HomeMy WebLinkAboutO.B. 1 STOP SIGN 01-06-92A -.^ r,. 1, D A- - - _- 6_:; - �-': 1 �-2-
DATE: DECEMBER 12, 1991
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
OLD BUSINESS NO. 1
1-6-92
F R Oil. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
J ECT: REQUEST FOR STOP SIGN ON YORBA STREET AT AMAGANSET WAY
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of Council.
BACKGROUND
The Public Works Department received a letter from Mr. Bruce A.
Traywick dated November 6, 1991 requesting the installation of a
stop sign'on Yorba Street at Amaganset Way.
The subject intersection was equipped with a school crosswalk, a
crossing guard and flashing yellow beacons that had recently been
installed to address neighborhood concerns regarding school zone
crossing at this intersection.
Yorba Street between Irvine Boulevard and Vandenburg Lane has a
1991 Average Daily Traffic volume of 11,100. There is an existing
traffic signal at Irvine Boulevard and a new traffic signal has
been installed at Vandenburg Lane.
DISCUSSION
The Traffic Engineering Consultant has conducted a warrant study
(attached) on the subject intersection as directed by the City
Council at their November 18, 1991 meeting. The results of the
study indicate that neither a multi -way stop nor a traffic signal
installation is warranted at this present time, based upon the
guidelines established by the State of California.
Ro ert S. Ledendeck
Director of Public Works/
City Engineer
RSL:ktb:YORBA
Attachment
Sandra Doubleday
Traffic Engineering Consultant
BSI Consultants, Inc.
REPORT ON THE REQUEST TO INSTALL
A STOP SIGN AT
YORBA STREET AND AMA GANSET WAY
FOR
THE CITY OF TUST/N
... . ....... . . . ........... . ........................... ....... ....
Submitted by. -
BSI
y.
BSI Consultants, Inc.
2001 E. First Street
Santa Ana, California 92705
(7 14) 568-7300
.. Submitted to:
City of Tustin
15222 Del Amo Avenue
Tustin, CA 92680
December 1991
V
DEC 1 1.491
i.* i_
REPORT ON THE REQUEST TO INSTALL
A STOP SIGN AT
YORBA STREET AND AMA GANSE T WA Y
FOR
THE CITY OF TUST/N
Submitted by:
BSI Consultants, Inc.
2001 E. First Street
Santa Ana, California 92705
(714) 568-7300
Submitted to:
City of Tustin
15222 Del Amo Avenue
Tustin, CA 92680
December 1991
BSI Consultants, Inc.
December 17, 1991
Dana R. Kasdan
Engineering Services Manager
City of Tustin
15222 Del Amo
Tustin, CA 92680
Subject: Stop Sign and Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis at Yorba Street and
Amaganset Way
Dear Dana:
On November 18, 1991, the Tustin City Council directed staff to prepare a multi -way stop sign
and traffic signal.warrant analysis for the intersection of Yorba Street and Amaganset Way (See
Attachment 3.). This direction by Council was precipitated by a request from Mr. Bruce A.
Traywick (Attachment 2) .
Pursuant to that request, this report presents an evaluation of stop sign and traffic signal warrants
at the intersection of Yorba Street and Amaganset Way. The analysis format used in this
document centers on information provided by the State of California and specifically, warranting
information that is described in the California State Traffic Manual. As you know, it is the
information contained in that document that is used by cities to establish whether traffic control
devices should be installed and the reasons thereto.
STOP SIGN WARRANT ANALYSIS
The California State Traffic Manual provides a considerable amount of information relative to
when, where, and why a stop sign should be installed. The State Traffic Manual indicates that
because stop signs cause a substantial inconvenience to motorists, they should be used only
where warranted. A stop sign may be warranted at an intersection where one of several
conditions 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 approach 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.
2001 East 1 st Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705 - (714) 568-7300 - FAX (71.4) 836-5906 FAX
6. At an unsignalized intersection in a signalized area.
7. At other intersections where a combination of high speed, restricted view, and
accident record indicates a need for control by the STOP sign.
The information above identifies locations not involving existing traffic volumes. While those
situations by themselves could warrant a stop sign, the State Traffic Manual places emphasis on
how much traffic is using a particular intersection and specifically, the direction from which
those traffic volumes are approaching the particular intersection. Briefly, the warrant analysis
relative to existing traffic volumes says that the total vehicular volume entering an intersection
from all approaches must have reached at least 500 vehicles per day for any eight hours of an
average day. As indicated in the following count sheet, it is apparent that the volumes on Yorba
(the numbers shown for the N. Leg and the S. Leg) more than fulfill the requirements for at
least 500 vehicles for any eight hours of a day. However, in looking at the hourly east leg
volumes (the westbound direction of Amaganset toward Yorba) the values typically are on the
order of 14, 409 44, etc. which are indicative of conditions that do not require the major cross
street volumes (Yorba Street traffic) to stop. For that reason, but recognizing that we also will
look at pedestrian volumes in a section following, it is apparent that the stopping of all directions
of traffic at that location via a stop sign is unwarranted.
The above information continues to be true even if pedestrian volumes were added to traffic
identified earlier. Pedestrian counts taken at Yorba Street and Amaganset Way indicate that over
the entire day of counting, 117 pedestrians were identified. However, when looking at
pedestrians that would add to the volumes of Amaganset traffic to meet the minimum 200 unit
criteria established by the State of California, it is apparent that even if total percentage volumes
were added, the stop sign warrant still would remain unsatisfied. Our conclusion therefore with
recognition toward all elements of stop sign warranting criteria based on the State of California
Traffic Manual, is that the multi -way stop sign at Yorba Street and Amaganset Way should not
be installed.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
In the evaluation of a traffic signal, the California State Traffic Manual presents 11 different
warranting elements. While a typical signal analysis looks only at two or three of these items,
we have reviewed all of them to provide the City with as much supporting data for our
conclusions as possible.
Warrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume
The Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant is intended for application where the volume of
intersecting traffic is the principal reason for consideration of a traffic signal. The State Traffic
Manual says that this warrant is satisfied when for each of any eight hours of an average day,
existing traffic volumes exceed those which are identified in the Traffic Manual. As shown in
Figure 9-1 for traffic signal warrants, existing traffic volumes for the highest eight hours of a
typical day do not meet the minimum criteria stipulated by the State. While traffic volumes on
both approaches of Yorba Street do exceed the level identified therein (a minimum of 420 cars
per hour), the traffic on Yorba Street relative to signalization does not even approach the
limiting value of 105 cars for eight hours of a day. In other words, since only one lane is
YRBAAMGN.REP/DT TUS -2
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. DAILY TRAFFIC, VOLUMES MACHINE COUNT DATA
wwwwyrwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwrrwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwrrw,wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
LOCATION - YORDA & AAMAGNASET 1. . HOURLY VOLUMES
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwAMwwwwwwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww,kwwwww PM wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
TIME N. LEG E. LEG S. LEG W. LEG TOTAL TIME N. LEG E. LEG S. LEG W. LEG TOTAL
(SQ) (W8) (N8) (E8) (S8) (WD) (N8) (ED)
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww,�rx�-lcwirww�kwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*,Mnkwwww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwrtw
12:00 -
1:00
2G
0
7 -
33
12:00 -
1:00
4G7
17
3GO -
;844
1:00 -
2:00
9
0
5 -
14
1:00 -
2:00
538
2G
309
- 873'
2:00 -
3:00
4
0
3 -
7
2:00 -
3:00
509
37
321
- 867-
3:00 -
4:00
10
0
0 -
10
3:00 -
4:00
503
28
418
- 949 -�
4:00 -
5:00
12
3
G -
21
4:00 -
5:00
491
15
490
- 1.996
5:00 -
G:00
75
4
24 -
103
5:00 -
6:00
494
20
630
- 1144 J
6:00 -
7:00
163
14
59 -
236
6:00 -
7:00
416
20
291
- 721
7:00 -
8:00
452
40
214 -
706
7:00 -
8:00
253
12
143
- 408
8:00 -
9:00
585
44
328 -
957
8:00 -
9:00
144
8
100
- 252
9:00 -
10:00
422
18
226 -
666
9:00 -
10:00
125
5
76
- 206
10:00 -
11:00
426
17
249 -
692
10:00 -
11:00
69
9
48
- 126
11:00 -
12:00
439
17
290 -
746
11:00 -
12:00
54
2
24
- 80
wwwwwwww*w*wwwww*wwww*ww*w*www*ww*wwwwwwwwwwwwwww*wwwwww*wwwwww,rwwwwwww*wwwwww,kwwww**ww*w,r,kwwww,�ww*www-w*wwwwwwwwwwwwww
TOTALS
6,686
356
4,621
- 11,663
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
COUNT DATES ARE AS FOLLOWS -
North Leg (S4) - 11/25/91 TO 11/27/91
East Leg (WO) - 11/25/91 TO 11/27/91
South Leg (N8) - 11/25/91 TO 11/27/91
3
I
TUSTIN YORBA/AMAGANSET
PEDIESTRIAN STUDY
Site Code :
00112691
PAGE:
1
N -S Street:
YORBA STREET
FILE:
AKAG13HR
W Street:
AMAGANSET
WAY
server: :
BSI CONSUTLANTS
Direction: Dir 1
DATE:
11/26/91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME
TOTAL
E/B
E/B
E/B
EB/WB
SIB
NIB
W/B
W/B
W/B
BEGIN CLASSIFIED
BRING
PXING
PXSCH
JUALK
AMAG
AMAG
BRING
PXING
PXSCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7:00 AM
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
7:15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
7:30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
7:45
9
1
1
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
HR TOTAL
10
1
1
5
0
2
0
0
1
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
8:00 AM
9
0
4
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
8:15
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
8:30
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
8:45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
HR TOTAL
12
0
5
0
0
3
3
0
1
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
9:00 AM
6
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
3
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
9:15
3
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
9:30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
9:45
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
HR TOTAL
10
0
0
0
•0
2
5
0
3
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
10:00 AM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
_10:15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
30
5
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
,:45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
HR TOTAL
5
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
11:00 AM
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
11:15
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
11:30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
11:45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
HR TOTAL
4
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
12:00 PM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
12:15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 . 0
0
0
0
0
0
12:30
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
12:45
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
HR TOTAL
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
1:00 PM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
1:15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
1:30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
1:45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
HR TOTAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
2:00 PM
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
2:15
9
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
5
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
2:30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
45
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
19
0
5
0
0
0
0
1
7
6
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
4
TUSTIN YORBA/AMAGANSET PEDIESTRIAN STUDY
Site Code :
00112691
PAGE:
2
N -S Street:
YORBA STREET
FILE:
AMAG13HR
W Street:
AMAGANSET WAY
,server: :
BSI CONSUTLANTS
Direction:
Dir
1
DATE:
11/26/91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME TOTAL E/B
E/B
E/B
EB/'.!B
S/B
N/B
W/B
W/B
W/B
BEGIN CLASSIFIED BXING
PXING
PXSCH
JWALK
AMAG
AMAG
BXING
PXING
PXSCH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3:00 PM
2 0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3:15
2 0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3:30
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3:45
4 0
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HR TOTAL
8 0
1
0
0
3
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4:00 PM
3 0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
4:15
3 0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4:30
4 0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4:45
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HR TOTAL
10 0
1
0
0
1
5
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5:00 PM
1 0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5:15
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5:30
9 0
4
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5:45
2 0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HR TOTAL
12 0
6
0
0
1
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6:00 PM
8 0
3
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
0'
0
0
0
0
0
--6:15
7 0
4
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
3 0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o:45
6 0
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HR TOTAL
24 0
11
0
0
4
2
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7:00 PM
1 0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7:15
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7:30
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7:45
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
HR TOTAL
1 0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAY TOTAL
117 1
32
5
0
20
24
1
28
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PERCENT of
TOTAL 0.9
27.4
4.3
0.0
17.1
20.5
0.9
23.9
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
9-6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
1-1991
Figure 9-1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
CALC DATE
DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE
Major St: S7', '6?- 7- Critical Approach Speed mph
Minor St: A r�rffitJ��'f-'-� /_{ )XL L/ Critical Approach Speed o:7,5-0 mph
Critical speed of major street traffic > 40 mph — — — — — — — — — — — — —
o RURAL (R)
In built up area of isolatod community of < 10,000 pop. — — — — — — — — — ❑
❑ URBAN (U)
WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
80% SATISFIED YES ElNO
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
* NOTE: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT -phasing is proposed ❑
WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO �.
80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
U R U I R \� A `, Q
APPROACH
LANES 2 or more �j 7' a /\O Hour
Both Apprchs. 750 525 900 1(636 9�3 8��% Q``n �3O 9�/ 9�/ 11�V 17�
Major Street (foo) (ago) (720) 50 / U7 /
M�gnor Stveetr* (so) (429 dao) (5s) 7 37 15 v'10 �.o ND.
* NOTE: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT -phasing is proposed❑
WARRANT 3 -Minimum Pedestrian Volume
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
RF_QUiREMENT
FULFILLED
Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more
I
.00
fes'
�j/Nx
APPROACH1
Yes ❑ No
0
2
LANES
There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf-
or more
��
'o Hour
Both Apprchs.
Major Street
500
(400)
350
(2 0)
600
(480)
420
(336)
ql5
&19
8`i%
X30
9xl
767
1 11,;t 11
��
✓
Highest Apprch.1
Minor Street *
150
(120)
105
(84)
200
(160)
0
(112)
11
P?
A
)6_
.210
'7_0
ND
* NOTE: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT -phasing is proposed ❑
WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO �.
80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
U R U I R \� A `, Q
APPROACH
LANES 2 or more �j 7' a /\O Hour
Both Apprchs. 750 525 900 1(636 9�3 8��% Q``n �3O 9�/ 9�/ 11�V 17�
Major Street (foo) (ago) (720) 50 / U7 /
M�gnor Stveetr* (so) (429 dao) (5s) 7 37 15 v'10 �.o ND.
* NOTE: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT -phasing is proposed❑
WARRANT 3 -Minimum Pedestrian Volume
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
RF_QUiREMENT
FULFILLED
Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more
for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one
Yes ❑ No
0
hour; and
There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf-
fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross; and
Yes ❑' No
The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater
than 300 feet; and
Yes (� No ❑
The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive
traffic flow on the major street
Yes No ❑
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. ,
6
available for traffic in the approach direction of Amaganset toward Yorba Street, and with the
recognition that the State prescribes that at least 105 vehicles per hour for eight hours must be
present, the existing traffic volumes which range between a low of 15 and a high of only 44 (per
Figure 9-1) and the daily traffic volume sheet do not even meet 50% of that level. Therefore,
a traffic signal is not warranted under conditions of Warrant 1.
Warrant 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
The Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant applies to operating conditions where the traffic
volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive
delay or hazard in entering or crossing the major street. Similar to Warrant 1, this warrant is
satisfied if existing traffic meets the level of traffic identified by the State. It is significant to
note that as compared to Warrant 1, the minimum traffic volumes of Warrant 2 are about one
half those of Warrant 1. In other words, at least 105 cars per hour for eight hours was required
to be present on Amaganset to satisfy Warrant 1. But under Warrant 2 conditions, that value
is reduced to 53. But when looking at existing traffic volumes which range from a low of 15
to a high of 44, they do not satisfy the warrant. Therefore, the traffic signal continues to be
unwarranted based on accepted analysis criteria as described by the State of California.
Warrant 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volumes
Briefly, the criteria of this warrant indicates that a signal may be warranted if the pedestrian
volume crossing the major street is 100 or more for each of any 4 hours, or 190 or more during
any one hour period. As shown by the pedestrian counts provided earlier under the stop sign
warrant, the overall crossing for the entire day which includes all directions is 117. When
looking at the individual eastbound, westbound, southbound, and/or northbound crossing
directions, it is apparent that the existing pedestrian crossings on Yorba Street do not even
approach satisfying the warrant identified by the State of California.
Warrant 4 - School Area Traffic Signals
The warrant for a school area traffic signal is satisfied if 350 vehicles and 70 school pedestrians
for each of any 2 hours use the intersection daily while students are crossing to or from school
or, 350 vehicles for each of any 2 hours daily while students are crossing to or from school and
minimum total of 350 school pedestrians during the entire day. As indicated by information
provided above in other warrant analysis sections, these warrants also are not met. For that
reason, a signal is not warranted based on school area pedestrian safety.
Warrant 5 - Progressive Movement
The progressive movement warrant is satisfied when the nearest signals are more than 1,00 feet
from the intersection and the adjacent signals do not provide the necessary platooning and speed
control. From our review of this element and given observations involving platooning traffic,
we do not feel that the signal is warranted under this consideration.
YRBAAMGN.P,U/DT TUS 7
Warrant 6 - Accident Experience
The accident warrant indicates that to require a signal, 5 or more reported accidents of types
susceptible to correction by traffic signal control have occurred within a 12 month period, each
accident involving personal injury or property damage to an apparent extent of $500 or more,
and that adequate trial of less restrictive remedies with satisfactory observance and enforcement
has failed to reduce the accident frequency. As shown in the attached worksheet, our
information shows that two accidents have occurred with one left -turn accident in 1986 and a
pedestrian fatality in 1991. Therefore, the level of past accidents does not by itself warrant a
signal.
Warrant 7 - Systems Warrants
This warrant is not satisfied since Amaganset does not meet the requirements identified in the
State Traffic Manual. Specifically, the warrant requires that both roadways must be major
routes which Amaganset is not.
Warrant 8 - Combination of Warrants
The combination of warrants requires that traffic volumes under minimum vehicular volumes
and interruption of continuous traffic be at least 80% satisfied. Traffic counts as provided in
this report indicate that this condition is not met.
Warrant 9 - Four -Hour Volume Warrant
This warrant compares the traffic volume on the major street to the traffic volume on the minor
street during the highest four hours. Again, and recognizing that the Traffic Manual indicates
that there must be at least 60 cars per hour on the minor street (per the following Figure 9-7
worksheet), the volumes recently counted for Amaganset showed that this warrant also is not
met.
Warrant 10 - Peak Hour Delay
The peak hour delay warrant is intended for application where traffic conditions are such that
for one hour of the day, minor street traffic suffers undue delay in entering or crossing the major
street. As shown in the attached traffic signal warrant worksheets for Warrant 10, only one of
the three required items is satisfied.
Warrant 11 - Peak Hour Volume
The peak hour volume warrant is intended for application where traffic conditions are such that
for one hour of the day, minor street traffic suffers undue delay in entering or crossing the major
street. In this case, the Traffic Manual indicates that the lower threshold should be at least 75
vehicles per hour. Existing traffic volumes which have been provided with this report indicate
that lower threshold is not met under existing conditions. The worksheet that relates to Peak
Hour Volume Warrants is included for your review.
YRBAAMGN.REP/DT NS 8
9-10 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
1-1491
Figure 9-5
SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS
CALC // DATE
DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE
Major St: _ y0/S �5,il S7 X- r� i Critical Approach Speed mph
Minor St: /J zEe-2-SC'T lcJ y Critical Approach Speed mph
Critical speed of major street traffic > 40 mph — — — — — — — — — — —
or RURAL (R)
In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop- — — — — — — — — — ❑
❑ URBAN (U)
FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS SATISFIED
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) b
Minimum Requirements
PART A U R �ry
Vehicle Volume
Each of
2 hours
200
350
�
School Age Pedestrian
Each of
40 C90
�ZO
1 q
Crossing Street
1 2 hours
Crossing Street
— ' or — _
day
— —
40
SATISFIED
J
YES ❑ NO 0
YES ❑ NO M
AND •
PART B
Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 35 mph SATISFIED YES NO ❑
AND
PART C
Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? L% -S
5 J ori k% --;z �s-v
SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS e SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
(ALL PARTS MUST QE SATISFIED) i �, v
10
Minimum Requirements 11
PART A U R
Vehicle Volume
2 ch of
rs
500
350
�
930
School Age Pedestrian
Each of
2 hours
100
70(J
I
Crossing Street
— ' or — _
day
— —
40
— —
40
— —
/vo
— —
�C
per
AND
SATISFIED
YES ❑ NO [?j
- PART B
Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SATISFIED YES Dir NO ❑
S- /�00 ' J lv_ ,;� 6-M ' `
9
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-7
• 1-1991
Figure 9-2
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANTS 4 - School Crossings
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement
Not Applicable .................................. ❑
See School Crossings Warrant Sheet X
SATISFIED YES ❑- NO lfd
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (NSTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
>-1000 FT. —T N it, S %-40 E tt, WI
_ft.
ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT
SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING AND SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST
................................................................................................................................ 0.........
PLA
NING
ON 2 -WAY STREETS WHER CD SIGNALS COULD CONST UTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL�STEM AND
SPEED CONTROL PROPOS
WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience
SATISFIED
REQUIREMENTS WARRANT
ONE WARRANT
WARRANT 1 -MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATIFIED
OR
800/0 WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW
ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY
ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR ' $500 DAMAGE
. ................................ .
..............................................................................................
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT • NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
5 OR MORE .4 t eA) q f
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant SATISFIED
FULFILLED
YES .g' NO ❑
FrA
YES ❑ NOX
FULFILLED -I
L7
YES O NO �(
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown.
10
9-12 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
1.1991
Figure 9-7
FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
400
C1.
= 300
W <
WO
cc
H
in ILa-
ir a 200
O W
Z� ,
O
= 100
O
ut
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
* NOTE:
80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 60 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
•
9-8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
Figure 9-3 f
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
REQUIREMENT
WARRANT
;/
FULFILLED
TWO WARRANTS
1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME b
O
Highest Approaches -. Minor Street
SATISFIED
I/ Z/
g5
80%
2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
YES ❑ NO
WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume
Aooroach Lanes
S TISFI Q* YFS NO
2 or
One more / /a' /�,' Hour
Both Approaches - Major Street
YES NO ❑
✓
q1:5
'79l
?8/
Yg
Highest Approaches -. Minor Street
l/
I/ Z/
g5
15
go
* Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-7 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
WARRANT 10 -Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED
- (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a
STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and five
vehicle -hours for a two-lane approach; AN
2. The volume on the same. minor street approach equals or exceeds.100 vph for
one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph
for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with
three approaches.
WARRANT 11 -Peak Hour Volume
Annrnarh I nnAc
2 or
[Inca mnra
YES ❑ NO
YES ❑ NO K
YES ❑ NO Z
Both Approaches - Major Street
YES NO ❑
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
0
. Y� p
Hour
Both Approaches - Major Street
V/
(761
/47V
Highest Approaches - Minor Street
l/
(yy
��
15
�zv
* Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
�f the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown.
12
9-14
1-1991
500
n.
> 400
Q
w CC 300
CC a
cn Q
oc w
Z = 200
J
Q
0 100
0
300
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Figure 9-9
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
Traffic Manual
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
* NOTE:
100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPN APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
13
* goo 00//
* 75 vP/f
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
* NOTE:
100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPN APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
13
* goo 00//
* 75 vP/f
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMWNDATIONS
Based on the information described herein, it is our conclusion that the warrants for a stop sign
and for a traffic signal are not met. For that reason, and recognizing that the installation of
either device could by itself create a situation worse than that which currently exists, we
therefore recommend 1) ' that a multi -way stop sign at the intersection of Yorba Street and
Amaganset Way not be installed, 2) that a traffic signal at the subject intersection not be installed
3) the existing traffic control for Amaganset only be maintained, 4) strict enforcement of existing
speed limits be maintained on Yorba Street, and 5) increased use of the radar trailer along Yorba
Street.
This concludes our evaluation of the subject intersection of Yorba Street and Amaganset. Again,
our analysis was based on the collection and review of recent traffic counts at the subject
intersection and the application of those traffic volumes to procedures identified by the State of
California in the Traffic Manual. We of course stand ready to provide additional information
or analyses as requested by the City. Should you have any questions during your review of our
submittal, I will be happy to meet with you to discuss the various components of the analysis.
Very truly yours,
BSI Consultants, Inc.
Jerry L. Crabill
Senior Associate
cc: Sandra Doubleday
Att: 1. Study Location Map
2. Citizen request letters (2)
3. City Council Agenda Report
YRBAAMGN.REP/DT TUS 14
�I � PAIN I
IAU1 W"IALALK
INN 7
MR
Y.N(K
VTWr HS
EDINGER-.
IWI
Attachment 1 - Study Location
T
!Mj,
ITE LOCATION
.10,
nas
i
Robert S. Ledendecker
City of Tustin
Dear Mr. Ledendecker,
NOV 1991
TU%).. PUBLIC* -8
Bruce A. Traywick
14651 Pacific St.
Tustin, Calif.
11-6-91
I wrote a letter about a year ago concerning a stopsign at the
corner of Yorba and Amaganset. .I was told at that time that a
stopsign could not be placed on a street the size of Yorba. and
because Yorba is a intercity street.' Because of all the
construction over the last year, I have let this issue drop. Now
that constructionn is nearing completion, I am again requesting a
stopsign on Yorba at Amaganset.
Bryan is also an intercity street as wide or wider than Yorba. Yet
there has been a stopsign at Farmington for over a year, and now
there is a signal there. E1 Camino Real is another wide intercity
street, with a stopsign at Park Center and another at Browning.
Yorba Street has stopsigns at: Santa Clara, Fairhaven, La Veta,
and Palmyra. Walnut Ave going east into Irvine has stopsigns at
Myford, Harvard, and The Mall. With all these stopsigns on wide
intercity streets there can be no logical argument against a stop=
sign at Amaganset. We are finally getting a much needed signal at
Vandenberg. The crossing blinkers do little to slow cars on
Yorba.
Yorba is still not a major street, extends only from First to
Seventeenth Streets. Threre is a stopsign at 3rd Street where
Yorba extends to Pacific. There are fifteen streets intersecting
Yorba between Irvine and Vandenberg as well as ten driveways. All
this makes Yorba a local access street and not a major North-South
highway.
The police seldom use radar on Yorba, I haven't seen them on Yorba
in two or three months. The result; Yorba is a raceway every day
from 3pm to 7pm. Since there are no left turn lanes on Yorba, and
they are unwanted, Yorba becomes a one lane road during the -.above
hours.
Please seriously consider this proposal remembering that there is
a school crossing at Amaganset.
cc: Charles Puckett
Leslie Pontious
Richard Edgar
Jim Potts
Earl Prescott
Attachment 2 - Citizen Request
Sincerely
G�/l Y U�
L s• r ti� Public Works / Engineering
November 12, 1991
Mr. Bruce A. Traywick
14651 Pacific Street
Tustin, CA. 92680
City Of. Tustin
15222 Del Amo Avenue
Tustin, CA 92680
(7 1 4) 544-8890
FAX (714) 832-0825
Subject: Request for Stop Sign Installation on Yorba
Street at Amaganset Way
Dear Mr. Traywick:
The City's Public Works Department has received your
letter dated November 6, 1991 requesting a stop sign be
installed on Yorba Street at Amaganset Way.
This issue has been agendized for the City Council
- meeting of November 18, 1991 for their consideration of
directing staff to conduct a warrant study at the subject
location.
Attached is a draft copy of the City Council agenda for
your information.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Sandra L. Doubleday
Engineering Consultant
SLD:kIb:AMAGANS[T
Attachment 2 - Citizen Request
AGEN'
r A)1-13--9-�
��.
Inter-Com-•v,1,`�
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR STOP SIGN ON YORDA STREET AT AMAGANSET WAY
RECOMMENDATION
By motion direct City Staff to prepare a warrant study at the
intersection of Yorba Street and Amaganset Way.
BACKGROUND
The Public Works Department received a letter from Mr. Bruce A.
Traywick dated November 6, 1991 requesting the installation of a
stop sign on Yorba Street at Amaganset Way. A copy of his letter'
has been attached to this report.
The subject intersection currently is equipped with a crossing
guard and flashing yellow beacons recently installed to address
neighborhood concerns regarding school zone crossing at this
intersection.
Yorba Street between Irvine Boulevard and Vandenburg Lane has a
1989 Average Daily Traffic volume of 8,700. There is an existing
traffic signal at Irvine Boulevard and a new traffic signal has
been installed at Vandenburg Lane.
DISCUSSION
The Traffic Engineering Section will conduct a warrant study on the
subject intersection if City Council so desires Mr. Traywick
would be notified of the results if a study is prepared.
Z
�.�
obert S. 4Led decker
Director of Pfiblic Works/
City Engineer
SD:kIb:STOPSIGN
Attachment
n (2�1Z-2�e�p,'
e(�
Sandra Doubleday
Traffic Engineering Consultant
Attachment 3 - Agenda Item," City Council, 11/18/91