may 7, 1998 - sbcagmeetings.sbcag.org/meetings/ncspc/2013/09 sept/item 5 - sr 166 black road.pdfa...

STAFF REPORT

SUBJECT: Highway 166/Black Road Intersection Improvements MEETING DATE: September 4, 2013 AGENDA ITEM: 5 STAFF CONTACT: Sarkes Khachek and Fred Luna RECOMMENDATION:

1. Review and comment on the alternatives being considered for improving the intersection of Highway 166 and Black Road.

2. Provide direction to the Project Development Team as it develops a preferred alternative recommendation for committee consideration.

SUMMARY: The Highway 166/Black Road Intersection Improvements project is one of six projects selected by the Board, based on a North County Subregional Committee recommendation, for funding through the Measure A Highway 166 Safety and Operational Improvements program. The purpose of the project is to improve traffic operations at the intersection which currently only has a stop sign on the Black Road approach to Highway 166. The existing conditions result in significant delay for traffic on Black Road and a potential for conflicting turning movements as a result of the high number of trucks and slow moving agricultural vehicles using the intersection. The project development team has identified three alternatives for the intersection that were presented to various stakeholder groups in July and August for input. The alternatives include a no build scenario, installation of a traffic signal or installation of a roundabout. Overall, the input received suggests that stakeholders agree with providing improvements at the intersection and favor the installation of a traffic signal. SBCAG staff will present the alternatives and input received from stakeholders to the North County Subregional Committee for the committee’s review and comment on September 4. This is only a check-in with the committee on the project. If there is additional information or groups that the committee would like the project development team to take into account, direction should be provided. When the team meets later in September, it will make a recommendation on a preferred alternative for the Committee’s consideration and recommendation to the full board in at an upcoming meeting. DISCUSSION: As part of the project scoping process for the Measure A Highway 166 Safety and Operational Improvements program, an array of potential improvements were identified in the Highway 166 corridor. The projects were prioritized by the North County Subregional Committee and Measure A funding was approved for six projects by the SBCAG Board in February 2012. The Highway 166/Black Road Intersection Improvements Project was one of the approved projects that was to be funded from SBCAG’s $3.0 million in Measure A available for Highway 166 projects. The intersection is currently stop sign controlled on the Black Road approach to Highway 166. The current estimated cost to complete the project (both support and capital costs) is $1.25 million.

2

Highway 166 is the primary connection between Guadalupe and Santa Maria. It is a route heavily used by farmworkers, agricultural vehicles and trucks. It is a two-lane facility with limited passing opportunities. The signed speed limit is 55 miles per hour. The Average Daily Traffic for Highway 166 is approximately 10,000. Black Road has Average Daily Traffic of approximately 1,300 and is used by farm workers to connect between Highway 166 and Stowell Road and Betteravia Road. The intersection is located in the unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County between the cities of Guadalupe and Santa Maria. The intersection is also within the City of Santa Maria’s sphere of influence. Also, located along Black Road is the City of Santa Maria Water Treatment Facility. The purpose of the project is to improve operations at the intersection during the morning and evening peak hours. Currently traffic queues on Black Road trying to make a left-turn onto Highway 166 during peak hours and causes considerable delay. Without improvements to this intersection this movement will continue to degrade operations such that the intersection will be LOS F in 2015 and going forward into the future. A related factor is that as delay continues to increase due to lack of gaps for merging onto Highway 166, the potential for additional accidents will occur without controlling traffic on Highway 166. Currently, the accident rate for the intersection exceeds the statewide average for similar intersections (0.47 versus 0.16). With the goal of improving traffic operations at this intersection, SBCAG and its consultant team from PSOMAS Engineering have identified and evaluated a no-build and two build alternatives. A Project Development Team (PDT) that includes technical staff from Caltrans, the County of Santa Barbara, the City of Santa Maria, in addition to SBCAG and its engineering team has completed an initial evaluation of the alternatives. The evaluation was based on identifying key criteria that support the purpose and need statement of the project. For example, the ability for each alternative to improve traffic operations is heavily weighted. Other factors would include cost to construct, right of way impacts, and costs to maintain. A related, non-technical criteria is public input. Table 1 below shows how the two proposed alternatives compare for the various technical criteria.

Table 1 Technical Criteria Comparison of Signal vs. Roundabout

Evaluation Criteria Traffic Signal Roundabout

Traffic Operations LOS B (2015) LOS C (2015)

Right of Way Impacts Both alternatives require a small sliver of right of way in the southwest quadrant of the intersection

Construction Costs

Both alternatives are estimated to cost approximately $800k to $1.0 million for construction. Additional costs of approximately $250,000 for right of way and project support would need to be included for total project costs.

Maintenance/Operation Costs (20 years)

Costs include paving, curbs, and lighting. Due to traffic signal maintenance costs slightly more than roundabout.

Costs include paving, curbs, lighting and center island landscaping.

A vehicle waits to turn left onto Highway 166 west at the Black Road stop sign.

3

In summary, both alternatives meet the purpose and need and are equally viable. The cost for each project is about the same, and both require similar right of way. The traffic signal is forecast to operate slightly better in the near term (2015) but they each operate similarly in outer years. Public Outreach SBCAG and the project team have collected public input on the alternatives. Table 2 below provides a summary of input received. Overall, the input suggests that stakeholders agree with providing improvements at the intersection and favor the installation of a traffic signal.

Table 2 Summary of Public Input on Alternatives

Date Stakeholder Group Input Received

7/16/13 Grower Shipper Association Attendees agreed that an improvement should be made and strongly favored the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection. Attendees noted that due to unfamiliarity of roundabouts by drivers that the installation of a roundabout would not be conducive for the intersection. A Summary of the Grower Shipper Meeting is included as Attachment C.

7/24/13 Highway 166 Safety Task Force

Staff did not receive any comments on the alternatives through the Safety Task Force.

8/12/13 Santa Maria Transportation Committee

Most comments received favored the installation of the roundabout. Comments are included as Attachment D.

8/27/13 Guadalupe City Council The Guadalupe City Council supported improvements at the intersection and supported the traffic signal alternative.

Direction from North County Subregional Committee on Alternatives With the technical evaluation of the two project alternatives scheduled to be completed by the end of the month, as well as having conducted public outreach on the alternatives, staff is requesting that the North County Subregional Committee provide any additional direction to staff and the project team as its considers a recommendation of a preferred alternative for the intersection. SBCAG will share the direction of the committee with the Project Development Team and return with a preferred alternative recommendation at a future North County Subregional meeting, likely in October or November. Next Steps The following are some of the major milestones remaining for the development and construction of the project:

Table 3 Project Schedule

Date Activity

Summer 2013 Conduct Public Outreach

September 4 Receive input from the North County Subregional on alternatives

September Project Development Team meets to make recommendation on preferred alternative

October/November North County Subregional Committee presented with recommendation from PDT on preferred alternative. Recommendation to board adoption and initiation of environmental document.

Fall 2013 to Summer 2014 Completion of the environmental technical studies and environmental document

Summer 2014 to Spring 2015 Final design, right of way, and permitting

Summer 2015 Construction

4

COMMITTEE REVIEW: A Project Development Team consisting of Caltrans, the County of Santa Barbara, City of Santa Maria, and a consulting engineering firm hired by SBCAG (Psomas) have developed the project alternatives and will make a recommendation to the Committee on a preferred alternative at an upcoming meeting. RECOMMENDATION: This check-in is an opportunity for the Committee to review the alternatives developed by the Project Development Team and comments received at public forums and provide direction to the team on such things as additional data that should be considered as it prepares a preferred alternative recommendation for Committee consideration. ATTACHMENT:

A. Exhibit showing Traffic Signal Installation B. Exhibit showing Roundabout Installation C. Input received at July 16 Grower Shipper Association meeting D. Comments received from Santa Maria Chamber Transportation Committee Members

SIGNALIZEDBLACK ROAD / SR 166

INTERSECTION EXHIBIT

ROUNDABOUT EXHIBITBLACK ROAD / SR 166

PSOMAS

State Route 166 Safety and Operational Improvements Project

Summary of Meeting Comments

SUBJECT: Black Road/State Route 166 – Presentation of Background and

Alternatives to Grower Shipper Association DATE OF MEETING: Tuesday – July 16, 2013 TIME: 11 am LOCATION: SB County Office, Large Conference Room, Santa Maria

ATTENDEES:

Name Firm/Agency Telephone E�mail Peter Adam SB County, 4th District 805�737�7700 [email protected]

Steve Lavagaino SB County 805�346�8400 [email protected]

Alice Patino City of Santa Maria 805�925�0951

Chris Henson SB County 805�565�2197 [email protected]

Bob Nelson SB County, 4th District 805�737�7700 [email protected]

Claire Wineman Grower – Shipper 805�343�2215 Claire.wineman@grower�

David Iliff AG Rx 805�310�6062 [email protected]

Simon Verdin Betteravia Farms 805�925�2478 [email protected]

Charles Hoops CHP 805�674�6393 [email protected]

Fred Luna SBCAG 805�961�8926 [email protected]

Sarkes Khachek SBCAG 805�961�8913 [email protected]

Greg Hart SBCAG 805�961�8905 [email protected]

Diana Estorga SB County 805�739�8763 [email protected]

Tim Hayes Psomas 916�788�8122 [email protected]


Presentation to Grower Shipper Association July 16, 2013 11 AM

Page 2

By Topic, Comment, Discussion Topic Response Introductions/Opening

All Self,introductions were made by attendees.

Draft Presentation

Sarkes Reviewed presentation explaining background of SR 166 Corridor, evaluation of candidate projects, and need and purpose of improvements at Black Road/SR 166.

Tim Review alternatives (referring to exhibits of proposed improvements) considered at Black Road/SR 166 including the no build (maintain existing conditions), traffic signal, and roundabout.

Comments, Questions, Discussion Response

Can you explain how this roundabout works? Referring to aerial exhibit, Tim and Sarkes explained the configuration and movements.

What are these other projects? Tim and Fred explained how it has been assumed both the Guadalupe Ditch relocation project and the Main Street Produce driveway relocation project would be completed prior to improvements at Black Rd.

By moving the ditches, Caltrans created a shoulder for the workers to drive on and now the utility poles are closer to where the cars are driving.

Yes, the traffic on Black Road is stuck there for a while waiting to enter SR 166 especially in the morning and afternoon.

What do you mean by peak hour? Tim explained that the peak hour occurs during the morning and afternoon times of heavier traffic considered to be 7 to 9am and 4 to 6pm.

Do you need right of way for this project and how much? Yes, a sliver right of way portion is needed on the south side referring to alternative exhibit.



Page 3

By Topic, Comment, Discussion Topic Response We tried to get Caltrans to do something a few years

ago at the Black Road intersection and they said it wasn’t needed so we think this is a good thing.

What are these reversing curves and what are they supposed to do because they seem like a hazard for either my equipment to hit or the workers to hit the curb when driving through this crazy thing.

Tim explained that the reversing curves along SR 166 as you approach the roundabout are intended to reduce speeds from 50 to 25 mph.

I don’t see how you expect a driver especially the workers to get through this roundabout at that speed.

Have you conducted any studies on the demographics of motorists driving through this intersection?

Something needs to be done here, but the traffic signal is what should happen just like at Bonita School Road and not the roundabout.

The traffic signal really helped at Bonita School. I don’t see how the workers are going to drive through the roundabout.

Tim explained that the majority of motorists are familiar with roundabouts in the City.

You can’t compare those roundabouts with this intersection because of the drivers going through here and the types of large trucks and farm equipment.

Tim referring to the exhibit displaying the truck paths and indicated that we could also show them a demonstration video of large trucks and farm equipment traveling through a roundabout.

How wide of a lane can I have to drive through in the roundabout alternative.

Tim referred to the exhibit and identified the traveled width and adjacent shoulder width.

What is the cost of both alternatives? The construction costs (which are still being developed) are approximately $1M for both but the long term maintenance of the traffic signal will be higher compared to the roundabout.



Page 4

By Topic, Comment, Discussion Topic Response That roundabout conflict diagram slide is not quite

accurate because you would not have that many conflicts with a traffic signal if everyone followed the signal operation.

Tim and Sarkes referred to the roundabout conflict diagram and explained how there are more (twelve) conflicts for a signal compared to only four for a roundabout.

Why would you install a roundabout instead of a traffic signal when the majority of traffic is along SR 166 and not Black Road and all you are going to do is create a hazard for the majority of traffic along SR 166 by slowing them down through this confusing configuration?

Tim and Sarkes appreciated all the comments because that was the purpose of today’s meeting is to receive and consider input.

Who is responsible for building and maintaining the traffic signal?

Fred explained that SBCAG will install the improvement using Measure A funds and Caltrans is responsible for maintaining it.

For the traffic signal, a separate right turn lane should be installed on Black Road so motorists don’t have to wait (to go eastbound on Hwy 166).

Tim explained that a separate right turn lane is proposed for the traffic signal alternative.

Explain this bypass right turn lane for the ultimate project and why it is needed?

Tim and Sarkes explained that the future eastbound right turn lane along SR 166 is needed to accommodate the future growth from Area 9 and DJ farms.

Sure seems like this bypass right turn lane would be better with the traffic signal alternative and not that crazy roundabout.

I appreciate your explanation but I still can’t figure out why Caltrans relocated the ditches. We attended their meeting way back when and it didn’t make any sense then and it doesn’t make any sense now.



Page 5

By Topic, Comment, Discussion Topic Response CHP Having patrolled this corridor for many years, I am

familiar with the types of motorists and accidents that occur, and putting in a roundabout will only make things worse because they are not familiar with this configuration and it will cause them to hit the curb or hit each other and the accidents will increase by a lot.

Referring to the Kerman demonstration video, Tim explained how the larger trucks and farm equipment would proceed through the roundabout.

I still don’t see how my large farm equipment is going to get through this intersection.

The speeds in that video seem low compared to the average travel speed through a roundabout.

We agree that something needs to be done here, but the roundabout does not make sense because the motorists, primarily the workers, will not be able to get through the roundabout without hitting the curbs.

Hearing the sentiment expressed at today’s meeting, do you really need to still evaluation a roundabout?

Fred explained that Caltrans requires both a roundabout and traffic signal be considered so we need to meet with them and explain the comments and concerns that were raised today.

What are the next steps and where do we go from here? Sarkes referred to the schedule slide – presentation to North County Sub Comm, coordination with Caltrans, and opening by 2015 and likely sooner.

Attachment D: Comments received via the Santa Maria Transportation Committee

Comment #1: Received August 22, 2013

Dear Sarkes: I received this fact sheet regarding the changes to SR 166/Black Road Intersection. I noticed that a roundabout is one of the proposals, and just wanted to add this input. I live in the Sunrise Hills area of Santa Maria where there are several roundabouts on College Ave. They were constructed with a double lane, and cars entering on the right side are supposed to exit at the very next opening. The cars on the left are allowed to travel through until they reach the opening they want to access. The roundabouts would work MUCH better if they had been built to narrow down to one lane only as cars approach the roundabout. The City changed the process for entering the roundabouts after they were constructed, and now often tickets drivers who enter on the right and then try to drive all the way around the circle right next to a car that has the right of way. IF there was only one lane at the point of entry, there wouldn't be 2 cars trying to jam their way through together. It just seems like a simple solution and would work much better. I do think the roundabouts are a much better alternative than a stoplight, but it could have been designed so it's not a free for all with drivers who don't understand the rules. Thank you for your time. Peggy Greer North County Liaison Santa Barbara County Education Office


Good Afternoon,

I’ve routed the info sheet to the Chamber and City Transportation Committees. I would like to see a traffic

signal at this intersection. A roundabout would be okay if it was large enough. There is a lot of truck

traffic along that corridor and unless the roundabout is large enough I don’t think it would be as effective

as a traffic signal. Would it be a single lane or a multi lane roundabout?

Thank you, Hallie Comment #3: Received August 26, 2013

SM City Traffic Comm. Member Wes Maroney

After reviewing the project work sheet

I vote for the TRAFFIC SIGNAL. I believe this will make the intersection the safest.

Wes Maroney


Sarkes, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project study.

I forwarded this information to City Utilities Department Staff for their comments. They operate the City's

Wastewater Treatment Plant on Black Road, and experience this intersection daily. Their comments

reflected the preference for the signalized option at this location. Furthermore, they suggest the inclusion

of the widening of SR166 to 4 lanes between Black Road and Blosser Road.

Rodger A. Olds P.E.

Senior Civil Engineer

City of Santa Maria

may 7, 1998 - sbcagmeetings.sbcag.org/meetings/ncspc/2013/09 sept/item 5 - sr 166 black road.pdfa...

Documents