Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from David Gallo – Mitigation for Stanley Avenue Traffic Schuman, Amy From: Menchaca, Clarissa Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 4:22 PM To: Schuman, Amy Subject: FW: Mitigation for Stanley Avenue traffic Attachments: Letter concerning safety improvements.docx Correspondence. CLiw C4 ci'Menchaca, Associate Clerk of the Board Butte County Administration 25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Oroville, CA 95965 T: 530.552.33081 F: 530.538.7120 Twitter I Facebook I YouTube 1 Pinterest From: David E Gallo<DEGallo@csuchico.edu> Sent:Tuesday, December 18, 2018 7:37 AM To: Michelena, Mark<MMichelena@buttecounty.net> Cc: lcgrundmann@gmail.com;jacquechase@gmail.com; rockdonati@aol.com; pjohn7179@aol.com; Michelena, Mark <MMichelena@buttecounty.net>; Snellings,Tim <TSnellings@buttecounty.net>; Calarco, Pete <PCalarco@buttecounty.net>;Thistlethwaite,Charles<cthistlethwaite@buttecounty.net>; Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>; Connelly, Bill<BConnelly@buttecounty.net>; Wahl, Larry <LWahl@buttecounty.net>; Kirk, Maureen<MKirk@buttecounty.net>; BOS District 4<District4@buttecounty.net>; Teeter, Doug<DTeeter@buttecounty.net>; Mendoza, Louie<LMendoza@buttecounty.net>;Alpert, Bruce <BAlpert@buttecounty.net>; Debra@debralucero.us; Fossum,Tom <TFossum@buttecounty.net>; tamiritter2012@gmail.com Subject: Mitigation for Stanley Avenue traffic Mr. Michelena, The neighbors met on Sunday to discuss, among other issues, what we would like to see for mitigation of the impacts of increased traffic on Stanley Avenue due to TSM17-0001. We were in agreement that the traffic engineer's proposal to widen a part (pending determination of the developer's 'fair share') of Stanley Avenue to 20 feet would achieve little or no mitigation of safety risks and be more costly compared to more effective alternatives. The attached document outlines our argument in favor of the use of speed humps and minor road repairs as an option. A total of six or eight speed humps would cost less than $20,000 (based on the average cost of$2,500 each). The cost of widening the 1,500 feet of road could easily exceed $300,000 with the developer's' share (60%) of around $180,000. And that cost is assuming that the developer is not responsible for a portion of the realignment of the intersection with Dayton Road (see County Counsel's comments). If you wish to discuss this further you can contact me at this email address or by phone (530) 592-9130. And if you require proof of the neighborhood's support for this option, we can circulate a petition and acquire the signatures of most, if not all, of the residents of Stanley Avenue. 1 Sincerely, Dr. David E. Gallo P.S. There were some objections to this proposal--not due to the engineering specifics--but because it would save Mr. Leen money. Obviously this has been a bitter fight and there is not much sentiment among the neighborhood for cooperation. Perhaps Mr. Leen could use a small portion of this cost savings to offer a bit of an olive branch in the form of some vegetative beautification of the development frontage on Stanley Avenue. This my suggestion alone. 2 To: Butte County Department of Development Services Attn: Michael Michelena From: David Gallo RE: Infrastructure Improvements to Stanley Avenue:TSM17-0001 A study by Tester(2004)concluded that there is a "53-60% reduction in the odds of injury or death among children struck by an automobile in the neighborhood" (Tester et al., 2004) when a speed hump is present.' Stanley Avenue Among Chico area residential streets Stanley Avenue has unique characteristics. It is narrow(16-18 feet) and roughly one-half mile long with no curves(If not so narrow it would be perfect for drag racing). It is oriented on an east-west axis with the sun rising and setting almost directly down the street around the times of the fall and spring equinoxes(when schools are in session)and with few trees on the south side of the road to block the sun. Because of this uniqueness it has unique safety issues. Speeding is an irresistible temptation, particularly for those driving the full length of the street(not to imply that everyone living at the east end of the street speeds). Visibility is impeded especially during the peak traffic times in the spring and fall. That is a danger to pedestrians, bicyclists, and children transported to school by any means. The unique characteristics of the street invite unique solutions to mitigation of the additional traffic generated by the Leen development. Current Proposals for Mitigation There have been several proposed mitigation measures, none of which in my opinion will offset the safety risks resulting from increased traffic on Stanley Avenue. 1. County Counsel suggested that the developer be responsible for roughly a 60 percent share of the cost of realignment of the intersection with Dayton Road and widening of Stanley Avenue to 20 feet. 2. Because of the acceptable adequate sight distances at the end of Stanley Avenue,the traffic engineer hired by the applicant did not believe realignment of the intersection with Dayton Road was necessary. He instead advocated for widening Stanley Avenue to 20 feet,with the developer absorbing an unspecified "fair share" of the cost. 3. Mr. Habib, Mr. Leen's attorney on this matter did not specify what improvements need to be made, but based on his broader definition of the neighborhood, claimed that the developer should be responsible for only 20 percent of whatever improvements are deemed appropriate. Flaws in these Proposals There are two main problems with these incomplete proposals for mitigation of traffic impacts. First, they will not increase safety. Widening a part of Stanley Avenue is likely to increase driving speed, which in turn will increase average driving speed on the remaining narrow section of the road.2 None of the proposals suggest the developer widen the entire street to Dayton Road. The traffic survey lhttps://schola rworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=httpsj/www.google.com/&httpsred it=1&article=1424 &context=etd projects z https://nacto.org/docs/usde/review lane width and speed parsons.pdf commissioned by the applicant indicated that currently 51 percent of vehicles are exceeding the speed limit. A partially widened road is likely to be an invitation for more drivers to exceed the limit. And it is well known that increased speed leads to increased risk. A pedestrian hit be a car traveling at 20 mph has a 95 percent chance of survival, while one struck by a car traveling at 30 mph has only a 55 percent chance of surviving the accident.3 Stopping distances increase significantly with vehicle speed. The combination of reaction time and braking distance increase from 39 feet at 20 mph to 75 feet at 30 mph, increasing the probability of an accident.' The second problem is cost. These proposals suggest the developer should spend a considerable amount of money without producing any measurable public benefit. It should be clear from the involvement of the neighborhood in this proceeding that we have little sympathy for the developer or his finances, but even to me it seems pointless to spend money on road "improvements"that serve no one's interests. An Alternative Proposal Presumably the purpose of mitigation is keep the risk of traffic accidents and injuries to a level similar to what it is presently. With a 40 percent increase in traffic on Stanley Avenue there is, without mitigation, a 40 percent increase in the risk of accidents and injuries. Therefore reducing that risk to roughly what it is at present requires a decrease in accident risk per vehicle. The only way to do that at reasonable cost is to add speed humps to Stanley Avenue in order to reduce vehicle speed. Because of the exponential increase in risk with speed, it is of particular importance to reduce the speed of current and future drivers who exceed the 25 mph limit by a significant margin. Speed humps(not bumps,which can be a nuisance even when driving significantly below the speed limit) are the only way to accomplish this goal at reasonable costs Evidence of the effectiveness of Speed Humps In a study of speed humps added to six streets Cottrell et al (2006), with a total sample size in excess of 18,000 vehicle trips,found that after the addition of speed humps the mean speed decreased by 10.5 percent. More importantly the study found that the 85th percentile speed declined by 18.7 percents In another study Thompson (2002)studied one location and found that the before the addition of speed humps average speeds were 36-37 MPH and the after speeds were reduced to 26-27 MPH.' The important conclusion of these and other studies is that speed humps reduce the driving speed of those driving over the limit more than they reduce the speed of those driving at or below the speed 3https://scholarworks.sisu.ed u/cg]viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredi r=1&article=7.424 &context=etd projects 4https://www.google.com/search?q=vehicle+stopping+distance+by+speed&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0a hUKEwi-88OM-Z fAhUAGTQIHXvgDYIQ AUIDigB&biw=911&bih=438##imgrc=Ad5BHduDmkMAAM: 5 Speed humps have been installed on a number of streets in the Chico area including East 8th Street, Bidwell Drive, and Oak Lawn Avenue and can be navigated at 15 to 25 mph without undue discomfort to drivers. This is in contrast to speed bumps on the Upper Bidwell Park Road,Cramer lane,and any number of commercial parking lots which are jarring at any speed. 6https://scholarworks.sisu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1424 &context=etd projects Ibid limit. Applying the results of the Cottrell et al study to the driving speed data from the applicant's traffic study shows that the addition of speed humps would significantly reduce the risk of serious accidents on Stanley Avenue. It would reduce the mean speed by only 10.5 percent from 24.6 mph to 22.1 mph, but would reduce the 85th percentile speed by 18.7 percent from 31.3 mph to 25.4 mph. The Specific Proposal The following are the elements of my proposal: 1. Require the developer to install speed humps west of the proposed development to the intersection with Dayton Road at appropriate intervals. In order to protect the structures from damage,they should be installed following the on-site heavy construction but before home construction begins. 2. Require the developer to install some speed humps east of the proposed development. This is to prevent traffic switching to alternative routes, increasing traffic on Marian and Diamond. It doesn't need to be as many as are installed to the west of the development as the driving time would be twice as long{report of the applicant's traffic engineer) and there is less incentive to initially travel to the east to reach Dayton Road. 3. Require the developer to widen all of Stanley Avenue to the west of the project to a uniform 18 feet. That should be only one or two short sections of the road. 4. if sufficient funds remain the developer should be required to improve the road shoulder by filling those areas that tend to flood in the winter, allowing pedestrians safer transit.