The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About16 TRAFFIC COND'S 07-19-99AGE NO. 16 7-19-99 DATE' JULY 19, 1999 Inter- TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION STATUS OF TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND POLICE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ON PROSPECT AVENUE NORTH OF IRVINE BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF SEVENTEENTH STREET SLBIMARY Based upon review of the traffic conditions and police enforcement activities on Prospect Avenue north of Irvine Boulevard and south of Seventeenth Street, there is no dangerous condition and a normal level of public safety is being provided on this roadway at this time. RECOMMENDATION Receive and file. Additional recommendations may develop based upon the completion of the accident investigation. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City related to the preparation of this report. BACKGROUND In response to a request from the City Council regarding a recent fatal accident at the intersection of Prospect Avenue/Theodora, staff has researched and prepared data regarding traffic conditions and police enforcement activities on Prospect Avenue north of Irvine Boulevard and south of Seventeenth Street. Information has been provided by the City's Engineering Division, Police Department, CalifomSa Highway Patrol and the Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Department - Traffic Engineering. Prospect Avenue between Irvine Boulevard and Seventeenth Street is constructed and classified as a Secondary Arterial Roadway in the City's General Plan as well as on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The street is a four-lane, undivided roadway with on-street parking allowed along the majority of the subject section. A portion of this section of roadway on Prospect Avenue is shared jurisdiction with the County of Orange as shown on the attached exhibit. The northbound Prospect Avenue roadway between Sherbrook Drive and Arbolada Way is within the County's jurisdiction and the remainder of the Prospect Avenue roadway north of Irvine Boulevard and south of Seventeenth Street is within the City's jurisdiction. DISCUSSION The following provides general information regarding traff~c conditions and police enforcement activities related to the subject section of Prospect Avenue: Status of Traffic Conditions and Police Enforcement Activities on Prospect Avenue July 19, 1999 Page 2 A. Accident History: The following six (6) accidents were reported between April 1997 and June 30, 1999: City of Tustin (per Tustin Police Department): 1. Prospect/Westbury, 4-7-97, non-injury collision. 2. Prospect/Vandenberg, 11-25-98, injury collision. 3. ProspectAMiller, 2-5-99, non-injury collision. 4. Prospect/Amaganset, 6-30-99, injury collision. County of Orange (per California Highway Patrol): 5. Prospect/Wellington, 5-1-98, non-injury collision. 6. Prospect/Theodora, 5-15-98, non-injury collision. Based upon the above accidents the overall accident rate for this segment of Prospect Avenue is 0.78 accidents per million vehicle miles (MVM). This is a very low accident rate when compared to the State's basic expected accident rate of 4.50 accidents/MVM for four-lane undivided roadway facilities. This indicates a very good safety record for this segment of Prospect Avenue. B. Police Enforcement Activities: The Tustin Police Department has provided traffic enforcement on the subject section of Prospect Avenue for the April 1997 to June 30, 1999 time frame, but due to the low number of traffic accidents, it is not a high priority enforcement street. During the 27-month timeframe, police have issued a total of 64 mox~ing violation citations including: Thirty-n/ne for speed, six for right-of-way violations, and nineteen for other miscellaneous violations. The speeding citations ranged from 42 MPH to 62 MPH and the average cited speed was 51.8 _~H. The number of moving violation citations is extremely low for this type of roadway and the traffic volumes. C. Traffic Controls: Traffic signals are located at the intersections of Prospect Avenue/Irvine Boulevard and Prospect Avenue~Seventeenth Street. There are no traffic signals or stop signs on Prospect Avenue between the aforementioned intersections. There is a Pedestrian Warning Beacon that flashes during the school hours at Prospect Avenue~eneta Way and a school crossing guard is posted there to assist in school related crossings. The City's Engineering Division prepared an all-way stop evaluation study of the intersection of Prospect Avenue/Beneta Way in January 1998. The Study ·concluded that neither a traffic signal nor stop signs were warranted at that time. D. Traffic Volumes: Current average daily traffic volumes on Prospect Avenue are 11,600 vehicles per day (x~pd). This section of roadway is designed to accommodate approximately 25,000 vpd. Previous year's volumes include: 1998 - 10,000 vpd, 1997 - 11,300 vpd, 1996 - 13,800 vpd, 1995 - 12,600 vpd. These volumes represent an excellent level of service characteristic for this section of Prospect Avenue. Status of Traffic Conditions and Police Enforcement Activities on Prospect Avenue July 19, 1999 Page 3 E. Speed Limits: The current posted speed limit on this section of Prospect Avenue is 40 MPH in both the northbound and southbound directions. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 627, Engineering and Traffic Surveys were performed in January 1994 and October 1998. The respective 85th percentiles (M~H) were 43.2 and 44. Therefore, the posted speed limits are appropriate per CVC guidelines for establishing on-street speed limits. F. Resident's Request for Traffic Controls/Improvements: The City of Tustin's Engineering files were researched for information dating back to 1985. The City received a request fi.om a resident on Abolada Way in October 1993 to restripe Prospect Avenue in the subject area to install a continuous left-mm lane on the street, which would necessitate the removal of on-street parking. In 1995, all of the residents whose homes either front onto or side onto Prospect Avenue were surveyed for input regarding this request. Since the roadway is shared with the County of Orange their input was also solicited. The overwhelming response from the residents and the County of Orange was to maintain the striping as is and retain on-street parking. The County of Orange researched records between July 1993 and June 30, 1999 for any resident requests and indicated they have not received any request during that time period. They did acknowledge receipt of the request fi.om the City of Tustin to review the above noted restriping of Prospect Avenue to install a continuous left-mm lane. The County also reminded the City that any changes to roadway features on the subject segment of Prospect Avenue needs to be coordinated with County staff and approved by the Orange County Traffic Committee. CONCLUSION Based upon the information provided above, there is no dangerous condition and a normal level of public safety is being provided on Prospect Avenue. It is recommended that the City retain existing traffic controls and striping on this section of Prospect Avenue at this time. Additional recommendations may develop depending upon completion of the Police Departrnent~s investigation of the recent accident. Director of Public Works/City Engineer Steve Foster Chief of Police Attachment TDS:SF:DA:klb ~Xcomm_dev\voll~Shared~Engineering\City Council Iterns\99 City Council Items~Prospect Ave Traffic and Enforcement Activities.doc FUND 1 175~2 ~1~ ........ ~ 17471 10 17535 .~ 141211~,,~14122 ~i~ 14141 "'~14142 · TC L'U~l~ TO ~ ~0 -~ 14 ' L¢145 14148 ~15u TO ~'~TO .... m I-'IN TO 17462 TO 17536 i- -- .... ~-- ~ . r 17612 -~ ~IANi {2 ,' '- ~ N ~ 14 M RED/~ fTNA C L ~- ~0 ' I~1~1~1 / ~ ; . - L~I~/~I~!~I~I~I~ I~l~J ~ 17602 17534 17~62 QUAIL MEADOWS 17522 17542 17564 17524 17544 17572 ~ FIES' __ · BIGELOW i--. i-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... '-~ ............. ~----: -.~ '--~ ..... :--; ~ ~1 ORANGE TREE LN. D ~ I NORWOOD PARK PL 143~4 ~ 1 ~4402 ~ ~ i 1~451 L~[-I= ='l-, ~u[=l~l-l~'~i 17532 17552 17574 I)R. < . ,- ~ ~ -~ -- ~ ~ AMA(;ANSET ' ~ ~;~ ~ .~.. z F1~- 4652~ 14741 ~STBURY~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ N ~- ~ 14672 ~ COLUMBUS ~S~N . . , ~ ~ ~~ ~ [ , , ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 14712 , , DR. ---: ...... ~. ~ ~ g ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - I ~ ~ ~ :.:-:-:COLU~aUS:':-:-:-:' .... ~_,_. ~ ~ = ~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ' ~--'~ ...................... 17731 ','.'.'.'.'.'.'.','.','.','.'.1 ~:1 i -- IRVINE BOULEVARD ~ ~ ~ . ~ IRVIN[ / [' i ...... _ ..... L'ml l._!5-., ..... I L----~ ~ ~, I"1'1' _ ........ ~ GARDENS { .7~1 I ;-,. F-~- I :?n I , 173 ' 170 I I 173 I'~/ ORANGEWOOD LN ,%-/ ",~s", I,~.1_I ~ ..'~o'lI~~. ' --I:;~1~ ~1~1~1~1~/ ....... ' - ~ 160 / ' ~ ~;,'"1'~ ~~L !-~ I'I" ~$ .... ,/0 Ixl- ,~: I-'-~l~l ~ ~ t o o~ o ~o I ~/ /,.: ' - ; ~4o ~:1 I4] 1~0 14~ ~20 LOCKWOOD PARK PL ,,, .... ~. ...... lEI.- - I ~ . I ,;,I ~= { , TUS ,,,,l[~ ;~:' -~l ,.~5. ,~e I¥1 ,~s - i : '~ l ............ l PLAZA 15, i I .,, :,: l"." [ ........ :.l.: ..... '..! "' t' ....... '==