Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 3 STOP SIGNS 01-18-88DATE: NEW BUS INESS ..~,? ~ NO. 3 · TO: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM:- PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF LEAFWOOD DRIVE/ LORETTA DR!VE RECOMMENDATION: "STOP" controls are not recommended at the intersection of Leafwood 'Drive/L0retta Drive. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to a complaint from a local citizen, a request was made by City Council to the Engineering Department to evaluate the need for stop controls at the subject location. The background information for this report is contained in two previous staff reports (copies attached) for the subject intersection. DISCUSSION: Staff has performed Stop Sign studies for the subject intersection during November of 1984 and July of 1987. The results of each Of these studies indicated that additional "STOP" controls were not warranted at the intersection of Leafwood Lane/Loretta Way. The traffic volumes are very light and there are no correctable accident patterns. Based upon the results of our engineering investigations, the subject intersection does not meet any of the minimum State guidelines for the installation of "STOP" signs. Bob Ledendecker Director Public Works/City Engineer De~n~s D. Barnes Consulting City Traffic Engr. DDB:bf Attachments 13~TE: NOVEMBER 29, 1984 Inter- Corn FROM: ,~tL[BJ ECT: BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER jIM KAWAMURA, CONSULTING TRAFFIC ENGINEER STOP SIGN WA~RANT FOR THE INTERSECTIONS; OF LORRE1-FA DRIVE/LEAFWOOD LANE AND MALENA DRIVE/ANGLIN DRIVE Per your directive, studies were conducted to determine whether or not stop signs were warranted at the intersections of Lorretta Drive/Leafwood Lane and Malena Drive/Angl tn Drive. Traffic counters were placed at the subject intersections for a 24-hour period on Kc, vember 20 and 26, 1984. (See attached machine count summaries). Intersection accident data for the past 3 1/2 years were researched, and it was found that no a~:idents have occured at the Lorretta Drive/Leafwood Lane and Malena Drive/An.~lin Drive intersections that could have been prevented by a stop sign. Two accidents involving parked vehicles (one on Leafwood Lane and one on Anglin Drive) have ec:'ured during this period. This data was utilized along with the traffic counts, field measurements, and observations to determine whether necessary warrants were m.~t for stop signs. Signs Thc policy and criteria for the installation' of stop signs are established by CaiTrans in Chapter 4, Section 4-03.3 of the Traffic Manual. Stop signs are for tr,~ purpose of assigning right of way at intersections only ~n situations where potential hazards and/or traffic movements are not evident to the driver. The conditions warranting a three-way stop are),met at either of the subject intersections. A three-way stop would not serve as an interim measure for signalization since traffic signals are not warranted. There have not been five or more accidents during a 12-month period which could have been prevented if a three-way stop were in place. Minimum volumes of 140 vehicles or pedestrians per hour for eight hours on the minor street are not met. In addition, traffic volumes on the approach legs are not approximately equal. Conclusions The subject intersections do not meet warrants for stop signs. The subject intersections have.adequate visibility and lighting. If stop signs were installed, most drivers (particularly neighborhood residents) would eventually ignore them, thus inviting a serious accident someday. TO: WILLIAM HUSTON, CIT~ I~NAGER FROM:. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARllWlENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF LEAFWOOD LANE/LORREI'[A WAY AND LAURIE LANE/LORREI'[A WAY ~_ , RECOMMENDATION: "Stop" controls at the intersections of Leafwood Lane/Lorretta Way and Laurie Lane/Lorretta Way are not recon~nended. BACKGROUND: lbursuant 'to the concern of residents ~ear the subject intersections, a request was made by City Counicl to the Engineering Department to evaluate the need for stop signs at each location. 'EXISTING CONDITIONS: Both L6afwood Lane and Laurie Lane are residential collector streets which inter§ect with Lorretta Way to form tee intersections. Presently, there are no stop controls on Lorretta Lane from Medford Avenue to Santa Clara Avenue. Also, Lorretta Lane does not function as a through street but as a collector of the other residential streets within the neighborhood. EVALUATION: .-he State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has developed guidelines for the installation of multi-way stop controls. These guidelines are consistent with the guidelines published in the National Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices {MUTCD). The important considerations are vehicular volume, accident history, visibility on the approaches to the intersection, and vehicular speeds. Each of these factors were reviewed and used to evaluate the need for additional "STOP" controls at the intersections of Leafwood Lane/Lorretta Way and Laurie Lane/Lorretta Way. In addition, two field reviews were made of each intersection to observe vehicular and pedestrian activity and to set machine counters to establish the traffic volume on each street. It should be stated that the traffic volumes are very light and there are no correctable accident patterns at either location. Based upon the results of our engineering investigation, neither intersection meets any of the minimum State guidelines for the installation of "STOP" signs. For informational purposes, we have attached a copy of a report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers on stop signs. Bob Ledend.ecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer Dennis Barnes Consulting City Traffic Engineer DB/lg Attachment 6TOI e51 C, Ne5 WHY DON'T THEY'PUT IN MORE STOP SIGNS? A stop sign is one of our most valuable and effective control devices when used at the .right place and under the right conditions. It is intended to help drivers and pedestrians at an intersection decide who has the right-of-way. One common misuse of Stop signs is to arbitrarily interrupt through traffic, either by causing it to stop, or by causing such an inconvenience as to force the traffic to use other routes. Where stop signs are installed as "nuisances" or "speed breakers," there is a high incidence of intentional violatiort'. In those locations where vehicles do stop, the speed reduction is effective only in the immediate vicinity of the stop sign, and frequently speeds are actually higher between intersections. For these reasons, it should not be used as a speed control device. A school crossing may look dangerous for children to use, causing parents to demand a stop sign to halt traffic. Now a vehicle which had been a problem for 3 seconds while approaching and passing the intersection becomes a problem for a much longer period. A situation of indecision is created as to when to cross as a pedestrian or when to start as a motorist. Normal gaps in traffic thrcugh which crossings could be made safely no longer exist. An intersection which previously was not busy. now looks like a major intersection. It really isn't - it just looks like it. It doesn't even look safer and it usually isn't. Most drivers are reasonable and prudent with no intention of maliciously violating traffic 'regulations; however, when an unreasonable restriction is imposed, it may result in flagrant violations. In such cases, the stop sign can create a false sense of security in a pedestrian and an attitude of contempt in a motorist. These two a~titudes can and often do conflict with tragic results. Well-developed, nationally recognized guidelines help to indicate when such controls become necessary. These guidelines take into consideration, among other things, the probability of vehicles arriving at an intersection at the same time, the length of time traffic must wait to enter, and the availability of safe crossing opportunities.