City of Alameda - File #: 2021-1400

• File #: 2021-1400
• Type: Regular Agenda Item
• Body: City Council
• On agenda: 12/7/2021
• Title: Adoption of Resolution Establishing Policies on Signalized Intersection Access Equity to Promote Safe, Livable Streets, and Environmentally Sustainable Transportation Choices. (Public Works 21141550)

 Title

Adoption of Resolution Establishing Policies on Signalized Intersection Access Equity to Promote Safe, Livable Streets, and Environmentally Sustainable Transportation Choices. (Public Works 21141550)

Body

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed resolution defines signalized intersection access equity for the City of Alameda (City) and adopts guiding policies to accommodate all modes of transportation at signalized intersections that increase safety, enhance mobility, and minimize delay for all users.  The policies are in response to the September 3, 2019 City Council referral, “Consider Providing Direction to Staff on Transportation Priorities in Advance of the Active Transportation Plan Work.” (Exhibit 1)

Safety is paramount in moving all modes of travel through signalized intersections.  In addition, it is a City goal, as stated in several adopted policy documents, to increase the number of people walking, biking, and using transit.  The programming of signalized intersections can improve or degrade the convenience and comfort of these travel modes.   The policy presented establishes guiding principles on traffic signal design and operations that increase safety for pedestrians, support mobility and access, and minimize delay for all modes.  This policy, combined with intersection design, improved signal timing, enhanced detection, coordination along corridors, and infrastructure modernization, will guide City actions needed to manage all modes of transportation safely and equitably.

The Transportation Commission endorsed the proposed policies on September 22, 2021.

BACKGROUND

On September 3, 2019, the City Council adopted a referral providing direction on short- and medium-term project priorities.  The referral included eight short-term items for staff to consider.  Staff returned to City Council on November 5, 2019 with a Vision Zero policy aimed at reducing and ultimately eliminating severe and fatal injuries caused by traffic collisions in Alameda.  The City Council adopted the policy, which established safety as the number one priority for the design, reconfiguration, and maintenance of city streets.  Vision Zero dictates that the City change the way the public right-of-way looks, feels, and operates to achieve Alameda’s transportation, safety and climate action goals.  The Vision Zero policy also formalizes the City’s use of the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) guides.  NACTO’s many guidance documents, such as the Urban Street Design Guide and the Urban Bikeway Design Guide, contain forward-thinking strategies for designing streets that are safer for all transportation system users, including people walking, biking, driving and using transit.

On February 4, 2020, staff reported to the City Council on completed items for Vision Zero.  This included a new approach to reviewing serious collisions, involving formation of an interdisciplinary response team, site visits, and investigations.  Improvements at 25 intersections included refreshed and enhanced high-visibility crosswalks, the addition of stop bars to encourage vehicles to stop farther back from crosswalks, additional red curb at intersections to improve visibility (daylighting), and additional signage. 

On April 21, 2020, the City Council adopted policies on street width, lane width, crosswalks, and bulb-outs to promote safe, livable streets, and environmentally sustainable transportation choices.  The City Council also provided further direction on a safety toolkit of policies and design guidelines.  At that time, staff also outlined a plan to return with the remaining items in the original referral at a later date.  Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated activities, staff’s response to the remaining items from the referral were delayed.  

The discussion below explores signalized intersection access equity and provides specific response and recommendations to the items listed within this component of the City Council referral.   All recommendations are consistent with the City’s 2009 Pedestrian Plan vision statement:

Plan, construct, and adequately maintain a functional, comfortable and convenient pedestrian network throughout the City of Alameda that addresses pedestrians’ mobility needs in a manner that enhances community identity and livability.

Note that the 2009 Pedestrian Plan will be superseded by the forthcoming Active Transportation Plan.

DISCUSSION

NACTO’s Urban Street Design Guide acknowledges that, “Equally important to the allocation of right of way space, in the form of street cross-sections and geometry, is the allocation of time, performed by traffic signals.  Space and time in combination govern how streets operate and how well they provide mobility, safety, and public space.  Signal timing is an essential tool, not just for the movement of traffic, but also for a safer environment that supports walking, bicycling, public transportation, and economic vitality.”  Traffic signal design and operation can vary greatly depending on nearby land use, roadway configuration, street classification, traffic demand, state of existing infrastructure, and user access needs.  Traffic signals allocate the time dedicated to various users of an intersection to travel through it in a safe manner.  Due to the many competing interests vying for use of an intersection, a one-size-fits-all approach is not feasible.  Trade-offs are required to balance the various needs. 

The four items outlined below in italics comprise the signalized intersection access equity component from the City Council referral. 

Intersection Equity

Council Referral 1: All street users, regardless of mode, will be provided access to the intersection at controlled intersections.

Historically, national transportation engineering practices emphasized personal vehicle travel needs over those of other users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and freight vehicles.  Vehicle throughput was valued at the expense of more vulnerable users such as pedestrians and bicyclists.  Advances in traffic signal technologies, engineering analysis, and policies such as Vision Zero have shifted the practice in Alameda to prioritize safe, multimodal operations at signalized intersections.  Determining an equitable distribution of traffic signal cycle time for all users is a complex balancing act that must consider:

•                     Complexity of intersection geometry (number of legs, or in some cases offsets)

•                     Crosswalk lengths

•                     Traffic volumes (of all modes)

•                     Surrounding area land use/Street Classification in General Plan

•                     Types of street users

•                     Traffic signal infrastructure capabilities (e.g., location/type of detection and controller)

•                     Bus stops and routes

•                     Corridor signal coordination

•                     Jurisdiction (for example, Caltrans)

Staff’s principal objectives of traffic signal operations are safely accommodating all modes of transportation and minimizing delay for all users.  Although minimizing delay for one user may increase delay for another, staff strive to exercise professional judgement to achieve a balance amongst these demands to avoid any single user from experiencing unwarranted delay. 

To ensure safe access for transit, bicycles, and emergency equipment, the following should continue to be implemented:

•                     Bicycle enhancements such as detection, bicycle timing parameters, and bicycle signals on designated bikeways, as determined feasible

•                     Transit signal priority along major transit corridors

•                     Emergency preemption equipment and timing

To ensure safe access for pedestrians, enhancements should continue to be deployed such as leading pedestrian intervals (LPI), countdown signal heads, and audible/accessible pedestrian signals (APS), where applicable.  At signalized intersections, the most common type of pedestrian signal provide a “WALK” and a “DO NOT WALK” phase, preferably with a countdown timer to indicate the amount of clearance time remaining.  Nationally, most vehicle/pedestrian/bike collisions involve turning vehicles.  One strategy the City currently uses to improve the pedestrian’s visibility at signalized intersections is leading pedestrian interval, which gives pedestrians a three to seven second head start while the adjacent vehicle signal is still red.  

To ensure safe pedestrian access at signalized intersections, staff recommends LPI be implemented at all signalized intersections.    

The City’s pedestrian green phases (WALK symbol) are typically seven seconds.  This time allows for pedestrians to leave the curb ramp before the start of the pedestrian clearance interval (flashing don’t walk sign).  Walking rates and crosswalk length are then used to calculate the pedestrian clearance interval of a signal in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).  Typically, 3.5 feet per second is used but staff recommends special considerations of slower walking speeds be given to intersections near schools with a school crosswalk (yellow markings) and with high volumes of pedestrians who are elderly or disabled.

Lastly, to ensure safe pedestrian access at signalized intersections, staff recommends maximizing the pedestrian phase so that it ends concurrently with the parallel vehicle green interval.  This will be accomplished through programming the traffic signal to rest in the “Walk” interval until an opposing traffic movement triggers a detection call. One potential exception is transit signal priority, in which green times may be extended to allow buses to continue through the intersection.  This may occur after completion of the pedestrian phase. 

Pedestrian Detection

Council Referral 2:  If access given because car triggered light, pedestrian light activated automatically. Beg button used only as means to signal access needed, not at all times

Detection is an essential tool in the design and operation of a traffic signal system to allow for demand-based operations.  Detection inputs are used for all modes entering an intersection, including pedestrians, vehicles, bicycles, and transit.  Detection allows for demand-based signal operations, which allows for reduced wait times for all users and lower vehicle emissions.

For determining a pedestrian’s desire to cross an intersection, the most common and reliable pedestrian detection tool is the pedestrian push button.  Although sensors like microwave or video are can passively detect a pedestrian when waiting to cross a street, the technology is still emerging with limited ability to accurately detect the pedestrian’s desired crossing direction, resulting in false or inaccurate calls.  In addition, the City’s existing traffic signal controller systems are not effectively equipped to accommodate wide scale passive pedestrian detection.  The City currently deploys pedestrian push buttons to detect pedestrians at signalized intersections.  Seventy of eighty-eight signalized intersections currently have pedestrian detection.  Exhibit 2 shows these locations.  Staff will continue to stay up to date on emerging transportation technology that have been tested and meet industry standards.

In-pavement loops or video detection passively detect vehicles and bicycles at signalized intersections.  Since pedestrians must push a button to be detected, this is perceived by some as inequitable access at signalized intersections.  The four items from the City Council referral explored in this discussion are identified as “intersection access equity (beg buttons)”. 

Intersection access equity is not an industry defined term.  The term is used in the City Council referral to draw attention to the differences in detection at signalized intersections (passive for vehicles and bikes; pedestrians have to push a button).  The referral goes further to propose a specific approach to signal timing with intent of achieving access equity.  Staff, however, believe a broader view of signalized intersection access equity is necessary.  One that maximizes safety and minimizes delay for all modes of travel.  Staff recommends defining Signalized Intersection Access Equity, as follows, and adopting this as a guiding principal for signal operations:

The distribution of cycle time allocated for the various users of the signalized intersection in a balanced manner, by providing the necessary infrastructure improvements needed to allow each user to safely and conveniently cross the street.

While staff continuously strives for a balanced approach, there may be locations where one mode may need to be prioritized at the expense of other movements (e.g., using signals to separate turning traffic that conflicts with Cross Alameda Trail crossings at major intersections).  However, these decisions will be made based on what provides the greatest safety benefit while minimizing operational impacts.

The proposed signal timing approach in the City Council referral is that when a vehicle triggers the light green, the WALK signal be automatically served regardless of whether a pedestrian is present.  The proposal is for deployment at all signalized intersections citywide. 

To implement this approach, it is important to note that pedestrian signal phases can be configured as “recall” or push button actuated. Recall automatically activates the pedestrian signal phase (WALK sign) every cycle whether a person pushes the button or not.  Actuation requires a person to press the push button to activate the WALK signal.  The referral proposes a version of recall that requires a person to push the button to activate the WALK signal when there are no vehicles traveling in their same direction; however, when a vehicle triggers the light green, the WALK signal would automatically be served regardless of whether a pedestrian is present. 

While this approach to signal timing reduces the need for pedestrians to trigger the push button and mitigates instances of pedestrians arriving at the intersection when the light has just turned green and having to wait an entire cycle length before the WALK signal is served, there are drawbacks that must be considered. 

The proposed operations are currently in use on Park and Webster Streets (Park and Webster), both streets where the traffic signals are coordinated. Staff have identified certain limitations.  There are instances where the signal reverts back to a vehicle phase (e.g., the main street movement) to maintain coordination even when there isn’t a vehicle present.  In these instances, since there was no vehicle detected, the pedestrian phase isn’t activated.  As such, there are still occurrences where vehicles are served but pedestrians are not, particularly if a pedestrian was not aware they needed to use the push button due to the lack of a vehicle traveling in their same direction.  The City has received several SeeClickFix comments which note pedestrians being skipped and staff investigations attributed it to this operational issue.  Another disadvantage of the proposed recall operations is that pedestrians may not be aware that they have to use the push button if no vehicles are present.

Lastly, another disadvantage of the proposed operations is that serving a WALK signal every time a vehicle triggers the green signal will increase intersection delay (vehicles and bikes in the roadway) due to the pedestrian timing when a pedestrian is not present. Increased vehicle delay has emission impacts.  Also, the proposed operations limit the traffic signal’s ability to adjust timing as the signal must serve the pedestrian phase, regardless of the actual presence of a pedestrian.  Using pedestrian push button actuation enhances the ability to implement Transit Signal Priority (TSP) since the signal controller can reallocate side-street time to the main street for transit vehicles to progress through the intersection when pedestrians are not present.  This is important for bus movement on Park and Webster.

To understand the potential delay and emissions impact of the proposed operations citywide, staff modeled the proposed signal timing at eight (8) signalized intersections representative of the various types of intersections across town.  For the analysis, each of the eight (8) intersections were evaluated under the proposed operations (i.e., vehicle detection triggers WALK signal) and under fully actuated (i.e., demand based).  For the intersections on Park and Webster which currently have coordinated timing plans, the coordination was maintained under both analysis scenarios. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, all intersections operate with less delay under demand based operations since the signals will terminate phases without demand to serve the phases that do.  For the eight (8) sample intersections, the increase in emissions during morning and afternoon peak is estimated at 1.36 tons.  Assuming similar rates across the City’s 88 signals, this is nearly 15 tons, or the emissions equivalent of nearly 1,700 gallons of gasoline.

While the increase in delay and emissions seem minor (<1%) at certain intersections, the peak periods assessed are when pedestrian/vehicle volumes are likely at the highest.  As such, these values represent when the signals are operating at their “max” and likely can’t serve additional users due to high demands.  A higher %-delay/emissions is expected during off-peak times because actuation becomes more important when traffic is more sporadic and pedestrian volumes lower.

Table 1: AM Peak (7AM - 9AM) Recall Proposal versus Demand Based Comparison

Intersection	Proposed Recall Operations*		Demand Based*		Impact of Proposal as compared to Demand Based
	Total Delay (hr)	Total CO Emissions (lbs)	Total Delay (hr)	Total CO Emissions (lbs)	Increase in Total Delay (hr)		Increase in Total CO Emissions (lbs)
Constitution & Atlantic	8,871	1,569	8,653	1,531	218	2.5%	37.80	2.41%
Webster & Pacific	1,943	756	1,253	742	690	35.5%	13.74	1.82%
High & Ferns/Gibbons	10,932	3,225	10,034	2,180	898	8.2%	1,045.73	32.42%
Broadway & Otis	8,824	4,765	8,559	4,721	265	3.0%	43.52	0.91%
Main St & Atlantic	1,378	927	1,062	885	316	23.0%	41.23	4.45%
Park Ave & Blanding Ave	3,951	1,388	3,606	1,332	345	8.7%	56.12	4.04%
Grand St & Encinal Ave	2,717	2,366	2,579	2,348	138	5.1%	18.33	0.77%
Grand St & Otis	3,116	3,065	2,483	2,977	633	20.3%	88.19	2.88%

*Yearly totals, assume 260 weekday workdays

Table 2: PM Peak (4PM - 6PM) Recall Proposal versus Demand Based Comparison

Intersection	Proposed Recall Operations*		Demand Based*		Impact of Proposal as compared to Demand Based
	Total Delay (hr)	Total CO Emissions (lbs)	Total Delay (hr)	Total CO Emissions (lbs)	Increase in Total Delay (hr)		Increase in Total CO Emissions (lbs)
Constitution & Atlantic	24,677	4,139	16,622	3,189	8,055	32.6%	950.66	22.97%
Webster & Pacific	1,659	780	1,295	707	364	22.0%	73.30	9.40%
High & Ferns/Gibbons	7,903	2,676	7,171	2,591	731	9.3%	84.76	3.17%
Broadway & Otis	12,828	5,232	12,405	5,186	424	3.3%	45.81	0.88%
Main St & Atlantic	1,416	873	1,078	834	338	23.8%	38.94	4.46%
Park Ave & Blanding Ave	8,091	2,435	7,705	2,358	385	4.8%	76.74	3.15%
Grand St & Encinal Ave	2,717	2,366	2,579	2,348	138	5.1%	18.33	0.77%
Grand St & Otis	3,116	3,065	2,483	2,977	633	20.3%	88.19	2.88%

*Yearly totals, assume 260 weekday workdays

Increasing delay for any user can result in added frustration, especially when it is perceived as unnecessary.  Although staff are not able to quantify, frustrated users of the road may be less safe and more inclined to not comply with the rules of the road (ex. run a red light). The following proposed traffic signal operation defines the times and locations for using recall (a WALK signal every cycle without use of push buttons) versus demand-based operations (a WALK signal when a pedestrian is detected with a push button and adjusting the vehicle green time based on vehicle/bike detection.)

Proposed Traffic Signal Operation

Based on the these findings, staff does not recommend widespread deployment of the proposed recall operations but rather granting a WALK signal every cycle in certain areas during peak pedestrian hours.  This is called time-of-day based recall and it is able to take advantage of pedestrian actuation during non-peak pedestrian times, which allows more time for transit signal priority to increase the schedule reliability of transit service and avoid unnecessary delays.  A nearby example of where time-of-day recall is used is Downtown City of Oakland along Broadway.  Broadway experiences high pedestrian and transit volumes during daytime hours, as well as steady vehicle volumes.  Due to the high number of pedestrian volumes, the traffic signals are programmed to operate under pedestrian recall from 7am to 7pm.  However, since Broadway is a primary transit corridor, the City of Oakland and AC Transit agreed that pedestrian recall could be turned off during off-peak times where there are lower volumes of pedestrians to allow for actuated operations and to afford more time to transit signal priority.  Adopting signal operation policies that preserve flexibility allows staff to evaluate a similar approach time-of-day recall approach to help buses progress along Park and Webster Streets during off-peak hours.

The attached resolution contains the following policies:

1.                     To achieve signalized intersection access equity, signalized intersections will be in recall (a pedestrian WALK signal at every cycle) under the following conditions:

•                     Intersections without existing push-button pedestrian detection

•                     Signalized intersections near schools with a school crosswalk (yellow markings).  Recall will be implemented during peak pedestrian hours (start/stop times of school).

•                     Signalized intersections within Community Commercial land use.  Recall will be implemented during peak pedestrian hours only (10 AM- 7 PM).

Exceptions may be made if the above signalized intersections have low pedestrian demand, less than 25/hour. Time of day based recall allows transit signal priority to be prioritized outside peak pedestrian hours to increase schedule reliability and avoid unnecessary delays.   Signalized intersections not meeting the above criteria will be demand based - a pedestrian WALK signal when the button is used, and vehicle green times based on vehicle/bike detection. School areas and community commercial areas are expected to have the higher volumes of pedestrians compared with other signalized intersections, now and in the future.

The City of Seattle’s (Seattle) pedestrian detection policy is referenced by some community members as a model for Alameda.  The Seattle policy has been characterized as requiring pedestrian recall at all signalized intersections.  Instead, Seattle calls for recall at signalized intersections in their Urban Centers and Urban Villages.  Land uses in Alameda do not approach the densities of Seattle’s Urban Centers and Urban Villages.  At locations outside of Urban Centers and Urban Villages, Seattle’s policy has specific criteria for recall to be considered (ex. pedestrian volumes).   In addition, even within the Urban Centers and Villages, Seattle’s policy has potential exceptions to recall that include the following:

•                     The traffic signal is under the jurisdictional authority of the State, which includes some intersections at or near access to states highways.

•                     The implementation would not be in alignment with the City’s multimodal access, safety, and mobility goals, for example:

•                     Locations with very low pedestrian volumes (less than 25 per hour)

•                     Significant delay and impact to transit (greater than 20 seconds per cycle)

•                     Locations where low pedestrian and side street volumes allow cycle length shorter than 70 seconds if actuation is maintained.

Staff used the pedestrian volume threshold in Seattle’s policy as basis for the criteria in which in which signalized intersections in Alameda will be considered for recall. 

Council Referral 3: Cover beg buttons at intersections where the button is not needed, (avoid confusion)

As noted above, pedestrian detection is critical to efficient traffic signal operations.  Although an automatic pedestrian WALK signal every cycle is recommended under certain conditions, the conditions are time of day based and it is not feasible to routinely cover/uncover pedestrian pushbuttons. 

In addition, the MUTCD recommends Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) systems to communicate information about the walk phase in audible and vibrotactile formats to assist individuals with hearing or vision impairment.  Regardless of whether the signalized intersection is in recall or pedestrian detection activated, APSs remain active at all times to assist those hearing and vision impairment.  Forth of the seventy intersections with pedestrian detection have APS systems with integrated speakers in the push button units.  Staff currently installs APS whenever possible.

Staff recommends:

1.                     Not covering pedestrian push buttons

2.                     Continue to upgrade existing pedestrian signals by adding pedestrian countdown, audible, and tactile/vibrational signals.

Pedestrian Barricades

Council Referral 4:  No pedestrian blocking barricades

Pedestrian barricades are used to direct pedestrians toward painted crosswalks and away from undesirable crossings.  Undesirable crossings may include locations where there is no existing continuous path of travel through an intersection (e.g., median/barrier in roadway inhibiting crossing) or where safety concerns (e.g., line-of-sight restrictions) may put pedestrians at risk.  Nevertheless, there are instances of barricades being used to consolidate pedestrian movements to a single crossing to reduce vehicle delay, which leads to de-prioritizing pedestrians by making them use a longer and slower path of travel through an intersection.  As such, pedestrian barricades can be a barrier to access instead of a tool for improved safety.

Staff recommends:

1.                     Construction of new traffic signals shall have crosswalks marked on all legs.

2.                     Prioritize removal of existing pedestrian barricades at signalized intersections according to:

a.                     Vision Zero high injury corridors and high crash intersections

b.                     Surrounding land uses such as schools, parks, and commercial streets

3.                     Remove and replace existing barricades with new ramps and crosswalks in conjunction with ADA improvements required as part of the City’s Pavement Management Program as funding allows. As needed, provide traffic signal modifications.

Intersection Enhancement and Education

The recommendations above focus on pedestrians from a traffic signal operations perspective; however, to provide a comprehensive approach to pedestrian safety, traffic signal operations needs to be paired with complimentary design and educational considerations to enhance safety and access.  Physical improvements such as intersection geometry, lighting, and signage, as well as educational tools have been shown to have a compounding effect on overall pedestrian safety.

Pedestrian focused educational campaigns serve two purposes:

1.                     Educating drivers to be aware of pedestrians, and

2.                     Educating pedestrians on how to safely cross and use available crossing facilities.

Both the draft Vision Zero Action Plan and draft Active Transportation Plan include educational efforts.  Through these efforts, staff will collaborate with the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC), Alameda Unified School District and Bike Walk Alameda to leverage existing and any new projects and programs.  These efforts will create a more well-rounded approach to pedestrian safety, which includes traffic operations, intersection design, and educational campaigns.  

ALTERNATIVES

•                     Adopt the resolution as proposed and recommended by staff.

•                     Adopt the resolution with stated changes, which may include, but not be limited to, implementation of recall (a pedestrian WALK signal at every cycle) at more or fewer signalized intersections.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

Implementation of the proposed policy will be incorporated into existing and future contracts and projects, which have dedicated funding sources.  No funding allocation is being requested at this time.

MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE

Adopting a resolution on Intersection Access Equity and pedestrian timing to improve safety at intersections is consistent with many existing City policies and planning documents, including:

•                     Vision Zero policy (adopted in 2019) to reduce and eventually eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries;

•                     Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (2019) requirement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2005 levels by 2030; and

•                     Transportation Choices Plan (2018) Goal #2 to increase the share of walking, bicycling, bus and carpooling trips within Alameda.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Approval to develop planning documents is statutorily exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.  Adoption of this policy does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.  Any future physical changes to the environment or roadway network that requires discretionary action by the City Council or Transportation Commission will be subject to future environmental review.

CLIMATE IMPACT

As identified in the Climate Action and Resiliency Plan, transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Alameda.  Making streets safer and prioritizing people who walk, bike or use transit will encourage more of these trips and fewer automobile trips.  Additionally, updating traffic signal timing and coordination, and modernizing intersections will allow signalized intersections to operate with less delay, reducing overall motor vehicle emissions.

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt a resolution establishing policies on signalized intersection access equity to promote safe, livable streets and environmentally sustainable transportation choices.

CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION

The City Manager is requesting adoption of the resolution establishing policies on signalized intersection access equity. 

Respectfully submitted,

Erin Smith, Public Works Director

Financial Impact section reviewed,

Annie To, Finance Director

Exhibits: 

1.                     Council Referral

2.                     Map

cc:                     Eric Levitt, City Manager

                     Gerry Beaudin, Assistant City Manager