Item 10 Staff Report Accept Report Regarding Stop Signs and Speed Bumps on Johnson AvenueDATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE: 11/18/96
ITEM NO.
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
November 12, 1996
MAYOR AND TO CO CIL
TOWN MANAGER
ACCEPT REPORT REGARDING STOP SIGNS AND SPEED BUMPS ON JOHNSON
Jo
AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report regarding stop signs and speed bumps on Johnson Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
On September 4, 1996 residents of Johnson Avenue submitted a petition requesting that speed bumps or stop signs be
installed to control speeding on that street (Attachment 1). According to the residents, traffic volume and speeding have
increased since the installation of stop signs to control speeders on Loma Alta Avenue in August of 1991. Staff dispatched
Traffic Data Services ("TDS", the same firm contracted for radar speed survey work) to independently collect speeds.
Preliminary data showed that some speeding was occurring in the westbound, or downhill, direction. Staff again called on
TDS to complete a more detailed study of the speeds in that direction. The speed monitoring report is attached (Attachment
2). The following generalizations can be made:
• The average and the median speeds westbound are in the 25 to 26 mile per hour range
• The 85th percentile critical speeds westbound are in the 31 to 32 mile per hour range
• Approximately 5% of vehicles are excessively speeding at over 35 miles per hour
The results of the speed study were sent to the petitioning residents. Staff then received calls and one letter requesting that
no stop signs or speed bumps be installed. This letter also requests that traffic enforcement needs to be increased to reduce
speeding. (Attachment 3).
Staff recommends against the installation of stop signs or speed bumps to slow vehicles. Both these options make a street
less safe as described below. Strict enforcement of the traffic laws is the best method to reduce speeds.
DISCUSSION:
In reviewing this matter, staff believes that the neighborhood is equally concerned about the number of cars using the street
as well as the speed issue.
PREPARED BY: Scott R. Baker
Director of Building and Engineering Services
N:\B&fi\CNCLRPr \3OHNSON.WPD
Reviewed by: ,, 'Atto
nance
Revised: 11/12/96 8:59 am
Reformatted: 10/23/95
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ACCEPT REPORT REGARDING STOP SIGNS AND SPEED BUMPS ON JOHNSON AVENUE
NOVEMBER 7, 1996
Speed Study
The speed study by TDS mentioned in the `background' section of this report collected a sample of traffic speeds. Staff
received calls from concerned residents claiming that the speed survey was improperly setup and thus invalid. Following
are answers to those concerns:
The speed study was conducted in only the downhill direction to reduce costs and because initial studies showed
that more speeding occurs in that direction. Results can be interpreted to assume that drivers in the uphill direction
speed as often, although that is unlikely.
Rubber hoses for the speed collection device did not extend fully across the street on purpose. False high speeds
can be recorded when vehicles drive over the hoses in opposite directions. It can be assumed that some vehicles
drove around the hoses. The hoses were not used to count vehicles, but to take a sampling and study the percentage
of speeders, not the number of speeders.
Stop Signs
When stop signs are used as a nuisance to slow motorists they actually make an area less safe. Stop signs that are not needed
to control traffic right-of-way at intersections may be ignored by drivers. When stop signs are ignored, the safety of others
in the intersection (who assume all will obey the stop signs) is dramatically compromised. In addition, traffic regulations
imposed as nuisances breed a contempt for the law with formerly law-abiding citizens. Studies have also shown that drivers
may speed up between stop signs to make up for lost time.
Speed Bumps/Humps
The American Public Works Association published a speed hump article in its September 1996 issue (Attachment 4). A
speed hump is a less abrupt version of the speed bump and is described in detail in the article. Some of the pros and cons
of speed humps are listed as follows:
Benefits:
D raww backs:
1.
Traffic speeds reduced at humps and between
1.
Increased exposure to damage claims and lawsuits
properly spaced humps.
2.
Some residents may think that "humps" are not
2.
Traffic diverted to other streets. However, this only
abrupt enough to dramatically slow vehicle speeds.
relocates the problem.
3.
Traffic noise, air pollution, and energy consumption
3.
Less environmental impact (noise, energy, and air
negatively impacted.
pollution) than stop signs.
4.
Neighborhood aesthetics of humps and signs
4.
Usually supported by local street residents.
5.
Street maintenance concerns, such as sweeping and
future resurfacing issues.
6.
Impacts to emergency vehicle response, including
jostling patients in ambulances.
7.
Loss of control of bicyclists and motorcyclists.
Speed humps are not recommended for streets with grades of 8 percent or more. Johnson Avenue approaches 8% between
Foster and Johnson Hollow. Multiple, properly spaced speed humps are preferred to single humps.
Engineering staff had considered preparing draft policy on the implementation of speed humps in Town. The policy would
have recommended that petition from —90% of residents within a certain distance of the proposed speed humps be required.
The Town Attorney is still very concerned that speed humps will be more of a liability to the taxpayers than speeding
motorists so the thought of a town -wide policy has been abandoned until Caltrans establishes an acceptable standard.
Loma Alta
Staff recommended against the installation of the stop signs installed on Loma Alta in August of 1991. The signs are often
run since motorists think they are there just as a nuisance. As soon as the signs were installed, staff received complaints from
neighbors about the added noise (See Attachment 5). It is now apparent that some drivers going to and from the hills above
Loma Alta take Johnson Avenue to avoid these stop signs.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ACCEPT REPORT REGARDING STOP SIGNS AND SPEED BUMPS ON JOHNSON AVENUE
NOVEMBER 7, 1996
Enforcement Personnel
Studies have shown that drivers respect a particular street's speed limit more when they can see the speed limit being
enforced. Johnson Avenue is not the only street where residents have complained about speeding drivers. Occasionally
residents of other small streets such as Loma Alta, Wimbledon, Wedgewood, Chirco, Thomas, and Alexander have called
in to request relief from speeders. The Police Department usually sets up the radar trailer to try to educate drivers to their
speed. Sometimes they are able to send out a traffic officer for short periods of enforcement. Speeding on these streets,
though, is not a constant occurrence. These streets have very low traffic volumes compared to arterial streets, so an officer
would be required to spend a large amount of time on any one street to have any effect on speeds.
Since the Police Department has just one officer dedicated to traffic enforcement, it is difficult to control speeding in this
manner. Perhaps a policy should be adopted whereby a neighborhood could cost -share the hiring of overtime police officers
to perform extra traffic enforcement over existing available levels. Neighborhoods like Johnson Avenue, however, may think
that they should not be made responsible to pay for this service when some of the traffic does not originate in their
neighborhood.
There is not a good "engineering" solution to speeding. However, we know that residents are frustrated. Telling residents
that "enforcement will reduce speeds" does not reduce that frustration when there are no officers to perform this enforcement.
Funding for extra neighborhood enforcement or re -prioritizing such enforcement would reduce the need for nuisance stop
signs and speed humps. This staff report reflects the opinions of the Building and Engineering Services Department, the vast
preponderance of traffic safety engineers and the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
CONCLUSION:
Reducing speeding on Johnson Avenue is best achieved through vigorous enforcement. Staff recommends that Council deny
request for stop signs and speed bumps on Johnson Avenue.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS:
Is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact as recommended. Should Council provide direction to staff with a fiscal impact, staff will return to Council
at a date certain with fiscal impact and pertinent details as requested.
Attachments:
1. Petition from Johnson Avenue residents
2. Speed Study
3. Letter from Mr. Thomas Robinson
4. Article regarding speed humps
5. Letter requesting removal of Stop Signs
Distribution:
Johnson Avenue Residents
August 23, 1996
Town Council of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Chris Gjerde
Traffic Engineer
101 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Subject: Traffic Control on Johnson Avenue
'TOWN MANAGER ""111
Received:
To: S
iKl Act! -
P
iw ]Infc- "tion
Cop; o:...,.w,,,,,w►
Other:
Dear Mr. Gjerde and the Members of the Town Council,
1,
j:p-4
Tr; N G)
Ol` - CF
We, the undersigned Johnson Avenue residents of Los Gatos, do hereby petition the Town of Los Gatos to take whatever
measures are necessary to relieve the traffic problems on Johnson Avenue. The majority of traffic that travels our street,
does so at excessive speeds (no matter the time or day, although the morning and evening commute times are the worst).
This past year a dog was killed on Johnson and just last week a parked car was hit (the driver responsible did not stop).
We do not want anyone to die before something is done. In our opinion there are two issues to bring to your attention and
we have two possible solutions. First, the speed at which vehicles travel the street greatly exceeds the posted speed limit.
Second, Johnson Avenue has become a thoroughfare for residents who live in the mountains, yet the street was not designed
for such a heavy volume of traffic. When you combine the speed, the amount of cars and the fact that Johnson Avenue has
residential parking on both sides of the street, we believe a dangerous situation exists.
Our first request is to place three 3-way stop signs at the intersections of Johnson Avenue with Cross, Foster and Spring.
This will not only slow down the traffic, but it will also decrease the amount of traffic that cuts over from Loma Alta to
avoid its stop signs (a street which obtained stop signs a few years ago because of a similar traffic situation). Our second
possible solution is to place Sbumps at various points on Johnson, thereby forcing traffic to slow down. We understand
that these measures will inconvenience our own vehicle movements and accept these inconveniences as necessary to achieve
a quieter, safer street.
This is an extremely important and urgent matter for us. Many of us have young children and we are concerned for their
safety. We will not allow this situation to continue. We request immediate action and we will not stop our crusade until our
street is safe.
Thank you for your time. If you have any questions regarding this petition, please contact Sharon Litvinoff at 395-6183.
We look fonvard to hearing from you as soon as possible.
t
Sincerely,
SIGNATURE
NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE #
Ala/toy)
Sharon L+v tnOff
L 12 Johnson Ave
3q5-6I83
C
k rc_ I.a.-hrrno-'-c
a La tir s,
Mon11cA T,IIJSfNL
IN JoIniSon /1re
39 S..-cii-Qb
.F DRa Ali 1/e
oZ(')F ToA k.l' oa t4 4-•
3,5q -y 737
/
U (26,1 t 5o L
2-03 -3:D1N l
3.S`14 -2-404c,
54-a0"D
3,; -,,7' 9
nIA
au4d lx4 Per Qui
* o7)3 Joni\ or.\ /4
z 6 s,-f C.•�../may
.z08' .ds.sd•- A41-
Ake {c,,<v Clark-
020a JOI14etni filtie
3qS'- 7l
0APat. 3: Ct.4it '
202 .1oNA?sa,a .4 vg
.34,s=o , -- 9
Attachment 1
Subject: Traffic Control on Johnson Avenue
2
SIGNATURE
2,t),
NAME
T otc�
scn
ADDRESS
oS 00 j..tf s .4'
e ata- <vtd 77/% ram
4,
! c /1 Sort ✓�t� e
-3444 /9/4/}- M /1-(
i2 tAsse (( Cc/
L5 Pi *J(c-cKj
kW del AN tit. pse_
4—
i? STer V F W
mp s(�v�
132- Jo
7
I Z kvv& ,,,t r4
TELEPHONE #
354.s561
35"1/`5s/
3$/1377
3'r1.-- 619(0
7A72, g0A4,5 Q n AtJ-C2 J--f7fJ/ 7
/ZZ J2naQn d' I/73
-,722/71.v.0,) ,�/I .
h N
/-13 , eaky,,e-,,//4v�
//s p/d/fx' s c",l/i
3g5-o853
31 �s�s 1� s �zQ�
/
437 ,4A/v 4- 39-r -/723
1 a_5 Tobllsok Ow?
/ 3/ Jere ✓0-t
t2/ c✓�uru� �S •�--a ,v vs .4 'L- t3sY- -Z 7
30? ,\nti&& A ve . 3s'f-9/?/
11..SpPpt ehcA �qS-Cc\hl�
CAR0L /)(/TTQ ENJ 13y JaH/vsan v . 35S -d/.33
n1S-0 -701/01S6k-sZty,
2.�
Tow, 6-.i 253 YL iv,sk , v
3541 -s3l7
3U4/ -'/S
354-e1 S`
Gt 4,& 3 .73- s i 357-1-?/?5
.il-, N L y, 7 G.--.r--- 395-- 2.
1 Li _\ Vss� V7-1Ilz.
1
�Q--- CM L At‘S 1‘ ;too s(W Q ckYE- - a
r v Oh \ S-1- vG1\i 32 4tir$cis AC K 7qaz
is c, /'1 C ?` --7 �i(x- 32 J o tNf tA.v b W
Subject: Traffic Control on Johnson Avenue
3
SIGNATURE
NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE #
4 ',i Y-�
<4,PEiy t/4nr//o/v
/H y Sf xxs 44/$,G9
Joan Lay re/69e/
/ess W LG C
3?c - �ji0
s r-- l l b,7
A c.7A r
,
t3,5"5 4/zsori,��,
Purr I
'Ailn
� AA' �t -�e
_
3 ( o �.t/ a 11 / UQ
-
-D6 -W Z - &46245
9 / .-05Sd,) 14-114
. 5z �/f2 7
f, ._
F ��' y,;_� r-
ilk/
It Y V ii<
✓ '/ ./4
3 o L } tl i'l Lt n
\
2 c
/.. .0 am`
.zc ,0t70�{/�
f79)W2
3, n
CA(vkv)00
3` '-.10 rl-SZtvl 4V e�,
m/
Lvi( ACsee-,6
Z-o5 24ss, fp9,
s 47‘1�
Aaik aot
\1K,_ mob.-
3 B O,E)
3scl -2-.,k,s, Avp-._,.�
,�
a
awl
11
a
-r. ,77-
,_FL /I f-17/6Grc
33 / ia75% -eWf}-v,E'
766 ?
/ ' .
L.tivvAl q /' �/1/
33 / -,/ d t/N 4./ /g 1,'E
.?5V--
.T 5Y 6-.‘ ?
I, � '•,
11eh L.e►nwgnC
333 ro sQn_ Ave
3Sit-58Ltlt
3 9r>�`-
%
%�7ciY�i ye/(
Jai12rr/
^"`
1.�_ G G LC C k
26 / Jo Ll Al S c.
3_ r' 2
' gYNTtilA e. g6ITANICB►v�Kf
331 JoHPJSDN A V .
3S-4- "5-3
1
�EA- - TA`tL)r---
Zo1 7D1.4 N So,� �i✓e•
39E-'_ j3i 0
Speed Monitoring Report
Generated by MSC3000 Version 2.00 Copyright 1990, 1991 Mitron Systems Corporation
Location
Location Code
County
Recorder Set
Recording Start
Recording End
Sample Time
Operator Number
Machine Number
Channel
Speed Range
Speed Increment
JOHNSON
11
LOS GATOS
09/19/96 10:48
09/19/96 11:00
09/22/96 23:00
60 Minutes
35
45
1
35
5
Thursday 09/19/96 Channel: 1
0- 9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34
12:00 0 1 1 5 7 6
13:00 0 0 1 4 10 6
14:00 0 0 1 8 7 5
15:00 0 1 2 13 12 6
16:00 0 1 4 16 14 7
17:00 0 1 0 8 12 2
18:00 0 1 1 6 15 13
19:00 0 0 2 5 14 4
20:00 0 0 2 4 11 3
21:00 0 0 0 6 4 2
22:00 0 0 1 2 2 0
23:00 0 2 1 1 0 0
00:00 0 0 0 0 0 2
Daily Totals 0 7 16 78 108 56
Percentage 0.0% 2 5% 5.7% 28.0%
35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ Totals
0 0 0 0 0 0 20
2 0 0 0 0 0 23
0 2 0 0 0 0 23
2 1 0 0 0 0 37
1 0 0 0 0 0 43
3 0 0 0 0 0 26
1 1 0 0 0 0 38
0 0 0 0 0 0 25
0 0 0 0 0 0 20
0 0 0 0 0 0 12
1 0 0 0 0 0 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 2
10 4 0 0 0 0 279
38.7% 20.1% 3.6% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Daily Control Session Summary
Average Speed of All Vehicles 26.73
Median Speed 26.78 MPH
Mode Speed 27.50
15th Percentile Speed 21.21 MPH
85th Percentile Speed 32.51 MPH
10 MPH Pace 20-30 (66.67%)
Vehicles Exceeding 55 MPH None
Vehicles Exceeding 60 MPH None
Vehicles Exceeding 65 MPH None
AM Peak Hour 11:00 to 12:00 (20 vehicles)
PM Peak Hour 15:00 to 16:00 (43 vehicles)
Attachment 2
Speed Report, 'JOHNSON' page 2
Friday 09/20/96 Channel: 1
0- 9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ Totals
01:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
05:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
06:00 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
07:00 0 0 0 3 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
08:00 0 1 2 9 19 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 39
09:00 0 0 3 16 16 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 44
10:00 0 0 4 13 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 27
11:00 0 1 2 4 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
12:00 0 0 2 2 6 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 21
13:00 0 2 4 6 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
14:00 0 0 3 11 5 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 26
15:00 0 1 3 11 17 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 39
16:00 0 0 3 8 16 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 36
17:00 0 1 2 11 15 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 37
18:00 0 1 0 4 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
19:00 0 0 3 6 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
20:00 0 1 2 7 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 22
21:00 0 0 3 2 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 15
22:00 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
23:00 0 0 0 4 9 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
00:00 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 6
Daily Totals 0 8 36 123 183 75 20 3 0 1 0 0 449
Percentage 0.0% 1.8% 8.0% 27.4% 40.8% 16.7% 4.5% 0.7% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Daily Control Session Summary
Average Speed of All Vehicles 26.50
Median Speed 26.57 MPH
Mode Speed 27.50
15th Percentile Speed 20.95 MPH
85th Percentile Speed 32.11 MPH
10 MPH Pace 20-30 (68.15%)
Vehicles Exceeding 55 MPH None
Vehicles Exceeding 60 MPH None
Vehicles Exceeding 65 MPH None
AM Peak Hour 08:00 to 09:00 (44 vehicles)
PM Peak Hour 14:00 to 15:00 (39 vehicles)
24-Hour Moving Total
01:00- N/A 02:00- N/A 03:00- N/A 04:00- N/A 05:00- N/A 06:00- N/A 07:00- N/A 08:00- N/A
09:00- N/A 10:00- N/A 11:00- 430 12:00- 431 13:00- 432 14:00- 435 15:00- 437 16:00- 430
17:00- 441 18:00- 429 19:00- 426 20:00- 428 21:00- 431 22:00- 431 23:00- 445 24:00- 449
Speed Report, 'JOHNSON' oaae 3
Saturday 09/21/96 Channel: 1
0- 9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ Totals
01:00 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
02:00 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
03:00 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
04:00 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3
05:00 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
06:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
07:00 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
08:00 0 0 1 2 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
09:00 0 0 2 7 13 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 32
10:00 0 3 2 18 16 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 44
11:00 0 1 2 16 13 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 41
12:00 0 2 1 18 25 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 56
13:00 0 1 7 14 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 43
14:00 0 0 2 10 17 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
15:00 0 0 1 14 15 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 37
16:00 0 1 1 9 12 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 29
17:00 0 1 3 6 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
18:00 0 0 4 6 11 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 30
19:00 0 0 6 6 8 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 24
20:00 0 2 2 10 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 26
21:00 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 8
22:00 0 0 1 1 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 9
23:00 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
00:00 0 0 1 3 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 10
Daily Totals 0 11 39 153 189 78 15 6 1 0 0 0 492
Percentage 0.0% 2.2% 7.9% 31.1% 38.4% 15.9% 3.0% 1.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Daily Control Session Summary
Average Speed of All Vehicles 26.14
Median Speed 26.14 MPH
Mode Speed 27.50
15th Percentile Speed 20.78 MPH
85th Percentile Speed 31.68 MPH
10 MPH Pace 20-30 (69.51%)
Vehicles Exceeding 55 MPH None
Vehicles Exceeding 60 MPH None
Vehicles Exceeding 65 MPH None
AM Peak Hour 11:00 to 12:00 (56 vehicles)
PM Peak Hour 12:00 to 13:00 (43 vehicles)
24-Hour Moving Total
01:00- 454 02:00- 457 03:00- 461 04:00- 463 05:00- 464 06:00- 461 07:00- 452 08:00- 427
09:00- 415 10:00- 432 11:00- 454 12:00- 489 13:00- 508 14:00- 515 15:00- 513 16:00- 506
17:00- 494 18:00- 498 19:00- 500 20:00- 504 21:00- 497 22:00- 500 23:00- 488 24:00- 492
Speed Report, 'JOHNSON' page 4
Sunday 09/22/96 Channel: 1
0- 9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60+ Totals
01:00 0 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
02:00 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
03:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
04:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
06:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
07:00 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
08:00 0 0 0 3 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
09:00 0 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
10:00 0 0 3 9 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
11:00 0 1 1 11 13 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 29
12:00 0 2 4 9 10 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 31
13:00 0 6 2 7 19 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 40
14:00 0 1 5 11 23 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 46
15:00 0 4 4 10 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
16:00 0 1 1 5 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
17:00 0 1 2 8 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
18:00 0 3 5 19 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 38
19:00 0 0 1 12 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 23
20:00 0 0 1 6 8 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 20
21:00 0 0 0 5 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 14
22:00 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
23:00 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Daily Totals 0 19 32 120 155 61 7 0 0 0 0 0 394
Percentage 0.0% 4.8% 8.1% 30.5% 39.3% 15.5% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Daily Control Session Summary
Average Speed of All Vehicles . 25.39
Median Speed 25.84 MPH
Mode Speed 27.50
15th Percentile Speed 20.34 MPH
85th Percentile Speed 30.73 MPH
10 MPH Pace 20-30 (69.80%)
Vehicles Exceeding 55 MPH None
Vehicles Exceeding 60 MPH None
Vehicles Exceeding 65 MPH None
AM Peak Hour 09:00 to 10:00 (31 vehicles)
PM Peak Hour 13:00 to 14:00 (46 vehicles)
24-Hour Moving Total
01:00- 494 02:00- 493 03:00- 490 04:00- 488 05:00- 487 06:00- 487 07:00- 484 08:00- 481
09:00- 457 10:00- 444 11:00- 432 12:00- 407 13:00- 404 14:00- 417 15:00- 411 16:00- 401
17:00- 405 18:00- 413 19:00- 412 20:00- 406 21:00- 412 22:00- 408 23:00- 404 24:00- N/A
76mezz Rad6wo4
365 fJoloseoa rilvewee
L'aa 95032
October 24, 1996
Mr. Scott R. Baker
Director of Building and Engineering Services
Town of Los Gatos
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: Johnson Avenue Traffic Safety
Dear Mr. Baker:
I agree with your assessment of the proper response to improve safety
on Johnson Avenue. I understand the safety concerns of some of my
neighbors, some drivers do drive too fast on Johnson (although based
on my observation and your survey, the vast majority drive at a safe
speed). i understand their concerns about too much traffic and a wish
to "encourage" drivers to use Lorna Alta or some other street.
understand people wanting to do "something", but installing traffic
nuisances like speed bumps and/or stop signs to slow traffic and/or to
try to convince drivers to take another street are not good solutions.
During the few years I have lived on Johnson, I do not ever remember
seeing police enforcement on the street. I believe extra police
enforcement is very effective. I certainly know I am more aware and
more conscious of driving slower on a street where I have seen police
with radar. I hope we get increased police enforcement. I truly think it
will be successful. I believe it is the most successful approach plus it
Attachment 3
will only punish the unsafe speeder, whereas bumps and stop signs
punish all drivers and can be a hazard themselves.
I support your recommendation.
Sincerely,
Tom Robinson
cc: Town Council
David W. Knapp, Town Manager
Larry Todd, Chief of Police
Mike York. Police Traffic Sergeant
Copied from the APWA Reporter
Official Magazine of the American Public Works Association - September 1996
Seed hums;
Speed humps are effective strategy when addressing residential safety and quality of life issues
EDITOR's NOTE: One of the most requested articles on
the APWA BBS is the one about speed humps written by
Marshall Elizer, Jr., P.E. several years ago. The following
are updated excerpts from that article.
Until the 1970s, the impact of motor vehicle traffic on
the quality of urban residential environments was
largely neglected as a serious transportation problem.
Since then, however, a number of converging forces have in-
creasingly brought these effects to the attention of both citizens
and local trans-
portation offi-
cials.
While proper
subdivision plan-
ning and residen-
tial street design
are the most ef-
fective methods
of avoiding resi-
dential traffic
problems. these
goals are not always achievable. Where problems exist, traffic
management techniques have been successfully employed as
effective strategies for addressing residential safety and quality
of life issues.
Traffic management strategies employed to address residen-
tial traffic concerns can generally be assigned to four basic cat-
egories:
(1) establishing and enforcing general laws and ordinances:
(2) installing traffic control devices;
(3) installing roadway geometric design features; and
(4) educating residents and motorists.
This article focuses on one particular type of geometric de-
sign feature— speed humps —that is receiving increasing atten-
tion and use, both in North America and abroad. It is based on
Guidelines for the Design Application of Speed Humps, a pro-
posed recommended practice of the International Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) which defines speed humps as
a roadway geometric design feature consisting of raised pave-
ment constructed or placed in, on and across or partly across a
roadway intended to physically reduce vehicle speeds.
Other types of geometric design features that are not ad-
dressed in this document, but which could also be considered in
a residential traffic management program, are raised intersec-
tions, rumble strips, chokers, traffic circles, median barriers,
diverters, left -turn channelization, and street closures.
Speed humps vs. speed bumps
A speed hump is different from a speed bump. Speed humps
normally have a maximum height of three to four inches with a
travel length of approximately 12 feet. Speed bumps, commonly
used in parking
lots and on
some private
roadways, are
generally from
three to six
inches high
with a length of
one to three
feet.
From an op-
erational stand-
point, humps and bumps have critically different impacts on
vehicles. Within typical residential speed ranges, humps create
a gentle vehicle rocking motion that causes some driver dis-
comfort and results in most vehicles slowing to near 15 mph at
the hump and 20-25 mph between properly spaced humps in a
system. At high speeds, a hump acts as a bump and jolts the
vehicle suspension and its occupants or cargo.
A bump, on the other hand, causes significant driver dis-
comfort at typical residential speeds, and generally results in
vehicles slowing to 5 mph or less at the bump. At high speeds,
bumps tend to have less overall vehicle impact because non-
rigid suspensions will quickly absorb the impact before the ve-
hicle body can react.
Speed humps generally represent a lesser risk to those ve-
hicles than do speed bumps. And, where designed and installed
with proper planning and engineering review, speed humps have
been found to be effective at controlling vehicle speeds without
creating accidents or increasing accident rates.
Within the United States, speed bumps of varying design
have been routinely installed in private roadways and parking
10
APWA Reporter SEPTEMBER 1996
Attachment 4
(Th
lots without the benefit of proper engineering studies regarding
their design, placement, and impact.
Speed humps, on the other hand, have evolved from exten-
sive research and testing and have been designed to achieve a
specific result on vehicle operations without imposing an un-
reasonable or unacceptable safety risk.
The U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has per-
formed "off road" testing of speed humps and deemed them
safe to proceed with public street tests. An emerging number of
cities in the United States and Canada have begun to use speed
humps based on this research and experience.
Research shows benefits of speed humps
The results of speed hump research and testing can generally be
summarized as follows:
• Traffic speeds are decreased at the humps and at locations
between properly spaced successive humps.
• A single hump will only act as a point speed control. To
reduce speeds along an extended section of street, a series of
humps is usually needed.
• Speed humps will often divert traffic to other streets, espe-
cially in those situations where a significant amount of traffic is
using the street as a shortcut, detour, or overflows from a con-
gested collector arterial roadway.
• Traffic noise will generally decrease with fewer vehicles
and lower speeds, but noise may increase at the hump, particu-
larly if a significant numbers of trucks use the street.
• Adequate signing and marking of each speed hump is es-
sential to warn users of the speed hump's presence and guide
their subsequent actions.
• A need to slow for speed humps tends to have a negative
impact on air quality and energy consumption assuming traffic
volumes remain constant. But this impact is typically less than
the effects of a stop sign installation.
• Large trucks, buses, and emergency vehicles must pass
over humps at relatively low speeds or significant jolts to the
vehicle, discomfort or injury to occupants, and jostling of cargo
may be experienced. Thus, speed humps may be used to deter
trucks and larger vehicles from using particular streets.
• The majority of local street residents will normally sup-
port speed hump installations and endorse their continued use.
Some drawbacks were observed...
Some speed hump installations in the United States and other
countries have proved unsuccessful and ultimately been modi-
fied or removed. Factors resulting in their removal have included
the following:
• Residents' dissatisfaction over the gentle hump design and
its perceived inability to dramatically slow vehicles or reduce
traffic volume to a desired level.
• Local policy decision to favor traffic circulation needs over
residents' quality -of -life concerns.
• Undesired traffic diversion to other residential streets.
• Aesthetics of the humps and associated signs and mark-
ings.
• Increased noise level at the hump caused by vehicle rock-
ing and acceleration/deceleration.
• Concerns with street maintenance functions such as
(Th
sweeping and snow plu .. ing.
• Concerns with impacts to emergency vehicle response.
• Concerns over increased exposure to damage claims and
lawsuits.
• Limited funding for the initial installation and continued
maintenance cost of the hump and its traffic control devices.
Taking the pros and cons into account. a traffic engineering
study, including consideration of alternative traffic control mea-
sures, should precede any installation.
Once the decision is made, the following recommendations
apply:
• Speed humps should only be installed on local two-lane
residential streets with a posted or prima facie speed of 30 mph
or less.
• Hump locations should be closely coordinated with street
geometry and grades, and on streets with grades of 8 percent or
less.
• Speed humps should not be installed on streets with sig-
nificant amounts of emergency vehicles, transit or long wheel-
base vehicles.
• Support from a documented majority of affected residents
should be obtained before any installation.
In the interest of maintaining ongoing good community re-
lations regarding speed humps, the following steps are recom-
mended:
• Establishment of speed hump request and evaluation pro-
cedures.
• Coordination with emergency service priorities, utilities
Continued on page 15.
Congratulations
to Win Westfaff
in his new role
as President of
CRSS Constructors, Inc.
proudly congratulates its
own Director of Public
Works Programs,
Win Westfall, as he
assumes the office of
President of the
American Public Works
Association.
CRSS Constructors, Inc. is a
member of the Jacobs
Engineering Group Inc.
providing single -source
consulting, engineering,
design, architectural,
environmental & hazardous
waste management,
procurement, construction,
construction management,
contract maintenance &
operations services to
government & industry
worldwide.
1
SEPTEMBER 1996 APWA Reporter
11
Humps need to be evaluated once in place
Continued from page 10.
and other key agencies.
• Adoption of procedures for follow-up evaluations and re-
moval, if necessary.
• The addressing of funding responsibilities (government,
residents, or shared) for installation, maintenance and removal,
if necessary.
The guidelines also include a number of recommendations
regarding the actual installation of the humps as well as the evalu-
ation once they are in place. Follow-up studies are recommended
to include such items as the possible negative impact of noise
levels, air quality, and social activities such as bicycling.
Finally, other considerations include:
• Liability for tort and vehicle damage claims, including re-
lationship to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
• Coordinating humps with pedestrian crossings.
• Incorporating humps in new street design and construc-
tion.
• Ability to meet enforcement and maintenance needs.
Humps reduce speed, traffic volume and accidents
In general, speed humps have been found to reduce traffic speed,
volumes, and accidents depending upon the site -specific circum-
stances of the installation. In addition, they discourage through
traffic from using a local street as an alternative route to incon-
venient or congested a. . ial and collector systems. Despite con-
cerns over liability, vehicle damage, and emergency vehicle
impacts, these problems have not occurred or have been found
to be insignificant considering the positive aspects of humps.
The lack of uniform guidance and heavy reliance on indi-
vidual judgment, however, has led to hump -type installations
that incorporated poor design, improper roadway geometric co-
ordination, poor choice of construction materials and methods,
and absence of needed signs and markings. The safety of speed
humps and their ability to perform their intended use is directly
contingent upon their proper design and application. When it is
determined that a residential traffic management problem ex-
ists and that speed humps are the appropriate traffic manage-
ment technique, the ITE proposed recommended practice will
assist in the design, application, and evaluation of those geo-
metric design features.
The proposed recommended practice may be obtained from
the Institute of Transportation Engineers at (202)554-8050.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: R. Marshall Elizer Jr., P.E.,
director of public works and transportation for the City
of Modesto, California, is chair of APWA's newly -
formed Transportation Committee and past president
of the Institute of Transportation Engineers where he
is now a member of ITE's special task force on speed
humps. For questions, he may be reached at (209)577-
5213.
The SNOWFIGHTERS
Training Video
Maintenance
Calibration
Pre -winter training
Check us out at: http://www.saitinstitute.org
Spreading Techniques
For more information, circle #241 on reader service card.
APWA Reporter
From the
Salt Institute
TM
Get ready for WINTER. This new
21-minute training video contains
updated information on cost vs.
benefits of salt as a highway
deicer, maintenance and winter
preparations, spreader
calibration, snowfighting
techniques and much,
much more.
ORDER TODAY!
Order by: FAX: 703-548-2194
Tel: 703-549-4648
Or by mail for $20.00 each.
SALT INSTITUTE
700 North Fairfax Street, Ste. 600
Alexandria, VA 22314-2040
15
October 23, 1991
Dear Sir:
The installation of stop signs at Loma Alta Avenue and Alta Heig__ts
Court in September has greatly increased the noise factor. There
is a constant screeching of brakes, blaring of horns, and accelera-
tion and deceleration of engines --motorcycles being the noisiest
of all: These raucous sounds can be tolerated during the day,
but to have them continue at' night even Past midnight is intolerable..
I am writing this letter on behalf of Mrs, Alberta Creech, a lon_g-
time friend,, residing at 161 Lorna Alta Avenue. She is now up in
years and suffers from ill health°
r don't see the reason for stop signs at this minor intersection_
when there are additional stop signs at the intersection of Loma
Alta and Cross Way, about 425 feet to the north,
On August 1L, 1991, the San Jose flercury i e;rs Published an anti cie
stating that the town engineer favored t_zc use of caution signs
and the painting of crosswalks on Loma Alta Avenue,
This is another example of public el -lotion overriding ding professional
-u
jud :lent with disastrous and disturbing results:
Yours very truly,
/. 14'• .{.' 4r
Andrew Grier'
Attachment 5
November 18, 1996
Los Gatos, California
HEARING
AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE STATIONS/CONVENIENCE STORE EXPANSION/HEARING (18.46)
SALE OF BEER AND WINE/ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 2023
Mayor Benjamin stated that this was the time and place duly noted for public hearing to consider
amending Chapter 29 of the Town Code to: 1) allow interior floor space at a service station to
be used for the sale of non -automotive items, such as groceries and other convenience items.
The allowed floor space would be designated in a conditional use permit or architecture and
site approval. 2) allow the sale of beer and wine at a service station as a separate conditional
use permit if detailed findings regarding the public convenience and welfare could be made for
the specific site under consideration and would require a specific set of conditions if such an
approval were to be made. It has been determined that this Town Code Amendment will not
have a significant impact on the environment, and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act. Zoning Ordinance Amendment A-96-4. Applicant:
Town of Los Gatos.
No one from the audience addressed this issue.
Motion by Mr. Blanton, seconded by Mrs. Lubeck, to close the public hearing. Carried
unanimously.
Motion by Mrs. Lubeck, seconded by Mr. O'Laughlin, that Council adopt Ordinance 2023
entitled, ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING THE ZONING CODE
REGARDING MARKET USE AND BEER AND WINE SALES IN CONJUNCTION WITH
SERVICE STATIONS, including the revisions made by Council on November 4, 1996 when the
Ordinance was introduced. Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mr. Attaway voted no for reasons noted
in previous record.
JOHNSON AVENUE/STOP SIGNS/SPEED BUMPS/TRAFFIC SAFETY ISSUES (10.39)
Mayor Benjamin noted that residents of Johnson Avenue had submitted a petition requesting
speed bumps and stop signs on Johnson to control the speeding problem.
The following people from the audience spoke to this issue:
Sharon Litvinoff, 212 Johnson Ave., spoke of the neighborhood concern about the speeding and
traffic on Johnson. She submitted a letter for the record, and called for a permanent solution
to the safety issues concerning traffic on her street.
Catherine Petrek, 325 Johnson Ave., would like to see a solution but does not think that the stop
signs will make the problem safer, in fact they may increase the liability by offering a false
sense of security.
Joanna Snyder, 353 Johnson Ave., spoke of speed and the lack of observance of the stop signs.
Carol Mittlesteadt, 234 Johnson Ave., spoke of safety for children and pets on the street.
Pilar Bernal, 315 Johnson Ave., asked Council to make a decision on some form of traffic
mitigation and safety methods for the neighborhood.
Mike Nunan, 355 Johnson Ave., does not want stop signs or speed bumps. He prefers to see
a proper traffic study implemented. He asked for the radar unit to be placed on the street more
often, and inferred that it could be placed immediately.
TC: 08: MM 111896
4