|
|
|
Minutes of the CORNING AVENUE Meeting 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER The first meeting for the Corning Avenue Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) project began at 6:30 p.m. on January 22, 2004, at the Frank D. Parent Elementary School Auditorium, 5354 W 64th St, Los Angeles. 2. ATTENDEES AND PRESENTER The following persons were in attendance: Approximately 31 neighborhood residents were in attendance. 3. MEETING NOTES Mr. Thierry began the meeting by welcoming the attendees and introducing the staff and guests in attendance. Mr. Falter presented a Power Point slide show describing the NTMP goals, objectives and process. He reported on the results of their field observations and input from discussions with area residents that the principal concerns appear to be with respect to excessive speeds, presence of cut-through traffic, and congestion near Parent Elementary School. Mr. Falter presented the results of data they obtained from traffic counts and speed measurements on the streets in the study area which included Corning Avenue, 64th Street, and Springpark Avenue. Mr. Falter presented suggestions for various measures to involve education, enforcement, and engineering practices to address the traffic concerns. These measures included: radar speed trailer deployment, installation of neighborhood advisory signs, and the installation of speed cushions, curb extensions, center medians, and/or traffic circles at various locations. The pros and cons of each measure were discussed in terms of effectiveness and restrictiveness. Mr. Falter indicated that implementation of one or more of these measures could be accomplished as Phase 1, which would be followed by an adjustment period and reevaluation of traffic conditions to determine their effectiveness. Based on the results of the Phase 1 actions, those features implemented in a temporary fashion could be converted to permanent installations as Phase 2, including adjusting or augmenting the program as needed. A period of Questions and Answers followed the slide show presentation. The following questions and comments were received from the audience: 1. "Traffic congestion on Slauson Av seems to contribute to the cut-through traffic problem on Corning and Springpark. Has any thought been given to addressing that issue to resolve our problem?" Response: Public Works is conscious of the impacts of traffic congestion on major thoroughfares as it may impact neighborhood streets. However, solutions to those issues are more complex and long-term. The NTMP program is an attempt to provide neighborhoods with immediate relief to current conditions. Actions taken can always be reversed if the need ceases to exist in the future. 2. "Is the actual 25 mph posted speed limit correct on Corning and Springpark, or should it be higher?" Response: State law prescribes certain speed limits, including the 25 mph speed limit for qualifying residential streets. Based on an engineering review conducted by Public Works, the posted speed limit on these residential streets is appropriate. 3. "Why not consider speed bumps vs speed cushions?" Response: Speed bumps are usually the abrupt and severe vertical obstacles used in parking lots to control speeds. The speed hump has a vertical roadway profile generally approved by engineering design that is a broader undulation specified for use in public roadways. However, the LA County Fire Department has opposed their use on county roadways, especially streets serving as primary emergency response routes into a neighborhood (such as Corning Av and Springpark Av), unless other measures have proven ineffective at reducing a problem of excessive speeds. Speed cushions are a variation on the speed hump design that consist of a number of side-by-side raised pads with a spacing between that allows a fire truck to straddle them while standard passenger cars cannot. The speed cushions offer a compromise between the desire to effectively reduce prevailing speeds while not significantly reducing emergency response times to the neighborhood. 4. "What about using cameras to help enforce the speeds?" Response: At this point, State law does not permit the use of photo speed enforcement on public streets. 5. "After it is decided which actions are to be proposed, how long will it take to implement them?" Response: The actual installation will depend on the measures approved and the amount of engineering required, the availability of funds, and time restrictions imposed by prior commitments. However, the NTMP program is a pilot project approach which the County is committed to evaluating and thus will prioritize accordingly. 6. A resident with experience in dealing with similar issues in Culver City commented on the need to consider a measured approach to traffic calming, citing mixed results with the programs implemented in that City. 7. Comments were made that the main problem on Corning and Springpark Avenues stems from excessive speed; more so than the actual traffic volume. 8. Comments were expressed that the neighborhood experiences part of its problems due to traffic generated by the nearby shopping center access and parking limitations. The residents in attendance were then given an opportunity to make written comments by marking on a set of maps of the study area indicating the problem locations and their proposals for various solutions. These notations generally related to proposed speed cushion installations and requests to consider additional traffic controls at specific intersections. Mr. Falter advised that the comments and concerns raised at this meeting will be reviewed by Public Works, and a second meeting will be convened in approximately one month to finalize the proposed Phase 1 actions for the Corning/Springpark NTMP. The meeting concluded at 8:20 p.m. JPA:tlpub/invest/inv/ntmp/corning minutes |
||