The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About23 RED LEFT-TURN ARROW 1-16-95NO. 23 1-16-95 I nter-Com DATE: JANUARY 16,' 1994 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. 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) i'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 accidents warranting use of full-time left-turn phasing should be determined by each local agency...This determination will require engineering evaluation and §~o~f-d~ ~ns~der 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. ~im D. Ser%e~ Director o~Public Works/ City Engineer Allachments TDS:DA:kib:lfi~ru Douglas R. Anderson Transportation Engineer AG E N Inter-Com ,TE: DECEMBER 27, 1991 OM: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION BJECT: REQUEST FOR THE ItEMO~ OF LEFT TURN ARROWS AT TRAFFIC ~ECOMMEND~TION Receive and file. ~CKGROUND ~r. 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 proyides information regarding the City's current left turn phasing policy, experience of the City's traffic signal operations, and recommendations. ~ouncilmember Potts at the December 2, 1991, city Council meeting quested an information report regarding the City of Irvine's ~emoval 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 arterial streets, should continue to convert the remaining four protected/permissive left turn intersections to protected left turn movements, and refrain from installing any new protected/permissive signal phasing. -- copy of the study has been sent to Mr. Trujillo, and he has been advised that the matter has been agendized for City Council consideration at their meeting of January 6, 1992. The City of Irvine has recently modified its left-turn arrow policy for. 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-turn arrows for the minor street approaches 'at 44 traffic signals. The left-turn arrows for the major street approaches are to remain. In contrast, the City of Tustin has never installed left-tarn arrows on minor street approaches to major streets unless the standard left-turn criteria has been met. Director of Public Works/ City Engineer ~~andra Doubleday ~ ~ Traffic Engineering Consultant RSL:k[b:LEFTTUR# Att~-~nt "*--~-~-i"USTIN PUBLIC WORKS D£,~T.I TRAFFIC SIGNAL LEFT TURN OPERA T/ON STUD Y o ... Presented by: BSI Consultants, Inc. Presented to: · City of Tustin 15222 East Del ,4mo Tustin, CA $2680 October 1991 TABLE OF CONTF_2qTS OTm~. C,A'r.L~ HXP.~.CF~' WITH PR~'.r~t,~/'PERM]$SI¥~ LEFT. TURN. SIGNAL OP.ERATIONS ................................ SUGGEST~I~ GUID~ FOR EVALUATING PROTECT~D/PF_,RM~SSIVE LEFT TURN SIGNAL LOCATIONS ........................... IRVINE'S EXP~NCE Vv'ITH LEFF TURN PHASING ................... 5 CONCLUSION AND RF-X~OM]V~NDATIONS .......................... 6 PROTECTED/P~S~ LEFF TURN SURVEY TABLE ............ 4 Investigation into protected/permissive left turn phasing and the elimination of left turn arrows. .. Retain .City's current Left Turn policy .of ~ protec0~ left mm plying only .on coordinated or arterial routes. Continue to convert the remaining four protected/permissive left turn intersections to protected left turn phaxing. Refrain from installing any new protected/perm/ssive signal phasing due to past experiences and' the d~fion that this of ' phasing is not viable for use on coordinat~ mutes. STA~ OF ~ ISSUES OR PROB~ Mr. Anthony Trujillo, a citiza~ of Tustin is concerned with the delay to left turning motorist due to exclusive left turn phasing. ]dr. Trujillo has stated that he feels this type of phasing unfieceSSafily'inc/dazes the dela~ and Wastes fuel. lVlr. Trujillo'reqUe.s/iXi that 'existing pfotected~/ left turn red arrows be removed in the City of Tustin to permit permizs/ve left turns tb occur. Mr. Trujillo feels this would decrease stop delays and save on fuel consumption. In a subsequent conversation with City staff, Mr. Trujilio suggested replacing the protected red arrow with a flashing yellow arrow as a method to warn motorist that permissive left tums would be permitted when sufficient gaps occurred in thc approaching traffic. INTRODUCTION The purpose to this report is to gather information on the City of Tustin's current city left turn phasing policy and past protected/~ve left turn phasing experience in order to explain the City's philosophy on traffic signal operations. This report also accumulated additional information from various cities and agencies in Orange County on protected/permissive traffic signal operations. In the protected/~ssive type of operation, a car can either turn left on a fully protected interval indicated by a green arrow or, when there are adequate gaps in traffic, the car can turn during a green ball indication. This report also addresses the City of Irvine's recent decision to remove protected left turn arrows at numerous locations throughout their city. TUSTIN'S CITY POLICY ON LEFT TURN PHASING The City of Tustin has adopted a policy of installing protected left turn arroWs at signalized Lntersections on all arterial route approaches where left turn phasing has previously been found to be warranted. The' California's' Depaxtment of Transportition established guidelines for left turn phases are used to determine when left turn phasing is warranted. For additional information see the attached section of the Traffic Manual entitled 9-03.0 Guidelines of Left Turn Phases. LEFTTURN.STY/DT TUS I It has been Tusfin experience that left turn accidents are substantinlly reduced when a left-turn arrow is provided. The left turning motorist does not have to make a judgement call when making a left turn when opposed by high ~raffie volumes and relatively high speeds. It is recogniz~ 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, an.d.fuel consumption to the entire roadway system... ~: During non-coordinated peri~, the delay to left turning vehicles .is minor. This is due to the lraffic signal controller being able to respond to lighter traffic conditions by serving the left turn only when there is demand. .... · . . . · .. · By removing the red arrow as suggested by Mr. Trujillo, the signal phasing would revert back to a protected/~ssive phase. Mr. Trujillo's suggestion of replacing existing red arrows at pwtected left turn traffic signal phasing with yellow flashing arrows would not meet current Uniform Traffic Control Standards. When a traffic signal is being opezated as a flashing device, all signal faces in an approach shall flash as stated in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devfi'ees, 1988 Edition. This would not permit the left turn movement to flash yellow when the "through tiaffie'movement Would Show'a solid green' ball.' Al/o the Manual on Uniform 'I'mffi~ -.. Control Devices states that no steady green indication or flashing yellow indications shall be texminated and immediately followed by a steady red or flashing red indication without the display of the steady yellow indication. Please find the appropriate sections of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices attached to the end of this report. TUSTIN'S PAST EXPERIF. NCE WITH PRO~/PERMI.qSIVE I.F. FT TURN $IGN~ OPERATIONS The City installed their first project/permissive left mm phasing in 1977 at four intersections on McFadden Avenue. Ten intersections on Newport Avenue and Irvine Boulevard and one intersection at Red FIill Avenue and Carnegie Avenue were installed in 1981. In 1988, due to complaints from citizens and left turn accidents at these intersections, the City Council requested staff to review the City policy on the use of protected/permissive left mm phadng. One of the major problems with the protected/permissive left turn operations is the Trap, this condition occurs when one left turning vehicle (a) is stopped in the intersection on the green ball waiting for traffic to clear in Order to make the left mm. If opposing left turn tr-,fffic is about to receive a Protected left turn arrow (lagging left), then the left turn vehicle (a) will see a yellow ball and may assume that opposing through waffle also bas a yellow. This assumption is wrong since the opposing traffic ha~s a green ball and will' soon receive a green left arrow. Thus, a trap is created if the left turrling 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. LEFrI'dRN.STY/DT TUS 2 The City has an on-going program of coordinating all signals within the City. This coordination requires the use of lead/lag phasing in order to provide an adequate green band through a group of intersections. Approximately 30% of the~i~'~:*~th~ 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/~ive left turn operation is that once the left turn arrow ha~'been received and is lenninated by a yellow arrow (a left red arrow is not re~mmended),' ' it is difficult to stop the flow of left turning vehicles. This o'eat~' ~'dditional enfolx:ement · problems for..the police, depamnent as well. as.potential for ~ accidents. Based on the staff review, it was recommended that no new protected/~ve left turns be installed and' that. existing ones be COnvefl~ tO. protected. To date, all but four locations, have been' converted and they are' scheduled for conversion in the near future. OTttl~ ~ KxI'~AI~CE~ WITti PRO~/PERlV~.qSIV~ LEFT TURN OPERATIONS For this. s..mdy, a total of 15 cities, the COunty of Orange and Caltrans were contacted and surveyed On the Subject Of pr0tected/~Ve left turn' operatibn. Of these' 17 agencies, only~....' .. a few had actually implemented policies on this type of operation. The following table summarizes the information gathered from th_is survey. Currently, most cities contacted had only a few intersections with protected/permissive phaxing, if any at all. Some of the reasons given by the dries that do not implement proteeted/pemfissive operation are as follows: · Significant increase in accidents due to motorist misunderstanding of protective/permissive operation, or judgement error on thc part of the motorist · Liability problems · Public opinion · Awaiting further studies to be done Of those cities that were using protected/permissive operation, most had experienced accidents attributexi to protected/permissive phasing. Rem~ns given for these acc/dents were: · Driver misunderstanding of operation · Driver understood operation but made a judgement error " All cities surveyed agreed that protected/permissive phasing does not make an intersection less prone to accidents, but with time it is hoped that driver understanding of this type of operation will bring the benefits that are intended without the accidents. LEFTTURN.STY/DT TU$ 3 _, The majority of those surveyed indicated that they would put protected/~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 all. PRO~fP~S1VE LEFT TURN SURVEY TABLE Well-defined Number .... Plan to Install'. City/Agency Policy of Locations Accidents in Future Caltrans Yes. 5 in O.C. No. Yes. · Irvine Yes. 0 N/A No. Anaheim Yes. 7 Yes. yes. H~intingtori Beach ' Yes. 'Numerous' °'" Yes. · " Yes. · Placentia Yes. 0 N/A Yes. Brca Yes. 1 No. Yes. Newport Beach Yes. 1 Yes. No. Costa Mesa Yes. 'Few Yes. Yes. Buena Park No. 0 N/A Yes. County of Orange No. i No. Yes. Cypress No. 0 N/A Yes. Fullenon No. 4 No. Yes. Garden Grove No. 0 N/A Yes. La Habra No. 2 No. Yes. La Palma No. 0 N/A Yes. Orange Yes. 0 N/A No. [ Santa"Aha Yes. 0 N/A No. ., I..EFrlIJRN.STYIDT TUS 4 -, SUGGEST'~ID GUID~ FOR .EVALUATING PROTF_L"TF~r~/PERMI.qSIVE LEFT TLFRN SIGNAL LOCATIONS Listed below are suggested guidelines to follow when evaluating protected/~ssive left turn ~tion locations. '0 DO not use permissive phase during; peak hours.' .' Avoid sequence :lagging of protected/~ve/protected left turn. Do not install at lagging left turn locations on coordinated mutes. Do not install if there were five or more accidents during a recent 12 month Do not use if there is a sight distance problem, either vertical or horizontal. Do not use with double left turn. .. Do not use if opposing through traffic is greater than 40 mph. · Do no use where there is a large percentage of buses and/or Ixucks. Do not use in high pedestrian areas. · Do not use if the street is near capacity. IRVINE'S RECENT EXPERIF. NCE WITH LEFT TURN SIGNAL REMOVALS The City of Irvine, at its September 24, 1991 Council Meeting, directed staff to initiate removal of left turn phasing at 44 signals based on a report from staff .... The City of Irvine's policy on left turn phasing prior to the staff report was to install left mm arrows .on all approaches, not just arterial approaches as in Tustin. The left turn arrows that are being removed in Irvine are on the minor street approaches only. The City of Tustin has never installed left mrn phash-~g on these minor street approache~ unless left turn warrants were met. u~n'n.m~.s'rvmr'~'us 5 CONCLUSION AND/GECOMMENDATIONS ,. On major intexsections, protected left turn arrows provide a safer operating intersection by reducing the number of potential confficting movements. The City of Tustin has an active signal coordination plan with 30% of intersections currently using lead/lag, lag/lead operation to maximize the.cffici'cncy of coordinated'operation. /:or the~ reasons, it is recommended that the · ~g protected left' tuni opc~ti0n."bc 'maintained...Also, .from past Cxpcxicn, Cc 'with'. .protected/permissive operation in the City of Tustin, it is' rccomm~ded that this*"typc of 0pcration not be used at any coordinated arterial intexsecfions. A'ITA~: 2. 3. 4. Guidelines for Left Turn Phases - Traffic Manual City's Response Letter to Mr. Trujillo City of Irvine's City Council Report on Removal of Left Turn Phasing Excerpts /-rom the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TACHMENT 1985-1 IssUed by the "' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN Governor LEO TROMEtATORE Director. Department of Transportation R. G. ADAMS Deputy Director. Highway Maintenance and Traffic Operations C. D. BARTELL Chief. Division of Traffic Engineering JOHN GOMES Editor 12-1986 TR~ . lC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute peri- ods) of an average day, falls above the curve in F,ig- 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- :- sect/on lies within a built-up area of a isolated com- munity having a popul'ation of less than 10,000, the peak hour volume warrant is satisfied when the pl6t- ted .point, referred to above, falls above the eui-ve in 'Figure 9-213 for the existing combination of approach lanes. 9-03.0 Guidelines for Left Turn Phases Since separate signal phases for protected left turns will reduce the green time available for other phases, alternate means of handling left turn con- flicts should be considered first. The most likely possibilities are: : 1. Prohibition of left turns. This can be done only if there are convenient alternate means of mak- ing the movement. Typical alfernate' means ,ire: ' (a) a series of right and/or left turns around a block to permit getting to the desired destina- tion, or (b) making the left turn at an adjacent unsignalized intersection during gaps in the op- posing through traffic. 2. Geometric changes to eliminate the left .turn. An effective change would be a complete sepa- ration or a complete or partial "clover leaF' at grade. Any of these, while eliminating left turns, requires additional cost and right of way. Traffic IVlanual left turn volume of more than two vehicles per approach per cycle for a peak hour; or for a traffic-actuated signal, ,50 or more left turning vehicles per hour in one direction with the product of the turning and conflicting through traffic during the peak hour of 100,000 or more. .4. Miscellaneous. Other facto.rs that might be con- si'dered are: consistency of'signal phasing ,viih 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 remit in a situation where a traffle signal is no longerjustifled. When this occurs, consideration should be given to removing the traffic signal and replacing it with appropriate alternative traffic control devices. Protected left turn phases should be considered where such alternatives cannot be utilized, and one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. Accidents. F'ive or more left turn accidents for · a particular left turn movement during a recent 12-month period. ~- Delay. Left-turn delay of one or. more vehicles ' which were wa.iting at the begigning of the green interval and 'are still remaining in the left turn lane after each cycle for one hour. 3~ Volume. 'At new intersections 'where only. es- timated volumes are available, the following cri- teria may be used..For a pretimed signal or a backgrOund-cycle-controlled actuated signal, a - City of Tustin 'ATTACHMENT ¢2 March 7, 1991 "'' '. Mr. Anthony Trujillo 2001 King~boro Circle ' Tfisfin,' CA" 92680 '"" ' ' ' Subject: Protected Left Turn Phasing at Signalized Intersections Dear Mr. Trujillo: · Thank you for attending the recent City of Tustin Council meeting on March 4, 1991. Thc matter of protected left turn phasing at signa]iz~ intersections is very important to public agencies. Public agencies, such as thc City of Tustin, arc respons~Ic for installation, maintenance and optimization of thc operation of these traffic signals. Thc types of protected movements most frequently used are: o at high rate accident locations, o where there are high number of turning, movements, o where there are delays for on-coming traffic to clear, o along coordinated corridors. In addition, the City of Tustin has been involved with litigation pertaining to not providing protected left turn phasing at various signalized intersections. The City Council has recently approved modifications to the existing traffic signals 'with permissive/protected left turn phasing to include the installation of protected left turn phasing.. In addition, the Air Quality Management Plan of the AQMD specifically includes requii~ements 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 Trujilio March 7, 1991 Page 2 It is.our understanding that while driving at night (10 p.m. to 12 midnight), you have been stopped at some City intersections and have had to wait for a period of time for the green left-turn'arrow, even though 'thcre..was no' On-coming' traffic.. A traffic signal cont.roIler- .. normally has a certain seqUence thrOugh which it must go in order to. serve the dirrection a ' motorist is traveling. This takes time. However, in the late night hours, it should be fairly minim~ if'there is no 'other conflicting traffic demand. "If an unusually long delay'is' · experienced, this may indicate that l~rt of the system (for example, traffic detector loops) may be malfunctioning and may need maintenance. If you are aware of any specific.locations . . where such a malfunction may be occurring, please do not hesitate to report these to us. We sincerely apprecime your concern, and if you have any questions please do not hesitate · to contact me. . S'mccrcl.y,. City of Tustin · Ms. Sandra Doubleday Engineering Consultant 'SD:RR:dt Attachments William A. Huston Robert S. Ledendecker -TACHMENT ¢3 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL M]EETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 FT-~ PHASING REMOVAL' PRO( Director' of Community Developme.n~... ,er- ~COMMENDED ACTI0~: ' .~. ~ 1. 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 ~he program. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIOn: ~.he T.r__a~.spor~..tion C_ommiss. ion reviewed this _~__~_~ mee=lng, and ~~ously supposed issue at ~eir Au~st implementation of. ~e ~ poseu progr~. .. ..- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: u~ua=es wnereny signals could be ~ ...... ~ ... ~v~ aez=-turns (combined phase where left ~_~u~_.~_~cu~_ Dy ylelglng to through traffic with w left =urns. Wh · ..... entry~ng to coordinate traffic sagna~s, ~e%ay mecomes an important consideration. Staff has bee aske~ to identify ontiorrs wh~-~ ..... n : ........... =. ~ can ~elp reduce dela at ~r~__c=~ns. o~e such program is the elimination of protected -uurn phases where they are clearly not warranted. T'o achieve the goal- of reducing delay, and yet retain the high safety standards established Citywide, staff is recommending only 44 signals as potential candidates at this time. Advantages for this type of program include improved signal coordination, reduced delay, savings in fuel, and reduced air pol~ution among others. Improvement programs like this, which enhance signal timing and signal coordination, are consistent with the 9i~CUlation Element of .the General Plan. Some disadvantages are ~rlver expectation to see a green arrow, pedestrians contending with additional turning traffic, and potential safety implications. Because of the costs involved, it is recommended that only those locations where signal coordination is critical and where delay can be reduced safely be considered. Any other criteria, beyond that which has been discussed, should be reviewed in the upcoming City Traffic Management Systems and Operations Study. Public Safety has reviewed this issue and shares the safety concerns mentioned. RCJ:CL/pb(rfccaleftturnremoval.rpt) MEMORANDUM COUNCIL MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 TO.: CITY MANAGER . .. . .. . . · . FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT " SUBJECT:' PROPOSED T.~FT-TURN PHASING REMOVAL 'PROGRAM '" · · STATEM~N"~ OF THE' ISSUE: '~'" locations to reduce d-~i-- __~= ~=~u-=urn . pna.slng a= various · =~== =nd ~mprove s~gna£ coordinatio crl~..~ ~ .... := ...... mprom~slng safety-by aDDlvln=' in 'th'~ ~p-=menue= .in fo_ur to slx phase, s based on area lo'at e City, traffic uatt-~-~ ........ ions ....... ~ ....... , unu clrc%lla=lon, so that more Woodbridge in Decembj'~'~v= .~=ueuule woul~ complete Westpark and Northwo-~' - .... r, _I.BC ~n_ January, Spectrum in March a ou ~n Aprll. A ublic e ' , nd .ro~_~ ~ ....... P ducatlon program will accomaanv special si in et -. ~ = .... -----,~o,,_ ~.~.u~.a ~_nzorma=lon, and ....... :gn g, c_. to smooth the transition ~- ...... - ~,~ ...~--~ .... ~__th_e?. ~a~ wxx~ a~so monl=or the accident exlstlng ~ntersect~ons' Citvwid ~+~...+ ·_,~ ..... t there are =_ e _._,~=~ ~=zu-~urn phasing presently which are not experiencing any special accident problems. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDEREDi 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. Other options to reduce delay effectively are limited. The alternative to removin · g all left turn phasing was modified from 197 signal locations to approximately 44, based on other considerations, Sta=e guidelines, geometrics, safety, 1 lability, and areawide consistency.. . .COST/SOURC$ 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 $50,000 for the entire program (44 intersections). Funding for the conversions will come from the existing signal maintenance account, and no new fun_ding is being requested. Memorandum September 24, 1991 --2- RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Direct staff to initiate removal of left-turn, phasing a't intersections as .. outlined '.in 'the staff. 'report' b~sed, on available funding. ... : .:. 2.' Direct staff to. retu~--n in six months with a .status report on the progress of the program. Report' prepared by: Conrad Lapinski, Principal Traffic Engineer Reviewed by: Submitted by: Arya Rohani, Manager of Transportation Services~ OF COMmuNITY DEVELOPMENT · RCJ;AR:CL/PB(ccleftt-urnremoval.rpt) Attachmen%$: List of-potential locations for consideration Map of intersections cc: City Attorney LIST OF POTENTIAL .LOCATIONS FOR .CONSIDERATION Note: All intersections 1. Ada @ Alton are 'for two directi~ns . .. unless ~tat. ed 2. Arbor @ Walnut 3. Banting @ Alton 4. Bircher @ Alton 5. B%~-t @ Sand Canyon 6. California @ Campus 7. Construction So. @ Barranca .. .. 8. Creek @ Alton 9. Dupont @ Michelson 10. Dupont @ Von Karman 11. Eastwood @ Bryan 12. Fairbanks @ Alton 13. Fairbanks @ Irvine Blvd. 14. Fortune @ Gateway (1 direction) 15. Fortune @ Pacifica (1 direction) 16. Gateway @ Irvine Center Drive 17. Hughes @ Alton 18. Kelvin @ Jamboree 19. Lake @ Alton 20. Martin @ Campus 21. Morgan @ Alton 22. Morse @ Von Karman 23. M~rphy @ 24. Northwood @ Yale 25. Pacifica @ Barranca 26. Parker @ Ir~ine Blvd. 27. Paseo Westpark' @'Alton 28. Paseo Westpark @ Main 29. Paseo Westpark @ San Marino (All 4 directions) 30. Paseo Westpark @ San Remo · (All 4 direc~ions) 31. Roosevelt @ Yale 32. San Carlos @ Harvard 33. San Juan @ Harvard 34. San Leon @ Harvard 35. San Marino @ Harvard 36. Sky Park N @ Red Hill 37. Sky Park S @ Main 38. Southwood @ Yale 39. Technology @ Barranca 40. Technology N @ Alton 41. Technology S @ Alton 42. Thomas @ Muirlands 43. Westwood @ Bryan 44. Yale @ Irvine Center Drive i ONE DIRECTION O TWO DIRECTIONS ED FOUR DIRECTIONS CITY OF IRVINE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT " TRANSPORTXTION POTENTIAL LEFT TURN PHASING REMOVAL SERVICES FIGURE 1 Z ZED~ ,GE N DA t ATE: OCTOBER 4, 1993 ! ~ I e r- C 0 r]q ~ ~OM: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, cITy MANAGER · , PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION UBJECT: TRAFFIC CONCERNS REGARDING TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS OF LEFT- TURN ARROW PHASING RECOMMENDATIONS: Pleasure of the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: At this time, there is no fiscal impact to the City regarding the preparation of this report. BACKGROUND: 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 traffic signal locations. The study indicated that left-turn arrows reduced traffic accidents, minimized delays during off-peak hours, reduced air pol. lution and fuel consumption. This study recommended, among other things, continuance of the City's current policy of installing protected left-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 attached 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, the 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 that 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 44 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 Attachments RSL:DA: [eftturn -Douglas R. Anderson Transportat ion Engineer DATE: SEPTEMBER 29, 1993 1'0: 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:p44 Dana R. Kasd~n Douglas R. Andcrs~ Chuck Nlackcy Lt. Bob Shoe~kopt', Tustin P.D. 'RECEIVED SEP 2 7 1993 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE. CITY COUNCIL Page 6, 1--6-92 C~ R~SOLUTION ~O. 92--03 -- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING PLACEMENT OF CERTAIN STOP SIGNS Motion carried 5-0. 3. REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS ON "A" STREET AT SECOND STREET AND AT THIRD STREET 4. EMERGENCY PLACF2~ENTOF STOP SIGNS FOR THE XNTER~ECTIONS OF STREET AT flECOND AND THIRDSTREETS Robert Ledendecker, Director of Public Works~'.reported that~ Item No. 3 was a warrant study regarding intersections at "A#/Second Streets and "A"/Third Streets. He stated that based upon State guidelines, the intersections did not warrant all-way stop controls. Mr. Ledendecker said that at the December 2 1991 Council meeting, Council ordered stop sign installation at ~A'/Second Streets and "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 moved 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 Ports clarified the legality of Council's action to install the stop signs. Motion carried ~'0'. It was moved by Edgar. seconded by Pontiou$, 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 "Au Street and Third Street: RESOLUTION NO. 92-04 -- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING PLACEMENT OF CERTAIN STOP SIGNS Motion carried '5-0. 5. REQUEST FOR I~F~OFAL OF LEFT TURN ARROWS AT TRAFFIC SIGNALS Dana Kasdan, Engineering Services Manager, reported that resident, Anthony Trujillo, 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 study recommended installation of protected left-turn phasing on coordinated or arterial streets; continued conversion of four remaining protected/permissive left turn intersections to protected heft-turn movelaents; and refrain from installing any new protected~permissive signal phasing. He also stated that f~ashing yellow left-turn arrows dio not meet' Federal and State guidelines. Mr. Kasdan additionally repOrted, that Councilmember Ports had requested an informaticnal report regarding the City of Ir vine's removal of 44 le~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 MINUTES Page 7, 1--6-92 It vas ~ved bY p~ttso secpndcd by prescott, to receive and rile'subject report. CouncilmemberEdgar 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. Motion carried 5-0. · · . 6. FEASIBILITY STUDY TO PROVIDE A~EDIANOPENING OH TOSTINRANCH ROAD AT PALERMO Councilmember Port. stated the Almeria Homeowners' Association requested T/ais item be continued for one month. It was moved bY ports, seconded bY Edaar, to continue this item to the February 3, 1992 meeting. ~otion carried 5-0. XI. NEW BUSINESS 1. ~NDERGRO~ND ~TILITY DIBTRICT NO. 11 - RED HILL AVENUE Robert Ledendecker, Director of Public Work~, described the location of Underground Utility District No. 11 and repo~ted 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 ~ovgd bY 'Edqar. se¢opd~d 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 believed it ~a.s in the City's best interest, and cost effective, to remain a participant in this ~ormation. Council/staff discussion followed regarding whether each city would have a voting representatiue in the district; current limitation of 11 members on the district panel; investigating contracting with the district or conversion to ~ ~i membership of the district. It was moved by Potts, seconded by Pontiou~, 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 RESObUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTI N, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING AND AGREEING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FORMATION OF AN ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DATE: DECEMBER 29, 1994 t?U$1~N PU~ WORKS Inter-Corn TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DOUG FRANKS, CHIEF OF POLICE TIM D. SERLET, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER POSSIBLE ELIMINATION OF RED LEFT-TURNARROW 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. ~im D. Serlet Director of Public Works/City Engineer TDS: ccg: elimarr Attachments cc: Dana R. Kasdan Doug Anderson