That should be a very simple question to answer if you live or work nearby, or travel through that intersection daily or frequently.
This is not a new issue and I have written about it before.
But it has come up again recently because we are still in the comment period for Appendix D of the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project's Environmental Impact Report.
Appendix D was mandated because of the College Administration's application to offer Bachelors' Degrees at the school and having the College become a four-year institution.
The Appendix was also mandated because of two new proposals for the large athletic field being constructed at the Palos Verdes Drive East campus.
During a recent R.P.V. City Council meeting where the members received comments concerning the Appendix, I spoke.
I requested that the city and the college jointly fund a study dealing with whether the nearby residents, business owners and frequent travelers through the intersection really wanted to have the intersection signalized.
For several years, the "LOS" of Level of Service associated with the intersection has been an "F", which means that there is so much traffic using the intersection that it is one of the heaviest used intersections in our city and the surrounding area.
Traffic studies, along with the proposed college expansion project have found that placing traffic signals with pedestrian crossing signs is 'warranted' and lights and signs should be placed at the intersection.
There is also very strong evidence that residents who have to use the intersection on a daily basis and others who use the intersection frequently have absolutely no use for or wish to have traffic signalization at the intersection.
A great many number of us who are so very familiar with driving through that intersection have adjusted well to learning to negotiate the intersection even at its busiest hours.
Traffic is at its greatest numbers and congestion is at its worst during just two periods during only weekdays.
Since Marymount traffic uses the intersection in the mornings and afternoons, and we all see the traffic for Miraleste Intermediate School utilize the intersection during the same period, added with construction traffic and traffic to and from other local elementary schools, there are really only two groups of minutes during the weekday when the intersection is at its worst.
I don't even feel it is fair to consider that the worst periods for the intersection are hours long, to begin with.
Miraleste Intermediate School's classes begin at 8:10 in the morning and the greatest numbers of cars heading to and from the school do so during a rather short period of time. It appears that from about 7:40 AM to about 8:15 AM, we find congestion at its worst, through the intersection.
There is usually a traffic control officer at the intersection where the school driveway meets Palos Verdes Drive East, before classes begin and after the school day ends.
Likewise, there is a great deal of congestion at both intersections, for a short period of time in the afternoon when schools let out their students.
So in essence, the most congestion at the intersection of Miraleste and Palos Verdes Drive East lasts about 40 minutes in the AM and then in the PM, but again, only during weekdays when Miraleste Intermediate School is holding classes.
Signalizing an intersection can cost in the neighborhood of $285,000. To many, that is a staggering amount of money.
It could probably cost more than that for the intersection in question because of the large distance between the eastbound lane and westbound lane of Miraleste Drive.
The intersection is not a mere three-way or four-way intersection. It is more complicated with the area in the middle of Miraleste Drive and the proximity of the intersection just south of it that flows towards the shopping plaza and fire station.
I think it is a fair request to have a study done to find out if the folks who use the intersection the most really want traffic signals placed at the intersection, especially if they are to be used 24 hours each day.
I have also written about my safety concerns with having humans, particularly students who attend Miraleste Intermediate School, attempting to cross Miraleste Drive during one signal cycle. I feel the gap between lanes along Miraleste causes a real problem for pedestrian safety if they wish to cross during only one cycle.
I also don't feel that cyclists who go through the intersection from Miraleste Drive south onto Palos Verdes Drive East would appreciate having to deal with signals that they would probably ignore in the first place.
The conditions placed on Marymount by the city with regards to a traffic signal state that the expansion project offer funds to support the placement of traffic signals at the intersection.
Lawyers for the college and its expansion project claim that they would help with the funding, but they also contend that since the signalization was warranted several years ago, that the traffic signals should have been installed years ago, using city funds only.
I strongly feel that we as citizens who use the intersection and pay property taxes have a right and a responsibility to stand up and state whether we want signals at the intersection.
I hope folks respond to this long post with comments. Your comments offer to others and city government a 'signal' about your feelings about signals at Miraleste and P.V. Drive East.
Even though I feel that a signal system is not wanted by me and so many others, I would appreciate learning why supporters of having signals placed feel and think the way they do.
Whether you want signalization or not, it seems the final decision time is approaching and we all have a right to voice our opinion and be heard by the governors and staff of Rancho Palos Verdes and the administration at Marymount College.
