Brisbane subcommittee finalizes traffic‑calming options for Visitation Avenue, plans public forum

The Brisbane City Transportation and Public Works Subcommittee spent its Jan. 7 meeting refining recommendations for traffic‑calming and pedestrian safety on Visitation Avenue, including raised crosswalks, bulb‑outs, radar feedback signs and targeted parking adjustments. Staff said they will prepare a consolidated package of costs, timelines and effectiveness metrics for committee review before sending a recommendation to City Council.

Tomas, a staff presenter, told the committee that published reference costs for raised crosswalks range widely in older reports — “about $7,110 to $30,880 each” — and that current market trends likely put a typical location “in the ballpark of $15,000 to $20,000,” while emphasizing that each site’s utilities, ADA ramps and drainage needs could raise costs further. “Once the council authorizes a capital project we would move to design and put together refined cost estimates,” Tomas said.

Committee members pressed staff to separate short‑term, low‑cost items from longer capital projects so Council can act quickly where possible. One member pointed to several recommendations made last summer — such as increased fines for double parking and installing low‑cost parking “sticks” — that have not been implemented and urged pursuing immediate pilots. Tomas responded that some quick builds were intentionally paused during a staff transition but reiterated staff support for advancing low‑cost actions while developing designs for larger projects.

The committee discussed alternatives that can be combined in a toolkit approach: raised crosswalks or raised intersections, bulb‑outs to improve sightlines, speed tables for slower vertical transitions, radar feedback signs and enforcement measures including time‑restricted loading hours and parking enforcement devices. Staff also noted an effectiveness data point from prior studies indicating raised crosswalks can reduce pedestrian crashes (a cited figure of about 45% in a referenced source) and agreed to include comparable effectiveness metrics for other measures in the committee’s comparison table.

Members emphasized that design work must include police and fire review so that emergency vehicle access is not impeded. Tomas said responder input would be part of the design development phase and that the committee’s recommendation to Council would ask Council to authorize a capital project that includes outreach and responder coordination.

On parking, staff said a proposal to repurpose a vacant teen‑center pad would yield about 12 parking spaces under a slurry‑seal, striping and signage approach; that conservative estimate excluded demolition or full reconstruction. For a basic reuse option, staff estimated roughly $25,000–$30,000 for signing, striping and slurry seal but noted costs would rise for more extensive demolition or reconstruction.

Before forwarding materials to Council, the committee agreed to host its next meeting as a public forum at the local library to present candidate solutions, estimated costs and timelines, and collect community preferences and hours for loading zones. The subcommittee also asked staff to compile a single table or matrix summarizing each candidate measure, its rough cost, timeline, expected effectiveness and current status so members and the public can compare trade‑offs.

Next steps: staff will prepare the consolidated cost/timeline/effectiveness table, gather business input on loading‑zone hours, consult public safety responders during design, and schedule the public forum (library availability permitting). After committee review of the refined package, the materials will be taken to City Council as a recommended capital project.