Minutes of the BEECHER LANE Meeting
Neighborhood
Traffic Management Program
February 26, 2004
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
