01-17-2006 - Traffic Committee Minutes - 12/20/05•
TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager
and City Council
FROM: Shannon A. Yauchzee, Director/City Engineer
Public Works Department
� ti 1 �1 7\:�11 TraZK�]�� i_►l� Y W YDI DeaI t av— M W
RECOMMENDATION:
•City of West Covina
Memorandum
AGENDA
ITEM NO. D-4
DATE January 17, 2006
It is recommended that the City Council accept and file the attached minutes of the Traffic
Committee meeting held on December 20, 2005.
Prep: by: Miguel Hernandez
Civil Engineering Associate
Attachment No. 1
)
I / .
Reviewed/Approved by: Shannon A. Yauchzee
Director/City Engineer
ZAAGENDA - 2005\Traffic Committee Minutes December 20.doc
•
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE
CITY OF WEST COVINA
Tuesday 3:00 p.m.
December 20, 2005 City Hall, Room 314
Management Resource Center
STAFF PRESENT: Miguel Hernandez, Shannon A. Yauchzee, and
Sergeant Frank Harden
OTHERS PRESENT: Anjali Sharma, West Covina Resident
Ed Scheidler, West Covina Resident
Gerald Graham, West Covina Resident
Shirish Sharma, West Covina Resident
I. REQUEST:
Gerald Graham, West Covina Resident'
Ed Scheidler, West Covina Resident
REVIEW WARRANTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL
ALONG PACIFIC AVENUE FROM THE NORTHWESTERLY CITY LIMITS
TO CAMERON AVENUE AND THE INSTALLATION OF PAINTED
CROSSWALK.
FINDINGS:
At the Traffic Committee meeting held on September 20, 2005, Mr. Ed Scheidler and Mr.
Gerald Graham submitted a report analyzing traffic volume and speed data. In their
report they outlined the effects of installed traffic control devices on vehicle speeds.
They also requested that the installation of a traffic signal and/or marked crosswalks be
considered along Pacific Avenue to further reduce vehicle speeds, provide safe access
from the side streets, and to improve pedestrian safety.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL ANALYSIS:
Traffic signals are installed to provide an orderly movement of traffic, to increase
capacity of intersection, to reduce frequency and severity of certain types of accidents,
especially right-angle collisions, to coordinate the continuous traffic flow at a defined
speed and to interrupt heavy traffic flow to allow other traffic to cross.
To justify the installation of a traffic signal, the location must meet certain criteria or
warrants. The "Uniform Traffic Control Device Manual" (MUTCD) is the traffic control
guide by U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration
(FHA). The manual lists eight warrants for traffic signal installation, where at least one
of which must be met to justify the installation. These are:
1. 8-Hour Vehicular Volume
2. 4-Hour Vehicular Volume
3. Peak Hour
4. Pedestrian Volume
5. School Crossing
6. Coordinated Signal System
7. Crash Warrant
8. Roadway Network
ZATRAFFIC COMMITTEE - 2005\Dec TC 2005 Minutes.doc 1
Traffic. signals do not always prevent collisions. In many instances, the frequency of
rear -end and sideswipe collisions increases when signals are installed. Right-angle and
left -turn collisions usually decrease. It should be noted that due to the low volumes on
the minor streets, the traffic signal would rest on green on the major street approaches for
a majority of the time until the vehicle detectors are tripped on the minor streets.
Additionally, the installation of a traffic signal often increases traffic on that minor street
leading to the irritation of the local residents. The estimated cost is about $180,000.
The traffic signal warrants were applied to three intersections: 1) Pacific Avenue and
Willow, 2) Pacific Avenue and Leland Avenue, and 3) Pacific Avenue and Bromley
Avenue, and found that none of the warrants were met (see attached)..
CROSSWALKS:
Mr. Ed Scheidler and Mr. Gerald Graham have requested that a marked crosswalk be
installed along Pacific Avenue. Staff conducted pedestrian counts along Pacific Avenue
during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours and found only one person during each of the peak
hours that crossed Pacific Avenue. Attached is the City's Marked Crosswalk Warrant,
which was not satisfied.
Pacific Avenue is a 60-foot wide arterial street with two lanes of travel and one parking
lane in each direction. Arterial streets are typically multi -lane roadways serving
commercial and residential land uses. Pacific .Avenue is considered a major carrier of
traffic through the City and neighboring jurisdictions that connects some San Gabriel
Valley streets to the State freeway system.
The California Vehicle Code (CVC) defines a crosswalk as:
(a) That part of the roadway at an intersection included within the
connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the
highway measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the
edges of the traversable roadway; and in absence of sidewalk on one side
of the roadway, the part of the roadway included within the extension of
the lateral lines of the existing sidewalk at right angles to the centerline.
(b) Any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly
indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the
surface.
In other words, legal crosswalks exist at all public intersections where there is a sidewalk
on at least one side of the street.
Marked crosswalks are used by local authorities to direct pedestrians to the safest and
most direct route across the street. Engineers also use marked crosswalks to channel
pedestrians along a desired path to obtain the most efficient traffic signal timing.
In considering the installation of a marked crosswalk on a major arterial, the main issue
that needs to be addressed is getting the pedestrian safely across the street. A 1972 San
Diego study found that there was an increased incidence of pedestrian collisions in
marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks. It was determined that the
marked crosswalk gave the pedestrians a false sense of security when crossing the street.
The FHA, in their February 2002 "Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalk at
Uncontrolled Location: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines", analyzed
the overall safety effects of marked crosswalks taking into account number of lanes,
traffic volumes, and other roadway features. They concluded that under no condition was
the presence of a marked crosswalk alone at an un-controlled location associated with
significantly lower pedestrian collisions compared to an unmarked crosswalk.
Furthermore, the study indicated that on multi -lane and high speed crossing locations,
more substantial improvements are needed for safer pedestrian crossing, such as raised
medians, installing traffic signals when warranted, implementing speed reducing
measures, and other practices.
ZATRAFFIC COMMITTEE - 2005\Dec TC 2005 Minutes.doc 2
r
If a marked crosswalk would be installed on Pacific Avenue, the design would include
the installation of a raised median, which would eliminate most of the on -street parking.
The median would decrease the distance the pedestrian would travel and contend with
-one direction of traffic at a time. The median would serve as a safe haven while waiting
for an appropriate gap to continue across the street. Staff would also recommend
additional warning devices, such as in -pavement flashing strobes. The estimated
construction cost is about $100,000.
SCHOOL CROSSWALK
Based on the City's Suggested Safe Route to School, there is no official school crossing
on Pacific Avenue (see attached maps). Staff observed one child being dropped off on
the south side of Pacific Avenue at Willow Avenue and being picked up on the same side
without having to cross the street. Based on information provided by the West Covina
Unified School District, there are two school bus stops on Pacific Avenue; one at
Bromley Avenue to service the students on the north -.side of Pacific Avenue and the other
at Willow Avenue that service students on the south -side of Pacific Avenue.
TRAFFIC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS:
THAT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL OR CROSSWALK NOT BE INSTALLED ON
PACIFIC AVENUE AT THIS TIME.
THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CONTINUE SPEED AND TRUCK ROUTE
ENFORCEMENT AND CONDUCT FUTURE LANE INSPECTIONS.
THAT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PURCHASE A SOLAR SPEED
FEEDBACK SIGN TO BE USED AT THIS AND OTHER LOCATIONS FROM
PROJECT TP-05505 (124.85.8533.7800) FOR AN APPROXIMATE COST OF
$10,000.
ZATRAFFIC COMMITTEE - 2005\Dec TC 2005 Minutes.doc 3
•
•
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Sheet 1 of 4)
CALC MH DATE 12/04/05
DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE
Major St: Pacific Avenue Critical Approach Speed 47 mph
Minor St: Bromley Avenue Critical Approach Speed mph
Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h - 40 mph- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -® }
OR RURAL (R)
in built tip area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ❑ URBAN (U)
WARRANT 1— Eight Hour Vehicular Volume
Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume
I
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO JZ
80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
MINIMIJM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS
0700 1200 1 1300 1400 1 1500 1600 1700 1800
U R
U I R
Approach Lanes
1
2 or more
Both Approaches.
Major Street
500
(400
350
(280)
600
(480)
420
(336)
886
938
1018
1059
1232
1295
1495
1396
Highest Approach.
Minor Street
150
(120)
105
(84)
200
(160)
140
(112)
27
14
11
15
20
23
18
12
Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS
U I R
U R
Approach Lanes
1
2 or more
0700
Both Approaches.
Major Street
750
(600)
525
(420)
900
(720)
630
(504)
886
Highest Approach.
Minor Street
.75
(601
53
(42)
100
(90)
70
(56)
27
Combination of Conditions A & B -
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
1200
1 1300
1400
1 1500
1 1600
1 1700
1 1800
938
1018
1059
1232
1295
1495
1396
14
11
15
20
23
18
12
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
REQUIREMENT
WARRANT
FULFILLED
TWO WARRANTS
SATISFIED 80%
LMINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
YES ❑ NO
2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
c:msoffice\word\files\traffic\traffie.sig 2-a
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Sheet 2 of 4)
WARRANT 2- Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
Record hourly volumes for four hours
Approach Lanes
One
2 or
More
0700
1500
1600
1700
Both Approaches — Major Street
X
886
1232
1295
1495
—Highest Approaches - Minor Street
X
27
20
23
18
All plotted points fall above the curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-1 or 4C-2 YES ❑ NO
WARRANT 3.- Peak Hour PARTS A OR PART B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑
PART A SATISFIED YES ❑ NOP�
(All parts 1,2 and 3 below must be satisfied)
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a
STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and five
vehicle -hours for a two-lane approach; AND YES ❑ NO
2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for
one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND YES ❑ NO
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph
for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with
three approaches. YES ® NO 0
PART B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO�
Approach Lanes
One
2 or
More
0700
1500
1600
1700
Both Approaches _ Maior Street
X
886
1232
1295
1495
Highest Approaches - Minor Street
X
27
20
23
18
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour
higher volume vehicle minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute
period) fall above the applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4.
c:msoft ice\word\fi les\tra fl ic\traffic.sig 2- b
a
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Sheet 3 of 4)
CALC MH DATE
DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE
Major St: Pacific Avenue Critical Approach Speed 47 mph
Minor St: Bromley Avenue Critical Approach Speed mph
Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h - 40 mph -------------------
OR RURAL (R)
in built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ❑ URBAN (U)
WARRANT 4 — Pedestrian Volume
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
0600
1500
1600
1 1700
Pedestrian Volume
1
0
0
0
Adequate Crossing Gap
60
-
-
-
AND, The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater
than 90m (300)
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
Any hour > 190
OR 4 hours > 100
And < 60 gap/hr
YES ❑ NO
YES ❑ NO
YES ❑ NO ED
YES ® NO ❑
AND, The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow in
The major street ----------------------- YES ® NO ❑
WARRANT 5 - School Crossing SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
Part A
Gan/Minutes and # of Children
Each of Two Hours
Gaps
vs
Minutes
Minutes Childern
Using Crossing
Number of
Adequate gaps
School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street
Part B
Distance to Nearest Controlled Crossing
Is Nearest Controlled Crossing More than 180m (600 ft) away?
Gaps < YES ❑ NO ❑
Minutes
Children > YES ❑ NO ❑
20/hr
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
c:msoffice\word\files\traM61raffic.sig 2-c
s
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Sheet 4 of 4)
WARRANT 6 — Coordinated Signal System SATISFIED YES ❑ NO b�
(Ail Parts Must Be Satisfied)
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED
> 1000 FT +9-00FT to Cameron Avenue YES ❑ NO
On one way isolated streets or streets with one way traffic significance and adjacent signals are so far apart that
necessary platooning and speed control would be lost
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2-way streets where adjacent signals do not provide necessary platooning and speed control proposed
signals could constitute a progressive signal system YES ® NO ❑
WARRANT 7 — Crash Warrant
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ED
REQUIREMENTS
WARRANT
✓
FULFILLED
ONE WARRANT
WARRANT I - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATISFIED
----------------------------------- -------------- --------
80%
OR
WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
YES ❑ NO
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW
❑
ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY
❑
❑
ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF COR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR > /$500 DAMAGE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
one rear end
5 OR MORE 1 ( 1 hear End)
❑
WARRANT 8 — Roadway Network
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED
REQUIREMENT
DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR 1,880 VEH/HR
1000 VEH/HR --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR
DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS, OF A SAT. AND/OR SUN. 3600 VEH/HR
YES ❑ NO
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST.
HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC Yes No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY Yes No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL, PLAN Yes No
ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET,BOTH STREETS YES ❑ NO
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the
need for assignment must be shown.
c:msoffice\word\files\traffic\traffic.sig 2—d
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Sheet 1 of 4)
CALC MH DATE 12/04/05
DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE
Major St: Pacific Avenue Critical Approach Speed 47 mph
Minor St: Leland avenue Critical Approach Speed mph
Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h - 40 mph- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -® )
OR RURAL (R)
in built tip area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ❑ URBAN (U)
WARRANT 1— Eight Hour Vehicular Volume
Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume
I
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS
0700 0800 1 1400 1500 1 1600 1700 1 1800 1900
U I R
U I R
Approach Lanes
1
2 or more
Both Approaches.
Maior Street
500
(400)
1 350
(280)
600
(480)
420
(336)
886
807
1060
1232
1294
1495
1396
1286
Highest Approach.
Minor Street
150
(120)
105
1 (84)
200
(160)
140
(112)
1 36
18
16
16
22
21
28
16
Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS
U I R
U R
Approach Lanes
1
2 or more
0700
Both Approaches.
Major Street
750
(600)
525
(420)
900
(720)
630
(504)
886
Highest Approach.
Minor Street
75
(601
53
(42)
100
(80)
70
(561
36
Combination of Conditions A & B -
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
0800
1 1700
1500.
1 1600
1 1700
1 1800
1 1900
807
1060
1232
1294
1495
1396
1286
1
18
16
16
22
21
28
16
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
REQUIREMENT
WARRANT
FULFILLED
TWO WARRANTS
SATISFIED 80%
1.MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
YES ❑ NO
2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
c:msoffice\word\fi I es\tra ffic\tra ff ic.sig
2-e
n
Mu I CU 2UUJ Calitomia Supplement
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Sheet 2 of 4)
WARRANT 2- Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
Record hourly volumes for four hours
Approach Lanes
One
')or
More
0700
1600
1700
- 1800
Both Approaches — Major Street
X
886
1294
1495
1396
Highest Approaches - Minor Street
X
36
22
21
28
All plotted points fall above the curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-1 or 4C-2 YES ❑ NO
WARRANT 3 - Peak Hour PARTS A OR PART B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑
PART A SATISFIED YES ❑ NO�
(All parts 1,2 and 3 below must be satisfied)
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a
STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and five
vehicle -hours for a two-lane approach; AND YES ❑ NO
2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for
one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND YES ❑ NO
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph
for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with
three approaches. YES® NO ❑
PART B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO�
Approach Lanes
One
2 or
More
0700
1600
' 1700
1800
Both Approaches — Major Street
X
886
1294
1495
1396
Highest Approaches - Minor Street
X
36
22
21
28
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour
higher volume vehicle minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute
period) fall above the applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4.
c: mso ffice\word\fi les\tra ff i c\traffic.si g 2— f
r
•
•
30
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Sheet 3 of 4)
CALC MH DATE
DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE
Major St: Pacific Avenue Critical Approach Speed 47 mph
Minor St: Leland Avenue Critical Approach Speed mph
Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h - 40 mph- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
OR RURAL (R)
in built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop ------------- - - - - - - - - ❑ URBAN (U)
WARRANT 4 — Pedestrian Volume
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
0600
1500
1700
1800
Pedestrian Volume
1
0
0
0
Adequate Crossing Gap
60
-
-
-
AND, The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater
than 90m (300)
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
Any hour > 190
OR 4 hours > 100
And < 60 gap/hr
YES ❑ NO
YES ❑ NO
YES ❑ NO
YES ® NO ❑
AND, The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow in
The major street ----------------------- YES ® NO ❑
WARRANT 5 — School Crossing SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
(.ill Parts Must Be Satisfied)
Part A
Gap/Minutes and # of Children
Each of Two Hours
Gaps
vs
Minutes
Minutes Childern
Using Crossing
Number of
Adequate gaps
School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street
Part B
Distance to Nearest Controlled Crossing
Is Nearest Controlled Crossing More than 180m (600 ft) away?
Gaps < YES ❑ NO ❑
Minutes
Children > YES ❑ NO ❑
20/hr
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
c: mso ffice\word\files\traffic\tra ffic.sig 2 —g
0
MUTCD 2003 Califomia Supplement
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Sheet 4 of 4)
WARRANT 6 - Coordinated Signal System
(Au rarts iviust tie Natisned
SATISFIED YES ® NO n
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED
> 1000 FT 1200 FT to Cameron Avenue YES ® NO ❑
On one way isolated streets or streets with one way traffic significance and adjacent signals are so far apart that
necessary platooning and speed control would be lost
----------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2-way streets where adjacent signals do not provide necessary platooning and speed control proposed
signals could constitute a progressive signal system YES ®NO ❑
WARRANT 7 - Crash Warrant
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
REQUIREMENTS
WARRANT
✓
FULFILLED
ONE WARRANT
WARRANT I -MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATISFIED--
------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --
80%
OR.
WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
YES ❑ NO
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW
❑
ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY
❑
❑
ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF COR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR > /$500 DAMAGE.
--------------------------------------,
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7---------------- 7-----------------------------------------
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
one rear end
5 OR MORE 3 (1 Vehicle/Ped, 1 Rear End, & 1 Ran -off Road)
❑
WARRANT 8 Roadway Network
SATISFIED. YES ❑ NO
MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED
REQUIREMENT
DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR 1,880 VEH/HR
1000 VEH/HR --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
OR
DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS. OF A SAT. AND/OR SUN. 3600 VEH/HR
YES ❑ NO
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST.
HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC Yes No
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY Yes No
------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN Yes No
ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET,BOTH STREETS YES ❑ NO
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the
need for assignment must be shown.
c: msoffice\word\files\traffic\traft ie.sig 2 - h
t
9
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Sheet 1 of 4)
CALC MH DATE 12/04/05
DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE
Major St: Pacific Avenue Critical Approach Speed 47 mph
Minor St: Willow avenue Critical Approach Speed mph
Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h - 40 mph- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -® )
OR RURAL (R)
in built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ❑ URBAN (U)
WARRANT 1— Eight Hour Vehicular Volume
Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume
I
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS
0600 1400 1 1500 1600 1 1700 1800 1 1900 2000
U R
U I R
Approach Lanes
I
2 or more
Both Approaches.
Major Street
500
(400)
350
(280)
600
(480)
420
(336)
1028
1059
1232
1294
1495
1396
1286
1001
Highest Approach.
Minor Street
150
(120)
105
(84)
200
(160)
140
(112)
64
37
56
50
54
56
37
38
Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
N41NIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS
U I R
U R
Approach Lanes.
1
2 or more
0600
Both Approaches.
Major Street
750
(600)
525
(420)
900
(720)
630
(504)
1028
Highest Approach.
Minor Street
75
(60)
53
(42)
100
(80)
70
(56)
64
Combination of Conditions A & B -
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
1400
1 1500
1600
1 1700
1 1800
1 1900
1 2000
1059
1232
1294
1495
1396
1286
1001
37
56
50
54
56
37
138
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
REQUIREMENT
WARRANT
FULFILLED
TWO WARRANTS
SATISFIED 80%
1.MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
YES ❑ NO
2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
c: niso ffice\word\Files\traffic\traffic.sig
2-i
MU I CU 2003 Califomia Supplement
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Sheet 2 of 4)
WARRANT 2- Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
Record hourly volumes for four hours
Approach Lanes
One
2 or
More
0600
1500
1700
1800
Both Approaches — Major Street
X
1028
1232
1495
1396
Highest Approaches - Minor Street
X
64
56
54
56
All plotted points fall above the curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-1 or 4C-2
YES ❑ NO
WARRANT 3 - Peak Hour PARTS A OR PART B SATISFIED
YES ❑ NO ❑
PART A SATISFIED
YES ❑ NO�
(All parts 1,2 and 3 below must be satisfied)
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a
STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and five
vehicle -hours for a two-lane approach; AND
YES ❑ NO
2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for
one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND
YES ❑ NO
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph
for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with
three approaches.
YES ® NO ❑
PART B
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
Approach Lanes
One
2 or
More
0600
1500
1700
1800
Both Approaches — Major Street
X
1028
1232
1495
1396
Highest Approaches - Minor Street
X
64
56
54
56
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour
higher volume vehicle minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute
period) fall above the applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C4.
c:msoffice\word\files\traffi6traffic.sig 2- j
a
3
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Sheet 3 of 4)
CALC MH DATE
DIST CO RTF PM CHK DATE
Major St: Pacific Avenue Critical Approach Speed 47 mph
Minor St: Willow Avenue Critical Approach Speed mph
Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h - 40 mph -------------------
OR RURAL (R)
in built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ❑ URBAN (U)
WARRANT 4 — Pedestrian Volume
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
0600
1500
1700
1 1800
Pedestrian Volume
1
0
0
0
Adequate Crossing Gap
60
-
-
-
AND, The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater
than 90m (300)
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
Any hour > 190
OR 4 hours > 100
And < 60 gap/hr
YES ❑ NO
YES ❑ NO
YES ❑ NO
- YES ® NO ❑
AND, The new traffic; signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow in
The major street ----------------------- YES ® NO ❑
WARRANT 5 — School Crossing SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
Part A
GaD/Minutes and # of Children
Each of Two Hours
Gaps
vs
Minutes
Minutes Childern
Using Crossing
Number of
Adequate gaps
School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street
Part B
Distance to Nearest Controlled Crossing
Is Nearest Controlled Crossing More than 180m (600 ft) away?
Gaps < YES ❑ NO ❑
Minutes
Children > YES ❑ NO ❑
20/hr
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
c: msoMce\word\fi les\traffic\traffic.sig 2 - k
0
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET (Sheet 4 of 4)
WARRANT 6 — Coordinated Signal System SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS . DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED
> 1000 FT 530 FT to Cameron Avenue YES ❑ NO
On one way isolated streets or streets with one way traffic significance and adjacent signals are so far apart that
necessary platooning and speed control would be lost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 2-way streets where adjacent signals do not provide necessary platooning and speed control proposed
signals could constitute a progressive signal system YES ® NO ❑
WARRANT 7 — Crash Warrant
SATISFIED YES ❑ . NO
REQUIREMENTS
WARRANT
✓
FULFILLED
ONE WARRANT
WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATISFIED---------------------------------------------------
--
80%
OR
WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
YES ❑ NO
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW
❑
ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY
❑
❑
ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF COR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR>/S500 DAMAGE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
one rear end
5 OR MORE NONE
❑
WARRANT 8 — Roadway Network
MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES
REQUIREMENT
DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR 1,880 VEH/HR
1000 VEH/HR -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR
DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS. OF A SAT. AND/OR SUN. 3600 VEH/HR
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST.
HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY . Yes'
-------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ---
APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN Yes
ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET,BOTH STREETS
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
MINOR ST.
No
No
No
FULFILLED
YES ❑ NO
YES ❑ NO
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the
need for assignment must be shown.
c: msol'ticc\word\files\traffic\traffic.sig 2—
0
MARKED CROSSWALK WARRANT
Date of Study: 1-1 300T_
Location: A.-W., afE-,
A. GAP TIME WARRANT
1. Criterion
Point Assignment
Average number of
gaps per 5 minute
period Points
The number of unimpeded vehicle 0
time gaps equal to or exceeding 1-1.99
the required pedestrian crossing 2-2.99
time in an average five minute 3-3.99
period during the peak vehicle 4-4.99
hour. 5 or over
2. Pedestrian Crossinq Time:
Width of Street = ('00 = sec.
4 feet per second 4
3. Average Number of Gaps Per Five Minute Period:
Total Usable Gap Time in Sec.
Ped Crossing Time x 12 periods
4. Total Points for Warrant S
Provisions
a. The above criterion is based on a one -hour field
survey consisting of 12 five-minute samples.
b. All roadways having a raised median or a painted
median (4-foot minimum width) will be considered
as two separate roadways.
B. PEDESTRIAN VOLUME WARRANT
1. Criterion
10
8
6
4
2
0
Point Assignment
Pedestrian Total Points
The total number of pedestrians 0-30 1
crossing the street under study 31-60 2
during the peak vehicle hour. 61-90 3
This includes pedestrians in 91-120 4
both crosswalks at an intersection. Over 120 5
2. One Hour Pedestrian Volume
3. Total Points for Warrant
2-m
7
C. APPROACH SPEED WARRANT
1. Criterion
The vehicular approach speed
from both directions of travel
as determined by the investigat-
ing engineer through speed study
techniques
Point Assignment
Approach Speed Points
r
Under 20 MPH 0
20-29.9. 3
30-39.9 5
40-49.9 3
50-59.9 1
60 or ' over 0
2. Critical Approach Speed Yhp-
3. Total Points for Warrant _
D. GENERAL CONDITIONS WARRANT
1. Criterion
Those conditions affecting the
movement of pedestrian traffic
other than gap time, pedestrian
volumes, and vehicular approach
speed. Consideration should be
given to intersection layout,
pedestrian accident history,
vehicle turning movements
adjacent grounds and buildings,
and pedestrian generators.
2. Total Points for Warrant
E. POINT EVALUATION
Point Assignment
General Condi-
tions Points
Values assigned 0-5
according to
engineering
judgment.
1. Total Points for Warrants A., B.,.C., and D.
2. The minimum warrant for the installation of a marked
crosswalk is satisfied when a location rates 15 or
more points
Met Not
Met
NOTE: On streets which have medians, the critical half -street
section shall prevail.
2-n
LEGEND
TRAFFIC SIGNALS -----------
•SCHOOL BUS STOP---------- ❑
SCHOOL BOUNDARY ------- -•-
RECOMMENDED ROUTE ----
i
0
CH
ETNEY DF
Q I
J
o SWANEE LN.
HOWELL- Q
HURST Da. i
C t�
yFL J
0
J
J
0
NEE
Q
Z
051
Q
PACIFIC L
A
MONTE VISTA
/,, SCHOOL /.
DR.
DR.
ST
Q
z
DENN
z
AVE c�
z
-J HARBERT ST.
It) ROWLAND o !�
DEL NORTE a
aQ
d PACK
w
DEL NORTE
SCHOOL
rZ
WL
U`