads with a spacing between that allows a fire truck to straddle them while standard passenger cars cannot. The speed cushions offer a compromise between the desire to effectively reduce prevailing speeds while not significantly reducing emergency response times to the neighborhood.
3. “Will only speed humps be considered, or will a mix of devices be considered?” Response: As presented by Mr. Falter, experience has shown that a number of approaches can address the problems of excessive speeds on residential streets effectively. Speed humps and/or speed cushions are one device. Other measures such as bulb-outs, center medians, and traffic circles are also effective in some cases. A combination of devices may serve some locations most effectively and will be open for consideration on Beecher Lane.
4. “Can you tell us why STOP signs are not recommended on Beecher Ln to slow the traffic” Response: STOP signs are an effective device to use at intersections to define the right of way and reduce potential conflicts or reduce delay when traffic volumes are relatively high. Most traffic engineering agencies and jurisdictions nation-wide discourage the use of STOP signs as a speed-breaker. If placed where traffic conditions do not obviously warrant them, motorists soon lose respect for the sign and dangerously disregard it, deteriorating the sign’s impact at those locations where they are needed.
5. “Can the CHP park a spare black and white unit on the Beecher Ln to deter speeding?” Response: No. The CHP does not have “spare” vehicles to deploy in that manner. Furthermore, the long term impact is not reliable, and there is some concern of vandalism that could result from long-term exposure of an unmanned vehicle.
6. “The uninterrupted length of Beecher seems to contribute to the speeds. Can a cul de sac be considered at some point, say, at Hood Way?” Response: Street closures and partial closures are tools that can effectively reduce traffic flow on portions of residential streets. However, since these measures obviously create a significant alteration of neighborhood traffic circulation patterns, they would not necessarily be appropriate first-step actions, but could be an option for phase two actions depending on the effectiveness of phase one measures and after taking into consideration the impacts of diverting the traffic onto other routes. Capt Arreguin addressed the Fire Department’s concerns regarding a possible street closure with respect to maintaining multiple access routes to residential neighborhoods for potential evacuation and emergency response needs.
7. “After it is decided which actions are to be proposed, how long will it take to implement them?” Response: The actual installation will depend on the measures approved and the amount of engineering required, the availability of funds, and time restrictions imposed by prior commitments. However, the NTMP program is a pilot project approach which the County is committed to evaluating and thus will prioritize accordingly.
8. Comments were expressed that the neighborhood experiences part of its problems due to traffic generated by the nearby Stevenson Ranch Elementary School during morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up activities. It was suggested that part-time turning prohibitions at strategic intersections may reduce the impacts of this traffic on Beecher Ln. Public Works will evaluate that suggestion by the next neighborhood meeting.
The residents in attendance were then given an opportunity to make written comments by marking on a set of maps of the study area indicating the problem locations and their proposals for various solutions. These notations generally related to proposed speed cushion installations and requested street closure at specific intersections.
Mr. Falter advised that the comments and concerns raised at this meeting will be reviewed by Public Works, and a second meeting will be convened in approximately one month to finalize the proposed Phase 1 actions for the Beecher Lane NTMP.
The meeting concluded at 8:20 p.m.
JPA:tlpub/invest/inv/ntmp/beecher minutes
|
||