The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About17 MID BLK CROSSWALK 02-04-02AGENDA REPORT NO. 17 02-04-02 MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 4, 2002 760-75 770-30 770-40 WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION REQUEST FOR A MID-BLOCK CROSSWALK ON EL CAMINO REAL .'- BETWEEN MAIN STREET AND SIXTH STREET AND CONSTRUCTION OF PARKING FACILITIES AND A PEDESTRIAN RAMP AT 450 EL CAMINO REAL SUMMARY The City has received recent requests for a mid-block crosswalk on El Camino Real between Main Street and Sixth Street and for construction of parking facilities and a pedestrian ramp at 450 El Camino Real. The mid-block crossing is not appropriate due to traffic safety and congestion concerns. The installation of a mid-block crosswalk at this location would necessitate the removal of on-street parking to provide adequate sight distance and would interrupt traffic on El Camino Real causing congestion. Construction of parking facilities and a pedestrian ramp at 450 El Camino Real to access the Steven's Square Parking Structure has been determined infeasible and considerable planning and design is underway on an alternate location for siting of an elevator to facilitate access to the parking structure. In addition, the design of a landscape pedestrian plaza is underway and future construction of these improvements will be programmed as funds are authorized. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council deny the request to install a mid-block crosswalk on El Camino Real between Main Street and Sixth Street and construction of parking facilities and a pedestrian ramp at 450 El Camino Real. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the preparation of this report. However, any approval of a mid-block crossing could pose significant public liability concerns and significant change order costs to the City that would necessitate altering the El Camino Real Streetscape Project plans already under contract. Planning and design costs have also already been incurred to site an elevator location for the Steven's Square Parking Structure based on previous City Council direction and preliminary design costs have been incurred for a proposed landscape pedestrian plaza at 450 El Camino Real. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The City Council has previously received a letter along with a petition from Mr. Phil Cox requesting that the City Council consider installation of a mid-block crosswalk on El Camino Real between Main Street and Sixth Street (see Exhibit A), and construction of parking facilities on the Redevelopment Agency owned lot at 450 El Camino Real including construction of a ;amp to the Steven's Square Parking Structure from the El Camino Real lot. Request for Mid-Block Crosswalk on El Camino Real between Main Street and Sixth Street February 4, 2002 Page 2 of 7 Subsequently, Mr. Cox appeared before the City Council and has provided pictures of several locations where mid-block crosswalks are installed throughout the State of California as well as some locations in the State of Oregon. A mid-block crosswalk in the City of Laguna Beach has been cited as an example of a location where the crossing is providing successful operations. Mr. Cox's main complaints have recently revolved around the Assistance League's apparent parking on his property and the requirement that the City imposed on the Assistance League to utilize parking in the Steven's Square Parking Structure when their events resulted in a lack of available on-site parking at their business location. City staff has previously transmitted Mr. Cox's requests to the Tustin Old Town Association (TOTA). In the attached letter from TOTA (Exhibit B), they indicate that they view Mr. Cox's issues at this time as a distraction to their desire to focus on the development of a more comprehensive design plan for Old Town. City staff has reviewed Mr. Cox's requests with pertinent information and conclusions as follows: Mid-Block Crossing Request Tustin currently analyzes crosswalk locations on a case-by-case basis and applies various state and federal guidelines along with engineering judgment to establish crosswalks. The State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have established and published commonly accepted guidelines for the use of crosswalks at uncontrolled locations. These guidelines suggest that marked crosswalks should only be installed at uncontrolled locations on a case-by-case basis based upon sound engineering judgment. The guidelines in the Caltrans "Traffic Manual" indicate "crosswalk markings serve primarily to guide pedestrians into the proper path. Pedestrian crosswalk markings should not be used indiscriminately, as their presence can be detrimental to pedestrian safety. In some cases, pedestrians can be given a false sense of security due to prominent appearance of the crosswalk to the pedestrian, resulting in lack of caution. The crosswalk markings may not be readily apparent to the driver from a safe stopping distance." The "Traffic Manual" further states "non-intersectional (mid-block) pedestrian crossings are generally unexpected by the motorist and should be discouraged unless, in the opinion of the engineer, there is strong justification in favor of the installation." The FHWA has sponsored research into establishing well-defined warrants for the placement of crosswalks. The research is published in the "Transportation Research Record Report Number 1141" of the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. This research suggests that crosswalks should be installed only at intersections and at mid-block crossings satisfying minimum vehicular and pedestrian volume criteria and basic criteria, including the following: Request for Mid-Block Crosswalk on El Camino Real between Main Street and Sixth Street February 4, 2002 Page 3 of 7 · Speed limit 45 MPH or less · Adequate stopping sight distance · Adequate illumination · 600-ft. minimum to intersection · Minimal conflicting attention demands of motorist The volume criteria suggest that crosswalks may be a consideration for hourly pedestrian traffic volumes in the range of 10 to 25 pedestrians per hour. Many large public agencies have developed their own warrant systems, including most notably the City of San Diego. San Diego has published extensive research on crosswalk safety, and their work is frequently cited as authority in litigation involving crosswalks. San Diego requires a minimum hourly rate of 10 pedestrians per hour for consideration of a crosswalk. In response to the crosswalk request, the Engineering Division staff has prepared an analysis of current conditions in the area including: field reviews, traffic counts, a review of accident records, pedestrian crossing observations, a survey of other Orange County cities and contacting the City of Laguna Beach. El Camino Real is a two-lane local roadway with a mix of diagonal parking and parallel parking between Main Street and Sixth Street. Attached Exhibit C shows the parking conditions along the subject portion of El Camino Real. The intersections of Main Street/El Camino Real and Sixth Street/El Camino Real are both signalized. There are no intersections located between the two signals, which make pedestrian crossings of El Camino Real between the two signals illegal per California Vehicle Code Section 21995. Traffic counts on this portion of El Camino Real (Exhibit D) indicate volumes of 8,039 vehicles per day. Maximum hourly counts occur at the noon hour, 12:00 P.M. to 1:00 P.M., at 652 vehicles per hour, and between 5:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M., at 662 vehicles per hour. Random pedestrian mid-block crossing counts were observed and are shown in Table 1. Based upon these observations the maximum number of pedestrians observed crossing mid-block was 6 within an hour period. Review of traffic accident records for the study area from 1998 to date indicates there were no pedestrian accidents in this area. There was one traffic accident at the intersection of Main Street/El Camino Real in 1998, but it did not involve a pedestrian. The results of the survey of other Orange County cities are shown in Table 2. Some cities did not respond to the City's survey request and those are noted in Table 2. The information requested included presence of existing mid-block crosswalks, their general experience with those locations, types of signage/markings/devices at those locations and current policies regarding the installation of new mid-block crosswalks. The survey indicates that al_l of the Request for Mid-Block Crosswalk on El Camino Real between Main Street and Sixth Street February 4, 2002 Page 4 of 7 responding cities recommend against the installation of new mid-block crosswalks. Many of the jurisdictions have pre-existing mid-block crossings that have resulted in the installation of various measures to increase the safety of their use including overhead flashing beacons, parking prohibitions, in-pavement flashing lights, added signage and added street lighting. The City of Laguna Beach has a mid-block crossing on Laguna Canyon Road adjacent to the Festival of the Arts. This crossing is adjacent to two driveways on each side of Laguna Canyon Road, which does provide some similarity to an intersection. A parking lot for the Festival Grounds is located on the east side of Laguna Canyon Road and the Festival is on the west side of the road, resulting in significant pedestrian traffic crossing Laguna Canyon Road during Festival events. This roadway is actually under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, however, during Festival events the City of Laguna Beach provides traffic control at this location. The City of Laguna Beach indicated that during the summer Festival period the City utilizes approximately 400 traffic delineators to assist in the operation of the crosswalk. In addition, the City provides police control at the crosswalk during night operations. City staff indicated there is an improvement project to grade separate the pedestrian crossing in the future. They also indicated they do not support installation of any new mid-block crosswalks. The following basic criteria has been applied to the requested crosswalk on El Camino Real between Main Street and Sixth Street: ~, Pedestrian Volume Crosswalks should not be installed where pedestrian volume is less than 10-pedestrians per hour during the peak pedestrian hour. This criteria is cited in the FHWA and San Diego crosswalk study guidelines and is used extensively in the traffic engineering industry. The rationale indicates there should be sufficient minimal pedestrian usage to warrant the installation and to provide credibility to the motorist that pedestrians indeed use the crosswalk. In the case of El Camino Real, the maximum observed pedestrian use was 6-pedstrians per hour. > Visibility Crosswalks should not be installed unless the motorist has an unrestricted view of all pedestrians at the proposed crosswalk for a distance of not less than 200-feet approaching from each direction. This criteria is cited in the San Diego crosswalk study and typically used in the industry. Special attention is needed for locations with grades, curves, and other sight- restrictive features. On El Camino Real this would necessitate the removal of significant on- street parking to accommodate sufficient sight distance to provide for a safe crossing. Streetscape Improvements already under contract on El Camino Real have been designed to respond to the desires of the Tustin Old Town Association to maximize on-street parking. Request for Mid-Block Crosswalk on El Camino Real between Main Street and Sixth Street February 4, 2002 Page 5 of 7 ~. Illumination The proposed crosswalk should have adequate existing lighting or be scheduled for installation of lighting prior to the installation of the crosswalk. This criteria is cited in the San Diego and FHWA study guidelines. Rationale suggests that the Iow beams of vehicles, which are normally used in urban areas, may not be sufficient to illuminate the pedestrian in time to avoid a collision. Therefore, a marked crosswalk should only be installed with existing sufficient lighting. On El Camino Real the proposed crosswalk would be located in an area with sufficient lighting. ~- Spacing The proposed crosswalk should not be placed within 600-feet of an intersection. This criteria appears in the FHWA guidelines. The rationale suggests the 600-feet is necessary to provide adequate sight distance in both approach directions. This spacing is also recommended to minimize conflicts with traffic operations of adjacent intersections and to minimize roadway congestion associated with vehicles stopped for pedestrians. On El Camino Real there is approximately 660-feet spacing between the intersections of Main Street and Sixth Street. Therefore, a mid-block crosswalk located between these intersections would severely impact traffic operations at the adjacent intersections. Stopped vehicles would also impact ingress and egress at the driveways located along this segment of El Camino Real. One additional consideration is the proposed location of the Main Street Reservoir/Public Parking Project which is currently under construction. The project will provide 48 public parking spaces along Main Street at Prospect and an additional 26 parking spaces at Prospect and Third. It is anticipated that parking would be available at this new facility in October of 2002. Current conditions of approval for both uses on Mr. Cox's owned property as well as on the Assistance League site would permit the City to modify the location of any necessary off- site parking for their sites. Rather than the distance Mr. Cox claims it currently takes to get to the access to the Steven's Square (approximately 1,000 feet), the public parking proposed along Main Street would be approximately 500 feet from the El Camino Grill or Assistance League property respectively. In addition, as described in more detail below, a future planned elevator installation at the northeast corner of the Steven's Square Parking Structure would significantly reduce the distance that businesses on the west side of El Camino would travel to access the structure. In conclusion, it is the City's Traffic Engineer's opinion that the installation of a mid-block crosswalk on El Camino Real between Main Street and Sixth Street is not appropriate based upon existing conditions. Installing a crosswalk on this segment of El Camino Real will require the removal of significant on-street parking to provide adequate sight distance. A crosswalk at the proposed location will affect the traffic and circulation operations in the area and will increase congestion on El Camino Real. There will soon be parking available in the Old Town area that will be in closer proximity to Mr. Cox's property as well as the Assistance League as compared to the Parking Structure. Request for Mid-Block Crosswalk on El Camino Real between Main Street and Sixth Street February 4, 2002 Page 6 of 7 II. Construction of Parking Facilities at 450 El Camino Real and a Pedestrian Stairwell Over the last ten years, the Redevelopment Agency has on numerous occasions examined with professional advice the feasibility of constructing parking facilities on the Agency owned lot at 450 El Camino Real. The subject lot, unfortunately, is not adequate in width to accommodate either diagonal or angle parking and also maintain necessary aisle widths required by City Code and any necessary turning radius requirements so that cars do not have to back-up onto El Camino. In examining the feasibility of construction of parking on the site, the feasibility of a raised pedestrian ramp from the lot has also been evaluated. The Steven's Square Parking structure itself is not owned by the City of Tustin, it is owned by the Steven's Square Association. While the City has a condominium interest which permits use of 81 parking spaces on the top floor of the structure, any alteration of the structure requires approval of the Steven's Square Association. However, since the second floor of the structure is accessible to the general public, it must comply with Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act (federal law). Any alterations to the structure would also require that the structure comply with disabled access requirements under Title 24 (state law). To meet these accessibility requirements in altering the structure, an elevator will need to be constructed or a ramp meeting certain grade requirements including the addition of four (4) disabled parking spaces. The current access to the second level of the structure located from "C" Street has a ramp slope of approximately 13% with an elevation drop of approximately 8 feet with no intermediate landing. The maximum slope allowable is 8.33% with an intermediate landing required every 30-inch drop. With these requirements, a vehicular or pedestrian ramp was determined infeasible from El Camino Real. In addition, the Steven's Square Association also rejected any modification to the structure along El Camino Real. Based on recommendations of TOTA and previous City Council discussions, staff is currently pursuing design of an interim landscape pedestrian plaza for a portion of the 450 El Camino Real site until the property is needed for further development. The landscape architectural firm of Nuvis have identified a number of alternative designs that the City has discussed with TOTA. City staff will be requesting approval in the near future of a proposed budget to allow these temporary improvements to be completed in a time frame which will shortly follow the El Camino Real Streetscape Project. Based on the feasibility analysis that was previously conducted, previous City Council direction to Agency staff was to undertake siting of an elevator and any pedestrian access or alterations necessary to the second floor of the Steven's Square Parking Structure in a more centralized location and closer to Main Street and El Camino Real. Staff has subsequently obtained written authorization from the Steven's Square Association to alter the structure and add an Request for Mid-Block Crosswalk on El Camino Real between Main Street and Sixth Street February 4, 2002 Page 7 of 7 elevator at the northeast corner of the structure adjacent to a privately owned alley. Since there are numerous property owner interests and access easements at the alleyway adjacent to this location, staff is currently pursuing discussions with a major property owner in the vicinity of the structure to provide an access easement which would permit final design and construction of the elevator in conjunction with a future development project. Ohristine A.~hingle~ ' Assistant City Manat~r -~,¢-Tim D. Serlet Director of Public Works/City Engineer Dana R. Kasdan Engineering Services Manager Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - TOTA Letter Exhibit C On-Street Parking Exhibit D Traffic Counts Table 1. Pedestrian Parking Observations Table 2 Survey of Orange County Cities EXHIBIT A Z E. FIRST "~ ~ -- STREET SESSND ST. I MAIN ST. ,! SECOND ST. THIRD ST. SIXTH ii EXHIBIT B T F .~'r i 'q May 25,2001 Letters to the Editor Acm: Jill Leach Th e TU s tin News §25 North Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Editor: I am writing in response to tY.c article last week, Old To,ma Parkiag Ramp Proposed, wHUen by George Stewart. The ardc!c is misleading about the role that tb.e Tustln Old Town Association played in Phil Cox's petit/on to the city regarding both the ramp a.nd the crossway. The Tustin Old Town Association (TOTAJ is a non-profit org,~nization founded in 1997 by Old Town business owners, property owners, and city planners. We have four active committees involved in the revitalization of Old Town: Organization, Design, Promotion, and Economic RestrUcturing. The Design Cornmittee has been working diligently on Design Guidelines for the Old Town area. Rather large in scope and ambitious for volunteer% the guidelines will represent a consensus opinion oft. he membership. When the guidelines are complete, the Tustin Old Tcwn Association will have a strong platform from which to prov/de input to the City of'rustin and Others on matters related to the design of Old Town. We f~el that it is most import,-mt for Old Town to have a comprehensive plan, rather than take a piecemeal approach to enhancements and imomvements. The Design Guidelines are expected to take the better part ora year to complete. The committee has been at work since last fall. Until that time, the board does not want to deflect its e~Tort by investigating tangential issues, nor does it want to speak for all members before, the Guidelines have been adopted. This is why we voted at our May 3r~ board meeting to lake no official position on Phil Cox's petitions and leave [he matter up to individual members many of whom b~came involved. While some Tustin Old TO~ Association members distributed the petitions, the)' acted a~ individuals; many of them are igso members of the Tustin Chamber of Commc:'cc and other community-based organlzations,'which they ~ did not represent. Sincerely, John Powers President Tustin Old Town Association T'JSTIN OLD TOWN ASSOCIATION 635 E. First Sl:rce[, #3 12, Tustin, California 92780 (714) 505-5882 *** TustinOIdTow~C~cs.com -'-~:' -~-'%' i ...... , .... ~'~ .... ............. -J. ~ , I~ · <{ -'¢,~ ..... ~."~ ..... -,_-,-, ??,: i~----~I ........ ~ ~'/ .~ ~,~ ~/',1 '~XI ~'~ __ ~.~'~_~ . ~, , -~'vq I ~1 450 J ~4~-4~ ................ ~ ~..~ 1 ............ ~ ,,~ , ~ .......... ; ~.' .......... . ~.1 ............. 9 2~- ............ "}~: ................ ........... - . ~ i ; ~ , ~ II f ', ; ~ :, / ~;' ~":" EXHIBIT C ON-STREET PARKING EXHIBIT D TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, ]#C. LOCATIO~ COOE 09101.0Z1 LOCATION - EL ~AMINO REAL-BTN NB, JPORT/MAIN AVERAGED VOLUNES FOR - TUESDAY 9/25/01 TO ~EDNE~)AY 9/2~/01 T]HE NB SB TOTAL T[HE NB SB TOTAL 12:00 - 12:15 9 4 13 12:00 - 12:15 88 gO 1~ 12:15 - 12:30 7 3 10 12:15 - 12:30 76 ~ 158 12=30 - 12=45 ~ 5 9 12=30 - 12:~5 89 ~ 1~ 12:45 - 1:00 2 22 3 15 5 37 12:45 - 1:00 ~ ~1 ~ 311 154 652 1:00 - 1:15 5 3 8 1:00 - 1:15 gO 65 155 1:15 - 1:30 4 2 6 1:15 - 1:30 78 ~8 146 1:30 - 1:45 2 4 6 1:30 - 1:45 82 52 134 1:45 - 2:00 1 12 11 20 12 32 1:45 - 2:00 62 312 ~ 247 124 2:00 - 2:15 4 4 8 2:00 - 2:15 73 53 1~ 2:15 - 2:30 2 1 3 2:15 - 2:30 75 65 140 2:30 - 2:45 2 1 3 2:30 - 2:45 65 55 120 2:45 - 3:00 5 13 3 9 8 22 2:45 - 3:00 81 294 69 242 150 3:00 - 3:15 1 2 3 3:00 - 3:15 74 64 138 3:15 - 3:30 3 5 8 3:15 - 3:30 81 67 148 3:30 - 3:45 1 3 4 3:30 - 3:45 74 72 146 3:45 - 4:00 4 9 1 11 5 20 3:45 - 4:00 89 318 61 264 150 4:00 - 4:15 1 4 5 4:00 - 4:15 70 74 144 4:15 - 4:30 2 6 8 4:15 - 4:30 98 76 174 4:30 - 4:45 I 5 6 4:30 - 4:45 88 64 152 4:45 - 5:00 2 6 5 20 7 26 4:45 - 5:00 75 331 75 289 150 5:00 - 5:15 3 5 8 5:00 - 5:15 82 100 182 5:15 - 5:30 8 12 20 5:15 - 5:30 79 82 161 5:30 - 5:45 9 12 21 5:30 - 5:45 85 93 178 5:45 - 6:00 31 51 22 51 53 102 5:45 - 6:00 73 319 69 344 142 6:00 - 6:15 10 18 28 6:00 - 6:15 82 7'2 154 6:15 - 6:30 18 32 50 6:15 - 6:30 70 58 128 6:30 - 6:45 20 32 52 6:30 - 6:45 59 69 128 6:45 - 7:00 22 70 52 134 74 204 6:45 - 7:00 70 281 65 264 135 7:00 - 7:15 34 41 75 7:00 - 7:15 52 ~8 120 7:15 - 7:30 46 53 99 7:15 - 7:30 56 57 113 7:30 - 7:45 63 80 143 7:30 - 7:45 48 43 91 7:45 - 8:00 74 217 57 231 131 448 7:45 - 8:00 48 204 40 208 88 8:00 - 8:15 59 83 142 8:00 - 8:15 ~6 27 ~ 8:15 - 8:30 58 8~ 141 8:15 - 8:30 36 38 74 8:30 - 8:45 58 64 122 8:30 - 8:45 35 34 69 8:45 - 9:00 06 241 ~0 290 126 531 8:45 - 9:00 26 133 23 122 49 9:00 - 9:15 64 48 112 9:00 - 9:15 19 30 49 9:15 - 9:30 56 44 100 9:15 - 9:30 22 26 48 9:30 - 9:45 75 43 118 9:30 - 9:45 29 24 53 9:45 - 10:00 60 255 4~ 181 106 436 9:45 - 10:00 22 92 24 104 46 10:00 - 10:15 06 48 114 10:00 - 10:15 28 20 48 10:15 - 10:30 58 51 109 10:15 - 10:30 t8 24 42 10:30 - 10:45 60 54 114 10:30 - 10:45 18 16 34 10:45 - 11:00 57 241 58 211 115 452 10:45 - 11:00 17 81 11 71 28 559 536 582 62O 545 412 255 196 152 11:00 - 11:15 58 42 100 11:00 - 11:15 13 10 23 11:15 - 11:30 64 70 134 11:15 - 11:30 6 8 14 11:30 - 11:45 65 72 137 11:30 - 11:45 2 16 18 11:45 - 12:00 57 244 64 248 121 492 11:45 - 12:00 9 30 1 35 10 65 TOTALS 1,381 1,421 2,802 2,736 2,501 5,2~7 ADT'$ 4,117 3,922 8,039 TABLE 1 STAFF OBSEVATIONS OF PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MID-BLOCK ON EL CAMINO REAL BETWEEN MAIN STREET AND SIXTH STREET DATE TIME MID BLOCK CROSSINGS 12/04/01 (Tuesday) 4:00- 5:00 p.m. 2 12/06/01 (Thursday) 10:00 - 11:00a.m. 1 12/07/01 (Friday) 11:00 - 12:00noon 2 12/09/01 (Sunday) 1:00- 2:00 p.m. 0 12/10/01 (Monday) 12:00- 1:00 p.m. 4 12/12/01 (VVednesday) 1:00- 2:00 p.m. 1 12/14/01 (Friday) 10:00- 11:00 a.m. 3 12/15/01 (Saturday) 11:00- 12:00 noon 5 12/16/01 (Sunday) 3:00- 4:00 p.m. 0 12/18/01 (Tuesday) 10:00 - 11:00a.m. 1 12/20/01 (Thursday) 2:00- 3:00 p.m. 2 12/21/01 (Friday) 12:00- 1:00 p.m. 6 01/07/02 (Monday) 3:00 - 4:00 p.m. 0 01/08/02 (Tuesday) 1:00- 2:00 p.m. 3 01/09/02 (Wednesday) 10:00 - 11:00a.m. 1 01/10/02(Thursday) 4:00- 5:00 p.m. 0 01/11/02 (Friday) 1:00 - 2:00 p.m. 4 01/19/02(Saturday) 12:00- 1:00 p.m. 6 01/20/02(Sunday) 4:00- 5:00 p.m. 0 01/25/02(Friday) 1:00- 2:00 p.m. 3 01/26/02 (Saturday) 10:00 - 11:00a.m. 2 01/27/02 (Sunday) 11:00 - 12:00noon 2 S:~Doug & Traffic~Reports~Mid-block crosswalks staff obsevation TABLE 1.doc TABLE 2 MID-BLOCK CROSSWALKS SURVEY OF OTHER ORANGE COUNTY JURISDICTIONS CITY Anaheim Brea EXISTING MID-BLOCK CROSSWALK(S)? Yes No Buena Park Costa Mesa Yes (1) Cypress ~ Yes (1) Dana Point I Yes I Fullerton Garden Grove COMMENTS Huntington Beach-- Laguna Beach Uses double the signage, pavement legends, ladder back crosswalk & raised pavement markers (RPM's). Only one uncontrolled crosswalk at an intersection. This has a flashing beacon. No response Existing location from many years ago. One mid-block at a school but it is signalized. Existing locations near schools. PRACTICE/POLICY No new installations No new installations No new installations Flashing beacon used and desired. No response No new installations No new installations Yes No new installations Yes Yes _aguna Hills ' Near schools & a hospital. Utilize pedestrian signals & one pursued for the hospital location. Have had a fatal pedestrian accident at existing location, No response Exist at driveways, similar to intersections. Not exactly ~mid- block". All have existed for many years so none have been removed. The Laguna Canyon Road location requires approximately 400 delineators & police control at night, during the Festival (summer). The Village Entrance project would grade separate pedestrians from Laguna Canyon Road. No new installations No new installations No new installations No response Laguna Niguel .... No None in the City. La Habra ~ No The City has previously removed No new installations I mid-block crosswalks. ' Lake Forest ~ Yes (1) ' Residential street at an No new installations . La Palma i elementary school, with crossing guard during peak school crossings. No response TABLE 2 MID-BLOCK CROSSWALKS SURVEY OF OTHER ORANGE COUNTY JURISDICTIONS continued... CITY ' Los Alamitos Mission Viejo Newport Beach EXISTING MID,BLOCK CROSSWALK(S)? No NO Orange Yes Placentia No Rancho Santa No Margarita (except at trail location) San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Yes Santa Ana Seal Beach Stanton Yes (1) COMMENTS 'PRACTICE/POLICY No response Have removed some locations. Attempt to provide flashing beacons at any remaining locations. No new installations No new installations No new installations Previously removed mid-block No newinstallations locations. No new installations The signage depends on the type of trail use-pedestrians, bicycles, horses. Would require high level of warning if required to install, such as lighting, pedestrian activated flashing light, restricted parking, etc... No response Lighting & pedestrian signal pursued. One fatal accident has been reported. No response No response A flashing beacon is being installed at the one location. No new installations No new installations Villa Park No response ' Westminster No response Yorba Linda No Signage depends on the type of No new installations ~ (except at trail location) trail use. Would require high level of warning if required to, install. ~ S:\Doug & Traffic\ReportsWlid-block crosswalks city survey TABLE 2.doc