Docstoc

SHORE DRIVE SAFETY TASK FORCE

Document Sample
SHORE DRIVE SAFETY TASK FORCE Powered By Docstoc
					SHORE DRIVE SAFETY TASK FORCE January 31, 2006

Attendees: Charlie Meyer, Jim Wood, Dean Block, Clay Bernick, Angela Garrow, Greg Mullen, Barry Frankenfield, Bob Scott, Tim Solanic, June Barrett-McDaniels, Heather Ham, Beck Jucksch, Barbara Duke, Sherri Lee. Charlie Meyer opened the meeting introducing his assistant, Angela Garrow who handed out copies of the January 10th meeting minutes. Introductions by attendees followed. At last meeting there was discussion about a field trip and everyone felt that it would be a good idea. Angela Garrow will coordinate with everyone’s schedules. Not everyone needed to attend, but the more that attended, the better it would be. It was decided that everyone would meet with a van and driving along Shore Drive stopping at different locations. Tim Solanic suggested walking along sections of Shore Drive and then meeting some place to brainstorm about everyone’s impression for immediate feedback. Clay Bernick suggested getting a meeting room at Bayside Rec Center and talk. Charlie Meyer felt that after this morning’s meeting the Task Force may want to look at some of the ideas such as moving sections of guardrails. Regarding Northhampton Boulevard to the State Park, it would be impossible to walk that distance, so we may want to select some spots and maybe ask the SDAC members to suggest some specifics that they want looked at so that some walking can be done and we can transport to other locations. June Barrett-McDaniels liked the idea of meeting at the rec center and suggested meeting before and after the field trip. Mr. Meyer will have a meeting room arranged and the Task Force will start at that point, go out and do the tour and come back to that point and have a meeting. He felt that 2 hours should be set aside for the field trip portion and 30 minutes to an hour for a follow up discussion. Tim Solanic suggested a morning trip might be because of the volume and pace of traffic. Charlie Meyer stated that this meeting’s minutes will be sent out as soon as they are prepared. Based on the minutes from the last meeting, there were items that Daphne proposed and she also gave a longer list that started with Wake Forest. Heather Ham prepared a sheet sorting out the Regulatory, Infrastructure and Public Informational items that came up at the first meeting and then sorted them out into short, mid and long term kind of things. The definition of short-term according to the Council Resolution is less that 180 days, mid-term was 6-18 months and long-term was 18-36 months. Dean Block felt that the short-term items could be done in 180 days with the exception of some areas of sidewalk. Following this meeting, Charlie Meyer is going to put together a report to Council to indicate where we are at this point and time. Charlie Meyer suggested starting out with Regulatory, then to move to Infrastructure and lastly Public Information. The purpose of this meeting is to come to a general consensus, leaving the third meeting to nail down the recommendations. Which would be after the

Shore Drive Safety Task Force Minutes January 31, 2006 Page 2

field trip. Barry Frankenfield suggested putting the field trip meeting and final meeting together in one day and then make recommendations. After some discussion, it was decided that there was possibility of coming away with an incomplete product if it was all done right away. Charlie Meyer stated that there would be a more protracted discussion after the field trip. The meeting then moved to the Regulatory section of sheet and started with removing the “death” sign. At the last meeting, the feeling was that the sign wasn’t doing any good, that it is morbid and doesn’t serve a purpose. Dean Block agreed to take the sign down. June Barrett-McDaniels felt the sign would be more purposeful if the sign was more for public information but is reluctant to take it down with out talking to some of the victims’ families and wasn’t sure if taking it down would really help in the safety along Shore Drive. Bob Scott suggested rethinking the message or sign. Citizens may question if the sign is suddenly gone because it is a very well know sign. Take the sign down is, at this point, going to be on the list and ultimately we may recommend to Council to take the sign down, or we may not. Tim Solanic stated that some the of victims’ families would like to see the sign taken down and have another message be put in place of that message for example, to let people know that there are pedestrian and cyclists, etc. on Shore Drive. Definitely not take it down and do nothing. If there is a period of time between the sign going down and another sign going up, there will be discussion among citizens will raise some kind of awareness. Greg Mullen asked if there had been a discussion of possibly having a variable message board put there. It could also be a visual attraction to the variable messages that can be put up there. It could be a way to attract attention as people are entering that area. It could be changed to say whatever we wanted to say or there could be a series of message that are played through. Dean Block offered to price out a permanent installation. Public Works would own the sign and coordinate with the Police Department about messages. Media and Communications can contribute. It could be managed out of Smart Traffic. Charlie Meyer confirmed that there is a leaning to removing existing static signs that have been there and putting up something that would be along the variable message order. Tim Solanic asked if there was some sort of budgetary threshold that it would have to go to Council. Dean Block explained that depending on the number and where we are in the budget, we would have go back other budget office, but the first step is to find out the cost. Tim Solanic and Daphne have a list of questions and were wondering if there was some kind figure that Mr. Block might be able to make a phone call or make a decision and it just gets done and if there was a certain threshold where he would have to go before Council. Charlie Meyer explained that if it were one discrete purchase, that would usually come from within the department, but Mr. Block raised the question of if we want to package this and say that we’ve got 20 discrete purchases that we want to package together as the Shore Drive Safety Recommendation and we would have to see how these recommendations go. Charlie Meyer felt that might fall under mid-term to actually do the signs. Charlie Meyer moved to Enforcement. Dean Block talked about the speed trailer being put out over Christmas. Greg Mullen explained that the Selective Enforcement Team as

Shore Drive Safety Task Force Minutes January 31, 2006 Page 3

well as the patrol officers that actually work out in the area predominately on Friday and Saturday nights, have written a lot of tickets but we can’t continue to have them out there all the time. They need to go to other places in the City. While they are continually rotating throughout the Shore Drive Corridor, they are also working in other areas. If it is the recommendation of this committee to have an on going presence in the Shore Drive Corridor then we are going to have to look at allocating some overtime to bring officers back in when they are off duty. Charlie Meyer asked Greg Mullen to define the difference between on going presence and being in rotation. Greg Mullen stated the Police Department tries to identify, working with Traffic Engineering, we determine what the high accident and injury areas are within the City and then not only do we have the precincts that focus on those areas with directed patrol, but we have the Selective Enforcement Team which is made up of 8 officers, that concentrate on those areas. They will have safety check points, radar enforcement, the DUI group will act based on those statistics that we come back with from arrest and they will try and focus their attention on those areas in a rotating process. Generally, Special Operations will do the top 6-7 high injury/accident intersections of speeding complaints that we get, while the precincts focus on either complaint from citizens. There may be a radar complaint on Shore Drive, the Selective Enforcement Team will be doing a traffic safety check point and the DUI squad will actually be patrolling the corridor during bar closing times or early in the evening. Greg Mullen stated that every 3-4 weeks there may be the entire group in the area at one time, but otherwise its individual operations. Special Operations will coordinate with the precincts so there isn’t duplication. Charlie Meyer felt that it is and has been prior to the existence of this group for enforcement. Greg Mullen explained how, in prior years, there were grants for several years that paid police officers, off –duty, to do nothing but run radar on Shore Drive. Those grants are no longer available, but we continue to have a presence in that area. Charlie Meyer asked if we wish to request additional presence in the area, which would be at an overtime rate. Greg Mullen explained that the grants received were from DMV and we haven’t had a Shore Drive/DMV Grant for at least 2 years. They now have grants for seatbelts and child safety seats and officers are being brought in off duty for the educational purposes. ABC grants are for underage drinking and some DUI grants. The Shore Drive Grant was specific to Shore Drive. If an officer worked it, they worked Shore Drive. June Barrett-McDaniels wants to look into some kind of enforcement and Dean Block suggested looking into working up an idea and the cost associated with it. Clay Bernick asked if there could be variables to cost depending on the season or times of day or week. Charlie Meyer asked for the Police Department to work up and estimate of enforcement. Jim Wood felt this may fall under long-term for higher fines for traffic violations along Shore Drive, but didn’t think it should fall under that category because we can have signs along Shore Drive that fines were doubled it will make people think. Greg Mullen asked if there was some sort of mechanism to identify this area as some sort of “Traffic Calming” neighborhood. Dean Block responded that the road is arterial and we would probably have to run it by the City Attorney. Jim Wood said that we could call it whatever we want to and that it would be traffic calming and we could legally come up with a way to capture the excess revenue from the fines and then that would go into a fund for the Shore Drive Safety Improvements. Charlie Meyer

Shore Drive Safety Task Force Minutes January 31, 2006 Page 4

confirmed that package that seemed to be being considered was some form of designation on Shore Drive that allows us to impose higher fines for traffic infractions. Dean Block stated that Public Works would work with the Police Department on this. Barry Frankenfield stated that this could be a model for the rest of the City. If enforcement and higher fines would be a deterrent, is there a value in taking these recommendations and asking does it effect the entire City and would it be easier when you give the ticket, if the fine is doubled, to have that fine be the same every where in the entire city instead of saying that Shore Drive is different. Charlie Meyer said that it was his understanding that in areas where City Council has formally designated Traffic Calming, that there is authority to change the level of fines in those area. Greg Mullen suggested that before any decision is made that we coordinate with the courts to designate that anyone that is ticketed on Shore Drive has to go to court, they cannot pay off a fine in a Traffic Calming area. Dean Block suggested figuring out some way to raise the fines without calling Shore Drive a Traffic Calming area and risk over stepping the purpose of that program. Tim Solanic stated that Shore Drive has a perception of being a speedway and asked how that could be changed. Dean Block responded that speed studies would need to done on how fast people are actually going. Bob Scott asked if there was any data anywhere that showed that increasing fines was an effective deterrent because he felt that other ideas might be more effective. Dean Block responded that in some neighborhoods they liked it and some they didn’t. Charlie Meyer stated that we would deal with it as part of an organized public information campai Charlie Meyer went on to Short Term Enforcement and that the Task Force has talked about speeding and DUI and higher fines and asked if there were other specific enforcement issues that we want to talk about. Clay Bernick said the Planning Department has started working on and is going to start changing the way they review development review decisions in terms of requirements for sidewalk and other pedestrian amenities and Planning will be putting together a more formalized approach, a checklist, that development projects will go through so that things do not fall between the cracks. Bob Scott stated that in some cases in the past, Planning has accepted bonds, but they no longer due that. Charlie Meyer asked if that would be something Planning would be presenting back to this group as a written report of what the changes would be in the development review process. Bob Scott said that could do that he is also going to see if there are any outstanding bonds. Barry Frankenfield brought up the next point about sidewalks. He feels 4-foot sidewalks are too small. Clay Bernick wanted to talk about the standards. The standard along Shore Drive is too small. Dean Block stated that there is a lot of sidewalk that is out there and has been out there for a long time that is not connecting and that a 10-foot path on the south side of Shore Drive is in the Phase I project. We would be doing similar things and possibly having it run through neighborhoods. In the area that is being talked about in people having an option, we don’t want them on Shore Drive if they don’t have to be there. The option may be to put a trail or bike path down through the neighborhoods instead of widening the path on Shore Drive.

Shore Drive Safety Task Force Minutes January 31, 2006 Page 5

Tim Solanic asked about the project next to the Wawa and that there was some discussion of having some kind of fencing/planting in the median to discourage pedestrians and that it was his understanding that there wasn’t going to be any pedestrians to that complex across the street. The attorney felt that no one would cross the street illegally there. June Barrett-McDaniels stated the attorney was talking about people driving and make left turns. There was a discussion about jaywalking and Greg Mullen said that it’s not something the police go out looking for it actively. Becky Dukes felt that issuing tickets might encourage people to go to signalized intersections. Charlie Meyer asked Greg Mullen what would constitute jaywalking on Shore Drive. Greg Mullen responded that technically, if people are crossing the street and they were in a highway in areas that were not designated either as intersections or pedestrian crossings then technically they are in violation of that law. The chances of a police officer seeing somebody crossing the road in a non-pedestrian area and stopping and giving somebody a ticket for that is slim but they certainly could. Again, it would go back that probably 100% of the people being charged in those cases are going to be people that live in the neighborhood and they are going to, in turn, be calling the City Manager’s office and complain about why the police officers are not out doing more productive work instead of writing them a ticket for walking across Shore Drive. We would need a lot of help from the community to let the people know in the neighborhoods and civic leagues that you’ve been a part of this committee and you have recommended that the police officers begin to strictly enforce that. So they know if they start getting summons, it’s because you have asked for that to occur. Charlie Meyer asked the Task Force if they wanted to keep jaywalking enforcement on the list. Tim Solanic stated that there were 7 or 13 painted crosswalks between First Landing and Diamond Springs. June Barrett-McDaniels stated it would be difficult to require pedestrians to go the signalized intersections because some of them are a mile apart. There are curb cuts and intersections every couple of hundred feet, which is part of the problem. She thought what was being said was that we could cross at those intersections. Clay Bernick suggested revisiting the design issues. There are a lot things we can do with median landscaping and other kinds of things we can do to discourage crossing mid block, between intersections whether they are signalized or not. The best plant is the Dune Rose, which is a native plant. It is a great deterrent and it is low maintenance. Barry Frankenfield feels the solution is a well-defined pedestrian system, the right width, location, crosswalks and signs. Deterring people by putting thorny plants in the median is ok, but not the real solution. The real solution is, if you have the place to cross and it’s well defined, it will work. We need to develop an immediate plan to deal with those issues to put in the crossing, and there would be a crossing because traffic doesn’t like the crossings. Heather Ham stated that we would want to put a pedestrian stripped crossing at a protected intersection. We don’t want to put a pedestrian stripped crossing where a vehicle doesn’t expect to stop and that would make the pedestrian feel safe in a situation where they are not. Barry Frankenfield understood the philosophy, but didn’t agree with it. We need to come with a plan that we can do short-term. Dean Block stated that this is not a neighborhood street, this is a major arterial and we can make it safe but we need to make sure that we don’t destroy its

Shore Drive Safety Task Force Minutes January 31, 2006 Page 6 function as an arterial street in the process of making it safe. It’s got 44,000 cars a day and it’s going to have a lot more. Tim Solanic stated that it was his understanding that part of the plan was to increase the density up there and part of the plan was to take part of the R1 or R4 of the 6/7 houses. The density is increasing and there is a lot of older people up there with no children, but then there is the worst case scenario of everything where there is a ton of traffic, virtually every variance of zoning is being approved or looking to be approved because they want to increase taxes and increase density, but then there is nothing being done to protect the people who are living there, the pedestrians who’s zero trust in government is that if it’s a six lane road, it’s just going to be a supper speedway anyway, I can’t cross 4 lanes, I’ll never cross 6 and then you hear it’s R1 and 6 houses aren’t good enough, we want 80+ condos, but there’s not safety stuff going on to protect the pedestrians, Tim Solanic that that is the reason the Task Force is sitting there because of tall the conflicts. Charlie Meyer noted that we started out talking about enforcement kind of things and slipped over to infrastructure, which was good, but we’ve moved into another area and it seemed like we moved into another area of regulatory which has to do with zoning and planning and that’s fine if that is where we are and we should stay there for a while. He asked if we could move on from the police type of enforcement issues into the other area. Bob Scott wanted to figure out where some of the protected areas that June BarrettMcDaniels mentioned that are a mile a part are and if there were, in fact, protected areas and make it as easy as possible for people to cross. Instead of finding ways to prohibit people for jaywalking, we need to find ways to encourage people to safely cross the street and where we want them to do it. Dean Block thought that was a very good point and talked about the countdown pedestrian signal at Shore Drive and Star Fish. He talked about replacing a new countdown signal and handicapped at West Great Neck Road and Shore Drive. Also, install a handicapped ramp and extension of sidewalk at the south east corner and by the 1st of February we’ll have pedestrian countdown signals at Page Avenue and Vista Circle and Shore Drive. He felt that it was out thinking that, ultimately, if we go through this, every controlled intersection is going to have pedestrian countdown signals and appropriate markings and wherever there is a light, there will be an upgrade of safety. Dean Block stated that we have also talked about providing some kind of lighting at appropriated locations to assist pedestrians with the crosswalk. He agreed with Bob Scott that we have to decide where we want people to be because if we are going to provide for them safety, we want to give them the right message and provide the right tools for them to cross. We have started that process from an infrastructure point of view as quickly as we could. There are additional things planned with the Demonstration Project that will provide those kinds of things. Bob Scott wants to do all of the things Dean Block is talking about and then decide how far is an acceptable distance for someone to walk to get to a crosswalk. If we have significant development in the areas where it exceeds that acceptable distance, than we have to devise another strategy, which we don’t apparently have. Plan A should always be to be establish protected crosswalks and hopefully they would be at intervals to accommodate the

Shore Drive Safety Task Force Minutes January 31, 2006 Page 7

private development that is going on. We all understand that Shore Drive, being the kind of road it its, that’s not the case. We need to come up with a Plan B. In call cases we need to think about how we do want people to cross the street. Charlie Meyer suggested moving off Regulatory. Tim Solanic wanted to point out that part of the reason the Task Force is there is because of some lack of communication as to what the goal is and what’s going to go on Shore Drive. Charlie Meyer felt that fell under Regulatory, not Infrastructure, which was a valid discussion, he wanted to make sure that we hadn’t slipped into building sidewalks, etc. before we’ve complete Regulatory. Clay Bernick brought up a last point on Regulatory, and that was if the Task Force wanted to make suggestions to tweak the current plan as to what would be allowed out there and what would not. One the tasks for the Shore Drive Committee for this year, wants to look at the adopted plans and adopted ordinances, the densities that are allowed and reconsider whether that’s appropriate. We have had those in place now since the overlay district was established back 1998 and it may be the time to do a revisiting of that to see if we need to make the adjustments. Tim Solanic asked, for example, the Wawa and the condos, would it be appropriate to say if it is approved, one of the conditions be lighted pedestrian painted crosswalk. Clay felt that would go more in what Barry Frankenfield suggested and that is if you want to start looking at where pedestrian crosswalks should go and the intervals, we need to have an overall plan. A strategy of where they are now, where they need to be and how can that best work with traffic flow. Right now, we are doing a lot of good things but it is somewhat hit and miss and we don’t have an overall approach as to where we’re going and what the needs are. Clay Bernick suggested that maybe that plan become something we shoot for in the short-term and it might identify some of the things that we can do now and some may take a little longer and some would be long-term. We have to have a picture to accompany all of these things. Charlie Meyer felt he was hearing that his group may not wish to address the issues of Corridor Plan/Zoning because Planning and the Shore Drive Advisory Committee are looking at it, and, therefore, is outside of our scope or was that not the case. Clay Bernick felt we should note that it is being looked at and that as a short-term thing, there will be some feedback coming back from the Shore Drive Advisory Committee if adjustments are considered appropriate from there recommendation and then it would go to the Planning Commission and Council. June Barrett-McDaniels added that she disagreed with Dean Block about this roadway not being a neighborhood street, it is. That is a problem because Public Works is saying that this is a major arterial and we’re going to have to make way for the cars, but the reality is we don’t have a major arterial in any sections, we have curb cuts every hundred feet as well as intersections. If you think about major arterials and they have been designed so that they come in at certain locations and the neighborhoods aren’t facing that major arterial, they’re facing inward and you have controlled access to your major arterial. That’s lost on Shore Drive. We have to start thinking of it as a major arterial that cuts through our neighborhood and, therefore, making us speed. Charlie Meyer noted that there is a conflict but not

Shore Drive Safety Task Force Minutes January 31, 2006 Page 8

necessarily a disagreement. London Bridge Road, for example, is a major arterial and we have been able adequately control it so that there is very few intersecting driveways and where there are intersecting streets, they are properly controlled and Shore Drive is the exact opposite of that. What Public Works is saying is that it is carrying a major arterial level of traffic. What he thought June Barrett-McDaniels was saying, but there are so many intersection, driveways, cuts, etc., that it acts as a neighborhood street as well and that is why we’re here. It’s not that we disagree; we all wish that we could handle the traffic. That is not going to go away. Dean Block stated there was a problem in that the Corridor Plan recognized that and the Corridor Plan was trying to find ways to reduce the number of driveways as redevelopment occurs. Bob Scott stated that was an interesting point, some of the properties don’t have any curb cuts at all, just one big free-for-all. It’s not just curb cuts, it’s also, in some cases, median cuts that don’t need to be there. Dean Block stated the point of the matter is that there is a variety of conflicting interests. If we try to close a median cut, the neighborhood rises up and says not to do it. Bob Scott responded that is why it would have to be part of a uniform cohesive plan. The Corridor Plan, (there is a vocabulary problem as to neighborhood street/arterial) the planners need to specific definition. There is a road that carries a lot of traffic, going by a lot of neighborhoods and a lot of businesses. The question is how do we manage that. That is what the Corridor Plan was supposed to do. Croaker’s and Shucker’s have no curb cuts. That is a significant safety problem. Tim Solanic brought up across from the Lazy Daisy another one was allowed to happen at Stratford, at the boat ramp and the illegal parking from Croaker’s employees that open on to Shore Drive and then there was another parking lot that opens on to Shore Drive that was just approved that has that wide open curb cut where 4 people have been killed in 10 years. June Barrett-McDaniels talked about the restaurants and having enforcement issues to possibly prevent people from parking in the right-of-way. Heather Ham talked about similar problems on Laskin Road with wide-open curb cuts that are being handled by access management. The main part of the problem is in the section from Vista to Great Neck. We are looking at that with Phase III of the Demonstration Project at doing access management and trying to close some of those wide-open areas. It was something that will not be able to be fixed over night. Bob Scott suggested going down Shore Drive and cleaning up all the encroachments of which some are safety issues. Charlie Meyer confirmed a request to investigate how we eliminate these places where there are not curb cuts and no access and can we go back to some of these properties and retrofit. The issue is the parking within the right-of-way and the encroachments, which sounds like they are related. The businesses have effectively encroached their parking into the right-of-way, which then makes visibility issues. June Barrett-McDaniels stated that there could be a long-term problem associated with that in that there’s not enough parking for all the restaurants and that is something the Shore Drive Advisory Committee is supposed to take on at some point and coming up with some kind or parking plan or shuttle.

Shore Drive Safety Task Force Minutes January 31, 2006 Page 9

Charlie Meyer brought up for discussion pedestrian yield signs. Possibly putting up signs that say “Cars Yield to Pedestrians.” Dean Block added “Right Turns Yield to Pedestrians.” He talked about a signs that make sure people stop before they turn. Charlie Meyer felt there were 2 issues, one is the sign issue as part of the educational and reinforcement of the fact that there is a law and he didn’t think that our police department and most police department are oriented for ticketing people, going back to the jaywalking issue. Everyone would probably agree that if somebody is not yielding to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, that that is something, that as a community standard, we would not accept. Greg Mullen added that the pedestrian also has a responsibility to act safely. Expecting a vehicle traveling down the road at 45 mph when crossing in the middle of a highway is not reasonable. There area people that expect that or that go against the crossing the lights and then expect drivers, who have a green light now, to not recognize. While there a lot of things that we are talking about doing to protect the pedestrians, the other side is that the pedestrians have some responsibility to act reasonably when they are either entering an intersection or trying to cross the road. Charlie Meyer felt he was hearing from this group was there responsibility on the part of both the pedestrians and the motorists to adhere to the law and putting back some obligation on the police department to say they are going to enforce those obligations and responsibilities and that would also be part of or education process. Tim Solanic felt enforcement would be a good thing after the crosswalks were painted to help direct people in a positive way as to where to cross. Greg Mullen explained that you can cross the street at a signalized intersection without a crosswalk. Jaywalking is basically in an area that is not designated, not necessarily as a pedestrian area, but where there’s access. For example, if you’re crossing anywhere along Shore Drive you cut across the median, technically that would be considered a pedestrian in a highway which is a violation of the law. Charlie Meyer asked if you’re crossing Shore Drive in the vicinity of Cape Henry, where there is not signalized intersection, but you are at an intersection, is that a legal crossing? Greg Mullen did not think that would be considered illegal. The law is intended to keep people out of the roadway where there is vehicles that are driving and have no idea that you would be crossing there or that there would be a pedestrian there. June BarrettMcDaniels stated that at a side street, a pedestrian could cross; you would expect to see people because you have the street signs where people cross from Cape Story By the Sea to get to the beach. There’s not a light in sight but there are distinctive signs. Charlie Meyer mentioned the suggestion that was made of “No Right Turn on Red” on side streets. He understood that to mean all side streets. Tim Solanic talked about the speed limit and eliminating that zero room for error and reduce the speed limit to 35 and then people may drive 45. Possibly moving to a more appropriate speed limit considering the amount of pedestrians, cyclists, traffic and no crosswalks, whether it could be a short-term solution and possibly a more permanent. Charlie Meyer understood Tim Solanic to mean to not necessarily lower the speed limit, but lower the enforcement threshold down to the speed limit. Tim Solanic responded that if people would do 45 mph, to him its still not appropriate for larger vehicles like school

Shore Drive Safety Task Force Minutes January 31, 2006 Page 10

buses or large truck considering the amount of pedestrians, cyclists and everything else. With the existing infrastructure that is there now, 45 mph doesn’t seem to be a safe place because as June Barrett-McDaniels there is no room for error for the driver or the pedestrian. It may be a solution for this Task Force to lower the speed limit to 35 mph as a temporary construction speed limit working eventually into what he would hopefully just lowering the speed limit to 35 mph. From the enforcement it is practically impossible to have people do 45 mph because it’s not realistic to pull people for doing 49 mph. That why a lot of discussions have been to lower the speed limit to 35 mph and then people would do 45mph and anything over 45 mph, they would get pulled over. Charlie Meyer confirmed that the recommendation would actually be to lower the speed limit to 35 mph either temporarily or permanent, preferably permanent. Most people that don’t want it to be permanent don’t live up there and use Shore Drive as a speedway. A number of restaurateurs contacted Tim Solanic told him that they didn’t realize they were doing 55 mph because the newer cars that as soon as you hit the gas you’re flying. Charlie Meyer wanted to talk more about 35 mph. June Barrett-McDaniels would like to see it stay on the table. She also talked about the State Legislation that would require that people stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, not just yield to them but she noticed that it was only on streets that were 35 mph or lower. June Barrett-McDaniels would like to see it explored a little bit more. Clay Bernick stated that there was a natural tendency for people to want to travel a certain speed based on the characteristics of the road. Parts of Shore Drive’s character have changed considerably and the past 10-15 years and it may be appropriate that we adjust the speed limit in some areas to reflect that. Charlie Meyer stated for the record that he had a conversation with Bob Gey after the Enforcement article in the Pilot. Bob Gey forwarded the e-mail that he had given to the Pilot and he did not say that we have to use the 85th Percentile Rule in order to set up the speed limit. He specifically said the opposite of that. Unfortunately, the Pilot put it in as Bob Gey’s comment was to use the 85th Percentile Rule. It was decided with Dean Block that we were not going to demand any kind of correction. Tim Solanic stated that another discussion was to signalize the lights to 35 mph and even put signage up that the lights are signalized to 35 mph. If the speed limit stays at 45 mph, but the lights are actually signalized at 35 mph with signage. Norfolk has done it in Ocean View. The lights are signalized to 30 mph and they have signs that say the lights are signalized for 30 mph. Charlie Meyer stated we could look at that but the question was if there were enough signals around Shore Drive to be able to pull that off. Bob Scott asked if anybody has a perception of a difference in character of Shore Drive east and west of Great Neck Road. East of Great Neck Road is strictly residential area where the houses are right up to the road. That is really different from the other side where there is a lot of commercial. Charlie Meyer asked how much the traffic volume varied because Shore Drive is not uniform from one side to another. Dean Block said that once you reach Great Neck, east of Great Neck, the volumes fall off. Heather Ham stated that it was 15,000-18,000 east of Great Neck and 42,000-46,000 from Great Neck to Northampton Boulevard and 33,000 west of Northampton.

Shore Drive Safety Task Force Minutes January 31, 2006 Page 11

Charlie Meyer stated that not everything that we set out to accomplish was accomplished and that Infrastructure wasn’t discussed at all. Public Works did come prepared with the correct map of where there is sidewalks and where there is not and existing conditions. Based on what we’ve been talking about, we said we were going to do the field trip and then come back impressions from the field trip and then try and pursue additional ideas. Dean Block added that Work Orders are in place to repair 5 locations that were identified as having problems with the sidewalk and work will begin the first week of February and should be completed by the first week of March. We will also be installing one section of 40 feet of sidewalk to tie into 2 existing sidewalks that are already in place at the 3700 block of Shore Drive between Dupont and Dodge, west of Dinwiddie. Tim Solanic asked if there was going to be a Shore Drive Advisory Committee meeting scheduled in the evening for more public input. Charlie Meyer stated that the Resolution calls for a meeting with the Shore Drive Advisory Committee. When he put together the initial letter estimating when we were going to be done, he tried to schedule it around when the Shore Drive Advisory Committee would be meeting. We may need to rethink that because we may not be done according to our original schedule. June BarrettMcDaniels thought the Committee decided to keep the meetings at 3:30 p.m. Clay Bernick stated that could be brought up at the upcoming meeting. Tim Solanic would like to have one meeting in the evening to get more public input. Clay Bernick spoke to Kal Kassir who wants to put that as an item for discussion at the Shore Drive Advisory Committee meeting in February. The Committee could go either way.

Meeting adjourned.


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:31
posted:12/25/2009
language:English
pages:11