My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item B: Neighborhood Livability Working Group Report
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2011
>
CC Agenda - 09/14/11 Work Session
>
Item B: Neighborhood Livability Working Group Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/9/2011 2:21:42 PM
Creation date
9/9/2011 1:09:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
9/14/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Neighborhood Livability Working Group <br />Countermeasures for Traffic Sign Vandalism <br /> <br />Problem Description <br />Traffic sign vandalism has become a problem across the country and poses significant costs to local governments <br />responsible for maintaining them. The problem is typically more acute in neighborhoods adjacent to colleges or <br />universities as signs are seen as an attractive part of young adult décor. Costs are not limited to those associated <br />with maintenance and replacement of signs, posts and hardware. While none have been documented in Eugene, <br />accidents caused by traffic sign vandalism have occurred in other communities. Once local entities determine the <br />need for a traffic sign, they have a duty to install and maintain it in a reasonably safe condition. <br /> <br />Strategy Description <br />the following countermeasures be evaluated for their potential to have a positive impact on the problem in the <br />campus area neighborhoods and that those cost-effective elements deemed appropriate to our local context be <br />implemented as resources allow: <br />Consider expanding the use of products and installation techniques that minimize opportunity or make it <br /> <br />more difficult to vandalize a sign. Measures may include increasing sign heights and use of double signs, <br />battens, double supports, theft resistant hardware and anti-twist devices. [The City switched to a more <br />vandal-resistant cantilever bracket for street signs about five years ago and staff is evaluating the use of <br />metal versus wood posts.] <br />Consider changes to local laws to enhance enforcement and prosecution efforts (i.e., increasing penalties <br /> <br />and fines for sign vandalism.) <br />Change public perception about the costs and potential dangers of sign vandalism through aggressive <br /> <br />media campaigns. <br />Consider the use of community volunteers to provide supplemental street name stenciling on sign posts or <br /> <br />curbs. <br /> <br />Costs and Potential Resources <br />Additional funding would be needed to shift to more vandal-resistant materials and installation methods. <br /> <br />Additional staffing would be needed if the objective was to address the backlog of missing street signs. <br /> <br />There is likely to be resistance to providing additional resources towards enforcement and prosecution <br /> <br />given competing priorities and the cost-effectiveness of sign replacement. <br />Costs for a media campaign or recruitment and use of volunteers are considered low. There may be an <br /> <br />opportunity to expand the concept of neighborhood graffiti and litter patrols to include street name <br />stenciling on posts and curbs. <br /> <br />Issues to Consider <br />The city maintains an inventory of all signs (+ 30,000, including 9,810 street name signs). An annual night <br /> <br />time inspection is done to verify existing non-street name signs are in good repair. Any sign not in good <br />condition is replaced. Signs that are dirty or tagged may be cleaned rather than replaced. Currently 2.5 <br />FTE are budgeted for sign maintenance. The annual program cost is $341,268. <br />In addition to the annual inspection, the City keeps records of all reports of missing, damaged or worn out <br /> <br />signs and the actions taken. <br />Existing practice is to replace those signs which most directly impact public safety, like stop or yield signs, <br /> <br />as soon as reports they are missing are made. Staff is available or on call for those most critical signs <br />24/7. Other signs are prioritized and replaced or repaired as staff and resources allow with required <br />regulatory signs taking precedence over directional, advisory and street name signs. <br />Sign replacement work is somewhat seasonal. In the summer, the sign crew focuses on striping and <br /> <br />pavement markings. In March of 2010, 801 signs were cleaned, repaired or replaced. In August of <br />2010, only 128 were done. <br /> <br />29 <br />Page <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.