City Traffic Engineers (Cte) Association

CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEERS (CTE) ASSOCIATION

BI-MONTHLY MEETING, WEDNESDAY, August 10, 2011

MEETING MINUTES

CALL TO ORDER/SELF INTRODUCTIONS

Mr. Chakravarthy called the meeting to order at approximately 12:08pm. S. Chakravarthy explained to the group the reason for changing the location of the meeting to the Monterey Hill restaurant. Self introductions were made. The following members were present:

Sri Chakravarthy City of Agoura Hills

Hamid BahadoriAAA

Frank Benavidez

Mohammed Mostahkami City of South Gate

Stephen Yanez City of Downey

Conrad Lapinski City of Dana Point

Sam MorrisseyCity of Santa

Steve Libring City of Riverside

Marty AmundsonLA

Nydia SequeiraLA

Courtney SweeneyLA

Josef Kekula City of Lynwood

Dennis Barnes City of Buena Park

Patrick Lang City of Temple City

Clint SmithCity of

Melissa Murphy City of Rancho Palos Verdes

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion to approve the minutes of the June 8, 2011 meeting was moved by S. Libring and seconded by S. Morrissey. Meeting minutes were unanimously approved.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

2012 2011Draft CA MUTCD

H. Bahadori explained to the group that the CTCDC had its last workshop meeting to review the comments from the public on the Draft CA MUTCD. He stated that 605 pages were received and that this particular comment period saw a lot of participation. He added that while a lot of changes were made to the draft, only comments pertaining to the proposed changes in the CA MUTCD were addressed; comments requesting to change items that were in the previous CA MUTCD versions were tabled and will be addressed later. He explained that he anticipates that the final revised draft will be available for review by the public by the end of August/first week of September and the comment period will remain open until the end of September. He explained that the CTCDC will look at the final draft at their meeting on October 20, 2011. He added that the goal is to adopt the final version of the CA MUTCD in late October/early November 2011. He concluded by stating that the final draft will be posted online after Labor Day.

S. Yanez asked which year the draft CA MUTCD is being called. Discussion ensued among the group and S. Chakravarthy and M. Murphy stated that they would verify after the meeting and get back to the group.

H. Bahadori briefly went over the following legislative bills:

AB 529 – addresses the speed limit law concerning the rounding of speed limits and whether or not to downgrade them by 5 MPH. He explained that this is a Senate Bill waiting for Assembly, and that the League of California Cities has asked for clarification on the language included in the bill.

S. Yanez asked for clarification on the rounding procedure proposed in this bill. H. Bahadori explained in further detail.

SB 691 – proposes to define the “conditions not readily apparent” clause in the CA MUTCD that enables one to lower the speed limit below the 85th percentile-recommended speed. H. Bahadori added that this has pretty much become a “dead bill.”

SB 910 – proposed by the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles, states that a vehicle must keep a minimum of 3’ away from a bicyclist when passing them on a roadway. If this is not possible, the bill states that the vehicle should not pass the bicyclist, and also gives provisions for crossing a double-yellow centerline when passing a bicyclist. H. Bahadori stated that this bill is sitting in the Appropriations Committee right now.

AB 345 – proposes to qualify the membership of the CTCDC and the Caltrans Interim Director to do the administration.

M. Mostahkami requested that these bills be placed on the CTE website. S. Chakravarthy agreed to do so.

M. Mostahkami asked about the rounding procedure difference in AB 529. H. Bahadori explained that essentially this bill is just getting rid of the conditions needed to round down speed limits from the 85th percentile speed obtained from a speed survey. He went on to explain that SB691 attempted to create 13 or 14 conditions that would qualify nearly every street.

S. Libring asked if it would be possible to add these conditions as part of the text in the latest version of CA MUTCDeven if SB691 does not pass. H. Bahadori stated that he will suggest this to the CTCDC. S. Libring added that he would like to see a copy of the conditions that were included in SB691 if possible.

EDUCATIONAL FEATURE

No educational feature.

OLD BUSINESS

CTE Traffic Commissioners Workshop Update – Monterey Park Location

The group revisited the discussion from the previous meeting about the Traffic Commissioners workshop. S. Chakravarthy stated that he, F. Benavidez, and M. Murphy visited the Monterey Park City Council Chambers. Pictures taken of the Chambers during this visit were distributed to the group for the members to look at and comment on while S. Chakravarthy went over some of the pros and cons of the facility to be used as the venue for the workshop. The majority of the group voiced concerns indicating that this venue would not be suitable for the workshop. S. Yanez added that he did not like the setup of the facility due to the difficulty of getting in and out of the seats through the aisles.

H. Bahadori suggested that the City of Long Beach has a good meeting space for the workshop, next to the library, and suggested that S. Chakravarthy inquire about this facility with Dave Rosemead.

M. Mostahkami suggested some possible locations in his City that may be available for use for the workshop at no cost. He asked S. Chakravarthy or M. Murphy to send him an email requesting this use of the City facility.

D. Barnes stated that Buena Park has a recreation center that might work and that he will check its availability and get back to the group.

S. Chakravarthy stated that he and M. Murphy will come back to the group with some alternatives, including the Pomona location (with the Saturday limitation).

S. Yanez asked if the Monterey Park Council Chambers are open on the weekends and F. Benavidez, M. Murphy, and S. Chakravarthy stated that they did not know for sure.

S. Libring asked if the workshop would be 4 hours or 8 hours in length. S. Chakravarthy stated 8 hours.

S. Yanez asked if S. Chakravarthy and M. Murphy could send out another survey to the CTE members containing additional questions about the workshop since he felt that the decision of whether or not the workshop should be held during the week or on the weekend should not be made at the meeting.

M. Mostahkami asked if a feedback survey had been obtained when the last CTE workshop was held in Pomona. S. Chakravarthy stated that he was not sure, but would check the records given to him from the past workshop organizers. S. Yanez stated that Chad would have it if there were one.

M. Mostahkami added that he felt that the presenters may have a preference on whether the workshop is held on the weekend or during the week. S. Yanez responded that he felt that the presenters’ opinions are secondary in this decision.

Bicycle Coordination Discussion (continued)

S. Chakravarthy stated that Rock Miller could not attend this meeting. F. Benavidez stated that there was a webinar yesterday on the new guidelines for bicycle facility design held by NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) and asked if anyone else had viewed this webinar. S. Morrissey responded that several of his staff attended and stated that they received a lot of information that is not provided in the MUTCD. S. Morrissey added that he thought there was no fee associated with this webinar and that there is another one to be held next Wednesday.

F. Benavidez commented that one interesting suggestion given in the webinar was moving the bike lane to the middle of the roadway in order to have fewer conflicts with driveways.

H. Bahadori suggested the group refer to the new Caltrans guidelines for bicycle facilities.

F. Benavidez commented that the cities of Austin, Portland, Chicago, Washington D.C., and New York City are all on the forefront of bicycle facility design.

H. Bahadori suggested the group look at the City of Long Beach’s bicycle facilities, adding that the Mayor is a bicycle advocate.

S. Yanez commented that the bike operators should have insurance due to the significant number of collisions they are involved in, especially when they are at fault.

F. Benavidez asked if European bicyclists are licensed and insured or if they contribute to road maintenance fees.

S. Morrissey commented that in Hamburg, Germany, there are neighborhoods that contribute to a fund for bicycle parking.

H. Bahadori commented on the high percentage of bicycle trips in Amsterdam compared to the United States and Los Angeles. He added that the City of Los Angeles passed a bicycle protection ordinance in which the bicyclist can sue a motorist if they feel they are being harassed by the motorist.

S. Morrissey stated that a Draft Bicycle Master Plan for Santa Monica was just released and that it is very involved, containing about 300 pages. He explained that it is currently out for public review, is available on the Santa Monica website, and that he will provide the link for the CTE website.

S. Chakravarthy informed the group that D. Benson was out on vacation and couldn’t make it to the meeting.

N. Sequeira and M. Amundson described the Aldis, Inc. camera system to the group.

S. Chakravarthy described the MS SEDCO Intersector that can address the different timing needed for bicyclists. S. Chakravarthy suggested that an email be sent out giving this info to the members. S. Yanez asked if this system requires a line-of-sight.

H. Bahadori responded that the City of Pleasanton has used this technology and that it does require a line-of-sight.

S. Libring described a comparable “thermo-imaging” technology demonstration. M. Amundson responded that he had seen a thermo-imaging demonstration years ago. S. Libring suggested having a thermo-imaging demonstration at the next CTE meeting.

S. Yanez asked about other false detection. M. Amundson commented that there was some issue with false detection noted in an article on the system. M. Amundson suggested that it is best to have multiple types of systems in place to rule out false detection. M. Amundson added that it seems that the technology is improving in the area of false detection, and that pedestrian timing is another example of this aspect of technology improving.

NEW BUSINESS/SPECIAL DISCUSSION TOPICS

H. Bahadori stated that he receives complaints of the LED traffic signal vehicle heads flickering when they get old and that this can be confused with an intentional flashing red indication. The group commented that they have not heard of such a claim and that there are always multiple vehicle heads visible for any given direction at an intersection, so they would not be flickering at the same time or frequency.

S. Chakravarthy commented that the City of Agoura Hills is in their 6th year of LED vehicle heads use and that they are now replacing some. S. Libring stated that the City of Riverside is in their 10th year of LED usage and that there is no citywide plan to replace them at this point, so they simply replace them one at a time. S. Yanez commented that the warranty claim on LED vehicle heads used to be ten years, but now it’s just five years.

S. Libring commented that he is being challenged against his refusal to place “Children at Play” signs in his City. He asked the group if they have experienced anything similar to this challenge and how they suggest responding to it. The group suggested he point out that this sign is not in the CA MUTCD, and thus is not approved by Caltrans, and is not supported by the CTCDC or AAA. S. Libring mentioned that their City Attorney was questioning under what authority cities must follow the CA MUTCD. H. Bahadori responded that TEA-21, which is a federal law, provides that all States must comply and so California did, and the intro of the CA MUTCD explains this in more detail. C. Smith added that the Vehicle Code also states that the local agencies have to follow the State’s rules.

ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPCOMING EVENTS

S. Morrissey gave some background on the draft survey that he has prepared to find out budgetary and organizational information from other cities and requested input from the group. He explained that once he has received everyone’s comments, he will post the survey online and send the link to M. Murphy so that she may email it out to the group. Members of the group indicated that they would find this information helpful as well.

M. Mostahkami asked if anyone knew of any cities that have installed LED safety lights. The group responded that a few cities have installed some LED safety lights, while some others were planning to install some, but that the City of LA is the only one they know of that has comprehensively installed LED safety lights throughout their city.

M. Murphy asked the group about their experience with RCTB Unit Antennas and if they had found that the manufacturer had indeed stop producing replacement parts. M. Amundson and N. Sequeira confirmed that this is the case and that the GPS UTB units can be used to replace the RCTB units when they fail.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:10pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Melissa Murphy

Secretary/Treasurer

1