The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About22 LEFT-TURN PHASING 02-05-96AGENDA - . NO. 22 2-5-96 ATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1996 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROTECTED/PERMISSIVE LEFT-TURN PHASING AT SIGNALIZED INTEl{SECTIONS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, at their meeting of February 5, 1996, reconfirm the current City policy of installing fully protected left-turn phasing at warranted signalized locations. FISCAL IMPACT: ~here is no fiscal impact to the City regarding the preparation of this report. BACKGROUND: The City has recently received the attached two (2) letters dated January 14 and 21, 1996, from Dr. Chris A. Wills and one (1) letter from Ms. Maralys Wills dated January 25, 1996, regarding the operation of protected/permissive left-turns and the current City policy regarding their installation. The City response to the January 14, 1996 letter is also included for your information. DISCUSSION: The City--Council has previously considered items related to this topic at their meetings of January 1992, October 1993, and in January 1995. City Council agenda items and related information from the aforementioned meetings is attached for your information. At each of the previous meetings, the City Council has reconfirmed the current City policy of not installing protected/permissive left-turn phasing. , 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. In November 1994, the Orange County Traffic Engineering Council prepared a report entitled "Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing - Design and Operation Guidelines," which is intended to provide a better understanding of this type of traffic signal operation. The report concluded, amon other · the use of protected/~ermissive ~ .......... g , things, that. overall intersection v~icle d-~--~=~=~u=n phasing can signiIicantly reduce the use of =~y~. however, the report also concluded that this type of signal phasing may result in an increase in left-turn a~cidents. The City's past experiences with installations of this type of phasing have indicated just such an accident increase, and has led to the current policy of not installing protected/permissive left-turn phasing. The City previously installed protected/permissive left-turn phasing at the following eleven (11) locations during the late 1970's and early 1980's: 1. Irvine Boulevard/Prospect Avenue 2. Irvine Boulevard/Holt Avenue 3. Irvine Boulevard/Red Hill Avenue 4. Newport Avenue/Holt Avenue 5. Newport Avenue/Bryan Avenue Newport Avenue/Main Street McFadden Avenue/Tustin Village Way Red Hill Avenue/Carnegie Avenue McFadden Avenue/Pasadena Avenue McFadden Avenue/Williams Street McFadden Avenue/Ritchey Avenue February 5, 1996 Protected/Permissive Left-turn Phasing at Signalized Intersections Page 2 In 1988 due to complaints from citizens and concerns with left-turn accidents at these locations, the City Council requested staff to review the City policy on the use of protected/permissive left-turn phasing, and subsequently, approved the gradual upgrading of these locations to fully protected left-turn phasing through the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The above locations No. 1 through No. 6 were upgraded to fully protected left-turn phasing with a 1990 CIP Project. Location No. 7 was upgraded by Caltrans in 1991 in conjunction with the SR-55 Freeway off-ramp reconfiguration project. The location No. 8 was upgraded with the City's Major Maintenance Program in 1992. The three remaining locations Nos. 9, 10, and 11 are scheduled for upgrading in conjunction with the City's 1996-97 CIP. The attached Exhibit A depicts signal modifications involving left-turn phasing and accident history at locations No. 1 through No. 8. As shown in the exhibit, not all accident records prior to 1990 are available' However, at locations where data is available, it can be concluded from Exhibit A that accidents were substantially reduced when protected/permissive left-turn phasing.was removed and replaced with fully protected left-turn phasing. Traffic studies will be prepared at locations Nos. 9, 10 and 11 prior to modifying these locations. Last year (1995) there were nine (9) accidents at McFadden Avenue/Pasadena Avenue, five (5) accidents at McFadden Avenue/Williams Street, and two (2) accidents at McFadden Avenue/Ritchey Avenue. Current City practice is to install fully protected left-turn phasing at signalized locations on all arterial route approaches where left-turn phasing has previously been found to be. warranted, and when it has been determined that the installation would reduce left-turn accidents and facilitate ease of the left-turn movement. The candidate intersections where potential left-turn phasing could be installed are studied and analyzed on an individual case-by- case basis for possible'future left-turn phasing installations. Current Caltrans guidelines for installation of fully protected left-turn phases require a minimum of one of the following conditions: · Where there have been five or more left turn accidents in a 12-month period for a particular left-turn movement. Left turn delay where one or more vehicles have waited from the start of the green cycle and is still waiting to turn at the end of the green cycle for 80% of cycles in a peak hour. · Where the product of the left turn traffic times the traffic volume of the conflicting through movement equals 100,000. · Where there is impaired sight distance, a large number of buses and trucks, or some other miscellaneous factor. From an operational standpoint, the advantage of removing a warranted protected left-turn phase and reverting to a protected/permissive left-turn. phase is to reduce delay. However, apart from heavily traveled times when City arterials are coordinated, delay to motorists waiting at signalized intersections where protected left-turn phasing is present should be minimal if the vehicle detection equipment is working properly. February 5, 1996 Protected/Permissive Left-turn Phasing at Signalized Intersections Page 3 Currently, 95% of the City's traffic signal system is coordinated during some part of the day. During these coordinated cycles, protected/permissive left- turn phasing would be ineffective and would essentially impede traffic movement thereby defeating the purpose of traffic signal coordination. The City's signal system also includes lead-lag left-turn capabilities whereby the left-turn arrows can be programmed to'indicate green at the beginning (lead) or at the end (lag) of a phase. This lead-lag capability in conjunction with the protected/permissive left-turn phasing may cause drive confusion, resulting in poor judgment and possibly a traffic accident. The current City practice has provided a balance between minimizing overall traffic delay and traffic safety. Delay and inconvenience to drivers should be considered minor in comparison to the additional traffic safety realized through the installation of fully protected left-turn phasing. The City's Engineering DivisiOn has reviewed and supports the current City policy as it pertains to installing protected/permissive left-turn phasing. Tim D Serl Dougl~ R. Anderson Director of Public Works/ Transportation Engineer City Engineer Attachments TD$:DA:leftturn EXHIBIT "A" CiTY OF TUSTIN ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC SIGNAL LEFT-TURN ANALYSIS LOCATION INSTALLATION AVERAGE DATE OF REMOVAL OF AVERAGE DATE OF ACCIDENTS PROTECTIVE/PERMISSIVE ACCIDENTS PROTECTIVE/PERMISSIVE PER YEAR AND INSTALLATION OF PER YEAR LEFT-TURN PHASE BETWEEN FULL PROTECTION BETWEEN 1981 & 1990 1990 & 1995 :i!iRVINEBO.ULEVARDiiiii~i~if: :~iii:~ii:~:!:-198i::::! i:.!::: i::;f:iii:i::i~i;~:::;iii!ii DATA::!NOT:.: 1990 !!IRVINEBOUI.:EVARD!:::i.i:i 'i~i:: i!:i1981 ::i:i!-::i! '::ii;'i:;.~::ii;! ;.'ii::'.: · DATA:NC)'[ ~'990' ~:!~'~i~EN'O:~i~:.~i:; :':' :- ?i: ~i ::i::'i!:'~':.i!?:::::~:~i:~;;::i ii~::i~ ":' :i~:::.:. !::!:::;::::. ~i:~:~ . . . ........................... . ..... ....:.:.: :.:.. :..........:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ~i:iRVlNEBOULEVARD'i:.:.!:; .i::'" ::?19811iiiiiiii i: ::::: :" ::i.. ::-.'.'-i::i:i :;:i:~l~i~liiii ii ]'990iii i '- : 6!6 "" "' '"" '! ..... :::':':::::.:':': :":::':'::':' .:...:.~.:?:?i:;:~:?:~:.::.:..::.:::.::.:..:~:.::.:::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::':i!::::::!i!!!)i!!}:i~:i:i:!:!::' :iNEWPOfiT:AVENUE.::i.i'ii!. :.!i:. !:;::' i:ii?:1981:: . !! :: i i;;:::::i ii::: i'DATANO~ :lgg0 ......... , .......... ,., .......................... ............... NEWP..ORT AVENUE.i,':.: ~:~ i:i::%.iii::!1981:: i . ::;i:i:?--': :: !'DAT/~:NoT ~990' iiii::;::::i :: ! 2;0 :.:NEWPO'R'FiAVENUE :.:::i !;ii'i!::::i::::ri981!!i::¥!: i:t-. ::: !.:: ?!i ' - -- :. : 8i:3 i ig90 3j~ " ........ · ' '" '.' ": ': .':':'":':': .... :' ':':'": -:-:-'-:'":'":!:i::::'~:!::.: :::" -.:':' :::' ":": :" :.' :: MCFADDEN'!AVENUE:::-;::i ...... :-.ii:.i?lg?Z;:::.::ii!:::.: :':i:i-'? "-ii: :' ::':i?10~5 ii: i::i :iggl ' ~3 ............ '"'" '" .... ;;i ........ ; ...... ;"": '"'::': ======================================= :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -iRED HILI2:iAVENUE .::i':-:;ii:?!i: ii::i:!i:.i!i:iiii:?lg81 ii::::iiii::J i!.i:iiiiii::ijii!:'::i!j::i:iii: !DATA!NOT , ]gg2' : 1131196 Ti m Serlet Director of Public Works City of Yustin 300 W. Centennial Tustin, Calif. 92680 JAN 2 9 1996 'TUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 'January 25, 1996 Re: Permissive left turn Phasing Dear Mr. Serlett, I'd like to add my voice to many others on the issue of permissive left turn phasing. Tustin contains dozens of controlled intersections where there is so little traffic that waiting for a green left-turn arrow is a total waste of time. On hundreds of occasions i've been exasperated, sitting in the left turn pocket facing zero oncoming traffic waiting for a red arrow to turn green. Such useless arrows exist all up and down Tustin Ranch Road, for instance, and even on Newport Blvd. Long before we had left turn arrows, drivers knew they had to wait for oncoming traffic to clear and then proceed cautiously. Left turn arrows became necessary only when traffic was so heavy nobody could turn safely without one. That is not the case with a large number of controlled intersections in Tustin. On such streets, those ridiculous arrows are nothing but an impediment..Everyone stops unnecessarily. If the arrows can't be revamped, they ought to be removed. At least for now. I see drivers stop, look around, and then go against the red. And with good reason. VVhy wait when nobody's coming? A few years ago, Tustin, like perfecttown-lrvine--got overzealous with its new streets and .new .signals. Every intersection had to be controlled, and every controlled intersection had to have a left turn arrow, whether it was patently ridiculous or.not. It wouldn't take much money to park an intelligent person at some of those intersections to see whether half those signals are necessary. I bet you'll find they're not... Sincerely, 1811 Beverly Glen Drive Santa Ana, California 92705 714/544-0344 ,N ASSOC,AT,O. DONALD R. BALL M.D. PAUL ^. BECK. M.D. :,U.-RO.G PE.G.J~huary 21. 1996 Tim Serlet Director of Public Works City of Tustin 300 W. Centennial Tustin, CA 92680 Fax 832-0825 CHRISTOPHER A. WILLs,M.D. A MEDICAL CORPORATION DIPLOMATE AMERICAN BOARD OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY 725 WEST LA VETA AVENUE, SUITE 2E ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92668 (714) 633-1111 · 639-3750 · 835-3693 FAX (714) 771-5194 L2,o' t :TUSTIN PUBLIC WORKS .... i.)L~ t, ' _ Re: Permissive left mm Phasing Dear Mr. Serlet: I appreciate your letter of January 17, 1996. I am aware that the city of Tustin is not installing this type of lights and that is precisely the reason for my letter. As you know, my sister is Tracy Worley and she is one of the people who xvas pushing for such a change. Until people get used to any change, there is always the possibility for accidents. Accidents occur even when people are complete familiar x~4th an intersection. As Andy ROoney says, "We don't need more rules, we need fe;ver idiots - and how are you going to legislate that." When considering safety, if we wanted Tustin to be completely safe, we could eliminate all driving in the city. This would be a major inconvenience to everyone, but would be much safer. This is not practica1 nor is it acceptable. The next safest would be to have ever3., intersection set up so that only one direction of traffic goes at a time, like mayor Dick Edgar set up .at El Camino and Main street. While this may work on quaint intersections that you purposely want to drivers to avoid, it is not acceptable nor workable for most intersections. Unfortunately driving involves some risk, but I am not convinced that the increased risk (if any) justifies the major inconvenience to every driver of these compound intersections at all small streets. I would like to see the studies in Tustin that have looked at permissive lift turn phasing. You mention that in Tustin replacing permissive phasing with strictly protected phasing has reduced accidents. I cannot recall any intersections in Tustin where this has been tried. Certainly replacing no left tum arroxv with a controlled left turn lane with an arrow would decrease accidents, but this may not be the case with permissive left turn arrows. I have spoken with Tracy and she is in favor of such intersections - and she campaigned on this idea. Perhaps the City Council should look at the matter again. I am not sure they' realize the extent of public support for such an idea. Ali the last council discussions of this were not well publicized regarding this issue. I have spoken with a great many Tustin residents in this regard and have yet to hear any expressed disapproval. I xvould appreciate any data in Tustin regarding this type of intersection and would greatly appreciate any effort by you or the Council to reconsider this. Sincerely, Chri~M.D. Sent via Fax and U.S. Mail Please copy to all members of the City Council Public Works / Engineering January 17, 1996 Dr. Chris A. Wills, M.D. 11622 Vista Mar Santa Aha, CA 92705 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 573-3150 FAX (714) 832-0825 Subject: Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing (P.W. File No. 1093) Dear Dr. Wills: We have received your letter of January 14, 1996, regarding the operation of left-turn arrows at various locations throughout the City. As you have observed, some cities are installing protected/permissive left-turn phasing which allows vehicles to turn left on both the green arrow and the green ball indications. However, the City of Tustin is currently not installing this type of phasing. The City has prepared studies and determined that when left-turn protected/permissive phasing has been removed and replaced with strictly protected left-turn phasing, that traffic accidents have been substantially reduced. The City Council has previously considered this topic at their'meetings in January 1992, October 1993, and in January 1995. At' each of these meetings, the City Council has reconfirmed, the City's policy of not installing protected/permissive left-turn phasing. It is generally felt that the delay and inconvenience to drivers is considered minor, and more than offset by the additional safety and property damage reductions realized through fully protected left- turn phasing. We hope this has addressed your concerns. If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact Doug Anderson, of my staff, at 573-3150. Tim D. Serlet Director of Public Works/City Engineer TDS: DA: ccg:protected left-turn cc: Dana R. Kasdan Doug Anderson Chuck Mackey Tracy Worley, 'Councilmember IN ASSOCIATION ONALD R. BALL M.D. PAUL A. BECK, M.D. JIUN-RONG PENG, M.D. CHRISTOPHER A. WILLs,M.D. A MEDICAL CORPORATION DIPLOMATE AMERICAN BOARD OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY January14,1996 Tim Serlet Director of Public Works City of Tustin 300 W. Centennial Tustin, CA 92680 Fax 832-0825 725 WEST LA VETA AVENUE, SUITE 260 ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 9266~ (714) 633-1111 · 639-3750 · 835-3693 FAX (714) 771-5194 TUSIIN ,PUBLIC WORKS ,DEP :: Dear Mr. Serlet: I am a long time Tustin resident. I was raised here and have lived in or around the city all of my life. I would like to point out a problem that seem to be getting worse in the Tustin area. All of the new stoplights that are being constructed and all of the old lights that are being upgraded are the type that require drivers to sit in a left turn lane waiting for a green arrow when making a left turn. Many of the intersections are completely haunted at various times of the day or night and yet drivers are forced to sit there waiting for a green arrow. Usually the green arrow will cycle just about the time the only other driver on the road is coming the opposite way thus making two drivers furious. This is particularly bad on Jamboree where the speed limit is 50 mph and when you are traveling straight through, you ~know you will get a red light when another driver is waiting at one of these lights'to make a left turn: You have to stop and then get back up to 50 when neither you or the other driver would have had to wait if he could have turned in the ten minutes before you arrived or in the ten minutes after you went through. All of these compound lights should be markkd so that drivers can make left tums when the traffic is clear. I can understand having certain intersections that would haVe certain times of day when this would be prohibited due to severe traffic conditions, but for most of these intersections, for most of the day, it would be safe to have left tums permitted on a red arrow. For those who do not feel safe turning, waiting for the green arrow would still be available. Other cities have this type of marking and it works very well. I have seen many drivers turn anyway in Tustin, and those who do not are needlessly aggravated. I would appreciate your looking into this and improving our lives by making the change. Thank you for your interest. Sinceroty,, · · Chris l~. Wills, M.D. sent via fax and by U.S. mail please copy to Tracy Worley, City Council CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9, 1-16-95 ANALYSIS OF RED LEFT-TURN ARROWS AT SIGNALIZED LOCATIONS Tim Serlet, Director of Public Works, reported staff investigated the possible removal and replacement of red left-turn arrows with protected/permissive signals. He noted the number of protected left-turn arrows in the City; the recent replacement of protected/permissive signals with protected left-turn signals based upon accident history; City policy to install protected left-turn arrows when traffic met the State minimum° criteria; protected/permissive signals created delay, fuel consumption, pollution, and increased accidents; coordination of traffic signals; 25 percent of City traffiC accidents in the past 3 years were caused by right-of-way violations; and staff recommended maintaining the current policy regarding installation of protected left-turn phasing at signalized locations on arterial highways. Mayor Pro Tem Potts remarked on the lack of traffic signal coordination in the City; one vehicle turning left triggered the intersection; traffic congestion in Tustin; City of Irvine's reduction of 38 signals to protected/permissive; requested traffic accident history at those Irvine intersections; major intersections should have red left-turn arrows during peak hours; and reduction of traffic and improved traffic flow in the City. Councilmember Worley clarified that she did not want to remove every red left-turn arrow in the City as misquoted in an Orange County Register newspaper article. She stated unnecessary traffic delays were a growing frustration to drivers and requested staff investigate the accident history in Irvine where protected/permissive signals were utilized. Tim Serlet, Director of Public Works, stated tha~ the 38 Irvine intersections did not meet minimum State traffic warrant criteria when the protected red left-turn arrows were installed; the Orange County Traffic Engineering Council did not recommend installation of protected/permissive signals if a system was coordinated, contained a certain number of approach lanes, and contained site problems; and the Engineering Council was hesitant to quantify accident data and recommended each agenCy set their own accident statistics. Council/staff discussion followed regarding the City's protected left-turn arrows met minimum traffic warrant criteria; the Engineering Council cautioned cities from installing protected/permissive signals because traffic signals vary in each jurisdiction; obtaining accident history at City intersections; and assessment district signals. It was moved.by Thomas, seconded by Worley, to receive and file subject report. Motion carried 5-0. DATE: JANUARY 16, 199~- Inter-Corn TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJECT: ANALYSIS OF RED LEFT-TURN ARROWS AT SIGNALIZED LOCATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the City Council at their meeting of January 16, 1995, evaluate and confirm the current City policy regarding the installation of protected left-turn phasing at signalized locations on arterial roadways. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City regarding the present report. BACKGROUND: At the December 5, 1994 City Council meeting, Council requested a report addressing the possible removal of red left-turn arrows at intersections. In October 1991, the City's Engineering Division prepared a report entitled "Traffic Signal Left Turn Operation Study" which addressed a resident's concern with the use of red left-turn signals. The Study indicated that when left-turn arrows were installed at traffic signal locations within the City of Tustin, traffic accidents had been substantially reduced. The Study recommended continuance of the City's current policy'of installing protected left-turn phasing on coordinated or arterial roadways. A copy of the October 1991 Study is attached for your information. This Study was presented for City Council consideration.at their meeting of January 6, 1992 After discussion, the Council voted to receive and file the subject Study. Copies of the aforementioned January 6, 1992 Agenda Item and the respective City Council minutes are attached for your information. Subsequently, at their October 4, 1993 City Council meeting, the Council considered an Agenda Item entitled "Traffic Concerns Regarding Traffic Signal Operations of Left-Turn Arrow Phasing." The Council voted to receive and file the subject report. The Report discussed the traffic standards and practices associated with the signalization of left turn movements along with the City of Irvine's decision to modify their signal design policies to require separate left turn phases on minor approaches only when warranted in the design study. A copy of the October 4, 1993 Agenda Item and respective City Council minutes are attached for your information._ DISCUSSION: Currently, the City has ninety-four (94) signalized locations with 158 approaches utilizing protected left-turn phases. The City also has three (3) locations which have protected/permissive left-turn phasing. The current policy permits installation of protected left-turn phasing at signalized intersections on all arterial approaches where the traffic volumes and accident types meet the minimum installation criteria (warrants) as established by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Warrant criteria for installing left-turn phasing is included in Attachment #1 of the attached "Traffic Signal Left Turn Operation Study." By removing the red left-turn arrows, the traffic signal phasing would revert to a protected/permissive phase, thereby allowing left-turns on both the green arrow (protected) and the green ball (permissive) indications. The City previously installed protected/permissive left-turn phasing at eleven (11) locations within the City during the late 1970's and early 1980's. However, in 1988, due to complaints from citizens and concerns with left-turn accidents at these locations, the City Council requested staff to review the policy on the use of protected/permissive left-turn phasing, and subsequently, approved the gradual upgrading of these locations to fully protected left- turn phasing through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). A 1990 City CIP Project upgraded the protected/permissive left-turn phasing to fully protected left-turn phasing at the following six (6) locations: Irvine Boulevard/Prospect· Avenue, Irvine Boulevard/Holt Avenue, Irvine Boulevard/Red Hill Avenue, Newport Avenue/Holt Avenue, Newport Avenue/Bryan Avenue, and Newport Avenue/Main Street. The left-turn phasing was upgraded at the intersection of McFadden Avenue and Tustin Village Way in conjunction with the SR-55 Freeway off-ramp reconfiguration in 1990 by Caltrans. The intersection at Red Hill Avenue and Carnegie Avenue was upgraded with the City's Major Maintenance Program in 1992. Currently, the remaining three (3) locations (McFadden Avenue/Pasadena Avenue, McFadden Avenue/Williams Street, and McFadden Avenue/Ritchey Avenue) are planned for upgrading in next year's CIP. In November 1994, the Orange County Traffic Engineering Council (OCTEC) prepared a report entitled "Protected/Permissive Left-Turn Phasing - Design and Operational Guidelines·,'' which is intended to provide a better understanding of this .type of traffic signal operation. The Report was prepared with special focus on Orange County's multi-agency and multi-ethnic composition. The Report concluded, among other things, that the use of protected/permissive left-turn phasing can significantly reduce overall intersection vehicle delays. However, the Report also concludes that the'use of this type of signal phasing may result in an increase in left-turn accidents. The RePort cautions that the number of left-turn · . 2 accidents warranting use of full-time left-turn phasing should be determined by each local agency. This determination will require engineering evaluation and should consider the agency's desired balance between minimizing overall traffic delay and traffic safety. City records indicate that traffic accidents at locations with protected/permissive left-turn phasing and fully.permissive left- turn phasing are typically more severe and involve substantial personal and property damage compared to those locations with fully protected left-turn phasing. Due to driver confusion as to who has the right-of-way through a protected/permissive intersection, accidents tend to involve high speeds. Typically, the through vehicle assumes the left-turning vehicle is going to stop and the left-turning vehicle assumes the opposing Vehicle~is going to stop. The Police Department is responsible for enforcement of traffic regulations per the ~California Vehicle Code and their input regarding this issue has been solicited. Based upon their correspondence dated December 29, 1994, they have indicated the existing policy appropriately addresses traffic safety within the City of Tustin. Several Orange County Cities have reported they have installed protected/permissive left-turn phasing at fully protected left-turn locations, realized an increase in the accident rate and subsequently re-installed the protected left-turn phasing. Various Cities also-indicated that they have developed specific criteria for determining when to utilize protected/permissive left-turn phasing and indicated that they would not consider installing this type of phasing at intersections with an accident history involving left turns. CONCLUSION: To remove warranted red left-turn arrows at signalized intersections would create driver confusion and could increase left-turn accidents. Current practice in the City of Tustin is to install fully protected left-turn phasing 'when it has been determined that the installation would reduce left-turn accidents and facilitate ease of the left-turn movement. Staff is reviewing left-turn related accidents at signalized intersections in the City where there are no separate left-turn phases. Police reports indicate that left-turning drivers typically report that they felt they had the right-of-way even though there were no left-turn arrows. This illustrates the potential serious problem, that is, that motorists confusion related to left-turn right-of-way assignment can easily translate into an accident and one that can be quite serious. In one case, ~ detailed traffic analysis has shown that installing separate left- turn phases will provide additional traffic safety. From an operational standpoint, the advantage to removing a warranted red left-turn arrow, thereby reverting to a protected/ permissive left-turn phase, is to reduce delay. However, the inconvenience caused by this delay should be considered in relationship to the additional safety benefits derived from fully protected left-turn phasing. Apart from heavily travelled times when City arterials are coordinated, delay to motorists waiting at signalized intersections where protected left-turn phasing is present should be minimal if the vehicle detection equipment is working properly. The Public Works Department recommends that the~Council reconfirm and continue the current City policy of installing fully protected left-turn phasing on arterials and coordinated roadways for installations, where applicable warrants have been met. If the Council has specific locations where they have noticed a delay problem during non-coordinated times, the signal timing and functioning of the equipment will be reviewed and modified to produce a safe, efficient movement of traffic. Tim D. Ser%e~ _ Director or--Public Works/ City Engineer TDS:DA:klb:lftira Dougl~ R. Anderson Transportation Engineer - 4 DATE: DECEMBER 29, 1994 TO: FROM': SUBJECT: DOUG FRANI<S, CHIEF OF POLICE TIM D. SERLET, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER POSSIBLE ELIMIt~ATION'OF RED LEFT-TUR/q ARROW At the December 5, 1994 City Council meeting, Mayor Pro-Tem Potts requested the preparatiOn of 'a report to address the possible elimination of red left-turn arrows at intersections Pursuant to this request, the Engineering Division is soliciting the Police Department's input regarding this issue. We have also attached previous City Council Agenda items and a study prepared in October 1991 regarding this subject. We are planning to complete our report and present it to the City Council at their meeting of January 16, 1995. Therefore, we would appreciate your response by January 9, 1995. If you have any questions, please contact Dana Kasdan or Doug Anderson, of my staff. Tim D. Serlet Director of Public Works/City Engineer TbS: cog: elimarr Attachments cc: Dana R. Kasdan Doug Anderson / ~ ' )ATE: OCTOBER 4, 1993 Inter-Com tO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, cITY MANAGER ; · . . :ROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION ~UBJEC~ TRAFFIC CONCERNS REGARDING TRAFFIC SI'GNALOPERATIONS OF LEFT- TURN--OW PHASING RECOM/~ENDATIONS: Pleasure of the city Council. FISCAL IMPACT: At this time, there is no fiscal impact to the City regarding the preparation of this report. BACKGROU1TD: At the September 7, 1993 city Council meeting, Mayor Potts requested the preparation of a report regarding the noted subject. He indicated the report should investigate the possibility of permitting left-turns, when safe, on red left-turn' arrows when a green ball'is indicated for the through traffic movement. Mayor Potts reinforced this request at the September 20, 1993 city Council meeting .and also requested that the report address the possibility of implementing flashing red left-turn arrows at intersections. The Mayor also indicated that during the past year, the city of Irvine has been removing left-turn arrows at several locations throughout that City. DISCUSSION: In October 1991, the City's Engineering Division staff conducted a left-turn operation study which addressed a resident's concern with the use of red left-turn traffic signals and subsequent suggestion to install flashing yellow left-turn arrows in place of red arrows at the City's ~raffic signal locations. The study indicated that left-turn arrows reduced traffic accidents, minimized delays during off-peak hours, reduced air pollution and fuel consumption. This study recommended, among other things, continuance of the City's current policy of installing protected l'eft-turn phasing on coordinated or arterial roadways. A copy of the study is attached for your information. This study was presented for City Council consideration at their meeting of January 6, 1992. After discussion of the item, the Council voted to receive and file the subject report. Copies of the aforementioned January 6, 1992 Agenda Item and the respective City Council minutes are a~_tached for your information. To address 'Mayor Potts' recent concerns regarding left-turn operations, staff has consulted the Caltrans Traffic Manual, the Federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, th~ California Vehicle Code, and the attached October 1991 Traffic Signal Left Turn Operation Study. The Police Department has reviewed the left turn phasing concerns outlined in this report and concurs with staff's findings and conclusions. Based upon staff's investigation, it has' been determined tha~ neither permissible left-turn movements on red arrows or flashing red arrow indications at signalized intersections meet federal or state guidelines. It is indicated in the noted references, that vehicles must make a complete stop at red arrows and may not proceed through a signalized intersection until the signal indications change to green, or as otherwise directed by an enforcement officer. Furthermore, the noted references indicate that flashing red arrows shall not be operated unless all signal faces on an'approach are also flashing red. Actions to modify the City's traffic signal system to reflect the subject left-turn operations may place the City in a position of non-compliance within federal and state guidelines, for such Operations and subject the City to potential liability exposure. Also, it could cause significant driver confusion which may cause increased accident rates at City signalized intersection locations as well as at signalized locations within other jurisdictions. Procedures to change regulations regarding these issues would require consideration by the State of California Traffic Control Devices Committee and the Federal Highway Administration. Mayor Potts also indicated that the City of Irvine has removed 'left-turn arrows at several locations throughout that City. Based upon staff's review of this issue, it was learned that the City of Irvine has recently modified its left-turn policy for traffic 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, directed their staff 'to remove left-turn arrows for minor street approaches at ~4 traffic signal locations. The left-turn arrows for the major street approaches were to remain. In contrast, the City of Tustin has never installed left-turn arrows on minor street approaches unless the standard left-turn criteria has been met. Robert S. Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer At tachment s -Douglas R. Anderson Transportation Engineer IRSL :DA: left turn DA'rE: SEPTEMBER 29, 1993 TO' FROM: SUBJECT: ROBERT S. LEDENDECKER, PUBLIC WORKS DIR./CITY ENGINEER W. DOUGLAS FRANKS, CHIEF OF POLICE P.W. FILE 1093 PROTECTED LEFT TURN SIGNALS Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this issue. I have reviewed the staff report prepared by the Engineering Department and concur with their findings. There are two issues at hand: me . Permitting left turns when facing red left turn arrow (upon driver's evaluation of safe passage) when the through circular orb is green. Implement flashing red arrows for left turns (in cases where the signals are otherwise operating normally). Both issues raise significant concerns from the Police Department's perspective: 1. Both issues will cause significant driver confusion. · Implementation of either or both issues will cause more accidents. Those accidents would create substantial liability for the City in that neither are permitted or addressed in the California Vehicle Code. · Both completely negate the purpose for having protected left turns (the key word is protected). That purpose is safety and accident reduction. ~ Enforcement of either would be impossible from both a practical and legal standpoint. As such, this Department strongly recommends no further action on either of the subject issues. W. DOUGLAS FRANKS Chief of Police ' WDF ' dh DATE' SEPTEMBER 22, 1993 Inter-Com TO: FROM:. SUBJECT: DOUG FRANKS, POLICE CHIEF ROBERT S. LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER TRAFFIC CONCERNS REGARDING PROTECTED LEFT TURN MOVEMENTS (P.W. FILE NO. 1093) At the September 7, 1993 City Council meeting, Mayor Potts requested the preparation of a report regarding the noted subject. He 'indicated the report should investigate the possibility of permitting left turns, when safe, on red left turn arrows when a green ball is indicated for the through traffic movement. Mayor Potts reinforced this request at the September 20, 1993 City Council meeting and also requested that the report address the possibility, of implementing flashing red left turn arrows at intersections. Since the Police Department is responsible for enforcement of traffic regulations in the California Vehicle Code, we. are soliciting input from your department and response to the Mayor's suggestions. We hope to have this report prepared for Council.consideration at their meeting on October 4, 1993. I would appreciate any'.input your department may have regarding this issue by September 27, 1993. Thank you for your assistance in this Matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Doug Anderson, of my staff. Robert S. Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer RSL: DA :pd~ cc' 'Da,va R. K~sdan D<:~,Ct~s R. Ander~n Chuck Mat:key Lt. Bob Shoenkopf, TusEn P.D. RECEIVED SEP 2 7 1993 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE Page 6, 1--6-92 RESOLUTION NO. 92--03 -- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~3STIN, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING PLACEMENT OF CERTAIN STOP SIGNS Motion.carried 5-0. 3. REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS ON "AR ET~EET AT ~ECOND ~TREET AND AT THIRD STREET · . E~RGENCY P~C~~ OF ~P SIGNS FOR THE i~E~E~IONS OF Robert Ledendecker, Director of Public Works;'-reported that7 Item No. 3 was a warrant 'study regarding intersections at "A"/Second Streets amd 'A'/Third Streets. He stated that based upon State guidelines, the intersections did not warrant all-way stop controls. ~x'. Ledemdecker said that at the December 2 1991 Council meeting, Council ordered stop sign installation at 'A~/Second Street~ . amd 'A'/Third Streets. Item No. 4 provided the administrative procedure to formally authorize the emergency Placement of the four way stop sign installation at the subject intersections. It was ~oved by Potts, seconded by Pontious, to receive and file Item No. 3, Request For Stop Signs On 'A' Street at Second Street and at Third Street. Councilmember Pottsclarifiedthe legality of Council's action to install the stop signs. ~otion carried 5'0. It was ~oved by Edqar, seconded by pontioum, to adopt the following Resolution No. 92-04 authorizing the emergency placement of a four-way stop sign installation at the intersection of ~A" Street and Second Street and at the intersection of 'A' Street and Third Street: RESOLUTION NO. 92--04 -- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORRIA, DESIGNATING PLACEMENT OF CERTAIN STOP SIGNS Motion carried '5-0. 5. REQUEST FOR ~OVAL OF LEFT TURNARROWS AT TRAFFIC SIGNALS Dana Kasdan, Engineering Services Hanager, reported that resident, Anthony Truj illo~ had suggested that flashing yellow arrows be substituted for red left-turn traffic signal arrows. Staff had conducted a left-turn phasing policy study which indicated that left-turn arrows reduced traffic accidents, minimized delays during off-peak hours, reduced air pollution and fuel consumption. The st.udy recommended installation of Protected left-turn phasing on coordinated or arterial streets; continued conversion of four remaining Frotected/permissive left turn intersections to protected !eft-turn movements; and refrain from installln9 any new prctec~ed/permissive signal phasing. He also stated that flashing yellow left-turn arrows did not meet Federal and State guidelines. ~r. Kasdan additionally reported, that Councilmember Potts had requested an informaticnal report re?arding the City of Irvine's removal of 44 let't-turn arrows. }{e explained that the City of Irvine Council had voted to remove left-turn arrows only for minor street approaches. Council/staff discussion followed regarding the timeline for upgrading the four protected/permissive left turn intersections; and the number of left-turn arrows on minor street approaChes. The following member of the audience spoke on inaccuracies in the staff report: Anthony Trujillo, Tustin CITY COUNCIl. ~INUT[~S [age V, 1-6-92 It was ~oved by Potts, seconded by Prescott, to receive and file subject report. Councilmember Edgar stated traffic accidents'had been reduced since implementation of the current left-turn phasing policy and traffic signal operations- Mayor Pro Tem Pontious commented that the new signal at Red Hill/Mitchell Avenues was very effective and eliminated considerable left--turn delay. ~otion carried ~-0. .. 6. FEASIBILITY STUDY TO PROVIDE A I(EDIAN OPENING ON TOSTIN RANCH ROAD AT PALERMO Councilmember Pott~statedthe Almeria Homeowners' Association requested this item be continued for one month. It was ~oved by Potts~ seconded by ~d~ar, to continue this item to the February 3, 1992 meeting. Hotion carried 5-0- NEW BUSII~E$S 1. UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NOs 11 -- RED IIILL AVENUE Robert Ledendecker, Director of Public Works, described the location of Underground Utility District No. 11 and reported that Southern California. Edison Company had requested an · extension for the removal of the overhead, wires and utility poles from DeCember 1, 1991 to June 1, 1992. It was moved by Edgar, seconded by pontious, to approve the Edison Company request for time extension from December 1, 1991 to June 1, 1992 for the removal of the overhead wires and utility poles along Red Hill Avenue and Copperfield Drive. Motion carried 5-0- 2. FORMATION OF ORANGE COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Ronald Nault, Finance Director, reported staff worked with the Orange County Fire Department, the Structural Fire Fund cities, and the Cash Contract cities evaluating the concept of regional fire services. In 1991 the contract cities formed a steering committee to investigate alternatives that would serve the current demographic make-up of the Fire Department service area and the cities felt that creation of a Fire Protection-District was the best alternative- The. cities hired a consulting firm to evaluate the financial feasibility and other issues related to the formation of a district and their findings were contained in Draft Final Report, Phase I. He stated funds had been appr'opr~ated in the budget; and staff belJ eyed it ~as in the city ' s best interest, and cost effective, to remain a participant in this ~ormation. Council/staff discussion fo!].o~ed regarding whether each cicy ~ould have a voting representative iD the distr'ict; current limitation of 11 menders on the district panel; investigating ~U~ ccntracting with the district or conversion to ~ · i members~.ip of the district- It was moved by Ports, seconded by Pontious, to 1) Receive and file the Draft Final Report, Phase I, "An Evaluation of Financial Feasibility for an Orange County Fire Protection District" and (2) Adopt the following Resolution-No. 92-01 agreeing to participate in the formation of an Orange County Fire Protection District: RESOLUTION NO- 92-01 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTI N, CALI I:ORN IA, SU DPORTI NG AND AGREEING TO PART ICI PATE Il4 TH£ FONMAT ION OF AN O~ANGE COUNTY FI RE AGENDA DECEMBER 27, 1991 Inter-Corn WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DMSION JECT: REQUEST FOR TT~R. RF~MO~ OF LEFT TURN ARROWS AT TRAFFIC $IGNAL~ RECOMMENDATION Receive and file. 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 - C~uncilmember Potts at the December 2, 1991, city Council meeting lested an information report regarding the city of Irvine's 1 ~oval 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 utilJ.ze 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 ar'terial 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- uopy of the study has been sent to Mr. Trujillo, and he has been =dvised .that the matter has been agendized for city Couhcil consideration, at their meeting of January 6, 1992- The City of Ir~ine has recently modified its left-turn arrow policy for. traffic 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-tu~l 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. ~o~_rt S. Ledend~ker ~~andra Doubleday ~ Director of Public Works/ Traffic Engineering Consultant City Engineer RSL:k[b:LEFTTU~N . o Oo TRAFFIC SIGNAL LEFT TURN OPERA TION STUD Y ~esented by:. BSI Consultants. Inc. Presented to: City of Tustin 15222 East Del ,Arno Tustin, CA 92680 October 1.991 TABLE OF CO~ -. M mNDm AC'nON 'rUS-rlN'S CITY POLICY ON LEFt RXIRN pHASING .................... 1 SIGNAL OPERATIONS ................................... ~-~..cxrmS EXP.~.~.CES' ~ I~~/PERMISSI:V~ LEFt. TURN SIGNAL OPERATIONS ................................... pR~;PERMTqSIVE LEFt TURN SURVEY TABLE ............ 4 SU~ GUID]qI-INF_S FOR EVALUATING PROTECTED~~SS~ LEFT TURN SIGNAL LOCATIONS ........................... IRVINE'S EXPERIENCE WITH LEFt TURN PHASING ................... 5 CONCLUSION AND RF~OMMY:~NDATIONS . .. ....................... 6 AR~rACHE~.NTS ............................................. 6 Investigation into protected/~ve left turn phasing and the elimination of left turn arrows. . .. Retain .City's eummt I, eft Turn policy.of ~ pro~ le~ turn phasing only..on eoordinat~ or atmrial routes. Continue to convert the remaining four protected/~ssi_v¢ left turn intersections to p~' left .turn plmsing. ..Refrain from in_~alling any new protected/perrnis_4ve signal phash/g due to past ex~ences and' ~h~ determination that this of ' phasing is not viable for use on coordina/~ mutes. b-~TA~ OF ~ ~ OR I:~ROBI~ Mr. Anthony Trujillo, a citizen of Tustin is concerned with the delay to left mining motorist duc to exclusive left mm p~_¢ng. Mr. Trujillo has stated that he feels this type of plm~ng un/i~y'in'~ thb dbl~t and ~ fuel Mr. Tmjillo'reqi~bsfed that'existing, pfo~d left turn red arrows be removed in the City of Tusfin to pennit permissive left turns ~ occur. /fir.' 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 permi.~_~qve left turns would be permitted when sufficient gaps occurred in the approaching traffic. _,CI~ODUC~ON The purpose to this report is to gather information on the City of Tustin's current city left,.tum phasing policy and past protected/~ve left turn phasing experience in order to explain the City's philosophy on traffic signal operations. This report also accmmulated additional information from various dties and agencies in Orange County on protected/permissive traffic signal operations. In the protected/permissive type.of operation, a car can either mm left on a fully protected interval indicated by a green arrow or, when there are adequate gaps in traffic, the car can mm during a green ball indication. This report also addresses the City of Irvine's recent decision to remove protec~ left turn arrows at numerous lOCations throughout them city. TUSTIN'S CITY POLICY ON LEFT T[JRN PHASING The City of Tustin has adopted a pol/cy of installing protected !eft turn arrows at signali'~ed intersections on all arterial route approaches.where left turn phasing has previously been found to be warranted. The California's' Department of Transp0rt~tion established guidelines for left turn phases are used to determine when left mm phasing is warranted. For additional information see the attached section of the Traffic Manual entitled 9433.0 Guidelines of Left Turn Phases. "FITU ~.S~T TUS 1 It has been ~ experience that left turn accidents are substantially reduced when a leg-turn an'ow 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 reco~ 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 pefi~, the delay to !eft tllrning vehicles-is minor. This is due to thc tza~c ~ controller being able to respo~ to lighter traffic conditions by'serving the left turn only when there is demand. · . . . '.. By removing the red arrow as suggested by '/fir. Trujillo, the signal phasing would revert back to a P~~ive phase. Mr. Trujillo'$ suggestion of replacing ~ red amawa at protected left turn traffic signal phasing with yellow flashing arrows would not meet cuzrent l~niform Traffic Control Standaxds. Whea a traffic signal ia being ot~ated as a flashing device, ail signal faces in an app~ch shall flash as stated in' the Manual oa Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988 Edition. ~ would not pertm't the left tmn movement to flash yellow when the "through ~a~"movem6at v~ofild ~,how'a solid gx~:l:/alL' 3d~ the Manual 'on Uniform Ttaffi~ :_ Control Devices states ttmt 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 fred the appropriate sections of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices attached to the end of this report. TUSTIN'S PAST EXPERIENCE WlTtt PROTECTED/PERMISSIVE LEFT TURN SIC,~AL OPERATIONS The City installed their first project/~ve left turn phasing in 1977 at four intersections on McFadden Avenue. Tea intersections on lXlewtx~rt Avenue and Irvine Boulevard and one intersection at Red Jill/Avenue and Carnegie Avenue were installed in 1981. In 1988, due to complaints from citizens and left mm 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/~ve left turn operations is the Trap, this condition occurs when one left mining vekicle (a) is stopped in the interstw, tion on the green ball waiting for traffic to clear in order to make the left mm: If opposing left turn traffic is about to receive a protected left mm arrow (lagging left), then the left mm vehicle (a) will see a yellow bali and may assume that opposing through traffic also has a yellow. This assumption is wrong since the opposing traffic has a green ball and wiIl'soon receive a green' left arrow. Thus, a trap is created if the left turrdng 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. LE:FrTuP, N.STY/DT TUS 2 'Fne 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 mutes are coordinated, additional intersections will require use of lead/lag phasing. .Another problem, with the protected/, pemfi~ve .lg/t tm~ o~on is that once the left turn arrow has'been received and is termina~ by a yellow arrow (a left'red arrbw is not re~mnmuded),' ' it is difficult to stop the flow of left turning vehicles. This ammI~ ititdifional enfo~ent · . p .r0bl.ems £or..the police, department as .well. as.~fial for iuerea~d, accidents. Based on the staff review, it was I~m~~ that no neW` p~J~ed/' .permi~iv¢ left tu~ be insUdled and' that.existing ones 'be Converted tO..protected. To date, all but four loeafio~ have been' converted and 'they ar~' scheduled for conversion in the near future. O'tm~.~t Cx'rlES Ex~ERtENC~ Wx'l~t PRO'I~/I~SIVE l.~-._~--r TURN OPERATIONS For this. _study, a total of 15 cities, the County .of Orange and Caltxans were con~ and surveyed On'the Sfibject Of p~pia~i~,e lef~ lm'n' operaffoa. Of these' 17 agendies, only~..j .. a few had actually implemented policies on ~is type of operation. The following table su~ the information gathered from this sUrVey. ~tly, most cities contacted had only a few intersections with pmteeted/~ve pha~rtg, if any at ail. Some of the reasons given by the dries that do not implement protected/~ve ~peration are as foUows: Significant increase in accidents due to motorist mistmdersmding 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, dries that were using protected/~ve operation, most had experienced accidents attributed to protected/permissive phasing. Rea.runs given for these accidents were: · Driver misunderstanding of operation Driver understood operation but 'made a judgement error Ail cities surveyed agreed that protected/permi._tsive 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. :TIIJ RN. STY/DT TUS 3 The majority of those surveyed indicated that they Would put pmtected/~ssive 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 al/. PROTFA~-I'~:ofPERME_qSIVE LEFT TURN SURVEY TABLE City/Agency Irvine Anaheim Hdntingtori Beach ' Placcntia Brea Newtx)rt Beach Costa Mesa Buena Park County of Orange Cypress Fullerton Garden Grove La Habra La Palina Orange Santa Ana Well-defined Policy Yes. Yc~. Yes. No. No. No. NO. NO. NO. YeS. Number .... of Locations 5 in O.C. 0 7 iXlum~rou~' ' 0 I 1 'Few 0 1 0 2 0 0 Accidents No. N/A "Yes.' N/A No. Yes. yes' N/A No. N/A No. N/A No. · N/A N/A No. Yes. Yes. No. N¢. LEFITU RN.STY/DT TUS 4 SUGGES~ GUID~LIN~ FOR .EVALUA~G PROTECWIV~D/PERMISSIVE LEFr TURN SIGNAL I.K)CATIONS Listed below are suggested guideline~ to follow when evaluating protected/perm~si_ve left turn operation locations. D0 not use Penni~ve.phase during peak la'Om/ " -- · . Avoid sequence :hgging .of proteeted/~ve/p, rotecrted !eft mm. Do not install at lagging left turn locations'on coordinated mutes. .. . . . Do not install if there were five Or more aec/dents during a recent 12 month Do not use if there is a xight distance problem, either vertic~ or horizontal Do not use with double left mm. . .. 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 REX2~ EXPERIENCE WITtt I.F;FT 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 InSne's policy on left mm phasing prior to the staff report was to install left mm arrows on all approaches, not just arterial approaches as in Tustin. The left turn an:ows that are being removed in Irdne are. on the minor street approaches only. The City of Tustin has never installed left tarn phashag on these minor street approaches unless left turn warrants were met. -v-rru~.swtor ~us 5 CONCLIJSION AND RECOMMF. NDATIONS On major in--oas,, protected left mm arrows provide a safer operating intersection by reducing the number of potential conflicting movemeats. The City of Tustin has an active signal coordination plan with 30% of intersections oarrenfly using lead/lag, lag/lead operation to . maximize the.e/fidency of cootxlinated'opemtioa. For these rmstma, it is recommended that the existing protected' left' tun/ ~6n.--be maintained.. -Also, .from past experience 'with,. .pro~ted/~ve otxxrafion in the City of Tustia, it is recomm~ed that this-~type of o. . - ATtAr: le 2. 3. 4. Guidelines for Left Turn Phases - Traffic Manual City's Response Letter to Mr. Trujillo City of Irvine's City Council Repot/tm Rtanoval of ~ Turn Phasing E~:cerpts from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device~ o.. LEFTTU~.S~/DT TUS 6 . " A~' 'ACHMENT -~ 1_. I~$-i STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION l~sUed by DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GEORGE OEUKMEJIAN Governor LEO TROMBATOP-.E Director, Department of Transportation R. G. ADAMS Deputy Director, Highway Maintenance and Traffic Operations C. O. BARTELL Chief. Division of Traffic Engineering ,JOHN GOMES Edilor ' SIGNALS AND LIGHTINg- Traffic Manual-. volume minor ~treet approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive IS-minute peri- ods) of an average day, falls above the curve in Fig- ure 9-2C for the existing combination of approach lanes.. When the 85th percentile speed of major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, or when the inter- r~etion lies within a built-up area of a isolated com- munity having a 'population of le~ than I0,000, the peuk hour volume warrant is ~atisfied when the pl~t- ted point, referred to above, fa~ls above the curve in l=igure 9-2D for the existing combination ofapproa6h 9-~3.0 Guidelines for Left Tom Phases Since ~eparate zignal ph~es for protected left turn~ will reduce the green time available for other p~ alternate mearm of handling left turn con- flict~ zhould be cormidered Fn'zt. The most likely po~bilities are: 1. Prohibition of left turns. This can be done only if there are convenient alternate mean~ of mak- ing the movement. Typical aliernate' mear~ ire: (a} a series of right and/or left turns around a block to permit getting to the dexired de, na- tion, or (b) making the left turn at an adjacent unsignalized intersection during gaps in the op- po~ing through traffic. ~ 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 turng 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 follox,4ng conditions exist: 1. Accidents. Five or snore left turn accidents for - a particular left turn movement during a recent 12-month period. ~- Del~y. Left-mm delay.of one or- mot:e vehicles which were wa.iting at the begi.nning of th~ green interval and 'are still remaining in the left turn lane after each cycle for one hour. ' 3' Volume. 'At new interge~fions'.where 0nly. es- timated volumes are available, the following cri- teria may be used..For a pretimed signal or a baekgr0und-cyde-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 oonflieting through traffic during the peak hour of 100,000 or more. .4. Miseellaneotm Other fa. eto .~..that might be co.n- . si'tiered are: consisteiaey of signal phasing xviih 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 longerj~ed. When this occurs, con.dderation should be given to removing the traffic signal and replacing it with appropriate alternative t'raffle control devices. City of TuStin ATTACHMENT March 7, 1991 o.. · o . Ma'. Anthony Trujillo 2001 Kin~ro Circlc o w tln,' o o Subject: Protected Left Turn Phasing at Signalized Intersections o Dear Mr. Trujillo: Thank you for attending the recent City of Tustin Council meeting on March 4, 199L The matter of protected left turn phasing at signalked intCme~ons is very important to public agencies. Public agencies, such as the City of Tustin, are' respons~le for installation, maintenance and optimization of the operation of these traffic signals. ' Thc types of protected movements most frequently used arc: o at high rate accidcnt locations, o where there are high number of turning movements, o where there are delays for on-coming traffic to dear, 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/proteCte-~ left turn phasing to include the installation of protected left turn phasing. In addition, the/'~L- Quality Management Plan 'of the.. AQMD specifically includes requii-¢ments 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-mm'arrow, .even though 'there.-was-no' On-coming traffic_- A traffic signal con.troller- -. normally has a certain sequence thr0u~ which it must go in order to. sonic the d~0n a motorist is traveling. This takes time. However, in the. late night hours, it should be fairly rriinimal~ if'thexc is no 'other conflicting traffic demand. "ff an unusually long delay'is' experienced, this may indicate that pfirt of the system (for exa_ m. ple, traffic detector loops) 'may be malfunctioning and may neekl maintenance, ffyou are aware of any Specific.lbcations - where such a malfun~on may be occurring, please do not hesitate to report these to us. We sincerely appreciate your conee~ and if. you have any questions please do not hesitate . to contact me. . S'.mcer¢ .y,. City of Tustin - Ms. Sandra Doubleday Engineering Consultant SD:RR:dt Attachments William A. Huston Robert S. Ledendecker --TACHMENT¢ REQUEST FOR. CITY COUNCIL ACTION. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: .' SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 . FT-TIIRN PHASING REMOVAL' PROGRAM Dire'c~or of Community Developm .ent... ' ' Ci~an~ager-' ... _ RECOMMENDED A~TION: .... le Direct staff to initiate" removal 'of left turn phasing at intersections as outlined in the staff report based on available funding. ..: ,. -- Direct staff to return in six months with a status report on the progress of the program. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Transpo~~on Commission reviewed this issue at their August 26, 1991 meeting and .unan{~ously Suppo.rted implementation of. the proposed program2 ~'- -' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff has been asked to consider safe criteria for 'identifying potential intersection candidates ~hereby 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 idem, ti fy options which can help reduce delay at intersections. One such program is the elimination of protected left-turn phases ~here they are clearly not '~arranted. 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 progra~ include improved signal coordination, reduced delay, savings in fuel, and reduced air pollution among others. Improv~_ment programs 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 recommendedthat 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 (rfccale ftturnremoval, rpt) MEMORANDUM COUNCIL P[EETING DATE: SEPT~BER 24, 1991 TO.: CITY MANAG~ - .' .. · .. FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPPrRNT : S~~-~:' PROI:~SED LI~-~'~-TURN PI:13~II~I'G ~OV3~L 'PROG~ · · STATEMENT OF "~1~ ISSUR.: T~e Transportation Commission has dire~ed staff to implement a program for removal of protected left-turn phasing at various locations to reduce delay and improve signal coordination. TRANSYT-?F computer simulation studies indicate 10 - 15% reduction in intersection delay at certain locations. It is believed t/~is may be accomplished without compromising safety-by applying' t~.'e.~ criteria described in this report. Please note that the program will be ~plemented 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 Westp~rk-and Woodbridge in December,' IBC in January, Spectz~ in Marc~, and Northwood in April. A public education program will accompany project including newspaper articles, media information, 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 City~ide without left-turn phasing presently which are not experiencing any special accident' problems. ALTERNAT/VE$ CONSIDERED Staff reviewed two other 'alternatives.: a) no change'; b) removing all left-turn phasing. The concept of no change does not address the desire to reduce delay and improve mobility,, which are contained as goals in . the City's Circulation Element. Or/let 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 cons ist enc~y. cosT/s0~c~ 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. - Memorandum September 24, 1991 -2- RECQM~?ENDED ACTION: le Direct staff to initiate removal of left--turn .phasing a't intersections as .. outlined ~in 'the staff. -report ba. sed. on available funding. '-.- -~ .:- 2 .' Direct staff to. rett%rn in six months with a-status report on the progress of the program. Report' prepared by: conrad Lapinski, Pr~cipal Traffic Engineer Reviewed by: Arya Rohani, Manager of Transportation Services~ Submitted by: OF CO~TY DEVELOPMENT. RCJ .: AR: CL/PB (ccle ftturnremoval, rpt) Attachments: List of. potential locations for consideration Map of intersections cc: City Attorney 1. Ada @ Alton * . . 2. Arbor @ Wahut' 3. Bant~g @ Alton 4. Bircher @ Alton LIST OF POT]~NTIAL LOCATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Note: All intersections are ' for two 'directi6ns unless stat. ed 5. Burr @ Sand Canyon 6. 'California @ Campus 7. Constr~ction So. @ Barz-anca .. 8. Creek @ Alton 9. Dupont @ Michelson 23. Murphy 24. Northwood @ Yale 25. Pacifica @ Baz-z-anca 26. Parker @ Irvine Blvd. 27. Paseo Westpark' @-Alton 28. Paseo Westpark @ Main 29. Paseo Westpark @ San Matin0 (All 4 directions) 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Dupont @ Von Karman 30. Eastwood @ Bryan 31. Fairbanks @ Alton 32. Fairbanks @ Irvine Blvd. 33. Fortune @ Gateway (1 direction) 34. Paseo Westpark @ San Remo .(All 4 directions) Roosevelt @ Yale San Carlos @ Harvard San Juan @ Harvard San Leon @ Harvard 15. 16. Fort=ne @ Pacifica (1 direction) Gateway @ Irvine Center Drive 35. San Marino @. Harvard 36. Sky Park N @ Red Hill 37. Sky Park S @ Main 17.. Hughes @ Alton 18. Kelvin @ Jamboree 38. 39. Sout_hwood @ Yale Technology @ Barranca 19. Lake @ Alton 40. Technology N @ Alton 20. 21. Martin @ Campus. Morgan @ Alton 41. 42. Technology S @ Alton Thomas .@ Muirlands 22. Morse @ Yon Karman 43. Westwood @ Bryan. 44. Yale @ Irvine Center Drive ^TrACm, m r. '1.. ONE DIRECTION TWO DIRECTIONS FOUR OiRECTI'ONS CITY OF IRVINE * COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT · TRANSPORTATION SERVICES POTENTIAL LEFT 'TURN PHASING REMOVAL I II I w II FIGURE o~ o_ 03t-00