The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNB 08 SIGNAL INVESTIGATION WALNUT AND FRANKLINDATE: TO FROM: NEW BUSINESS • �a • No. 8 � ) 4-7-80 APRIL 1, 1980 DAN BLANKENSHIP, CITY ADMINISTRATOR NORMAN HOWER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL INVESTIGATION AT WALNUT AVENUE AND FRANKLIN AVENUE A traffic signal investigation has been conducted at the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Franklin Avenue in the Irvine Industrial Complex as requested in the attached letter from the Linwilco Laboratories at 2832 Dow Avenue. This intersection is in approximately the center of the complex and handles not only through traffic, but also traffic circulating within the center itself and has a high afternoon -evening peak period corresponding to the release of workers from the local industries. Walnut Avenue is a Primary Arterial on the Arterial Highway System and the inter- section with Franklin is fully improved. Visibility is very good in all directions. Walnut is speed zoned for 45 MPH with Franklin zoned 40 MPH for southbound and 35 MPH for northbound. Franklin is now stopped for Walnut Avenue. This intersection has met the State Traffic Signal Warrants for Minimum Vehicular Volume (Warrant 1) and Accident Experience (Warrant 6). The intersection had 7 accidents in the 12 months between April 1, 1979 and March 31, 1980 that could possibly be corrected by signals (right angle accidents). Most of these accidents occurred in off-peak peiods and usually the comment of the driver on Franklin was that the vehicle on Walnut was not seen even though visibility is very good. Observation of the intersection during the evening peak has shown difficulty in entering onto Walnut from Franklin with considerable backup resulting on Franklin at times. At the time Walnut Avenue is opened beyond Myford Road it is anticipated that there will be an increase in traffic on Walnut with a possible slight decrease for southbound Franklin. But, in all probability, the peak period problem and accident problem will remain the same or increase. The decrease would result from through traffic that now takes the Franklin -Michelle - old Myford route transferring to Walnut. It is anticipated that there will be an increase in traffic in the future on all approaches to this intersection. It is recommended that traffic signals be installed at the Walnut Avenue and Franklin Avenue intersection and be included in the 1980-81 budget. Estimated cost of installation would be approximately $55,000. This signal would be inter- connected with the future signals at the Walnut -Jamboree and Walnut-Myford inter- sections. Attached are Signal Warrants, Intersection Volumes and Letter of Request. Norman Hower Traffic Engineer RECEIVED MAR 24 1980 PHARMAC UTICA ANUFCTURERS cus M R LAE TUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. BY 2832 DOW AVENUE . TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 • AREA CODE 714/832-9700 March 21, 1980 Bob Ledindecker City Engineer 300 Centenial Way Tustin, Ca. 92680 Dear Mr. Ledindecker, Before a serious accident occurs, please install an electric signal at the intersection of Walnut and Franklin. Traffic has increased so much in the past year, due to the expansion of the Tustin -Irvine Industrial Complex, that numerous close calls have taken place. This intersection is a definite hazard. Sincerely, 77- 0 0 94 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 12-1979 Figure 9-1A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC N. HOWER DATE 3/31/80 CHK DATE oI ST CO RTE OM Major St: WALNUT AVENUE Critical Approach Speed 45 mph Minor St: FRANKLIN AVENUE Critical Approach Speed 35-40 mph Critical speed of major street traffic 1 40 mph --------- In built up area of isolated community of < 10.000 pop. -------- � RURAL (R) ❑ URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume NOTE: Heavier of left furn movement from Major Street included when LT -phasing is proposed ❑ WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS fi00 1]__480)1161 43720 100% SATISFIED Yes 1000/ SATISFIED Yes ® No ❑ I MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IYes Q No ] 190: SHOWN IN BRACKETS) R q/R SATISFIED Yes ❑ No ❑ U R U R 0 I c 0 0 0 or E I I 0 0+ 00 0 0 I 0 0 I 0 0 I 00 •• •• 0 0 . .. 0 00 0 0 /00 /00 1 2 or mora APPROACH .. .. �--I N N o .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. •• Hour LANES 1070 630 555 m 595 N M 590 495 both AOprch5. 500 350 600 420 Major Street 14001 12801 I4801 13361 630 555 780 595 485 615 590 495 1 Highest Apprc 150 los 200 140 155 245 265 175 185 380 375 340 NOTE: HOBvle/ of left turn movement horn Major Street incluYed Minor Street ' 11201 (94) 1160) (112) Yes ❑ No in MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 800/, SATISFIED Yes ❑ No EI 190'4 SHOWN IN BRACKE TB) NOTE: Heavier of left furn movement from Major Street included when LT -phasing is proposed ❑ WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Both Apprehe. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS fi00 1]__480)1161 43720 100% SATISFIED Yes ❑ NO El (809 SHOWN IN BRACKETS) I I 80%SATiI%FIEQ IYes Q No ] U R U R CD 00 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 1 2 or more APPROACH •• •• •• O •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• Hour LANESln Pod's On Highest Volum 150 105 Both Apprchs. 750 525900 630 1070 630 555 780 595 615 590 495 Major Street , 16001 (420) nem 15041 Highest Approtl 75 53 too 70 105 155 245 265 175 380 375 345 1 MinorStreet' (60) 1421 (801 1561 NOTE: HOBvle/ of left turn movement horn Major Street incluYed when LT -phasing is proposed ❑ WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100°/ SATISFIED Yes ❑ No in MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 800/, SATISFIED Yes ❑ No EI 190'4 SHOWN IN BRACKE TB) U I R / / / / / / / Hour Both Apprehe. Mad fi00 1]__480)1161 43720 N/E 1t S/W 1t Yes ❑ No ❑ Major Street volume 70sW 1000 700 Median 9o0 560 Pod's On Highest Volum 150 105 X -Walk Xi or Street Ma' 1120 (641 IF MIDBLOCK SIGNAL PROPOSED U MIN. REQUIREMENTDISTANCC TO NEAREST ESTABL16NE0 CR WLK. iUL FILLED 150 Feet N/E 1t S/W 1t Yes ❑ No ❑ WARRANT 4 - School Crossings Not Applicable El See School Crossings Warrant Sheet ❑ TS -10A i� Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-5 12-1979 Figure 9-1B TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 5 — Progressive Movement Satisfied Yes ® No ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS WARRANT DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED 1000 ft N --- , S --- it, E --- ft, W ft I YES® No ❑ ON ISOLAIED ONE WAY ST. OR ST. WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING A SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST WARRANT 2_ - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TFC ON 2 -WAY Si WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS 00 NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING A ® ❑ SPEED CONTROL. PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM NO C] WARRANT 6 — Accident Experience Satisfied Yes ® No ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT FULFILLED FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT I - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME_ X_ 80% 3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME I VES❑ NO ❑ _ _ _ _ _ _ DURING TYPICAL Yf�CRpaY PEANHC SATISFIED WARRANT 2_ - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TFC BO /R YIR YES ® NO C] WARRANT 3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME BOOYEN/MR -------1-L-i------------------ SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ® ❑ ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACC. FRED. ® ❑ ACC WITHIN A 12 MON. PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF COPR. A INVOLVING INJURY OR: S200DAMAGE VES® - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS VEH/HR 5 OR MORE • % ® ❑ NOTE: Lett tum aeutlent5 can be included when LT -phasing i5 proposed WARRANT 7 — Systems Warrant Satisfied Yes ❑ No EI MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED J FULFILLED REQUIREMENT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC 80% 3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME I VES❑ NO ❑ DURING TYPICAL Yf�CRpaY PEANHC /R YIR X BOOYEN/MR -------1-L-i------------------ DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HAS OF A SATURDAY AND/OR SUNDAY VES® NO ❑ VEH/HR CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR 9T MINOR ST PART OF HWY SYSTEM SERVINGAS PRINCIPLE NETWORNFOR THROUGH TFC X ------------------------------ CO--- AREAS OF PRINCIPLE TR-- GENERATION ---- X ---- RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY X HASSURFACE STREET E%PWAY RAMP TERMINALS --- ------------- ------------ - - - - -- APPEAR! AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AM Of II CIAL PLAN - -- X - -- ❑ ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STS. WARRANT B — Combination of Warrants !used II YIO Dns warrant satisfied tao%l Sat fat ied Yes ❑ No ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT 1,U11 FULFILLED TWO WARRANT! SATISFIED I - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC 80% 3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME I VES❑ NO ❑ The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for signals. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown. All E.B. W. B. TIME WALNUT WALNUT INTERSECTION VOLUMES WALNUT AVENUE & FRANKLIN AVENO TOTAL N.B. S.B. INTERSECTION WALNUT FRANKLIN FRANKLIN TOTAL FRANKLIN TOTAL 12:00- 1:00 AM 15 30 45 0 60 60 105 1:00- 2:00 5 10 15 0 10 10 25 2:00- 3:00 0 10 10 0 10 10 20 3:00- 4:00 5 0 5 0 5 5 10 4:00- 5:00 15 0 15 0 0 0 15 5:00- 6:00 95 20 115 0 5 5 120 6:00- 7:00 740 50 790 25 65 90 880 7:00- 8:00 960 110 1070 50 105 155 1225 8:00- 9:00 470 160 630 60 155 215 845 9:00-10:00 245 140 385 110 120 230 615 10:00-11:00 220 120 340 120 115 235 575 11:00-12:00 315 240 555 215 245 460 1015 12:00- 1:00 PM 500 280 780 265 245 510 1290 1:00- 2:00 435 160 595 175 160 335 930 2:00- 3:00 325 160 485 185 135 320 805 3:00- 4:00 325 290 615 185 380 565 1180 4:00- 5:00 230 360 590 315 375 690 1280 5:00- 6:00 175 320 495 205 340 545 1040 6:00- 7:00 105 140 245 80 130 210 455 7:00- 8:00 90 70 160 45 60 105 265 8:00- 9:00 70 30 100 10 45 55 155 9:00-10:00 55 50 105 15 25 40 145 10:00-11:00 45 20 65 10 40 50 115 11:00-12:00 35 30 65 5 40 45 110 TOTAL 5475 2800 8275 2075 2870 4945 13220