Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Calming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission directs staff to map signs, study targeted pavement markings and bring a Crest Road pilot back to July meeting
Summary
The commission asked staff to geo-tag existing speed-limit signs, work with the traffic engineer on sign placement and return with a package that includes a recommended pavement‑marking pilot (test on Crest Road), cost estimates and any proposed sign relocations.
Commissioners spent substantial time on whether pavement speed markings and improved sign placement can reduce speeding on Crest Road, Portuguese Bend and Eastfield. Vanessa, the traffic engineer, reiterated that California guidance treats pavement markings as supplemental: the posted sign is the regulatory element and markings should be used alongside properly located signs.
Vanessa told the commission that pavement markings are most effective when paired with a sign. “What is regulatory is the sign, not the pavement marking,” she said, adding that markings should not be deployed alone.
Staff noted inconsistent sign placement and height across arterials and proposed a study and a modest pilot. Commissioners supported a Crest Road test and discussed initial cost figures presented by staff: staff cited roughly $1,500 for four initial pavement-marking stencils and about $250 for each additional marking. Commissioners asked staff to geo-tag existing signs, recommend any sign relocations to ensure enforceability, and return with a bundled recommendation and budget estimate by the July meeting.
The motion to direct staff to perform the mapping and return with recommendations passed by voice vote.
