Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutO.B. 3 STOP SIGNS 03-02-92c Ki r ii - t , OLD BUSINESS NO. 3 3-2-92 -------------- - r IA FEBRUARY 26, 1992 4.1 WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISIO 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 21 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. 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. Robert S. Ledendeck er Charles Mackey Director of Public Works/ Consulting TraffiEng' er ( City Engineer RSL:DA:kIb:PKCTRI Attachment TRAFFIC STUDY FOR MULTI -WAY STOP CONTROLS AND/OR SPEED BUMPS ON PARKCENTER LANE AT MARICOPA AND AT MONTEREY STREET ESS/pyo Uj W 0. 1491 rn � Exp' A f � �G �� OF %^j 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 or speed bumps on Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa and at Monterey Street. RECOMaVIEENDED 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 20, 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 nrh. Therells is no been residential frontage on Parkcenter Lane. Masonry constructed along Parkcenter Lane to separate the homes from the 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 matteer. Theremletter of d as soon January 31, 1992 noted that the hedge need 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 Tustintheir intersections with Parkcenter Lane. Parkcenter Lane at 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 in this area is curb adjacent to a point 71 feet beyond the curb return and then 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 Existincu 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 are found on Standard Plan 1117 of the Orange County Environmental Management 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 Sian 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 dontrols are useful when traffic volumes on both intersecting streets are nearly equal and high enough that vehicles 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 of these vehicles (one vehicle every 18 seconds) should be on the lesser used street 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 stop 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 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 treets differentlyt and from local, residential streets. These streets 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 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-way traffic counts for Maricopa and Monterey Street are each about 11000 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 rang from 830 to 1,350 vehicles per day. These volumes are at the 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 Sian 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 Laneratned that all -way stop sign control warrants on Parkcenter .Maricopa and at Monterey Street are not fulfilled nor are the warrants for traffic volume and accidents satisfied (Attachments 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) the street function of Parkcenter Lane, and, 2) the appropriateness of speed bumps/humps (Attachment 8). Parkcenter Lane has been designed as a residential collector street, and that is its present function. Since it was designed to function as a collector street, no fronting residential land use is permitted. The residential land use is separated dlfrom the street use by decorative masonry walls. The e 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 31 1988 (Attachments 8 and 9). This informational report contained information from the Police Department, City Attorney's office, and the City's Consultant Traffic Engineer. The basic finding of the report is that speed bumps/humps are not traffic control devices which have been approved by Caltrans. The report therefore recommends against installing such devices as speed bumps/humps until such a time as they have been approved by Caltrans for use as traffic control devices.Thinreport also areas 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. 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. 7 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. ATTACHMENTS: 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 31 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 JAN _ 21991 � i RE: MARICOPA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Dear Council Members: j e f : ' JAN 81992 L`_; } -4;TIN PUBLIC ti,nS A T --a c k 1M a y'\ --i Association Management Mailing Address: PO. 80K 4708. kvine. CA 92716 Corporate: 17461 Oerian Ave.. Suite 175 Irvine. CA 92714 7141553-1876 30011 IvY Gleru Drive. �u�te 115 Laguna Niguel. CA 92677 714/249-3991 As management representative for the above referenced association,fSihe Bi rd of on Directors requested that I write.you regarding the a shortcut between Tustin Parkcenter Lane. It appears Parkcenter 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. Tb.^ Association has been turned down in its request for the gating of Parkcenter , and is therefore, requesting additional patrol by the Tustin Police L--rartment 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, VILLAAWAY VI*GEMENV INC. Gary Ros ' Property dministrator GR: Pm cc: Tom Kawaguchi 13441 Montecito Tustin, CA 92680 Residential and Commeroal Association Management %4 achm en4- Z ' Public Works /Engineering s CityOf Tustin 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, CA 92680 January 16, 1992 -4.;a 4) 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 onre Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa and at y • 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 Pa rkcenter Lane at Maricopa and at Monterey Street. - This issue has been agendized for the city Council consideration of meeting of January 20, 1992 for their cons 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, A( `� dan Dana R. Kas Engineering Services Manager DRK:k1b:R0SS 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 MINUTES Page 5, 1-20-92 REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS OR SPEED BUMPS ON pARRCENTER LANE AT 3. 4 MARZCOPA 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 at Monterey Street. Motion carried 5-0. 4. STATUS REPORT - ST. JEANNE DE LESTONNAC SCHOOL DRIVEWAY ACCESS . It was moved by Potts seconded b Pontious, to receive and file subject report. Motion carried _5-O- 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 requ comparison of survey cities. of additional issues including: benefits paid contract city attorneys; inclusion of the City of ben on in-house attorneys; and a study of Orange Irvine's study utilizing in-house County cities comparable in size to Tustin, attorneys. as owed b Potts seconded by. Po tious, to continue this It w 3 Council meeting item to the February otioncarried 5-0. KZZ. REPORTS N ACTION AGENDA - JANUARY 13. 1992 1, pLANrIZNG COMMISSIOIt McWhinney Berries) the Councilmember Edgar removed Item No. 12 do , to ratify was moved b Pontious second d b Action Agenda of January Commission remainder oMotion Planning .�� carried 5-O. 13, 1992. Edgar reported he was supportive of the staff 'Councilmember Edg Temporary Use Permit report option: Use Determination and Temp extension. appeal discussion followed regarding a PP Council/staff properly zoned sites. process/timeline and selection of pro P Y following member of the audience addresse olutiona the Council The fo expeditious s regarding his desire for an exp Chad McWhinney, Director of McWhinney Berries 'staff discussion followed regarding Use Determination Council and Conditional Use Permit timeline. It was moved b Ed ar seconded b Prescott, to appeal Item No. 12 Request for Temporary Sale of Strawberries, McWhinney Berries. supportiveted he was of providing fund Opportunitiestt non-profit groups. fund raising PP Pro Tem Pontious said she was also supportive of fund Mayor rofit groups and encouraged the raising opportunities for non-profit -- applicant to work with staff to find the most expeditious resolution. Motion carried 5-0. A +--}act M en � 3 E.'A---- �; *V"US ---------- Inter-Com %TL JANUARY 15, 1992 WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER 30M: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION JBJECT: REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS OR SPEED BUMPS ON PARRCENTER LANE AT MARICOPA AND AT MONTEREY STREET RECOMMENDATIONS: By motion, direct City staff to prepare a warrant study for Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa and at Monterey Street. BACKGROUND: from The City has received a letter, dated December 3arico 9a,Community Gary Ross, Management Representative for the M P Association, requesting installation of stop signs or speed bumps on Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa and at Monterey Street. py Of his letter is attached to this report. Parkcenter Lane, in east Tustin is classified as a local collector street with design capacity of io,000 vehicles per day at level of cles per service "C". it currently carries an estimated a two lane undivided day in the vicinity of the noted area. It roadway with traffic signals at Bryan Avenue and at Tusta their Road. Both Maricopa and Monterey Street have stop sig 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. Leden decker Director of Public Works/ City Engineer RSL:DRK:ccg:pkctr Attachment danR. Kas an Engineering Services Manager so --to _J IRVINE BOULEVARo- m ; <U)®Ck " 0 0 'O O$ O Q cc C12If � O cr- J Q p O 0 0 OD 0 0 0 4 00. 0 9 O-4 wro.� or r . Z O— O E) o o • Q W ZV Q• a �� Y �� O t p O10 t!% ® - �� O O • 0- 00. 6 -00.®®O ��•: PUS b• et Q ©O ® ® Q ago ! ®' © ® - O c7 wr 7 Q Q j• © Q LuOD O i W ' Or ® fes` �,� �O�` , O� -® g �cc •r ®. p O- p p ® ® O ® m p •. CD • O 41 e , . ® ® i m .® �... , �••wf nett eoo Q ® ® Z ®• ..� N+ J i ®• ! a N (D L® m ' ® ® i it tat it wit I� y �.« t..•' , MS S,* � . - •�t X AVENUE _ BRYAN _ i WT t o w 20 Cf) o 00 aQ oZ ¢} a_ > - Q U Q MAW c v s a t I Public Works / Engineering A4 4.n ch piro4 08� ;-- City Of Tustin January 31, 1992 Mr. Gary Ross, Property Administrator Villageway Management, Inc. P.O. Box 4708 Irvine, CA 92716 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, CA 92680 f,44) 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 Council on January 20, 1992, for Parkcenter Lane at Maricopa and at Monterey Street has been started. As part of the study, sight distance for Maricopa at Parkcenter Lane and f or Monterey at Parkcenter Lane was checked he our arkcenter -- has determined that the sightdistance impaired, salong the south-west Lane/Maricopa intersection has been corner by vegetation planted within the Maricopa Homeowner's Association property. Specifically, a portion of the wand between hedge located along Parkcenter Lane west of Maricopa the wall and the sidewalk is presently blocking sight t distance. 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, ground four cover or turf and be maintained at a height of less than inches above ground level so as not to impair the sight distance. The four inch height restriction will provide of drivers at ficient line of site considering the sidewalk grade and the position the location. Enclosed is a drawing showing the exact location of the edghe and the length that needs to be removed in order to ght 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 he 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, WnWR�.Ka s d a n 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 i Douglas R. Anderson, Transportation Engineer Tom Kawaguchi, Maricopa Community Association 51 02 411-4S t•a-4#.s R Gd O � Z � iL C, U� 4 V t t1 Q t Q/ ~ Li J V R i • -'Li v ENDA DATE: - TO: FROM: SEPTEMBER 21, 1988 WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER A +4 Q,:J1 C XInter 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 Lty Attorney's office and the City's Consultant Traffic Engineer and _.as 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 8.0 percent of the posted speed limit. For example, given the 25 mph .mit on a residential street, the speed at the hump should be about 20 jh 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 Consultants has utilized speed humps in two of its client cities Yorba Zda and Agoura Hills and have found them to be an appropriate use on _.:sidential 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 AS TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES September 21, 1988 Page 3 OF SPEED BOO' S/HUMPS . , attached outlines the The City Attorney s memo, dated 8/30/88 (copy bumps/humps within a legal ramifications of the installationeafb�p s and sped humps are not public street. It reiterates that spe p 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 been approved by Caltrans for use as traffic control devices. Engineering Staff concurs with this recommendation. Bob Leden ecker jDirector of Public Works/City-Engineer ,L: bf Attachment b I "ATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT:' August 30, 1988 Inter --- C o m DENNIS BARNES, CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER CITY ATTORNEY SPEED BUMPS/SPEED HUMPS The question has come up again as to whether the City could install speed bumps and/or speed humps. Section 21401 of the Vehicle Code of the State of California provides as follows: Except as provided in Section 213. 4, that those official traffic control stand,ards and conform to the Uniform Specifications promulgated by the Department of Transportation shall beP21374 relaced ates street or highway. (Section only to "Directional markings for tourists" and authorizes painting the surface of streets with lines, arrows or othersymbols for the purpose of * directing visitors eand tourists and so has no relevance tospeed bumps or .humps. ) Speed bumps and speed humps are not traffic control devices which have been approved 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 all .official traffic control devices placed pursuant to this code, including, but not 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 th-e 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. a.; ;.e•. : e s G Z r e t:�ose sicns, i7nt_ c y i -e - ic'C Sect pr CV1CGeCU or: cls - t for ir: tr-� wcrk wr.ict� upon a rli5hw`'y med onto the ffic of the highway. is being perfor Any control devices or m-arkings installed on traffic barriers on or after J Standards up shall conform to the Uniform 1984, uired by this Section. and Specifications req — - 3d 545) umford V. C_i� f Berkeley (3 t Co f mandate In the case entitled R ranted a wri. the Supreme Court of Calif ornia g t had placed on certain eos directing a City to remove bar traffic. The barr streets f or the purpose of controlling its st but left them accessible to use elong partially closed the streets a State has a • court held that the. streets of City local traffic. The c citizen of and every the State to the people of the State, t traffic is an e thereof, subject to the coneeol ° right to the use control over. str The Legislature. The right of n ower of the State. exercise of the part of the sovereign power power in its court pointed out that the i eld of traffic control are set for th preemption of the entire fie which provides: in Vehicle Code Sectio Except as otherwise expressly provided, licable the provisions of this Code he are tate and in all and uniform throughout ities therein, and no counties and municipa ' authority shall enact or enforce Code local ordinance on the matters covered by • ° authorized therein. unless expressly " unless 'expressly provide d' by the The Supreme Court noted thus authority over vehicular traffic local Legislature;, a -City has no rincipal grant of control" The court noted that the p co of is contained in Vehicle sCm e authority over traffic control other -thin that cine Y Section 21100 , which provides among S s of semaphores. or other trof f ll control f f°C "regulate traffic by mean " Section 213 51 gives the rght tO of f ica and other devices". Secti to warn or guide tr Owers including the right t1 control devices eV n moreyexplicit P and to designate all statutes grant field right-of-way signs a the erect stop signs, y traffic. However , o r any. portion of a street for one-waY rovides : "Only those Court pointed out that �- Sectionnf ormo to the Uniform Standards P Department official traffic devices that by the " In the and Specifications P on a street or ,highway control laced up Transportation shall be placed that the term and other devices Rumford case the City argued signals devices" was intended to mean signs, signals the court held that they symbol.there was no 0 that communicate by Yis control devices" were not "traffic control devices", t "traffic barriers and a authorization to install them, the Department they have to be ones that have been authorized by of Transportation. f _^ T : �`�, we ��GI; 6 rlo* c: tl:ot 1n'E ole f'r,C,:. ,.nc�cE.f:t�: , ` S l.iIi+ �S Lct::E L :EGET t�Y have ir.stallea s�eev .,ur..�. CiL t;A. inquiring o f the City Attorneys of those cities as o ttic-' they theory or basis for their installation illie�ral illegalityeach of such devices were totally unaware of the problem of g speed bumps in City streets. One of them also said that f accidents. on C Y his City had been the alleged cause of some number speed bumps an s Accordingly, we recommend against installing p roved s unless and until such time as they a a traffic �contr of speed humps by the Department of Transportation for use devices. City Attorney JGR: se:R: 8/30/88 (1010) cc: WH _ RLL r n ,1 co %~ CITY COUNCIL MINUT-, Page 7, 10-3-88 seconded b Eci ar, to restripe Red moved b Ke ned er Street (eastbound It was Hill Avenue from Valencia Across sectie t�O ion. The .,,vent ot-i on carried 95 to a three direction) - 5-0- BOMPS/RU"S AS TRAFFIC CO NTROL DEVICES + 5. USE OF SPEED ed used n Edgar noted that other communi�te idential reaseto Councilma gdevices,. . as traffic control innovative idea to humps/bumps ere an control speeding. He felt they that bumps/humps are was avow hearingfact that tho decrease speed, but and caused problems. He despaired over way to stop cassional hazardous the City does not have an effective the City does not takeconstructiveithmeasures child. If speeders. eedinq, it could result in but he - the sp recommendation, control staff's enough to* inhibit speeders. He had no choice but to accept thought the City should be creative g Department Of . Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy suggested lobbying the Councilman Edgar agreed. Transportation. implemention of speed with the when cca Hoesterey had difficulty said Mayor tthere avel at ashigs bumps on residential streets- He h rate vehicles need damage the emergency e4ui �d s could speeding over the bumps or hump speed of speed.He noticed that the " of had also vehicles and equipment. these devices was accelerated. cars in between .Ce force had a sufficient poli ��•`��?� thought the City Councilman Kelly was opposed to devices that : to issue tickets to speeders and would effect the streets. police of increased Prescott was in favor .. • Councilman speed bumps/humps were effective though them for City badid not approve of enforcement. He parks, ut in mobile home streets. if anyCouncil � 5 was interested _ Kennedy asked strips"- Mayor -pro Tem regarding rumble s P req in the recommendation instated that Public Works, endecker, Director of but rumbCounty, Robert Led le strips been used widely rumble strips had aints on re P basis and removed if had also on a trial be installed could unsatisfactory • 100 No action was taken on this agenda item. PROPERTY FROM YOUTH CENTER AND SALE OF SIXTH STREET 6- gROCEEDS seconded b enned , to continue this It was „��ved b d a Council meeting• 85 October 19, 1988 City matter at the 5-0• motion carred BROADCASTING OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 7- CABLE a mute point since televising ere .said this was now Mayor Hoest Y He 'then stated the broadcast this meeting had commmenced with •dates and time. s would be broadcast meeting Or'Pro Tem Kennedy asked if the response. May She received an affirmative resp in their entirety. to receive and seconded b Kell 38 It was moved b ort st The motion carried 5-0. reP f ile subject RUNOFF AT PEPPERTREE spARK AND ON g, EXCESSIVE IRRIGATION WATER MEDIAN ISLANDS FIRST STREET to receive and file Kennedy, 10 It was moved n � �d ar seconded by 's f egen� I Q L, m G� i �. A ++e4c- CITY OF TUSTIN ALL -WAY STOP WARRANT INTERSECTION OF Parkcenter AND Maricopa (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? X No. Urgent?_ the 4 -stop is an interim measure. _.yes; 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 stop installation in a 12 -month period. Type of accidents X 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 - 936 a. Total entering volume must average 1 hour ave. - 117 any 8 hours of an average day. b. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from minor Side eetvolumeand street must average 200 unites per hour with an average fstror ped 290, 1 hr ave. 36 delay of at least 30 seconds per vehicle DELAY - 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 a 1.194 Traffic volume on minor street approaches - 521 Total volume 1.715 RATIO - 2.3:1 Comments: Ratio is unacce table. 3a is 23% of attainment. 3b is 19$ of attainment. 4 -WAY STOP CONTROL WARRANTED? YES; X NO. Calc by: ALi,WAYS l ►ruary 5. 1992 A444 c- , ni ej )3 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 --he 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 stop installation in a 12 -month period. Type of accidents X no. susceptible of correction include right angle as well as right- and left -turn collisions. ENTERING TRAFFIC VOLUME 3, Minimum Volume Warrant: Total entering volume must average at least 500 vph for 8 hours 910 a. any 8 hours of an average day. 1 hour ave. = 114 b. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from minor Side streetvolumeand street must average 200 unites per hour with an average ped 2for = 1 hr ave. = 33 delay of at least 30 seconds per vehicle DELAY = 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. _,des; 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 a 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. ' tCalc by' // Date:February 5. 1992 ALLWAYS2 CITY OF TUSTIN ALL—WAY STOP WARRANT INTERSECTION OF Parkcenter AND Monterey/Maricopa (Combined) (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? X No. Urgent?_ the 4 -stop is an interim measure. _yes; 2. Accident occurrence, as indicated by 5 or more reported = 0 Accidents 5 or more? yes; accidents of a type susceptible of correction by a 4 -way stop installation in a 12 -month period. Type of accidents X 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 = 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 volumeand street must average 200 unites per hour with an average fstreet or ped 554, 1 e ave. = 69 = delay of at least 30 seconds per vehicle DELAY = N.A. When the 85th - percentile approach speed of the major 85th% -tile speed = 38 c. exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular 70th% applies? street volume warrant is 70% of the above requirement. _des; 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 = 997 Total volume 2.197__ RATIO s 1.2:1 Comments: Monterey and Marico a form offset T -intersections with Parkcenter Lane. Combinin` the two intersections causes a 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 ALI,,dAYST I ani U 14 0 a d'Lf) co NrIM O. vo a M �D c''1 (� �D tD 1� � O 1� lt) r-1 1� U') N t0 O 0%-- %Dd'd'e-INe-INr'1NOMt�O1lnN01 (�1 H U 4-) 41 a 0 0 CA 0 0 y e�NNNNNNe-�MNNd'd'MN� N 9�4m) a�H 3 41 (1) $4 0d' O 00 O tD O1 00 00 O 1` N r-1 M kD M %D i�la O 'J --Id'd'd�NNNe-iMr-INd'0NN� N 4 . O 4-) '-1 M caH cn r O O tO $44J 04 43 -U O Oa N%0ko0 MNMNNNNMMr-1�-I N -.-I 4m) o (0� oa z 41b P � r G3 $4 > V--1 r -i N t"'1 N d'41 ' z az ID I- CO 1 1 1 N r -i N cn q;rt� 00 � $4 Od 4 0 m C) - 4 oo O x IRAfFIC UAiA NLKV1LtJ, 1NL. •-«-«+r«+r*+-�-.-,r++rt**+rte+Ott.n-*�*+r-�*•t*:+-k+w-.�t-a�+�«.• • •,,r,tom*�«**mt«�..-+.-.-«�.�-rr�r* LUL --AI IUll WUL U/ ll l_UU-) •,.r*.rk�*-«�-�-t-«*�**,rk.,r*.«,k#+tt,►-t*s-�t IN LOCATION - PARKCENTER-JST W/O TUSi,., ONCH AVERAGED YOLUff-S FOR - WEL.._.,JAY 7/31/91 TO THURSDAY 8/1/91 PM AM �1� TOTAL Tilf EB TDTAL TIME EB i 12:00 - 12:15 0 0 p 12:00 - 12:15 8 6 7 14 14 12:15 - 12:30 1 2 3 12:15 - 12:30 7 7 10 17 12:30 - 12:45 0 1 1 0 4 12:30 - 12:45 12:45 - 1:00 3 25 6 29 9 54 12:45 - 1:00 0 1 0 3 1;00 - 1:15 1 1 2 0 1:00 - 1:15 1:15 - 1:30 3 7 5 4_ 8 11 1:15 - 1:30 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 36 1:45 - 2;00 2;00 - 2:15 0 1 1 2:00 - 2:15 7 4 12 7 19 11 2:15 - 2:30 1 2 3 0 2:15 - 2:30 2:30 - 2:45 4 7 11 2:30 - 2:45 0 2 0 0 -3 1 5 2:45 - 3:00 4 19 7 33.E 11 52 2:45 - 3:00 1 3:00 - 3:15 0 0 0 1 3:00 - 3:15 3:15 - 3:30 3 9 7 5 10 14 ' 3:15 - 3:30 1 0 0 0 3:30 - 3:45 3 g �' 11 3:30 - 3:45 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 3:45 - 4:00 2 17 9 29 11 46 3:45 - 4:00 4:00 - 4:15 0 0 0 1 4:00 - 4:15 4:15 - 4:30 9 5 8 5 17 10 4:15 - 4:30 1 0 1 2 4:30 - 4:45 5 4 9 4:30 - 4:45 1 0 2 2 3 2 5 4:45 - 5:00 2 21 8 25 10 46 • 4:45 - 5:00 5:00 - 5:15 0 0 0 5:00 - 5:15 6. 7 10 13 20 5:15 - 5:30 0 0 0 5:15 - 5:30 10 9 8 -� 17 5:30 - 5:45 S:45 - 6:00 0 4 4 1 2 3 1 6 7 5:30 - 5:45 5:45 - 6:00 5 30 15 40 "'Zi 20 70 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 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 Z7, 17 ` 12 56 7:45 - 8:00 6 26 5 31 , 11 57 7:45 - 8:00 5 29 7 8:00 - 8:15 12 10 22 8:00 - 8:15 8:15 - 8:30 3 5 5 5 8 10 8:15 - 8:30 11 4 15 4 7 11 8:30 - 8:45 10 4 22 14 12 63 8:30 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:00 7 19 8 25 15 44 8:45 - 9:00 8 41 4 9:00 - 9:15 3 6 9 9:00 - 9:15 6 3 1 14 7 17 9:15 - 9:30 5 4 9 8 9:15 - 9:30 9:30 - 9:45 4 1 5 9:30 - 9:45 2 6 4 ZO 5 31 9:45 - 10:00 5 18 2 18 7 36 9:45 - 10:00 1 11 10.00 - 10:15 7 7 14 10:00 - 10:15 1 2 3 3 3 10:15 - 10:30 6 5 11 8 10:15 - 10:30 10:30 - 10:45 0 1 0 1 10:30 - 10:45 3 5 ?�. �. 2 4 1 6 3 10 10:45 - 11:00 6 22 10 Z7 ` ' 16 49 10:45 - 11:00 11:00 - 11:15 1 10 17 11:00 - 11:15 2 4 0 1 2 5 9 5 14 11:15 - 11:30 11.15 - 11:30 3 7 11:30 - 11:45 0 2 2 11.30 - 11.45 4 23 8 26 11 49 11:45 - 12:00 0 6 0 3 0 9 11.45 - 12.00 3 TOTALS 151 150 301 230 302 532 381 452 833 LOCATION CODE 01111.000 TRAFFIC DATA SLRYICES. INC. LOCATION - PARKCENTER'JU ,Ty.N/U. ►.a AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR - wur4ESGAY 7/31/91 TO THURSDAY 8/1/91 ' .• �,f* N8 AM * S8 Aftik TOTAL TIME !B PM S8 TOTAL TIME *12:00 12:00 - 12:15 0 0 0 - 12:15 15 5 13 20 19 12:15 - 12:30 1 0 1 12:15 - 12:30 6 13 27 12.30 _ 12:45 2 1 3 5 12:30 - 12:45 12:45 - 1:00 14 12 47 % 5 36 17 83 12:45 1:00 1 4 - 0 1 1 1:00 - 1:15 1 1 2 1:00 - 1:15 1:15 - -1:30 6 12 5 5 . 11 17 1:15 - 1:30 2 0 p 2 1 1:30 - 1:45 10 8 18 1:30 - 1:45 1 0 4 0 1 0 5 1:45 - 2:00 14 42 9 27 23 69 1:45 - 2:00 " 2:00 — 2:15 1 1 2 2:00 — 2:15 7 5 7 7 14 12 2:15 — 2:30 0 2 2 2 2:15 — 2:30 2:30 — 2:45 12 5 17 2:30 — 2:45 2 . 3 p 0 3 0 6 2:45 — 3:00 1 3 31 9 28 22 65 2:45 — 3:00 0 3:00 - 3:15 0 0 0 _ 3:00 3:15 3:15 — 3:30 g 10 7 8 16 18 3:15 — 3:30 3:30 — 3:45 0 1 p 0 p 1 3:30 — 3:45 3:45 — 4:00 8 8 35 -7 7 29 15 15 64 3:45 — 4:00 0 1 0 0 0 1 4;00 - 4:15 4:15 4:30 0 •1 0 0 p 1 4:00 - 4:15 4:15 - 4:30 14 19 7 7 9 21 26_ 27 i 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 2326 5:15 — 5:30 0 0 0 5:15 19 7 5:30 — 5:45 1 4 5 3 9 5:30 — 5:45 5:45 — 6:00 17 68 Z 14 41 31 109 5:45 — 6:00 2 3 1 6 6:00 — 6:15 0 5 5 6.00 — 6:15 6:15 — 6:30 19 24 12 9 31 3335 6:15 — 6:30 4 5 3 9 4 6:30 — 6:45 22 13 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 7:00 — 7:15 3 16 19 7:00 — 7:15 21 17 11 38 26 7 :15 — 7:30 6 15 21 20 7:15 — 7:30 7:30 — 7:45 15 16 9 25 7:30 — 7:45 3 17 31 91 7:45 — 8:00 13 65 10 47 23 112 7:45 - 8:00 7 19 24 72 8:00 — 8:15 2 20 22 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 15 75 8:30 — 8:45 8:45 — 9:00 21 13 58 �� 1 19 14 77 8:45 — 9:00 3 12 12 63 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 — 9:30 13 4 12 9:30 — 9:45 5 18 23 17 71 9:30 — 9:45 9:45 — 10:00 8 18 50 r' 1 16 19 66 9:45 • 10:00 4 21 13 50 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 1 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 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 0 4 3 26 11:45 — 12:00 5 23 8 33 13 56 11:45 — 12:00 3 22 *941 421 608 333 TOTALS 134 281 . 742 620 1,362 ADT' S LM-ttl lUtl LV UI. vi aaa �� TRAFFIC DATA INC.t *SERVICES. �rw,Nrr+r*+ AVERAGED VOLtf£S FOR - k--„r_SOAY 8/7/91 TO T3IURSDAY 8/8/91 - HARICOPA-BTN PARK E�/��CIT0- LOCATION ____ PM * `--NSg * TOTAL TIME I—W 'SB TOTAL TIME N8v 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 52 12:30 — 12:45 0 3 7 4 11 12:45 — 1:00 7 23 10 29 17 12:45 — 1:00 3 4 1 _ 1:00 — 1:15 1 1 2 2 1:00 — 1:15 1:15 — 1:30 9 11 3 10 _ 12 21 1:15 — 1:30 0 2 0 0 1:30 — 1:45 1 3 10 13 56 1:30 — 1:45 0 1 4 2 6 1:45 - 2:00 9 36 ,�° 4 20 1:45 - 2:00 1 2 1 1 2 2:00 - 2:15 4 2 5 b 6 2;00 - 2:15 0 0 2:15 - 2:30 1 17 2:15 - 2:30 0 0 0 2:30 - 2:45 9 8 15 44 2:30 - 2:45 0 1 0 1 0 2 2:45 - 3:00 6 20 9 24 2:45 - 3:00 0 0 0 p 3:00 - 3:15 1 4 7 5 13 3:00 - 3:15 0 p 3:1 5 - 3:30 6 13 3:15 - 3:30 0 0 1 1 3:30 - 3:45 9 4 19 50 3:30 - 3:45 0 1 0 1 3:45 - 4:00 10 26 9 24 • 3:45 - 4.00 0 0 4:00 - 4:15 0 1 13 .1 4:00 - 4:15 4:15 - 4:30 5 4 9 8 14 12 4:15 - 4:30 3 0 4:30 - 4:45 4 11 15 4:30 - 4:45 0 0 0 1 0 4 4:45 - 5:00 8 21 8 36 16 57 4:45 - 5:00 0 3 5:00 - 5:15 0 0 p 5:00 - 5:15 8. 3 9 7 17 10 3 5:15 - 5:30 5:15 - 5:30 2 1 0 1 5:30 - 5:45 4 11 15 16 58 -. 5:30 - 5:45 1 2 3 2 6 5:45 - 6:00 7 22 9 36 5:45 - 6:00 0 3 6:00 - 6:15 6 0 6 6 • 6:00 - 6:15 6:15 - 6:30 4 9 11 19 15 28 6:15 - 6:30 6:30 - b:45 5 4 1 1 5 6:30 - 6:45 6:45 - 1:00 11 6 30 -:� 19 16 65 30 22 95 6:45 - 7:00 11 26 0 2 11 28 7:00 - 7:15 16 3 19 14 7:00 - 7:15 7:15 - 7:30 17 6 16 5 33 11 7:15 - 7:30 • 7:30 7.45 11 11 3 1 .� 12 7:30 - 7:45 5 5 33 `? 12 ' 14 47 17 19 Sfl 7:45 - 8:00 22 r ; 60 .�: 6 13 28 73 - 7:45 8:00 r 8:00 - 8:15 22 13 35 23 8:00 - 8:15 8:15 - 8:30 3 1 5 4 - 8 5 8:15 - 8:30 20 3 g 8:30 - 8:45 6 10 16 8:30 - 8:45 8 0 �` 1 17 12 78 8:45 - 9:00 6 16 8 � 14 43 8:45 - 9:00 11 61 k 9:00 - 9:15 12 4 16 9:00 - 9:15. 9:15 - 9:30 7 2 8 8 15 10 9:15 - 9:30 8 18 9 15 9:30 - 9:45 1 9 9:30 - 9:45 1 -- 8 15 11 51 9:45 - 10.:00 2 12 10 34 12 46 9:45 - 10:00 9 36 L_� 2 6 13 10:00 - 10:15 1 1 2 2 10:00 - 10:15 7 18 4 22 10:15 - 10:30 1 1 6 10:15 - 10:30 5 12 10:30 - 10:45 1 5 2 12 10:30 - 10:45 7 14 61 10:45 - 11:00 0 3 2 9 10:45 - 11:00 8 40 6 21 11:00 - 11:15 17 13 30 13 11:00 - 11:15 11:15 - 11:30 2 1 1 p 3 1 11:15 - 11:30 7 6 2 3 4 10 11:30 - 11:45 1 4 11 11:30 - 11:45 6 12 65 11:45 - 12:00 1 5 3 6 11:45 -12:00 8 38 .,i 4 27 A * * J% #1 k%*” * - - as a * A * A % * a * j . 357 604 TOTALS274 112 396247 521 469 990 ADT' S � �,.�.�,t.,.�,�+►,t�.s++-+-+.+-.� TFSFFlI UAIA jtKYlltJ, 1(rl_t�rntttttr**+rsrr*t�+rtktww*,r*+s ul - MaMPEY-BTN TIBURON/P.. ,cNTR AVERAGED VOLUMES FOR - WL .SAY 7/31/91 TO THURSDAY 8/1/91 LOCATION pm NB AM �" SB TOTAL TIME NB S8-, TOTAL TIME . 0 0 p 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 1 4 12:30 - 12:45 7 18 =- 25 12:30 - 12:45 3 0 2 1 10 12:45 - 1:00 8 28 3 28 f; 11 56 12.45 - 1.00 • 1 8 1:00 - 1:15 1 1 2 1 1:00 - 1:15 1:15 - 1:30 4 13 3 6 7 19 1:15 - 1:30 1 0 0 1 1:30 - 1:45 b - 4 ` 10 1:30 - 1:45 1 4 0 1 1 5 1:45 - 2:00 7 30 5 18 12 48 1:45 - 2:00 1 2:00 - 2:15 1 0 1 1 2:00 - 2:15 2:15 - 2:30 7 5 2 11 9 16 2:15 - 2:30 1 0 1 1 2;30 - 2:45 11 5 f 16 2:30 - 2:45 0 1 2 2 5 2:45 - 3:00 10 33 12 30 � �" 22 63 2:45 - 3:00 1 3 3:00 - 3:15 0 0 0 3:00 - 3:15 3:15 - 3:30 7 5 3 6 10 11 3:15 - 3:30 0 0 0 0 0 3:30 - 3:45 7 4 11 3:30 - 3:45 0 0 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 1 4:00 - 4:15 4:15 - 4:30 10 10 10 2 20 12 4:15 - 4:30 0 1 1 1 4:30 - 4;45 10 8 18 4:30 - 4:45 0 1 3 2 4 4:45 - 5:00 10 40 2 22 12 62 4:45 - 5:00 1 1 5:00 - 5:15 0 0 0 5:00 - 5:15 8 - 10 18 31 0 0 5:15 - 5:30 11 20 5:15 - 5:30 0 2 2 5:30 - 5:45 8 3 11 5:30 - 5:45 0 0 2 4 2 4 5:45 - 6:00 10 37 8 41 t IS 78 5:45 - 6:00 0 6:00 - 6:15 0 4 4 5 6:00 - 6:15 6:15 - 6:30 11 14 9 9 20 23 6:15 - 6:30 3 2 1 6:30 - 6:45 18 11 - 29 6:30 - 6:45 0 1 1 14 8 18 6:45 - 7:00 13 56 4 33 17 89 6:45 - 7:00 1 4 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 10 11 14 7:30 - 7:45 12 7 19 7:30 - 7:45 7:45 - 8:00 3 2 10 10 40{,; 12 50 7:45 - 8:00 11 52 5 26 16 78 8:00 - 8:15 5 16 21 8:00 - 8:15 9 2 7 118:15 12 4 11 15 - 8:30 5 8:15 - 8:30 12 15 8:30 - 8:45 16 3 19 8:30 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:00 3 3 15 9 ,.� 48( 12 63 8:45 - 9:00 10 40 11 23 21 63 9:00 - 9:15 3 9 12 9:00 - 9:15 9:15 - 9:30 6 12 8 7 14 19 9:15 - 9:30 9:30 - 9:45 6 2 8 9 -.., 14 11 9:30 - 9:45 9:45 - 10:00 2 12 32 1 0 16 3 12 48 9:45 - 10:00 5 16 14 40 (1 19 56 10:00 - 10:15 13 10 .1 23 10:00 - 10:15 7 2 9 11 10.15 - 10:30 6 12 18 5 10:15 - 10:30 10:30 - 10:45 10 b 0 6 10:30 - 10:45 2 3 3 26 2 5 5 31 10:45 - 11:00 4 25 1 26 5 51 10:45 - 11:00 11:00 11:15 5 7 12 11:00 - 11:15 1 6 2 4 3 10 - 6 14 11:15 - 11:30 11:15 11:30 8 15 11:30 - 11:45 1 0 1 11:30 - 11:45 2 13 29 f 8 49 11:45 - 12:00 0 8 2 8 2 lb 11.45 -12:00 . 5 20 3 TOTALS 106 209 315 412 267 679 518 476 994 ADT' S .-.,�-�,�«+r� Traffic Data Services, Inc. _ TABULAR SUMMARY Of VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS M/S STREET: PARKCENTER E/W STREET: BRYAN CITY: TUSTIN - DATE: 8/13/91 LANE DAY: TUESDAY AVE FILENAME: 0711101P 15 Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Period ER WL WT WR TOTAL Beginning NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET --------------- --•- .••..••---•--•--•----•-•---••----------••---•---•--------- 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 r 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 27 6 1 27 26 623 43 27 661 35 1494 COMMENTS: r -- °I.S. I ID AUG --1 i a issi ITUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. COMMENTS: Traffic Data Services, Inc. TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS NIS 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 715 VOLUMES 44 2 22 17 1 56 8 322 9 9 531 4 1025 COMMENTS: Traffic Manual SIGNS 4-37 3-1987 POLICY R1 Stop Signs and Yield Signs 0 Stop Signs The STOP sign (131) shall be used where traffic is required to stop except at sigrMized'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. R1-3 At a multiway stop intersection, a supplemental plate (131-3 or R1-4) should be mounted just below each STOP sign. Standard 12" x6" The numeral on the supplementary plate shall corres- R14 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 V' 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 removing 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 b® 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 plans 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. I Traffic Manua SIGNS POLICY 4-39 3-1987 Any of the following conditions may warrant a multi- way ultiway STOP sign installation: 1. Where -.traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multiway stop._pay 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 -tum collisions as well as right-angle collisions. 3. Minimum traffic volumes (a) The total vehicular volume entering the Inter- section 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 is given the right of way. R1-2 ---- - - - The YIELD sign shall be a downward pointing, equi- VELn 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 3-,987 SIGNS POLICY Traffic Manual 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 xceeds 30 feet 4. Where there is a separate or channelized right- turn ightturn 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. ntersection. (CVC 21355) A STOP sign is supplemented with a limit line (stop - line) and/or the word 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. ff M i Tra �c anua SIGNS POLICY 4--41 3-1987 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 30"signs may be used on urban streets. SPEED nterLWhere speed zones are longer than one mile, inter- LIMIT IMIT I 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 Standard 36" x 45" Manual Chapter 8, "Traffic Regulations" for additional 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 (136) 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: Chuck Mackey CALTRANS Stopping Sight Distance 300' Orange County Collector 390' 1991 = 0, 1990 = 0 1991 = 0, 1990 = 0 SIGHTDIST xN Line of siaM (Typ•)—J Left and R igbt Turn Out A nd Cross Traffic Si ht Distance ' S or s (s) Raised median DISTANCE (FL) . 'w x and x' are based upon o S to ndo b 14 Median for nropr and primary hign.ays Use 5 Values for unsi0n4li:ed intersectians and S(s) values for siQnaMYed mirrssowns. Liaised Use Lina d Sight (Trp.) Area , led - I - Roi- - �- Curb Line Median S IId Left Turn In Sight Distance 1• ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL N E T GENCY STD. PLAN Approved Ar C R.•/s*, Dirtcib/ 1117 Adopted: Res. 77-97- Revised, 62-718; 86 -it -41; • 6-1341 INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE'S I OF 3 Y, X• )ee MAJOR 660 560 37 37 13 PR IMARY 610 500 25 25 13 S ECONCA RY 550 430. 48. 8 6 i COMM U TE R 300 350 0 0 0 ODLLECTOR 390 250 0 0 0 LOCAL 280 00- 0 E 0 . 'w x and x' are based upon o S to ndo b 14 Median for nropr and primary hign.ays Use 5 Values for unsi0n4li:ed intersectians and S(s) values for siQnaMYed mirrssowns. Liaised Use Lina d Sight (Trp.) Area , led - I - Roi- - �- Curb Line Median S IId Left Turn In Sight Distance 1• ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL N E T GENCY STD. PLAN Approved Ar C R.•/s*, Dirtcib/ 1117 Adopted: Res. 77-97- Revised, 62-718; 86 -it -41; • 6-1341 INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE'S I OF 3