Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Safety Work Group Agenda September 7, 2011 Packet_201402041316158769Traffic Safety Work Group Agenda Wednesday, September 7, 2011 – 10:30 AM PSF Community Room 4 Fairgrounds Road, Nantucket, MA I. Public Comment II. Other Business* III. Approval of Minutes of August 2, 2011 at 10:30 AM IV. New Business 1. Discuss making Highland Avenue one-way. 2. Request for additional signage on Polpis Road bike path at intersection of Milestone Road. 3. Request for speeding enforcement, prohibiting parking, and improved sight lines on Winn Street (end by Madaket Road). 4. Request to make South Beach Street Extension Loading Zone only. 5. Discussion regarding parking on Ocean Avenue, Broadway, Center Street, and Shell Street in Sconset. 6. Request for traffic sign at intersection of Burnell and Clifton Streets in Sconset. 7. Request for stop sign on Miacomet Road at intersection of dirt road and Pond View Drive; reduced speed limits; four-way stop at Miacomet Road and Surfside Road. 8. Request for yellow line at 46 Easton Street. 9. Request to limit parking on one side only on Walsh Street between Easton Street and East Lincoln Avenue. 10. Request for yellow lines at corner of Derrymore Road. 11. Review curb cut request for 8 Pine Street resulting in loss of on-street parking space. V. Old Business 1. Review prior recommendation regarding Macy’s Lane in light of abutter letter. 2. Berkley Avenue – discuss possible widening or posting as no parking. VI. Adjournment *For topics not reasonably anticipated 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Traffic Safety Work Group Minutes of the meeting of August 2, 2011. The meeting took place in the PSF Community Room, 4 Fairgrounds Road, Nantucket, MA 02554. Members present were Transportation Planner Mike Burns, Jack Gardner, Arthur Gasbarro, Executive Assistant to the Town Manager Erika Mooney, DPW Foreman John Smith, and Commission on Disability Chair Mickey Rowland. Fire Chief Mark McDougall, Assistant DPW Director Mohamed Nabulsi, and Police Chief William Pittman were absent. The meeting was called to order at 10:30 AM. I. Public Comment 1. Dick Arnold of 8 Winn Street – after reviewing the bylaw governing hedges and sightlines at intersections, Mr. Arnold marked some hedges at some intersections with paint and forwarded pictures to Town Administration. Mr. Gardner mentioned that sightline issues don’t need Traffic Safety action and should be dealt with through Town Administration and DPW. Mr. Gasbarro mentioned the DPW should have a dedicated crew for vegetation removal. IV. New Business 4. NISDA: Review Traffic Issues at Entrance/Exit to 23 Wauwinet Road Campus. Mr. Gasbarro disclosed that he has met with representatives from NISDA about possibly working for them on this issue. NISDA director Kathy Kelm noted that the northerly driveway is located on an abutter’s property and can no longer be used. Following a discussion the group decided to visit the site. 1. Review Request for Accessible Parking Space Near Quidnet Pond Entrance. Following a discussion the group decided to visit the site. 3. Brant Point Association: Request for Parking on One Side of Streets in all of Brant Point; Extend Parking Enforcement District to Brant Point Area; Disallow Long-Term Parking. Following a discussion of the requests the group noted that the requests needed more specifics regarding which streets are to be included in the various parking restrictions. Mr. Rowland noted that he is a member of the Brant Point Area Plan Work Group and he will report back to the group. Ms. Mooney will also follow up with the BPAPWG chair Linwood Butler. At 11:17 AM Mr. Rowland left the meeting. 2. Review Request for Curb Cut/Elimination of Parking Space at 73 Main Street. After discussing the request to remove one on-street parking space to construct a curb cut and driveway with two off-street parking spaces, there was consensus from the group that there were no significant safety issues with the request. 5. Review Request for Yellow Line at 5 Highland Avenue. Following a discussion the group decided to visit the site. 6. Request for Stop Signs at Hinckley Lane/Cliff Road Intersection on Bike Path at Intersection. Following a discussion the group took no action. Mr. Burns will discuss this matter with MassDOT as part of the Cliff Road bike path construction. V. Old Business 1. Follow-up on Winn Street. The group discussed rocks that were placed in the public section of the roadway. The group also discussed a previous recommendation for a public hearing regarding the current traffic flow permitted for the roadway. II. Other Business 1. Berkley Avenue. The group discussed the possible widening of this roadway or posting it as no parking. This matter was continued to the September meeting. 2. Request for Reduced Speed Limits on New Lane. The group discussed traffic issues in this area and determined a sidewalk may not be possible as there are cemeteries on both sides of the road, and 20 MPH is not legal to post. 3. The group discussed the recent use of green metal landscape stakes installed by private abutters along the edges of roadways to prevent on street parking. The DPW will remove these private stakes. III. Approval of Minutes of July 5, 2011 at 10:30 AM. The minutes were approved as presented. V. Adjournment At 12:07 the meeting was adjourned to 2:00 PM for site visits. Group Site Visits were conducted at 2:00 PM August 2, 2011 Members present were Mr. Burns, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Gasbarro, Ms. Mooney, Mr. Rowland, and Mr. Smith. Review Request for Accessible Parking Space Near Quidnet Pond Entrance. Following the site visit, the group recommended an accessible parking space to be located south of the entrance to Quidnet Pond. DPW will provide improvements to a ramp from the roadway to the path to the pond. NISDA: Review Traffic Issues at Entrance / Exit to 23 Wauwinet Road Campus. Following the site visit, the group recommended clearing roadside vegetation in front of the NISDA property to maintain 150-200 foot sight distances from the driveway exit, as well as a “Blind Driveway” sign at utility pole 99-14 in front of 19 Wauwinet Road. Ms. Mooney will speak with the abutters at 19 Wauwinet Road regarding trimming back shrubbery and the possible relocation of a tree. Berkley Avenue. Following a site visit, it was agreed that Mr. Burns will check to see if there is a Planning Board ruling regarding the recent widening of the road. It was agreed that no action would be taken until the September meeting. Members present were Mr. Burns, Mr. Gardner, Ms. Mooney, and Mr. Rowland. Review Request for Yellow Line at 5 Highland Avenue. Following the site visit, the group recommended no parking along the east side of Highland Avenue and maintenance of the no parking yellow lines in front of driveways along the west side of the roadway. The meeting was adjourned at 2:54 PM. Annie Teasdale Annie and the tees,inc 970-274-1230 dear erika as per our conversation 8/8/2011 I am writing to mak a suggestion. I own the property at 19 so water st. I have parking on my property. It is obstructed everyday by the delivery trucks for the strip, the rose and crown and corozon. More than often we cannot get in or out and we get ticket. I am suggesting the parking behind the rose and crown down to the juice bar be a designated unloading zone. It would alleviate our issues as I think we should not be subject to other businesses needs. I ask you to give this serious consideration. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Annie teasdale Page 50 2009 Edition When two vehicles approach an intersection from different streets or highways at approximately the same time, the right-of-way rule requires the driver of the vehicle on the left to yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right. The right-of-way can be modified at through streets or highways by placing YIELD (R1-2) signs (see Sections 2B.08 and 2B.09) or STOP (R1-1) signs (see Sections 2B.05 through 2B.07) on one or more approaches.Guidance: 02 Engineering judgment should be used to establish intersection control. The following factors should be considered: A. Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic volumes on all approaches; B. Number and angle of approaches; C. Approach speeds; D. Sight distance available on each approach; and E. Reported crash experience. 03 YIELD or STOP signs should be used at an intersection if one or more of the following conditions exist: A. An intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of-way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law; B. A street entering a designated through highway or street; and/or C. An unsignalized intersection in a signalized area. 04 In addition, the use of YIELD or STOP signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where one or more of the following conditions exist: A. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all approaches averages more than 2,000 units per day; B. The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right-of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary; and/or C. Crash records indicate that five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right-of-way at the intersection under the normal right-of-way rule have been reported within a 3-year period, or that three or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. 05 YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control. Support: 06 Section 2B.07 contains provisions regarding the application of multi-way STOP control at an intersection. Guidance: 07 Once the decision has been made to control an intersection, the decision regarding the appropriate roadway to control should be based on engineering judgment. In most cases, the roadway carrying the lowest volume of traffic should be controlled. 08 A YIELD or STOP sign should not be installed on the higher volume roadway unless justified by an engineering study. Support: 09 The following are considerations that might influence the decision regarding the appropriate roadway upon which to install a YIELD or STOP sign where two roadways with relatively equal volumes and/or characteristics intersect: A. Controlling the direction that conflicts the most with established pedestrian crossing activity or school walking routes; B. Controlling the direction that has obscured vision, dips, or bumps that already require drivers to use lower operating speeds; and C. Controlling the direction that has the best sight distance from a controlled position to observe conflicting traffic. Standard: 10 Because the potential for conflicting commands could create driver confusion, YIELD or STOP signs shall not be used in conjunction with any traffic control signal operation, except in the following cases: A. If the signal indication for an approach is a flashing red at all times; B. If a minor street or driveway is located within or adjacent to the area controlled by the traffic control signal, but does not require separate traffic signal control because an extremely low potential for conflict exists; or C. If a channelized turn lane is separated from the adjacent travel lanes by an island and the channelized turn lane is not controlled by a traffic control signal. Sect. 2B.04 December 2009 Page 52 2009 Edition Sect. 2B.06 to 2B.07 December 2009 Section 2B.06 STOP Sign ApplicationsGuidance: 01 At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should first be given to using less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Sections 2B.08 and 2B.09). 02 The use of STOP signs on the minor-street approaches should be considered if engineering judgment indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions: A. The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or highway exceed 6,000 vehicles per day; B. A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe conflicting traffic on the through street or highway; and/or C. Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction by the installation of a STOP sign have been reported within a 12-month period, or that five or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. Such crashes include right-angle collisions involving road users on the minor-street approach failing to yield the right-of-way to traffic on the through street or highway.Support: 03 The use of STOP signs at grade crossings is described in Sections 8B.04 and 8B.05. Section 2B.07 Multi-Way Stop ApplicationsSupport: 01 Multi-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with multi-way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multi-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. 02 The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.04 also apply to multi-way stop applications.Guidance: 03 The decision to install multi-way stop control should be based on an engineering study. 04 The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi-way STOP sign installation: A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour; but 3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition.Option: 05 Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include: A. The need to control left-turn conflicts; B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection.             MEMO TO: Town Manager FROM: Traffic Safety Work Group DATE: July 26, 2011 RE: Macys Lane The Traffic Safety Work Group reviewed on-street parking issues on Macys Lane in January, March, and June of 2011. At its June 7, 2011 meeting, taking into consideration that Macys Lane is a County road, a designated bike route, and has continued issues with on-street parking, Traffic Safety recommended that there be no parking on the west side of Macys Lane.