Uh.....missing the point? > Rexroad.com

This morning I read the newspapers early. (Mostly becasue I have the best newspaper delivery person on the planet. Today it was less than 2 feet from my door at 0730.)

When I read the article on the roundabout I took it all in. Then I read the editorial and I was shaking my head. I started to doubt my own information. After I just read the staff report again I don't think I have missed the point at all.

First, I think the four way traffic signal that I support is actually cheaper for the city, county, and CalTrans. The staff report that I have for the meeting Tuesday indicates the following --

"Caltrans has stated that they will cover the local match requirements for both the City and the County, so there is no cost to the County for signal construction."

Further, that staff report indicates that the cost of the roundabout is $1.8 million v. the cost of the signalization is $1.5 million.

Second, the transportation money that is being used for this intersection is from a different pot of money than the money being used for I-5/113 and other projects. I don't have any doubt that CalTrans will have the money to finish this project.

Doing nothing is not an option. I am not opposed to roundabouts. I am opposed to one in this location. There probably will be another fatality at this intersection if we leave flashing lights. That is why I plan to support signalization on Tuesday. This is the safest, cheapest, and most effective policy option available to us. The people of Woodland elected me to seek out policy options that meet this criteria. Signalization of the intersection is that option.

I don't have my scanner here at home -- otherwise I would scan this thing in for you all to read.

Note: Bob Huber's wife is really on it. Not two hours after I posted this I got the text version on the staff report via e-mail. You can see it below.

roundabout_staff_report.pdf

County of Yolo
PLANNING, RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
292 West Beamer Street
Woodland, CA 95695-2598
(530) 666-8775 FAX (530) 666-8728
www.yolocounty.org
TO: SUPERVISOR MARIKO YAMADA, Chair,
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: JOHN BENCOMO, Director,
Rick Moore, Assistant Director,
Planning, Resources and Public Works Department
DATE: March 20, 2007
SUBJECT: Support the construction by Caltrans of a traffic signal at the intersection of
Kentucky Avenue (County Road 20) and County Road 98 (State Route 16),
and authorize staff to submit a funding proposal to Caltrans to cover 25% of
project costs (No general fund impact)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
A. Support the construction by Caltrans of a traffic signal at the intersection of Kentucky Avenue
(County Road 20) and County Road 98 (State Route 16).
B. Authorize staff to submit a funding proposal to Caltrans to cover 25% of project costs
($375,000).
FISCAL IMPACT
The Caltrans cost estimate for the traffic signal is $1,500,000. Because the county and City of
Woodland own two of the four legs of the intersection, Caltrans has asked the city and county to
submit funding applications to Caltrans for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds
so that those funds could be used to cover each jurisdiction’s 25% share ($375,000). Caltrans
has stated that they will cover the local match requirements for both the County and City, so
there is no cost to the County for the signal construction. On-going signal maintenance costs
would be shared between the County, City of Woodland, and Caltrans, and the County’s cost
would be no more than $1,250 per year.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION
Caltrans has requested that the county and City of Woodland take a position regarding the
intersection improvements so that they can proceed with design and right-of-way acquisition, and
that the local jurisdictions seek HSIP funding from Caltrans to cover 50% of the project costs.
John Bencomo
DIRECTOR
Return to Main Agenda
Supervisor Mariko Yamada, Chair
March 20, 2007
Page 2 of 4
BACKGROUND
In July, 2005, traffic data gathered by the City of Woodland was sent to Caltrans with a request
that Caltrans analyze the data to see if intersection improvements were warranted. Caltrans
determined that warrants for a traffic signal were met and proposed that a four-way stop be
placed at the intersection as an interim measure until the signals were installed, in lieu of the
two-way stop that was in place. The four-way stop signs were installed on February 7, 2006.
Prior to the installation of the four-way stop signs at the intersection, there had been 4 to 5
collisions per year, averaged over a period of five years. During the first six months following
installation of the four-way stop, there were two collisions at the intersection, one being a failure
to stop only 11 days following installation and probably due to the newness of the stop signs.
The community consensus is that the four-way stop signs have made the intersection much
safer.
Public Input:
On November 15, 2006, a public meeting was held at the county library in Woodland, at which
Caltrans staff presented the idea that a roundabout is a better solution at the intersection than a
traffic signal. Following the meeting, Caltrans was presented with 17 comment cards, of which
only two were supportive of a roundabout.
On January 11, 2007, a joint public meeting of the City’s Traffic Safety Commission and the
County’s Transportation Advisory Committee was held at the Farm Bureau in Woodland, during
which a presentation was made comparing roundabouts and traffic signals, with the conclusion
that a roundabout is a better solution. The event was well attended and most participants
commented following the presentation. All of the public comments were negative towards the
roundabout, with many advocating that nothing be done other than adding a four-way flashing
red beacon. Subsequently, the Yolo County Transportation Advisory Committee voted to
support the roundabout, and the City’s Traffic Safety Commission voted to support some type of
intersection improvements, either a roundabout or traffic signals. The Yolo County Farm Bureau
has come out against a roundabout and has advocated that the intersection remain a four-way
stop intersection. The City of Woodland Chamber of Commerce voted to support the
roundabout.
Communications from the public concerning the placement of a roundabout at this location have
been predominantly negative.
Why intersection improvements beyond a four-way stop are desirable
Caltrans has used the City of Woodland’s traffic model to forecast operations of different
intersection improvements. The results show an unacceptable degradation of intersection
performance for the four-way stop within a five to ten-year time frame. Currently, the intersection
has been prioritized for Caltrans funding because of the safety issues. If the intersection
improvements are postponed and a four-way stop remains the type of control at the intersection,
the operational performance of the intersection in terms of delay time and backing vehicles up at
the intersection will become worse over time. When intersection improvements are needed for
operational rather than safety reasons the funding for the project will be much harder to acquire
than it is now, probably taking years to acquire while the intersection is operating poorly.
Therefore, the county and city should take advantage of this opportunity to have the intersection
improvements funded.
Supervisor Mariko Yamada, Chair
March 20, 2007
Page 3 of 4
Comparison of the roundabout and traffic signal
Safety:
One of the main selling points for the roundabout is that collisions are generally less severe
because vehicles are going slower (no beating or running the red light). The design speed for
the proposed roundabout is 21 miles per hour. However, roundabouts in the United States are
typically used as traffic calming devices in residential and urban areas, where speeds are not
generally as high as those on a State highway, which is the case at the intersection of Kentucky
Avenue and State Route 16. Additionally, two gravel mining operations are accessed by County
Road 20, and typical roundabout applications don’t carry the amount of truck traffic that this
intersection carries. According to Caltrans, roundabouts are normally safer than other types of
intersection controls if truck traffic is distributed throughout the off peak hours. In the case of
gravel trucks leaving the quarries that are accessed by County Road 20, trucks tend to line up at
the scales one after another to be weighed prior to leaving. This is likely to produce a convoy of
trucks passing through the intersection during the morning peak hour traffic, reducing the safety
benefits of the roundabout and making it difficult for smaller vehicles to enter the intersection.
As opposed to roundabouts, traffic signals are routinely used on high speed roadways that carry
all types of traffic, so the comparison between general collision statistics for roundabouts and
those for signals may not be representative of the situation at Kentucky Avenue and State Route
16.
Emergency response vehicles slow down at all intersections, but at signals it is possible to equip
the signal and emergency response vehicles with devices that can preempt the signal and make
it go green for the emergency response vehicles. At the roundabout, emergency response
vehicles would have to slow down to at least 21 miles per hour.
Traffic patterns:
State Route 16 connects Interstate 5 to Main Street and then proceeds east-west towards
Esparto. An alternative route is to turn right on County Road 20 and then take County Road 96
south to State Route 16, which is a three-mile detour on county roads that avoid going through
the signal at Main Street. The roundabout, which doesn’t require vehicles to stop and which
directs southbound traffic to the west could encourage the use of this alternative, increasing
traffic on narrow county roads.
Cost:
The cost estimate for the roundabout is $1,800,000 (with a $47,500 local cost share), and for the
signal it is $1,500,000 (with a $37,500 local cost share). Maintenance costs for the signal are
estimated at $5,000 per year, which would be divided between the county, city and Caltrans
through a maintenance agreement, although the county’s share would be no more than $1,250
per year. The annual maintenance estimate for a roundabout is $500 per year.
Intersection Capacity (level of service):
Caltrans used the city’s traffic data from September 2005 and the city’s traffic forecasting model
to project peak hour volumes that were used to predict the level of service (LOS) for the
intersection in 2009, 2019 and 2029. The increases in peak hour traffic volumes average 5%
per year from 2005 to 2019 and 3% thereafter. These increases in traffic are due to anticipated
development between Kentucky Avenue and Interstate 5, and also, as citywide traffic increases,
Supervisor Mariko Yamada, Chair
March 20, 2007
Page 4 of 4
east-west corridors in town will see increased congestion and Kentucky Ave will be a more
viable route, and there will be general increases in regional traffic that will occur on SR 16. Peak
hour volumes were used to predict delay times at the intersection and the LOS was derived from
the
delay times. Both the city and county have set LOS C as their standard in their respective
general plans. A computer program that specifically analyzes roundabouts was used to assess
the performance of the roundabout. LOS is an index of intersection performance, with LOS A
meaning virtually no delay, decreasing to LOS F, which implies long waits to proceed.
Interestingly, the model results are that as truck traffic increases, the level of service for a
signalized intersection decreases, but is unchanged for a roundabout. An initial model run that
considered all vehicles as passenger vehicles showed levels of service of either B or A for both
scenarios out through 2019, with an LOS of B for the signal and C for the roundabout in 2029.
Another model run that assumed that 20% of the vehicles are large trucks, resulted in the signal
performance dropping to LOS D in 2029, while the roundabout remained at LOS C. The
percentage of truck traffic during peak volumes was about 15% in September 2005.
Based on these data, the LOS of the two types of intersection improvements appear to be
comparable.
Right of way requirements:
The right-of-way requirements are comparable, with a preliminary estimate of 1.8 acres for the
roundabout and 2.1 acres for the signal. The right of way needed for the signal is in strips along
the roadway and for the roundabout it is centered around the western side of the intersection
(see attached).
Environmental impacts:
The roundabout requires the removal of only one tree, a large valley oak tree. The signal
requires the removal of up to 20 trees, including the same large valley oak and about 12 large
black walnut trees.
The anticipated operations of the traffic signal and roundabout are comparable in many respects,
but the community opposition to a roundabout and other concerns cited above, particularly the
uncertainty with respect to the roundabout effectively handling truck traffic from County Road 20,
while allowing traffic on the State highway and Kentucky Avenue to safely enter the intersection,
results in a recommendation that the County support a traffic signal at this location.
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
City of Woodland
California Department of Transportation
ATTACHMENTS
Location Map
Right of way requirements

Comments

By YoloCalVet @ Sunday, March 18, 2007 11:25 AM

Make sure to put in a "Red Light" cam for the red light runners.....you know it will happen. $271 fine for running the red light.....should slow those big trucks and impatient motorists down and generate some cash flow.

You must be logged in to post a comment. You can login here