Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/11/2001 SC minutes MINUTES OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Mount Prospect Safety Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, June 11, 2001. ROLL CALL Present upon roll call: Lee Beening Chairman Chuck Bencic Commassioner Joan Bjork Commissioner John Keane Commissioner Andy Mitchell Commissioner Scott Sullivant Police Department Buz Livingston Fire Department Paul Bums Public Works Matt Lawrie Public Works/Engineering Division Absent: Nancy Bobikewicz Commissioner Others m Attendance: See Attached Attendance Sheet. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Cormmssioner Mitchell, seconded by ComnUssioner Keane, moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Safety Commission held on March 12, 2001. The minutes were approved by a vote of 8-0. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD No citizens came forth at this time to discuss any topics that were not on the current agenda. OLD BUSINESS A) FINAL CONSIDERATION OF PERMANENT CURB EXTENSIONS AROUND LIONS PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1) Background Information The temporary curb extensions were installed by Public Works in December 2000 along Council Trail. Village Staff sent surveys to the school and nearby residents to solicit their opinions in February 2001. In addition, speed data was gathered and field observations were made around the school. In March 2001, Village Staff presented their findings to the Safety Commission and Village Board of Trustees. It was decided at the time to leave the curb extensions in place until after the end of the school year. More students would be walking to school in the spring months and, therefore, the Safety Commission requested a delay in a final decision. The additional time would allow Village Staffto make more field observations and assist Staffin making a final recommendation. A restudy of the area took place in May 2001 in anticipation ora June presentation to the Safety Commission and Village Board of Trustees. 2) Conclusions of Study a) The curb extensions appear to have enhanced pedestrian safety by reducing the crossing distance and time it takes to cross the street. They have also helped in reducing the potential for vehicles to park near the intersection. b) Motorists appear to have some difficulty maneuvering around the curb extension at School Street. Any type of permanent curb extension should be easy to negotiate while influencing motorists to proceed cautiously. The curb extensions should not detract motorists from being aware of pedestrians. c) The curb extensions do not appear to have made a significant positive impact on driver's behavior. At School Street, the extension is 7' wide. At Elm Street, the extension is only 3' wide. Council Trail, though a collector street, is only wide enough to handle three vehicles side by side. On wider streets, the curb extensions would be larger and, therefore, motorists would probably perceive the street to be much narrower thus greater affecting their behavior. d) Both the previous survey and the latest survey show a majority of residents, parents and motorists not in favor of permanent curb extensions. Most comments received indicated either the temporary curb extensions had either no impact or made it a worse situation. e) While not mentioned in this report, the cost of the permanent curb extensions was discussed at length during the March Safety Commission Meeting. It is Staff's opinion that a significant benefit ought to be observed during a study to justify the cost. The cost of permanent curb extensions along Council Trail has been estimated around $20,000. 2 f) Should the curb extensions be removed, Staff does not believe the Village is compromising safety of the children. A safety patrol including both students and teachers assist children across the street. This is probably the safest measure currently being implemented by the school. 3) Recommendation Based on the study of temporary curb extensions along Council Trail, the Village Traffic Engineer believes curb extensions, in general, have shown to provide benefits to pedestrian safety in the community. However, the overwhelming lack of support for permanent curb extensions at this location has made me recommend against installing them later this summer. The Village Traffic Engineer recommends that the temporary curb extensions along with the yellow striping be removed mid June once the school year has ended and no further action related to traffic calming take place at this location at this time. It is difficult to justify the cost of a permanent project when a significant enhancement to pedestrian safety was not observed and when a majority of people does not support the project. I don't believe we are compromising children's safety by not installing permanent curb extensions. To deter motorists from parking near the intersections during drop-off and pick-up times, I would recommend signing the area 20' from the crosswalks. Prohibition of parking within 20' of a crosswalk is already an ordinance in the Village Code. I would also recommend having the Police Department patrol the area to enforce the current parking restrictions. From the study, I believe there are applicable locations in the Village for curb extensions. Some of the criteria that should be met before moving forward on a project are: local or collector streets where there is above average traffic volume; wide streets where curb extensions would impact driver's behavior; a location where there is a significant amount of pedestrians crossing the street such as schools, churches, parks, downtown businesses, etc.; and, maybe most importantly, a majority of affected people supporting the improvements. In addition, if safety is not being compromised, a project should not move forward if a majority of affected people such as residents, businesses, schools and motorists do not favor the changes. While curb extensions are not recommended at this location, Village Staff will continue in our effort to identify other possible locations for traffic calming projects. Once a possible project has been identified, Staff will perform a formal traffic study and present the findings to the Safety Commission for consideration of a construction project. 4) Discussion Traffic Engineer Lawrie provided a brief history on this issue and presented the findings made by Village Staff over the past few months. He also provided conclusions and recommendations based on the traffic calming project. Chairman Beeinng opened up the discussion to the public. 3 Mary Muscarello, 712 S. Hi-Lusi Avenue, expressed a concern with the traffic congestion along Council Trail and the teacher parking lot during the aRernoon pick-up time. She was under the impression this issue was to be discussed at the meeting. Traffic Engineer Lawrie explained that he was invited to a meeting a couple of weeks ago at the school to discuss traffic congestion. At the meeting, he recommended to the school that the teacher parking lot not be a location for pick-up. Ultimately, however, the decision was the school's to make. Karen Wabik, 114 S. Elmhurst Avenue, also expressed concerns with the traffic congestion around the school. The Safety Commission discussed for some time with the two parents in attendance some of the concerns. Chairman Beening explained to the parents what issues would need to be reviewed by the Safety Commission and what issues would be the responsibihty of the school. After much discussion, the Safety Commission suggested tothe parents that they work with the school and possibly the school board in order to make those decisions that affect school property. Traffic Engineer Lawrie told the parents that he mentioned to the school principal that he would be willing to observe the traffic around the school once school resumes in September and see if any further changes may be necessary. On the topic of traffc calming, Commissioner Bencic asked if permanent curb extensions were not to be installed, would the Police Department prefer if the curbs were painted yellow or the area signed to prevent parking near the intersections. Officer Sullivant responded that he would prefer the area signed. Mr. Bures responded there is a maintenance issue with painting the curbs and too would prefer the area signed. Commissioner Bencic, seconded by Mr. Bures, moved to remove the temporary curb extensions along with the yellow striping and that no further action related to traffic calming take place at this location at this time. Commissioner Bencic further recommended that to enforce a current ordinance, No Parking signs at those intersections near the school be installed to prevent vehicles from parking near the crosswalks. The motion was approved by a vote of 8-0. OTHER COMMISSION ISSUES Commissioner Keane brought up a sight obstruction concern at the intersection of Central Road and Westgate Road. Traffic Engineer Lawrie provided Commissioner Keane a copy of a letter sent to the homeowner requiring trimming of the trees. He was appreciative the Village would take care of this issue. Chairman Beening asked that when Council Trail is to be resurfaced the issue of possibly widening the street in front of the school be discussed at the Safety Commassion. With a wider street, some of the current congestion may be alleviated. Traffic Engineer Lawrie mentioned that this may, however, encourage double-parking during the drop-offand pick-up times. The school is trying to prevent this by placing cones down the middle of the street. With the current width of the street and use of the cones, double-parking is no longer occurring. Widening the street may make it easier for parents to decide to double-park. The issue will be brought back to the Safety Commission at the time Council Trail is to be resurfaced. Chairman Beening brought up the issue of seat belt use by motorists in the Village. He understood that other communities were passing laws that gave the right for police officers to pull over and ticket motorists solely because they were not wearing seat belts. Commissioner Beening would like to see the Village consider changing this violation from a "secondary" offense to a "primary" offense. He asked that this issue be brought back to the Safety Commission at the next regular meeting. No additional issues were brought forth by the Safety Commission. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to discuss, the Safety Commission voted 8-0 to adjourn at 8:40 p.m. upon the motion of Commissioner Mitchell. Commissioner Keane seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, Matthew P. Lawrie, P.E. Traffic Engineer x:~iles\engineer~safecomm\traffickecs&min\j une0 lmin.doc 5