P g N h 1
Ref: Cotati City Council, Sept 10: 12.B SR 116/ W Cotati Ave Design Services. Sent: Sept 7, 2024 Dear Mayor Sparks, Vice Mayor Ford and Councilmembers Lemus, Rivers and Harvey Shouldn’t the shortfall of funds (pdfPg176, $844,756) come from “traffic impact fees”? The shortfall is partly coming from pedestrian, bicycle & enviro-related funds.
I’ve been advocating for a safer intersection crossing here since 2019, when the changing conditions of more housing became very visible – and the need for a safe N-S pedestrian crossing on SR116, connecting to the pedestrian network in Cotati, and to the NW Cotati and Sonoma County network.
The 35% Design documents (cleargov.com )were completed earlier this year, and I made input – see the email to the Council, and response from City Manager O’Bid, March 25, 2024 with the observation that I hoped there would be adequate time for a public process to comment on the design.
While clearly most of the design changes are for vehicle circulation, I’m advocating for the forgotten Pedestrian & Bicycle Safey issues that are so absent in the rest of the built network. This design is definitely a step up, thanks to all the staff and consultants working on it.
Question: What is the actual width of the Pedestrian Refuge Island at the pedestrian crossing? I would like to advocate for two specific “low hanging fruit” pedestrian safety enhancements: (1) a safer protected pedestrian refuge island with “protected nose” (2) 8 feet wide island. In the EIR PdfPg345 “Raised Median: 6-ft concrete median included based on preference from City staff to support roadway safety (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures),” PdfPg219 “The westbound and eastbound traffic would be separated by a 6-foot-wide concrete raised median”.
However 35% Design plans PD-1 W side of junction appear to indicate 5-ft PdfPg 348 identifies “Pedestrian Refuge Islands: Median islands along SR116 provide pedestrian refuge.” From Caltrans Highway Design Manual – 62.4 Interchanges and Intersections at Grade (13) Island. A defined area between roadway lanes for control of vehicle movements or for pedestrian refuge. Within an intersection a median or an outer separation is considered an island. (18) Pedestrian Refuge. A section of pavement or sidewalk, surrounded by asphalt or other road materials, where users can stop before completing the crossing of a road.
From nacto.org/./crosswalks-and-crossings/pedestrian-safety-islands Recommended: All medians at intersections should have a “nose” which extends past the crosswalk. The nose protects people waiting on the median and slows turning drivers.
Safety islands should include curbs, bollards, or other features to protect people waiting.
From sfbetterstreets.org/../traffic-calming-overview/medians-and-islands/index.html Medians should be built to the maximum width possible, rather than providing a striped area outside the median
Pedestrian refuge islands are protected areas where people may safely pause or wait while crossing a street. Pedestrian refuge islands are particularly helpful as resting areas for seniors, persons with disabilities, children, and others who may be less able to cross the street in one stage. At signalized intersections, they allow slow moving pedestrians to cross in two phases. At unsignalized locations, they simplify the act of finding a gap in traffic to cross since vehicles from only one direction must be reckoned with at a time.
P g N h 2
For this crossing, pedestrians may need a safety pause while evaluating the second lane to cross.
Imagine you are a pedestrian crossing from one of the new units, walking into downtown Cotati, and you evaluate that the West side of the junction is the safest to cross. From the 35% Design, using page PD-1: You walk to the pedestrian signal, the bulbout feels safe (see diagram below blue 1). There is some passing traffic, and you make a safety determination that now is a good time to press the cross signal.
The pedestrian crossing light indicates green, and a visual check to the left across the junction indicates any traffic has stopped, or if sufficiently distant is likely to stop, and you cross the 12’ road to the pedestrian midsection.
(See diagram above blue 2) Now looking right there is a much larger road section to cross – two lanes + bicycle lane (32’ on the plans). This East bound lane has traffic coming from a high-speed County section of road. Before crossing a road on foot, I personally always ensure that I make eye contact with vehicle drivers before crossing, and for a large, potentially very dangerous vehicle with high cab, I’m extra cautious. At the very least I ensure the vehicle is some distance away and almost stopped if it is still moving. To do this I need a safe space on the pedestrian island to feel physically secure. In addition, there can be a vehicle turning left to go N, possibly immediately in front of me, blocking my view of other traffic coming along. I may for safety pause long enough that the pedestrian light indicates I shouldn’t cross, and I decide it’s unsafe to step in front of these particular drivers. Now I need a protected space from the “whoosh” of vehicles on both sides of me.
While a healthy athletic person is going to make fast decisions, and be able to move quickly through the junction, other older, younger, and people on slow wheels may be extremely cautious.
P g N h 3
There was a terrible event on Nov 16, 2020 of the death of a Cotati pedestrian at the stop sign on Myrtle Ave/Macklin Dr, while walking a dog, reported in the PressDemocrat. The psychology of a safe crossing should be understood and safe pedestrian habitats need to be designed for. We need to design for young teenagers, older people or people in low-height wheelchairs, crossing in front of potentially distracted “killer” drivers. My number one rule, to not be a statistic, is if the vehicle is close enough to see, or stopped, to establish eye contact with the driver before walking in front of the vehicle.
The pedestrian island on the west side of the junction could have safety features: (a) be 8’ wide, and (b) a safety refuge feature “protected nose,” as shown with green circles in the following pictures (from Nacto.org Pedestrian Safety Islands.)
……
P g N h 4
The Federal Highway manual references a pedestrian refuge of up to 8' for a controlled intersection.
I hope you will consider these two changes for the pedestrian island, a protected nose, and 8’ wide pedestrian refuge.
Sincerely, Neil Hancock
P g N h 5
General Comments on Item 10.B
1) PdfPg 227 (label 222 of 1574) Figure 5: Site Intersection Design, appears to be wrong, showing three east bound lanes and doesn’t represent the 35% Design ’s other descriptions. (a) It doesn’t align with the35% Design Plans PD-1 showing two east bound lanes+ bicycle lane, or (b) the text on PdfPg 219 (label 214 of 1574) “West of the proposed intersection of SR-116 and West Cotati Ave, the Project would construct two eastbound lanes, including a 12-foot through lane and a 12-foot right lane, and a 12-foot dedicated left-hand turn lane. The eastbound direction would also include a striped bike lane within the 8-foot shoulder, extending on both sides of the new intersection to Redwood Drive.” 2) Text PdfPg 188 (label 183 of 1574) Mark Thomas Scope of Work Task 3.6 Interviews. May have reference to wrong city/county: “Crawford may also contact City of Chico or Butte County Environmental Health Department personnel.”
3) PdfPg175 (labeled 170 of 1574) references “add a total of 303 rental units” - PdfPg 207 CEQA Surrounding land uses, references Total 471units (126+168+177) – should these numbers be the same? Emails Craig Scott, Public Works Director/City Engineer, on width of Pedestrian Refuge island (also referenced as pedestrian coral)
On 2024-08-28 15:26, Craig Scott wrote:
Hi Neil –
I read your response below and appreciate the focus on pedestrian safety. It does take a different mindset than what was designed for 10-20 years ago when seems like it was all about getting people around in cars from A to B as quickly as possible. When you ask below about what would give potential pedestrians a safer sense of being able to complete the crossing safely. I think the answer is to install the signalized intersection as designed and follow the standard timing for that length of crossing to provide ample time for pedestrians to get across. I am not aware of any pedestrian corrals in the middle of signalized intersections.
I could certainly look around some more but did not see any in Petaluma or elsewhere. It still seems like an odd feature as the pedestrian would leave the curb knowing there was not enough time to cross (having seen the countdown expiring) then strand themselves in the middle of a highway through an entire cycle of the signal timing. The direction to pedestrians is to not begin their crossing if there is insufficient time to get fully across. Maybe to drive the point across, the pedestrian signal heads could shout out a warning and text not to begin their crossing after it’s started. Another feature we have implemented at the Valparaiso crossing is to give pedestrians a head start. So the pedestrian light turns on while all traffic lights are red. This provides a visibility advantage. Also, per CVC, cars are not to make turns until pedestrians are off the street and onto the sidewalk.
During the design process, we’ll ask our consultants to formalize our response to this concern. Initial conversations, however, have our consultants scratching their heads as to why a pedestrian would want to be stranded in the middle when they have time to get across.
If you can provide examples of pedestrian corals in signalized intersections that would be helpful and we can compare the crossing distance to what’s being proposed at Hwy 116 at W Cotati Ave.
I appreciate the dialog and hopefully we can address your concerns.
P g N h 6
Craig
From: Neil Hancock
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 12:51 PM
To: Craig Scott <[email protected]>
Cc: Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition Eris Weaver <[email protected]> Subject: SR 116/W Cotati ave junction dimension qu
Hi Scott Thanks for the response, I've been away over the weekend. I've just sent through a previous email with input on "pedestrian safety" I made last year and again in March 26 on this design, and it looked like it was copied to you.
I've been advocating for better discussion on pedestrian safety every time a discussion of this junction has come up - and in the past the reply was pedestrian safety would be flushed out.
Now we have 35% design with the possibility of discussing "Pedestrian Safety" function Perhaps this is easier to do in telephone. Happy to talk it through 707.792.4422 I asked to confirm the dimensions on the 35% design - and just wondering if I got them right. Qu "Pedestrian islands are 5' on the West side, and could be 4-7' on the East Side, of the junction." I presented this 35% design at the informal once a month meeting of the Petaluma Urban Chat last week. It included Kevin Mcdonnel (current Mayor Petaluma) and a number of other knowledgeable engineering types advocating for safer streets in Petaluma.
The comments from the group, for a 35% conceptual design was it didn't have enough detail to make it safe for pedestrians, if they end up in the middle of the road and are unable to complete the crossing hwy 116 in a single action.
While I appreciate there is some good new pedestrian safety features on this 35% W Cotati design, a) North side pedestrian bulbout, b) mid way refugee c) assume pedestrian button for lights- the question is what would give potential pedestrians a safer sense of being able to complete the crossing safely.? IMHO the dangerous context is for a light traffic road - with potentially large vehicles approaching from a distance, with poor visibility conditions, possibly sunset or foggy. On pressing the crossing signal, the pedestrian analyzes if the vehicles are actually going to see that the pedestrian has right of way. Personally at the midway stop sign on E Cotati Ave, Charles St - which typically has this context - as an able bodied person - I visually check one direction, and when safe proceed to the center of the road, to largish pedestrian island. Then in the middle of the road I check the other direction before proceeding. Similarly with the very well designed E Cotati Ave, Laguna Crossing . I feel safer at the Laguna Crossing - even though the metal railing may not actually provide a lot of physical protection - its structure provides an indication vehicles haven't passed through the pedestrian island.
For safer pedestrian on Hwy 116/W COtati Ave I would advocate that the midway island needs to be 8' wider, and have protective railings. I dislike quoting the Federal Highway manual for internal Cotati street, but they reference a pedestrian refuge figure of up to 8' for a traffic light controlled intersection.
P g N h 7
I would point out that Mayor Laura Sparks commented at one City meeting, when discussing Active Transportation that maybe Cotati's need an indices of rating the streets for safety - as input to Cotati's Project Zero analysis. That is for small Cotati City , a death on the streets is statistical anomaly. The death of August Staton Nov, 2020 at the stop sign Myrtel/Macklin struck by a vehicle heading west, is one horrific vehicular collision in what would appear to be a safe setting.
I appreciate there is some very valuable changes with the new pedestrian paths to the west side school Cotati Academy, and also potentially on Valparaiso Ave. To meet a Project Zero objective of a "statistical zero" deaths on Cotati's streets, there is going to need to be some pedestrian focused psychology to facilitate safer street design.
sincerely
Neil Hancock : New email ,
On 2024-08-23 13:57, Craig Scott wrote:
Hi Neil –
To be honest, we are not fully understanding the request for pedestrian islands at this location as this is a signalized intersection and the timing – pedestrian countdown - will enable ample time to get across. It seems, we would not want to encourage pedestrians to stay in the middle of the highway through an entire light cycle as it could be uncomfortable. Pedestrian islands are provided for uncontrolled intersections like those on E. Cotati Ave. The spaces shown in the diagram below are there because the medians are there, separating opposing west bound and east bound traffic, and not to create pedestrian islands.
If you have a specific reason or example in mind, for islands in traffic signal crossings, please send it to me.
Thanks
Craig
From: Neil Hancock
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 4:30 PM
To: Craig Scott <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Hwy 116/W Cotati ave junction
Many thanks
Looking a the diagrams, good to see the pedestrian bulbout.
Though am I reading it right that the Pedestrian islands are 5' on the West side, and could be 4-7' on the East Side, of the junction.
much appreciate the insights
From X-1
P g N h 8
P g N h 9
From PD-2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Neil Hancock : New email ,
On 2024-08-15 16:39, Craig Scott wrote:
35% plans now posted to the Cleargov site.
On 2024-08-15 14:58, Craig Scott wrote:
Hi Neil -
We expect the design contract approval in September. I'll post the 35% plans onto the Cleargov site later today.
Craig
CRAIG A. SCOTT (He/Him)
P g N h 10
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Phone: (707) 665.3620 Email: [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Hancock
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 2:53 PM
To: Craig Scott <[email protected]>
Subject: Hwy 116/W Cotati ave junction
Hello Craig.
I was wondering if the next phase of design for Hwy 116/W Cotati ave junction was coming up before the council, and what date that might be?
Would it be possible to get a preview of the current design, and proposed next contract phase documents?
many thanks
~~ Neil Hancock : New email
P g N h 11
Emails to Council, Damien O’Bid, Craig Scott on Comments on 35% Design -------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Fw: City Council meeting March 26, 2024 Item 11.A Presentation of the General Plan Report Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 21:59:51 +0000
From: Damien O'Bid <[email protected]>
To: Neil Hancock
CC: Noah Housh <[email protected]>, Craig Scott <[email protected]> Hi Neil,
Thanks for reaching out. Currently, we are finalizing the 35% design for this project. I believe the design team heard this feedback at the public presentation last June, but I will forward this to them to ensure they consider this in the overall design.
Thanks again,
Damien O'Bid
City Manager, City of Cotati
Phone 707-665-3622
Web www.cotaticity.org
201 W. Sierra Ave, Cotati, CA 94931
From: Neil Hancock
Date: March 25, 2024 at 6:38:12 PM PDT
To: Ben Ford <[email protected]>, Laura Sparks <[email protected]>, Susan Harvey <[email protected]>, Sylvia Lemus <[email protected]>, Kay Rivers <[email protected]> Cc: Kevin Patterson <[email protected]>, Noah Housh <[email protected]> Subject: City Council meeting March 26, 2024 Item 11.A Presentation of the General Plan Report Dear Mayor Sparks, Vice Mayor Ford and Councilmembers Lemus, Rivers and Harvey, I appreciate the review of the General Plan Implementation update.
I’m wondering when the item identified on PktPdfPg 104, Table 11-1 General Plan Implementation, Part of Action CL 1B, in “realignment of West Cotati Ave to intersect Gravenstein Highway” – [status column], “35% of the design for junction” – will be made available for public review.? When past road way plans have been put up for approval, it turned out that even minor tweaks could not be accommodated without referring it back to the funders, so I hope this plan will be available for comment before the plans are cast in metaphorical concrete.
Sincerely Neil Hancock
Background to W Cotati Ave : I’ve been advocating since 2019 for safe pedestrian connectivity from W Cotati across Hwy 116, to potential new housing in NW Cotati. It would seem to me this type of P g N h 12
planning is essential for potential reduced VMT for new housing units. In addition the city has adopted Vision Zero, to make safer Active Transportation in Cotati.
The proposed “35% design for the Hwy 116 /W Cotati Ave” doesn’t appear to be meeting these levels of expected pedestrian safety. In past review of completed plans affecting road ways, discussion on minor tweaks has been that the plans are not changeable without funders review.
Drivers, some in potentially large vehicles, are expecting to move through this newly urbanizing area, at relatively high speeds on Hwy 116. Pedestrians are concerned for their safety and will be considering whether they can safely walk/roll across a High Stress road (Hwy 116), first from one direction and then from the other direction. Will they have a safe central median where they can pause if necessary. Is the median large enough for all users, families and wheelchairs + support? If this crossing is not perceived to have a safe protected central median with potentially large vehicles on either side, then pedestrians are unlikely to use it.
I enclose a snippet of the diagram of the “35% plans “ from the “Pavement Delineation and Sign Plan”. It seems to me a cautious pedestrian/driver, looking for a low stress crossing is going to consider four phases to using this cross walk. If they don’t feel safe they won’t use it – and will stay with a vehicle. 0) Pre-decision on safety of crossing. When driving by/through the junction, they will consider could they cross it as a pedestrian. If it looks un-safe, they will not attempt to walk into Cotati for shopping, dining, or other activities
1) If it looks safe, then arrive at the junction on the West side, visually be guided by the safety of the pedestrian bulb out. The pedestrian visually analyzes what it takes to cross 3 lanes of traffic, and can they do it. If so press the cross signal (assuming there is one) If they are not confident of crossing 3 lanes, they will consider; is it safe in the middle of the road, can they take refuge there, can they press the crossing signal again.
When a pedestrian traffic “crossing indication” lights, they will look left and determine if any west bound vehicles have stopped, giving them the right of way, and then consider it safe to cross – to the center medium.
2) Proceed to the center of the road/divide, and then look right. 3) If vehicles traveling east have stopped then pedestrian will cross and continue along W Cotati Ave pedestrian paths.
Neil Hancock