This web page is
http://www.obri.net/2nd/040929.html
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Traffic Calming Toolbox
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:23:14 -0700
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Seann Rooney <xxxxxxxx@pacbell.net>
Seann,
Aaron Hoyt of Fehr & Peers responded to my query tonight at the
NTMP meeting about why he did not mention "speed control stop signs".
His answer included a statement that they were included in the 32
devices in the toolbox. [Click
here for information on the DOT's NTMP]
The NTMP White Paper (page 23) states that most surveyed jurisdictions
reject stop signs as a traffic calming measure, but some use them based
upon political pressure. [Click
here to review the NTMP White Paper}
The four-page handout I received tonight with the five subcategories
including 32 devices does include "Signage", but does not specifically
include "speed control stop signs".
Please provide additional information that confirms the stated
contention that "speed control stop signs" are included in the toolbox
of 32 devices.
I would like to better understand the NTMP position on the use of speed
control stop signs; what would be done first before resorting to speed
control stop signs, what trial periods, if any, would be used, how
the stop signs would be evaluated, and under what conditions they
would or could be removed.
Thanks,
Jay O'Brien
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Traffic Calming Toolbox
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:03:07 -0700
From: Seann Rooney <xxxxxxxx@pacbell.net>
To: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
I have forwarded your email to Aaron and will be back in touch soon.
SR
Seann Rooney
Rooney Public Affairs
2200 L Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
p: 916.447.1960
c: 916.765.5052
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Traffic Calming Toolbox
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:20:17 -0700
From: Aaron Hoyt <xxxxxx@fehrandpeers.com>
To: Seann Rooney <xxxxxxxx@pacbell.net>
CC: <jayobrien@att.net>, "Rodriguez. Lupe
\(MSA\) \(TRD\)"
<rodriguezl@SacCounty.NET>
Hi Jay,
I think there might have been some miscommunication last night when
discussing your question on the use of stop signs. As it stands,
the_ new_ toolbox_ does not_ include stop signs as a speed control
measures. Although not in the NTMP toolbox, stop signs could
still be installed at intersections through other County mechanisms,
such as (1) satisfaction of warrants and determination that a stop sign
could safely allocate right-of-way at an intersection or (2) through
Board of Supervisors direction.
The second part of your email contained the following questions.
I have provided a response to each.
What would be done
first before resorting to speed control stop signs?
Stop signs are not
currently in the toolbox, but there are a number of other devices to
treat speed related issues. In general, there is not an industry
standard for which devices to install first, second, third… Each
situation dictates different needs and one solution may be appropriate
under a given situation but not another.
What trial periods,
if any, would be used?
Under the new program, the
process allows the DOT to install neighborhood traffic management
devices for a minimum of a six month, but this does not extend to stop
signs given that they are not part of the toolbox.
How the stop signs
would be evaluated?
Again, stop signs are not
currently included in the toolbox. But aside from the program,
many agencies across the nation use warrants to determine
appropriateness of installing stop signs. Some use warrants
provided by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),
Caltrans Traffic Manual (or other state agency), and special warrants
developed by the given jurisdiction.
And under what
conditions they would or could be removed?
The process for removal of
devices is still being developed. The NTMP White Paper revealed that
other agencies require greater neighborhood support for removal the
device than installation of the device. Some agencies also
required the residents to fund removal of devices.
I hope my response helps to clarify what was discussed last night.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Traffic Calming Toolbox
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:59:31 -0700
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Aaron Hoyt <A.Hoyt@fehrandpeers.com>
CC: Seann Rooney <xxxxxxxx@pacbell.net>,
"Rodriguez. Lupe (MSA) (TRD)" <xxxxxxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>,
Mark Manoff <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
Aaron,
I must have misunderstood you last night at the meeting; I wrote in my
notes that you said that speed control stop signs were included in the
32 devices in the new NTMP toolbox. I'm pleased to learn that Speed
Control Stop Signs are NOT in the toolbox.
Thank you for the clarification.
My issue is that the County has installed speed control stop signs on
my property and across the street; they conducted a "vote", would not
share the address list of those who they asked to vote, did not give
any other alternatives to those voting, agreed to hold off installing
the signs awaiting a public meeting, and then "accidentally" installed
the stop signs without holding the promised meeting and have apologized
for their action. Now they tell me that the signs can't be removed
without specific direction of the Board of Supervisors; apparently I
must testify to the Board. The signs are too far from the speed problem
to help, and the signs now have provided new problems for me that I
didn't have before.
The capricious action by the County is exactly why your new process and
plan is so important. Unfortunately the long-time bureaucrats in the
County want to keep doing everything "as it has been done for 22
years", in the words of one County staff person I spoke to last night.
Now that I have your email address, I'll keep you apprised of my issue
as it develops. If nothing else, it is a current "bad example" of what
you are valiantly attempting to correct.
Thanks for the educational presentation last night.
Jay O'Brien