The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRPT 2 TRAF STDY RPT 10-05-81REPORTS W o^TE: sept er 28, 198 Inter-Corn TO: WILLIAM HUS'~ON, CITY MAN~P.4~R FROM: BOB L~DENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC ~D1H{S/CITY ENGINEER SUBJ[CT:SYCAMDRE AVENUE/CARFAX AVENUE TPAFFIC STUI~ (INFORMATICN REPORT) This report is a supplement to the original intersection study for a 4-way stop sign installation and is directed to a warrant study for a sducol crossing guard and red curbing in the vicinity of the intersection. The original intersection study (copy attached) re~,~ended that stop signs on east and wastbound Sycamore Avenue not be installed because the standard warrants for this intersection were not met. This previous study reu~,~,'ended that the intersection be studied for the emplcsa~ent of a crossing guard once the Fall school session had The study for a crossing guard has been cc~pleted and it has been determined that the w-=££ants for an adult crossing guard at an uncontrolled crossing have been met. Conversations with the Police Department reveal that a crossguard h~s already been employed at this intersection, consequently, no action will be required with respect to the crossing guard except to confirm the ~,,ployment of sa~e. As indicated in the Traffic Engineer's report, red curb exists as follows: a. North side of Sycamore Avenue from Carfax Ave. to 60 ft. easterly. b. South side of Sycsmore Avenue between Carfax Avenue and Sduoo1 Road. It is felt that this red zoning and the location of the crosswalk on the easterly side of the intersection provides~adequate visibility for the crossing guard at this intersection. Another area of concern is the visibility of the motorists taking access to Syc~m~ore Avenue from the south leg of CarfaxAvenue. This visibility problem could be improved by red zoning the south side of Sycamore Ave. between Carfax Ave. and the driveway at 1212 Sycsmore Ave. This red zoning would deprive the residents of all on-street parking in front of their hcme at 1212 Sycamore. However, this is a corner lot and parking would be available on Carfax Avenue adjacent to the residence. No action on this red zoning should be taken until staff has had the opportunityy tO discuss this matter with the affected hc~cwner and afford them the opportunity to provide their input. BOB L~DE~DECKER DIRECIOR OF PU~.IC H)RKS/ CITY ENGINRF~ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: SEPTEA~ER23, 1981 Inter-Corn BOB nRDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC ~O~S/CITY ENGINA~TR NORM HOWER TRAFFIC ENGIN~WR SYCAMDRE AVE~UE/CARFAX AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY As requested by the City Council, a s~hcol crossing guard study has ~cn conducted at the intersection of Syc~nore Avenue and Carfax Avenue on Sept. 16, 1981. As indicated in the following table, the State of California warrants for an adult crossing guard at an uncontrolled crossing have ~-cn met. These warrants require that 40 or more s~hool pedestrians cross in each of two hours daily where the traffic ~olume exceeds 350 vehicles in the same two hours. 7:00 - 8:00 AM 89 917 8:00 - 9:00 83 576 11:00 - 12:00 Noon 5 572 1:00 - 2:00 PM 12 506 2:00 - 3:00 175 558 3:00 - 4:00 48 749 There is existing red curbing on both sides of Sycamore to the east of the intersection. That on the north siide is almost entirely weathered off and I have requested Maintenance to paint 60' on that side. db SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY Traffic Manual As noted in Section 10-03.4, an adequate crossing gap in approaching traffic should occur randomly; at an average rate of at least once each minute during the school crossing periods. 10-07.4 Special Conditions A School Safety Patrol shall not be assigned where inadequate stopping sight distance prevniln, unless flashing yellow beacons are installed for operation during School Crossing hours. Adult Crossing Guard 10-08 10-08.1 General Adult Crossing Guards are a supplemental teCh- nique and not a traffic control device. They may be assigned (CVC °,815) at designated school crossings, to assist elementary school pedestrians at specified hours when going to or from school. The following suggested policy for their assignment applies only to crossings serving elementary school pedestrians on ' the "Suggested Route to School." An Adult Crossing Guard should be considered when: 1. Special problems exist which make it necessary to assist elementary school pedestrians in cross- lng the street, such as at an unusually complicat- ed intersection with frequent turning move- ments and high vehicular speeds; or 2. A change in the school crossing location is immi- nent but prevai'llr~g conditions require school crossing supervision for a limited ~ne and it is infeasible to install another fo~m of control for a temporary period. 10-08.2 Warrants for Adult Crossing Guards Adult Crossing Guards no,really are assigned where official supervision of elementary school pedestrians is desirable while they cross a public highway on the "Suggested Route to School", and at least 40 elementary school pedestrians for each of any two hours daily use the crossing while going to or from school. Adult crossing guards may be war- ranted under the following conditions: i. At uncontrolled crossings where there is no' al- ternate controlled crossing within 600 feet; and a. In urban areas where the vehicular traffic volume exceeds 350 in each of anv two daily hours durfiu~ which 40 or more school nede- stTianS cross while going to or from school; or b. In rural areas where the vehicular traffe vol- ume exceeds 300 in each of any two daily hours during which 30 or more school pede- strians cross ~vhiie going to or from school. Whenever the critical approach speed ex- ceeds 40 rr. ph, the warrants for rural areas should be applied. 2. At stop sign controlled crossings: a. Where the vehic~ traffc volume on undi- vided ~ghways of four or more lanes exceeds 500 per hour during any period when the school pedestrians are going to or from school. 3. At traffic sign~-controlled crossings: a. Where the number of vehicular turning movements through the school crosswalk ex- ceeds 300 per hour while school pedestrians are going to or from school. b. Where there are circumstances not nor- molly present at a 5gnalized intersection, such as crosswalks more than 80 feet long with no intermediate refuge, or an abnor- mally high proportion of large commercial vehicles. Pedestrian Separation Structures eliminate vehic- ular-pedestrian conflicts but are nece~arily limited to selected locations where the safety benefits clearly balance the public investment. Separation structures are supplemental techniques for providing school pedestrian safety and are not traffic control devices. ,~09.2 Wawants Pedestrian Separation Structures should be comid- Pedestrian Separation Structures 10-~9 General ered where the fullowing conditions are fulfiUed. 1. The prevailing condi~ons that require a school pedestrian crossing mint be sufficiently perma- nent to justify the separation structure; and ~.. The location must be on the "Suggested Route to School" at an uncontrolled intersection or midbloek location along a freeway, expressway or major arterial street where the width, traffic speed and volume make it undesirable for pede- strlan~ to cross; and 11, In er-Com TO: FROH: $ USJ ECT: INVESTIC~TICN FOR 4-gatY STOP AT SYCAMDRE AVE~JE AND CARFAX AVE~qUE The intersection of Sy~,~uce Avenue and Carfax Avenue does not meet the standard warrants for 4-way stop installations and it is re~,ntended that stop controls on Sycamore Avenue not be installed. It is re~u,n,ended that the intersecticm be studied for school crossing guard type of control when sdlool is in session1. B~IKG~fL%D: Sycamore Avenue is presently classe~ as a secondary arterial, although it is presently developed in this area to a 40' paved width. Carfax Avenue has a paved width of 36'. The development in the area is presently residential with multiple family dwellings on the north side Of Sycsmore and single family on the south. There are elementary schools on both sides of Sycsmore to the east and there is a school crosswalk at the east side of the intersection. At present, Carfax is stopped at Sycamore. A proposal has ~n rode to stop SyC~aDre Avenue at Carfax Avenue, which will create a 4-way stop intersection. ANALYSIS: A traffic study of the intersection has indicated, on the basis of accidents and vehicle volumes, that the intersection cannot meet the warrants for 4-way stop control. This intersection was annexed into the City on Dec. 26, 1980 and since that time Engineering records indicate there have been three accidents, none of which would have been oo~=cted by 4-way stop control. Visibility of the intersection is good with no unusual obstacles and no accidents that would indicate a visibility problem. Vehicular volumes alone do not warrant 4-way stop control during any hour of the day. The addition of the school pedestrian may warrant it during two hours of the day on school days. The intersection should be studied for a school crossing ~ard when the schools are in session. It should be noted that a stop installation on Sycamore Avenue will increase noise in the area and probably increase rear end type of accidents. INTERSECTION VOLUMES SIXTH STREET AND "B" STREET SYCAMORE CARFAX -~- EAST WEST rIME BOUND BOUND TOTAL 12:00- 1:00 AM 41 38 79 t:00- 2:00 25 20 45 2:00- 3:00 13 6 19 3:00- 4:00 8 5 13 4:00- 5:00 11 6 17 5:00- 6:00 83 28 111 6:00- 7:00 398 120 518 7:00- 8:00 633 284 917 -- 8:00- 9:00 304 272 576 9:00-10:00 164 220 384 10:00-11:00 160 198 358 _11:00-12:00'PM 224 248 472 12:00- 1:00 294 301 595 1:00- 2:00 263 243 506 2:00- 3:00 218 340 558 3:00- 4:00 232 517 749 4:00- 5:00 250 634 884 5:00- 6:00 295 571 866 ~-00- 7:00 219 260 479 00- 8:00 174 182 356 8:00--9:00 156 119 2175 9:00-10:00 107 94 201 --10:00-11:00 74 75 149 11:00-12:00 65 59 124 TOTALS 4,411 4,8A0 .9,251 This intersection does not meet the control during any hour of the day. NORTH SOUTH BOUND BOUND TOTAL 4 5 9 9 6 15 5 2 7 1 2 3 2 1 3 8 7 15 35 29 64 28 37 65 34 20 54 24 25 49 16 27 43 18 21 39 23 30 53 24 17 41 28 18 46 25 38 63 24 30 54 28 25 53 30 30 60 39 29 68 31 25 56 24 7 31 15 15 30 14 8 22 489 454 943 volume warrants INTERSECTION TOTAL 88 60 26 16 20 126 582 982 630 433 401 511 648 547 604 812 938 919 539 424 331 232 179 146 10,194 for four-way stop · COLLISION DIAGRAM ~/ CITY OF TUSTIN _LEGEND-SYMBOLS .loving Vehicle Backing Vehicle ~ut of Control ,arked Vehicle Pedestrian ~ixed Obj eot Ion.-Injury Injury ~atal )aylight TYPE Right Angle Rear End Left Turn Sideswipe Pedestrian ACCIDENT SUMMARY N DAY NIGHT TOTAL Fatal Inj. P.D. Fatal Inj. P.D. Fatal Inj. P.D. Other STANDARD WARRANTS FOR 4-WAY STOP CONTROL IN USE BY: U.S. Department of Transportation State of California Any of the following conditions may warrant a four-way stop sign installation: Where traffic signals are warranted and the need is urgent, the four-way stop can be used as an interim measure until a traffic signal can be installed. An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents of a type susceptible of correction by a four-way stop installation in a 12-month period. Types of accidents susceptible of correction include right angle and left turn collisions. 3. Minimum volume warrant: The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any eight hours of an average day, and The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same eight hours with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour. When the 85-percentile Approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements. At a "T" intersection (3-way) a minimum vehicular volume of 75 percent may be used. (Total vehicular volume of 375, minor street volume of' 150.)