transportation study · 13/9/2017 · the transportation study takes a comprehensive approach to...
TRANSCRIPT
UNIVERSITY HILLS
TRANSPORTATION STUDY Final September 13, 2017
PREPARED BY SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP
PIRZADEH & ASSOCIATES, INC.
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................3
A. Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 4
B. A Comprehensive Approach – 4 E’s................................................................................................. 4
C. Plan Contents .................................................................................................................................. 6
II. Background .................................................................................................................................6
A. Control and Operations of Public Rights of Way and Common Areas ............................................. 6
B. Planning and Policy Background: Related Plans and Efforts ........................................................... 8
III. Planning Process and Methodology .............................................................................................9
A. University Hills Transportation Task Force ...................................................................................... 9
B. Community Engagement ................................................................................................................. 9
C. Technical Studies........................................................................................................................... 10
IV. Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 10
A. Circulation Network ...................................................................................................................... 10
B. Speed Surveys ............................................................................................................................... 15
C. Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................................. 18
D. Collision Data ................................................................................................................................ 24
E. School Busing ................................................................................................................................ 24
F. Education and Enforcement Programs ......................................................................................... 26
V. Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 26
A. Engineering ................................................................................................................................... 26
Striping Review .................................................................................................................................. 26
Signage Review .................................................................................................................................. 30
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 2
Sight Distance Review ........................................................................................................................ 39
Traffic Control Review ....................................................................................................................... 43
Parking Review .................................................................................................................................. 45
Traffic Calming ................................................................................................................................... 53
Pedestrian Circulation ....................................................................................................................... 54
B. Education ...................................................................................................................................... 57
C. Enforcement ................................................................................................................................. 62
D. Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................... 64
VI. Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 64
A. Prioritization, Phasing and Timeline .............................................................................................. 64
B. Cost Estimates ............................................................................................................................... 64
Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary
Appendix B: Speed Survey Charts
Appendix C: Turning Movement Counts
Appendix D: Existing Counts from University Hills Area 11 Traffic Study
Appendix E: Non-Compliant Signs for Near Term Replacement
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 3
I. INTRODUCTION
Since the initial groundbreaking in 1984, University Hills has blossomed into a community home to approximately 4,000 residents. Because of the unique setting of University Hills as an academic community in residence located within suburban Orange County, residents depend on multiple modes of transportation. With its close proximity to campus, many of the residents employed by the University walk or bicycle to work. Spouses and family members who do not work on campus often drive to their jobs. School age children walk, bike, take the school bus, or are driven to schools located outside of University Hills. Some shopping and services are located within walking or bicycling distance, but many residents drive to run errands or reach entertainment destinations. While University Hills, like much of Orange County and Southern California, was developed with the car in mind, the community designers recognized the many benefits of supporting multiple modes of transportation and provided places for residents to walk and bicycle within and to locations just outside of the neighborhood. Over the 30 plus years since the first roads in University Hills were built, the network of streets, sidewalks, and pathways has grown with each new phase of residential development. Changes to the existing streets and paths have included new stop signs and lighting and widening pathways. University Hills is nearing buildout with the final phase under construction and anticipated to be completed in 2020. The Irvine Campus Housing Authority (ICHA), the nonprofit public benefit corporation that develops and operates the streets, sidewalks, walkways, and other common areas within University Hills, and the Homeowner Representative Board (HRB), the resident advisory board to ICHA, commissioned the University Hills Transportation Study to respond to resident concerns related to transportation as well as to identify ways to improve and maintain safety and comfort for people walking, bicycling, and driving. The study is the first comprehensive assessment of transportation-related issues in University Hills resulting in prioritized recommendations for improving all modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling and driving. ICHA contracted with Pirzadeh & and Associates, Inc. and the Safe Routes to School National Partnership to conduct the study and provide recommendations. This report summarizes the various components of the study process including documenting existing conditions, engaging community members, and completing technical assessments of roadway operations. Recommendations within Section V.A. Engineering are provided by Pirzadeh & Associates, Inc. Recommendations within Sections V.B. Education, V.C. Enforcement, and V.D. Evaluation are provided by the
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 4
Safe Routes to School National Partnership. The recommendations within the report are provided to ICHA to consider and implement within the community.
A. STUDY AREA
The study area (show in Figure 1) includes the University Hills community, bounded generally by the UC Irvine Ecological Preserve, East Peltason Drive, Anteater Drive, and Bonita Canyon Drive. On East Peltason Drive, there is one all-way stop-sign controlled full access at Los Trancos Drive and one right-turn in/out restricted access that is stop sign controlled at Gabrielino Drive. On Anteater Drive, there is one signalized full access at Russell Place and one all-way stop sign controlled full access at California Avenue. The study also considers the interface between University Hills and the University of California, Irvine campus to the west, north, and east, and the City of Irvine to the south.
B. A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH – 4 E’S
When transportation planners and engineers began deliberate efforts to balance bicycle and pedestrian needs with those of vehicle drivers in the 1960’s, the emphasis was on providing facilities – bike lanes, sidewalks, and the like. Since then it has become clear that providing places for people to walk and bike, as important as they are, cannot solve all problems or create an environment that supports all modes of travel. Some safety problems caused by behaviors, for example, may be more easily solved through education and enforcement programs than through changes to the physical environment.
The transportation study takes a comprehensive approach to improving University Hills for all modes of transportation through recommendations in four categories:
• Engineering – Changes to infrastructure to improve safety by reducing potential conflicts between all modes, including signage, visibility, striping, and hardscape. This also includes roadway operations and parking.
• Education – Teaching community members about the broad range of transportation choices and educating them about how to be safe while using different methods of transportation.
• Enforcement – Activities that help to deter unsafe behaviors of drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians.
• Evaluation – Monitoring and documenting outcomes and trends through data collection over time, including before and after program implementation.
9/12/2017 Background source: Irvine Campus Housing Authority
Site Map
Figure 1
University Hills Transportation Study
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 6
C. PLAN CONTENTS
Following this introduction, the report begins with Section II. Background, which describes the current control and operations of the public rights of way and related transportation and land use plans that provide guidance for the development and operations of streets and paths within University Hills. Section III. Planning Process and Methodology describes the overall study process and timeline. Section IV. Existing Conditions describes the current infrastructure conditions and programs related to transportation within University Hills. Section V. Findings and Recommendations is the bulk of the document and includes findings and recommendations in the categories of Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Evaluation. Section VI. Implementation describes phasing and timing of when implementation will occur. In addition to the main document, the following are provided in appendices: • Appendix A: Community Engagement Summary • Appendix B: Speed Survey Charts • Appendix C: Turning Movement Counts • Appendix D: Existing Counts from University Hills Area 11 Traffic Study • Appendix E: Non-Compliant Signs for Near Term Replacement
II. BACKGROUND
A. CONTROL AND OPERATIONS OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY AND COMMON AREAS
University Hills is a faculty and staff housing community established under a ground lease from The Regents of the University of California. ICHA develops and operates the streets, sidewalks, walkways, and other common areas within University Hills. The site includes approximately 328 acres and is situated at the southern portion of the campus, known as the South Campus. The development consists of 1,066 for-sale homes and 360 apartment units, a Montessori pre-school, a community center, and various parks/amenity spaces (see Figure 1). Current development in Area 11 will add approximately 160 homes and 140 apartment units to the southeasterly vacant portion of the community, including one full access on Anteater Drive (see Figure 2). Improvements within University Hills are reviewed and approved by the University of California at Irvine.
H
C
WA
TE
R L
IN
E
312/FT
3 12/ FT
312/ FT
312/FT
612/ FT
612/FT
4FT
4FT
4FT
4FT
4FT
4 FT
31 2/FT
3 12/ FT
31 2/FT
312/ FT
312/ FT
312/FT
61 2/FT
612/ FT
4FT
4FT
4FT
4 FT
612/ FT
612/FT
612 / FT
61 2/FT
51 2/FT
512/ FT
512 /FT
51 2/FT
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
W
O
R
K
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
W
O
R
K
LIMIT OF WORK
LIMIT OF WORK
LIMIT OF WORK
LIMIT OF WORK
LIM
IT
O
F W
OR
K
LIM
IT
O
F W
OR
K
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
W
O
R
K
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
W
O
R
K
LIM
IT
O
F W
O
RK
LIM
IT
O
F W
O
RK
L
IM
IT
O
F
W
O
R
K
LIM
IT
O
F W
O
R
K
L
IM
IT
O
F
W
O
R
K
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
W
O
R
K
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
W
O
R
K
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
W
O
R
K
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
W
O
R
K
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
W
O
R
K
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
W
O
R
K
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
W
O
R
K
Figure 2
Area 11
University Hills Transportation Study
9/12/2017
Bonita Canyon Drive
Anteater Drive
California Avenue
Coltrane Ct
Turing St
Graham St
Ride StTruth St Angelou St
How
ser St
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 8
B. PLANNING AND POLICY BACKGROUND: RELATED PLANS AND EFFORTS
A number of campus planning documents that provide general, but limited, direction on transportation-related infrastructure and programs within University Hills. These planning documents include:
• The 2007 Long Range Development Plan: The 2007 LRDP is a comprehensive policy and land use plan that guides the physical development of the campus through 2025-26. The LDRP designates the University Hills area for faculty and staff housing and describes existing and proposed vehicular circulation for the area.
• The Physical Design Framework: Adopted in January 2010, the Physical Design Framework describes the planning principles and physical design standards that are applied to new campus development, facility renovation, and ongoing management and operation of campus facilities and grounds to ensure consistency with UCI’s established form and image. The Physical Design Framework includes guidelines for pedestrian, vehicular and bicycle circulation. The Physical Design Framework also identifies key planning objectives for the South Campus (inclusive of University Hills) that include these related to the study:
1. Develop an outstanding academic community-in residence on the campus to support the recruitment and retention of faculty and staff.
3. Retain the quality and character of the existing University Hills community.
5. Create community facilities to encourage neighborhood interaction.
6. Provide paseos, trails, parkways, and other elements to maintain a pedestrian-oriented community.
7. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle circulation and open space linkages to promote non-vehicular travel to the Academic Core, other campus sectors, and key off campus locations.
• Draft Tiered Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration for the University Hills Area 11 Faculty and Staff Housing: Prepared in March 2016, this draft report is an environmental document associated with the Area 11 project. A traffic study for the project area, prepared by Stantec Consulting Inc., is included and it is determined that no mitigation measures are required with this development.
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 9
III. PLANNING PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
The Transportation Study began in August 2016. In late 2016 and early 2017, community members provided input on transportation-related barriers and opportunities. At the same time, the consultant team conducted fieldwork and studies to document existing conditions. The report was prepared in spring 2017 and was finalized in September 2017. The study process included engaging the University Hills Transportation Task Force, receiving input from the community, and conducting technical studies described below.
A. UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE
The University Hills Transportation Task Force (UHTTF), a group of resident volunteers, was assembled to coordinate resident input and guide the overall effort. The UHTTF provided initial input on transportation barriers and concerns to the consultant team. The UHTTF also assisted with outreaching to residents to participate in surveys and walk audits and gathering resident input at the Fall Fiesta (see below). The UHTTF was responsible for reviewing the draft report and assisting with prioritizing recommendations based on community input.
B. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The consultant team, the UHTTF, and ICHA engaged University Hills residents throughout the study to receive input on existing transportation barriers and concerns, feedback on recommended changes, and guidance on prioritizing implementation of the recommendations. Specific community engagement activities included:
• Mapping at the Fall Fiesta. At the Fall Fiesta in October 2016, residents identified transportation related issues on a large map of the community. Residents could also provide more detailed input on comment cards.
• Online Wikimapping. From November 2016 to January 2017, residents could pinpoint issues on an interactive online mapping site.
University Hills Transportation Task Force Mission Statement
The goal of the University Hills Transportation Task Force is to make University Hills more functional and safe to all traffic, including pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers.
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 10
• Community Walk Audits. In January 2017, residents participated in six community walk audits. These walk audits were conducted in different parts of the community and gave residents the opportunity to experience the community on foot, document concerns, and talk with the consultant team about ideas for improvements.
Summaries of the community engagement activities are provided in Appendix A of this report.
C. TECHNICAL STUDIES
In early 2017, the consultant team conducted site visits to collect additional data and conducted technical studies to document existing conditions. These studies included:
• Traffic counts (vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists) at 7 locations • Speed surveys at 12 locations • Discussions with UCI Police Department • Discussions with Irvine Unified School District • Field observations of circulation and interactions between roadway users • Field measurements Results of these studies are provided in Section IV. Existing Conditions.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. CIRCULATION NETWORK
This residential development is located on a hill that rises from north to south with the westerly portion higher than the easterly portion. This results in the interior roadway network having a significant vertical curvature in the north-south direction and a minor vertical curvature in the east-west direction. Additionally, the roadway network is composed mostly of curvilinear streets.
Access within University Hills is served by a network of four local collectors (see Figure 3). California Avenue is a looped roadway that connects to Anteater Drive in the east then becomes Los Trancos Drive and connects to East Peltason Drive in the north. Gabrielino
9/12/2017
Local Collectors
Figure 3
University Hills Transportation Study
Local Collector
Legend
Vista Bonita Dr
Gabrielino D
r
Russell Pl
Anteater Drive
Ow
en Dr
E Peltason Drive
Mayer Ct
Pauling Ct
California Ave
Los Trancos Dr
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 12
Drive connects to East Peltason Drive in the north and Mayer Court in the south. Vista Bonita Drive connects to Gabrielino Drive in the east and Los Trancos Drive in the west. Owen Drive is a local residential street north of Vista Bonita Drive and connects to California Avenue in the south.
The four local collectors are 2-lane divided (painted centerline) roadways with bike lanes except for Gabrielino Drive between California Avenue and Mayer Court. This segment is an undivided roadway with no bike lane. Also, the local collectors are signed for no parking except on Gabrielino Drive south of Vista Bonita Drive and on Owen Drive between Vista Bonita Drive and Whitman Court. The intersections of these four local collectors are stop- sign controlled on all approaches except at Owen Drive and California Avenue. At this intersection, only Owen Drive is stop sign controlled. Figure 4 shows the existing traffic control measures on the local collectors. The 1,066 for-sale homes and 360 apartment units are grouped into a total of 35 enclaves off of the local collectors. These residential enclaves are served by their own network of local streets. There are 20 enclaves off of California Avenue/Los Trancos Drive, seven enclaves off of Gabrielino Drive, one enclave off of Vista Bonita Drive, six enclaves off of Owen Drive, and one enclave off of both California Avenue and Gabrielino Drive.
East Peltason Drive, Anteater Drive, and the continuation of California Avenue provide access to the adjacent arterial highways and roadway network for the rest of UCI campus and City of Irvine.
The pedestrian circulation path along the roadway network within University Hills is accommodated by a combination of curb adjacent sidewalk and sidewalk separated by landscaping. These facilities range from a width of 4 feet to a width of 12 feet. Access is provided on both sides of the street for the majority of the roadways, except for a number of segments. Figure 5 shows the locations as well as the side of the street where sidewalk facilities are not provided. As shown, there are two segments along the local collectors that only have sidewalk on one side: on California Avenue/Los Trancos Drive between Wharton Court and Blake Court, and the southerly side of Vista Bonita Drive. There are also a number of segments along the local streets with sidewalk on one side only. Based on field observations, most of these missing segments have a significant slope condition behind the curb that will require re-grading and retaining walls. Therefore, it is not recommended to add sidewalk to these areas. Other areas include right-of-way or utility concerns. There are also a number of off-street pedestrian trails, mostly on the westerly half of the community, that connect various local streets to the local collectors or community facilities/open space. These are meandering trails with a mix of bollard lights and overhead lights.
9/12/2017
Existing Traffic Control on Local Collectors
Figure 4
University Hills Transportation Study
Signalized Intersection
Legend
All-Way Stop-Sign Control
Vista Bonita Dr
Gabrielino D
r
Russell Pl
Anteater Drive
Ow
en Dr
E Peltason Drive
Mayer Ct
Mistral Ln
Whistler Ct
Harvey Ct
Pauling Ct
Eliot Ct
California Ave
Los Trancos Dr
Twain St
One-Way Stop-Sign Control
9/12/2017
Existing Sidewalk Inventory
Figure 5
University Hills Transportation Study
California Ave
Los Trancos Dr
Vista Bonita Dr
Gabrielino D
r
Russell Pl
Anteater Drive
Ow
en Dr
E Peltason Drive
Sidewalk Not Provided
Legend
Mayer Ct
Twain St
Mistral Ln
Whistler CtEliot Ct
Harvey Ct
Pauling Ct
Bront
e St
Thompson Ct
Urey Ct
Young Ct
McClintock CtHandel Ct
Wharton Ct
Bart
ok C
t
Locke Ct
Gibbs Ct
Curie Ct
Blake Ct
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 15
Bicycle circulation within University Hills is provided by 6-foot wide Class II (on-street) bike lanes on both sides of the street. They are provided along the local collectors, except for Gabrielino Drive south of California Avenue. Bicycle traffic on this segment and on the local streets share the roadway with vehicular traffic. This is mostly consistent with the 2007 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) prepared by UCI, which shows bike lanes along the local collectors except for Owen Drive. The 2007 LRDP also shows bike lanes on Russell Place between Gabrielino Drive and Anteater Drive as well as a future off-street bike trail on the southerly side of East Peltason Drive between Gabrielino Drive and a future elevated crossing over East Peltason Drive. Based on field observations and community input, bicyclists also utilize the off-street pedestrian trails to access the Academic Core.
B. SPEED SURVEYS
In order to evaluate whether potential speeding issues exist within University Hills due to resident concerns, speed surveys were conducted during weekdays at a total of 12 street segments. A speed survey is the method used to establish regulatory speed zones by factoring in the prevailing vehicle speeds at each survey location. The speed zone typically is established by calculating the 85th percentile speed of the study roadway, as required by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), 2014 Edition Revision 2. The posted speed limit is set to the nearest 5-mph increment of the free-flowing 85th percentile speed, with two options. Option 1 allows the speed be lowered by 5 mph from the nearest 5-mph increment of the 85th percentile speed with documented justifications. Option 2 allows cases where the 85th percentile speed requires rounding up, that it be rounded down to the nearest 5 mph increment with no further adjustments. A copy of the speed survey charts is included in Appendix B.
The speed survey locations were chosen based on input received from residents, the task force, and existing field conditions. They should be of a sufficient distance away from existing traffic controls, pedestrian crossings, or traffic hazards so that the representative speed within a street segment could be captured. Many locations are close to local streets or driveways but it is more critical to situate these away from the influence of adjacent stop signs.
Based on the criteria, four survey points were selected to best study the “free-flow” condition (see Figure 6). Location number 1 is situated between Anteater Drive and Gabrielino Drive and the posted speed is 35 mph. The 85th percentile speed for the eastbound and westbound directions is 37 mph, which supports the posted 35 mph speed limit. Location number 3, number 8, and number 10 are situated west of Gabrielino and the posted speed is 25 mph. This segment of California Avenue/Los Trancos Drive warrants the lower posted speed as it functions as a residential street and consists of a series of
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 16
horizontal/vertical curves. The 85th percentile speed at location number 3 is 22 mph, which is below the posted 25 mph speed limit. At location number 8, however, the 85th percentile speed is 31 mph and at location number 10 is 34 mph, which exceeds the posted 25 mph speed limit.
Based on the stop sign locations on Gabrielino Drive, two survey points were selected. Location number 5 is situated south of California Avenue and no speed limit is posted. It is recommended to sign this segment as a 25 mph zone based on its residential function. The 85th percentile speed is 32 mph, which is above the recommended speed zone. Location number 6 is situated between California Avenue and Vista Bonita Drive and the posted speed is 25 mph. The 85th percentile speed is 32 mph, which exceeds the posted 25 mph speed limit.
Based on the traffic control locations (stop signs and speed hump) on Vista Bonita Drive, one survey point was selected. Location number 9 is situated east of Los Trancos Drive and no speed limit is posted. It is recommended to sign this segment as a 25 mph speed zone based on its residential function. The 85th percentile speed is 29 mph, which is higher than the recommended speed zone.
Based on the stop sign locations on Owen Drive, one survey spot was selected. Location number 7 is situated south of Vista Bonita Drive and there is no posted speed limit. It is recommended to sign this segment as a 25 mph speed zone based on its residential function and presence of horizontal/vertical curves. The 85th percentile speed is 27 mph.
Four additional survey spots were selected in a few residential enclaves due to inputs received from the residents. These are all local residential streets and a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph applies. Location number 4 is situated on Pauling Court east of Gabrielino Drive and the 85th percentile speed is 31 mph, which exceeds the limit. Location number 2 is situated on Murasaki Street north of Fuertes and the 85th percentile speed is 26 mph, which is within the limit. Location number 11 is situated on Frost east of O’ Keeffe and the 85th percentile speed is 26 mph, which is within the limit. Location number 12 is situated on Murasaki Street west of O’Keeffe and the 85th percentile speed is 28 mph, which exceeds the limit.
9/12/2017
Speed Survey Locations
Figure 6
University Hills Transportation Study
California Ave
Los Trancos Dr
Vista Bonita Dr
Gabrielino D
r
Russell Pl
Anteater Drive
Ow
en Dr
E Peltason Drive
Mayer Ct
Twain St
Mistral Ln
Pauling Ct
Thompson Ct
Urey Ct
Young Ct
Bart
ok C
t
Locke Ct
Blake Ct
Speed Survey #185th = 37 mph
Speed Survey #885th = 31 mph
Speed Survey #385th = 22 mph
Speed Survey #1085th = 34 mph
Speed Survey #585th = 32 mph
Speed Survey #485th = 31 mph
Speed Survey #685th = 32 mph
Speed Survey #785th = 27 mph
Speed Survey #985th = 29 mph
Speed Survey #2Murasaki St85th = 26 mph
Speed Survey #11Frost St85th = 26 mph
Speed Survey #12Murasaki St85th = 28 mph
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 18
C. TRAFFIC VOLUMES
In order to determine the volume and directionality of the various roadway users traveling on the roadway network within University Hills, video turning movement counts were conducted on Tuesday, February 8, 2017 and on Wednesday, February 14, 2017 at a total of 7 intersections. The vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes were counted from 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM to establish the AM and PM peak hour. Pedestrian and bicyclist counts were not conducted at the paseos or the mid-block crossing on East Peltason Drive. It should be noted that at Location 1, the video camera malfunctioned on Wednesday which resulted in missing footage during the count period. Therefore, a technician was sent to Location 1 on Thursday, February 16, 2017 to obtain data for the 2nd weekday. A copy of the turning movement counts is included in Appendix C.
The vehicular AM and PM peak hour volumes for Wednesday are shown in Figure 7. There are a total of 363 inbound and 579 outbound trips during the AM peak hour with 560 inbound and 379 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. The volumes show that over half of the AM inbound traffic are from three movements: Left-turns from Anteater Drive onto California Avenue, left-turns from Anteater Drive onto Russell Place, and right-turns from East Peltason Drive onto Gabrielino Drive. For the PM inbound movement, over half are from three movements: Right-turns from Anteater Drive onto Russell Place, right-turns from East Peltason Drive onto Los Trancos Drive, and right-turns from East Peltason Drive onto Gabrielino Drive. The volumes show that over half of the AM outbound traffic are from three movements: Right-turns from California Avenue onto Anteater Drive, left-turns from Los Trancos Drive onto East Peltason Drive, and left-turns from Russell Place onto Anteater Drive. For the PM outbound traffic, over half are from four movements: Left-turns from Russell Place onto Anteater Drive, right-turns from California Avenue onto Anteater Drive, eastbound through movement on California Avenue at Anteater Drive, and left-turns from Los Trancos Drive onto East Peltason Drive.
The bicycle and pedestrian volumes during the peak hours on Wednesday are shown in Figure 8. The number of bicycles during the AM and PM peak hours is very low. However, the pedestrian activity is heavy and is concentrated at three intersections. At the Los Trancos Drive and East Peltason Drive intersection, the majority of the pedestrians cross northbound in the AM peak hour and cross southbound in the PM peak hour. However, the westbound crossing in the AM peak hour and eastbound crossing in the PM peak hour are also heavy. At the Gabrielino Drive and Russell Place intersection, the majority of the pedestrians cross northbound in the AM peak hour and cross southbound in the PM peak hour. The eastbound and westbound crossings are low in the AM and PM peak hours. At the Gabrielino Drive and California Avenue intersection, the majority of the pedestrians cross
38/7353/6410/19
6/765/26
85/4210/783/51
7/515/1916/6810/17
65/1
01
41/8
2
110/
114
84/82
211/94
40/63
12/7
78/5
714
9/60
56/17788/2472/15
65/34371/220
91/76
32/51
106/440
46/106
30/3
529
/58
2/12
16/579/279/10
0/2
35/3
022
/23
1/520/26
0/1
18/5
6
25/4
7
4/3106/41
48/2
85/
5
4/31
0/3
7/7
23/32547/52218/19
146/
55 0/0
26/2
8
3/10438/638
41/101
7/1863/284/10
32/160/2
18/71/79/1816/36
5/61/113/2
9/12/2017
Wednesday, February 8, 2017Vehicle Peak Hour Volumes
University Hills Transportation Study
Gabrielino D
r
Anteater Drive
Ow
en Dr
E Peltason Drive
Mayer Ct
Pauling Ct
California Ave
Los Trancos Dr
Vista Bonita Dr
Russell Pl
XX/YY = AM/PM
Legend
Figure 7
0/01/1
2/1
2/22/0
3/0
1/02/34/1
0/11/80/3
11/10/10/
0
0/00/4
0/1
0/0
4/0
0/0
3/00/40/0
0/115/4
3/00/0
0/70/4
0/1
0/8
0/0
0/20/20/0
0/0
5/0
1/0
0/00/00/1
0/60/5
0/34/0
3/0
0/0
0/2
0/6
0/0
0/122/54/0
9/0
3/1
1/0
0/00/140/10
0/11/1
0/0
2/00/0
0/0
0/00/10/5
0/10/10/0
2/1
0/1
12/8
6/8
5/4
2/1
0/1
0/0
14/7
2/11
10/11
6/11 4/39
19/9
6/6
5/4
16/7
1/19
8/11
6/6 1/7
6/4
1/3
8/4
1/10/618/3
3/23
25/2
1/21
4/115/6
14/4
2/22
3/5 3/0
21/1
29/
23
4/2
3/2
1/0
0/0
4/10
3/9
5/0
3/10
2/0
0/1
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
9/12/2017
Wednesday, February 8, 2017Bicycle/Pedestrian Peak Hour Volumes
University Hills Transportation Study
Gabrielino D
r
Anteater Drive
Ow
en Dr
E Peltason Drive
Mayer Ct
Pauling Ct
California Ave
Los Trancos Dr
Vista Bonita Dr
Russell Pl
XX/YY = AM/PM
Legend
Figure 8
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 21
northbound in the AM peak hour and cross southbound in the PM peak hour. However, the eastbound crossing is also heavy during the AM and PM peak hours.
The vehicular AM and PM peak hour volumes for Thursday are shown in Figure 9. There are 335 inbound and 560 outbound trips during the AM peak hour with 521 inbound and 431 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. The volumes show that over half of the AM inbound traffic are from three movements: Left-turns from Anteater Drive onto California Avenue, right-turns from East Peltason Drive onto Gabrielino Drive, and right-turns from Anteater Drive onto Russell Place. For the PM inbound movement, over half are from four movements: Right-turns from East Peltason Drive onto Gabrielino Drive, right-turns from East Peltason Drive onto Los Trancos Drive, right-turns from Anteater Drive onto Russell Place, and left-turns from Anteater Drive onto California Avenue. The volumes show that over half of the AM outbound traffic are from three movements: Right-turns from California Avenue onto Anteater Drive, left-turns from Los Trancos Drive onto East Peltason Drive, and left-turns from Russell Place onto Anteater Drive. For the PM outbound movement, over half are from three movements: Right-turns from California Avenue onto Anteater Drive, eastbound through movement on California Avenue at Anteater Drive, and left-turns from Los Trancos Drive onto East Peltason Drive.
The bicycle and pedestrian volumes are shown in Figure 10 and are consistent with the volumes on Wednesday. The number of bicycles is minor on Thursday during the AM and PM peak hours but the pedestrian activity is heavy and is concentrated at three intersection. At the Los Trancos Drive and East Peltason Drive intersection, the majority of the pedestrians cross northbound in the AM peak hour and cross southbound in the PM peak hour. However, the westbound crossing in the AM peak hour and eastbound crossing in the PM peak hour are also heavy. At the Gabrielino Drive and Russell Place intersection, the majority of the pedestrians cross northbound during the AM peak hour and cross southbound in the PM peak hour. The eastbound and westbound crossings are low in the AM and PM peak hours. At the Gabrielino Drive and California Avenue intersection, the majority of the pedestrians cross northbound in the AM peak hour and cross southbound in the PM peak hour. However, the eastbound crossing in the AM peak hour and westbound crossing in the PM peak hour are also heavy.
It is not typical to have a heavy inbound movement into a residential community during the AM peak hour, as is the case for the northbound left-turn movement on Anteater Drive to California Avenue. In order to determine the cause of this, we compared the peak hour trips taken at this intersection in February 2017 to the existing intersection and ADT counts taken in November 2015 for the University Hills PA11 Traffic Study prepared by Stantec Consulting, Inc., see Appendix D. The peak hour numbers on those two count dates have a similar directionality including the heavy northbound left-turn movement. Also, the
45/6452/628/17
10/255/26
99/4610/590/52
9/617/1011/65
6/12
75/1
00
42/5
8
113/
101
81/82
233/108
55/62
8/6
79/7
313
2/10
5
49/18498/2782/16
41/31370/197
88/62
29/51
120/466
50/94
25/5
029
/52
2/8
20/627/169/16
2/2
48/1
732
/24
2/317/14
4/2
25/4
2
21/6
5
3/290/39
49/3
28/
6
7/18
2/1
14/1
5
29/37510/55412/17
125/
67 2/1
38/3
0
16/8482/648
32/92
9/2560/245/8
32/131/0
23/206/714/1413/28
10/51/04/49/12/2017
Tuesday, February 14, 2017Vehicle Peak Hour Volumes
University Hills Transportation Study
Gabrielino D
r
Anteater Drive
Ow
en Dr
E Peltason Drive
Mayer Ct
Pauling Ct
California Ave
Los Trancos Dr
Vista Bonita Dr
Russell Pl
XX/YY = AM/PM
Legend
Figure 9
0/02/3
2/0
1/05/1
2/0
0/41/24/1
0/32/30/0
0/30/
12/2
0/05/2
2/2
0/1
10/1
0/0
3/11/20/2
0/014/3
3/00/0
1/140/4
0/1
0/7
0/1
0/20/11/0
0/0
7/0
0/0
0/00/00/0
0/00/8
0/77/0
3/2
1/0
0/1
0/5
0/0
0/119/10/0
7/1
1/1
1/0
1/01/16
0/9
0/04/6
0/1
2/00/0
0/0
0/01/00/8
0/00/10/0
1/1
0/3
6/2
5/5
5/7
0/1
8/10
7/11
11/12
10/13
8/33
24/7
9/6
6/14
7/3
2/13
6/14
9/7 0/9
9/4
2/5
0/0
10/11/421/0
1/23
27/7
0/18
2/63/8
9/5
1/17
2/8 2/1
22/1
17/
18
0/1
1/2
2/2
2/2
3/7
4/12
12/3
6/12
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/0
0/1
1/1
0/0
0/0
0/1
1/1
9/12/2017
Tuesday, February 14, 2017Bicycle/Pedestrian Peak Hour Volumes
University Hills Transportation Study
Gabrielino D
r
Anteater Drive
Ow
en Dr
E Peltason Drive
Mayer Ct
Pauling Ct
California Ave
Los Trancos Dr
Vista Bonita Dr
Russell Pl
XX/YY = AM/PM
Legend
Figure 10
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 24
November 2015 peak hour volumes on Anteater Drive between California Avenue and Bonita Canyon Drive is 10% of the Average Daily Trips (ADT). This is consistent with the rule of thumb that peak hour volumes are generally 10% of the daily trips. Finally as shown on Figure 7 and Figure 9, most of this inbound movement turns left onto Gabrielino Drive with a smaller number continuing on California Avenue. The heavy northbound left-turn movement could be due to return trips from the schools outside of University Hills. The designated IUSD schools that serve University Hills include the Turtle Rock Elementary School, the Rancho San Joaquin Middle School, and the University High School, which are located in the northeast direction. IUSD provides school bus pick-up/drop-off services at a number of locations within University Hills but it is for the elementary school and middle school only. The Vista Verde School is also in the vicinity, being south of Bonita Canyon Drive. Therefore, it is our opinion that cut-through traffic is not a significant factor within University Hills. An origin-destination type study will be needed to determine the precise amount of cut-through traffic.
D. COLLISION DATA
As the University Hills development is located within South Campus, the UCI Police Department has jurisdiction over this area. We met with the area commander responsible for this portion of the campus, Sergeant Bob LeSage, in order to better understand any existing traffic related issues from the public safety viewpoint. As discussed during the meeting, although there have been numerous reports of near misses in the community, very few recorded collisions have occurred in this neighborhood.
E. SCHOOL BUSING
Busing is provided by the Irvine Unified School District to University Hills students who attend schools Rancho Middle School, Turtle Rock Elementary School, and Vista Verde School. Routes and stops have been determined by the Irvine Unified School District Transportation Department. ICHA works with the school district to ensure the areas around the bus stops have enough space for students to gather to wait for the buses. The current bus stop locations are shown in Figure 11.
When the streets and housing in Area 11 are open, the school district intends to include a stop near the pool on Coltrane.1 When establishing that stop, the school district will reevaluate the current routes and existing stops and adjust those as needed to maintain operation levels.
1 Phone conversation with Holly Morgan, Irvine Unified School District, March 16, 2017
9/12/2017
School Bus Stop Locations
Figure 11
University Hills Transportation Study
California Ave
Dr
Vista Bonita Dr
Gabrielino
Russell Pl
Anteater Drive
Ow
en Dr
E Peltason Drive
Mayer Ct
Twain St
Mistral Ln
Whistler CtPauling Ct
Eliot Ct
School Bus Stop
Legend
Dr
Los Trancos
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 26
F. EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS
There are currently no transportation related education programs being conducted specifically for the University Hills community. However, residents may receive messaging and education on transportation safety from outside the community. For example, children may be receiving walking and bicycling safety education in school. UCI Irvine employees may be receiving some traffic safety messaging on campus.
Traffic enforcement in University Hills is conducted by the UC Irvine Police Department. The police department regularly patrols the community and responds to resident requests. The police department does not currently conduct any special or focused enforcement programs within University Hills.
V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. ENGINEERING
Based on the community input, discussions with UCI PD and IUSD, field observations, and field measurements, specific reviews are performed with recommendations provided to mitigate deficient areas and to improve safety for the various roadway users. These include a review of the existing striping, including bike lanes, and signage based on applicable agency requirements and best practices. The sight distance at the local collector intersections and specific local streets are evaluated for visibility issues and potential conflicts with above ground objects. Existing traffic control, including stop signs and speed humps, along the local collectors are reviewed for the appropriateness of their installation. A preliminary review is conducted on the feasibility of providing parking adjacent to the various community facilities. Measures that could be implemented to enhance traffic calming effects are also explored. Finally, the pedestrian circulation is reviewed. A description of each review activity is provided below. It should be noted that these reviews do not include an origin-destination type study, comprehensive fire access study, or comprehensive roadway/trail lighting study.
STRIPING REVIEW
The existing striping along the roadway network within University Hills was reviewed for compliance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 27
best practices. The latest edition as adopted by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the 2014 Edition Revision 2. This manual seeks to standardize traffic control elements, including striping, to convey a uniform message for the roadway users. Field observations were conducted to review the existing striping, which included the bike lanes. Below is a list of critical improvements that should be implemented right away as well as a list of recommendations to improve the striping.
CRITICAL IMPROVEMENTS
Bike lane striping at the top of all-way stop sign controlled T-intersections shall terminate at the limit line and resume on the far side with the limit line extended to the curb & gutter: There are a total of five intersections where the existing bike lane continues through the intersection. Under California Vehicle Code 21200, a person riding a bicycle is subject to all rights and provisions applicable to a person driving a vehicle. Therefore, bicyclists are required to stop at stop signs and it is critical that this condition be corrected. These five locations are shown in Figure 12.
Install speed hump striping per Orange County Fire Authority Speed Hump Details, Attachment A.
RECOMMENDATION A.1
Add crosswalks to the intersection of Gabrielino Drive/California Avenue, Twain Street/California Avenue, and Gabrielino Drive/Russell Place with specific enhancements including high visibility walks, surface treatments, and signs: The crosswalks designate a path for pedestrians to cross and to discourage diagonal crossing. They also serve as a visual cue to the other roadway users to scan for pedestrians. Crosswalk details for the three intersections are shown in Figure 13.
RECOMMENDATION A.2
Add crosswalk to Gabrielino Drive at East Peltason Drive: Both pedestrians and bicyclists utilize this crossing and the meandering sidewalk to the east next to the boundary wall may obstruct visibility. This crosswalk will provide more separation between the roadway users without impacting the sight distance and as a reminder to look for pedestrians/bicyclists. It is recommended to work with UCI to improve the bicycle connectivity on the northerly side of East Peltason Drive and implement signage to reduce the number of contraflow bicyclists riding west on the southerly sidewalk. It is also recommended to work with UCI to implement the off-street bike trail and elevated crossing on East Peltason Drive as shown in the 2007 LRDP.
9/12/2017
Bike Lane Modification Locations
Figure 12
University Hills Transportation Study
California Ave
Los Trancos Dr
Vista Bonita Dr
Gabrielino D
r
Russell Pl
Anteater Drive
Ow
en Dr
E Peltason Drive
Mayer Ct
Twain St
Mistral Ln
Whistler CtPauling Ct
Modify existing bike lanestriping at intersection
Modify existing bike lanestriping at intersectionModify existing bike lane
striping at intersection
Modify existing bike lanestriping at intersection
Modify existing bike lanestriping at intersection
Eliot Ct
Crosswalk Details
Figure 13
University Hills Transportation Study
9/12/2017
Russell Place
Gab
riel
ino
Dri
ve
California Avenue
Twai
nSt
reet
California Avenue
Gabrielino
Drive
InstallImpactableR1-6 Sign
Install 4"Yellow Centerline orPavement Markers
2'-3'
Install 12"White Crosswalk
Remove
Install HighVisibility Crosswalk
Treatment
- RemoveLimit Lines
Install 12"Yellow Crosswalk
- RemoveLimit Lines
PotentialImpactableR1-6 Signs
ProposedStairs
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 30
RECOMMENDATION A.3
Paint the existing un-controlled mid-block crossing on Vista Bonita Drive: The existing crossing is made up of pavers but the color does not contrast well with the roadway. Adding crosswalk lines to the outside of the pavers will increase the visibility of this crossing.
RECOMMENDATION A.4
Add yellow centerline striping at blind corners in the residential enclaves as well as on Gabrielino Drive from California Avenue to Mayer Court: The centerline provides a visual separation for the opposing traffic. A detail of the striping on Gabrielino Drive at Pauling Court is shown in Figure 14.
RECOMMENDATION A.5
Adjust the location of limit lines to 1-foot from the edge of the pedestrian landing: This will move the limit line forward at some intersections and improve the line of sight from the local streets.
RECOMMENDATION A.6
Coordinate with UCI on potentially removing the bike lanes on Gabrielino Drive and Owen Drive to provide on-street parking: Per the traffic counts, the bicycle volume along these two local collectors are very low. By removing the 6-foot bike lanes on both sides of the street, 14-foot travel lanes and an 8-foot shoulder (with parking allowed) could be provided adjacent to the parks and the school, see Figures 15A, 15B, 15C, and 15D. Signage is required to identify parking areas and no parking areas.
RECOMMENDATION A.7
Add “Stop Ahead” pavement legends on the northbound and southbound direction of Los Trancos Drive at Vista Bonita Drive: Los Trancos Drive has both vertical and horizontal curvature and the pavement legends will provide additional warnings of the stop signs.
SIGNAGE REVIEW
The criteria for the design, message, and installation of signage are also specified by the CA MUTCD. At each manual update any set of criteria may change, which will result in some
T2 P.C.
2
C2
4
E
Centerline Detail
Figure 14
University Hills Transportation Study
9/12/2017
Pauling Court
Install 4" DoubleYellow Centerline
Install YellowPavement Markers
(25' Long)
Gab
riel
ino
Dri
ve
Install 4" DoubleYellow Centerline
Install YellowPavement Markers
(25' Long)
Gabrielino Drive Parking
Figure 15A
University Hills Transportation Study
9/12/2017
California Avenue
50'(No Parking)
Gabrielino Drive
100' Transition
50' Clear Area
14'Travel Lanes
(No Parking)
(No Parking)
8' Shoulder(Parking ~ 605')
Vista Bonita Drive
35'(No Parking)
Gabrielino Drive Parking
Figure 15B
University Hills Transportation Study
9/12/2017
Vista Bonita Driv
e
50'(No Parking)
Gabrielino D
rive
100' Transition
14'Travel Lanes
(No Parking)
8' Shoulder(Parking ~ 305')
Russell Place
50'(No Parking)
45'(No Parking)
50'(No Parking)
3E
3 E
E 2E 2
E1
T2 P.C.
2
T 1
T 1
P.C. 1
P.C. 1
C2
C 1
C 1
C2
4
E
P.C. 2
F
U
T
U
R
E
E
N
T
R
Y
D
R
I
V
E
F
O
R
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
C
E
N
T
E
R
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
B
Gabrielino Drive Parking
Figure 15C
University Hills Transportation Study
9/12/2017
Pauling Court
Gabrielino D
rive
100' Transition
50' Clear Area
14'Travel Lanes
(No Parking)
(No Parking)
8' Shoulder(Parking ~ 310')
California Avenue 100' Transition(No Parking)
50' Clear Area(No Parking)
Owen Drive Parking
Figure 15D
University Hills Transportation Study
9/12/2017
California Avenue
50'(No Parking)
Ow
en D
rive
100' Transition
14'Travel Lanes
(No Parking)
8' Shoulder(Parking ~ 317')
Vista Bonita Drive
35'(No Parking)
100' Transition(No Parking)
35' Clear Area(No Parking)
50'(No Parking)
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 36
older signs becoming non-compliant. Maintaining compliant signage is an integral part of traffic enforcement. However, it is also recognized that it could be impractical and not financially viable to replace old non-compliant signage with new ones after each manual update. Therefore, it is also acceptable to replace each non-compliant sign at the end of the service life. A review of the existing signage in University Hills was conducted to verify compliance with requirements of the latest edition of CA MUTCD, which is the 2014 Edition Revision 2, and established engineering practices. This review included signs along the local collectors and local streets. Signs within the various apartment complexes were not reviewed since these are not part of the circulation network. The purpose of this review is to document signs that should be brought into compliance in the near term and signs that should be updated at the end of the service life.
A number of existing signs and street name signs are faded, have the sign edge less than 12-inches from the curb face, or are obstructed by landscaping. Locations of these non-compliant signs are shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17 and should be brought into compliance in the near term. A photo catalog of these non-compliant signs is also included in Appendix E. The existing speed hump warning sign should also be replaced with the latest OCFA advance warning signs.
CRITICAL IMPROVEMENTS
Replace signs shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17: Most of the non-compliant signs shown in the figures have either faded sign faces or the edge of the sign is less than 12-inch from the curb face. A few signs are installed with the bottom of the sign less than 7 feet over the sidewalk. The existing speed hump signs should also be replaced per OCFA Speed Hump Details, Attachment A.
Add “all-way” (R1-3P) sign plaque below the stop signs at intersections where every direction is required to stop.
RECOMMENDATION A.8
Add stop ahead warning signs at the “Stop Ahead” pavement legends on California Avenue at the intersection with Twain Street and Gabrielino Drive: These signs will provide additional notification to the upcoming all-way stop.
9/12/2017 Background source: Irvine Campus Housing Authority
Locations of Non-Compliant Signs for Near Term Replacement
Figure 16
University Hills Transportation Study
*A4*A3
*A26A38*
*A29A35*
*A44*A48A49*
*A51
*A55*A57
A59**A68A69*
*A73*A78
*A80
*A87A91*
*A93
*A94A95*
*A103
*A111
*A126
*A129
*A131
A100*
A101*
*A125
*A22
*A# = Sign Location
Legend
9/12/2017 Background source: Irvine Campus Housing Authority
Locations of Non-Compliant Signs for Near Term Replacement
Figure 17
University Hills Transportation Study
B1*B8*
*B15
*B19
*B21
*B22
*B26*B31B32*
B35* *B37 *B40
*B43
*B45*B46
***B49,B48,B47
*B51*B52
*B57
*B59B65*
*B66*B67B70*B105**B102B94* *B95
B97,B98**
*B62
*B134*B135B145,B146,B149***
B113* *B115 *B118
B122*
B123*B124* *B125
*B126
*B128 *B130
*B3
B64*
*B69
*B77 *B78
**B81,B82
*B83
B84*
*B89
B99*
*B131
*B# = Sign Location
Legend
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 39
RECOMMENDATION A.9
Add speed limit sign (R2-1) on Russell Place west of Anteater Drive, on Gabrielino Drive south of East Peltason Drive, and Gabrielino Drive south of California Avenue: This will alert the roadway users that a speed limit of 25 MPH is in effect in University Hills.
RECOMMENDATION A.10
Add school zone sign (SW24-1(CA)) on Russell Place west of Anteater Drive: Russell Place is heavily utilized by school traffic and the new sign will alert drivers to the school and potential pedestrian crossings. It is recommended to implement traffic enforcement measures around the school. This sign, along with existing signs on Gabrielino Drive, will assist in these measures.
RECOMMENDATION A.11
In association with Recommendation A.3, adjust the stop sign locations to be at the Beginning of Curb Return (BCR) or at the edge of the pedestrian landing, whichever is closer to the pedestrian ramp.
RECOMMENDATION A.12
Install “No Parking” signs on local streets with a width of less than 36 feet: OCFA requires a minimum width of 20 feet for fire access roads. Parking is prohibited on one side if the roadway width is between 28 feet to 36 feet, which includes Bartok Court, Locke Court, Gibbs Court east of Los Trancos Drive, Curie Court, Mendel Court, Urey Court west of Owen Drive, Young Court, McClintock Court, Joyce Court, Handel Court, Eliot Court, Newton Court, and Bronte Street. It is also recommended to prohibit parking in front of the 90 degree parking spaces on Blake Court and Alcott Court. Parking is prohibited on both sides if the roadway width is less than 28 feet, which includes O’Keeffe Street. A detailed review of the roadways should be conducted to determine the limits of the required fire lane.
SIGHT DISTANCE REVIEW
A sight distance review was performed at the local collector intersections and along the roadway network to verify if there are any visibility issues or any potential conflicts with above ground objects. The analysis utilized the City of Irvine Standard Plan No. 403, which is used to ensure that vehicles turning from or into the minor street can adequately see oncoming vehicles on the major street. The sight line is based on the speed of the un-
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 40
controlled major roadway and the stopping sight distance to the minor roadway. After determining the sight line, the area between it and the curb is considered the limit use area. In this area, plants/shrubs shall be less than 30 inches above the curb and trees shall have a 30-foot spacing with a maximum of 24-inch tree trunks at maturity. In addition, slopes shall not encroach into this area. At many of the local collector intersections, the sight distance is obstructed by existing landscaping, slope, and/or fencing. However, it is acceptable at all-way stop-sign controlled intersections for the sight distance to be based on one vehicle stopped behind the limit line. This is the criteria used for all-way stop-sign controlled intersections within University Hills.
On California Avenue/Los Trancos Drive, the following intersections have a sight distance issue, see Figure 18: 1) Southbound Whistler Court looking towards both directions of California Avenue due to landscaping, 2) Southbound Bartok Court looking towards eastbound California Avenue due to landscaping, 3) Eastbound Locke Court looking towards southbound Los Trancos Drive due to slope and landscaping, 4) Eastbound Gibbs Court looking towards northbound Los Trancos Drive due to landscaping, 5) Westbound Gibbs Court looking towards southbound Los Trancos Drive due to landscaping, and 6) Westbound Curie Court looking towards southbound Los Trancos Drive due to landscaping.
On Owen Drive, the following intersections have a sight distance issue, see Figure 19: 1) Westbound Whitman Court looking towards both directions on Owen Drive due to slope and landscaping, and 2) Eastbound Urey Court looking toward southbound Owen Drive due to landscaping.
On Vista Bonita Drive, there are sight distance issues for southbound Mendel Court looking towards both directions of Vista Bonita Drive due to landscaping and fencing, see Figure 18.
There are no sight distance issues on Gabrielino Drive.
A majority of the sight distance issues can be mitigated by trimming the landscaping within the limited use area or switching to low ground cover. Sight distance will also improve if the limit lines are adjusted per Recommendation A.5.
Sight Distance Issue Areas
Figure 18
University Hills Transportation Study
9/12/2017
Vista Bonita Drive
Curie Court
Gibbs Court
Locke Court
Bartok Court
Whistler Court
California Avenue
Los Trancos
Drive
Men
del C
ourt
Sight Distance Issue Areas
Figure 19
University Hills Transportation Study
9/12/2017
Vista Bonita Drive
California Avenue
Ow
en D
rive
Urey Court
Whitman Court
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 43
CRITICAL IMPROVEMENTS
Work with homeowners to trim landscaping around the existing signs and within the limited use area. The landscaping should also not encroach into the sidewalk, especially areas with sidewalk behind landscaping, thus maintaining the pedestrian path of travel.
Relocate the existing trashcan on the southeast corner of Los Trancos Drive and Harvey Court intersection around the corner to be on Harvey Court: The trashcan is within the limited use area.
RECOMMENDATION A.13
Develop a periodic landscape trimming program to ensure adequate clearance around signs, streetlights, pedestrian path of travel, and sight distance. Work with homeowners regarding trimming in their yards and develop enforcement procedures.
RECOMMENDATION A.14
Replace landscaping at street corners with low ground cover.
TRAFFIC CONTROL REVIEW
A review was conducted at the existing stop-sign controlled intersections and speed hump locations along the local collectors to determine the effectiveness of the installation. There are a total of nine (9) stop-sign controlled intersections along California Avenue/Los Trancos Drive between Anteater Drive and East Peltason Drive. Two of the locations are with the adjacent arterials, two are at local collector intersections, and the remaining five are at intersections with local streets. Most of these stop sign locations were established due to intersection sight distance issues, roadway alignments, and cross street traffic. There are also three speed humps along Los Trancos Drive with one at a stop-sign controlled intersection and two on either side of two closely spaced uncontrolled mid-block crosswalks near a pool.
There are a total of four (4) stop-sign controlled intersections along Gabrielino Drive between East Peltason Drive and Mayer court. One of the locations is with the adjacent arterial, two are at local collector intersections, and one is adjacent to the pre-school. These stop sign locations were established due to cross street traffic and adjacent land use. At East Peltason, however, only the approach on Gabrielino Drive is stop sign controlled. There are no speed humps along Gabrielino Drive.
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 44
There are a total of three (3) stop-sign controlled intersections along Vista Bonita Drive. All of the locations are at intersections with local collectors. These stop sign locations were established due to sight distance issues and cross street traffic. There is also one speed hump east of an uncontrolled mid-block crosswalk.
There are a total of two (2) stop-sign controlled intersections along Owen Drive and both of the locations are at intersections with local collectors. At California Avenue, however, only the approach on Owen Drive is stop sign controlled. There are no speed humps along Owen Drive.
RECOMMENDATION A.15
Remove the stop signs and pavement legends on California Avenue at Mistral Lane, at Whistler Court, and at Eliot Court then to add stop signs and pavement legends at Owen Drive: It is more appropriate to establish stop-sign control at local collector intersections. In addition, there are no sight distance issues at Eliot Court while the sight distance at both Mistral Lane and Whistler Court can be mitigated by maintaining the landscaping in association with Recommendation A.12 and A.13. Pedestrians wishing to access the community center will be able to cross at Owen Drive or at Gabrielino Drive.
RECOMMENDATION A.16
Remove the northerly un-controlled mid-block crossing on Los Trancos Drive near the pool: Crosswalks are established along the pedestrian path of travel but one end of this crosswalk terminates at a landscape finger.
RECOMMENDATION A.17
Install an additional streetlight at the southerly un-controlled mid-block crossing on Los Trancos near the pool: This will increase the pedestrian visibility at night.
RECOMMENDATION A.18
Install in-pavement flashers with pedestrian push button activation at the southerly un-controlled mid-block crossing on Los Trancos near the pool: This will alert drivers when pedestrians are actively utilizing this crossing. The existing speed humps on both sides of the un-controlled mid-block crossing can be removed after implementing the flashers.
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 45
PARKING REVIEW
One of the desires expressed by the community is to study the feasibility of adding parking spaces adjacent to the various community facilities (parks and pool/tennis courts) as well as near the school and near University House. The community facilities and the school can all be accessed via the local collectors and local streets while the University House is accessed via local collector. Currently, the local collectors are two-lane roadways with 12-foot wide lanes and a 6-foot bike lane on both sides. The local streets vary between 28 feet to 36 feet wide with no bike lanes. Due to the residential development being located on a hill, areas in University Hills exhibit small to large elevation differences with the adjacent local collectors. For this reason, it could be impractical to add parking spaces in many areas.
Based on the geometry, vertical grade, and operation of the local collectors, any spaces implemented should be as angled parking. Parallel spaces should not be implemented on local collectors with bike lanes due to the potential for conflicts with vehicles and bicycles during ingress/egress. On the local streets, parallel parking spaces are an option and already provided in many areas.
The Gabrielino Community Park has a combination soccer/baseball field, basketball courts, a swing set, play area, and a dog park, see Figure 20. It can be accessed on Gabrielino Drive approximately 515’ north of California Avenue, at the Gabrielino Drive/California Avenue intersection, on California Avenue approximately 170 feet west of Twain Street, and at the Twain Street/Bronte Street intersection. The site elevation is lower than Gabrielino Drive and higher than Twain Street, although the northwest and southeast corners of the park are comparable to the adjacent roadway elevation. Therefore, the best opportunity for adding angled parking is at these two corners. A review of the northwest corner shows that the available area at this entry is limited due to the residential enclave to the north. In addition, Gabrielino Drive immediately starts to rise just south of the entry. Therefore, any parking implemented here will be small in number. A review of the southeast corner shows that the dog park entrance is generally even with California Avenue. Adding angled parking here, however, will require reducing the size of the dog park by pushing the boundary away from California Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION A.19
If the striping changes in Recommendation A.6 are implemented, on-street parallel parking spaces could be provided on Gabrielino Drive adjacent to the park. To minimize conflicts with vehicular circulation, parking shall not be allowed in close proximity to the adjacent intersections, see Figures 15A, 15B, and 15C.
9/12/2017
Gabrielino Community Park
Figure 20
University Hills Transportation Study
GabrielinoCommunity Park
California Avenue
Gabrielino Drive
Twain Street
Bront
e Stre
et
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 47
RECOMMENDATION A.20
If additional park parking is desired, a few spaces on Twain Street between Bronte Street and Murasaki Street opposite the park could be designated for park only during the daytime hours or weekends: On-street parking is allowed on one side of Twain Street only due to the street width but impact to the residential/visitor parking is minimized as only two residences face Twain Street in this segment.
RECOMMENDATION A.21
A secondary dog park entrance could be established on Twain Street: This will allow easier access from areas north of the park.
The Urey Pool and Tennis Courts has one pool, one spa, play area, and two tennis courts, see Figure 21. It can be accessed on Owen Drive approximately 40’ north of Young Court and at the Urey Court/Zola Court intersection. The site elevation is higher than Owen Drive and becomes even with Urey Court at the southeast corner. It would be impractical to add angled parking on Owen Drive as the slope begins at the back of the curb adjacent sidewalk. Urey Court east of Owen Drive allows on-street parking on both sides for the entire length.
RECOMMENDATION A.22
If the striping changes in Recommendation A.6 are implemented, on-street parallel parking spaces could be provided on Owen Drive adjacent to the park. To minimize conflicts with vehicular circulation, parking shall not be allowed in close proximity to the adjacent intersections, see Figure 15D.
RECOMMENDATION A.23
Designate tennis court/park-only parking spaces on Urey Court adjacent to the tennis court/park during the daytime hours or weekends. On-street parking on the opposite side remains available for residential parking.
The Vista Bonita Park has a soccer field and play area, see Figure 22. It can be accessed on Vista Bonita Drive approximately 195 feet west of Mendel Court, at two Harvey Court sidewalk connections, at the westerly Urey Court cul-de-sac sidewalk connection, at the Young Court cul-de-sac sidewalk connection, and one sidewalk connection to the interior pedestrian path. The site elevation is lower than Harvey Court, lower than Urey Court, lower than Young Court, and even with Vista Bonita Drive. Angled parking could be added along the park frontage on Vista
9/12/2017
Urey Pool and Tennis Courts
Figure 21
University Hills Transportation Study
Urey Pool andTennis Courts
Young Court
Vista Bonita Drive
Ow
en Drive
Urey Court
Virgil Court
Designated parkparking zone
Zola Court
Designated parkparking zone
9/12/2017
Vista Bonita Park
Figure 22
University Hills Transportation Study
Vista Bonita Park
Urey Court
Los
Tran
cos
Dri
ve Vista Bonita Drive Men
del
Cou
rt
Young C
ourt
Harvey Court
Gibbs Court
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 50
Bonita Drive. The local street access locations have on-street parking on one side of the street only due to insufficient roadway width.
RECOMMENDATION A.24
Conduct a detailed analysis of providing off-street parking adjacent to the Vista Bonita Park: Preliminary review suggest removal/relocation of existing landscaping, signs, up to 6 trees, and irrigation will be required to potentially provide 13 parking spaces and 1 accessible space, see Figure 23. Some re-grading of the area is also needed. Care will have to be taken to not affect an existing 36” RCP storm drain crossing Vista Bonita Drive.
The University Montessori School has two access driveways off of Russell Place. The westerly driveway is inbound only and the easterly driveway is outbound only. The site elevation is even with Russell Place but Gabrielino Drive begins to rise approximately 170 feet south of Russell Place. It is not recommended to add angled parking along Gabrielino Drive due to the vertical grade and horizontal alignment to the south. However, Russell Place allows on-street parking from Gabrielino Drive to Murasaki Street.
The University House has two gated entries off of California Avenue, see Figure 24. The easterly entry provides access to the on-site parking lot and the front of the house while the westerly entry provides access to the back of the house. The site is adjacent to the UCI Ecological Reserve and residential enclaves while the elevation is generally higher than California Avenue. During events/functions, the parking will often spill onto nearby residential streets. Due to the grade difference along California Avenue adjacent to the site and potential utility conflicts, it is impractical to add angled parking here. Also with bike lanes on California Avenue, it is not recommended to allow parallel parking.
It was also observed that some of the interior streets have marked on-street parking that varies between perpendicular lines and corner “L” marks. This could be implemented in the other interior streets where parking is in short supply by maximizing the space count.
RECOMMENDATION A.25
Obtain input from residents in each phase on whether to implement on-street parking markings. This should be done on a case-by-case basis and it is recommended to utilize corner “L” markings to reduce maintenance.
9/12/2017
Vista Bonita Park - Parking
Figure 23
University Hills Transportation Study
Vista Bonita Park
Vista Bonita Drive
Gibbs Court
Parking
Urey Court
Young Court
9/12/2017
University House
Figure 24
University Hills Transportation Study
California Avenue
Joyce C
ourt
University House
Eliot C
ourt
Bartok Court
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 53
TRAFFIC CALMING
With the elimination of the stop signs on California Avenue at Mistral Lane, at Whistler Court, and at Eliot Court, there is a potential for increased speed or an increase of cut-through traffic due to the decrease in travel times. This potential will be greater during the AM and PM peak hours when East Peltason Drive is congested. Therefore, the following traffic calming measures are recommended along the Local Collectors to maintain the lower residential speed and minimize cut-through traffic.
RECOMMENDATION A.26
Install radar speed feedback signs on California Avenue east of Mistral Lane, on Los Trancos Drive at Blake Court, and on Gabrielino Drive opposite Zola Court: This will remind drivers of their current speed, especially along vertical curves in the north-south direction.
RECOMMENDATION A.27
Install transverse markings or optical speed bars at radar speed feedback sign locations: These markings are used to reduce speeds through visual methods.
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 54
Pauling Court between Gabrielino Drive and Coltrane Court also experiences speeds higher than the prima facie limit of 25 mph. This street is an undivided 36-foot wide local street with parking on both sides.
RECOMMENDATION A.28
In Phase 8, install chokers on Twain Street at Bronte Street and at Murasaki Street. In Area 11, install chokers on Pauling Court at Gabrielino Drive, Coltrane Court, and Kahlo Court: The chokers are used to lower the travel speed by reducing the street width. They will also decrease the pedestrian crossing distance and increase the landscaping area. Striping or delineators mimicking the limits of the chokers could be implemented first to determine the effectiveness.
RECOMMENDATION A.29
Install an 8-foot shoulder on the westerly side of Gabrielino Drive south of California, see Figure 15C: The shoulder will reduce the street width to lower travel speeds and by allowing parking within the shoulder, it would increase the parking supply at the community center.
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
We have reviewed segments along the roadway network in University Hills that do not have sidewalk. Since University Hills was developed in multiple phases, some parts of the neighborhood are older and will require additional maintenance. The newest phase, Area 11, contains existing and future sidewalk network that connects to California Avenue, Anteater Drive, Gabrielino Drive, and Bonita Canyon Drive. In addition, stairs will be constructed to provide connection to the intersection of Twain Street and California Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION A.30
Develop a periodic sidewalk maintenance program to ensure trip hazards in the pedestrian path of travel are eliminated.
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 55
On California Avenue/Los Trancos Drive, there is no sidewalk on the southerly/westerly side from Wharton Court to Blake Court. Pedestrian circulation to the various local streets is provided by the existing sidewalk on the northerly/easterly side. Within this segment, there are a total of six (6) local streets and a park on the southerly/westerly side. To access the existing sidewalk, pedestrians are required to cross California Avenue/Los Trancos Drive at un-controlled local street intersections. In order to provide safe crossing opportunities for pedestrians and to minimize uncontrolled mid-block crossings, some sidewalk segments are recommended to be added, see Figure 25. This will connect the six (6) local streets to a stop-sign controlled intersection to facilitate safe crossing. There will be some grading, utility relocation, and street light relocation required to implement the proposed crosswalk segments.
RECOMMENDATION A.31
Add 5-foot sidewalk on Los Trancos Drive between Locke Court and Harvey Court: This will provide a safe pedestrian crossing at Harvey Court from Locke Court.
RECOMMENDATION A.32
Add 5-foot sidewalk on Los Trancos Drive between Gibbs Court and Blake Court: This will provide a safe pedestrian crossing at Vista Bonita Drive. Due to a right-of-way issue, this segment can be implemented after the issue is resolved.
On Vista Bonita Drive, there is no sidewalk on the southerly side from Los Trancos Drive to Gabrielino Drive, except at the mid-block crossing to the park entrance due to the existing slope condition. It is understood that residents are in favor of a sidewalk on the southerly side to facilitate ease of access to the park and as an improvement to the overall pedestrian circulation.
RECOMMENDATION A.33
Conduct a detailed analysis of providing a 5-foot sidewalk on the southerly side of Vista Bonita Drive: Preliminary review suggests removal of existing landscaping, relocation of streetlights, signs, irrigation, and utilities, removal of trees, and modifying the existing slope via grading or retaining walls.
9/12/2017
Proposed Sidewalk
Figure 25
University Hills Transportation Study
California Ave
Los Trancos Dr
Vista Bonita Dr
Gabrielino D
r
Russell Pl
Anteater Drive
Ow
en Dr
E Peltason Drive
Proposed Sidewalk
Legend
Mayer Ct
Twain St
Mistral Ln
Whistler CtEliot Ct
Harvey Ct
Pauling Ct
Bront
e St
Thompson Ct
Urey Ct
Young Ct
McClintock CtHandel Ct
Wharton Ct
Bart
ok C
t
Locke Ct
Gibbs Ct
Curie Ct
Blake Ct
Proposed Sidewalk Mod
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 57
RECOMMENDATION A.34
Add an additional streetlight at the un-controlled mid-block crossing to increase pedestrian visibility at night.
RECOMMENDATION A.35
Install in-pavement flashers with pedestrian push button activation on both sides of the crossing: This will alert drivers when pedestrians are actively crossing the street. With the in-pavement flashers, the existing speed hump can be removed.
Gabrielino Drive provides sidewalk on both sides of the street. However, there are areas north of Vista Bonita Drive on the westerly side that 3-foot curb adjacent landscaping is provided with a 4-foot sidewalk in the back. Some areas are barren and some areas appear to be in distress.
RECOMMENDATION A.36
Remove the curb adjacent landscaped areas on the westerly side of Gabrielino Drive north of Vista Bonita Drive: A 6-foot curb adjacent sidewalk could be provided with the remaining 12 inches used for more landscaping at the back of the sidewalk.
B. EDUCATION
Education includes teaching community members about the broad range of transportation choices, their benefits, and how to be safe and keep others safe while using different methods of transportation. Educational activities help community members understand how to use the infrastructure (engineering) properly so that all users can be safe and comfortable.
Key concerns noted by community members or observed in the community that educational activities will seek to address include:
• Drivers failing to stop at stop signs or for pedestrians. • Drivers failing to stop for school buses when amber lights are flashing. • Drivers speeding. • Bicyclists failing to stop at stop signs or for pedestrians. • Cars parked in bike lanes or no parking areas. • Pedestrians crossing streets midblock when there is not a crosswalk.
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 58
RECOMMENDATION B.1
Develop and implement an educational campaign regarding proper driver behavior near school busses and bus stops. Materials should include the current laws regarding stopping when a bus’s amber lights are flashing according to the California Vehicle Code as well as a diagram to illustrate when a motorist is required to stop. An example diagram is shown in Figure 26.
Dissemination might include website posts, newsletter articles, emails, listserv posts, direct mailers, and temporary signage near the school bus stops.
RECOMMENDATION B.2
Provide information to residents about upcoming infrastructure changes (i.e. new crosswalks, changing stop sign placement, etc.) prior to installation as well as immediately after installation to promote awareness and educate users on proper behaviors. Information dissemination might include website posts, newsletter articles, emails, listserv posts, direct mailers, and signage in the areas where the infrastructure will be changing.
RECOMMENDATION B.3
Communicate with residents regarding designated parking areas. Once parking (and no parking) areas are established, especially adjacent to parks and other community facilities, communicate information regarding their locations to residents through website posts, newsletter articles, emails, listserv posts, direct mailers, and/or temporary additional signage.
RECOMMENDATION B.4
Implement a community outreach and awareness campaign that promotes safe behaviors by all roadway users (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists). Messages might be included in website posts, newsletter articles, emails, listserv posts, direct mailers, and temporary signage. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has developed outreach and awareness campaign materials as part of its Go Human program that can be used in any community in Southern
Figure 26. Example Informational Diagram Regarding School Buses (Credit: Maryland Department of Transportation)
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 59
California. Informational sheets with educational messages are provided for each mode of travel (Walk, Bike, Drive with Care). SCAG also provides free, downloadable educational graphics for use on social media, websites, blogs, email, etc. Figure 27 includes example Go Human graphics. The graphics educate and remind all users about safe behaviors. Cities throughout Orange County and Southern California are using the Go Human graphics and messages on billboards, buses, bus stops and social media. Using the same messages and graphics promotes consistency in safe behaviors when residents travel from place to place.
Figure 27. GoHuman Digital Campaign Materials
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 60
Key messages from the Go Human program to use in University Hills include:
For people walking:
• Cross at the corner and use crosswalks when available. • Even if you have the right of way, look both ways. Make eye contact to be sure drivers see you.
Don't assume drivers will stop. • When wearing earphones, keep volume low enough to still be able to hear traffic or indications
of danger, or wear just one earpiece. • At mid-block crossings, even if one car stops at a crosswalk, do not assume other motorists can
see you and will stop for you.
For people bicycling:
• Slow Down. Drive the speed limit or less. Be alert for people walking, bicycling, skateboarding or on wheelchairs (CVC 21954(b)).
• Look twice for people walking or biking before you make a turn. Always come to a complete stop before turning right on red (CVC 21453).
• Stop at all stop signs and red lights. All traffic laws and regulations apply to bicyclists as well as motorists (CVC 21200).
• Helmets reduce your chance of brain injuries in case of a crash. Children under 18 on a bicycle are required to wear helmets by state law (CVC 21212).
For people driving:
• Slow Down. Drive the speed limit or less. Be alert for people walking, bicycling, skateboarding or on wheelchairs (CVC 21954(b)).
• Every intersection is a crosswalk, even if unmarked. Always stop for people crossing the street (CVC 21950).
• Look twice for people walking or biking before you make a turn. Always come to a complete stop before turning right on red (CVC 21453).
• If another car is stopped at a crosswalk, you should stop too. There may be someone crossing the street that you can't see (CVC 21950).
• Only enter a bike lane to park where permitted, to leave the roadway, or preparing to enter an intersection (CVC 21209).
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 61
Other Education and Awareness Campaign Examples
• BikePGH Drive with Care reminds people driving that bicyclists are people too. • The Safe Routes to School National Partnership’s Effective Messaging for Promoting
Biking and Walking: Best Practices and Media Inventory provides tips on messaging and examples from different communities.
• The California Department of Public Health It’s Up to All of Us and WalkSmart campaigns include messages and downloadable graphics to promote safe behavior of people walking and driving.
• The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has developed videos and messages promoting safe behavior of people bicycling as well as drivers when they are near bicycles.
RECOMMENDATION B.5
Offer bicycle safety education classes to community members. Coordinate with UCI Transportation to provide bicycle safety classes or to promote residents to take part in ongoing classes. UCI Transportation currently offers League of American Bicyclists two-day Smart Cycling classes for adults that teach essential cycling skills such as bicycle safety checks, bike handling, crash avoidance skills, and riding legally in traffic.
RECOMMENDATION B.6
Provide bicycle safety activities and skills practice (also known as bike rodeos) at community events. These activities can be geared towards youth or all community members. Bike rodeos teach bicyclists the rules of the road and proper behaviors and offer an opportunity to practice on a mock or real street. Coordinate with UCI Transportation to see if materials and/or staffing can be provided.
RECOMMENDATION B.7
Coordinate educational activities and messaging with UCI Transportation, UCI Police, and Irvine Unified School District. University Hills residents travel outside of the community and non-residents drive, walk and bike within University Hills. Coordinating efforts with these groups will help ensure key messages are consistent and provided in multiple places to reach both residents and non-residents alike.
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 62
RECOMMENDATION B.8
Coordinate with University Montessori School to develop and disseminate materials to families of students on appropriate driving behavior, parking locations, and pick up/drop off procedures.
C. ENFORCEMENT
Enforcement activities help to deter unsafe behaviors of drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians. While engineering and roadway design seek to make safe behaviors the automatic behavior, enforcement of traffic laws may be necessary to remind community members what safe behaviors are. Enforcement is most effective when combined with educational activities. ICHA will coordinate with the UCI Police Department to implement enforcement strategies. If focused enforcement occurs, activities may need to be repeated on a regular basis to be effective.
Key concerns noted by community members or observed in the community that enforcement activities should seek to address include:
• Drivers failing to stop at stop signs or for pedestrians. • Drivers failing to stop for school buses when amber lights are flashing. • Drivers speeding. • Bicyclists failing to stop at stop signs for pedestrians. • Cars parked in bike lanes or no parking areas.
RECOMMENDATION C.1
Encourage UCI Police to assess and identify the traffic violations that are most likely to cause collisions and injuries and to focus enforcement efforts on those traffic violations within University Hills.
RECOMMENDATION C.2
Coordinate with UCI Police to conduct focused enforcement around school bus stops. This may include increased presence during pick up and drop off hours to enforce laws regarding stopping for school buses when amber lights are flashing.
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 63
RECOMMENDATION C.3
Coordinate with UCI Police to ensure consistent enforcement of no parking areas. Once “no parking” areas are established, especially around parks and other community facilities, communicate these changes to UCI Police so that enforcement is consistent and does not cause confusion amongst community members.
RECOMMENDATION C.4
Coordinate with UCI Police to conduct focused enforcement at key intersections or along key streets when motorists or bicyclists are speeding or failing to stop at stop signs or for pedestrians.
RECOMMENDATION C.5
Communicate results of focused enforcement efforts to community members. This may include website posts, newsletter articles, emails, and listserv posts. Providing information to community members regarding enforcement efforts makes them aware that they are occurring and promotes on going safe behaviors.
RECOMMENDATION C.6
Coordinate with UCI Police and UCI Transportation to see if bicyclists receiving citations can participate in the established online safety training course and have their first citation waived. This provides opportunities for the bicyclist to receive education instead of a monetary fine.
RECOMMENDATION C.7
Encourage UCI Police to engage with the Resident Working Group on Community, Safety, and Diversity to promote traffic enforcement that does not disproportionately affect specific segments of the population.
RECOMMENDATION C.8
Coordinate with UCI Police to conduct focused enforcement around University Montessori School during pick up and drop off times to address unsafe motorist behavior. Conduct focused enforcement at the start of the school year and periodically throughout the year. Communicate results of focused enforcement efforts to community members, including the school.
UNIVERSITY HILLS TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Final September 13, 2017 | 64
D. EVALUATION
Evaluation includes monitoring and documenting outcomes and trends through data collection over time, including before and after project and program implementation. By tracking information, ICHA will be able to assess the effectiveness of the changes to infrastructure and implementation of educational and enforcement programs and adjust course if needed.
RECOMMENDATION D.1
Conduct an annual survey of residents regarding transportation issues. This survey may be combined with a larger community survey on broader issues. The survey should ask for resident feedback on infrastructure changes and educational and enforcement programs as well as input on additional or ongoing transportation related concerns.
RECOMMENDATION D.2
Conduct follow up speed surveys and/or peak hour counts between three to six months after implementing signing, striping, and traffic calming measures. The follow up will quantify the “after” condition to determine if the implementation objectives have been met.
VI. IMPLEMENTATION
A. PRIORITIZATION, PHASING AND TIMELINE
Prioritization and phasing of projects will be determined by ICHA following completion of this report.
B. COST ESTIMATES
Planning level cost estimates have been provided to ICHA under separate cover for budgeting purposes.