RES 99089 - Laserfiche WebLink

Deborah Acosta June 16,1999 Page 2 influence at just prior to 1 am hitting a fixed object. It is noted that the cause of these accidents would not be specifically remedied by a traffic signal (or stop sign). As previous staff reports have indicated, this intersection does currently meet "traffic signal warrants". Under the system used by traffic engineers, there are several warrants which are reviewed in determining the desirability of a particular trafl:ic signal installation. A warrant being met does not by itself indicate that a traffic signal should be installed or the intersection is unsafe; it may instead relate to how well traffic moves and the level of convenience for drivers. The most critical warrants relate to an eight hour period of heavy traffic on both the main street and the side street where the availability of gaps in traffic are limited over a prolonged period. The warrant met for Muirwood Drive south was a Peak Hour warrant which means for a single hour there were limited gaps in traffic. The fact that there were no accidents at this location within a five year period which were correctable by a traffic signal is probably the most proficient test regarding safety. This does not mean that planned improvements would not be beneficial. They would help to facilitate traffic movements, particularly with the additional traffic from adjacent new development, and provide improved facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. And, with the additional trafi-ic from the new development, staff concluded that a signal should be installed as a condition of approval of the project. With the inception of the City's new Traffic Development Fee, there is the option to include this segment of Foothill Road with other segments that do not have direct developer funding potential which have been included in the fee. However, under the fee program only those portions of improvements which increase roadway capacity are subject to the fee. Since much of the planned improvement to Foothill Road also includes improvement of the current roadway, this would require funds from the City to complete the work. (For example, for portions of roadway south of Foothill High School, the Traffic Fee shows improvements being funded 31 % by fees, with the reminder to be City funded.) It would also be expected that it would be some time (several years) before sufficient fees could be generated to perform this work when other higher priority fee projects are considered. By way of comparison, the locations of the highest priority projects for the new Traffic Development Fee have a substantially higher number of accidents each year. The highest rated fee project, improvements to the intersection of Stanley/Valley/Bernal, has had 48 accidents over the same 5 year period. And there have been 28 accidents at the location of the second rated fee project, the segment of Bernal Avenue south of Stanely/Va1leyBernal. Other more highly ranked signal locations include West Las Positas and Dorman Drive, Valley Avenue and Northway Road, and Sunol Boulevard and I-680 southbound off-ramp. In conclusion, staff is recommending rather than making immediate roadway improvements that we continue to consider this segment of Foothill Road for potential direct developer improvement given its relative safety. Moreover, staff believes it is not practical to install the traffic signal without the widening, as half of the signal would have to be redone when the turn lanes were added. Staff will continue to monitor conditions to determine if changing conditions warrant any adjustment in this approach.