Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutO.B. 2 STOP SIGNS 03-16-92OLD BUSINESS NO. 2 •��_ 3-16-92 UA AGE[ I nte r. -Co rn DATE: MARCH 10, 1992 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS OR SPEED BUMPS ON PARKCENTER LANE AT MARICOPA AND AT MONTEREY STREET RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the City Council, at their meeting of March 16, 1992 deny the request for stop signs or speed bumps on Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa and at Monterey Street. It is also recommended that the City Council direct staff to coordinate with the Maricopa Community Association to restore and maintain adequate sight distance at Maricopa and Parkcenter Lane. BACKGROUND: In response to the subject request from the Maricopa Community Association, the City Council, at the January 20, 1992 Council meeting, directed staff to prepare a warrant study for Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa and at Monterey Street. The matter had been agendized for City Council consideration at their meeting of March 2, 1992, however, at the request of the Maricopa Community Association, the Council continued the item to their meeting of March 16, 1992. DISCUSSION: The Traffic Engineering Section has conducted a warrant study ( attached) on the subject location. The results of the study indicate that all -way stop controls or speed bumps are not warranted at this time, based upon the guidelines established by the State of California. The study also indicates that sight distance at the Maricopa/Parkcenter Lane intersection has been impaired, along the south-west corner, by vegetation planted within the Maricopa Homeowner's Association property. City staff is currently coordinating with the Tustin Police Department to increase enforcement of potential speeding in this area. Rober S. Leden cker Director of Publ'c Works/ City Engineer RSL:DA:kIb:PKCTRI Attachment Charles Mackey Consulting Traffic Engineer TRAFFIC STUDY FOR MULTI -WAY STOP CONTROLS AND/OR SPEED BUMPS ON PARKCENTER LANE AT MARICOPA AND AT MONTEREY STREET Q�pf ESS/pyq M4 Fy 0. 1491 �^ Exp. /Z CITY OF TUSTIN Engineering Division 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, CA. 92680 (714) 544-8890 February, 1992 SUBJECT Investigation into the installation of stop signs orspeed bumps on Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa and at Monterey RECOMN ENDED ACTION During the initial field investigation of the study area it was noted that sight distance for the intersection of Parkcenter Lane and Maricopa had been impaired by vegetation growth. It is recommended that sight distance be restored at this location by the removal of existing vegetation. The installation of all -way stop sign control or speed bumps are not warranted and are not recommended at this time. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES OR PROBLEMS. The Maricopa Community Association sent a letter to the City Council dated December 30, 1991, requesting installation of stop signs or speed bumps on Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa and at Monterey Street. Additionally, the association requested police enforcement to control speeding in this area (Attachment 1). The City acknowledged receipt of the request and City staff informed the Maricopa Community Association that the issue was agendized for the January 201 1992 City Council meeting (Attachment 2). The City Council at its January 20, 1992 meeting directed City staff to prepare a warrant study for Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa and at Monterey Street (Attachment 3). INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The study is located in the East Tustin area of the City. Parkcenter Lane is a two lane residential collector street connecting to Bryan Avenue south of the study area (Attachment 4) and to Tustin Ranch Road east of the study area. The alignment of Parkcenter Lane is basically curvilinear with radii of sufficient length for collector street function. On -street parking is prohibited, a double yellow centerline has been installed, and the posted speed limit is 30 m.p•h.There is no been residential frontage °Parkcenter toLane. separate the homes from the constructed along Parkcenter collector street traffic. Traffic from the Almeria, Monterey and Maricopa neighborhoods use Parkcenter Lane to access their local streets. Monterey Street and Maricopa provide this local access. 1 Maricopa forms a T -intersection with Parkcenter Lane. The centerline of Maricopa is about 260 feet west of the centerline of Monterey Street. Maricopa is a private street and is the only access point for the Maricopa neighborhood. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Maricopa intersects Parkcenter Lane on the inside of a curve. Sight distance for the intersection has been impaired by a hedge which is maintained by the Maricopa Homeowner's Association. For the initial part of the warrant study, sight distance for Maricopa and Parkcenter Lane and at Monterey Street and Parkcenter Lane was checked. The analysis determined that the sight distance at the Parkcenter Lane/Maricopa intersection had been impaired by an existing hedge (Attachment 5). The owner of the hedge, the Maricopa Homeowners Association, has been notified by letter dated January 31, 1992 of this matter. The letter of January 31, 1992 noted that the hedge needs to be removed as soon as possible by the association in order to restore adequate sight distance to the intersection of Parkcenter Lane and Maricopa (Attachment 6). Monterey Street also is a T -intersection. It intersects Parkcenter Lane on the outside of a curve. The sight distance for this intersection is adequate (Attachment 7). Monterey Street is a public, local street. The Monterey and Almeria neighborhoods can use other access points. Monterey Street and Maricopa both have stop sign control at their intersections with Parkcenter Lane. Parkcenter Lane at Tustin Ranch Road has traffic signal control. Parkcenter Lane has stop sign control at Bryan Avenue. East of the intersection of Parkcenter Lane and Maricopa an electrical vault is located between the sidewalk and the wall. The sidewalk inta this area nd is curb adjacent to a point 71 feet beyond the curb ret urn en tapers to a position between the wall and parkway. The vault is a permanent feature; however, the sight distance is adequate. Guidelines for the installation of stop signs are published by the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the U.S. Federal Highway Administration. These guidelines are called warrants (Attachment 16). The warrants are primarily based on meeting certain minimum conditions for traffic volume and accidents. Meeting the minimum conditions may justify the installation of stop sign control. If these minimum conditions, or warrants, are not met, there usually is no traffic justification to recommend the installation of stop sign control. In addition to investigating stop sign warrants, the intersection of Parkcenter Lane and Maricopa was also analyzed for sight distance adequacy due to its intersection being located on the - inside of a curve. 2 Residents often request stop controls to correct conditions of speeding, excessive traffic volume, or traffic by-passing congested or delay causing situations. Also, case studies have found that installing multi -way stop sign control has been ineffective when used to control these types -of traffic concerns. Collector streets like Parkcenter Lane, which have no fronting homes, can absorb such situations as they are designed to carry traffic more efficiently than local streets. The installation of multi -way stop signs is not normally recommended solely to address speeding, excessive traffic volume, or by-passing traffic problems. Authority Cities in California have authority under California State law to erect stop signs on one or more entrances to any intersection under the City's jurisdiction, except at traffic signals (CVC Sec. 21354-55). The State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is required to publish a set of guidelines appropriate for usage by cities in determining where stop signs should be installed. These guidelines are known as "warrants", and are published in the Caltrans Traffic Manual. They are based upon numerous studies and collective experience in installing stop signs. These guidelines are typically followed in determining appropriate locations for stop signs. Existing Conditions The traffic volumes, respectively, are 1000 and 990 on Monterey Street and on Maricopa. Recent traffic counts indicate that the daily traffic volumes range from 850 to 1350 vehicles per day on Parkcenter Lane. Attachment 10 shows daily traffic volumes on Parkcenter Lane, on Monterey Street, and on Maricopa. Speed of Existing Traffic Speed characteristics were measured on January 26, 1990. The critical speed is 37.5 m.p.h. and the 10 m.p.h. pace range is 30 to 39 m.p.h. with 74 percent of the traffic in this range. The speed limit is posted at 30 m.p.h. The street design of the curvature for Parkcenter Lane is designed to handle vehicles traveling at 40 m.p.h. From the above speed and curve data, it can be shown that sight distance criteria for the study should be 40 m.p.h. This design speed criteria is appropriate for a collector street type function. 3 Sight Distance Analysis Basic intersection sight distance design standards efound on Management Standard Plan 1117 of the orange County Environmental Agency. Sight distance for the intersection at Monterey and Parkcenter Lane has been reviewed and determined to be adequate (Attachment 7). Sight distance for the intersection at Maricopa and Parkcenter Lane (Attachments 5 and 11) has also been reviewed, and determined to be impaired by the growth of vegetation. Adequate sight distance can be restored by removing the vegetation. Analysis of All -Way Stop Sign Control Stop Sign Guidelines. Guidelines, or warrants, for installation of multi -way stop controls are substantially different than guidelines for installation of single approach stop controls. Multi -way stop controls are useful when traffic volumes on both iintersecting streets are nearly equal and high enough that s on the stopped approach do not experience undesirable or unnecessary delay, due to traffic on the unstopped cross street. Traffic warrant guidelines indicate that the combined volume of all vehicles entering the intersection should average 500 vehicles per hour (approximately one vehicle every 5 seconds) for eight hours of the day, and that at least 200 f these vehicles (one vehicle every 18 seconds) should be on the lesserusedstreet approaches to the intersection. This condition assures that three or more approaches to the intersection are nearly equally used, and that one or more vehicles will normally be present at the intersection for at least eight hours of the day. Multi -way stop controls are also useful when traffic accidents correctable by these controls are evident in records. They are also useful as an interim measure while arrangements are being made for traffic signal installation. See Attachment 16 for Caltrans guidelines for installation of multi -way stop control. Multi -way stop controls are frequently requested by residents in residential areas to correct problems of speeding, excessive traffic, or traffic by-passing congested or delay causing situations. There are numerous instances where stop controls have been implemented for these reasons. These installations have rarely achieved the intended results, but they have produced undesirable side effects such as: traffic noise and exhaust fumes from acceleration and braking increase at all -way p sites. This increases resident awareness and discomfort over existing traffic levels. Traffic speeds frequently increase along the area of the roadway between the stop signs, possibly 2 due to the need to make up for lost time or by impatience. Compliance with unwarranted stop controls is not good. A high proportion of vehicles will not come to a complete stop, and a portion of these vehicles may pass through the intersection without slowing, accidentally or intentionally. This compliance problem is more significant in after-hours. -In some cases traffic volumes have decreased due to the inconvenience of additional stops. In other instances traffic volumes have increased due to improved access from the cross streets. For the reasons discussed above, the installation of multi -way stop signs is not recommended unless the traffic warrants are met. Parkcenter Lane is a residential collector street with walls to separate traffic from the neighborhoods. Stop sign guidelines should be followed when installing stop control for collector streets since motorists regard collector streets differently from local, residential streets. These streets collect and deliver traffic from residential areas to the tforaothereet collector• Collector streets should only be stopped streets or higher classified streets when stop sign -control guidelines are fulfilled. Traffic Volume Analysis Traffic volumes were collected for 24 -hours by separate direction and 15 minute intervals for all of the streets in the study area. Through traffic by-passing other traffic problems cannot be positively identified or measured by these counts; however, it can be inferred from unusual patterns in traffic fluctuation and from consideration of development located adjacent to the street. . The two-waytraffic counts for Maricopa and Monterey Street are each about 1,000 vehicles per day. The variation of traffic throughout the day is typical of residential street traffic patterns. The traffic volumes are typical of residential access streets and are well within the average range. The two-way traffic counts on Parkcenter Lane range from 830 to 1,350 vehicles per day. These volumes are at the low-end of typical volume patterns for residential collector streets (Attachment 10). The ratio of peak hour traffic to total daily traffic is usually nine to ten percent for residential streets. When the peak hour is substantially greater than these levels, the additional traffic often results from through traffic using the route to avoid congestion at nearby locations. The counts for Parkcenter Lane fall between 8.5 and 9.5 percent. The counts for Maricopa and Monterey Streets fall between 9 and 9.5 percent. Therefore, no unusual peak hour through traffic is evident. 5 Are Stop Sign Guidelines Fulfilled? A detailed multi -way stop control analysis has been performed in accordance with the standard criteria set forth by Caltrans (see Attachment 16). Based upon that analysis it has been determined that all -way stop sign control warrants on Parkcenter nor Lane are tat Maricopa and at Monterey Street usatisf satisfied (Attachments he warrants for traffic volume and accidents 12, 13, and 14) . The installation of all -way stop sign control is not recommended. Analysis of Speed Bumps The installation of speed bumps/humps is often requested by citizens concerned with the speed of traffic in their neighborhood. In this case, the concern is directed at a collector street. Two items need to be investigated: 1) thestreet seeedction of bumps/humps Parkcenter Lane, and, 2) the appropriatenessP (Attachment 8). Parkcenter Lane has been designed as a residential collector street, and that is its present function. Since iwas designed signed to function as a collector street, no fronting residential use is permitted. The residential land use is separated dlfrom the street use by decorative masonry walls. The wallse to allow adequate sight distance to the Maricopa and Monterey Street intersections. As has been noted, vegetation has grown and obstructed the sight distance across one approach at the Maricopa intersection. An information report regarding the issue of the use of speed bumps/humps as traffic control devices on public streets was discussed before the City Council at their meeting of October 3, 1988 (Attachments 8 and 9). This informational report contained information from the Police Department, City Attorney's off ice, and the City's Consultant Traffic Engineer. Thebic f finding of the report is that speed bumps/humps are not traff co ntrol devices which have been approved by Caltrans. The report therefore recommends against installing suchdevices as speed bumps/humps until such a time as they have be pp by Caltrans for use as traffic control devices. The inreport also eas where found that speed bumps/humps are only effective ambient speeds are low (15 m.p.h. or below) to begin with and the purpose for the installation is to eliminate the excess speed of the relative few. 0 The use of speed bumps/humps has been experimented within locations where traffic has continually disregarded the residential, local street speed limit of 25 m.p.h. The 25 m.p.h. residential speed limit is only valid where there are houses in sufficient number fronting on the street. Streets with no fronting housing would normally have an unposted speed limit of 55 m.p.h. according to the California Vehicle Code; however, Parkcenter Lane has a posted speed limit of 30 m.p.h. Parkcenter Lane is not a suitable street to install speed bumps/humps. It is a collector type street with no fronting residential land use and carries traffic at a suitable speed. Sight distance can be restored upon removal of vegetation. Alternatives: Several alternative actions could be taken regarding this request: 1. Leave the existing condition unchanged. 2. Provide adequate sight distance to the Maricopa intersection by removing vegetation. 3. Install all -way stop sign control at one or both intersections. 4. Install speed bumps/humps near the intersections. Alternative Action No. 1 would not be satisfactory because sight distance has been impaired by the growth of vegetation at the Maricopa intersection. Alternative Action No. 2 would provide adequate sight distance to the Maricopa intersection and would not be disruptive to traffic flow and safety. Alternative Action No. 3 would require action that is not justified by traffic volume or accidents. The impaired sight distance to the Maricopa intersection can be restored by removal of vegetation. Alternative Action No. 4 would be inappropriate for a collector street that has no fronting residential land usage. If speed bumps/humps were used on a collector street, the safe flow and welfare of traffic on Parkcenter Lane could be adversely affected. v CONCLUSIONS Traffic conditions at the intersections of Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa, and Parkcenter Lane at Monterey Street do not meet established criteria for the installation of all -way stop sign control. Traffic levels fall far short of levels usually required to stop all traffic. Impairment of sight distance for the intersection of Parkcenter Lane and Maricopa has been identified (Attachments 5 and 6). This condition is correctable by removing vegetation and possibly replacing it with a low growing ground cover. This action is recommended to restore adequate intersection sight distance. The use of speed bumps/humps as traffic control devices has not been approved by Caltrans. Their usage on a collector street would be inappropriate. RECOMMENDATION The study finds that the basic issue at the intersection of Parkcenter Lane and Maricopa is that the sight distance has been impaired by vegetation growth. It is recommended that sight distance be restored to the intersection by removing the vegetation (Attachment 6). All -way stop sign control is not warranted by traffic volume and accident guidelines. once sight distance is restored to the intersection, the intersection will operate adequately. The installation of speed bumps/humps is not appropriate. They have not been approved for use as traffic control devices and their use on a collector street could be very disruptive to safe and orderly traffic flow. Their installation is not recommended. 0 ATTACIiNIENTS: 1. Maricopa Community Association"'s request 2. City's response letter to Association. 2a. City Council minutes of January 20, 1992. 3. City Council Agenda item. 4. Study area. 5. Existing line of sight for Parkcenter Lane and Maricopa for west of intersection. 6. City's letter to Association concerning the study's initial findings. 7. Existing line of sight for Parkcenter Lane and Monterey Street. S. City's Information Report of September 21, regarding speed bumps/humps. 9. City Council minutes of October 3, 1988 regarding speed bumps/humps. 10. Existing Daily Traffic Volume 11. Existing line of sight for Parkcenter Lane and Maricopa for east of intersection. 12. All -way Stop Warrant - Parkcenter Lane/Maricopa 13. All -way Stop Warrant - Parkcenter Lane/Monterey Street. 14. All -way Stop Warrant - Parkcenter Lane/Maricopa & Monterey (Combined). 15. Traffic Count Data 16. Notes. 9 December 30, 1991 City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 --- - - �.,;, �, I JAN - 21991ON � RE: MARICOPA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Dear Council Members: JAN 81992 L_ IN' PUBLIC PLRl1C •1�;,� A4 4-Q c✓ , ,, a y1 -. Association Management Mailing Addoess: Po. Box 4708• kvine. CA 92716 Corporate: 17461 Deman Ave.. Suite 175 lrv4ne. CA 92714 714/553-1876 30011 tvy G;n Drive. 16te 115 Laguna Niguel. CA 92677 7141249-3991 As management representative for the above referenced association, the Board of Directors requested that I write. you regarding the traffic situation on Parkcenter Lane. It appears Parkcenter Lane is used as a shortcut between Tustin Ranch Road- and Bryan Avenue, crating a speedway. As you are hopefully aware, there are blind spots when exiting Maricopa making it extremely dangerous for motorists and pedestrians. i Association has been turned down in its request for the gating of Parkcenter .ie, and is therefore, requesting additional patrol by the Tustin Police Department until stop signs or speed bumps can be installed at Maricopa and Monterey. The Maricopa Community Association is very concerned about the safety of the residents and especially concerned about their children. Your efforts in solving this problem will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Cordially, VILIOGNAY D.1V�AGEMENV, IN'-- 'Gary NC_ Gary Rost P roperty .Adm in i s trato r GR: pm cc: Tom Kawaguchi 13441 Montecito Tustin, CA 92680 Res4denual and Commercial Association Managemen: �r S 1 Public Works / Engineering January 16, 1992 !'-\ 4 4 o Cit m i n -r- Z City Of Tustin 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, CA 92680 4;;.14) 544-8890 FAX (714) 832-0825 Mr. Gary Ross, Property Administrator Villageway Management, Inc. P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA. 92716 Subject: Request for stop Signs or Speed Bumps on Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa and at Monterey Street Dear Mr. Ross: The City has received your letter, dated December 30, 1991, on behalf of the Maricopa Community Association requesting stop signs or speed bumps on Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa and at Monterey Street. This issue has been agendized for the City Council meeting of January 20, 1992 for their consideration of directing staff to conduct a warrant study at the noted locations. Attached for your information is a draft copy of the City Council agenda item report for this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, /"0' Dana R. Kasdan Engineering Services Manager URK:klb:ROSS Attachment cc: William A. Huston, City Manager Robert S. Ledendecker, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Douglas R. Anderson, Transportation Engineer - Tom Kawaguchi, Maricopa Community Association CITY COUNCIL MINUTE Page 5, 1-20-92 3. REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS OR SPEED BUMPS ON PARRCENTER LANE AT MARICOPA AND AT MONTEREY STREET It was moved b Ed ar seconded b Pontious, to direct staff to prepare a warrant study for Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa and a Monterey Street. Motion carried 5-0. �. STATUS REPORT - ST. JEANNE DE LESTONNAC SCHOOL DRIVEWAY ACCESS to receive and file_ . It was moved b Potts seconded b Pontious, subject report. Motion carried 5-0. 5. LEGAL FEES City Manager, reported that .this report , William Huston, Councilmember Potts. addressed several questions raised by requested another staff report clarifying Councilmember Potts req comparison of survey cities. of additional issues including: benefits paid contract city attorneeys;inclusion study of City Of Irvine's study on in-house attorneys; utilizing in-house County cities comparable in size to Tustin, attorneys• was moved b Potts seconded b Pontious, to continue this It 3 Council meeting. item to the February Motion carried 5-0. REPORTS OMMISSION ACTION AGENDA - JANUARY 13, 1992 1. PLANNING C McWhinney Berries). It Councilmember Edgar removed Item No. 12 (McWhinney ratify the was moved by Pontious seconded by Edgar, ends of January remainder of the Planning Commission Action Ag 5-0• 13, 1992. Motion carried was supportive of the staff 'Councilmember Edgar reported he re ort option: Use Determination and Temporary Use Permit P extension. Council/staff discussion followed regarding appeal ction of properly zoned sites. process/timeline and sele the audience adressed the Council The following member of regarding his desire for an expedite Chad McWhinney, Director of McWhinney Berries council/staff discussion followed regarding Use Determination and Conditional Use Permit timeline. meconded b Prescott, to appeal Item No. It was oved b Ed ar s 12, Request for Temporary Sale of Strawberries, McWhinney Berries. Councilmember Prescott stated he was supportive of providing fund raising opportunities for non-profit groups. Mayor Pro Tem Pontious said she was also supportive of fund y groups and encouraged the raising opportunities for non-profit rk with staff to find the most expeditious applicant to wo resolution. Motion carried 5-0. ," +4,oc-� m en -- Lic, r *Sv Inter-Com ;E: JANUARY 15, 1992 WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER W: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION 3JECT: REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS OR SPEED BUMPS ON PARKCENTER LANE AT MARICOPA AND AT MONTEREY STREET RECOMMENDATIONS: By motion, direct City staf f to prepare a warrant study 'for Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa and at Monterey Street BACKGROUND: The City has received a letter, dated December 30, 19, Cfrom Mr. Gary Ross, Management Representative for the Maricopa itY Association, requesting installation of stop signs orspeed bumps on Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa and at Monterey Street. A py Of his letter is attached to this report. Parkcenter Lane, in east Tustin is classified as a local collat ector ltor street with design capacity of 10,000 vehicles 100 er vehicles per service "C". it currently carries an estimated day in the vicinity of the noted area. It is a two lane undivided roadway with traffic signals at Bryan Avenue and at Tustin Ranch Road. Both Maricopa and Monterey Street have stop signs at their intersections with Parkcenter Lane. DISCUSSION: The Traffic Engineering Section will conduct a warrant study on Parkcenter Lane at the specified locations if the City Council so desires. Robert S. Ledendecker Director of Public Works/ City Engineer RSL:DRK:ccg:pkctr Attachment da�n Kae Engineering Services Manager v IRVINE BOULEVARD, + a "Now cc ® O cc / < 0 � O = O E) E)- = e O ( 0 AO/ til Of i O r Z �� i. r. •I i pt p O• O O �+ O p o ' r • p Z O W Q „ O Z v O � f cc Q rf pJ/p e.©. D Q p 1 0-0 p � tv ca ui 10 'r -t ' • ® e I O , • �� O a O O m ` AWL s — Q � r �► 2 s,e � � •r r- C� — L. , �� �6� � may a a © © CD • e' C (Q. rtJ i © Ya a • o � �' � ore - – AVENUE a o BRYAN — TIF o 20 wa �Q oa aQ occ Z >. CL >- .o 3 4) ! -L r u E s J a 0 Q b - a! -1 A ' L- O � 3 a s L 4) Jv L ! t � U o t .J CO 4- �+ Z CL l -o 3 y 0 i �v Lj � 1 O 0 o. Public Works/ Engineering January 31, 1992 Mr. Gary Ross, Property Administrator Villageway Management, Inc. P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 City Of Tustin 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, CA 92680 (;-i.4) 544-8890 FAX (714) 832-0825 Subject: Initial Findings of study Regarding Request for stop signs or speed Bumps on Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa and at Monterey Street Dear Mr. Ross: The warrant study, as authorized by the Tustin city and t Monterey January 20, 1992, for Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa Street has been started. As part of the study, sight distance for Maricopa at Parkcenter ter _ Lane and for Monterey at Parkcenter distanceane was at a the Our Parkcenter has determined that the sight Lane/Maricopa intersection has been impaired, along the south-west corner by vegetation planted within the Maricopa Homeowner's Association property. Specifically, a portion of the a and between hedge located along Parkcenter Lane west of Maricopa the wall and the sidewalk is presently blocking sightdistance. t ache This hedge needs to be removed as soon possible association in order to restore adequate sight distance. The hedge should be replaced with low growing vegetation, grounduch as cover or turf and be maintained at a height of less than four inches above ground level so as not to impair the sight distance. The four inch height restriction will provide of drivers at fficient line of site considering the sidewalk grade and the position the location. Enclosed is a drawing showing the exact location of the hedge and the length that needs to be removed in order to restore the sight distance for Parkcenter Lane and Maricopa. If you wish, you may arrange to meet with a member of my staff to help locate the length of hedge to be removed. Initial Findings January 31, 1992 Page 2 We are still proceeding completion of the study meeting in March 1992. with the warrant study and we expect for review at the first City Council If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me or Doug Anderson, of my staff, at (714) 544-8890. very truly yours, an Rsdan Engineering Services Manager DRL:ccg:maricopa Enclosure cc: William A. Huston, City Manager Robert S. Ledendecker, Public Works Director/City Engineer Charles Mackey, Consultant Traffic Engineer Douglas R. Anderson, Transportation Engineer Tom Kawaguchi, Maricopa Community Association - t••�s V O i } U- S V d � r z CL — LL 1 o a �LU m C:) _ CL -t- %A c L V v" 4- I DATE: TO: FROM: SEPTEMBER 21, 1988 WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER Inter - Com PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJECT: INFORMATIONAL REPORT - USE OF SPEED BUMPS/HUMPS AS TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND: The City Council recently requested staff to prepare an informational report on the use of "Speed Bumps/Humps" as a potential traffic control device for controlling vehicular speed on public streets. ---Staff has researched information through the Police Department, .the ;ity Attorney's office and the City's Consultant Traffic Engineer and has summarized this information as shown below. DISCUSSION: The following discussion will dwell primarily on the speed hump in lieu of the speed bump. First of all, it is necessary to define or describe the difference between the two designations. The speed bump is defined as a sudden or sharp three to four inch rise in the pavement surface and having a base length (longitudinal to the direction of traffic flow) between one and two feet. The speed hump has a gently rounded three to four inch high rise in the pavement and has a minimum base length (longitudinal to the direction of traffic flow) of twelve feet. The most comprehensive document available concerning speed humps is a 1983 report by a subcommittee of the STATE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE COMMITTEE dated November, 1983. This subcommittee was charged with the responsibility of evaluating speed humps that were already installed in various locations in California. It was also charged with the task of evaluating the liability associated with the use of speed humps. The final conclusion of the subcommittee was that the speed hump did indeed have a place on public streets. Additionally, it should be so designed so that the actual critical speed at the hump is no less than -$ 0 percent of the posted speed limit. For example, given the 25 mph .imit on a residential street, the speed at the hump should be about 20 Aph and between the humps the traffic should be controlled at no more than 120 percent of the posted speed limit, or about 30 mph. The speed hump should be so designed to prevent any loss of vehicular control even for vehicles exceeding.the speed limit by 50 percent: INFORMATIONAL REPORT - USE OF SPEED BUMPS/HUMPS AS TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES September 21, 1988 Page 2 Another report which has been widely published in Southern California is entitled SPEED HUMPS AND THE THOUSAND OAKS EXPERIENCE. This report did not reach a conclusion as to whether the speed hump should or should not be used, but only to make available the results of the author's research and testing of the speed hump. The primary reason for this study was the continuing disregard for speed limits in residential areas. These Thousand Oaks tests refined the original configuration of the speed bump into a new form called the speed hump which maintained traffic speeds at a tolerable level while minimizing unnecessary through traffic. This provided a device to control speed and through traffic without the need for heavy enforcement and restriction of free use of public roads to all citizens -and emergency services. More recently, the City's 'consultant traffic engineering firm, BSI insul.tants has utilized speed humps in two of its client cities Yorba _nda and Agoura Hills and have found them to be an appropriate use on residential streets. Other southern California cities utilizing the speed hump are Santa Monica, Pasadena and Placentia. The Tustin Police Department has researched data regarding the use of speed bumps/humps and have found the following: 1. Overall speed on streets is increased due to the fact that speed decreases while going over the bump/hump but results in increased acceleration between installations. 2. Diversion of traffic to other streets in order to bypass the bump/hump installations. 3. Speed bumps/humps are only effective in areas where ambient speeds are low (15 mph or below) to begin with and the purpose of the installation is to eliminate the excess speed of the relative few. The Police Department suggested the use of a "Rumble Strip" as a potential speed control device. These rumble strips accompanied with appropriate signing would serve as a reminder to the motorist on the posted speed limits. This type of installation may create additional or unusual noise within a residential neighborhood and could result as irritant to the residents. INFORMATIONAL REPORT - USE OF SPEED BUMPS/HUMPS AS TRAFFIC CONTROL. DEVICES September 21, 1988 Page 3 — - The City Attorney's memodated 8/30/88 (copy attached) outlines the legal ramifications of the installation of speed bumps/humps ithinnoa public street. It reiterates that speed bumps and speed humps traffic control devices which have been approved by the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and they recommend against installing these devices unless and until such time as they have been approved by Caltrans for use as traffic control Engineering Staff concurs with this recommendation. Bob Leden ecker -nirector of Public Works/City * Engineer BL:bf Attachment .JA T E : TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 30, 1988 ; N V.000 Inter—Com DENNIS BARNES, CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER CITY ATTORNEY . SPEED BUMPS/SPEED HUMPS Theq uestion has come up again as to whether the City ofo could install speed bumps and/or speed humps. Section 21401 Vehicle Code of the State of California provides as follows: Except as provided in Section 21374, only vices that those official traffic rol Standards and conform to the Uniform Specifications promulgated by the ac d Department a of Transportation shall ion 21374 relates street or highway. (Set only to "Directional markings for tourists" -- and authorizes painting the surface of streets with lines, _arrows or othersymbols for the purpose of directing visitors and s end tourists and so has no relevance p bumps or .humps. ) Speed bumps and speed humps are not traffic control devices which have been apprioved by the Department of Transportation. Vehicle Code Section 21400 provides as follows: The Department of Transportation shall, after consultation with local agencies and public • hearings, adopt -rules and regulations prescribing uniform standards and specifications for alp .of ficiGi traffic control devices placed pursuant to this code, including, but nat limited to, stop signs, yield right-of-way signs, speed restriction signs, railroad warning approach signs, street name signs, lines and markings on the roadway and stop crossing signs pursuant to Section 21364. The Department of Transportation shall, after notice and= public hearing, determine and publicize the specifications for uniform types of warning signs, lights and devices to be placed upon a highway by any person engaged in performing work which interfers with or endangers the safe movement of traffic upon that highway. c 1 .1 t �. t:,c,se =-i �*n 7 1 ` "� Sect: or: - IJI cvide� f oL .r: tr - is Gf work wr.�Cb upon a Ilighway to warn tr highway.f0 i s being pe r f orated on the n.-arkings installed Any control devices or after January le upon traffic barrierson hen Uniform-standards 1984, shall conformuired by, this Section. and Specifications ications req • 3d 545) Rumford v- v. C�� f Berkeley(3 Co f mandate in the case entitled — nted a writ supreme Court of Cal if or1erS gra t had placed on certa=1e�s the P to remove batt traffic. The bar directing a City streets for the purpose of controlling its but left them accessible to use for belong �t partially closed the streets the State has a court held that the streets of a City local traffic. The co and every citizen of the people of the State, b , eCt- to the control of the State to Psubject- Street traff i right to the use thereof, of control over.street the State. The Legislature. The r 9 ower o vise of the part of the sovereign P 1 enary power in its exercise ' s P t Pointed out that the of State' control are set forth court preemption of the entire field ich provides: in Vehicle Code Section s l provided l Except as .otherwise express applicable rovisions of this C all the p bout the State and and no and uniform dt municipalities therein, counties a shall enact or enforce any local authority this Code ordinance on the matters coverdb unlesexpressly authorized therein. " unless 'expressly provided' baf f i c The Supremthe e Court noted thus, ' as no authority over vehi rantr of fr local a CitY h principal grant Vehicle Code control" . The court noted that i the contained in • es may conthat cite authority over traffic ramong other things Section 21100 , which provides or other traffic control f c Sect means of semaphores "regulate traffic by 5l gives the right to ins Galland other devices" . Section 213 g guide traffi to warn or 9 the right to control devices necessary powers including licit p s and to designate all statutes grant even more exp sign-- yield r, ght-Gf-way �. HGWeVer, the erect stop signs one-waY �rz-C is "only those or any. portion cr a street zor provides: •-t pointed out that-Sectionnform0 to the Uniform Standards Coin P devices that co official traffic promulgated by the Department" In the and Specifications P on a street or highway. laced up �� tr of f i c control Transportation shall be P argued that the term devices Rumford case the City Signals and other S" was intended to mean jowever, the court held that her Device symbol. H o that communicate by Y there was no re not "traffic control d sv 1 t "traffic control devices" barriers we and a the Department authorization to install t thave been authorized by they have to be one that of Transportation. tiE ofE c3ti.G: C C, ir�C` CC'r:tG- :,/. �'E wGL :G r�C,' E ::.C) :.E r : FC.er:t.}'. II a v e i r:�talied s�:ee� :�L�i-s �r t:ur,F-s rptto ' ring of the City r.ttorneys of tr,ase, cl cr,e indicated they inqui 9 theory or basis for their installatofnill,egal illegality of such devices were totally unaware of the problem eed burn s in on Y Cit streets. One of them also said thatthe of accideP ts. his City had been the alleged cause of some number against sp eed .bumps and/or Accordingly, we recommend ainst installing roved speed humps unless and until such time as they a a traff i control by the Department of Transportation for use devices. City Attorney JGR: se :R:8/30/88(1010) cc: WE RLL n 7 CO W D V-1CITYCOUNCIL MZNUT-. • page 7, 10-3-88 d ar, to restripe Red It was moved b Re ned seconded b er Street (eastbound Hill Avenue from Valencia Avenue to Edinger 95 direction) to a three lane cross section. The motion carried 5-S•g Ag TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES S USE OF SPEED BUKPS/HUMP -� - - man Edgar noted that other commun residential areas t es.had used speed Council .. humps/bumps as traf f is control devices an innovative idea , to control speeding. He felt they that bumps/humPs are hearing decrease speed, but was �nOw ous and caused problems. He despaired over the cassional act that hazard to stop the City does not have an effective way If the City does not take constructive measures to speede�, it could result in the death of a child. control the speeding, t staff's recommendation, ut he He had no choice but to accep to -inhibit speeders, thought the City should be creative enough Mayor pro Tem Kennedy suggested lobbying the Department of Transportation. Councilman Edgar agreed. difficulty iculty with the implemention of speed Mayor Hoesterey had on residential streets. He said there are occasions when bumps h rate equipment and vehicles need hips could damage the emergency eeding over the bump speed of of speed. SP He had also noticed that,the sp vehicles and equipment. cars in between these devices was accelerated. lice force =� the City had a sufficient poli Councilman Kelly thought and was opposed to devies that c to issue tickets to speeders would effect the streets. police - in favor of ..increased p Councilman Prescott was d bumps/humps were effective enforcement. He thought that speebut did not approve of them for City in mobile home pa's streets. Ten Kennedy asked if any Councils robes was interested Mayo T ardinQ rumble P in the recommendation req - stated that Ledendecker, Director of Public Wore but Robert widely throughout the County, rips rumble strips had been used Y d also received complaints on the noise. The d rumble removed if co installed on a trial basis could be ins unsatisfactorY. 100 No action was taken on this agenda item- g�T,E OF SIY1'�i STREET PROPERTY 6. PROCEEDS FRO K YOU'rS SER AND to continue this it was Moved by Fdaa- seconded bC�Kr nned,matter at the oc'tober 19, 1988 iy Council me eting• The 85 mots on cat -,-f ed 5-o - 7. CABLE BRAADcxB TING OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS as now a mute point since televising Mayor Hoestere Y said this wlie 'then stated the broadcast had commmenced with this meeting - dates and time- Tem Kennedy asked if the meetings would be broadcast Mayor Pro She received an affirmative response_ in their entirety- to receive and .- seconded b Kell 38 It was moved by Hoes The motion carried 5-Q• - f ile subject report- QE IRRIGATION NATER RUNOFF AT PEPPERTREE PARR AND ON g. ESCESSI FIRST STREET MEDIAN ISLANDS .- seconded by Kenned to receive and f107 It was moved by EdQa_ _ ` y egend �-- odd T,Q��� Vo 000 = D c,+y of Tis De R } o4 pt, -) 1 L u!o r- kz i 1 No SCcs /e X�"�Ir1C� DQI�� Tt-a-f-�o- . volume Z o !1 2t t i 7 a 1 1 X�"�Ir1C� DQI�� Tt-a-f-�o- . volume aA A ++4cy, re, G,-- i Z. CITY OF TUSTIN ALL—WAY STOP WARRANT _NTERSECTION OF Parkcenter AND Maricopa (Major Street) (Minor Street) Any of the following conditions may warrant a 4 -way stop control where—The volume of traffic on the intersecting street is approximately equal: 1. Where traffic signals are warranted and the need is urgent, Meet signal warrants? the 4 -stop is an interim measure. _des; X No. Urgent?_ Accident occurrence, as indicated by 5 or more reported accidents of a type susceptible of correction by a 4 -way stop installation in a 12 -month period. Type of accidents susceptible of correction include right angle as well as right- and left -turn collisions. 3. Minimum Volume Warrant: a. Total entering volume must average at least 500 vph any 8 hours of an average day. b. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from minor street must average 200 unites per hour with an average --- delay of at least 30 seconds per vehicle c. When the 85th - percentile approach speed of the major street exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70% of the above requirement. Traffic Volume Ratio Determination Traffic volume on major street approaches = 1.194 Traffic volume on minor street approaches = 521 Total volume = 1.715 RATIO 2.3:1 Accidents 0 5 or more? yes; X no. ENTERING TRAFFIC VOLUME for 8 hours = 936 1 hour ave. = 117 Side street volume and ped for same 8 hours = 2900 1 hr ave. = 36 DELAY = N. A. 85th% -tile speed = 38 70th% applies? _fie s ; X no. Applicable minimum volumes: Total ;Minor Comments: Ratio is unacceptable. 3a is 23% of attainment. 3b is 19% of attainment. 4 -WAY STOP CONTROL WARRANTED? YES; X NO. Calc by: Date:February 5. 1992 AT LWAYS 1 A 44a �� �� �.,T 13 CITY OF TUSTIN ALL—WAY STOP WARRANT INTERSECTION OF Parkcenter AND Monterey (Minor Street) (Major Street) Any of the following conditions may warrant a 4 -way stop control where -The' volume of traffic on the intersecting street is approximately equal: 1. Where traffic signals are warranted and the need is urgent, Meet signal warrants?_yes; X No. Urgent?_ the 4 -stop is an interim measure. 2. Accident occurrence, as indicated by 5 or more reported Accidents = 0 5 or more? yes; accidents of a type susceptible of correction by a 4 -way X no. stop installation in a 12 -month period. Type of accidents susceptible of correction include right angle as well as right- and left -turn collisions. ENTERING TRAFFIC VOLUME 3. Minimum Volume Warrant: least 500 vph for 8 hours 910. a. Total entering volume must average at 1 hour ave. = 114 any 8 hours of an average day. b. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from minor Side street volumeand 8 street must average 200 unites per hour with an average ped for same = 2641 1 hr ave. = 33 delay of at least 30 seconds per vehicle DELAY s N.A. When the 85th - percentile approach speed of the major 85th% -tile speed = 38 c. street exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular 70th% applies? volume warrant is 70% of the above requirement. _yes; X no. Applicable minimum volumes: Total ;Minor Traffic Volume Ratio Determination Traffic volume on major street approaches = 1.194 Traffic volume on minor street approaches — 476 Total volume 1,670 RATIO — 2.5:1. Comments: Ratio is unacceptable. 3a is 23% of attainment. 3b is 17% of attainment. 4 -WAY STOP CONTROL WARRANTED? YES; X NO. Calc by: Date:February S, 1992 ALLWAYS2 CITY OF TUSTIN ALL -WAY STOP WARRANT INTERSECTION OF Parkcenter AND Monterey/Mar-co-pa (Combined) Street) (Major Street) (Minor Any of the following conditions may warrant a 4-way.stop control where-Lhe Volume of traffic on the intersecting street is approximately equal. 1. Where traffic signals are warranted and the need is urgent, Meet signal warrants? X No. Urgent?_ the 4 -stop is an interim measure. __yes; 1) Accident occurrence, as indicated by 5 or more reported by 4 -way Accidents 0 5 or more? yes; accidents of a type susceptible of correction a X stop installation in a 12 -month period. Type of accidents no. susceptible of correction include right angle as well as right- and left -turn collisions. ENTERING TRAFFIC VOLUME 3. Minimum Volume Warrant: at least 500 vph for 8 hours s 1.200 a. Total entering volume must average 1 hour ave. - 150 any 8 hours of an average day. b. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from minor Side fstreet or volume and e street must average 200 unites per hour with an average ped 5541 1 ave. - 69 X= -- delay of at least 30 seconds per vehicle DELAY - N.A. c. When the 85th - percentile approach speed of the major 85th% -tile speed - 38 70th% applies? street exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular X no. volume warrant is 70% of the above requirement. _yes; Applicable minimum volumes: Total ;Minor_ Traffic Volume Ratio Determination 1.194 Traffic volume on major street approaches - Traffic volume on minor street approaches - 997 Total volume 2.197 RATIO = x.2:1 Comments: Monterey and Marico a form offset T -intersections with Parkcenter Lane. Combinink the two intersections causesa worst case calculation. 3a is 30% of attainment: 3b is 35% of attainment. 4 -WAY STOP CONTROL WARRANTED? YES; X NO. Calc by: Date:February 5. 1992 ALLWAYST U ca a o'pG, tn 1%4 r -I r. O . + a M %D r- %D � t` e-1 O 1� 1f) r -i r- LO D O N %DVVe-INe-4NOc'1I-O1tf1NOti 0 rq r4 C -i U 4-) �w 0 O r-iNNNNNNC--IMNN-7'd'MN� N (Oj -� 4J 4J :3: E-4 U G . �'OCOO�O�o0C001�Nr-Ich%DM� tD S -IQ+ 0 r-I�*d'�'NNNe--IMe-INd'MNNe-I N 4-) 0 0 4 -) to M E-4 tl� U 4-) 9 0 s~ O �Oe-i�OCOMI�O\Or-INOM�N 01 N 0a V ' N��M�MNMNNNNMMr-1r"I 4J 0 (0 4-) a� aaz z I 4-)� ai S-1 > r -4e --i Nm N qzr d' M M LO CO �O L(i lf� M U GQ O P O cd � az z I�CO010e--IN�NMd'Lli�I�CO�lO r-� N r- co 1 I 1 N�NMdCO� .� O OE -4 0 r-1 x •t���aaaawr�irt�raraaaaatraarwatttrrra� awtwr+raaraawaararartva��+aaaaaaaaaaaaaaraaaaaraaatatiawt*wraarawaraarfaa-rara LOCATION - PARKCEKTER-JST W/O TUST1.. .44CH AVERAGED VOLLKS FOR - WL ,AY 7/31/91 TO THURSDAY 8/1/91 All ..�+� rw-t..,r+«+..-t.�+r+*+ «. pn ws «tr�l-t«.. TOTAL TIME EB �W5 > TOTAL TItf EB ..� 12:00 -12:15 0 0 0 12:00 - 12:15 8 6 7 14 14 12:15 - 12:30 1 2 3 1 1 2:15 -12:30 12:30 - 12:45 1 7 10 .I, 17 12.30 - 12:45 0 1 3 0 4 12:45 - 1:00 3 25 6 29 f+9 54 12:45 - 1:00 0 1 0 1:00 - 1:15 1 1 2 1:00 - 1:15 1:15 - 1:30 3 7 5 4 .,,_ 8 11 1:15 - 1:30 0 0 0 0 0 1:30 - 1:45 5 2 7 1:30 - 1:45 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 1:45 - 2:00 8 23 4 15 12 38 1:45 - 2:00 0 1 1 2:00 - 2:15 7 12 19 2:00 - 2:15 2 3 2:15 2:30 4 7 11 2:15 - 2:30 1 0 0 2:30 - 2:45 4 7 11 2:30 - 2:45 2:45 - 3:00 0 1 2 0 •3 1 5 2:45 - 3:00 4 19 7 33._,' 11 52 3:00 - 3:15 0 0 0 3:00 - 3:15 3:15 - 3:30 3 9 7 5 10 14 3:15 - 3:30 1 0 0 1 0 3:30 - 3:45 3 8 �' 11 3:30 - 3:45 0 1 0 0 0 1 3:45 - 4:00 2 17 9 29 11 46 3:45 - 4:00 0 4:00 - 4:15 0 0 0 1 4:00 - 4:15 4:15 - 4:30 9 5 8 5 17 10 4:15 - 44.30 ..4:30 1 0 1 2 4:30 - 4:45 5 4 9 - 4:45 1 2 2 3 2 5 4:45 - 5:00 2 21 8 25 10 46 4:45 - 5:00 0 5:00 - 5:15 0 0 0 5:00 - 5:15 6. 10 7 - 10 13 20 5:15 - 5:30 0 0 0 5:15 - 5:30 9 8 -� 17 - 5:30 - 5:45 0 1 1 6 7 5:30 - 5:45 5:45 - 6:00 5 30 15 40 '� 20 70 5:45 - 6:00 4 4 2 3 6:00 - 6:15 2 1 3 6:00 - 6:15 5 4 11 11 16 15 6:15 - 6:30 6:30 - 6:45 2 2 5 2 7 4 6:15 - 6:30 6:30 - 6:45 10 22 14 12 48 24 15 70 6.45 - 7:00 . 8 14 6 14 14 28 6:45 - 7:00 3 i ; .� 7:00 - 7:15 6 7 13 7:00 - 7:15 5 11 9 16 14 7:15 - 7:30 9 5 14 7:15 - 7:30 7:30 - 7:45 5 10 6 16 7:30 - 7:45 9 8 17 12 56 7:45 - 8:00 6 26 5 31 . 11 57 7:45 - 8:00 5 29 7 27 8:00 - 8:15 12 10 22 8:00 - 8:15 - 8:30 3 5 5 5 8 10 8:15 - 8:30 11 4 15 8:15 4 7 11 8:30 - 8:45 10 4 14 12 63 8:30 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:00 7 19 8 25 15 44 8:45 - 9:00 8 41 4 22 9:00 - 9:15 3 6 S 9:00 - 9:15 9:15 - 9:30 6 3 1 14 ' 17 9:15 - 9:30 9:30 - 9:45 5 2 4 6 9 8 9:30 - 4:45 4 1 5 7 36 9.45 - 10.00 1 11 4 20 5 31 9:45 - 10:00 .5 18 2 18 10.00 - 10.15 7 7 14 10:00 - 10:15 1 2 3 3 3 10:15 - 10:30 6 5 11 10:15 - 10:30 10:30 - 10:45 0 1 0 1 10:30 - 10.45 3 5 8 2 4 1 6 3 10 10:45 - 11:00 6 22 10 27 16 49 10:45 - 11:00 11:00 - 11:15 7 10 17 11:00 - 11:15 11:15 - 11:30 2 4 0 1 2 5 11:15 - 11:30 9 5 14 2 2 11:30 - 11:45 4 3 7 11:30 - 11:45 0 0 6 0 3 0 9 11:45 - 12.00 3 23 8 26 11 49 11:45 - 12:00 TOTALS 151 150 301 230 302 381 452 833 fV f ll. r 1 . .i-11 `._.J • iii... fftf wf fwf tf'tfrt�Zf-4�1rf 4f ft tf if ff •ff lM ttf wt w.w.w.�*tttwtttwfttw �ftwfww *ffwtttttttm1r444wy-4w-rrftftt Ott ffff LOCATION - PAWCE TER-JUZT N/0 ,&L- AYERAGED YOLUW-S FOS - DAY 7/31/91 TO THURSDAY 8/1/91 P!4 .***t. AM ` SS TOTAL TIME SS TOTAL TI!€ NB ***'f 12:00 - 12:15 0 0 0 12:00 - 12:15 15 5 13 20 19 1 0 1 12:15 - 12:30 6 12:15 - 12:3fl 12:30 - 1 2 1 3 x:30 - 12;45 14 12 47 7 13 5 36 27 17 83 1 4 0 1 1 5 12:45 - 1:00 1:45 12.45 - 1:00 • 1:00 - 1:15 1 1 2 2 1:00 - 1:15 1:15 - 1:30 6 12 5 5. - - 11 11 1:15 - 1:30 2 0 0 1 1:30 - 1:45 10 8 18 1:30 - 1:45 1 4 0 1 0 5 1:45 - 2:00 14 42 9 27 23 69 1:45 - 2:00 0 " 2:00 - 2:15 1 1 2 2:00 - 2:15 7 7 7 14 12 2 2 2:15 - 2:30 5 2:15 - 2:30 0 0 2 2:30 - 2:45 12 5 17 2:30 - 2:45 2 0 3 0 6 2:45 - 3:00 13 37 9 28 22 65 2:45 - 3:00 0 3 3:00 - 3:15 0 0 0 3:00 - 3:15 3:15 - 3:30 9 10 7 8 16 18 3:15 - 3:30 3:30 - 3:45 0 1 0 0 0 1 3:30 - 3:45 8 8 35 7 7 29 15 15 64 0 1 0 0 0 1 3:45 - 4:00 3:45 - 4:00 4:00 - 4:15 4:15 - 4:30 0 1 0 0 0 1 4;00 - 4:15 4:15 - 4:30 14 19 7 7 9 21 26 V 1 1 2 4:30 - 4:45 18 4:30 - 4:45 2 1 2 1 4 4:45 - 5:00 16 67 3 7 30 23 97 4:45 - 5:00 0 5.00 - 5:15 0 1 1 5:00 - 5:15 - 5:30 16. 16 13 7 29 23 : 5.15 - 5:30 0 0 0 5:15 5:30 - 5:45 19 7 26 _ 5:30 - 5:45 1 4 6 5 3 9 5:45 - 6:00 17 68 Z 14 41 31 109 S:45 - 6:00 2 3 1 Lw 6:00 - 6:15 0 5 5 6.00 - 6:15 6:15 - 6:30 19 24 12 g 31 3313 6:15 - 6:30 4 5 3 9 4 6:30 - 6:45 22 35 6:30 - 6:45 1 9 12 25 16 34 6:45 - 7:00 21 86 1 11 45 32 131 6:45 - 7:00 4 1:00 - 7:15 3 16 19 7:00 - 7:15 21 15 17 11 38 26 7:15 - 7:30 6 15 21 20 7:15 - 7:30 7:30 - 7:45 16 9 25 7:30 - 7:45 3 17 7:45 - 8:00 13 65 i - 10 47 23 112 7:45 - 8:00 7 19 24 72 31 91 8:00 - 8:15 2 20 8;00 - 8:15 8:15 - 8:30 10 14 4 12 14 26 8:15 - 8:30 4 13 17 2 23 8:30 - 8:45 3 18 21 8:30-- 8:45 21 13 58 = 1 19 14 77 8:45 - 9:00 3 12 12 63 15 75 8:45 - 9:00 9:00 - 9:15 4 10 14 9:00 - 9:15 11 1 10 12 23 9:15 - 9:30 8 9 17 9:15 - 9:3` 13 4 12 9:30 - 9:45 5 18 23 71 9:30 - 9:45 9:45 - 10:00 6 18 50 1 16 19 66 9:45 - 10:00 4 21 13 50 17 10:00 - 10:15 10 8 18 10:00 - 10.15 10 3 3 13 10 10:15 - 10:30 11 9 20 10:15 - 10:30 7 0 7 10:30 - 10:45 8 8 16 10:30 - 10:45 7 7 31 5 11 12 42 10:45 - 11:00 4 33 6 31 10 64 10:45 - 11:00 IR 11:00 - 11:15 8 9 17 11:00 - 11:15 11:15 - 11:30 4 11 2 1 6 12 11:15 - 11:30 4 8 12 1 5 11:30 - 11:45 6 8 14 11:30 - 11:45 4 3 22 0 4 3 26 11:45 - 12:00 5 23 8 33 13 56 11:45 - 12:00 *` 421 608 333 941 TOTALS 134 287 742 620 1,362 AD T' S TRAFFIC UATA SERVICCS AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR - k__.,,ESOAY 6/7/91 TO THURSDAY 8/8/91 WICOPA-BTN PARKCTR/WKTkl ITQ_ LOCATION - PN « TOTAL TUE �g 1 SB TOTAL OP-" TIME NB�,• 2 12:00 - 12:15 5 6 11 12:00 - 12:15 0 2 2 12:15 - 12:30 5 7 12 12:15 - 12:30 1 1 3 12:30 - 12:45 6 6 12 12:30 - 12:45 0 3 7 4 11 12:45 - 1:00 7 23 1 0 29 17 52 12:45 - 1:00 3 4 1 _ 1:00 - 1:15 1 1 2 1:00 - 1:15 1:15 - 1:30 9 11 3 10 12 21 1:15 - 1:30 0 2 0 2 0 1:30 - 1:45 7 3 10 1:30 - 1:45 0 1 4 2 6 1:45 - 2:00 9 36 Lj 4 20 56 13 . • 1:45 - 200 1 2 1 1 2 2:00 - 2:15 4 2 5 6 6 2:00 - 2:15 0 0 2:15 - 2:30 1 2:15 - 2:30 0 0 0 2:30 - 2:45 9 8 17 2:30 - 2:45 2:45 - 3.00 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 2:45 - 3:00 6 20 9 24 15 44 �p 3:00 - 3:15 0 0p 3:00 - 3:15 3:15 - 3:30 I 6 4 7 5 13 3:15 - 3:30 0 0 1 I 3:30 - 3:45 9 4 13 3:30 - 3:45 0 0 1 0 1 3:45 - 4:00 10 26 9 24 19 50 3:45 - 4:00 0 0 4:00 - 4:15 0 1 1 3 4:00 - 4:15 4:15 - 4:30 5 4 9 8 14 12 4:15 - 4:30 3 0 0 4:30 - 4:45 4 11 15 4:30 - 4:45 0 0 1 0 4 4:45 - 5:00 8 21 8 36 16 51 4:45 - 5:00 0 3 0 0 p 5:00 - 5:15 8. 9 17 5:00 - 5:15 0 1 3 5:15 - 5:30 3 7 10 5:15 - 5:30 0 1 5:30 - 5:45 4 11 15 5:30 - 5:45 1 1 2 3 2 6 5:45 - 6:00 7 22 9 36 16 58 5:45 . 6:00 0 3 6:00 - 6:15 6 0 6 6:00 6:15 6:15 - 6:30 4 9 11 19 15 2$ 6:15 - 6:30 6:30 - 6:45 5 4 1 6 5 6:30 - 6:45 it 6 19 30 - 16 65 30I 22 95 26 0 Z 11 28 6:45 - 7:00 6:45 - 7:00 11 3 19 7:00 - 7:15 17 16 33 7:00 - 7:15 16 3 14 7:15 - 7:30 6 5 11 7:15 - 7:30 11 -� 12 7:30 - 7:45 5 12 11 7:30 - 7:45 I1 1 6 13 28 73 7:45 - 8:00 5 14 47 17 80 7:45 - 8:00 22 60- 8:00 - 8:15 8:00 22 13 8:00 - 8:15 8:15 - 8:30 3 1 5 4 8 5 8:15 - 8.30 20 3 8:30 - 8:45 6 10 16 8:30 - 8:45 8 \` ` 0 1 17 8 12 78 8:45 - 9:00so 6 16 8 Z1 14 43 8:45 - 9:00 11 61 9:00 - 9:15 A. 4 16 9:00 - 9:15 ; 2 8 g 25 10 9:15 - 9:30 8 1 9 9:15 - 9:30 9:30 - 9:45 1 8 9 9:30 - 9:45 7 --. 8 15 51 9:45 - 10.:00 2 12 10 34 12 46 9:45 - 10:00 9 36 ` 2 15 11 7 6 I3 10:00 - 10:15 1 1 2 2 10:00 - 10:15 10:15 - 10:30 18 4 27 12 10:15 - 10:30 10:3 0 - 10:45 1 1 1 5 6 10:30 - 10:45 7 .5 0 3 2 9 2 12 10:45 - 11:00 8 40 6 21 14 61 10:45 - 11:00 11:00 _ 11:15 17 13 3O 11:00 - 11:15 11.15 - 11:30 2 1 1 0 3 1 11:15 11:30 7 6 13 3 10 11:30 - 11:45 1 2 11:30 - 11:45 6 4 12 65 11:45 - 12:00 1 5 3 6 4 11 11:45 - 12:00 8 38 ,� 4 27 386 247 357 604 TOTALS 274 112 521 469 990 ADT' S 1.: t �yywwawafaty wwytw wtwaaawlfawM wffaat�-ffwwwwww wf tftttww ANTE- REY-BTN TI BURON/PAn _rITR Mt wattwaw aawwawaaawwrwwrwaaww•raraaw+raaaaawrwrwrwr AVERAGED VOLUK.S FOR - WL, ,AY 7/31/91 TO a�aa.♦s..rr.. THURSDAY 8/l/91 LOCATION --- ---+. PM * SB TOTAL ME NB SB-". TOTAL T I FSE H8 0 0 0 12:00 - 12:15 7 2 9 12:00 -12:15 1 5 12:15 - 12:30 6 5 11 12:15 - 12:30 4 4 12:30 - 12:45 7 18 -- 25 12:30 -12:45 3 1 8 1 0 2 1 10 12:45 - 1:00 8 28 3 26 _� 11 56 12.45 ' 1.00 1:00 - 1:15 1 1 2 1:00 - 1:15 4 13 3 6 7 19 ` 1:15 - 1:30 1 0 1 1 1:15 - 1:30 - 1:30 1:45 6 . 4 — 10 1:30 - 1:45 1 4 0 0 1 1 5 1:45 - 2:00 7 30 5 18 12 48 1:45 _ 2;00 1 - 2:15 1 p 1 2:00 - 2:15 7 2 9 2:00 0 1 2:15 - 2:30 5 11 16 2:15 - 2.30 2:30 - 2:45 1 0 1 1 2:30 - 2:45 11 5 16 63 2:45 - 3:00 1 3 1 2 2 5 2:45 - 3:00 10 33 12 30 22 3:00 - 3:15 0 p p 3:00 - 3:15 7 5 3 6 10 ll 3:15 - 3:30 0 0 0 p 3 :15 - 3:30 3:30 - 3:45 7 4 11 3:30 - 3:45 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 3:45 - 4:00 11 30 4 17 15 47 ' 3:45 - 4:00 0 4:00 - 4:15 0 0 0 4:00 - 4:15 4:15 - 4:30 10 10 10 2 20 12 4:15 - 4:30 0 1 1 1 1 4:30 - 4:45 10 8 18 4:30 - 4:45 0 1 1 3 2 4 4:45 - 5:00 10 40 2 22 12 62 4:45 - 5:00 1 5:00 - 5:15 0 0 0 5:00 - 5:15 8 10 18 5:15 - 5:30 0 0 0 5:15 - 5:30 11 3 u 5:30 - 5:45 0 2 2 2 4 5:30 - 5:45 5:45 - 6:00 8 10 37 8 41 �,., - 18 78 5:45 - 6:00 0 0 2 4 6:00 - 6:15 0 4 4 6:i10 - 6:15 11 9 9 20 23 6:15 - 6:30 3 2 5 6:15 - 6:30 6:30 - 6:45 14 18 11 29 6:30 - 6:45 0 1 4 1 7 14 1 8 18 6:45 - 7:00 13 56 4 33 17 89 6:45 - 7:00 7:00 - .7:15 2 9 11 13 7:00 - 7:15 7:15 - 7:30 17 12 7 7 24 19 7:15 - 7:30 3 3 10 11 14 7:30 - 7:45 12 7 19 7:30 - 7:45 7:45 - 8:00 2 10 10 40'3 1. 12 50 7:45 - 8:00 11 52 5 26 16 78 8:00 - 8:15 5 16 21 8:00 - 8:15 - 8:30 9 5 2 7 u 12 8:15 - 8:30 4 11 15 8:15 3 19 8:30 - 8:45 3 12 9 48f 15 12 63 8:30 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:00 16 10 40 11 23 21 63 8:45 - 9:00 3 15 9:00 - 9:15 3 9 12 9:00 - 9:15 6 £ 7 14 19 9.15 - 9.30 6 8 14 9:15 - 9:30 12 1 9:30 - 9:45 2 9 -., 11 19 56 9:30 - 9:45 9:45 - 10:00 2 12 32 0 16 - 12 48 9:45 - 10:00 5 16 14 40 10:00 - 10:15 13 10 23 10:00 - 10:15 7 2 1 9 11 10:15 - 10:30 6 12 18 10:15 - 10:30 10:30 - 10:45 10 6 0 6 10.30 - 10.45 2 3 5 26 2 5 5 31 10:45 - 11:00 4 25 1 26 5 51 10:45 - 11:00 3 11:00 - 11:15 5 7 12 11:00 - 11:15 - 1 6 2 4 3 10 11.15 - 11.30 8 6 14 11:15 :30 1 11:30 - 11:45 2 13 15 11:30 - 11:45 1 0 8 0 2 8 2 16 11:45 - 12:00 5 20 3 29 8 49 11:45 - 12:00 TOTALS 106 209 315 412 267 679 518 476 934 AD7'S Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S STREET: PARKCENTER E/W STREET: BRYAN CITY: TUSTIN LANE AVE DATE: 8/13/91 DAY: TUESDAY FILENAME: 0711101P --•-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Period Beginning NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 3:00 PM 15 PM ' 30 PM 45 PM 4:00 PM 4 0 3 3 1 5 12 81 5 5 133 4 256 15 PM 7 2 4 2 0 3 4 87 6 5 170 6 296 30 PM 4 0 1 4 0 6 8 105 13 7 132 2 282 45 PM 1 1 3 2 0 6 6 139 15 6 187 4 , 370 5:00 PM 5 1 10 3 1 6 3 170 11 4 165 8 387 15 PM 5 0 7 1 0 8 8 168 10 9 162 14 392 30 PM 4 1 7 0 0 7 9 146 7 8 147 9 345 45 PM 3 0 5 1 0 7 10 155 6 7 146 9 349 6:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM Peak Hr Begins at 1645 VOLUMES 15 3 Z7 6 1 27 26 623 43 21 661 35 1494 COMMENTS: a Al o1 �DAUG 141991 iTUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS N/S STREET: PARKCENTER E/W STREET: BRYAN CITY: TUSTIN LANE AVE DATE: 8/13/91 DAY: •----•--------------------------- TUESDAY .FILENAME: --------------- 0711101A -•--------------------------- 15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Period Beginning NL -------- NT NR SL ST ----- SR --- ••---• EL ---- ET ----- ER ----- WL --------- WT WR ----------- TOTAL --•-•------ LANES: 0 ---------- 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 6:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 7:00 AM 10 2 5 3 1 12 3 75 0 2 98 0 211 15 AM 7 1 3 6 1 9 0 81 0' - 4 130 0 242 30 AM 18 1 6 4 0 23 1 81 5 1 150 1 291 45 AM 13 0 7 4 0 14 3 94 1 2 123 2 263 8:00 AM 6 0 6 3 0 10 4 66 3 2 128 1 229 15 AM 11 1 10 4 0 14 0 61 5 3 125 1 235 30 AM 14 1 5 2 2 5 3 53 2 4 167 0 258 45 AM 3 0 8 3 0 11 2 45 3 4 150 1 230 9:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM 10:00 AM 15 AM 30 AM 45 AM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- AM Peak Hr Begins at 71S VOLUMES 44 2 22 17 1 56 8 322 9 9 531 4 1025 COMMENTS: A41aGilInBr{t 16 Traffic Manual SIGNS 4-37 3-1987 POLICY R1 Stop Signs and Yield Signs • Stop Signs The STOP sign (131) shall be used where traffic is required to stop except at sigffMized'intersections. - The STOP sign shall be an octagon with white mes- Standard 30" sage and border on a red background. The standard size shall be 30 x 30 inches. Where greater emphasis or visibility is required, a larger size is recommended. On local streets and secondary roads with low ap- proach speeds and low volume, a 24 x 24 inch size may be used. 131-3 At a multiway stop intersection, a supplemental plate Em (R1-3 or R1-4) should be mounted just below each w Standard 12" x 6" STOP sign. R1-4 The numeral on the supplementary plate shall corres- pond to the number of approach legs, or the legend ALL -WAY (R1-4) may be used. The plate shall have white letters on a red background. Standard 18" x 6" A red flashing beacon or beacons may be used in conjunction with a STOP sign. See Section 9-08 (Flashng Beacons). Secondary messages shall not be used on STOP sign faces. • Warrants for STOP Signs Because the STOP sign causes a substantial incon- venience to motorists, it should be used only where warranted. A STOP sign may be warranted at an inter- section where one or more of the following con- ditions exist: 1. On the less important road at its intersection with a main road where application of the normal right of way rule is unduly hazardous as evidenced by accidents susceptible to correction by STOP signs. 2. On a county road or city street at its intersection with a state highway. 3. At the intersection of two main highways. The highway traffic to be stopped depends on ap- proach speeds, volumes, and turning movements. 4. On a street entering a legally established through highway or street. 5. On a minor street where the safe approach speed to the intersection is less than 10 miles per hour. 6. At an unsignalized intersection in a signal- ized area. 7. At other intersections where a combination of high speed, restricted view, and accident record indi- cates a need for control by the STOP sign. 4-38 SIGNS Traffic Manual 3-1987 - - POLICY A STOP sign is not a "cure -air' and is not a substitute for other traffic control devices. Many times the need for a STOP sign can be eliminated if the sight distance is increased by remoJing the obstructions. STOP signs shall not be erected at any entrance to an Intersection when such entrance is controlled by an official traffic control signal, nor at any railroad grade crossing which is controlled by automatic signals, gates, or other train -actuated control devices except as provided in CVC 21355, Stop Signs. The conflicting commands of two types of control devices are con- fusing. If traffic is required to stop when the operation of the stop -and -go signals is not warranted, the signals should be put on flashing operation with the red flashing light facing the traffic that must stop. Where two main highways intersect, the STOP sign or signs should normally be posted on the minor street to stop the lesser flow of traffic. Traffic engineering studies, however, may justify a decision to install a STOP sign or signs on the major street, as at a three-way intersection where safety considerations may justify stopping the greater flow of traffic to permit a left turning movement STOP signs should not be installed indiscriminately at all unprotected railroad crossings. The allowance of STOP signs at all such crossings would eventually breed contempt for both law enforcement, and obedience to the sign's command to stop. STOP signs may only be used at selected rail/highway grade crossings after their need has been determined by a traffic engineering study. Such study should consider approach speeds, sight distance restrictions, volumes, accident records, etc. This application of STOP signs should be an interim use period during which pians for lights, gates or other means of control are being prepared. Portable or part-time STOP signs shall not be used except for emergency purposes. Also, STOP signs should not be used for speed control. • Multiway STOP signs The "Multiway Stop" installation may be useful at some locations. It should ordinarily be used only where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approx- imately equal. A traffic control signal is more satisfactory for an intersection with a heavy volume of traffic. Traffic Manual SIGNS 4-39 3-1987 POLICY Any of the following conditions may warrant a multi - way STOP sign installation: 1. Where -.traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multiway stop_jpay ae an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the signal installations. 2. An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents within a 12 month period of a type susceptible to correction by a multiway stop installation. Such accidents include right- and ightand left -turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. 3. Minimum traffic volumes (a) The total vehicular volume entering the Inter- section ntersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and (b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but (c) When the 85 -percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements. • Yield Signs The YIELD sign (R1-2) assigns right of way to traffic on certain approaches to an intersection. Vehicles controlled by a YIELD sign need stop only when nec- essary eo-essary to avoid interference with other traffic that R1-2 is given the right of way. --- - The YIELD sign shall be a downward pointing, equi- VELD lateral triangle having a red border band and a white interior and the word YIELD in red inside the border band. The standard size shall be 36 x 36 x 36 inches. • Warrants for YIELD Signs Standard 36" The YIELD sign may be warranted: 1. On a minor road at the entrance to an intersection where it is necessary to assign right of way to the major road, but where a stop is not necessary at all times, and where the safe approach speed on the minor road exceeds 10 miles per hour. 2. On the entrance ramp to an expressway where an acceleration lane is not provided. 4--40 SIGNS Traffic Manual :-1987 POLICY 3. Within an intersection with a divided highway, where a STOP sign is present at the entrance to the first road way and further control is necessary at the entrance to the second roadway, and where the median width between the two roadways ex- ceeds 30 feet 4. Where there is a separate or channelized right - turn lane, without an adequate acceleration lane. 5. At any intersection where a special problem exists and where an engineering study indicates the problem to be susceptible to correction by use of the YIELD sign. • Location of STOP Sign and YIELD Sign A STOP sign should be erected at or near the point where the vehicle is to stop. When a required stop is to apply at the entrance to an intersection from a one-way street the roadway of which is 30 feet or more in width, STOP signs shall be erected both on the left and the right sides of such one-way street at or near the entrance to the inter- section. (CVC 21355) A STOP sign is supplemented with a limit line (stop - line) and/or the wore! STOP on the pavement. See 6-02.11 "Limit Lines" and Figure 6-20. A limit line shall be placed on paved approaches to State High- ways and a STOP marking should be placed on all but minor approaches. YIELD signs shall be located at or near the entrance to the intersection or highway where motorists are required to yield the right of way. (CVC 21356) Where there is a marked crosswalk on the pavement, the sign should be erected approximately 4 feet in advance of the crosswalk line nearest to approach- ing traffic. Where only one sign, STOP or YIELD, is used, it shall be on the right-hand side of the traffic lane to which it applies. At an intersection where a wide throat exists on the signed approach, observance of the regulation may be improved by the erection of an additional sign on the left side of the approach road. Where two lanes of traffic are subject to the STOP sign, a second sign should be placed where it is visible to traffic in the inner lane. STOP pavement markings may be used in lieu of a second sign. At certain channelized intersections, the additional sign may be effectively placed on a channelizing island. In no instance shall a STOP or YIELD sign be mounted above another on the same post. Traffic Manual SIGNS "1 3-1987 POLICY Where two roads intersect at an acute angle, the STOP or YIELD sign- should be positioned at an angle, or shielded, so that the sign face is out of view of traffic to which it does not apply. If the visibility of a STOP or a YIELD sign is restricted, a STOP AHEAD symbol sign (W17) or a YIELD AHEAD symbol sign (W28) should be erected in advance of the STOP or YIELD sign. YIELD signs should not ordinarily be placed to control the major flow of traffic at an intersection.They shall not be erected on the approaches of more than one of the intersecting streets. (CVC 21356) YIELD signs should not be used on the through road- ways of expressways. They may be used on an entering roadway without an adequate acceleration lane. YIELD signs should not be used in a well designed interchange, as the signs would interfere with the free merging movement YIELD signs should not be used on a minor street where the safe approach speed of the intersection is less than 10 miles per hour. The SPEED LIMIT sign (R2) shall be used to give notice of a restricted prima facie speed limit except as provided under Prima Facie Speed Limits in CVC 22352. R2 The 48" x 60" signs shall be used on freeways. The 24" x 3011signs may be used on urban streets. SPEED nterLWhere speed zones are longer than one mile, inter- IMIT LIMIT mediate signs may be placed at approximate one -mile intervals. Dual installations may be used for three or 50 more lanes in each direction. See CVC Sections 22350 through 22413 and Traffic Manual Chapter 8, "Traffic Regulations" for additional Standard 36" x 45" information. See Chapter 10, "School Area Pedestrian Safety' for the R2 signs used in school zones. When the maximum speed is to be posted, the MAX- IMUM SPEED 55 sign (116) shall be used. PARKCENTER LANE Sight Distance Study January 29, 1992 Findings: From initial field review and data collection Post Speed Limit: 30 m.p.h. 85th percentile: 37.5 m.p.h. The Maricopa Driveway is located on the inside -of -curve of Parkcenter Lane. The centerline of Maricopa Driveway is 261' west of the centerline of Monterey. Parking is prohibited on Parkcenter Lane. Parkcenter Lane is 40' wide (curved section), double yellow lines at 20'..- A field review of January 29, 1992 indicates that 250' of sight exists for the eastbound approach if a driver on Maricopa is positioned 10' beside the curb extension. Sight distance increases to 330' if the driver's position is 51. Eastbound traffic is the nearside approach. Sight distance is restricted by a wall and a hedge along the wall. IF THE HEDGE IS REMOVED, the respective sight distance improves to 300' and 3961. The parkway is elevated about 2 feet above the street surface. The hedge is about 2 feet high or about 4 feet higher than street surface. Various criteria for Stopping Sight Distance Design Speed 40 XX Traffic Accidents: At Monterey At Maricopa By. 1�&A(-40 Chuck Mackey CALTRANS Stopping Sight Distance 300' Orange County Collector r•� 1991 = 0, 1990 = 0 1991 = 0, 1990 = 0 SIGHTDIST 1.7 7/00�� 1 x Limited umorso iECurb lino R/W Line -4.,. 7f.,yp. Leftd R igbt Turn Out Cross Traffic iht Distance Limited use ' arse '` ----' A I S or 3 (s) Raised median DISTANCE (FT.) X ad X' are based aeon o standard 14 Median for erolor and pritnory hignwoys Us* S Values for unsigndti2od intersections oM S(s) values for sipnoiiYed �srssctions. Lirnilsd U" Lint of Sight (Trp.) Area , paned - ' A - curb Line Med ion S lids ( I � Left Turn In Sight Distonce ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTALN E T GENCY Appvovsd • C R. N00 , Dirycior d Rijb6c morxs A4006d: Res. 77-92- Revised: 92-716; 86-1 1 4 1: 6 s-1341 J NTERSECT ION SIGHT DISTANCE STD. PLAN 1117 sHET i or 3 Y, X0 X f MAJOR 660 580 37 37 '3 PR IMARY 610 500 25 25 13 S ECONOA RY 550 430 18. 18 1 6 COMMUTER 300 3s0 0 0 0 ODLLECTOR 390 250 0 0 i 0 LOCAL 280 L50- 0 0 0 X ad X' are based aeon o standard 14 Median for erolor and pritnory hignwoys Us* S Values for unsigndti2od intersections oM S(s) values for sipnoiiYed �srssctions. Lirnilsd U" Lint of Sight (Trp.) Area , paned - ' A - curb Line Med ion S lids ( I � Left Turn In Sight Distonce ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTALN E T GENCY Appvovsd • C R. N00 , Dirycior d Rijb6c morxs A4006d: Res. 77-92- Revised: 92-716; 86-1 1 4 1: 6 s-1341 J NTERSECT ION SIGHT DISTANCE STD. PLAN 1117 sHET i or 3