HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 TRAFFIC STUDY 01-15-96NO. 7
1-15-96
.)ATE:
JANUARY 15, 1996
Inter-Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
TRAFFIC STUDY AT THE INTERSECTION OF EL ~INO REAL AND
PARKCENTERLANE
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council at their meeting of January.
15, 1996, receive and file this report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the City with the preparation of this
report.
BACKGROUND:
At the November 6, 1995 City Council meeting, Ms. Tina Marie
Crislip expressed concern regarding traffic safety at the
intersection of E1 Camino Real and Parkcenter Lane. Ms. Crislip
requested upgrade of the existing traffic controls at the subject
location.
The Engineering Division was subsequently directed by the Council
to prepare a traffic study investigating the possible installation
of a traffic signal or other traffic control devices at the subject
intersection. The location is shown in the attached exhibit.
DISCUSSION:
The Engineering Division has completed the traffic investigation of
the E1 Camino Real/Parkcenter Lane intersection. A copy of the
Traffic Study is attached for your information.
The Traffic Study indicates the subject intersection is currently'
controlled by stop signs on all intersection approaches. The stop
signs, stop ahead signs, and associated pavement legends currently
meet all State Standards for these installations.
Research of the traffic accident files indicate there' has been one
(1) accident in the past.forty-five (45) months. The City's Police
Department reports minor enforcement activity and indicates the
existing traffic controls at the subject intersection appear to be
adequate.
Traffic signal warrants have been prepared for the subject
intersection and it has been determined that the Peak Hour Volume.
Warrant has been met. However, this does not necessarily justify
Traffic Study at the Intersection Of E1 Camino Real and 'Parkcenter
Lane
January 15, 1996
Page 2
the installation of. a traffic signal. When justifying .the
installation of traffic signals, traffic signal warrants represent
the lowest possible thresholds at which traffic signals can be
installed. Delay, congestion, approach conditions, driver
confusion, engineering judgement, land uses or other eVidence of
the need for traffic right-of-way assignment should also be
considered. At the subject location a traffic signal is not
justified at this time.
Based upon the above discussion and the contents of the Traffic
Study it has been determined that the existing stop controls at the
subject intersection are adequate.
CONCLUSION:
It has been recommended in the Traffic Study that a traffic signal
not be installed at the intersection of E1 Camino Real and
Parkcenter Lane at this time. The Engineering Division will
monitor this location for possible future traffic impacts. We have
also prepared the necessary documentation for the City's Field
Services Division to replace the existing stop signs 'with larger
stop signs., as recommended in the Traffic Study.
Director of Public Works/
City Engineer
TDS:DA:ccg:ecrpkctr
Attachments
'Douglas R. Anderson -
Transportation Engineer
._..) k. BRYAN J L. AVENb_ j ~
1369~ ~-
i370~
137
~7,9~ ' --
13759~
....
1376~
13789/ /
138191a -.~
IO
:13829J~
· 2041,/"'
Je,' 2oj?.
138'4.9J
1385~
1386 gl~
CAMZNO ' "'.
REAL ' ': :'
PARK
RANC1~iO
ALI_~AL
'x x / //
j/ //
(I-5) SANTA ANA FREEWAY
-'r
z
Z
ANAI,YSIS OF TRAFFIC ISSUF~
CONCERNING THE INTERSECTION OF
EL CAMINO REAL AND PARKCENTER LANE
INCLUDING A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT STUDY
By
CITY OF TUSTIN
Engineering Division
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA. 92680
(714)573-3150
November 15, 1995
SUBJECT:
Investigation of traffic concerns at the intersection of E1 Camino Real
and Parkcenter Lane, including an analysis of traffic signal warrants.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that a traffic signal not be installed at this time.
However, the intersection should be monitored annually for traffic
safety and additional traffic signal warrants. In the future, the
installation of a traffic signal may be an appropriate traffic control
device for the subject intersection.
At this time, the traffic signs (stop and stop ahead signs) should be
replaced with larger ones.
STATEME OF THE ISSUF OR PROBLEMS:
At the City of Tustin's City Council Meeting of November 6, 1995, a
citizen raised concern regarding traffic safety at the intersection of
E1 Camino Real and Parkcenter Lane, and asked if a traffic signal should
be installed at the intersection. This report discusses that concern.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
The justification for the installation of a traffic signal is based in
part on traffic signal warrants found in the Caltrans Traffic Manual.
The determination to install a signal should not be based entirely on
the warrants, since the installation of traffic signals may increase
certain types of collisions. Delay, congestion, approach conditions,
driver confusion, future land use or other evidence of the need for
traffic right-of-way assignment beyond that which could be provided by
stop signs should be considered.
This. study is undertaken to address the traffic safety of the
intersection and to determine if the installation of a traffic signal at
the subject intersection is warranted at this time.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:
EXISTING CONDITION
E1 Camino Real is a four lane secondary arterial street connecting
Browning Avenue and Tustin Ranch Road. Parkcenter Lane is a two lane
local street which functions as a residential collector street and
intersects E1Camino Real on the north side; on the south side of the
intersection is an access road to the Rancho Alisal Apartments. The
intersection is located about 1300 feet west of Tustin Ranch Road.
The intersection traffic is currently controlled by stop signs at all
intersection approaches; STOP pavement markings are painted in each lane
adjacent to the signs. Stop ahead signs are installed for the E1 Camino
Real approaches; STOP AHEAD pavement markings are marked in each lane in
the roadway adjacent to the signs. White crosswalks are painted across
the west, north and east intersection legs.
The 24 hour intersection traffic volume is currently 13,233 vehicles;
southbound volume is 866 vehicles; westbound is 7,643; northbound is
1,479; eastbound is 3,245. The 85th percentile speed on E1 Camino Real
is 40.8 mile-per-hour (MPH); the posted speed limit is 35 MPH. The 85th
percentile speed on Parkcenter Lane is 34.2 MPH; the posted speed limit
is 30 MPH.
There has been one traffic accident recorded in the last 45 months - all
of 1992, 1993 ,1994, and January through September of 1995. This
accident occurred where an eastbound vehicle on E1 Camino Real ran the
stop sign and hit a southbound vehicle; the accident occurred on Friday,
August 11, 1995 at 2:40 P.M.
A traffic signal warrant has been prepared for the subject intersection.
Warrant 2, Interruption of Continuous Traffic, is 80 percent satisfied.
Warrant 11, Peak Hour Volume, is satisfied. None of the other warrants
investigated are satisfied. See Table I below:
Table I
Warrant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 0 11
Satisfied 80% X
Not Satisfied X X X X X X
Not Applicable X X X
(l-Mmhnmn Vehicular Voltune: 2-
7-Systems; 8-co,nbination; 9-Four Hour Volume; 10-Peak Hour Delay; ! I-Peak Hour Volume.
xgs; 5-Progressive Movement; (>-Accident Experience;
Comment.
Traffic signals are valuable devices for control of vehicle and
pedestrian traffic, and, thereby, exert significant influence of traffic
movement by assigning various traffic movements the right-of-way. When
traffic signals have been correctly located and operated they should
provide one or more of the followings advantages:
o The orderly movement of traffic is achieved.
With the correct intersection conditions, the intersection
handling capacity increases.
The frequency of certain types of accidents is reduced,
especially the right angle type.
Given correct conditions,, traffic signals can be coordinated
along a street to provide for continuous traffic flow.
Minor street traffic and pedestrians will be allowed to cross
heavy major street traffic.
However, unwarranted traffic signal installations may cause the
following traffic problems:
Traffic may experience excessive delay, reducing the capacity
of the intersection.
o Drivers may not obey the signal indications.
Traffic may seek roundabout travel by alternate routes.
Traffic accidents can increase.
When justifying the installation of traffic signals, traffic signal
warrants represent the lowest possible threshold at which a traffic
signal could be installed. The subject intersection of E1 Camino Real
and Parkcenter Lane has enough traffic to satisfy one warrant, Peak Hour
Volume. The warrant, Interruption of Continuous Traffic, is 80 percent
satisfied.
The subject intersection is currently controlled by stop signs on all
intersection approaches. There has been one traffic accident over a 45
month period.
By examining the intersection traffic counts, traffic volumes are not
equally diStributed. Traffic volume is unbalanced by a ratio of 10,888
to 2,345, or about 4.6:1. A more desirable ratio would be a maximum of
3:2.
The City Police Department reports that their data from enforcement
efforts and accident records show low numbers of incidents. In their
enforcement effort, it has been noted that a few drivers are not coming
to a complete stop and, thus are rolling through the intersection. At
this time, the traffic control is f~nctioning adequately from their
perspective.
The current operation of the intersection as a four way stop has been
determined to be safe, at this time. However, all traffic is stopped in
order to do this. If future traffic increases on E1 Camino Real to .the
extent that traffic volume ratio between the two streets exceeds the
existing ratio signifiCantly, then consideration should be given to
installing a traffic signal. A traffic signal could alleviate having
all vehicles stop and will decrease delay and driver impatience since
these will increase the traffic volume unbalance increases at the stop
sign controls.
During a field review of the intersection, it was noted that some of the
traffic signs have been in place for some time and are nearing the end
of their usefulness, and therefore, should be replaced at this time. In
light of the probable increase of traffic, the signs should be replaced
by larger signs.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that a traffic signal not be installed at this time.
However, the intersection should be monitored annually for traffic
safety and traffic signal warrants. In the future, the installation of
a traffic signal may be an appropriate traffic control device for the
subject intersection.
At this time, all the intersection traffic signs (stop and stop ahead
signs) should be replaced with larger ones.
ATI ACHMENTS:
ECRPRKCR. RPT
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SHEETS 1-11
TRAFFIC COUNTS
9-6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
1-1992 [
Figure 9-1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
-----'"-- - - '---'-- "--'-" CALC ~----/~/vt DATE //'/~" ~'~'
DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE
Major St: ,~-/' ~,~/'~ o ,/~.~, / Cdtical Approach Speed · · ,f~:4:2o ~/ mph
Minor St: /z:~4~'r',~'c"~'~? ~/"' /-,~/~ CriticalApproach Speed ___-~'~:° Z. mph
Critical speed of major street traffic ~_ 40 mph o~rr /
RURAL
(R)
In built up area of isolated community of < 10.000 pop.
r'"l URBAN (U)
WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100°,4, SATISFIED YES [-I NO ~
NO /
~ -/O .~.~/'~ I IOl'-Ir-U I r'~,.,~ L_I
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
' .
~rS~t (~0) (~o) (~o) (~6H ~ ~ ~G ~1 ~1~ ~7/
H~h~t ~pr~. 1~ ~105 ~0 140 '
~s~ (~20) (~)~ (~) (~2) ~/ ~ z~o /~ 45 /~ ~ ~/
W~-qRANT 2- InterruPtion of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED
UU'"/o ~A I I~i'-it-U Yb~ ~
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80°1o SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
u
APPROACH LANES 1 2 or more ._~/~ v14. ¢~. ~ / z~='/// , / / /
Both Apprchs. 750 525. 900 - 630J
Major Street (600) (420) (720) (504
Highest Apprch. 75 53 / 100 70
Minor Street (60) (42)~ (80) (56)
YES [] NO ~
[]
Hour
WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume
T~
100% SATISFIED
REQUIREMENT
Pedestrian volume crossh~g tho major street is 100 or more
for each of any four hours or is 190 or more dudng any one
hour; ~AND
There are less than 60 gaps .Der hour in the major street traf-
fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross; AND
The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater
than 300 feet; ,AND
The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive
traffic flow on the major street.
Yes i'-] No []
Yes [] No []
Yes E] No E]
Yes [] No []
tisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other
ce of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown.
Traffic Manual
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Figure 9-2
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
9-7
-1-1991
WARRANTS 4 - School Crossings
Not Applicable .................................. !~
See School Crossings Warrant Sheet I-1
.
·
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES El NO El
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS · DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED
~-1000FT. N ~ .ft, S "-" R,E I~O ft, W~,?OO ft. YES [] NO
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
ON 2-WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING AND
SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM []
WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience " SATISFIED YES O NO ~
REQUIREMENTS WARRANT ,~ FULFILLED
ONE WARRANT
WARRANT I - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATIFIED
OR
800/o WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ~NO
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ~ I-I
ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY E]
ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR $500 DAMAGE
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
5 OR MORE / !-]
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant
SATISFIED YES El NO ~
MINIMUM VOLUME
REQUIREMENTS
800 VEH/HR
ENTERING VOLUMES-ALL APPROAcHEs ' I,~fl
DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR ] '~¢"7~'-- VEH/HR[' 'l
I
DURING 5_ACH OF ANY 5 HRS Or: A ,.AT. AND/OR SUN.. _ VEH.~HRI I
FULFILLED
YES ~'~0
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST.
HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC
RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY
APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE iON AN OFFI~AL PLAN
ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTIC MET. BOTH STS. YES E] 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.
-8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
1991 ~
Figure 9-3
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
YARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES l-'] NO [~
·
.
REQU IR EM ENT WARRANT ;,,/ FULFILLED
TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATISFIED
80% :2. iNTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC ~ YES r-] NO [~'
WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* . YES r'-I NO
2 or
Approach Lanes One more
. ,~
~,~1
/Z.Z-
Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS) or F~ure 9-7 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
Both Approaches Major Street ~ I"~ 7--/r II ~r-~i ~1~1 ~,,5'.~'
Highest Approaches - Minor Street ~ fi! ~',~ /~Z) ! ~.
/VARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
SATISFIED
total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a
)P sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five
vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND
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
YES I--I NO [--~
YES r-] NO r--]
YES [--! NO [--]
.
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.
YES IF'"] NO
NARRANT 11- Peak Hour VoIume
SATISFIED YES O [~
2 or :~- 4,, '._
Approach Lanes Or,e more ~'/Hour
I
Both Approaches - Major Street
Highest Approaches - Minor Street
Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
~e satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown.
12
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Figure 9-7
FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
Traffic Manual
_
400
300
200
100
I ! ! I
~2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
~~ '~~----------- 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
OR I LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
I LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) ~ ~~ ~
I I I
A
2OO
300
40.0 500 600 700 800
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
900 1000
NOTE:
80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WI1H TWO OR MORE LANES AND 60 VPH APPLIES AS; THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
.14
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Figure 9-9
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
Traffic Manual
5OO
400
300
200
~~.~.~ 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & I LANE (MINOR)
~. / '~ OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) --
I I I
300 4O0
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH
1200 1300
NOTE:
100 VPH APPLIES AS THF LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOP. A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES /~.S THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STHEET APPROACHING WITH ONE L/~_NE.
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC.
MACHINE COUNT DATA
LOCATION - PARK CENTER ~ EL CAMINO RL
HOURLY VOLUM.
TIME N. LEG E. LEG S. LEG W. LEG TOTAL TIME N. LEG E. LEG S. LEG W. LEG TOTAL
(SB) (WB) (NB) (EB) (SB) (WB) (NB) (EB)
12:00 - 1:00 2 111 4 20 137 12:00 - 1:00 46 361 51 248 706
1:00 - 2'00 1 76 5 6 88 1:00 - 2:00 40 344 61 227 672
2:00 - 3:00 0 37 5 5 47 2:00 - 3'00 52 405 83 209 749
3:00 - 4:00 1 46 7 7 61 3'00 - 4:00 53 476 63 220 812
4:00 - 5:00 4 59 9 13 85 4:00 - 5:00 59 887 59 262 1267
5:00 - 6:00 9 48 42 28 127 5:00 - 6:00 59' 999 91 325 1474
6:00 - 7:00 45 182 105 82 414 6:00 - 7:00 60 698 100 251 1109
7:00 - 8:00 102 452 192 203 949 7:00 - 8'00 44 302 84 213 643
8:00 - 9'00 81 471 122 130 804 8:00 - 9:00 41 260 69 147 517
9:00 - 10:00 46 317 .78 100 541 9'00 - 10:00 22 241 56 84 403
10:00 - 11:00 35 183 69 145 432 10:00 - 11:00 21 210 44 71 346
11'00 - 12:00 33 343 52 194 622 11'00 - 12:00 10 135 28 55 228
TOTALS
866 7,643 1,479 3,245 13,2
North Leg (SB)
East Leg (WB)
South Leg (NB)
West Leg (EB)
11/9/95 TO 11/10/95
11/9/95 TO 11/10/95
11/9/95 TO 11/10/95
11/9/95 TO 11/10/95
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC.
............................................... MACHINE COUNT DATA
LOCATION - PARK CENTER @ EL CAMINO RL i5 MINUTE VOLUMES
........................... PM .........................
TIME N. LEG E. LEG S. LEG W. LEG TOTAL TIME N LEG E LEG S. LEG W LEG
{SB) (WB) (NB) (EB) ' ' · TOTAL
(SB) (WB) (NB). (EB)
12:00 - 12:15 0 22 I 8 31 1~:00 - 12:15 10 86 7 76 179
12:15 - 12:30 1 48 2 3 54 12:15 - 12:30 13 79 10 60 162
12:30 - 12:45 1 23 1 6 31 12:30 - 12:45 11 96 16 56 179
12:45 - 1:00 0 18 0 3 21 12:45 - 1:00 12 100 18 56 186
1:00 - 1'15 0 20 2 0 22 1'00 - 1:15 10 84 18 63 175
1:15 - 1:30 0 18 2 3 23 1:15 - 1:30 12 99 15 57 183
1'30 - 1:45 t 14 0 1 16 1:30 - 1:45 8 73 12 59 152
1:45 - 2:00 0 24 1 2 27 ' 1'45 - 2:00 10 88 16 48 162
2:00 - 2:15 0 12 1 I 14 2:00 - 2:15 12 82 15 40 149
2:15 - 2:30 0 6 1 2 9 2:15 - 2:30 19 134 16 59 228
2:30 - 2:45 0 13 2 2 17 2:30 - 2:45 12 79 20 60 171
2:45 - 3:00 0 6 1 0 7 2:45.- 3:00 9 110 32 50 201
3:00 - 3:15 0 10 2 2 14 3:00 - 3:15 10 104 14 48 176
3:15 - 3:30 0 11 2 1 14 3'15 - 3:30 10~ 80 15 50 155
3:30 - 3:45 0 12 0 3 15 3:30 - 3:45 15 130 18 66 229
3:45 - 4:00 i 13 3 I 18 '3-45 - '4:00 18 162 16 56 252
4:00 - 4:15 2 8 2 3 15 4:00 - 4:15 12 155 11 62 240
4:15 - 4:30 I i0 4 1 16 ' ' 4-15 - 4:30 15 252 22 55 344
4:30 - 4:45 0 17 0 3 20 4:30 - 4:45 11 250 12 66 339
4:45 - 5:00 1 24 3 6 34 4-45 - 5:00 21 230 14 79 344
5:00 - 5:15 0 28 6 5 39 5:00 - 5'15 18 236 28 77 359
5:15 - 5:30 3 13 14 4 34 5:15 - 5:30 16 296 16 86 414
5:30 - 5:45 2 1 8 9 20 5:30 - 5:45 16 249 20 76 361
5:45 - 6:00 4 6 14 10 34 5:45 - 6:00 9 218 27 86 340
6'00 - 6'15 8 11 14 12 45 6:00 - 6:15 15 240 21 66 342
6:15 - 6:30 12 25 28 15 80 6:15 - 6:30 17 232 29 64 342
6:30 - 6:45 14 52 22 13 101 6:30 - 6:45 15 124 24 66 229
6:45 - 7:00 11 94 41 42 188 6:45 - 7:00 13 102 26 55 196
7:00 - 7:15 15 91 34 29 169 7:00 - 7:'15 14 80 24~-'' ' 63 181
7:15 - 7:30 20 108 42 42 212 7:15 - 7:30 10 86 26 42 164
7:30 - 7:45 31 122 50 58 261 7:30 - 7:45 10 68 23 54 155
7:45 - 8:00 36 131 66 74 307 7:45 - 8:00 10 68 11 54 143
8'00 - 8:15 17 183 42 29 271 8:00 - 8'15 9 70 17 47 143
8:15 - 8:30 28 110 30 33 201 8:15 - 8:30 8 68 10 39 125
8:30 - 8:45 18 108 24 24 174 8:30 - 8:45 12 64 22 28 126
8:45 - 9:00 18 70 26 44 158 8:45 - 9:00 12 58 20 33 123
9:00 - 9:15 18 46 30 20 114 9:00 - 9-15 6 56 16 26 104
9:15 - 9:30 9 114 13 29 165 9:15 - 9:30 3 60 12 23 · ' 98
9:30 - 9:45 9 106 13 18 146 9:30 - 9:45 4 48 14 12 78
9:45 - 10:00 10 51 22 33 116 9:45 - 10:00 9 77 14 23 123
10:00 - 10:15 8 40 24 20 92 10'00 - 10-15 10 74 12 18 114
10:15 - 10'30 11 60 15 43 129 10:15 - 10:30 5 63 10 19 97
10'30 - 10'45 11 40 18 36 I05 10:30 - 10:45 3 36 12 22 73
10:45 - 11:00 5 43 12 46 106 10:45 - 11:00 3 37 10 12 62
11:00 - 11'15 12 56 16 42 i26 11:00 - 11'15 6 50 13 15 84
11:15 - 11:30 8 106 18 59 191 11'15 - 11:30 2 29 6 13 50
11:30 - 11:45 S 78 8 44 135 11:30 - 11:45 2 33 1 14 50
11:45 - 12:00 8 103 10 49 170
11:45 - 12:00 0 23 8 13 44
TOTALS
............... 866 7,643 1,479 3,245 13,233