PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
•
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
D.
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
VALLEY DRIVE – 1ST STREET TO 10TH PLACE
RECOMMENDED
INITIAL TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
City of Manhattan Beach
Community Development
Traffic Engineering Division
2. Install flashing
stop sign.
Conduct targeted speed and stop
sign violation enforcement
(various locations)
1. Install speed
limit sign.
3. Construct sidewalks
and crosswalks.
5. Install speed
awareness sign.
4. Construct walkway
and crosswalks.
6. Paint Parking
Edgeline.
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
Attachment A
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
&,7<2)0$1+$77$1%($&+
(1*,1((5,1*$1'75$)),&6859(<
675((7 6(*0(1712
)520 72
5RDGZD\)DFWRUV
Segment Length PLOHV
Roadway Width IHHW
Number of Lanes
1%6%/RQJIHOORZWR+RPHU
6%6%+RPHUWRWK
Center Median Type 3DLQWHG
VNLSW\SHVWULSLQJEHWZHHQZD\ODQHV
Traffic Control 6WRS6LJQVDW+RPHU3OVW6WDQGWK6W Horizontal Alignment &XUYHG
Vertical Alignment )ODW
Visibility 6LGHVWUHHWGULYHZD\WUDIILFYLVLELOLW\FRQVWUDLQWVGXHWRRQVWUHHWSDUNLQJ Lighting $WLQWHUVHFWLRQVDQGVSDFHGDORQJZHVWVLGHRIVHJPHQW Crosswalks? )UDQFLVFR6W
1 VW6W
16
6KRXOGHU5RDGVLGH)DFWRUV
Adjacent Land Use 56
On-Street Parking +HDY\WRPRGHUDWH
ZHVWVLGHRQO\
Bike Lanes? 1R
Driveways? /RZULVHUHVLGHQWLDO
ZHVWVLGHRQO\
Sidewalks? :HVWVLGHRQO\
Average Daily Traffic
9HKLFOHVSHU'D\
Traffic Volume Count Date
Pedestrian/Bicycle Traffic 3HGVELF\FOLVWVSUHVHQW
Truck Traffic 9HU\OLJKW
Number of Years Considered <HDUV
Expected Annual Collision Rate
&ROOLVLRQVSHU0LOOLRQ9HKLFOH0LOHV
Total Collisions (4-year period) &ROOLVLRQV
Average Annual Collisions &ROOLVLRQVSHU<HDU
Calculated Annual Collision Rate &ROOLVLRQVSHU0LOOLRQ9HKLFOH0LOHV Speed Survey Day / Date / Time
Number of Survey Samples 9HKLFOHV
50th Percentile Speed PSK
85th Percentile Speed PSK
10-mph Pace
PSK
% of Vehicles In Pace
% of Vehicles Over/Under Pace
Posted Speed Limit PSK
Speed Limit Justification
Recommended Speed Limit PSK
63(('=21,1*$1$/<6,6
(ULN=DQGYOLHW 6WDWH5HJLVWUDWLRQ1R 'DWH
5HVLGHQWLDO]RQHRQVWUHHWSDUNLQJOLPLWHGGULYHZD\YLVLELOLW\SHGV &(57,),&$7,21
, (ULN =DQGYOLHW GR KHUHE\ FHUWLI\ WKDW WKLV (QJLQHHULQJ DQG 7UDIILF 6XUYH\ IRU WKH &LW\ RI 0DQKDWWDQ %HDFK ZDV SHUIRUPHG XQGHU P\ VXSHUYLVLRQ , FHUWLI\ WKDW , DP ERWK H[SHULHQFHG LQ SHUIRUPLQJ VXUYH\V RI WKLV W\SH DQG DP GXO\ UHJLVWHUHG LQ WKH 6WDWH RI &DOLIRUQLD DV D SURIHVVLRQDO HQJLQHHU 7KH VXUYH\ KDV EHHQ FRQGXFWHG LQ VWULFW FRPSOLDQFH ZLWK JXLGHOLQHV FRQWDLQHG LQ WKH PRVW FXUUHQW YHUVLRQV RI WKH &DOLIRUQLD 9HKLFOH &RGH
&9&
DQG WKH &DOLIRUQLD 'HSDUWPHQW RI 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ 0DQXDO RQ 8QLIRUP 7UDIILF &RQWURO 'HYLFHV
087&'
'DWD FRQWDLQHG LQ WKLV UHSRUW UHSUHVHQWV D WUXH DQG DFFXUDWH GHVFULSWLRQ RI WUDIILF FRQGLWLRQV H[LVWLQJ RQ 0DQKDWWDQ%HDFKVWUHHWV
75
75$)),&92/80(6
&2//,6,21+,6725<
9$//(<'5,9(
%281'$5<3/$&( 7+675((7
52$':$<&21',7,216
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
Attachment B
&2817 03+
2)727$/ &80,/$7,9(
3267('63(('/,0,7
75$)),&&21',7,216
1RUPDO :($7+(5&21',7,216
6XQQ\ 52$'&21',7,216
1RUPDO 03+
5$'$563(('678'<
9DOOH\'U
%RXQGDU\3OWRWK6W
6287+%281'
/2&$7,21 9DOOH\'U
%RXQGDU\3OWRWK6W
352-(&7
9,&,1,7< 0DQKDWWDQ%HDFK /2&$7,21
7,0(5$1*(
'$7(2)678'< :HGQHVGD\-XQH
127(667$7,67,&6
6$03/(6,=( WK3(5&(17,/( 03+ 03+3$&(
$9(5$*(63(('
03+
WK3(5&(17,/( 03+ 180%(5,13$&(
63(('5$1*(
03+
WK3(5&(17,/( 03+ 3(5&(17,13$&(
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 Phone:877-852-4355 Fax:877-877-3698 [email protected]
QUALITY TRAFFIC DATA, LLC
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Quality Traffic Data, LLC
QTD PROJ/LOC #: 2022132 - 055 GPS COORDINATES: N/A
ON STREET: Valley Dr. START DATE: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 CROSS STREETS: 10th St. to 13th St. VICINITY: Manhattan Beach Phone: 887-852-4355 Fax: 877-877-3698 [email protected]
QUALITY TRAFFIC DATA, LLC
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
NB
SB
EB
WB
-50
0 50
100
150
200
TUE
WED
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Quality Traffic Data, LLC
NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 8 12:00 115
00:15 8 12:15 114
00:30 6 12:30 109
00:45 10 32 332 12:45 122 460 460
01:00 4 13:00 101
01:15 1 13:15 109
01:30 3 13:30 105
01:45 7 15 115 13:45 90 405 405
02:00 3 14:00 92
02:15 6 14:15 121
02:30 3 14:30 131
02:45 1 13 113 14:45 128 472 472
03:00 0 15:00 141
03:15 0 15:15 135
03:30 1 15:30 144
03:45 2 33 3 15:45 119 539 539
04:00 3 16:00 130
04:15 3 16:15 131
04:30 4 16:30 172
04:45 4 14 114 16:45 144 577 577
05:00 2 17:00 142
05:15 6 17:15 171
05:30 7 17:30 147
05:45 12 27 227 17:45 147 607 607
06:00 9 18:00 123
06:15 11 18:15 110
06:30 24 18:30 117
06:45 26 70 770 18:45 103 453 453
07:00 27 19:00 109
07:15 51 19:15 83
07:30 101 19:30 66
07:45 92 271 2271 19:45 80 338 338
08:00 68 20:00 84
08:15 88 20:15 59
08:30 68 20:30 61
08:45 91 315 3315 20:45 67 271 271
09:00 75 21:00 48
09:15 79 21:15 58
09:30 67 21:30 43
09:45 87 308 3308 21:45 43 192 192
10:00 80 22:00 44
10:15 94 22:15 24
10:30 90 22:30 21
10:45 111 375 3375 22:45 21 110 110
11:00 85 23:00 24
11:15 101 23:15 13
11:30 90 23:30 10
11:45 98 374 3374 23:45 10 57 557
TOTALS: 1817 1817 TOTALS: 4481 4481
SPLIT 100.0% 28.9% SPLIT 100.0% 71.1%
PEAK HOUR 11:45 11:45 PEAK HOUR 16:30 16:30
PH VOLUME 436 436 PH VOLUME 629 629
PHF 0.95 0.95 PHF 0.91 0.91
EB WB
6298
DAY'S TOTAL
6298
N/A
Tuesday, June 14, 2022
Manhattan Beach
GPS COORDINATES:
START DATE:
VICINITY:
AM COUNTS PM COUNTS
NB TOTAL
CROSS STREETS: 10th St. to 13th St.
QTD PROJ/LOC #: 2022132 - 055
SB
ON STREET: Valley Dr.
Phone: 887-852-4355 Fax: 877-877-3698 [email protected]
QUALITY TRAFFIC DATA, LLC
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Quality Traffic Data, LLC
NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
00:00 10 12:00 117
00:15 7 12:15 136
00:30 5 12:30 133
00:45 7 29 229 12:45 130 516 516
01:00 4 13:00 137
01:15 2 13:15 140
01:30 3 13:30 139
01:45 4 13 113 13:45 131 547 547
02:00 3 14:00 130
02:15 1 14:15 107
02:30 3 14:30 108
02:45 2 99 9 14:45 130 475 475
03:00 1 15:00 127
03:15 0 15:15 125
03:30 1 15:30 134
03:45 1 33 3 15:45 132 518 518
04:00 0 16:00 152
04:15 3 16:15 136
04:30 4 16:30 156
04:45 4 11 111 16:45 136 580 580
05:00 2 17:00 147
05:15 2 17:15 168
05:30 4 17:30 182
05:45 15 23 223 17:45 144 641 641
06:00 16 18:00 119
06:15 18 18:15 122
06:30 17 18:30 107
06:45 23 74 774 18:45 95 443 443
07:00 26 19:00 90
07:15 40 19:15 82
07:30 107 19:30 87
07:45 75 248 2248 19:45 91 350 350
08:00 84 20:00 69
08:15 92 20:15 86
08:30 90 20:30 53
08:45 85 351 3351 20:45 55 263 263
09:00 74 21:00 50
09:15 78 21:15 50
09:30 100 21:30 50
09:45 90 342 3342 21:45 36 186 186
10:00 76 22:00 32
10:15 94 22:15 35
10:30 100 22:30 29
10:45 102 372 3372 22:45 23 119 119
11:00 83 23:00 17
11:15 98 23:15 18
11:30 92 23:30 12
11:45 114 387 3387 23:45 12 59 559
TOTALS: 1862 1862 TOTALS: 4697 4697
SPLIT 100.0% 28.4% SPLIT 100.0% 71.6%
PEAK HOUR 11:45 11:45 PEAK HOUR 17:00 17:00
PH VOLUME 500 500 PH VOLUME 641 641
PHF 0.92 0.92 PHF 0.88 0.88
EB WB
QTD PROJ/LOC #: 2022132 - 055 GPS COORDINATES: N/A
ON STREET: Valley Dr. START DATE: Wednesday, June 15, 2022
AM COUNTS PM COUNTS
CROSS STREETS: 10th St. to 13th St. VICINITY: Manhattan Beach 6559 6559
DAY'S TOTAL
NB SB TOTAL
Phone: 887-852-4355 Fax: 877-877-3698 [email protected]
QUALITY TRAFFIC DATA, LLC
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
50th % 34 MPH
85th % 39 MPH
Average 35 MPH
10MPH 30 39
% in Pace
MPH NUMBER OF VEHICLES Number of Percent of Cumulative
5 10 15 20 25 30 Vehicles Total Percenta ge
65 0 0% 100.0%
64 0 0% 100.0%
63 0 0% 100.0%
62 0 0% 100.0%
61 0 0% 100.0%
60 0 0% 100.0%
59 0 0% 100.0%
58 0 0% 100.0%
57 0 0% 100.0%
56 0 0% 100.0%
55 0 0% 100.0%
54 0 0% 100.0%
53 0 0% 100.0%
52 0 0% 100.0%
51 0 0% 100.0%
50 0 0% 100.0%
49 0 0% 100.0%
48 0 0% 100.0%
47 0 0% 100.0%
46 0 0% 100.0%
45 0 0% 100.0%
44 0 0% 100.0%
43 OO 2 2% 100.0%
42 O 1 1% 98.2%
41 OO 2 2% 97.3%
40 OOOOOOOOO 9 8% 95.5%
39 OOOO 4 4% 87.4%
38 OOOOOOOOOOO 11 10% 83.8%
37 OOOO 4 4% 73.9%
36 O 1 1% 70.3%
35 OOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 3 12% 69.4%
34 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 9 17% 57.7%
33 OOOOOOOOOOOO 12 11% 40.5%
32 OOOOOOO 7 6% 29.7%
31 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 5 14% 23.4%
30 OOOOOOOOOO 10 9% 9.9%
29 O 1 1% 0.9%
28 0 0% 0.0%
27 0 0% 0.0%
26 0 0% 0.0%
25 0 0% 0.0%
24 0 0% 0.0%
23 0 0% 0.0%
22 0 0% 0.0%
21 0 0% 0.0%
20 0 0% 0.0%
19 0 0% 0.0%
18 0 0% 0.0%
17 0 0% 0.0%
16 0 0% 0.0%
15 0 0% 0.0%
111 100X - East/North bound 0 - West/South Bound Total Observed Direction Southbound Recorded by EZ
86%
Begin 8:30 End 9:10
Surveyed at 10th St Weather Cloudy
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
SPOT SPEED SURVEY
Street VALLEY DRIVE Date 11/25/2024
Limits 1st St to 6th Pl
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
50th % 33 MPH
85th % 38 MPH
Average 34 MPH
10MPH 30 39
% in Pace
MPH NUMBER OF VEHICLES Number of Percent of Cumulative
5 10 15 20 25 30 Vehicles Total Percenta ge
65 0 0% 100.0%
64 0 0% 100.0%
63 0 0% 100.0%
62 0 0% 100.0%
61 0 0% 100.0%
60 0 0% 100.0%
59 0 0% 100.0%
58 0 0% 100.0%
57 0 0% 100.0%
56 0 0% 100.0%
55 0 0% 100.0%
54 0 0% 100.0%
53 0 0% 100.0%
52 0 0% 100.0%
51 0 0% 100.0%
50 0 0% 100.0%
49 0 0% 100.0%
48 0 0% 100.0%
47 O 1 1% 100.0%
46 0 0% 98.9%
45 0 0% 98.9%
44 0 0% 98.9%
43 OO 2 2% 98.9%
42 O 1 1% 96.6%
41 0 0% 95.5%
40 OO 2 2% 95.5%
39 OO 2 2% 93.3%
38 OOOOOO 6 7% 91.0%
37 OOOOOOOOO 9 10% 84.3%
36 OOOOO 5 6% 74.2%
35 OOOOOOO 7 8% 68.5%
34 OOOOOOO 7 8% 60.7%
33 OOOOO 5 6% 52.8%
32 OOOOOOOOO 9 10% 47.2%
31 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 8 20% 37.1%
30 OOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 3 15% 16.9%
29 OO 2 2% 2.2%
28 0 0% 0.0%
27 0 0% 0.0%
26 0 0% 0.0%
25 0 0% 0.0%
24 0 0% 0.0%
23 0 0% 0.0%
22 0 0% 0.0%
21 0 0% 0.0%
20 0 0% 0.0%
19 0 0% 0.0%
18 0 0% 0.0%
17 0 0% 0.0%
16 0 0% 0.0%
15 0 0% 0.0%
89 100
91%
Surveyed at Weather
Direction Southbound Recorded by
10th St
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
SPOT SPEED SURVEY
6th Pl to 10th St 7:50
VALLEY DRIVE 11/25/2024Street Date
Limits
X - East/North bound 0 - West/South Bound Total Observed Cloudy
EZ
Begin End 8:30
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
1 COLLISION SUMMARY
Valley Drive – 1st Street to Manhattan Beach Boulevard
January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2023
DATE TIME STREET LOCATION DIRECTION TYPE REASON
2018 NONE REPORTED
2019 NONE REPORTED
2020 NONE REPORTED
09/14/2021 03:58 AM VALLEY DR AT 1ST STREET SB THRU VS OBJECT HIT OBJECT INATTENTION-FOGGY 02/15/2022 06:55 AM VALLEY DR 130’ SOUTH OF MANHATTAN BCH BL SB THRU VS SB LEFT REAR END FOLLOWING TO CLOSE 04/16/2023 03:16 PM VALLEY DR AT 3RD STREET EB RIGHT VS. SB THRU BROADSIDE FAILURE TO YIELD 06/30/2023 08:17 PM VALLEY DR 99’ SOUTH OF MANHATTAN BCH BL SB PED VS. SB THRU VEH VS. PED PED FAILURE TO YIELD
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
Attachment C
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
Attachment D
PARKING
AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
COMMISSION
Consider Traffic Calming
Measures on Valley Drive
between 1st Street and 10th
Place
Correspondence Received
Before Posting of Agenda
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
From: Richard A. Ward
To: Traffic
Cc: Kira Drorbaugh
Subject: [EXTERNAL] in support of lighted stop sight - 6th and Valley Date: Sunday, November 17, 2024 7:43:45 AM
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
I am a homeowner at 605 N Valley Drive in Manhattan Beach I have lived here for 11 years and have seen the danger from people constantly blowing the stop sign headed south on Valley at 6th street.
I may not be able to attend the public hearing, so I wanted to send an email in STRONG SUPPORT of the lighted flashing stop sign at this intersection.
All the evidence you need is from the hours of footage that my neighbor Tom Williams has posted to 'next door' for years. Funny/witty signs and intermittent police enforcement have not been sufficient to fix the problem.
I have a young son and dog and I fear for their safety in front of my house on a DAILY BASIS.
Please approve and install this sign ASAP.
Thank you,
Richard Ward
--
Richard A. Ward
310.968.6500
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
From: Erik Zandvliet
To: [email protected]
Cc: Traffic
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] 6th and Valley Public Meeting 12/5 Date: Monday, November 18, 2024 5:34:05 PM
Thank you, Julie and Steve, for forwarding your concerns and observations.
We will forward them to the Commissioners for consideration when they discuss this item on Thursday, 12/5.
Regarding crosswalks, the reason why crosswalks have not been painted is that there are no sidewalks on the Veterans Parkway side of the intersection. Every crosswalk must connect an accessible walk way on either end. Our Public Works Department is reviewing what it will take to construct sidewalks on 6th Street between Valley Drive and Ardmore Avenue to connect these two streets, which would include related crosswalks.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Erik
Erik Zandvliet
Traffic Engineer
(310) 802-5522
[email protected]
City of Manhattan Beach, CA
Office Hours: M - Th 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM | Fridays 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM | Not Applicable to Public Safety Use our click and fix it app 24/7 for non-emergency requests www.manhattanbeach.gov/reachmanhattanbeach -----Original Message-----
From: Julie Erich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 1:05 PM
To: Traffic <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 6th and Valley Public Meeting
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Erik,
We received the public meeting notice for 12/4 regarding the intersection of 6th and Valley and we plan to attend.
We have lived at 613 N Valley Drive for 2 years and we are very aware of the lack of stopping at this intersection as we are right at the stop sign.
I was wondering if cross walks have have been considered for this intersection? It is a highly trafficked area for pedestrians walking west from East MB and the Hill section. It feels like the only major intersection on Valley/Ardmore that doesn’t have cross walks? While flashing stoplights might help those who actually stop at Stop Signs, we continue to watch many locals not stop and we know they know there is a stop sign there. Sure it might be reminder, but the non-stopping residents might need more paint on the ground to help solidify the Stop? Right not the stop sign lines are very faint and broken.
My husband and I will be at the meeting, let me know if you have any questions.
Best,
-Julie and Steve Erich
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
303.949.6262 julie cell
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
1 Erik Zandvliet
From: Tom Williams <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 7:06 AM
To: Allen Kirschenbaum; Joe Marcy; Rosemarie Balla; Bob DaGiau; Erik Zandvliet Cc: Amy Thomas Howorth; David Lesser; Richard Montgomery; Joe Franklin; [email protected]; [email protected]; Rachel Johnson; City Manager; Hasmig Derderian Subject: [EXTERNAL] Feedback: 6th and Valley Flashing Stop Sign Initiative EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi -
My name is Tom Williams, and I live at 609 N Valley Dr in Manhattan Beach.
I’d first like to express my appreciation for your consideration in improving the local traffic conditions at 6th and Valley. I watch the daily near misses, sometimes hits, and the complete lack of disregard by drivers from my office on what I contemptuously call the PCH bypass.
I’d also like to state that I do not support putting in a flashing stop sign at this time. There are many reasons why, but the first is that before a vote to consider what traffic calming measures should be undertaken, a traffic study needs to be conducted to determine current traffic patterns, and then once again, after any calming measures have been implemented, to test their effectiveness.
Furthermore, I’d argue that a flashing stop sign does not solve the type of traffic problems we face. The current stop sign is well declared on both sides of the road, it’s been stripped (even a wider stripe), it's written on the road, and it's announced 150 feet or so before with signage. I’d also argue that the majority of violations that occur are not from people unaware that a stop sign exists but instead from willful disregard of it. Valley Dr, between MB Blvd and 1st, is currently designed in a way that promotes bad behavior, and that needs to change.
I’ve spoken to over 20 families in the 42 homes that front Valley between MB Blvd and 1st, and one message has resonated very loud and clear: people are fed up with the speed and reckless driving.
They are fed up with being unable to cross the street to the greenbelt safely. They are fed up with their cars getting hit. They are fed up with cars traveling more than 40 miles per hour down the street. They are fed up with drag racing between 6th and 1st. They are fed up with the lack of accountability.
I will present a physically signed petition currently, 24 homes out of 42 on this stretch of road. There has yet to be a single family who has declined to sign. The petition formally requests the city to perform a traffic calming study before taking any action and present all options available.
I believe that radical engineering concepts need to be considered to improve the conditions on Valley:
• Reducing Valley/Ardmore to a single lane in both directions between MB Blbd and 1st. Dedicating the right traffic lane for pedestrians, bike traffic, and emergency vehicles. • Making Valley/Ardmore bi-directional between MB Blvd and 1st. To match the traffic flow in both the Tree Section and HB to Herondo.
• Add a crosswalk along 6th on both Valley and Ardmore (And potentially other locations of known foot traffic). There are currently no crosswalks from MB Blvd to 1st (0.5 miles). Fun fact:
o Ardmore - MB Blvd to Rosecran has eight crosswalks (1.3 miles)
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
2 o Valley - MB Blvd to Rosecrans has eight crosswalks. (1.4 Miles) • Emergency services friendly speed humps and other traffic calming infrastructure like chicanes. There are knee-jerk emotions to speed humps, especially when it comes to emergency services, but this has now been well studied and can be engineered to both calm traffic and have minimal to no impact on response times.
I have collected thousands of hours of video footage. I have also created hand-curated clips of some of the worst violato
rs that I’d see with my own eyes. Now, as of last week, I’ve invested over a hundred hours of my time and built a computer vision model that accurately picks out some of the worst offenders.
To that end, I’d like to offer my footage and my time to work with the city's traffic engineer to profile the vehicle data I am cataloging in lieu of (or in addition to) a traditional traffic study.
I think that together, we’d come to a similar conclusion that most of these violations come from local traffic/commuter traffic that know very well there is a stop sign but also know that it is merely a suggestion
99.98% of the time.
I cannot begin to overstate just how bad the conditions are. It’s something that one has to consume in its totality to really appreciate the perverseness of the situation. For example, here are data points from my review the traffic patterns for only one day - 11/19/2024.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
If you are curious about what a video of over 400 cars running the stop signing looks like on a given day, and you have a large pot of coffee. Here are all 54 minutes of it: https://youtu.be/qTpc89B0PSM
Here are some additional clips I put together in the past. https://youtu.be/xXoyWrndTf4
https://youtu.be/CHnuCzsbjaU
https://youtu.be/MEo95BZ5sEY
https://youtu.be/xFenIWdmYc8
https://youtu.be/2YxD6tVWdTc
https://youtu.be/5gIIEMhn0Zg
https://youtu.be/Tt3pcImv4j0
https://youtu.be/fITiepKdjbI
https://youtu.be/9gwAXtGDxPA
Best,
Tom
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach
Traffic
Management
Program
HANDBOOK
Neighborhood
City of Manhattan Beach
Community Development
Department
1400 Highland Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA
90266
Tel (310) 802-5000
www.citymb.info
September 2005
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
Attachment E
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR ....................................................................................... 2
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROCEDURES (SUMMARY)… 3
LEVEL ONE TOOLS ............................................................................................................... 5 Enhanced Police Enforcement ………………………………………………………………… ...... 6 Speed Monitoring Trailer ………………………………………………………………...............… 7 Neighborhood Traffic Watch Program … …………………………………………………… …..… 8 Higher Visibility Crosswalk ………………………………………………………………………. … 9 Pedestrian Crossing Signs …… ..………………………………………………………….…… … 10 Electronic Speed Limit Signs/Larger Static Speed Limit Signs ………….……………… ……..11
LEVEL TWO TOOLS ……………………………………………………………………………… 13
Traffic Signal Adjustments to Discourage Cut-Through Traffic...............................................14 Turn Restrictions Via Signage ……………………………………………………………… ……. 16 Rumble Strips/Dots ……………………………………………………………………… ………... 18 Crosswalk Warning System ………………………………………………………………… ……. 19 Raised Median Island …………….……………………………………………………… …......... 20 Entry Island (Neighborhood Identification Island) …………………………………………........ 21 Mid-Block Narrowing …………………………………………………………………………........ 22 Chokers at Intersections ………………………………………………………………………...... 23 Lane Reduction/Lane Narrowing (Restriping) ...................................................................... 24 Stop Sign as Traffic Control Measure ………………………………………………………...…. 25 Parking Restrictions ……………………………………………………………………………...…27
LEVEL THREE TOOLS …………………………………………………………………… ...…… 29
Raised Crosswalk ……………………………………………………………………………...….. 30 Raised Intersection …………………………………………………………………………... …… 32 Traffic Circle …………………………………………………………………................................ 34 Restricted Movement Barrier …………………………………………… ………….………… …. 36 Entrance Barrier – Half Closure…................................................... .......................................37 Diagonal Diverter ………………………………………………………………………… ……..….39
APPENDIX ……………………………………………………………………………………...….. 41
A-Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Process Flow Chart B-Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Procedures (Detailed Description) C-Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Request and Petition Forms D-Toolbox Application Criteria
E-Roadway Classifications Map
F-Emergency Vehicle Route Map
G-Residential Streets/Neighborhoods with Traffic Concerns H-Diversion Criteria Chart
I-City Council Resolution No. 5791, November 19, 2002
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
2 MESSAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR
As the City of Manhattan Beach and surrounding communities continue to grow we will continue to see increases in traffic that impac t our residential neighborhoods.
In order to protect neighborhoods from the negative impacts of vehicular traffic the City Council has adopted this Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP). The objective of the NTMP is to improve the safety and livability of neighborhood streets by assisting residents in addressing some of their local traffic concerns.
In order to meet this objective the following publication has been developed which describes the procedures that local neighborhoods must undergo for traffic measures to be reviewed for possible implementa tion. A detailed list or “tool box” of traffic control measures that serve as plausible methods of curbing neighborhood traffic problems is included in this NTMP Handbook, indicating the advantages and disadvantages of each traffic control measure.
The initial development of the NTMP came in response to the comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan, initiated by the City Council in September 2001. As part of this process a Neighborhood Traffic Committee (NTC) was appointed by the City Council to help develop, review , and make recommendations on traffic related issues including the NTMP. The Council appointed resident representatives from different areas throughout the City as well as busine ss representatives to serve on the Committee to provide a wide variety of opinions from a cross section of the community.
Councilmember Jim Aldinger served as the City Council representative and Chairman for the Committee. Additionally, two Parking and Public Improvements Commission (PPIC) members, and a School Board representative served on the Committee. The NTC held 6 meetings over a 6 -month period to develop the NTMP and address other Gene ral Plan traffic-related issues. In August 2002, the PPIC reviewed the recommendations from the NTC, and then the City Council reviewed the recommendation i n October and adopted the NTMP in November 2002.
I would like to thank residents for their interest and active participation in improving the overall quality of life here in the City of Manhattan Beach and we look forward to addressing your neighborhood traffic concerns.
Sincerely,
Richard Thompson
Community Development Director
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
3 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
PROCEDURES SUMMARY
The process and procedures for residents to obtain consideration for any given traffic control measures on either one street or a larger neighborhood area requires a series of simple steps. This process and the Toolbox measures are intended to be used on streets classified as residential streets (Collector, Residential Collector, Major Local, and Local). A Draft Road Classification map is included as Appendix E and identifies the street classifications. The process will ensure that the neighborhoods with demonstrated problems and community support for traffic improvements have equal access to neighborhood traffic management measures.
The Program depends upon citizen involvement and may va ry from year to year based upon funding available for installation of neighborhood traffic improvements.
This is a summary of the process. A flow chart is included as Appendix A and a detailed description is included as Appendix B of this H andbook. For further questions please contact Rob Osborne, Managemen t Analyst, at (310) 802-5540 .
Prior to submittal of a written request, please contact Rob Osborne to discuss your neighborhood traffic concerns and to set up a meeting time if necessary to discuss the process, toolbox measures, and options. If necessary the City’s Traffic Engineer and/or Police Traffic D ivision staff will also aid in discussing residents’ traffic concerns at the time of the scheduled meeting.
The process includes the following seven steps.
Step 1- Identify Candidate Streets/Neighborhoods
First residents must
identify candidate streets or areas for traffic improvement and submit a written request(s) to the Community Development Department (CDD).
Appendix C provides a sample petition and request letter.
Step 2- Preliminary Screening and Evaluation
The CDD Director
and City Traffic Engineer will review requests to determine whether or not they should be handled as part of the normal traffic engineering or police enforcement functions of the City, or if they qualify for consideration unde r the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP).
Step 3- Engineering Analysis/Preliminary Recommendations If it is determined that the request falls under the NTMP the City Traffic Engineer will undertake an engineering study of the street(s) or neighborhood and hold a neighborhood meeting. Based on thi s study and input from other departments, the CDD will make a preliminary determ ination and recommendation of the need for traffic management measures, as detailed in the toolbox measures.
Step 4- Neighborhood Meetings and Survey/Petitions
A neighborhood meeting (s)
will be held to present findings and preliminary
recommendations. In addition a survey/petition may be circulated to affected persons to establish the level of support for the proposed toolbox measures.
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
4 Step 5- Develop, Install, and Evaluate Test projects
Proposed measures will then be reviewed by staff, Parking and Public Improvements Commission (PPIC), and/or C ity Council to determine their appropriateness. If measures are approved, and once funding becomes available for its development, temporary test projects will be installed and an evaluation of the test projects will be conducted for a period of 3 to 6 mont hs. I nstallation of proposed test projects can be appealed by anyone.
Step 6- Determination of Permanent Project
Based on tests results, it will be determined whether or not a project will be made permanent.
Step 7- Monitoring
Once a project is made permanent, the City will conduct periodic monitoring of the site.
Administrative/Miscellaneous
Appeals-
Decisions of staff can be appeal ed to the PPIC ; and similarly, PPIC decisions can be appealed to the City Council. The appeals process will follow established City procedures.
Amendments-
This program and the associated Toolbox may be amended at any time by the City Council. Amendments may first be reviewed by the PPIC who will make a recommendation on the amendment to the City Council.
Removal-
Existing projects and/or projects installed under this P rogram may be requested to be removed. The request for removal of a project will be processed generally using the same procedures as outlined in this program.
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGMENT PROGRAM
PROCEDURES SUMMARY
(Continued)
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
5 LEVEL ONE TOOLS
Generally Administrative/Staff Level Approval
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS:
• Least restrictive tool
• Easiest to implement
• Less potential to shift problem
• Less effect on emergency response
• Lower cost
• Faster to implement
• Lower controversy
LIST OF LEVEL ONE TOOLS:
• Enhanced Police Enforcement
• Speed Monitoring Trailer
• Neighborhood Traffic Watch Program
• Higher Visibility Crosswalk
• Pedestrian Crossing Signs
• Electronic Speed Limit Signs/Larger Static Speed Limit Signs
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
6 LEVEL ONE TOOLS:
Enhanced Police Enforcement
Description:
• Increased police presence and
enforcement in areas with traffic
concerns.
Advantages:
• Effective while officer is present and
monitoring speeds
• Can be implemented in almost any
location on short notice
• May be used during “learning period”
when new devices or restrictions first
implemented
Disadvantages:
• Not self-enforcing; temporary
measure, dependent on resources
• Fines may not cover cost of
enforcement
• Short “memory effect” when
enforcement officer no longer present
Cost:
• High cost primarily due to the staffing
requirements
Problems Targeted:
• Moving vehicle violations
• Running stop signs
• Illegal parking
Street Type:
• All
Other Criteria:
• Often helpful in school zones
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
7 Description:
• Mobile trailer mounted radar display
that informs drivers of their speed.
Also collects speed data, and can be
used to display speed limit
information
Advantages:
• Effective speed control while in use
• Educates drivers on speeds
• Educates drivers on traffic issues in
area
Disadvantages:
• Duration of effectiveness limited –
some residual effects noted
• Not self-enforcing in long term
• Some drivers may test their speed
Cost:
• Low to moderate cost related to
purchase price and to staffing
requirements
Problems Targeted:
• Any local/residential street where
speeding is a problem or where
drivers need to be educated about
traffic issues in the area
Street Type:
• All
Other Criteria:
• None
LEVEL ONE TOOLS:
Speed Monitoring Trailer
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
8 Description:
• Group of residents volunteer to
observe violations and are trained to
use radar units to record and report
habitual speeds. Courtesy letters
may be sent by police
Advantages:
• Involves affected residents
• Effective educational tool
• May have longer term effects as
neighbors become aware of who is
speeding and the concerns of other
neighbors
Disadvantages:
• Requires extensive volunteer citizen
involvement
• May need to consider legal and
privacy issues
• Tendency to become very
controversial between neighbors
Cost:
• Low to Moderate
Problems Targeted:
• Residential streets with speeding
concerns and willing, active
neighbors
Street Type:
• All except arterials
Other Criteria:
• Requires willing participants/
volunteers
LEVEL ONE TOOLS:
Neighborhood Traffic Watch Program
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
9 Description:
• Higher visibility crosswalk design
using either special signing and
striping or special pavement
treatment
Advantages:
• More visible to drivers than traditional
crosswalks
Disadvantages:
• Pedestrians may rely too heavily on
the ability of the crosswalk to control
driver behavior
• Higher maintenance than standard
crosswalk
• Lower visibility crosswalks may
become ignored by drivers
Cost:
• Low, some additional maintenance
costs
Problems Targeted:
• Existing uncontrolled crosswalks as
determined appropriate by City Traffic
Engineer
• High pedestrian collision rate
locations
Street Type:
• All
Other Criteria:
• Use at existing crosswalk location
• Near area of high pedestrian use
LEVEL ONE TOOLS:
Higher Visibility Crosswalk
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
10 Description:
• Signs placed in the roadway median
at marked crosswalks that advise
motorists of the pedestrian right-of-
way
Advantages:
• Brings motorists attention to
crosswalk and pedestrian activity
• May result in slower speed near the
crosswalks
Disadvantages:
• Proliferation of such signs would tend
to diminish effectiveness
• Drivers may stop when no
pedestrians are present
Cost:
• Low, some additional maintenance
costs
Problems Targeted:
• Selected crosswalk locations with
high levels of pedestrian activity.
• May be applied in combination with
other special crosswalk treatments
such as special pavement or raised
crosswalk
Street Type:
• All
Other Criteria:
• Use at existing current crosswalk
location
• Use near area of high pedestrian use
LEVEL ONE TOOLS:
Pedestrian Crossing Signs
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
11 Description:
• There are two sign options. The
electronic or driver feedback speed
sign shows the passing motorist
how fast they are actually going. If
the driver exceeds the posted
speed by more than 5 MPH the sign
will flash to further alert the driver.
The larger static or variable speed
limit sign gives motorists passing
through a school, park, residential,
or other high pedestrian activity
zone the actual speed limit currently
enforced in the zone. Both signs
are permanently mounted and may
be used in conjunction with static
crosswalk signs
Advantages:
• Improves speed limit sign
awareness
• Alerts drivers to excessive speeding
• Helps reduce speeds near high
activity zones
Disadvantages:
• If posted speed is not close to the
speed preferred by drivers,
additional enforcement may be
necessary
• Proliferation may reduce
effectiveness
Cost:
• Between $4,500-$9,000
LEVEL ONE TOOLS:
Electronic Speed Limit Signs/ Larger
Static Speed Limit Signs
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
12 Problems Targeted:
• High Speeds
• School zones
Street Type:
• All
Other Criteria:
• Placement depends on conditions not
readily apparent to driver such as
topography, vegetation, etc.
LEVEL ONE TOOLS:
Electronic Speed Limit Signs/ Larger
Static Speed Limit Signs
(Continued)
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
13 LEVEL TWO TOOLS
Generally Approved By Parking and Public Improvements
Commission and/or City Council
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS:
• Moderately restrictive tools
• Greater effect on emergency response
• Greater potential to shift problems
• Higher cost
• More complex approval process
LIST OF LEVEL TWO TOOLS:
• Traffic Signal Adjustments to Discourage Cut-Through Traffic • Turn Restrictions Via Signage
• Rumble Strips/Dots
• Crosswalk Warning System
• Raised Median Island
• Entry Island (Neighborhood Identification Island)
• Mid-Block Narrowing
• Chokers at Intersections
• Lane reduction/ Lane Narrowing (Restriping)
• Stop Sign as Traffic Control Measure
• Parking Restrictions
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
14 Description:
• Adjustment of traffic signals to
prohibit or restrict turning or through
movements which may be
accompanied by a sign indicating
specific days and/or hours of
applicability
Advantages:
• Significant exclusion of undesired
movements may have a significant
positive impact on residential area
• In case of turn prohibitions, safety
may increase on origin streets (often
a major or non-local.)
• Does not impede emergency
vehicles, as they can readily violate
the restriction
Disadvantages:
• Prohibition is subject to some
deliberate violation, particularly at low
volume local intersections within the
neighborhood where police presence
is infrequent. Safety may decrease at
other locations if drivers are forced to
make hazardous movements to
compensate for restricted
movements.
Cost:
• Low
LEVEL TWO TOOLS:
Traffic Signal Adjustments to
Discourage Cut-Through Traffic
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
15 Problems Targeted:
• Non-resident intrusion
• High local street volumes
• Reduce collision rate
• Access restrictions to residential
areas
• Directional control
• High speeds
Street Type:
• All
Other Criteria:
• Must have identified cut-through
traffic
• Must have traffic signal adjacent to
residential neighborhood
LEVEL TWO TOOLS:
Traffic Signal Adjustments to
Discourage Cut-Through Traffic
(Continued)
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
16 LEVEL TWO TOOLS:
Turn Restrictions Via Signage
Description:
• Turning prohibitions or restrictions
may be accompanied by a sign panel
indicating specific targeted days
and/or hours of applicability. A
combination of these signs may
appear at a location, depending on
which movement(s) is (are) intended
for exclusion
Advantages:
• Significant exclusion of undesired
movements may have a significant
positive impact on residential area
• In case of turn prohibitions, safety
may increase on origin streets (often
a major or non-local.)
• Does not impede emergency
vehicles, as they can readily violate
the restriction.
Disadvantages:
• Prohibition is subject to some
deliberate violation, particularly at low
volume local intersections within the
neighborhood where police presence
is infrequent. Safety may decrease at
other locations if drivers are forced to
make hazardous movements to
compensate for restricted
movements.
Cost:
• Low
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
17 LEVEL TWO TOOLS:
Turn Restrictions Via Signage
(Continued)
Problems Targeted:
• High local street volumes
• Non resident intrusion
• High collision rates
• Access restrictions to residential
areas
• Directional Control
Street Type:
• All
Other Criteria:
• Must have identified cut-through
traffic
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
18 Description:
• Rough or patterned section of
pavement, created by asphalt strips
or raised ceramic pavement markers
for the purpose of alerting drivers of a
specific control device (e.g.
unexpected stop sign) or a
particularly unique condition (e.g.
sharp curve).
Advantages:
• May reduce speed in localized area
• Raises driver awareness
Disadvantages:
• Creates noise and vibration
• Bicycles/motorcycles may have
difficulty crossing rumble strips
Cost:
• Low initial cost
• Moderate to high maintenance
requirements
Problems Targeted:
• Speed reduction
• Driver alertness of potential hazards
Street Type:
• All
Other Criteria:
• None
LEVEL TWO TOOLS:
Rumble Strips/Dots
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
19 On
LEVEL TWO TOOLS:
Crosswalk Warning System
Description:
• Lights embedded in the pavement at
a pedestrian crossing which flash to
alert the on-coming motorist when a
pedestrian may be crossing
Advantages:
• Much higher visibility to drivers than
standard crosswalk
• Visible at night and during haze and
fog conditions
• Provides additional visibility for
slower/young pedestrians
Disadvantages:
• Pedestrians may develop a false
sense of security
• Less visible during daytime
• Pedestrians may not wait for vehicles
to stop
• Effectiveness may wear off over time
Special Considerations:
• Still a “new” measure under
development
• Higher maintenance than standard
crosswalks
• Priority list of locations recommended
Cost:
• High – $15,000 to $40,000 per
application
Problems Targeted:
• High pedestrian exposure locations to
be determined by City Traffic
Engineer
• High collision rate locations
Street Type:
• All
Other Criteria:
• Not to be used at controlled
intersections
LEVEL TWO TOOLS:
Raised Median Island
September 21, 2004 the
City Council removed the
Crosswalk Warning System
from the approved
list of tools.
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
20 LEVEL TWO TOOLS:
Entry Island (Neighborhood
Identification Island)
Description:
• Raised island in the center of the roadway
with one-way traffic on each side
Advantages:
• Narrowed travel lanes provide “friction” that
tends to reduce speeds
• Opportunity for landscaping and visual
enhancement
• Acts as entranceway into neighborhood
• Discourages non-resident traffic
Disadvantages:
• Long medians interrupt emergency access
and operations
• May interrupt driveway access adjacent to
median
• May require removal of parking
• Additional utility requirements (water, power)
Cost:
• Moderate to high cost to construct and
landscape
• Moderate maintenance costs
Problems Targeted:
• High Speeds
• Cut-through Traffic
Street Type:
• All
Other Criteria:
• Must not significantly impede emergency
vehicle access.
• Must meet drainage requirements
• > 15% of peak hour volume is cut-through
traffic
• Critical Speed is >7 MPH over peak posted
speed
• Grade is less than 10%
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
21 Description:
• A raised island in the center of a two-
way street that identifies the entrance
to a neighborhood
Advantages:
• Notifies motorist of change in
roadway character
• Helps slow traffic
• Opportunity for landscaping and/or
neighborhood entry signage
• May discourage cut-through traffic
Disadvantages:
• Additional landscape maintenance
(and irrigation) required
• May require removal of parking
• May interrupt emergency access and
operations
Cost:
• Medium to high cost to construct and,
landscape
• Moderate maintenance costs
Problems Targeted:
• Wide entry to residential areas with
speeding and/or cut-through traffic
Street Type:
• All
Other Criteria:
• Must not significantly impede
emergency vehicle access.
• Must meet drainage requirements
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
22 Description:
• Segment(s) of roadway narrowing
where curbs are extended toward the
center of the roadway on one or both
sides of the street
Advantages:
• Pedestrian visibility increased and
crossing distance reduced when used
at crosswalk
• May reduce speed by narrowing
usable street width
• Opportunity for landscaping and
visual enhancement
Disadvantages:
• Creates drainage issues where curb
and gutter exist
• May create a diversion for bicyclists
• May require removal of parking
Cost:
• Medium to high cost depending on
landscaping, pavement treatments
and storm drainage considerations
Problems Targeted:
• Mid-block locations with speeding
and/or cut-through traffic is a concern
Street Type:
• All
Other Criteria:
• Must not significantly impede
emergency vehicle access.
LEVEL TWO TOOLS:
Mid-Block Narrowing
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
23 Description:
• Raised islands built to narrow the
roadway at intersections.
Advantages:
• Pedestrian crossing distance reduced
• Narrowed roadway section may help
reduce vehicular speed reduction
• Creates neighborhood “gateway”
Disadvantages:
• May force bicyclists to travel in same
traffic lane as vehicles turning right
• Causes drainage issues
• May require removal of parking
Cost:
• Moderate to high cost depending on
landscaping, pavement treatments
and storm drainage considerations
Problems Targeted:
• Intersections on local residential or
collector streets where speeding
and/or cut-through traffic is a concern
Street Type:
• Local, Major Local, Residential
Collector (All if no Residential
Collector)
Other Criteria:
• There must be adequate turning
radius for emergency vehicle access
especially in narrow streets
LEVEL TWO TOOLS:
Chokers at Intersections
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
24 Description:
• Modify roadway striping to either
narrow lanes or reduce the number of
lanes
Advantages:
• May reduce speeds due to perceived
narrower roadway width
• Parking or bicycle lanes may be
added
Disadvantages:
• Speed reduction may be less
effective than other more restrictive
measures
• May require some parking removal
• May result in shifting volumes to
adjacent streets if number of lanes is
reduced
Cost:
• Moderate initial cost and ongoing
maintenance
Problems Targeted:
• Wide residential streets where speed
reduction is desired
• Excessive street volume on multilane
streets
Street Type:
• All
Other Criteria:
• Must not create significant parking
impact due to loss of parking.
LEVEL TWO TOOLS:
Lane Reduction/Lane
Narrowing/Restriping
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
25 LEVEL TWO TOOLS:
Stop Sign as Traffic Control
Measure
Description:
• Stop signs are a traffic control device
used to assign the right-of-way at
intersections. Although not intended
for this purpose, stop signs have been
used in many communities as a
measure to discourage cut-through
traffic and slow down speeds near the
intersection
Advantages:
• May improve pedestrian safety
• Additional stop signs may discourage
some cut-through traffic
• Can improve driver visibility
• Perceived by affected residents as a
positive step toward solving the
problem where other measures are not
feasible
Disadvantages:
• May cause non-compliance where no
reason for stop sign is evident to
drivers
• Not recommended by professional
traffic engineers for speed reduction
• Proliferation of stop signs may result in
motorists disobeying stop signs
elsewhere
• Could result in increase
in speeds
between the signs as drivers try to
“make up for lost time”
• May increase vehicle noise at new stop
sign location
• May increase traffic congestion as
vehicles stop at multiple signs
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
26 LEVEL TWO TOOLS:
Stop Sign as Traffic Control Measure
(Continued)
Disadvantages (continued):
• Must be followed up with enforcement
• Pedestrians at stop sign intersections
may have a false sense of security
• May increase rear-end collisions
Cost:
• Low initial cost
• Low on-going maintenance cost
Problems Targeted:
• At intersections where right-of-way is
confusing
• Intersections where speeding and/or
cut through traffic is an issue
Street Type:
• Local, Major Local, Residential
Collector (All if no Residential
Collector)
Other Criteria:
• Requires review by City Traffic
Engineer and City Council approval
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
27 Description (One or more of the following):
• Preferential Parking Permits, which
allows residents or business owners
to purchase a permit to exempt a
vehicle from posted parking
restrictions on streets or in a public
parking lot.
• Metered parking with a maximum
time limit
• Limited parking hours on streets and
public parking lots
Advantages:
• Reduces “outsider” parking in
residential areas
• Can reduce inconvenience to
residents and business owners
associated with simple time limit
parking
• Increases short term parking
availability near retail districts
Disadvantages:
• Depending on the posted restrictions,
may not eliminate all customer
parking in residential areas abutting
retail districts.
• May not eliminate long term storage
of vehicles by residents with permits
• Annual permits cause inconvenience
to purchase and maintain
• Visitors may have difficulty finding
parking
Cost:
• Low
LEVEL TWO TOOLS:
Parking Restrictions
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
28 Problems Targeted:
• Commercial parking encroachment
into residential areas
• Inefficient use of existing parking
• Limited parking availability
Street Type:
• Local, Major Local, Residential
Collector (All if no Residential
Collector)
Other Criteria:
• Parking study required to determine
extent of parking demand
LEVEL TWO TOOLS:
Parking Restrictions (Continued)
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
29 GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS:
• Moderately restrictive tools
• Strong potential to affect emergency response
• Strong potential to shift problems
• Generally the highest cost
• Must be considered only after Level One and Two tools have been reviewed and/or tested in the field.
LIST OF LEVEL THREE TOOLS:
• Raised Crosswalk
• Raised Intersection
• Traffic Circle
• Restricted Movement Barrier
• Entrance Barrier-Half Closure
• Diagonal Diverter
LEVEL THREE TOOLS
Requires Parking and Public Improvements Commission and/or City Council Approval
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
30 LEVEL THREE TOOLS:
Raised Crosswalk
Description:
• Flat-topped speed hump built as a
pedestrian crossing
• Appropriate near schools, recreation
facilities, other areas with high
pedestrian activity
Advantages:
• Generally slows traffic
• Increases pedestrian visibility in the
crosswalk
• Clearly designates the crosswalks
Disadvantages:
• May increase emergency response
times
•
May increase traffic noise in vicinity of
crosswalk
• May create drainage issues where
raised crossing extends from curb to
curb
Cost:
• Moderate
Problems Targeted:
•
Local streets where speed control and
pedestrian crossing designation are
desired
• Local streets where cut-through traffic
is evident
Street Type:
• Local, Major Local, Residential
Collector (All if no Residential
Collector)
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
31 Other Criteria:
• Must meet drainage
requirements
• Must not significantly impede
emergency vehicle access
• At least 25 pedestrians should
cross during peak hours
• Near pedestrian generator
• Should be used in conjunction
with other traffic calming
devices to control speeds
LEVEL THREE TOOLS:
Raised Crosswalk (Continued)
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
32 Description:
• A raised section of roadway at an
intersection where the pavement is
flush with the top of the curbing and
the approaches are ramped like
speed humps.
Advantages:
• Effective speed mitigation at
intersection
• Opportunity for attractive pavement
treatments
• May improve pedestrian safety at
intersection
Disadvantages:
• Requires storm drainage modification
• May require bollards to define the
corners of the intersection since curb
height is reduced
• May reduce emergency response
time
• May increase traffic noise in vicinity
Cost:
• High construction cost where there
are storm drainage issues
Problems Targeted:
• Streets where speed reduction is
desired
• Streets where cut-through traffic is
evident
Street Type:
• Local, Major Local, Residential
Collector (All if no Residential
Collector)
LEVEL THREE TOOLS:
Raised Intersection
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
33 LEVEL THREE TOOLS:
Raised Intersection (Continued)
Other Criteria:
• Must meet drainage requirements
• Must not significantly impede
emergency vehicle access
• At least 25 pedestrians crossing
during peak hour
• Near pedestrian generator
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
34 Description:
• Traffic circles are raised circular
medians in an intersection. Vehicles
must change their travel path to
maneuver around the circle and are
typically controlled by “Yield on Entry”
on all approaches
Advantages:
• Slows traffic as it drives around circle
• Breaks up sight-lines on straight streets
• Opportunity for landscaping in the
intersection
Disadvantages:
• May impede emergency response
• May impede left turns by large vehicles
• On streets with bicycle facilities, bikes
must merge with traffic around circle
• May shift traffic to parallel residential
streets
• May require some parking removal
Cost:
• Moderate
Problems Targeted:
• Streets where speed reduction is
desired
• Intersections with an accident history
• Locations with high vehicle conflicts
Street Type:
• All
LEVEL THREE TOOLS:
Traffic Circle
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
35 LEVEL THREE TOOLS:
Traffic Circle (Continued)
Other Criteria:
• Intersecting roadways must be of
sufficient width
• Loss of parking must be assessed
• Volume should be between 500 to 5,000
ADT
• Critical speed should be at least 7 mph
over posted speed
• Must meet diversion chart criteria
• Grade should be less than 10%
• Should be used in series or in
conjunction with other traffic calming
devices
• May require extensive signing
• May require educational campaign and
learning period
• Must not significantly impede emergency
vehicle access
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
36 LEVEL THREE TOOLS:
Restricted Movement Barrier
Description:
• Barrier island that prevents certain
movements at an intersection
Advantages:
• Redirects traffic to main streets
• Self enforcing, unlike signage only
• Reduces cut-through traffic
• Increases opportunity for landscaping
in the roadway
Disadvantages:
• May negatively affect emergency
response
• May increase trip length for some
drivers
• May shift traffic to parallel residential
streets
• May need to implement on several
streets to prevent diversion
• May have little effect on speeds for
through vehicles
• May require some parking removal
Cost:
• Moderate
Problems Targeted:
• Streets where cut-through traffic is
evident
Street Type:
• Local, Major Local
Other Criteria:
• Must meet drainage requirements
• Must not significantly impede
emergency vehicle access
• Must meet diversion curve criteria
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
37 Description:
• Physical barrier that restricts turns
into a street. Creates a one-way
segment at the intersection while
maintaining two-way traffic for the
rest of the block
Advantages:
• Effectively restricts movements into a
street while maintaining full access
and movement within the street for
residents
• Redirects traffic to main streets
• Self enforcing, unlike signage only
• Reduces cut-through traffic
• Increases opportunity for landscaping
in the roadway
Disadvantages:
• May divert traffic to other local streets
• May increase trip length for some
drivers
• Overly restrictive if cut-through
problem exists only at certain times of
day
• May need to implement on several
parallel streets to prevent diversion
issue
• May have little effect on speeds for
local traffic
• May negatively affect emergency
response
Cost:
• Moderate to high
Problems Targeted:
• Local streets where cut-through traffic
is evident
LEVEL THREE TOOLS:
Entrance Barrier – Half Closure
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
38 LEVEL THREE TOOLS:
Entrance Barrier – Half Closure
(Continued)
Street Type:
• Local, Major Local
Other Criteria:
• Must not significantly impede
emergency vehicle access
• Alternate access to residential area
must be considered
• Must meet drainage requirements
• Meet diversion curve criteria
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
39 Description:
• Raised areas placed diagonally across
a four-way intersection that restrict
through movements in all directions
• As a variation can install a traversable
diverter that allows access for
emergency vehicles
Advantages:
• Reduces cut-through traffic
• Self enforcing, unlike signage only
• Increases opportunity for landscaping
in the roadway
Disadvantages:
• May divert traffic to other local streets
• May increase trip length for some
drivers
• Overly restrictive if cut-through problem
exists only at certain times of day
• May need to implement on several
streets to prevent diversion
• Need to consider how residents will
gain access to street
• May have little effect on speeds for
local traffic
• May negatively affect emergency
response
Cost:
• Moderate to high
Problems Targeted:
• Local streets where cut-through traffic
is evident
LEVEL THREE TOOLS:
Diagonal Diverter
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
40 LEVEL THREE TOOLS:
Diagonal Diverter (Continued)
Street Type:
• Local, Major Local
Other Criteria:
• If full diverter, cannot be on truck or
transit route
• Must not significantly impede
emergency vehicle access
• Must meet diversion curve criteria
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
City of Manhattan Beach ________
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Handbook
41 APPENDIX
A-Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Process Flow Chart
B-Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Procedures (Detailed Description)
C-Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Request and Petition Forms
D-Toolbox Application Criteria
E-Roadway Classifications Map
F-Emergency Vehicle Route Map
G-Residential Streets/Neighborhoods with Traffic Concerns
H-Diversion Criteria Chart
I-City Council Resolution No. 5791, November 19, 2002
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
Identify Candidate
Streets
Preliminary
Screening &
Evaluation
Engineering
Analysis &
Recommendation
Conduct
Neighborhood
Meetings, Surveys
and Petitions
Implement
Temporary
Measures
Evaluate
Temporary
Measures
STEP 4
YES
Is the test
measure
effective?
Does area meet
NTMP criteria?
Is there resident
support?
Recommend
Permanent
Measures
No Further
Action
STEP 1
STEP 3
STEP 2
Normal
Traffic
Review
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
Recommend
NTMP
Measure(s)
Periodic
Monitoring
Public
Input /
Appeals
Public
Input
STEP 5
STEP 7
Public
Input /
Appeals
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROCESS
November 19, 2002
STEP 6
Are there other
possible
measures?
NO
YES
Remove/modify
temporary
measures
Level 1 Staff
Approval.
Level 2 or 3 PPIC
Recommendation
CC Action
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
\\SPLASH\CommDev\TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION\Projects-Studies\NTMP\NTMP Handbook-rev1 9-6-05\Appendix B-NTMP Procedures.doc
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PROCEDURES
ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL- NOVEMBER 19, 2002
The City of Manhattan Beach experiences traffic intrusion into residential neighborhoods as a result of many factors including arterial congestion (creating traffic by -passes), schools, recreation and park facilities, adjacent commercial and industrial activities and o ther reasons. As these problems occur, they cause impacts on local residential streets and collector streets such as speeding and excessive traffic volumes. In many cases, the impact is an “environmental impact ” on the residential street as opposed to the traffic volume exceeding the physical capacity of the lanes . While the street has the total capacity for more traffic, the “environmental capacity” is exceeded based on the residential character of the adjoining land uses. Speeds and volume are perceived to be too high and disrupt the character of the street.
When such impacts occur, it is necessary to address problems on a case-by-case basis, and it is critical to include the affected residents and affected businesses in the p rocess. To accomplish this, a “Neighborhood Traffic Management Program” must be adopted. Details of the Neighborhood Traffic Management procedures are outlined below.
Overall Objective
The overall objective of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Pr ogram is to improve the livability of neighborhood streets by mitigating the impacts of vehicular traffic on residential neighborhoods. Specific impacts to be addressed by the Program include high non-local c ut-through traffic volumes, high speeds, truck traffic intrusion, demonstrated accident history and other related problems.
Process Overview
The Neighborhood Traffic Management Program process will ensure that neighborhoods with demonstrated problems and community support for traffic improve ments have equal access to neighborhood traffic management measures. The program depends upon citizen involvement and may vary from year to year based upon funding available for neighbo rhood traffic management. The process includes the following seven steps:
Step 1 - Identify Candidate Streets/Neighborhoods
Step 2 - Preliminary Screening and Evaluation
Step 3 - Engineering Analysis/Preliminary Recommendations Step 4 - Neighborhood Meetings and Survey/Petitions
Step 5 - Develop, Install, and Evaluate Test projects
Step 6- Determination of Permanent Project
Step 7 - Monitoring
The process and individual steps are explained in more detail below. See Exhibit 1 graphical summary of the process.
Goals/Policies of Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
Goals/Policies of the Program include the following:
Reduce demonstrated accident patterns on local streets where feasible.
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
NTM Program Procedures- November 19, 2002
\\SPLASH\CommDev\TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION\Projects-Studies\NTMP\NTMP Handbook-rev1 9-6-05\Appendix B-NTMP Procedures.doc
2 Eliminate or discourage non-local cut-through traffic on local residential streets and collector streets. Focus such traffic on the arterial roadway system.
Reduce traffic speeds on residential streets with demonstrated problems to levels consistent with the ranges of speeds on other non-impacted residential streets in the City.
Minimize the shifting of traffic intrusion or speeding problems from one residential street to another.
Ensure citizen participation throughout the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program process, obtaining the input of affected residents, affected business ow ners and non-resident property owners.
Minimize impacts on emergency vehicle response times due to imp lementation of neighborhood traffic management measures. Include police and fire departments in all plan preparation and avoid creating excessive vehicle delay on critical emergency ve hicle routes. (See attached Emergency Response Routes Map).
Review surrounding land uses and functionality/connectivity of street to the rest of the system.
Program steps are detailed below.
Step 1 - Identify Candidate Streets/Neighborhoods
Residential neighborhood traffic management improvements (for e ither one street or a larger neighborhood area) shall be considered for Local, Major Local, or Collector streets, as classified in the City's General Plan Circulation Element, based on one of the following actions:
After receipt of written request(s),
After direction of the City Council.
Traffic problems identified by City staff.
A chart of residential streets/neighborhoods with traffic concerns, developed by the Neighborhood Traffic Committee and the parking and Public Improvements Commission, is attached
Step 2 - Preliminary Screening and Evaluation
The Community Development Director (CDD) and the City Traffic E ngineer will review requests to determine whether or not they should be handled as part of the normal traffic engineering or police enforcement functions of the City, or if they qualify for consideration under the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. The following initial criteria will be used to assess requests:
The street in question must be classified as a Local, Major Loc al, or Collector street. If not, the adjacent neighborhood must be predominantly residential in character.
The requests must be related to speeding, high traffic volumes, accidents, cut-through traffic, truck traffic or other related impacts on a residential or collector street or district.
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
NTM Program Procedures- November 19, 2002
\\SPLASH\CommDev\TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION\Projects-Studies\NTMP\NTMP Handbook-rev1 9-6-05\Appendix B-NTMP Procedures.doc
3 If it is determined that the request falls under the Neighborho od Traffic Management Program, then Step 3 is initiated. If not, the request shall be followed up as appropriate by the CDD and City Traffic Engineer as part of the Department’s normal function, including coordination with Police, Fire, and Public Works Departments, and Parking and Public Improvements Commission (PPIC) as needed.
Step 3 - Engineering Analysis by C ommunity Development Departme nt / Preliminary Recommendations
The CDD and City Traffic Engineer will undertake an engineering study of streets or neighborhoods with outstanding requests. The study will include the following actions:
Public meeting in the neighborhood to understand issues. Affec ted parties must be notified of the meeting.
Review by Police and Fire Departments. This review will determ ine if the specific streets in question are critical police or fire response routes. If so, C DD will work with Police and Fire to ensure that measures are not installed which significantly impact response times.
Traffic data collection to include (as appropriate based on ide ntified problem) one or more of the following:
- determine the area affected and then conduct field investigat ion to note traffic operating conditions, geometric conditions (roadway width, pavement condi tion, parking availability, type and location of existing traffic management devices, etc);
- traffic volume counts (24 hour broken down into 15-minute inc rements and aggregated hour-by-hour);
- radar or machine-based speed surveys;
- truck volume counts;
- cut-through traffic estimates via license plate surveys;
- pedestrian counts;
- accident investigation (review of accidents over a minimum of the prior two year period);
- other investigations deemed appropriate by the CDD.
Based on this investigation, the CDD will make a preliminary de termination of the need for specific traffic management measures. The traffic management measures m ay include one or more of the measures in the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Toolbox.
Using the criteria listed in Table 1 (Neighborhood Traffic Mana gement Program Toolbox Application Criteria) and applying recognized traffic engineering standards , the CDD will recommend the use of one or more neighborhood traffic management measures to the affecte d neighborhood where they are appropriate. If most but not all of the Toolbox criteria are m et and the CDD and Traffic Engineer feel that a particular request is warranted, the CDD has the flexibility to recommend the use of a neighborhood traffic management measure. In determining the types and location of measures, estimates of potential secondary impacts (e.g., diversion to other streets) will be made where it is feasible to do so. Efforts to
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
NTM Program Procedures- November 19, 2002
\\SPLASH\CommDev\TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION\Projects-Studies\NTMP\NTMP Handbook-rev1 9-6-05\Appendix B-NTMP Procedures.doc
4 apply Level 1 toolbox measures will be made first where feasibl e, then proceeding to Level 2 and Level 3 only when it is demonstrated that applicable Level 1 tools will not solve the problems.
Step 4 - Neighborhood Meeting(s) to present plan and Surveys/Petitions
One or more neighborhood meetings will be conducted as required for purposes of notifying local residents, business owners and non-resident property owners of the results of the technical analysis, findings and preliminary recommendations. Meeting will be noticed as follows:
Mailing of the notices to:
- Applicant and all who have identified themselves as interested parties. - All property owners, residents a nd business owners that have fr ontage on the project street segment(s).
- All other affected property owne rs, residents, and business own ers in the neighborhoods. “Affected” parties are those who could potentially be impacted by the improvement(s), including those who reside or have businesses on parallel or adjacent streets which may also be affected by secondary spillover traffic. The extent of the notification for affected parties shall be determined by City staff.
- City Police, Fire and Public Works Departments
Other notification, as determined necessary by City staff, including:
- Newspaper notice, display ad, announcement, or article - Posting of notice or signage on street(s) in affected areas - Posting of notice at City Hall
- Posting of notice on City website
Following the evaluation and recommendation of potential toolbo x measures, a survey/petition will be circulated to the affected persons to ascertain whether or not others agree that such measures should be installed. The persons receiving the survey/petition who are defined as “affected persons” will include all households, businesses and non-resi dent property owners that ha ve frontage on the project street segment(s) or in the neighborhood, and could potentially be impacted by the improvement(s) including those with reside or have businesses on parallel or adjacent streets which may also be affected by secondary spillover traffic. The purpose of the survey is to e stablish the level of support among affected persons to proceed with implementation.
Step 5 - Develop, Install, and Evaluate Test Projects
Once funding becomes available, Level 1 measures and/or tempora ry test projects will be designed by the CDD. In some cases, the test project(s) may be implemented wi th temporary materials and will remain in place for approximately three to six months depending on the types of improvements (if significant citizen complaints warrant, the time period could be reduced). The project will be evaluated during the test period to determine if it addresses the identified problem s and is consistent with Neighborhood Traffic Management Program goals. During this temporary test p eriod, affected residents, business owners,
commuters who use the routes and other interested perso ns may provide comments to the CDD, City staff and City council regarding the measures. The CDD sh all conduct follow-up studies as necessary to evaluate effectiveness of individual measures. Su ch analysis may include, but not necessarily be limited to, ADT traffic counts and radar speed surveys on affected streets and parallel streets. At anytime during this Test Project time frame anyone may appeal the decision of the installation of the Test Project to the PPIC and their recommendation will then be forwarded to the City Council.
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
NTM Program Procedures- November 19, 2002
\\SPLASH\CommDev\TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION\Projects-Studies\NTMP\NTMP Handbook-rev1 9-6-05\Appendix B-NTMP Procedures.doc
5 Step 6 - Determination of Permanent Project
If the temporary test project shows that the Level 1 tools or o ther temporary measures have sufficiently addressed the targeted traffic problem(s) and there have not be en citizen complaints or/and an appeal, nor excessive diversion (as determined per the attached diversion c hart or as determined on a case-by-case basis by the City Traffic Engineer) of the problem to another r esidential street, the traffic management measures shall be made permanent as funding becomes available. If it is determined that the measures will be installed on a permanent basis, the list of affected re sidents, business owners and non-resident property owners and other interested parties will be notified.
If it is found that the measures do not achieve the intended goals of reducing speeds, cut through traffic or other identified problems, the CDD will review other potential measures (Level 2 and 3 measures) and recommend either elimination of all measures at the location or test installation of different neighborhood management measures. All installations may be appealed.
Step 7 - Monitoring
The City will conduct periodic monitoring as necessary to deter mine if the project continues to meet the goals of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. This mon itoring will be conducted at the discretion of the CDD based on available funding, staffing levels, City staff input, and resident comments.
If monitoring shows that the measures fail to achieve the inten ded goals of reducing speeds, cut through traffic or other identified problems, the measures may be removed. Affected residents and businesses may also petition to have measures removed using the same process as outlined herein for approval.
Administration/Miscellaneous
Appeals-
In addition to providing comments during the temporary test installation period, appeals may be made as indicated in the above steps. Decisions of staff are appealable to the PPIC, and PPIC decisions are appealable to the City Council. Generally staff will make the decision on Level 1 measures and the PPIC and/or City Council will make the decision on Level 2 and 3 mea sures. The appeals process will follow established City procedures.
Amendments-
This Program and the associated Toolbox may be amended at any t ime by the City Council. The City Council or Staff may make a request for an amendment to the Pro gram. If deemed appropriate, amendments may first be reviewed by the Parking and Public Impr ovements Commission who will make a recommendation on the amendment to the City Council.
Removal-
Existing projects and/or projects installed under this Program may be requested to be removed. The request for removal of a project will be processed generally using the same procedures as outlined in this Program.
H:\General Plan\City Council Reports-Memos\NTMP Process-CC 11-19-02.doc.doc
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
Request Form
Community Development Department
City Hall 1400 Highland Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-4795 Telephone (310) 802-5000 FAX (310) 802-5001 TDD (310) 546-3501
\\SPLASH\CommDev\TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION\Projects-Studies\NTMP\NTMP Handbook-rev1 9-6-05\Appendix C- NTMP Request Letter- rev1.doc
Prior to submittal of a written request, please contact Rob Osborne, Management Analyst, at (310) 802-5540 or at [email protected] to discuss your neighborhood traffic concerns and to set up a meeting time, if necessary, to discuss the process, toolbox m easures, and options. If necessary the City’s Traffic Engineer and/or P olice Traffic Division staff wi ll also aid in discussing resident’s traffic concerns at the time of the scheduled meeting. You may send mailings to the following address:
City of Manhattan Beach- Traffic and Parking Division
c/o Rob Osborne, Management Analyst
1400 Highland Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Description of Problem: Describe the location and problem/hazard you are experiencing b elow. If applicable, indicate specific days and times the problem occurs and attach pictures and sketches, if needed, to illustrate anything that may be unclear. Attach additional pages if necessary.
Requested Measure (s): Describe the traffic or parking measure(s) you would like the C ity to consider implementing below. In your response please be specific about what is being requested. Refer to the Neighborhood Traffic Management Handbook Toolbox Measures for a detailed list and description o f possible measures. Also indi cate possible alternatives, if any, and attach additional pages if necessary.
Contact Person: Please provide the following contact information.
Name:
Address:
Phone: (W) (H) E-Mail:
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
APPENDIX D
TABLE 1 (continued)
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TOOLBOX APPLICATION CRITERIA –SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
MEASURE
PROBLEMS
TARGETED
STREET
TYPE
(1)
MINIMUM CRITERIA
VOLUME
SPEED
DIVERSION TO
ADJACENT
STREETS
GRADE
OTHER
CRITERIA
LEVEL ONE TOOLS
Enhanced Police
Enforcement
Moving Vehicle
Violations
Running Stop
Signs
All (2) (3)
None expected N/A None
Speed Monitoring Trailer High Speeds All (2) (3)
None expected N/A None
Neighborhood Traffic
Watch Program
Moving Vehicle
Violations
Running Stop
Signs
All (2) (3)
None expected N/A Requires willing
participants/volunteers
Warning Signs, Posts and
Markings
Moving Vehicle
Violations
High Speeds
Pedestrian Safety
All (2) (3) None expected N/A Must indicate physical
roadway condition
Higher Visibility Crosswalk
Moving Vehicle
Violations
Pedestrian Safety
Running Stop
Signs
All >500 ADT (3) None expected N/A
-At current crosswalk location
-Near pedestrian
generating land use
Pedestrian Crossing and
Paddle Signs
Moving Vehicle
Violations
Pedestrian Safety
Running Stop
Signs
All > 500 ADT
> 100 peds/day (3) None expected N/A
-At current crosswalk location
-Near pedestrian generating
land use
-Crossings with limited
visibility
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
APPENDIX D
TABLE 1 (continued)
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TOOLBOX APPLICATION CRITERIA –SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
MEASURE
PROBLEMS
TARGETED
STREET
TYPE
(1)
MINIMUM CRITERIA
VOLUME
SPEED
DIVERSION TO
ADJACENT
STREETS
GRADE
OTHER
CRITERIA
LEVEL TWO TOOLS
Traffic Signal Adjustments
to Discourage Cut-Through
Traffic
Cut-Through
Traffic
All
>15% of peak hour
volume is cut-through
traffic
(3)
Must meet
diversion chart
criteria
N/A
-Must have identified cut-
through traffic
-Must have traffic signal
adjacent to residential
neighborhood
Turn Restrictions Via
Signage
Cut-Through
Traffic All
> 15% of peak hour
volume is cut-through
traffic
(3)
Must meet
diversion chart
guidelines
N/A
Must have identified cut-
through traffic
Rumble Strips/Dots High Speeds All (2) (3) None expected Less than
5 % None
Speed Awareness and
Electronic Signs High Speeds All > 500 ADT
Critical speed
is > 7 mph
over posted
limit
None expected N/A
Conditions not readily
apparent to driver such as
topography, vegetation, etc.
Crosswalk Warning System High Speeds,
Pedestrian Safety All > 500 ADT (3) None expected N/A < 30 gaps per hour of sufficient length to cross
Raised Median Island
High Speeds, Cut
Through Traffic
All
> 15% of peak hour
volume is cut-through
traffic
Critical speed
is > 7 mph
over posted
speed
None expected
less than
10%
-Must not significantly
impede emergency vehicle
access
-Must meet drainage
requirements
Entry Island
(Neighborhood
Identification Island)
High Speeds, Cut
Through Traffic All
> 15% of peak hour
volume is cut-through
traffic
Critical speed
is > 7 mph
over posted
speed
None expected less than
10%
-Must not significantly
impede emergency vehicle
access
-Must meet drainage
requirements
Mid-Block Narrowing High Speeds, Cut-
through Traffic All
> 15% of peak hour
volume is cut-through
traffic (between 500
and 2,000 total ADT on
the street)
Critical speed
is > 7 mph
over posted
speed
None expected less than
10%
Must not significantly
impede emergency vehicle
access
Chokers at Intersections High Speeds, Cut- L, ML, RC > 15% of peak hour Critical speed N one expected less than Must not significantly impede
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
APPENDIX D
TABLE 1 (continued)
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TOOLBOX APPLICATION CRITERIA –SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
MEASURE
PROBLEMS
TARGETED
STREET
TYPE
(1)
MINIMUM CRITERIA
VOLUME
SPEED
DIVERSION TO
ADJACENT
STREETS
GRADE
OTHER
CRITERIA
through Traffic (ALL IF
NO RC)
volume is cut-through
traffic (between 500 and
2,000 total ADT on the
street)
is > 7 mph
over posted
speed
10% emergency vehicle access
Lane Reduction/Lane
Narrowing/Restriping
High Speeds, Cut-
through Traffic All
> 15% of peak hour
volume is cut-through
traffic (between 500 and
2,000 total ADT on the
street)
Critical speed
is > 7 mph
over posted
speed
Must meet
diversion chart
criteria
N/A
Must not create significant
parking impact due to loss of
parking
Stop Sign as Neighborhood
Traffic Control Measure
High Speeds, Cut-
through Traffic
L, ML, RC
(ALL IF
NO RC)
> 15% of peak hour
volume is cut-through
traffic (between 500 and
2,000 total ADT on the
street)
(3)
Must meet
diversion chart
criteria
N/A
Requires review by City
Traffic Engineer and City
Council approval
Parking
Restrictions
Non-Residential
Parking Intrusion All N/A N/A Review impacts to
Surrounding Streets N/A Parking Study
LEVEL THREE TOOLS
Raised Crosswalk
High Speeds,
Pedestrian Safety
L, ML, RC
(ALL IF
NO
RC)
(2)
Critical speed
> 7 mph over
posted speed
None expected
less than
10%
-Must meet drainage
requirements
Must not significantly impede
emergency vehicle access
> 25 pedestrians during peak
hour, near pedestrian
generator
Raised Intersection
High Speeds,
Pedestrian Safety,
L, ML, RC
(ALL IF
NO RC)
(2)
Critical speed
> 7 mph over
posted speed
Must meet
diversion chart
criteria
less than
10%
-Must meet drainage
requirements
-Must not significantly
impede emergency vehicle
access
> 25 pedestrians during peak
hour, near pedestrian
generator
Traffic Circle High Speeds,
Accident History,
L, ML, RC
(ALL IF from 500 to 5,000 ADT Critical speed
> 7 mph over
Must meet
diversion chart
less than
10%
-Intersecting roadways must
be of sufficient width
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
APPENDIX D
TABLE 1 (continued)
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TOOLBOX APPLICATION CRITERIA –SEPTEMBER 6, 2005
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
MEASURE
PROBLEMS
TARGETED
STREET
TYPE
(1)
MINIMUM CRITERIA
VOLUME
SPEED
DIVERSION TO
ADJACENT
STREETS
GRADE
OTHER
CRITERIA
Vehicle Conflicts NO RC) posted speed
criteria -Loss of parking must be
assessed
Restricted Movement
Barrier
Cut-trough traffic,
Vehicle conflicts L, ML
> 15% of peak hour
volume is cut-through
traffic
(3)
Must meet
diversion chart
criteria
N/A
-Must meet drainage
requirements
-Must not significantly
impede emergency vehicle
access
Entrance Barrier-Half
Closure
Cut-through
Traffic, Vehicle
Conflicts
L, ML
> 15% of peak hour
volume is cut-through
traffic
(3)
Must meet
diversion chart
criteria
N/A
-Must not significantly
impede emergency vehicle
access
Diagonal Diverter
Cut-through
Traffic, Vehicle
Conflicts
L, ML
> 15% of peak hour
volume is cut-through
traffic
(3)
Must meet
diversion chart
criteria
N/A
-If full diverter, cannot be
truck or transit route,
-Must not significantly
impede emergency vehicle
access
Notes:
1) Street Type key: L – Local, ML – Major Local, RC – Residential Collector, C- Collector, All – All Residential Streets, excludes arterials 2) Specific volume (ADT) criteria may not be appropriate for this tool, it may be applied over a range of volume 3) Specific speed criteria may not be appropriate for this tool, it may be applied over a range of observed speeds at the discretion of the City Traffic Engineer or the Police Department
General Notes:
- final determination of certain control application based on review by City staff - subject to modification by City Council on a case-by-case basis G:\Traffic Engineering\Projects-Studies\NTMP\NTMP Handbook-rev1 9-6-05\Appendix D- Toolbox Criteria Table-rev1 9-6-05.doc
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
APPENDIX E
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
HANDBOOK
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION MAP
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
APPENDIX F
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
HANDBOOK
EMERGENCY VEHICLE ROUTE MAP
Rev 9/6/05
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
APPENDIX H
Allowable Local and Collector Street Traffic Diversion
(due to Neighborhood Traffic Management Toolbox measure applications)
Street
Type
Pre-Project Daily Traffic Volume
Less than 1,250
ADT
1,250 – 2,500
ADT
2,500 – 5,000
ADT
Over 5,000
ADT
Local and Major Local
Streets
Up to 25 % increase in
daily or peak hour
volume
Up to 15 % increase in
daily or peak hour
volume
Up to 7.5 % increase in
daily or peak hour
volume
Up to 3 % increase in
daily or peak hour
volume
Collector Streets Any increase is
allowable
Any increase is
allowable
Up to 15 % increase in
daily or peak hour
volume
Up to 7.5 % increase in
daily or peak hour
volume
G:\Traffic Engineering\NTMP\Appendix H- Diversion Criteria Chart.doc Rev 9/6/05
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024
PPIC MTG 12/05/2024