Loading...
SR-9-A (93) LUTM:PB:RF:fb:XWALKORD:WP51FB Council Meeting, March 17, 1992 q~A MAR 1 'j", 1992 Santa Monica, California To: Mayor and City Council From: City staff Subject: Recommendation to Approve a Policy on the Installation and Removal of Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Intersections and to Direct the city Attorney to Prepare an Ordinance Amending section 3327 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code Relating to Crosswalks Introduction This report recommends that the city council approve a POllCY on the lnstallation and removal of crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections; and, direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending section 3327 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code relating to crosswalks. Background In recent months, two major Santa Monica thoroughfares, Pica Boulevard and Montana Avenue, have been resurfaced. Subsequent to resurfacing of these streets, the Parking and Traffic Engineering Division has not replaced a number of crosswalks which were previously in place at uncontrolled l.ntersections. The decision to not replace these crosswalks was rendered in the interest of traffic and pedestrian safety, using generally accepted traffic englneering guidelines. The City Council has questioned this decision, and has directed staff to submit a report for their consideration. q-A Page 1 of 12 ~1AR L j l~"'i Mayor and City Councl1 March 17, 1992 In preparing for this report, staff examined section 3327 of the Municipal Code. That section appears to give the City Parking and Traffic Engineer the authority and responsibility to install and malntain crosswalks, but not to remove or otherwise delete them. Discussion Durlng the past several years, traffic engineering studies in Southern california, and elsewhere across the nation, have found that the pedestrian accident rate at uncontrolled (non-signalized) intersections is lower at locations where no marked crosswalks exist, compared to those locations where crosswalks are painted. In order to increase pedestrian safety and to reduce potential City tort liability, staff has prepared a policy recommending that painted crosswalks not be installed, or reinstalled, on City streets at uncontrolled lntersections or at midblock locatlons, except where there is a traffic engineering finding of need for such a crosswalk, based on specific criteria. The presence or absence of a marked crosswalk does not in any way change the pedestrian's right of way at most intersections. Section 21950 of the California Vehicle Code sets forth the pedestrian's right-of-way at crosswalks. It states: Page 2 of 12 Mayor and City council March 17, 1992 Right-of-Way at Crosswalks 21950 (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. (b) The prov1sions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which 1S so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestr1an shall unnecessarlly stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk. (c) The provisions of subdivision (b) shall not relieve a dr1ver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or withln any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. Similarly, Section 275 of the California Vehicle Code states: Page 3 of 12 Mayor and City council March 17, 1992 275. "Crosswalk" is either: (a) That portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at lntersection where the intersecting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolongation of such lines from an alley across a street. (b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. Notwithstanding the forego1ng provisions of this section, there shall not be a crosswalk where local authorities have placed signs indicating no crossing. Thus, under California law, an unmarked crosswalk is no different from one that is marked. Section 3327 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code authorizes and requires the City Parking and Traffic Engineer to establish and maintain crosswalks at locations where, in his opinion, there is a particular danger to pedestrians crossing the roadway. It states: Page 4 of 12 Mayor and City council March 17, 1992 section 3327. Parking and Traffic Engineer to Establish Crosswalks. The Parking and Traffl.c Engineer hereby is authorized and required to establish and maintain, or cause to be established and maintained, and to designate upon the surface of the roadway by appropriate devices, marks or white or yellow lines, crosswalks approximately equal in width to the adjacent sidewalk at all intersections and between the intersections where, in his opinion, there is particular danger to pedestrians crossing the roadway. This section does not grant to the City Parking and Traffic Engineer any authority to remove or delete any crosswalk, once it has been established and designated. As noted below, there are situations where it is appropriate, and may be necessary, to remove a crosswalk. Accepted standards established by state and federal agencies clearly indicate circumstances wherein crosswalks are not appropriate. This situation is reflected in the CalTrans Traffic Manual which states, in part: Crosswalk markings serve primarily to guide pedestrians in to the proper path. Pedestrian crosswalk markings should not be used indiscriminately, as their presence can be detrimental to pedestrian safety. In some cases, pedestrians can be given a Page 5 of 12 Mayor and City council March 17, 1992 false sense of security due to the prominent appearance of the crosswalk to the pedestrian, resulting in a lack of caution. The crosswalk markings may not be visible to the driver from a safe stopping distance. (1) The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices takes a similar position in stating, in part: Crosswalk markings should not be used indiscriminately. An engineering study should be required before they are installed at locations away from traffic signals or STOP signs.(2) Since 1960, there have been numerous studies relating pedestrian safety and marked crosswalks. In Southern California such studies have been conducted by the County of Los Angeles and the cities of San Diego, Los Angeles and Long Beach. All of the studies found that pedestrlan accident and injury rates are much lower at unmarked crosswalks. Apparently, pedestrians are more cautious, when they do not have the false sense of safety created by a painted crosswalk. 1. IIParagraph 6-02.12 Crosswalks and Crosswalk Linesll, Traffic Manual, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California, Apr11 1987, Page 6-7. 2. nparagraph 3B-18 Crosswalks and Crosswalk Lines", Manual on Uniform Traff ic Control Devices for streets and Hiqhways, u. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1988, Page 3B-23 Page 6 of 12 Mayor and city Council March 17, 1992 For example, a review of pedestrian accidents at non-signalized intersections in the City of Santa Monica during 1990 revealed that there were 36 accidents in marked crosswalks, 3 were in unmarked crosswalks, and 5 were undetermined as to location. A study in San Diego found that, at uncontrolled intersections, pedestrians in a marked crosswalk were twice as likely to be hit by a vehicle as those in unmarked crosswalks{3). A Los Angeles study of 41 crosswalks which were not restored after repaving, found that accidents involving pedestrians were reduced by one-half(4). And a 1986 study in Long Beach found that marked crosswalks have an accident rate more than double that of unmarked crosswalks. (5) Law enforcement and traffic engineering officials have observed that pedestrians have become more aggressive and assertive in marked crosswalks. And, as noted in the Traffic Enqineerinq Handbook, IIpedestrians often consider themselves outside the law, 3. Herms, Bruce F., IIpedestrian Crosswalk study: Accidents in Pa inted and Unpainted Crosswalks n, Hiqhway Research Record Number 406 - Pedestrian Protection, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1972, Pages 1 - 13. 4. Wyma, Mike, "L.A. Crosswalks: Increasingly a Walk on the wild Side", Los Anqeles Times, Wednesday July 6, 1988, Part V, VIEW, Pages 1 and 4. 5. Willdan Associates, Crosswalk and Pedestrian Safety study, Industry, Californ1a, February 1986. Page 7 of 12 Mayor and City Council March 17, 1992 and enforcement typically is low. They want to get to their destinations by the shortest distance! so they jay-walk and avo1d both overpasses and underpasses It . (6) At the same time, there are greater numbers of cars on the road, drivers are increasingly aggressive, and there are an increasing number of drivers not originally trained in California and who are not familiar with our laws pertaining to pedestrians and their r1ghts of way. The increasing incidence of motor1sts fa1ling to properly observe marked crosswalks and the more aggressive behaV10r by pedestr1ans combine to produce dangerous, sometimes lethal, results. The more careful pedestrian behavior, as found at unmarked crosswalks, 1S a way to mitigate this growing problem. Based on this information, the Parking and Traffic Engineering Division generally no longer recommends the use of painted crosswalks, except at controlled locations, where more positive control of vehicle traffic is available, such as at traffic signals or stop signs. Exceptions to this policy will occur when there is a traffic engineering finding of need for a crosswalk at a particular location. Such findings will be made on an individual, 6. Pline, James L., Editor, "Traffic Engineering Handbook, Fourth Edi tionll, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1992, Page 19. Page 8 of 12 Mayor and city council March 17, 1992 case-by-case basis, after an appropriate study has been completed. This policy should also minimize the City's liability with respect to traffic control devices. The policy has been discussed with the Santa Monica Police Department, and they concur in its implementation. This policy is not unique to Santa Monica. Several other Southern California cities have adopted similar pollcies in the interest of traffic safety. It should be noted that the proposed policy does not envision a mass removal of crosswalks. It simply provides for the deletion or non-reinstallation of crosswalks at uncontrolled locations as streets are resurfaced. The only time an existing crosswalk would be removed is where there is a specif1c finding of a significant unsafe condition, based on a traffic engineering investigatlon. An example of this situation is the removal of the crosswalk on Ocean Avenue near the Loew's Hotel. Staff believes that the need to actually remove an existing crosswalk will occur very seldom. The crosswalk locations on both Montana Avenue and pico Boulevard have been studied by the Parking and Traffic Engineering Division. The intersections have been considered on a case-by-case basis. At this time, there is no traffic engineering finding of need for reinstallation of crosswalks at any of the uncontrolled intersections along either Montana Avenue or Pico Boulevard. Page 9 of 12 Mayor and City council March 17, 1992 However, these studies have resulted in the reconunendation to install a traffic signal at the intersection of pico Boulevard and 26th Street, subject to the availability of funds for design and construction. While the standard warrants are not met at this location, staff is of the opinion that the demand for pedestrian crossings arising out of the nearby clinic, combined with the speeds observed on pico Boulevard at 26th Street and the distance between the signalized 1ntersections at Cloverfield Boulevard and stewart Street makes the installation of a traffic signal desirable. And, staff will continue to monitor these Montana Avenue and P1CO Boulevard locations, and will recommend appropriate changes when a need arises. Proposed Policy The city Parking and Traffic Engineer may authorize the installation of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections if the following criteria are met: a. The measured demand for pedestrian crossings is 80 or more pedestrians per hour during each of the four (4) peak traffic hours; and, b. The measured 85th percentile of vehicle speed at the location is less than 45 miles per hour; and, c. There is adequate stopping sight distance on the approaches to the crosswalk at the measured 85th percentile vehicle speed; and, Page 10 of 12 Mayor and City Council March 17, 1992 d. The location is more than 500 feet from any traffic signal controlling traffic on the roadway on which the crosswalk is to be installed, except when all vehicle traffic signal indications facing toward the crosswalk location are of a programmable or other type which are not visible to motorists at or approaching the intersection; and, e. there is adequate street lighting at the location; and, f. There are minimum conflicting attention demands. The City Parking and Traffic Engineer may authorize the removal or, in the case of a street resurfacing or resealing, the non- reinstallation of crosswalks which do not meet the above criteria, based on a specific finding for each such location where a crosswalk is to be removed or not to be reinstalled. The city Parking and Traffic Engineer shall not install a crosswalk at any location where, in his or her professional judgement, such crosswalk will create an unsafe condition, based on a specific finding for each such location. Budqet ! Financial Impact There is no budget or financial impact resulting from the proposed ordinance. However, the city/s liability may be reduced. Page 11 of 12 Mayor and city council March 17, 1992 Recommendation It is recommended that: 1. The city council adopt the above described policy on the installation and removal of crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections; and, 2. The city Attorney be directed to prepare, in cooperation with the city Parking and Traffic Engineer, an ordinance amending section 3327 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to provide authority for the Parking and Traffic Engineer to remove or delete crosswalks when, in his or her professional judgement, such crosswalks do not contribute to traffic and pedestrian safety and are no longer warranted. Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Land Use and Transportation Management Ron Fuchiwaki, City Parking and Traffic Engineer Frank Barnes, Special Projects Engineer Page 12 of 12