HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 6 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 12-05-88 ~y~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ CONSENT CALENDAR
[:'~!~, !~ ~ ~ NO. 6
DATE: NO~MBER 29, 1988 ~ ~om
TO:
WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION
SUBJECT: BRYAN AVENUE AND FARMINGTON ROAD TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT STUDY
RECOMMENDATION:
That a traffic signal installation at the intersection of Bryan Avenue
and Farmington Road not be approved due to the Department of
Transportation State Traffic Manual warrants not being satisfied.
BACKGROUND:
At a previous City Council meeting, staff was requested to perform an
engineering study of Bryan Avenue and Farmington road with respect to a
warrant analysis for the possible installation of a traffic signal.
DISCUSSION:
Bryan Avenue at the intersection of Farmington Road is a four-lane
arterial which is under stop sign control. Also, there is one existing
school crosswalk which crosses Bryan Avenue on the west side of the
intersection. In contrast, Farmington Road functions as a local
residential street and has one lane of travel in each direction. The
speed limits on each street are 40 miles per hour (mph) for Bryan Avenue
and 25 (mph) for Farmington Road.
Traffic volume counts were made for Bryan Avenue and Farmington road.
The intent was to check each street for compliance to the minimum
vehicular volumes required by the California Department of Transportation
(CALTRANS) State Traffic Manual for the installation of traffic signals.
In addition, a review was made of the accident data for a three and
one-half year period (1985-1988) for the subject intersection. The
results indicated that there were no correctable right-angle type
accidents at this location.
The State of California Department of Transportation has adopted eleven
nationally recognized guidelines (warrants) which are used in determining
the need for traffic signal control. Each of these traffic signal
warrants were evaluated for the subject location. The important
considerations are vehicular volumes, accident history, vehicular speeds,
and'spacing to adjacent traffic signals.
Traffic counters were placed at the subject intersection for a 24-hour
period starting at 6:00 A.M. The results of these traffic counts
indicated t~at Bryan Avenue met the minimum traffic signal volume warrant
for five (5)' of the required eight (8) hours, whereas Farmington Road did
not meet the volume warrant for even one hour. In fact, none of the
other ten (10) warrants were met, including the accident experience
warrant (see attachments).
BRYAN AVENUE AND FARMINGTON ROAD TRAFFIC SIGNA~ WARRANT STUDY
November 29, 1988.
.Page 2.'
Based upon th~.results of the engineering investigation, the installation
of a traffic signal is not warranted at this time. Staff will continue
to evaluate this intersection on an annual basis to monitor any changes
in State warrants as the Tustin Ranch development progresses.
Bob Ledendecker
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
BL:mv
cc: Ron Wolford
Traffic Manual
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
- IIIl [ I II [ I ' - II Ill Illl II II .... Il
Figure 9-1A
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARBANTS
c^~c D.P./~,~ o^~-~ II- I~-ew
DATE
DIST CO
Major St:
Minor St:.
Critical speed of major street trafficS40 mph .................
In built up area of isolated community of ~_.10,000 pop. - .....
Critical Approach Speed __~ mph
CriticalApproach Speed~ mph
E]
OR RURAL (R)
~/ URBAN (U)
9-5
12-1986
WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume
100% SATISFIED
80% SATISFIED
./
YES I"] NO
YES [] NO
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
,....ow.,........,u,. u,.
~NES or more
"Bo~ Appr=~ 500 350 ~ 420
~.,o,~,..., .oo, ~.o, .~o, ~=.,, ,41~ 747 ~er4~z ~53~9z a~ 4~
HlghestAppr~, ~ 105 200 140
Hour
NOTE: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when L T-phasing is proposed 1"]
WARRANT'2-Interruption of Continuous Traffic lOO% SATISFIED YES I"] NO ~
80% SATISFIED YES NO
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
. i i / i ii i
Both Approh& 750 525 C.~90~)_.} 630
Major Street (600) (420)(~0'j' (504)
Highest Apprch ~ 53 100 70
Minor Street*(~'~) (42) (80) (56)
,
Hour
*NOTE: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street Included when LT-phasing is proposed ["]
WARRANT3- Minimum Pedestrian Volume lOO% SATISFIED YES r"] NO [~/
80% SATISFIED YES I"1 NO
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80~ SHOWN IN B, RACKETS)
U R
Both Apprch8. 600 420
M.Ior StreetN° Medl'n (480) (336) ///////
Raised 1000 700
Volume 4' Median (800) (560)
Pad's On Highest Volume 150 105
X-WalkXlng MaJorStrael (120) (84)
-.
Hour
IF MIDBLOCK SIGNAL PROPOSED []
MIN. REQUIREMENT DISTANCE TO NEAREST ESTABLISHED CRWLK. FULFILLED
,
150 Feet N/E ft S/W ft Yes I-I No I-'!
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily Justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other
evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown.
12-1~86
TRAFFIC SIGNALS.AND LIGHTING
Traffic Manual
Figure 9-1B
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT 4- School Crossings
Not Applicable d~
see School Crossings Warrant Sheet r'-)
WARRANT 5- Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES I-I NO r"!
·
, ,
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED
ON ONE WAY ISOLATED ST. OR ST. WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS
ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING & SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST
ON 2-WAY ST. WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING &
SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM r'l ID
WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES I-1 NO [~
REQUIREMENT WARRANT V/ FULFILLE0
ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
OR
SATISFIED WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
m~lmll Ill m m m mmm m m m.m m m mmm m mil mm m meem mm m mmm m m m m mm m m m m m m m m mm
80~ WARRANT3- MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME YES ID NO
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ~ r']
'ADEQUA1:E TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACC. FREQ. [-I [~
,
ACC WITHIN A 12 MON. PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORFL & INVOLVING INJURY OR > $200 DAMAGE
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTs
~ORMORE' ID [~/
* NOTE: Lett turn accidents can be included when LT-phasing is proposed
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES r"! NO [~
.,.,.u. vo u.;
REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES-ALL APPROACHES v/ FULFILLED
800 VEH/HR~/~ VEH/HR .
DURING ~CH OF ANY 5 HRB OF A ~TURDAY AND/OR SUNDAY
VEH/HR YES~NO
CHARACTERISTICS OF M~OR ROUTES ~JoR ST MINOR ST
AR s s
HAS SURFACE STREET ~Y OR EX.AY ~MP TERMINALS A/~
APP~RS AS M~OR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL P~N
ANY M~OR ROUTE CHA~CTERISTICS MET, BOTH STS.
The satisfaction 'o"-'f'a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other
evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown.
TS-lOB
Traffic Manual
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
9-7
,-,,,,, - 12-1986
Figure 9-1C
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT 8- Combination of Warrants
SATISFIED YES r-I NO [~
,,
REQUIREMENT WARRANT v/ FULFILLED
· TWO WARRANTS 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
,,,
SATISFIED 2 -, INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
. ./
80% 3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME YES I-! NO I~
WARRANT 9- Four Hour Volume
SATISFIED' YES r-] NO r"l
=Approach Lanes One more our
· Refer to Fig. 9-2A (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-2B (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
WARRANT 10- Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES I'1 NO
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP
sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours
for a two-I=ne approach; and
2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one
moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; and'
YES I"'! NO I~
YES r-! NO [~
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for
intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for Intersections with three approaches, ,/
YES[~] NO r'"!
WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume
SATISFIED' YES r-I NO r-I
Approach Lanes One more Hour
Boll~/,ppro~,tt# . MNor Slreel / (~)40
Highelt Approlr, hel , Minor Street ~ 300
i i
· Refer to Fig. 9-2C (URBAN AREAS).or Figure 9-2D (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal Delay, congestion, confusion or other
evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown.
· Traffic Manual
_
,,
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
· i i i i iiii ii iiii
9-9
'- 12-1986
Figure 9-1 E
SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS
//-
CHK DATE
DIST. CO RTE P.M.
MajorSt: ' ~J",J"~,~. /g~[/~'/~O~ CriticalApproach Speed ~O mph
MinorSt: ~ F~,R/~oR ~o~ CriticalApproach Speed ~ mph
Critical speed of approach traffic ~40 mph ................. ~
In built up area of isolated community of~ 10,000 po~ ..... ~o~ RU~L (R)
URBAN (U)
FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS
(All parts must be satisfied)
· . .Minimum Requirements
PARTA ~ R
Vehicle Volume Each of 200 140
2 hours
School Age Pedestrian Each of 40 40
Crossing Street 2 hours
AND
..
PART B
CritiCal Approach Speed Exceeds 35 mph
i i i i
SATISFIED
i
YES Ir] NO [~
SATISFIED YES I-1 NO ~]'//
SATISFIED YES [~NO 1'3
AND
PART C
Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away?
SATISFIED
YES [~NO r"l
SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS
(All parts must be satisfied)
Minimum Requirements /
pART A ' ~'~ R
I'
Each of 500 350
Vehicle Volume 2 hours
Each of 100 70
School Age Pedestrians 2 hours
Crossing Street .........................
or
. . per day 500 350
AND
PART B ' '
Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away?
SATISFIED YES r-! NO ~/
SATISFIED YES 1"'! NO ~
SATISFIED YES ~No 1-1
NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDI
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
NORTH-SOUTH LEGS: -FARMINGTON RD.
EAST-WEST LEGS: -BRYAN AVE.
DATE: 09/14/88
TIME
12:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
1:00
2:00.
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
NORTH
LEG -
12
44
21
16
18
2O
17
37
32
33
34
38
27
20
11
8
2
· ' 0
424
SOUTH
LEG
16
29
21
10
8
11
9
12
18
°15
28
30
19
16
11
6
4
0
273
EAST
LEG
1,03
483
478
244
187
179
192
167
274
469
433
413
246
128
78
46
22
10
4184
WEST
LEG
13
8
8
1
3
34
313
264
207
95
140
132
217
175
218
224
259
427
249
TOTAL
22
13
16
6
11
58
476
797
722
367
355
339
447
391
542
741
754
908
541
3425
155 319
120 220
92 152
47 75
24 34
8306
STR£ET:-FARMINGTON RD.
LOCATION:-BRYAN AVE.
AM
NORTH SOUTH EAST WEST TOTAL
LEG LEG LEG LEG
mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm
O' 2 i 7 10
0 0 I 3 4
0 0 2 2 4
0 0 3 i 4
0 0 i 2 3
0 i i 0
0 0 2 1 3
0 0 0 5 5
0 i 6 4 11
0 0 1 2 3
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 O. 2 2
0 0 0 O' 0
0 0 3 0 3
I 0 0 0
0 0 .1' I 2
2 0 1 1 4
0 0 0 i 1
2 0 2 t 5
0 0 i 0 1
0 I i 1
3 0 I 5 9
6 i 3 14 24
3 4 i 14 '22
4 2 3 45 54
12 7 18 77 114
21 4 31 84 140
7 3 51 107 .168
5 6 69 77 157
8 8 113 61 190
4 10 158 69 241
4 5 . 143 57 209
2 4 132 49 187
5 1 144 59 209
3 7 115 58 1,83
6 9 87 41 143
5 2 82 23 112
8 4 67 33 112
4 1 56 17 78
1 3 39 22 65
2 2 39 26 69
8 i 46 32 87
5 4 50 40 99
5 i '*,~.52 42 100
4 i 37 25 67
8 4 39 29 80
1 4 47 45 97
4 2 56 33 95
MINUTE COUNTS
DATE
TIME NORTH
LEG
12:00 7
9
4
9
1:00 12
4
11
10
2:00 11
8
8
5
3:00 3
5
8
17
4:00 12
4
8
10
5:00 1
20
11
6
6:00 13
8
1
5
7:00 7
4
5
4
8:00 1
2
7
1
9:00 2
3
2
10:00
1
0
0
11~00 0
0
0
0
'SOUTH
LEG
1
1
2
5
5
1
2
4
4
6
2
6
4
3
6
2
5
6'
12
5
8
13
3
6
4
3
3
9
6
4
2
4
1
3
3
1
2
2
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
09-14-88
EAST
LEG
48
55
45
44
36
56
33
42
56
48
82
88
105
120
126
118
126
104
96
107
111
99
124
79
89
71
35
51
50
38
15
25
22
18
25
13
14
11
6
15
8
3
7
4
6
2
2
0
WEST
LEG
60"
55
47
55
47
45
40
43
52
48
53
65
60
64
49
51
62
'65
52
80
103
107
110
107
85
67
54
43
44
33
38
40
27
27
41
25
26
24
22
20
15
15
10
7
5
2
10
7
TOTAL
116 ~
120
98
113
100
106
86
99
123
110
145
164
172
192
189
188
205
179
168
202
223
239
248
198
191
149
93
108
107
79
60
73
54'
48
76
42
43
40
31
'38
25
19
18
13
11
4
12
7
NORTH-SOUTH.STREET:
EAST-WEST STREET:
· .
TOTAL VOLUME PLOT
NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES
NEWPORT BEACH, CA.
-FARMINGTON RD.
-BRYAN AVE.
DATE: 09-14-88
INTERSECTION VOLUME
..
12:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
" 19
* 18
A 16
" 13
*" 27
~AAAAAAAAA~&&AAAAA~AA~A&&
499
735
719
7~0
719
*-.A*.**..,.A 255'
180
846
200 400 600 800 1000
VEHICLES / HOUR
INTERSECTION VOLUME ANALYSIS
NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES
NEWPORT BEACH, CA
NORTH-SOUTH STREET:
EAST-WEST STREET:
-FARMINGTON RD.
-BRYAN AVE.
DATE:
HOUR BEGINNING
PEAK HOUR TOTAL
PERCENT OF LEG
PERCENT OF TOTAL
HOUR BEGINNING
PEAK HOUR TOTAL
PERCENT OF LEG
PERCENT OF TOTAL
HOUR BEIGNNING
PEAK HOUR TOTAL
PERCENT OF LEG
PERCENT OF TOT~AL
m i
LEG PCT OF TOTAL
NORTH LEG
06:1SAM
12
21
7
5
45
10.61
0.54
NORTH LEG
01:00PM
12
4
11
10
37
8.73
0.45
NORTlt LEG
OS:iSPM
2O
11
6
13
50
11.79
0.60
AM PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS
SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
07:00AM 07:30AM 06:15AM
6 158 77
· 8 143 84
10 132 107
5 144 77
2g 577 345
10.62 13.79 10.07
0.35 6.95 4.15
NOON PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS
SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
12:15PM 11:30AM 12:00PM
1 47 60
2 56 55
5 48 47
5 55 55
13 206 217
4.76 4.92 6.34
0.16 2.48 2.61
PM PEAK HOUR ANALYSIS
SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
04:30PM 03:ISPM OS:OOPM
12 120 103
5 126 107
'' 8 118 110
13 126 107
38 490 427
13.92 11.71 12.47
0.46 5.90 5.14
5.10 3.29 50.37 41.24
TOTAL
07:30AM
241
209
187
209
846
10.19
TOTAL
12:00PM
116
120
98
113
447
5.38
TOTAL
04:45PM
202
223
239
248
912
10.98