HomeMy WebLinkAboutO.B. 5 LFT TRN ARROWS 01-06-92OLD BUSINESS NO. S
1-6-92
AGENDA_4��L2, M ,
DATE: DECEMBER 27, 1991
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR THE REMOVAL OF LEFT TURN ARROWS AT TRAFFIC SIGNALS
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Anthony Trujillo appeared before the City Council -at the
meetings of March 4, and July 1, 1991, where he expressed concern
about an abundance of red left -turn traffic signals and suggested
that flashing yellow arrows could be used in place of red arrows.
Staff has corresponded with him which has resulted in a study
(attached) that provides information regarding the City's current
left turn phasing policy, experience of the City's traffic signal
operations, and recommendations.
Councilmember Potts at the December 2, 1991, City Council meeting
requested an information report. regarding the City of Irvine's
removal of 44 left turn arrows at traffic signals. The attached
study noted above, also describes the City of Irvine's decision
regarding the left turn arrows.
DISCUSSION
The study indicates that when left -turn arrows have been installed
at traffic signals in the City of Tustin, traffic accidents have
been substantially reduced. The delay to left -turning vehicles is
considered minor during off-peak hours due to traffic responsive
features of traffic signal controllers, and is felt to be a small
price to pay for the additional safety and other benefits such as:
reduced air pollution, reduced overall delay, and reduced fuel
consumption for the entire street system.
The suggestion to utilize flashing yellow left -turn arrows has been
investigated. Such an operation does not meet current federal and
state guidelines for traffic signal operation.
The study recommends that the City should retain it's current
policy of- installing protected left turn phasing only on
coordinated or arterial streets, should continue to convert the
remaining four protected/permissive left turn intersections to
protected left turn movements, and refrain from installing any new
protected/permissive signal phasing.
A copy of the study has been sent to Mr. Trujillo, and he has been
advised that the matter has been agendized for City Council
consideration at their meeting of January 6, 1992.
The City of Irvine has recently modified its left-turn arrow policy
for traf f is signals. The City had been installing left-turn arrows
on the minor intersection approaches in addition to the arterial
street approaches at all signalized intersections. The Irvine City
Council, at their meeting of September 24, 1991, decided to remove
left-turn arrows for the minor street approaches at 44 traffic
signals. The left-turn arrows for the major street approaches are
to remain. In contrast, the City of Tustin has never installed
left-turn arrows on minor street approaches to major streets unless
the standard left-turn criteria has been met.
x4
,2 Robert S. Ledend ker �rSandra Doubleday
Director of Public Works/ Traffic Engineering Consultant
City Engineer
RSL:ktb:LEFTTURN
Attachment
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
LEFT TURN
OPERA TION STUD Y
Presented by.-
BSI
y.
BSI Consultants, Inc.
Presented to:
City of Tustin
15222 East Del Amo
Tustin, CA 92680
October 1991
jr1
7y1
_TiINV PUBLIC (��i��
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECT ................................................. 1
RECOMMENDED ACTION .................................... 1
STATEMENT OF ISSUE ...................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ........................ 1
TUSTIN'S CITY POLICY ON LEFT TURN PHASING .................... 1
TUSTIN'S PAST EXPERIENCE WITH PROTECTED/PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN
SIGNAL OPERATIONS ................................... 2
OTHER CITIES EXPERIENCES WITH PROTECTED/PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN
SIGNAL OPERATIONS ................................... 3
PROTECTED/PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN SURVEY TABLE ............ 4
SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING PROTECTED/PERMISSIVE
LEFT TURN SIGNAL LOCATIONS ........................... 5
IRVINE'S EXPERIENCE WITH LEFT TURN PHASING ................... 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 6
ATTACHMENTS.............................................6
i
SUBJECT
Investigation into protected/permissive left turn phasing and the elimination of left turn arrows.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Retain City's current Left Turn Policy of installing protected left turn phasing only on
coordinated or arterial routes. Continue to convert the remaining four protected/permissive left
turn intersections to protected left turn phasing. Refrain from installing any new
protected/permissive signal phasing due to past experiences and the determination that this of
phasing is not viable for use on coordinated routes.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES OR PROBLEM
Mr. Anthony Trujillo, a citizen of Tustin is concerned with the delay to left turning motorist due
to exclusive left turn phasing. Mr. Trujillo has stated that he feels this type of phasing
unnecessarily increases the delay and wastes fuel. Mr. Trujillo requested that existing protected
left turn red arrows be removed in the City of Tustin to permit permissive left turns to occur.
Mr. Trujillo feels this would decrease stop delays and save on fuel consumption. In a
subsequent conversation with City staff, Mr. Trujillo suggested replacing the protected red arrow
with a flashing yellow arrow as a method to warn motorist that permissive left turns would be
permitted when sufficient gaps occurred in the approaching traffic.
INTRODUCTION
The purpose to this report is to gather information on the City of Tustin's current city left turn
phasing policy and past protected/permissive left turn phasing experience in order to explain the
City's philosophy on traffic signal operations. This report also accumulated additional
information from various cities and agencies in Orange County on protected/permissive traffic
signal operations. In the protected/permissive type of operation, a car can either turn left on a
fully protected interval indicated by a green arrow or, when there are adequate gaps in traffic,
the car can turn during a green ball indication. This report also addresses the City of Irvine's
recent decision to remove protected left turn arrows at numerous locations throughout their city.
TUSTIN'S CITY POLICY ON LEFT TURN PHASING
The City of Tustin has adopted a policy of installing protected left turn arrows at signalized
intersections on all arterial route approaches where left turn phasing has previously been found
to be warranted. The California's Department of Transportation established guidelines for left
turn phases are used to determine when left turn phasing is warranted. For additional
information see the attached section of the Traffic Manual entitled 9-03.0 Guidelines of Left
Turn Phases.
LFT=RN.STY/DT TUS
- It has been Tustin experience that left turn accidents are substantially reduced when a left -turn
arrow is provided. The left turning motorist does not have to make a judgement call when
making a left turn when opposed by high traffic volumes and relatively high speeds.
It is recognized that during coordination periods a red left turn arrow can delay left turning
vehicles. This delay, however, is a small price to pay for the added safety, reduced air
pollution, delay, and fuel consumption to the entire roadway system.
During non -coordinated periods, the delay to left turning vehicles is minor. This is due to the
traffic signal controller being able to respond to lighter traffic conditions by serving the left turn
only when there is demand.
By removing the red arrow as suggested by Mr. Trujillo, the signal phasing would revert back
to a protected/permissive phase. Mr. Trujillo's suggestion of replacing existing red arrows at
protected left turn traffic signal phasing with yellow flashing arrows would not meet current
Uniform Traffic Control Standards. When a traffic signal is being operated as a flashing device,
all signal faces in an approach shall flash as stated in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, 1988 Edition. This would not permit the left turn movement to flash yellow when the
through traffic movement would show a solid green ball. Also the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices states that no steady green indication or flashing, yellow indications shall be
terminated and immediately followed by a steady red or flashing red indication without the
display of the steady yellow indication. Please find the appropriate sections of the Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices attached to the end of this report.
TUSTIN'S PAST EXPERIENCE WITH PROTECTED/PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN
SIGNAL OPERATIONS
The City installed their first project/permissive left turn phasing in 1977 at four intersections on
McFadden Avenue. Ten intersections on Newport Avenue and Irvine Boulevard and one
intersection at Red Hill Avenue and Carnegie Avenue were installed in 1981.
In 1988, due to complaints from citizens and left turn accidents at these intersections, the City
Council requested staff to review the City policy on the use of protected/permissive left turn
phasing.
One of the major problems with the protected/permissive left turn operations is the Trap, this
condition occurs when one left turning vehicle (a) is stopped in the intersection on the green ball
waiting for traffic to clear in order to make the left turn. If opposing left turn traffic is about
to receive a -protected left turn arrow (lagging left), then the left turn vehicle (a) will see a
yellow ball and may assume that opposing through traffic also has a yellow. This assumption
is wrong since the opposing traffic has a green ball and will soon receive a green left arrow.
Thus, a trap is created if the left turning vehicle (a) attempts to turn on the yellow ball, and
clear the intersection before the red. Due to this trap situation, a protected/permissive can not
be leading in one direction and lagging in the other. They must both be either leading or
lagging.
LEFMRN.STY/DT TUS 2
The City has an on-going program of coordinating all signals within the City. This coordination
requires the use of lead/lag phasing in order to provide an adequate green band through a group
of intersections. Approximately 30% of the signals in the City use lead/lag phasing now and,
as more routes are coordinated, additional intersections will require use of lead/lag phasing.
Another problem with the protected/permissive left turn operation is that once the left turn arrow
has been received and is terminated by a yellow arrow (a left red arrow is not recommended),
it is difficult to stop the flow of left turning vehicles. This creates additional enforcement
problems for the police department as well as potential for increased accidents.
Based on the staff review, it was recommended that no new protected/permissive left turns be
installed and that existing ones be converted to protected. To date, all but four locations have
been converted and they are scheduled for conversion in the near future.
OTHER CITIES EXPEDIENCES WITH PROTECTE )/PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN
OPERATIONS
For this study, a total of 15 cities, the County of Orange and Caltrans were contacted and
surveyed on the subject of protected/permissive left turn operation. Of these 17 agencies, only
a few had actually implemented policies on this type of operation. The following table
summarizes the information gathered from this survey.
Currently, most cities contacted had only a few intersections with protected/permissive phasing,
if any at all. Some of the reasons given by the cities that do not implement protected/permissive
operation are as follows:
• Significant increase in accidents due to motorist misunderstanding of
protective/permissive operation, or judgement error on the part of the motorist
• Liability problems
• Public opinion
• Awaiting further studies to be done
Of those cities that were using protected/permissive operation, most had experienced accidents.
attributed to protected/permissive phasing. Reasons given for these accidents were:
• Driver misunderstanding of operation
• Driver understood operation but made a judgement error
All cities surveyed agreed that protected/permissive phasing does not make an intersection less
prone to accidents, but with time it is hoped that driver understanding of this type of operation .
will bring the benefits that are intended without the accidents.
L1=RN.M/DT TUS 3
The majority of those surveyed indicated that they would put protected/permissive operation in
if the situation called for it, while there were a few who were trying to do away with it because
of such reasons as public opinion. Also, there are those cities, as mentioned before, who 'are
still awaiting the results of studies being done, and those who just have not looked into this type
of operation much at all.
PROTECTED/PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN SURVEY TABLE
City/Agency
Well-defined
Policy
Number
of Locations
Accidents
Plan to Install
in Future
Caltrans
Yes.
5 in O.C.
No.
Yes.
Irvine
Yes.
0
N/A
No.
Anaheim
Yes.
7
Yes.
Yes.
Huntington Beach
Yes.
Numerous
Yes.
Yes.
Placentia
Yes.
0
N/A
Yes.
Brea
Yes.
1
No.
Yes.
Newport Beach
Yes.
1
Yes.
No.
Costa Mesa
Yes.
Few
Yes.
Yes.
Buena Park
No.
0
N/A
Yes.
County of Orange
No.
1
No.
Yes.
Cypress
No.
0
N/A
Yes.
Fullerton
No.
4
No.
Yes.
Garden Grove
No.
0
N/A
Yes.
La Habra
No.
2
No.
Yes.
La Palma
No.
0
N/A
Yes.
Orange
Yes.
0
N/A
No.
Santa Ana
Yes.
0
N/A
No.
IEFMRN.STY/DT TUS 4
SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING PROTECTED/PERMISSIVE LEFT
TURN SIGNAL LOCATIONS
Listed below are suggested guidelines to follow when evaluating protected/permissive left turn
operation locations.
• Do not use permissive phase during peak hours.
0 Avoid sequence lagging of protected/permissive/protected left turn.
0 Do not install at lagging left turn locations on coordinated routes.
Do not install if there were five or more accidents during a recent 12 month
period.
• Do not use if there is a sight distance problem, either vertical or horizontal.
• Do not use with double left turn.
• Do not use if opposing through traffic is greater than 40 mph.
• Do no use where there is a large percentage of buses and/or trucks.
• Do not use in high pedestrian areas.
• Do not use if the street is near capacity.
IRVINE'S RECENT EXPERIENCE WITH LEFT TURN SIGNAL REMOVALS
The City of Irvine, at its September 24, 1991 Council Meeting, directed staff to initiate removal
of left turn phasing at 44 signals based on a report from staff.
The City of Irvine's policy on left turn phasing prior to the staff report was to install left turn
arrows on all approaches, not just arterial approaches as in Tustin..
The left turn arrows that are being removed in Irvine are on the minor street approaches only.
The City of Tustin has never installed left turn phasing on these minor street approaches unless
left turn warrants were met.
LEFMJRN.STYIDr zvs 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On major intersections, protected left turn arrows provide a safer operating intersection by
reducing the number of potential conflicting movements. The City of Tustin has an active signal
coordination plan with 30% of intersections currently using lead/lag, lag/lead operation to
maximize the efficiency of coordinated operation. For these reasons, it is recommended that the
existing protected left turn operation be maintained. Also, from past experience with
protected/permissive operation in the City of Tustin, it is recommended that this type of
operation not be used at any coordinated arterial intersections.
ATTAC S:
1. Guidelines for Left Turn Phases - Traffic Manual
2. City's Response Letter to Mr. Trujillo
3. City of Irvine's City Council Report on Removal of Left Turn Phasing
4. Excerpts from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
LES MRN.STY/DT TUS 6
TTACHMENT #1
1985-1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
_ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Issued by the
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
4CA*
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN
Governor
LEO TROMBATORE R. G. ADAMS
Director, Department of Transportation Deputy Director, Highway Maintenance
and Traffic Operations
C. D. BARTELL
Chief, Division of Traffic Engineering
0
JOHN GOMES
Editor
9-4
12-1986
. 8AFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTi..%3' Traffic Manual
volume minor street approach (one direction only)
for one hour (any four consecutive 15 -minute peri-
ods) of an average day, falls above the curve in Fig-
ure 9-2C for theexisting combination of approach
lanes.
When the 85th percentile speed of major street
traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, or when the inter-
section lies within a built-up area of a isolated com-
munity having a population of less than 10,000, the
peak hour volume warrant is satisfied when the plot-
ted point, referred to above, falls above the curve in
Figure 9-2D for the existing combination of approach
lanes.
9-03.0 Guidelines for Left Turn Phases
Since separate signal phases for protected left
turns will reduce the green time available for other
phases, alternate means of handling left turn con-
flicts should be considered first.
The most likely possibilities are:
1. Prohibition of left turns. This can be done only
if there are convenient alternate means of mak-
ing the movement. Typical alternate means are:
(a) a series of right and/or left turns around a
block to permit getting to the desired destina-
tion, or (b) making the left turn at an adjacent
unsignalized intersection during gaps in the op-
posing through traffic.
2. Geometric changes to eliminate the left turn.
An effective change would be 'a complete sepa-
ration or a complete or partial "clover leaf' at
grade. Any of these, while eliminating left turns,
requires additional cost and .right of way.
Protected left turn phases should be considered
where such alternatives cannot be utilized, and one
or more of the following conditions exist:
1. Accidents. Five or more left turn accidents for
a particular left turn movement during a recent
12 -month period.
2. Delay. Left -turn delay of one or more vehicles
which were "gaiting at the beginning of the
green interval and are still remaining in the left
turn lane after each cycle for one hour.
3. Volume. At new intersections where only. es-
timated volumes are available, the following cri-
teria may be used. For a pretimed signal or a
background -cycle -controlled actuated signal, a
left turn volume of more than two vehicles per
approach per cycle for a peak hour; or for a
traffic -actuated signal, 50 or more left turning
vehicles per hour in one direction with the
product of the turning and conflicting through
traffic during the peak hour of 100,000 or more.
4. ,'Miscellaneous. Other factors that might be con-
sidered are: consistency of signal phasing with
that at adjacent intersections, impaired sight
distance due to horizontal or vertical curvature,
or where there is a large percentage of buses
and trucks.
9-04.0 Removal of Existing Signals
Changes in traffic patterns may result in a situation
where a traffic signal is no longer justified. When this
occurs, consideration should be given to removing
the traffic signal and replacing it with appropriate
alternative traffic control devices.
Y ATTACHMENT #2
S City of Tustin
March 7, 1991
Mr. Anthony Trujillo
2001 Kingsboro Circle
Tustin, CA 92680
Subject: Protected Left Turn Phasing at Signalized Intersections
Dear Mr. Trujillo:
Thank you for attending the recent City of Tustin Council meeting on March 4, 1991. The
matter of protected left turn phasing at signalized intersections is very important to public
agencies. Public agencies, such as the City of Tustin, are responsible for installation,
maintenance and optimization of the operation of these traffic signals.
The types of protected movements most frequently used are:
o at high rate accident locations,
o where there are high number of turning movements,
o where there are delays for on -coming traffic to clear,
o along coordinated corridors.
In addition, the City of Tustin has been involved with litigation pertaining to not providing
protected left turn phasing at various signalized intersections. The City Council has recently
approved modifications to the existing traffic signals with permissive/protected left turn
phasing to include the installation of protected left turn phasing. In addition, the Air Quality
Management Plan of the AQMD specifically includes requirements that public agencies
implement computer -coordinated traffic signal systems on major arterials in order to reduce
air pollution, delay, and fuel consumption.
Guidelines and minimum warrants have been established by State of California (Department
of Transportation) for left turn phasing. A copy is attached for your information.
300 Centennial Way • Tustin, California 92680 - (714) 544-8890
Anthony Trujillo
March 7, 1991
Page 2
It is our understanding that while driving at night (10 p.m. to 12 midnight), you have been
stopped at some City intersections and have had to wait for a period of time for the green
left -turn arrow, even though there was no on -coming traffic. A traffic signal controller
normally has a certain sequence through which it must go in order to serve the direction a
motorist is traveling. This takes time. However, in the late night hours, it should be fairly
minimal, if there is no other conflicting traffic demand. If an unusually long delay is
experienced, this may indicate that part of the system (for example, traffic detector loops)
may be malfunctioning and may need maintenance. If you are aware of any specific locations
where such a malfunction may be occurring, please do not hesitate to report these to us.
We sincerely appreciate your concern, and if you have any questions please do not hesitate.
to contact me.
Sincerely,
City of Bustin
Ms. Sandra Doubleday
Engineering Consultant
SD:RR:dt
Attachments
cc: William A. Huston
Robert S. Ledendecker
gTTACHMENT +3
Aoft /qt
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1991
T P PO FT -TURN PHASING REMOVAL PRO
qW
Director of Community Development Cit
yan ger
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Direct staff to initiate' removal of left turn phasing at
intersections as outlined in the staff report based on
available funding.
2. Direct staff to return in six months with a status report on
the progress of the program.
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIex:
The Transportation Commission reviewed this issue attheir August
26, 1991 meeting and unanimously supported implementation of the
proposed program.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
staff has been asked to consider safe criteria, for 'identifying
potential intersection candidates whereby signals could be
converted from protected left -turns (exclusive phase with left -
turn arrows) to permissive left -turns (combined phase where left
turns occur by yielding to through traffic with circular green
indication). The City currently maintains 197 signals, most of
which have protected left -turns. When trying to coordinate traffic
signals, delay becomes an important consideration. Staff has been
asked to identify options which can help reduce delay at
intersections. One such program is the elimination of protected
left -turn phases where they are clearly not warranted. To achieve
the goal- of reducing delay, and yet retain the high safety
standards established Citywide, staff is recommending only 44
signals as potential candidates at this time.
Advantages for this type of program include improved signal
coordination, reduced delay, savings in fuel, and reduced air
Pollution among others. Improvementprograms like this, which
enhance signal timing and signal coordination, are consistent with
the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Some disadvantages
are driver expectation to see a green arrow, pedestrians contending
with additional turning traffic, and potential safety implications.
Because of the costs involved, it is recommended that only those
locations where signal coordination is critical and where delay can
be reduced safely be considered. Any other criteria, beyond that
which has been discussed, should be reviewed in the upcoming City
Traffic Management Systems and Operations Study. Public Safety has
reviewed this issue and shares the safety concerns mentioned.
RCJ: CL/pb (rfccaleftturnremoval . rpt)
�1 OF
i
MEMORANDUM U, m
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1991
TO: CITY MANAGER
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: PROPOSED LEFT -TURN PHASING REMOVAL PROGRAM
The Transportation Commission has directed staff to implement a
program for removal of protected left -turn phasing at various
locations to reduce delay and improve signal coordination.
TRANSYT-7F computer simulation studies indicate 10 - 15% reduction
in intersection delay at certain locations. It is believed this
may be accomplished without compromising safety by applying the
criteria described in this report. Please note that the program
will be implemented in four to six phases based on area locations
in the City, traffic patterns, and circulation, so that more
accurate costs and traffic factors can be studied and analyzed, as
work proceeds. The tentative schedule would complete Westpark and
Woodbridge in December, IBC in January.. Spectrum in March, and
Northwood in April. A public education program will accompany this
project including newspaper articles, media information, and
special signing, etc., to smooth the transition from one type of
operation to another. Staff will also monitor the accident records
and report any safety concerns. It should be noted that there are
existing intersections Citywide without left -turn phasing presently
which are .not experiencing any special accident problems.
Staff reviewed two other alternatives: a) no change; b) removing
all left -turn phasing. The concept of no change does not address
the desire 44-,o reduce delay and improve mobility, which are
contained as goals in the City's Circulation Element. Other
options to reduce delay effectively are limited. The alternative
to removing all left turn phasing was modified from 197 signal
locations to approximately 44, based on other considerations, State
guidelines, geometrics, safety, liability, and areawide
consistency.
COST/SOURCE OF FUNDS:
The cost associated with this program varies, depending on the
equipment in place at each location. The initial cost estimate is
$500 per direction resulting in approximately $50,000 for the
entire program (44 intersections). Funding for the conversions
will come from the existing signal maintenance account and no new
funding is being requested.
W
Memorandum
September 24, 1991 -2-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Direct staff to initiate removal of left -turn phasing at
intersections as outlined in the staff report based on
available funding.
2.' Direct staff to return in six months with a status report on
the progress of the program.
Report prepared by: Conrad Lapinski, Principal Traffic En i
Reviewed by:
Submitted by:
neer
g
Arya Rohani, Manager of Transportation Services®
UIRE
RCJ:AR:CL/PB(ccleftturnremoval.rpt)
Attachments:
1. List of -potential locations for consideration
2. Map of intersections
cc: City Attorney
LIST OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS
FOR CONSIDERATION
Note: All intersections
are for two directions
1.
Ada @ Alton
unless Stated
2.
Arbor @ Walnut
Z41��a-��
23.
Murphy @ n
3.
Banting @.Alton
24.
Northwood @ Yale
4.
Bircher @ Alton
25.
Pacifica @ Barranca
5.
Burt @ Sand Canyon
•
6.
California @ Campus
26.
Parker @ Irvine Blvd.
27.
Paseo Westpark @ Alton
7.
Construction So. @ Barranca
8.
Creek @ Alton ,
28.
Paseo Westpark @ Main
9.
Dupont @ Michelson -
29.
Paseo Westpark @ San Marino
(All 4 directions)
10.
Dupont @ Von Karman
30.
Paseo Westpark @ San Remo
(All 4 directions)
11.
Eastwood @ Bryan
12.
Fairbanks @ Alton
31.
Roosevelt @ Yale
13.
Fairbanks @ Irvine Blvd.
32.
San Carlos @ Harvard
14.
Fortune @ Gateway
33.
San Juan @ Harvard
(1 direction)
34.
San Leon @ Harvard
15.
Fortune @ Pacifica
35.
San Marino @ Harvard
(1 direction)
16.
Gateway @ Irvine Center
36.
Sky Park N @ Red Hill
Drive
37.
Sky Park S @ Main
• 17.
Hughes @ Alton
38.
Southwood @ Yale
18.
Kelvin @ Jamboree
39.
Technology @ Barranca
19.
Lake @ Alton
40.
Technology N @ Alton
20.
Martin @ Campus
41.
Technology S @ Alton
21.
Morgan @ Alton
42.
Thomas @ Muirlands
22.
Morse @ Von Karman
43.
Westwood @ Bryan
44.
Yale @ Irvine Center Drive
.. A rT-r A r-t.r1k f1E7Nrr of r
ONE DIRECTION
TWO DIRECTIONS
FOUR DIRECTIONS
CITY OF IRVINE * COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT * TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
2
0
RE
IM
> c
_v •p o
� C
0
�Or
M U
.0
>, u
cas3
cc cc
>, O -_
a1
-� • C
0 u
r0
�.E
.....
cc u
c a O
41 t1.
O a C
OQ ti
:J E W
a.cc_
u
(], cc
Co .....
u C
C
0 0
h
cd cd t-
0.-N 0
N %0y
a u
a
N
�+ > 0 ,,,
f
cc cc
o
cd ._..
cd u u a
OO 0c 1
cv u
O u
•yE „
Oo N
p
I.r
O O In vl
u
O
C
O
cd p 4A
C �
O
C �
u C
c tv
Cc -c o
.... ...0
" >
ca u
cc
E H t�
M u p Q
O o
V y0.010 •C cn
r
V � °�°
.c C
3 v 0
OO. ^�
C
u O a . t]. cd
O
AID
.c o •� E c .c
O —
.� COE ,f]
0 a •co U EO C
-n V On U
cc On�p C u C
�O .4 -.:; p
u u C u �-• �
cd cc 00
h > cc E v _O
YC ►.. .0 "...
C ca v o0 " cd
•= w O&- C
co
co .r1
O'•' w E
v u
0 > ^ '^ W "
00 &- "n -0 cd
•d > co
cCd'G Q1,�-C v
cd N .4
a. .a E 4 3
O Iu. C u .� •
cn OO � cc 4j �
00
a
C
" O Q. .• n
4, w O to
Q1 > I"
w ~O h •0 C .O
C •cv �' � N � cd
E.0- cd E
E u "°c6C-v.�
0 E � o --
c.. 0 C 0 0 V.0
u On .0 v v1
CviCo C E .^ CO
cd C O C ca I." •..+
u4 3 . •0
U �= 0 cd 1"
.6 ... N N E •O
V
� Ifl
f�
V
v
0
�Or
nlC4 d
>cc
G>,
.0
>, u
cas3
a o
4-
O E
0
�-
;d
on x
C
0-0
•-
0
U`'
i
N 0
O t�1 Cd
:J E W
0 co�
.ow
0 >U
u O
c0
q-
cd 0 cd
>, E >,
.0 O
0 0
^. O
cd cd t-
0.-N 0
cz w
ca
N
�+ > 0 ,,,
f
yV.Na.
c0
N
in u
u
C
_•�� V>
U C
0all
Q O O
0 E
U 41
co
>,•� W
.c Q
•o a
>z
0 UO P4
ca
pp
O o
c: C J O
£ •p cd
¢ _co
O a
W
1 �
cc
uu
C O
cd '
41
cd •0
V
u O
v u
I... 41
N
Id 4)
,a •u
b
41
o u
O U
4r 0
u u
.a
ca cc 41
E co
co
OJ qj41 a cdO
.� r
r- O V
cd cyy E
U a >
U-0 O
E
41 U
4'41 'u UZ
4-•
w�
� N �
O
a O C
H�
>cc
41 >, v C
O cro- v
�-• o
"1 O `-• a1 O
On _ 0
cc •4
(U a1
.0 u0 C
.. -0 cid
(� > N
> E
►.. _ QJ C �
ctf •C O
C
41 ca
on u co ^
u
v •O aE1 •p G
> cd
N E
O C u
.cz 0w o E
0
►"
C � c w
0
a Oc
E o- •�
E O E.- c .c
O W) '> cc u
U . WO „C cC
O 2 u O
C
cc
•� 00. c0 p v cC
> 1. O
�.. O
v 00 E u cud E
ri-. On .D cd o
_: 1;
W,
,0
N
C
O
.cz
u
.0
i
O
41
n
N
co
O
C
O
.m
u
C
C
.01
cv
4J
N
j4,
_ cc
-0
cd > On 1-"
O
J
v
O Cu
v
1
V
O E
0
�-
;d
on x
C
0-0
•-
cn
U`'
i
N 0
O t�1 Cd
rQ1, cid
v
1 �
.0 O
C3,
O
cd cd t-
0.-N 0
cz w
ca
-�
cd cc O
u
O u b
in u
u
C
0
u
_. 1.. O . +
.O
C
U
,. •d 41
� r-
a
cd
I."
=
Ca 00 •v
ca
pp
O o
c: C J O
£ •p cd
CU
00 .. 3
r
C
u O a . t]. cd
O
C
u
�-
> Er-
u0
�
OQx 3
u
O c.-.
"�
a
¢ O
lu
fl• u Q u
.>
4" (U Q
0%-.
CU
.� %-.
cd
A
'O
00 = O c
u
O "
~
O
>. cn on
-0
H
a C 0 0
.c
c u
•-• OV 41
x.
,0 V
u
O ^C C N 0 cd
w O .O 0
cd
h 41 ^[
u tC
IM r
" 'C !. ' n u u
'� C
C
O
v O cd a
'D
u
'D
O
G
�
u
�O
6N1
u �+ a R1
O
C
�
C C O
CIO
,�
cv
o o u .fl u .N
•�
C�
'v
i
Cd.0
v T
c
00
a
on
v_ o •�
v,
a
,O
N
� ' w (d
ca
O
O O 1n cd
cc
v
41
0 Q, C •� ...
`--� 0. 'C `�
, ,
0.
N
i CA C
.� 0 -p
- u
4 -0
O
_
O
1`a.
cd �• ... N
u cd
C
u
X
cd
.on
«. •L7 cd N
•C u
O c
•� •u
cp
a
u .0
40
O
u
Co4'
-C
^.
:3E-
CO
u H
._
4
o
H
o
_
cc
00. O ca
. i '> E cd
=
•ipO°
O
.-. O
-v
•:
' 00
cc°„
H
u
a
"
N 40
N
.cc. cd
cu(a� E
0
Q
cu
In .U.
�d •'C
QJ
C
co C
,O
� 0
O
'C
.0
'O
c
IA
•�
.E
a
0 u
O
?+
^d
•� on
O
C ...
E
cd
p'
C
--
C
�"
`, 120
3
O u H
i
C
—
•�
On
.0
'L7
a .� 1^,,,,
011.6 In cd
.N
� C
o C
su 3 c •u E
u
E Q1 �
O
;�,
.
u 41
cd u V
m E c1
_
u
.
.E
�c-d•
O on O O cd
U
coo
ca.
C v O
co
c.
t-
"�V Z;;
"�
Q)
u
C N 41 V cd
¢
cd
3 N c.
u $
>
'OC13
v cc O C -�
.r
cd
t~
0
0
cu
Ll
c
•v
41
I—
ca
C
cd ca
V
o_ h
1 �
4!
D:
cO.
cd
. G Q
N
p .� Ca O •L7
..-� v C O ::
b
u
c. p u cd O
.. _
�. cd
C
cd
4>1 _00 i + cd
E v�
U
• �,
.O cd
fn
U
0
F: c«. v
u u
pp
V
u
c: C J O
£ •p cd
00 .. 3
r
C
u O a . t]. cd
O
C
u
�-
> Er-
u0
�
OQx 3
u
O c.-.
"�
a
¢ O
lu
fl• u Q u
c� .N•
u h-
cd
V
u •D `i
a
In cd 0
•41
a O .a1 'fl -d
H
'�
•-• OV 41
x.
,0 V
u
O ^C C N 0 cd
w O .O 0
cd
N
ca
'fl
e1
IM r
" 'C !. ' n u u
'� C
C
O
C
•(��+
U � U N
•N
C
�
G
�
u
C In
6N1
u �+ a R1
OA
•>
�
C C O
C 41
o a0
,�
cv
o o u .fl u .N
C�
O
D.
a E
..
'1;,
.. .. v
c
00
�O I." r p >.,
O •d
•,�„
0
u
E o O
U •t7
t .�c a,
Cc
0 w E E
p
c1
c
.� O v
rn
._
O
JD
in. O
O
fAJ•�
\ .0 C C .� .�
'CU
•c`•�.
c..,
o
a
V CJN
U
.. 41 a
'o
00
:3E-
CO
a
.. •� w •�
o
H
o
J E o ,o
fln
cc
00. O ca
. i '> E cd
=
•ipO°
O
^d
u C coCc
•:
' 00
cc°„
H
0
"
N 40
b
0 0
Ou
Qu4Q
O
C
co C
,O
>`
O
0 a 4J ca
C
cs.
cv
cc
c0
^d
b cc
O O
E
w
GO
'v�
�"
`, 120
3
�
O C O".
c 2
c
;�
u
su 3 c •u E
u
.CO
'N
N
0
=c
u O..O �N
'OO
�
_
u
.
.E
�c-d•
>
UU
oC
w 0
>%
co
c.
t-
"�V Z;;
"�
Q)
O
"� E cd
OHO
"'
v cc O C -�
.r
t~
0
BSI Consultants, Inc.