Yesterday we discussed (a) the OCTA design for widening the I-5 freeway between Route 73 and El Toro, (b) the attempt to speed up the Council meetings by eliminating recurring agenda items, and (c) the "Voigts Void". I saved the best agenda item for last. Tonight at the Council meeting they are going to discuss an RFP for a “traffic signal management".
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MANAGEMENT (Item #13)
Find out what's happening in Lake Forestwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
I was really surprised to see this item on the agenda. Every year or so, for the past six years, the City has proudly announced that we had a “traffic synchronization system” in place. Every time they made the announcement I seemed to recall an earlier announcement, but I chalked it up to advancing age and reduced memory skills. Of course, because I actually live in Lake Forest and actually drive in the city (unlike most of the staff who live elsewhere), I know fully well that the lights aren’t synchronized and there is no overall “system” at work, although occasionally I have been amazed by what appears to be progress. For example, for years when I left the City Council meetings to go home, invariably I would sit and wait for the left turn light at Muirlands and Bake, alone, with no one else on the road, but still waiting for the light to cycle through its standard rotations. A few months ago, as if by magic, I pulled up to the stop line and whoosh, the left hand green arrow appeared, saving me the 30+ seconds I normally had to wait. I was so impressed I mentioned it to my wife when I got home, who suggested I must be mistaken and merely so tired from the meeting I had hallucinated on the way home.
Find out what's happening in Lake Forestwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
HISTORY OF TRAFFIC SYNCHRONIZATION
Tonight the City once more is tackling the “traffic synchronization system” and if you read their report, you’ll find out that indeed there is no traffic synchronization system in place, although since 2008 they have ever soooo slowly been making progress. Here’s a brief summary of their achievements over the past 6 years -
2008 – they decided to do something and look at the situation
2009 – they looked at the situation and decided to “complete traffic synchronization throughout the City as a first phase” (something they still haven’t done, even while they move to phase three)
2010 – they adopted a “Local Traffic Signal Synchronization Program” (LTSSP) to be eligible for Measure M monies.
2011 – they “initiated the first phase of the LTSSP” which included replacing some old equipment and adding some new equipment that “allowed for the potential remote coordination of 42 of the City’s 87 traffic signals.” (Note the use of the word “allowed”).
2012 – the “second” phase of LTSSP is where we started to see some results, 5 years after actually addressing the problem. New signal timing was put in place on Lake Forest Drive, Portola Pkwy, and Trabuco Rd. and a traffic management system was put in place to coordinate between cities on the El Toro corridor. After all of these efforts, peak hour traffic was reduced “by up to 14%” (note – this is a strange figure, but it’s what they report. I guess it means “no more than 14% at any one time at any one location”, which isn’t exactly gang busters as a result)
2013 – “the City had connected approximately 60% of the traffic signals to a traffic management system”, but the remaining 40+% have to be handling individually and on-site.
After 6 years and millions of dollars, this is where we are at.
THE NEXT STEP
At this point, the City is seeking a new company to take us to the next step or “third phase”. Exhibit A (Scope of Services) in the RFP calls for
Traffic Signal Monitoring which is basically keeping the signals operating and keeping the “existing citywide synchronized corridors” in sync.
Citywide Traffic Signal Coordination Master Plan which is basically another report to say where they are and what they need to do to perform better. This will include an inventory of what they have along with plans to expand (and hook up with Laguna Hills)
Citywide Traffic Count Program that will provide a 24 hour average daily traffic count for 120 locations, to be conducted in late 2014, and cover a 3-day period (Tues, Wed, Thurs). This survey will be conducted every other year. This will be used for the next stage, which hopefully takes less than 6 years to complete.
Bear in mind this is a very abbreviated version of what’s involved, so you might want to go to the City’s website for more details.
WHAT’S MISSING
Though you will find more details, what you won’t find is any mention of a Traffic Committee or any analysis of those problem intersections where the cause of the problem is structural, rather than a function of traffic lights. It’s difficult to know what percentage of the traffic problems can be attributed to structural issues (e.g., lack of a right turn lane) and what part are a function of the traffic light systems, or macro factors (e.g., presence of large employers).
It’s also disturbing to look at the history of this issue going back to 2008 and to see how little has been done. Imagine in 2014 they still don’t have an inventory of what’s on hand, and they’re still trying to write a “master plan”.
I’m also less than impressed by the lack of data in the report. The report uses phrases like “approximately 60%” and “up to 14%”. Why not give the statistic and say - “56% of our lights are currently in a traffic management system”. Don’t they know the exact number? Why not provide the data and say - “The average improvement was 4% but it ranged from a low of 0 to a high of 14%”. Saying merely “up to 14%” is probably an exaggeration.
The report says the consultants will “monitor more signals remotely”. How many is that? The report says these efforts “would advance the City’s long-term mobility objectives”, but what are these? And how will they be “advanced”?
Another glaring deficit is the Schedule of Services, Exhibit B in the RFP. The page is blank. There is no schedule! I suppose this means the consultant is supposed to “fill in the blanks”, but surely the City has some objectives that are time sensitive. For example, we know the RFP is for 3 years with 2 one-year extensions. We know they’d like to have the traffic counts sometime “in the Fall of 2014”. And we know that the inventory must be completed “within 4 months of award of contract”. Other than these hints, all the rest of the objectives are sitting out there with no apparent deliverable dates. Yet anyone who has ever managed a project knows that the relationship between the parts is crucial, and many objectives are interdependent, so having objectives with time deadlines (and even penalties for non-compliance) are commonplace for most effective managers.
These are just a few of the problems in the RFP. Of course everyone wants more effective traffic signals and of course we’re delighted that the City is still pursuing this goal. But it’s hard to be confident when the report has so many vagaries, so little coordination with other aspects of traffic management, and doesn’t seem to know what the current status is of such an important issue.
