Loading...
CC - Item 4B - Installation of Traffic Signal at Graves and Jackson Ave• TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS ROSEME D CITY COUNCIL FROM: BILL CR E, CITY MANAGER DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2005 • RE: INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT GRAVES AVENUE AND JACKSON AVENUE At the request of a councilmember and a traffic commissioner, staff analyzed the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue for the installation of a traffic signal, and presented their findings and recommendations to the Traffic Commission. A detailed analysis of the intersection can be found in the attached Traffic Commission staff report. In summary, the results of the traffic study were compared to guidelines (warrants) found in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) which have been prepared based on nation-wide examinations of a broad cross-section of locations. As depicted in Exhibit C of the Traffic Commission staff report, the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue satisfies 3 of the 8 warrants for the installation of a traffic signal. Based on this, the installation of a traffic signal was recommended. After comments and testimony from the public and deliberations by the Traffic Commission, the Traffic Commission unanimously recommended installing a traffic signal at the Graves/Jackson intersection. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Traffic Commission's recommendation to install a traffic signal at Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue. COl NICA"t L AGEINDA O C T 2 -5 2005 ITE r4 ~~o...1~. i Staff Reycrt Rosemead Traffic Commission TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY DATE: September 27. 2005 RE Request.for Traffic Signal at Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue Counc member Nunez has requested staff analyze the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue for the installafion of school pedestrian signs and a traffic signal. Councilmember Nunez indicated that the Maryvale campus accommodates a school on the site and should be so identified. Commissioner Knapp has also requested staff to review the need for a traffic signal at this intersection. She indicated that speeds and the volume of traffic on Graves Avenue COND1170NS Graves Avenue is a 54-foot wide east-west roadway with one lane of traffic in each direction. A two-way left turn lane separates opposing lanes of traffic. Parking is allowed on both sides of Graves Avenue except where red curb exists. Jackson Avenue is a 40-foot wide north-south roadway with one lane of traffic in each direction. Single yellow skip striping separates opposing lanes of traffic. Street sweeping parking restrictions are posted on Jackson Avenue. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. Exhibit A will be .available at the Traffic Commission meeting and oil depict existing conditions at the Intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue. DATA The reported collision history at the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue was reviewed for the period from January 1. 2000 to July 31. 2005. These collisions are summarized in Exhibit B. There were 16 collisions reported during this period; 1 In 2000, s In 2001.3 in 2002.3 in 2003, 3 In 2004 and 1 In 2005. Of the 4 colfisions reported since 2004, 2 were broadside collisions. • 0 Mtobw 4 2004 TraMk commftslon Akedng Request for Traffic Signal at Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue page 3 013 the students live at Maryvale. In the past, students have lived off campus and this could occur in the future. Traffic signals are traffic control devices used to determine right-of-way at intersections. They are not speed control devices and, when not properly Installed, can increase speeds. The installation of signals is based on guidelines provided by Caltrans. These guidefines are based on years of study and are the standard used by the City. The data collected were compared to the Caftrans guidelines. Exhibit C will be provided at the Traffic Commission meeting and depicts how the intersection of Graves Avenue/Jackson Avenue measures up to the Caltrans guidelines. Three of the S warrants are satisfied. These Include the Four-hour Vehicular Volume, Peak Hour and the Coordinated Signal System Warrants are satisfied. This indicates that especially during the peak hours, the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue experiences enough traffic volume that additional control of right-of-way assignment Is necessary. Based on the satisfaction of 3 traffic signal warrants, the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue is recommended. MO-160U111ASO1 "AgW40 6 &,Ja*4M SOp-Stg W and RC ftWa m • • October 4 2W4 rralNe Comminion Uesthrg Request for Traffic Signal at Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue Page 2 of 3 Twenty-four hour traffic volumes were obtained for the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue in September 2005. These counts revealed the following: 24-hour Traffic Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound raves Avenue 4,823 4,980 ackson Avenue 897 922 Peak Hour TMMto Volumes Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound raves Avenue 486 JZM) :45 A 478 :30 AM 438 5:30 PM 528 5:30 PM ackson Avenue 110 :30 A 126 7:45 AM 92 5:00 PM 82J5:45 M) I Turning movement counts including pedestrian crossing volumes were taken on Wednesday. September 21, 2006. These counts revealed the fallowing: Northbound Pods XI Southbound Peds Xing Left Ttwu Right Esat Left Thru Right West Lea 7:30 - 8:30 4 0 9 2 68 2 37 10 2:00 - 3:00 5 1 3 1 33 1 26 9 Eastbound Peels Xing Westbound Peds Xis Left Thru flight South Log Left Thru Right North L 7:30.8:30 39 409 10 0 9 416 68 0 2:00 - 3:00 P 43 . 247 6 0 8 276 58 0 Field observations were made of the intersection throughout the day. The pedestrians crossing Braves Avenue appeared to be employees of Maryvale. Most vehicles on Jackson Avenue experienced little or no delay to access Graves Avenue. Staff did contact the school located on the Maryvale campus. The school is Logsdon School and currently teaches 56 students ranging in a0e from kindergarten to le grade. Logsdon School is a non-public school with students who experience severely emotional andfor behavioral problems. Currently, all i N Cl) O N N M to N O n C]~ AM • ~ LS'Z ~ CO 'CO , ~ do'•~ w~gY'•r ueq\O~~aN'/J 1^+~NI\Ll9 ~,J\ d ' g E-a L LZ LZ ,L W w II w ~D Z Lj z z w z W w 7 > Cki v; Q ¢ O o W to I I ~ ~ x ' ~ Q U 0 1 I I ~ 8 _a Z~U a ~l cv ~ N a- :2 w C/I SfIN:gnd NOSMOVf dd I co 0 .r N y rn (sl d d > M N WM t I ~ z 0 i to w ' d ~ y o Q W ' U W CD Z F- (f1 x w C z U W SEP.29'2005 09:55 0 0 #0001 P.006/009 ms O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O ti d N. N r - N O O O O O O O lrf O C h `2 0 8 9 ~9 S 9 $.Q 5 ?c 4c > 0 N ~d av) CLW a am &w CL &3 a(B a am CL a O N r 1-3 -4 1 Fm r a 3 S°i 3 3 3 3 3 c j 3 IL r: le p o -C *a C O 2s F~ tR u~ x Z vas 3 V V pl 0 W : 1 2 1 s 13 H z r S ui S 5 W 5 S 5 5 5 S S _ o W) o 0 3 0 o O O H O O o o r 3 C C » !d 6 » da eo » ri co ih R r• L F r r r r r r r w r cr) ~g i fr Ex~tti~lT S 5EP.2912005 09:56 h e n N S r ti ~ d M 0 E E a a O = e c C ~ e V c v ~ v c W H b 0 >o e~ ti r r 7 11 a~ sa 0 N ~ O Y C T O m H .J ~V a N p -a 1 _ T o~ S O O ~ N 0 N o a° T L a Q Q D E 63 ~ #0001 P.007/009 r Ia Y O Y Q t e O O e O ~ A. ~ JQ Y 111~~fff „O C V N 0 ypo i 4 _Y 7I M r 0 S ~ -,oj~Z • ML,'TCD 2003 California Supplement t~ ~1 Figure 4G101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet i of 4) CALC oAm Zq O Page 4C-3 DIST CO RTE KPM CHK DATE Major Sr. Minor St: r` ~'~r► ~ ~ Critcal Approach Speed kmib Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 knvh (40 mph) RURAL (R) In b0ft up area of isolated community of < '0.000 population........❑ ❑ URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 - Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A - Minimum Vehicle Volume APPROACH LANES MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS tBO°c SHOWN IN BRACKETS U R 11 U R 2 or More Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS U R 11 U R 2 or more Combination of Conditions A & B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO REQUIREMENT WARRANT ✓ FULFILLED TyVO 'WARRANTS MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLJME Y ❑ N 00 es o e SATISFIED 8 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS'RAFFIC ✓ 100% SATISFIED YES 0 NO a 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 9L Hour 100% SATISFIED YES ~ NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES NO ❑ May 20, 2004 0 ILTTCD 2003 California Supplement Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 2 of 4) WARRANT 2 - Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED' YES NO ❑ Record hourly vehicular voksmes for four hours. 2 or Ur Both Approaches - Major street it 85fl 67f 7 Highest Approaches - Minor Street 104- L St -All plotted points fall above the curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-1 or 4C-2. Yes No ❑ \Vwc'r -k4%*a*W0U WARRANT 3 - Peak Hour PART A or PART s SATISFIED YES ' NO ❑ PART A (Ail parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisned) 1 bbyy OP slay ign eeq~uals or exceedds far chide-hours for approach o ~ controlled and five vehode-hours for a two-lane approach. AND E.,j4v. J► 2. The volume on the same rnnor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes, AND 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds SM vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaoches. Page 4C-4 SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 5. PART 6 2 or Hour Both Approaches Major Street 7(, Highest Approaches - Minor Street The plotted pants for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher volume vehicle minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute ) fall above the applicable curves in MUTC0 Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4 Is Yes ❑ No 0 Yes I. No ❑ Yes P& No ❑ SATISFIED YES $ NO ❑ May 20.2004 i 0 n 2003 Edition T~NreK.A - 4 Axee -`,or1 rt`rKv~L- Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume x a. soo x O 400 wo wa rn a 300 i xw z ? 200 20 LC 100 W M 0 M OR 2 &1 Page 4C-5 '115 W &20R . , i 300 400 500 600 MAJOR STREET- 'Note: 115 vph ;TAL 800 '9QO OF BOTF ALES PER HOUR as the lower threshold,, Lm re lanes and 0 vpt for a minor-s reet apprc 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 with Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) X 400 d x 300 ~ w O w x F- (L a U) Q 200 0= w 02 Z J 0 100 W O 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes an 60 vph applies as the lower Elh-r-e-sftld volume or a minor-street approach with one lane. 1000 November 2003 Sect' 4CM 2003 Edition ~ 1^ow eti ~ avL~~ ~t -~a~c~o n ~r e n..~ Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour x 600 a x 500 U Q w 0 400 w o_ °C a cn w 300 Cr 02 M O 200 W 100 x C7 x 2 OA MORE LANES & 1 1 LANE & 1 400 500 600 700 800 1 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET TOTAL OF TH APPROACHES- VE CL ES PER HO %dk 'Note: 150 vph lies as the lower threshra minor-street approach wi two or more lanes and 10s as the lower thresho volume for a minor-street aone lane. Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km1h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) x CL U 400 wx w CL 300 ~a Cr w j 200 J 20 Q 100 W x C7 S '100 •75 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES— VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) 'Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes an 75 vp applies as a ower threshold volume fora minor-street approach with one lane. Page 4C-7 '150 '100 November 2003 sect 4C.06 • M- TTCD 2003 California Supplement Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 3 of 4) CALC J DATE DIST CO RTE KPM CHK DATE " Major 9: ~VLZ preereM*'Bpeed215 Mb!~ km Mnor St. Cribcal Approach Speed km+h Critical speed of major street > 64 knuh (40 mph) ~ RURAL (R) In bait up area of isolated community of < 10.000 population......... 11 } ❑ URBAN (U) WARRANT 4 - Pedestrian Volume -*.-i" (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) ~V' Hours - - Pedestrian Volume Adequate Crossing Gaps AND. The distance to the nearest tra'ric signal along the major street is greater than 90m (300 ft) AND. The new traf'ic signal will not senously disrupt progressive ra c low in the major street. WARRANT 5 - School Crossing (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) Part A n...ne.,,,r.a and IS of Children i Each of Two Hours - - M r+.te3 : sstr' Gaps 1.4r Crosserg L%% rs Narbarof M n tes Adea.ate Gaps C' c~10~ Scr ool Age P eaest mar s Crass Strom -CT • 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ;i Any hour > '90 OR 4 hours > 100 AND < 60 gap/hr Yes ❑ No 39 Yes ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ No J4 Yes No ❑ Yes ~J No ❑ SATISFIED YES ❑ NO Page 4C-5 Gaps < Minutes SATISFIED YES ❑ NO J4 Children > 201hr SATISFIED YES ❑ NO P. I ~ede~v~4r+o.-~.~ 4pP~' ro 6e ~►~ayee~s. Part B Distance to Nearest Controlled Crossing Is NearestCorroled Crossirg More Than '90 m ,600 It) away? SATISFIED YES NO ❑ May 20, 2004 • M[TTCD 2003 California Supplement Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 4 of 4) WARRANT 6 - Coordinated Signal System re11 osrta 111iist Ra Satisfied) 0 SATISFIED YES 0 NO ❑ Page 4C-6 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 300 m (1000 R) N 1J M, S N Ar mE V,*V k.ar, W _h* m Yes' No ❑ On one way isolated streets or streets with one n a traffic sig lx lost d n nh f w ld . o ou nd signals-are so tar apart that necessar-------------------------------- On platooni9 Pee 2-way streets where adjacent signals do not providnecessary platooring and ressive signal system ro tit te a ld ❑ . g u p cons speed control proposed signals cou WARRANT 7 - Crash Warrant lAlr 0 rte M iar Ra Satisfiedl SATISFIED YES D NO IK REQUIREMENTS WARRANT J FULFILLED One Warrant Warrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume Satisled 80% OR Warrant 2 - interruption of Continuous Traffic Yes' No❑ Signal Will Not Seriously Disrupt Progressive Traffic Flow 19 ❑ Adequate Trial of Less Restrictive Remedies Has Failed to Reduce Accident Frequency ❑ Acc. Within a 12 Month Period Susceptible for Corr. 3 Involving injury or 2 3500 Damage MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 1 5 or More 2 (01/01104 - 07/51/05 ❑ WARRANT 8 - Roadway Network iAu Darts Must Be Satisfied) SATISFIED YES O NO% fINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES -ALL APPROACHES REQUIREMENTS During Typical Weekday Peak Hour q,54- Veh/Hr 1000Veh/Hr - - - - - - - - - - - During Each of Any 5 Hrs. of a Sat. and/or Sun Veh/Hr CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. Hwy. System Serving as Principal Network for Through Traffic - - - - - - - - Rural or Suburban Highway outside Of. Entering, a Traversing a City - - - - Appears as Major Route on an Official Plan Any Major Route Characteristics Met. Both Streets FULFILLED - Yes ❑ No The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Decay, congestion. confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Ntay 20, 2004 ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION OCTOBER 6, 2005 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Chairman Quintanilla at 7:00 pm, in the Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Quintanilla, Vice-Chairperson Matsdorf and Commissioner Knapp Absent: None Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Knapp Invocation: Commissioner Quintanilla 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -August 4, 2005 It was moved by Commissioner Matsdorf, seconded by Commissioner Knapp and carried unanimously to approve the minutes for August 4, 2005 and September 1, 2005 meetings. H. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None 111. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR PARKING RESTRICTION ADJACENT TO A FIRE HYDRANT BE REDUCED - 7665 GRAVES AVENUE Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki presented the staff report. Recommendation: Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki noted that this item had been continued from the August 4, 2005, meeting at the request of Ms. Dolly Leong to allow her adequate time for preparation for the hearing. She also noted that the recommendation remains unchanged, i.e., based on the field observation and measurements. It was recommended the request to reduce the distance a vehicle can park next to the fire hydrant in front of 7665 Graves Avenue be denied. There are no recommended changes to the parking restrictions on Graves Avenue between 7651 and 7715 Graves Avenue. 9 0 Speaking before the Commission was: Dolly Leong (Property Owner) 8455 Mission Drive Rosemead, CA 91770 Ms. Leong asked if the Commissioners had received a letter she sent them on this subject. She also expressed disappointment that staff is again recommending denial. Ms. Leong stated that she had been in contact with Dean Robinson, a water company executive, and that he told her the water company has no objection to moving the fire hydrant which she hoped would provide additional parking at this location. Ms. Leong said she cannot understand why there are eight parking spaces in front of the other properties on Graves Avenue and only one parking space in front of her property at 7665 Graves Avenue. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki explained that even if the fire hydrant were relocated a few feet, there would still not be enough space for a second parking space in front of 7665 Graves Avenue. She noted that an automobile must be parked at least fifteen feet from a fire hydrant according to Traffic Code 22514.13. Commissioner Knapp said that she feels the item should be continued to allow the Commissioners to speak with Dean Robinson about moving the fire hydrant. Commissioner Matsdorf pointed out that the matter will be referred to the City Council anyway and, in the interests of progress, suggested that the Commission make a decision tonight. It was moved by Commissioner Matsdorf, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, and carried unanimously to accept the recommendation of the Deputy Traffic Engineer and deny this request. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR CURB MARKINGS AT 3953 MUSCATEL AVENUE Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki presented the staff report. Recommendation: It was recommended that the Traffic Commission receive comment from the Chamber to determine which curb marking would best meet their needs. Staff has no objection to the installation of curb markings except for red or blue as stated previously. i • Speaking before the Commission was: Leann Dalessio 1030 W. Crumbly Street West Covina, California 91790 Ms. Dalessio explained that cars often block the driveway and also park very close to the driveway making exiting dangerous. Therefore, they are asking for some type of parking restriction. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki explained the different colored curb markings and suggested restricting parking within five feet of the driveway. Traffic Commissioner Knapp suggested a green curb and also suggested restricting parking within three feet of the driveway which would still allow two parking spaces in front of the building. It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Matsdorf, and carried unanimously to paint the curb in front of the Chamber of Commerce building green and to restrict parking within three feet of the driveway. B. REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROSE STREET AND RIO HONDO AVENUE Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki presented the staff report. Speaking before the Commission was: Douglas Janeke 9418 Rose Street Rosemead, CA 91770 Mr. Janeke said that Rose Street is used like a drag strip both night and day. He asked if speed bumps could be installed to discourage this practice. Commissioner Knapp asked if a motorcycle officer could be sent to this intersection to write tickets. The Sheriff's Representative described the Sheriff's Department's selected enforcement program. He said that Deputies visit drivers who are reported by residents to have been speeding in an effort to reduce the incidents. It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Matsdorf, and carried unanimously to accept the recommendation for selected enforcement by the Sheriffs Department. E • C. REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT GRAVES AVENUE AND JACKSON AVENUE Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki presented the staff report. Recommendation: Based on the satisfaction of three traffic signal warrants, the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue is recommended. Speaking before the Commission was: John C. Davidson 7542 Melrose Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 Mr. Davidson said that he had been in an accident at this intersection and was gratified to know that the Traffic Commission was considering this course of action. Speaking before the Commission was: Michael Jerome Associate Director of Maryvale 7600 E. Graves Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 Mr. Jerome stated his support for a traffic signal at this intersection for safety purposes. It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Matsdorf, and carried unanimously to accept the recommendation for installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue. V. STAFF REPORTS A. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL'S ACTIONS Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki said that the City Council had approved the Traffic Commission recommendation for left turn signal phasing on Del Mar Avenue at Graves Avenue and also the recommendation for a Stop sign at Del Mar Avenue and Highcliff Street.. 0 0 VI. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Knapp reported that People for People will be holding a Pancake Breakfast on Saturday, November 13, at the Methodist Church. She reminded everyone about the Adopt-a-Family for Christmas program and thanked all participants for making the Golf Tournament a success. Commissioner Matsdorf said that when the bomb scare occurred at Shuey School, the fence was cut but it has not been repaired, creating a safety hazard. Planning Director Johnson agreed to investigate the matter. VII. ADOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm.