Loading...
TC - Agenda - 07-08-04AGENDA ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION 8838 East Valley Boulevard Rosemead, California 91770 Regular Meeting JULY 8, 2004 Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Chairperson Knapp, Vice - Chairperson Mafsdorf, Commissioner Quintanilla, Commissioner Baffo, Commissioner Benjamin Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Benjamin Invocation: Commissioner Baffo I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 1, 2004 & Tune 3, 2003 II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - This is the time reserved for members of the audience to address the Commission on items not listed on the agenda. (Maximum time per speaker is three (3) minutes; total time allocated is fifteen (15) minutes. III. OLD BUSINESS A. REQUEST TO INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAI/STOP SIGN ON GRAVES AVENUE AT JACKSON AVENUE AND INSTALL RED CURB ON GRAVES AVENUE IV. NEW BUSINESS - NONE V. STAFF REPORTS A. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL'S ACTIONS VI. COMMISSIONER REPORTS VII. ADJOURNMENT - To the next regular meeting of the Traffic Commission on Thursday, August 5, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., Rosemead City Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California 91770. Posted 72 hours in advance of the meeting at: Rosemead City Hall, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead; the L.A. County Library, Rosemead Branch, 8800 E. Valley Boulevard; and at other locations pursuant to RMC Section 1.08. ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 1, 2004 A regular meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Commissioner Quintanilla at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner Quintanilla, Commissioner Baffo & Commissioner Benjamin Absent: Chairperson Knapp, Commissioner Matsdorf, Ex- Officio: Assistant City Manager: Donald J. Wagner Traffic Engineering Deputy: Joanne Itagaki CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Quintanilla Invocation: Commissioner Baffo I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Baffo, seconded by Commissioner Benjamin, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes for March 4, 2004. II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - NONE III. OLD BUSINESS - NONE 04- 01 -04 /sb IV. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR TRUCK PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON THE WEST SIDE OF WALNUT GROVE AVENUE NORTH OF NORWOOD PLACE Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki presented the staff report. RECOMMENDATION: It was recommended that "No Parking 7:00 - 10:00 a.m., and 4:00 - 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday" be installed on Walnut Grove Avenue adjacent to 8561 Norwood Place. It was moved by Commissioner Baffo, seconded by Commission Benjamin, and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki also stated that there was a letter of opposition from a resident (Don Smith), who feels there are many people occupying the above location, with,many cars. Speaking before the Commission was: Keith James (same as Don Smith) 8538 Norwood Place Rosemead, California 91770 Mr. James stated that the truck in question belongs to him and he only parks where he can find a parking spot. The meeting was adjourned for a short recess to have the Commissioners look at the size of the truck that Mr. James is driving. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki revised her recommendation to not make any changes to the parking at the above location. There does not seem to be a consistent problem at this time. It was moved by Commissioner Baffo, seconded by Commissioner.Benjamin, and carried unanimously to deny the request for time limit parking. 04- 01 -04 /sb B. REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF RED CURB AT 3954 RIO HONDO AVENUE Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki presented the staff report. RECOMMENDATION: It was recommended that 40 feet of red curb be removed in front of 3954 Rio Hondo Avenue. Ten feet.of red curb should remain from the alley and extending south. Speaking before the Commission was: Tung Cong Giai 3954 Rio Hondo Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Mr. Giai stated that he does not feel the red curb is needed. It was moved by Commissioner Baffo, seconded by Commissioner Benjamin, and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation. C. REQUEST TO SHORTEN AN EXISTING 20 MINUTE PARKING ZONE TO 15 MINUTES AT 7951 -7953 GARVEY AVENUE Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki presented the staff report. RECOMMENDATION: It was recommended that the City parking control officers be directed to conduct selective enforcement of the parking restrictions in front of 7951 -7953 Garvey Avenue. Speaking before the Commission was: Warren Yu 7750 Fern Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Mr. Yu feels that the 2 -hour parking restriction should be removed and that the 20 minute restriction is plenty of time for all three businesses. It was moved by Commissioner Baffo, seconded by Commissioner Benjamin and carried unanimously to remove the 2 -hour parking restriction and that the 20- minute parking restriction should remain and extend the days to everyday, except holidays. In addition, paint green curb between the signs. 04- 01 -04 /sb D. REQUEST FOR "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED" RESTRICTIONS FOR SOUTHBOUND SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD AT WALNUT GROVE AVENUE Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki presented the staff report. RECOMMENDATION: It was recommended that "No Right Turn on Red" sign be installed for southbound San Gabriel Boulevard at Walnut Grove Avenue. It was moved by Commissioner Baffo, seconded by Commissioner Benjamin and " carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation. V. STAFF REPORTS - None VI. COMMISSIONER REPORTS - None VII. ADTOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned. 04- 01 -04 /sb ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 3, 2004 r A regular meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Chairperson Knapp at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Knapp, Commissioner Quintanilla, Commissioner Matsdorf & Commissioner Benjamin Absent: Commissioner Baffo Ex- Officio: Assistant City Manager: Traffic Engineering Deputy Traffic Liaison CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Matsdorf Invocation: Commissioner Benjamin I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Donald J. Wagner Joanne Itagaki Sgt. Izell The minutes for April 1, 2004, were deferred to the July meeting, due to a lack of quorum. II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - NONE III. OLD BUSINESS - NONE IV. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST TO INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAI/STOP SIGN ON GRAVES AVENUE AT JACKSON AVENUE AND INSTALL RED CURB ON GRAVES AVENUE Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki presented the staff report. RECOMMENDATION: Based on field observations and the reported collision history, it is recommended that 30 feet of red curb be installed on the north side of Graves Avenue east of Jackson Avenue to provide additional visibility of westbound traffic. In addition, 30 feet of red curb should be removed from the east side of Jackson Avenue north-of Graves Avenue. Speaking before the Commission was: Lisa Chan 2468 Jackson Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Ms. Chan stated that with the growing population and a Durham Bus that parks at Jackson and Graves makes it very difficult to see. In addition, to the accidents that have occurred, she feels this recommendation is needed. Speaking before the Commission was: Michael Jerome . Director at Maryvale Mr. Jerome presented the Commission with pictures and a letter. Mr. Jerome feels most of the problem is coming from the west to the east and that one of their children nearly got hit. There are also two school (Williams and Monterey Vista), where cars build up speed and feels there is a need for a stop sign for safety reasons. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated she was looking at the collision history and there was only 1 reported incident; but not all collisions are reported. Assistant City Manager Wagner stated that traffic signals are very expensive and therefore, further studies should be made. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that when a stop sign is installed where it is not warranted, people have a tendency to run it. Therefore, more data would need to be collected in order to see if a signal is warranted at this location. Speaking before the Commission was: Crystal Orozco Student @ Rosemead High School Ms. Orozco stated that perhaps the Commission should look in placing blinking lights in the middle of the street, she feels this helps with slowing down traffic. Commissioner Benjamin stated that there is a "law of unattended consequences', when putting a light or a stop sign, it not only changes the traffic pattern on the street, but it extends it and changes traffic patterns in all directions and on other streets. The Commission always keeps this in mind when making a change to a street. It was moved by Commissioner Matsdorf, seconded by Commissioner Benjamin, and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation and direct staff to do some further studies for a traffic signal. In addition, to ask the Sheriff's Department to place the speed trailer at this location. V. STAFF REPORTS Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that at the last Council meeting all the items were approved regarding traffic issues. Sgt. Izell stated that in April the City of Rosemead had a DUI Checkpoint, and there will be another one in the near future, and were very successful. Sgt. Izell informed the Commission that pocket bikes are illegal on the road and off - road, and can only be ridden on a closed - controlled track, i.e., Irwindale, and continue to be an enforcement problem for the Sheriffs. VI. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Benjamin stated that at Rosemead Boulevard and Mission the students from the high school seem to be jay - walking and ignoring the signals, causing a very dangerous situation. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that the reason there is a left turn arrow at this location, is because when there is a break in traffic it seems to help, and possibly enforcement could look into it. VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:32 p.m., with 23 people in the audience. The next meeting will be held on July 8, 2004. Staff Report Rosemead Traffic Commission TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY DATE: June 29, 2004 SUBJECT: Request to Install Traffic Signal /Stop Sign on Graves Avenue at Jackson Avenue — Follow -up REQUEST This is a follow -up to last month's request regarding the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue. The Traffic Commission requested staff to conduct additional analysis to consider the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection. Last month's agenda item is attached to this report for reference. DISCUSSION The conditions of the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue have not changed since last month's agenda. The data regarding the intersection also remains the same. However, staff did collect additional data regarding pedestrians and vehicle delay to complete this report. This data is presented in the detailed traffic signal warrant analysis. Traffic signals can enhance traffic safety and promote traffic flow when installed at locations where studies have shown such control to be justified. These studies examine traffic volumes, speed, accident history, alignment, user behavior, engineering judgment, and the location's compatibility with other signalized locations in the vicinity. These studies have been used to develop the Caltrans' Traffic Signal Warrants used by the City to determine the need to install traffic signals at specific locations. Attached is the summary sheet (Exhibit 1) and detailed traffic signal warrant analysis (Exhibit 2) for the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue. The summary sheet indicates that only 1 warrant, Warrant 5, is satisfied. This warrant is called the "Progression Movement" warrant. This warrant deals with the spacing of the subject intersection with respect to other signals along the streets. Satisfaction of this warrant only indicates that the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue is far enough away from any other signalized intersection to allow for an appropriate flow of traffic between intersections. July 8, 2004 Traffic Commission Meeting Request to Install Traffic Signal/Stop Sign on Graves Avenue at Jackson Avenue — Follow -up Page 2 of 2 Satisfaction of one warrant does not necessarily indicate the justification for a traffic signal. As shown on the detailed traffic signal warrant analysis sheets, delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right -of -way assignment must be shown. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis, the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue does not warrant the installation of a traffic signal. More specifically, the traffic and pedestrian volumes and the reported collision history does not support the installation of a traffic signal at Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue. Attachments 0919] CITY OF ROSEMEAD SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS (FROM CALTRANS TRAFFIC MANUAL) LOCATION: GMv Aaenur DATE: 6 2 pa WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% Satisfied Yes No 80% Satisfied Yes N WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% Satisfied Yes 80% Satisfied (� No WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% Satisfied Yes No WARRANT 4 - School Crossings Flashing Yellow School Signals School Area Traffic Signals Satisfied Yes No Satisfied Yes No WARRANTS -Progressive Movement Satisfied Yes No WARRANT 8 - Accident Experience Satisfied Yes No WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant Satisfied Yes No WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants Satisfied Yes No WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume Satisfied Yes Nd WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay Satisfied Yes No WARRANT 11 -Peak Hour Volume Satisfied Yes No Ex4lalr 1 Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9 -7 7 -,9915 Figure 9 -1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC - DATE ­ 51 — ST CO RTE KPM CHK DATE Major SI: G 1'ay A4 r n t4 A Critical roach APP Speed krrtfi Minor $I: -- nkaon A%ir- a Critical Approach Speed km/h Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h La mob) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ❑ 1 or 1 RURAL (R) In burl up area of isolated community of a 10.000 pop. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ❑ put URBAN M WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 22 MINIMUM REOUn1EMENTS 801/6 SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 99 (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic MINIMUM REOUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) R U R t 1 2 Dr more ' �/ 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO BO% SATISFIED YES ;9 NO ❑ M�a' S 15 ' 1600 (4201 (TO) s 29 99tl 5ZI bS8 769 746 943 644 Highest Approb. 53 1W ro rcoorsnaer, (so) 'z1 (BO (sot 64 (03 6G 70 7'� 63 78 61 WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO. X1 REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrlan volume crossing The major street is 100 or more �� a �~ � Qj � 'n r� ^ •D N e) � b APPROACH 1 LANES 2 or more Both Apprchs. Major Street (4W) 350 (280) fi00 (�0) d20 (339) 1621 990 521 658 769 46 943 644 frighest Apprch. ASrgr street (120) 105 ae) 2W r160) 140 (1u) 64 103 bb 70 73 6 3 ?8 6f WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic MINIMUM REOUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) R U R t 1 2 Dr more ' �/ 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO BO% SATISFIED YES ;9 NO ❑ M�a' S 15 ' 1600 (4201 (TO) s 29 99tl 5ZI bS8 769 746 943 644 Highest Approb. 53 1W ro rcoorsnaer, (so) 'z1 (BO (sot 64 (03 6G 70 7'� 63 78 61 WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO. X1 REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrlan volume crossing The major street is 100 or more for each of any four hours or is 190 or m ore during any one Yes ❑ No hour;ALR I= - IEd Au'j i Oelool There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traF fie stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross; Asa Yes ❑ No ' The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater than 90 Yes ®, A1�jQ No ❑ The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow on the major street. Yes $9 No ❑ The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justlficatloh for a signal, Delay, congestlon, confuslon or other evidence of the need for right -of -way assignrnerd must be shown. EXIi 161T 2 (l o (0) Grm. -as'on 617 -004- g $ TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual T.vlrs Figure 9 -2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 4 - School Areas WARRANTS - Progressive Movement Not Applicable ........ ............................... ❑ See School Protection Warrants Sheet 59 SATISFIED YES iK NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 300 m (1000 Q I I N m, S M. E t I000E- pf, W m. YES ® NO ❑ ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT 31ONALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING 8 SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST ______ _____,.______________ ON 2 -WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING AND SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM ❑ WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 1I REQUIREMENTS WARRANT ,/ FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED ______ _____,.______________ - OR 80% WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ONO ❑ SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ® ❑ ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ❑ to ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR ? $SOO DAMAGE ----------- --------- - __________-_____-____________ MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 01 5 O MORE 1Nortc/ ❑ Ipl O7/bl /o3 4o OIWe 01041 WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES ❑ NO U1 I MINIMUM VOLUME REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES -ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR 10 q I VEWHR 1000 VEWHR - _ OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 MRS. OF A SAT. AND/OR SUN, VEHMR YES 19 NO ❑ CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST, I MINOR ST. HWY. SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC ----------------------------------------- ----- RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING. OR TRAVERSING A CITY ✓ ----------------------------------------- _____ APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STREETS ■ W 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. Eko I B a 2 (Z e (S) 6 r Ycg G MI014 ' Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9 -9 Figure 9 -3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO JK REOULREMENT WARRANT J FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS f_ MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ¢ Highest Approaches - Minor SATISFIED 7O 80%0 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO WARRANT 9 -Four Hour Volume Anoroach Lanes SATISFIED YES ❑ NO od 2 or qte` .h .N� 1Q� One more 1 1 fo Hour Both Approaches - Major Street 58 76 ¢ Highest Approaches - Minor ✓ jp'� 7O 7 3 7 15 * Refer to Figure 9.6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 -7 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 -Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) 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-lane approach; Ah1D YES ❑ NO 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 P3 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 P NO ❑ WARRANT 11 -Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 2 or Both Approaches - Major Street ✓ I M Highest Approaches - Minor Street 1 11103 * Refer to Figure 9 -8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 -9 (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. E XH 15 IT 2 (5 cs Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9 -11 Figure 9 -5 SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS CALL J • $ DATE 6 4 8 /- 0 - 4 -- . CO RTE KPM CHK DATE Major St: & ` - tkyey ns1C * n � sAr Critical Approach Speed km/h Minor SL - `^ 6� )'N_C1nLLgP _ Critical Approach Speed km/h Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h AQ vtpbi l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ❑ l or } RURAL (R) In built up area of isolated community of < 10.000 pop. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ El J >' URBAN (U) FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS SATISFIED (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) Minimum Requirements PART A U R Vehicle Volume 2 h. Q 140 9% &95 School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street I each of 2 hour 40 40 .�, 9 Crossing Street � glt SATISFIED 10 YES ❑ NO 14 YES ❑ NO 0 AND PART B Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 56 kmfh (S6m11, SATISFIED YES 10 NO ❑ AND PART C Is nearest controlled crossing more than 180m away? SATISFIED YES F• NO ❑ (boo Fl SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS SATISFIED (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) Minimum Requirements Qt �q� v� PARTA U R 0 3 Vehicle Volume 2 hours Soo 350 49D bti$ School Age Pedestrian ry�� too 70 q Crossing Street or W day 500 350 yt( 6 SATISFIED YES ❑ NO YES ❑ NO $ AND PART B Is nearest Controlled crossing more than 180 in away? SATISFIED YES Of NO ❑ (600 V) E)LI41 7 (4 a� 6rav 6/28/o4 9-12 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual vc15a Figure 9 -6 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Urban Areas) 500 z g 400 L W V ly 40 300 H � CA a g 200 z_ 2 J 0 > 100 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) A 1 LANE (MINOR) OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 MORE LANES (MINOR) 1 1 1 1 + I 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) 1 400 500 800 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL. OF BOTH APPROACHES -VPH 1 6 /ti * /h s NOTE: 116 VPH 940 65$ I 7b9 943 Io3 70 3 78 AS THE LOWER EXF}Li5IT 2 (5 4 0 Gro..I��.Sackgo�n 6/z9/o4 9 -14 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual T -Imes Figure 9 -8 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Urban Areas) 600 x S00 X H r� ul q 400 a� M 0. o w 300 z M 200 :C z 100 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) J - OR R 1 LANE(MAJOR) &20R MORE LANEESIMINORI C7 1 LANE (MAJOR) E 1 LANE (MINOR) 'k 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -VPH 9 NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLaXQUaI1E A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LAN 100 VPH APPLIES ONE LANE. EX01$17 Z (6 a'c (0) MAY.24 14:06 Staff Retort Rosemead Traffic Commission #2910 P.UU2 /UU9 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY DATE: May 19, 2004 RE: Request Install Traffic Signal/Stop Sign on Graves Avenue at Jackson Avenue and Install Red Curb on Graves Avenue REOUEST A ,letter. (attached) has been received from Ms. Lisa Chan, 2468 Jackson Avenue, for the installation of a traffic signal and red curb at the intersection of Jackson Avenue and Graves Avenue. Ms. Chan has indicated that it is difficult to exit from Jackson Avenue on to Graves Avenue because of the volume of traffic on Graves Avenue and a vehicle blocking visibility. CONDITIONS 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 depicts 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 July 1, 1998 to April 2004. These collisions are summarized in Exhibit B. There were 6 broadside collisions reported during this period. Two of these 6 occurred in 2002. There were no reported collisions In 2003 or through April 2004. MAY.24 14:07 #Zulu Y.uusiuuv June $ 2004 Tkaflk Commfaebn Nesting Request Install Traffic Signal/Stop Sign on Graves Avenue at Jackson Avenue. and Install Red Curb on Graves Avenue Page 2 of 2 Twenty -four hour traffic volumes were obtained for the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue. These counts revealed the following: ADT ADT AM PM NS or EB $B or WB Pk. Hr. Pk_ Hr. . Graves Avenue 4,971 5,216 983 (7:30) 978 (5:30) Jackson Avenue n/a 1,011 119 (7:45) 90 (2:45) 01%; SIO Field observations were made of the intersection during the mid - moming hours. At that time, the vehicle Ms. Chan described as being parked on Graves Avenue east of Jackson Avenue was not present. However, other vehicles were parked at that location which limited some of the visibility of southbound vehicles. The traffic volumes on Graves Avenue did not appear to be heavy enough to cause a significant delay to southbound vehicles on Jackson Avenue, Traffic signals and stop signs 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 and stop signs are based on guidelines provided by Caltrans. These guidelines are based on years of study and are the standard used by the City. The 24 -hour traffic volumes were compared to the Caltrans guidelines. Exhibits C and D depict how the intersection of Graves Avenue /Jackson Avenue measures up to the Caltrans guidelines. For both multi -way stop signs and traffic signals, this intersection does not satisfy the guidelines. Therefore, the installation of stop signs or signals is not recommended at this time. RECOMMENDATION However, based on field observations and the reported collision history, it is recommended that 30 feet of red curb be installed on the north side of Graves Avenue east of Jackson Avenue to provide additional visibility of westbound traffic. In addition, 30 feet of red curb should be removed from the east side of Jackson Avenue . north of Graves Avenue. Exhibit A depicts these recommendations. Attachments v -.\V,j ,i11 \RStA2004 Agendas & Doe=waWuneeraves S.1=i®m SlwSkmi and RC Regv9at.d00 . MAY.24 14:07 APR.-2r.04(WED) 09:36 CITY Of ROSEMEAD April 13, 2004 Don Wagner Assistant City Manager City MR of Rosemead 8839 Fast Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA 91770 Dear W. Wagner: #2910 P.004/009 TE6:626- 307 -9218 P.002 Per our telephone conversation on April 1 Z, 2004, I have shared with you some concerns regarding the Durham school bus that is perked in the corner of Jaolwon Avenue and Graves. The school bus blocks the view of on coming traffic on Graves Av cnuc� which makes it very difficult to see and not to mention 4132190200110 tum left from Jackson Avenue going east of Graves. As a Rosemead resident living on Jadmon Avenue with many others, we do not fcd safe traveling in that d'aectioa In fact,.most residents ate fearful and would avoid making ti>ms in that uas because of the heavy and rapid traffic. Years ago, it was not so bad. Recently, with new housing development between Graves and Del Mat Avenue, traffic has been much mars congested. As a_res ult of this problem, manly car accidents have been caused in than particular area To ensure safety and prosperity in our community. we are proposing that the city have a tpaqji& on Graves and Jackson Avraue. Due to the growing population a td the fast N W heavy flow of nuffte, it is to city's best interest to consider having a 1raf5c light there. It is also critical that the City of Rosemead paint the curb red on the comer of Jackson Avenue and Graves, so that no vehicles are allowed to park there at anytime. . This way. it would not block the view of a driver trying to make a left from Jackson Avenue heading east of Glraves It is imperative that the City of Rosemead resolves this mattQ as soon as possible to avoid many move accidents in the area_ Your quick response to this matter is deeply appreciated. Sincerely, Lisa Chan P `'e. Enclosure MAY.24 14:07 APR'- 21' OQIVED) 09:56 CITY OP ROSEMEAD 02910 P.005/009 TEL:626 -507 -9218 P.003 MAY.24 14:07 WM z • Q 4 „ dd O +1 � J v 3 NI K a `$ NX 1 z all my xo dd O dd J vqm .L Z ' I im - MENEM M X Cs] m C �Fe a C7 im - MENEM M m a U w w 2 V1 � w � Q Z J ' MAY.24 14:07 scriu r. uu ii vvo Alb yeIf CL E C O N N �- y G C ' 5 F 9 S 5 S o m m 2 CL La t g C C S G C� 4C� c J oN C e 3 w z 3 3 r 3 v� r d � C p a` F E V) w e U ° a rn c e m cP m Y 2 a w � c � a p f c O Q C p o^ c To O 23 yy m m '•� r m m Le m c t � ££m m3 m m �o r v o o W ° e :$ c o v t v o � 4 v v a m m a c W E m m` m s oo m go do C p m pt� c e N G S c c G Z m OI Ci W � O S R d N � Y m o, C G O d a� mm .29'2004 14:08 BLylu r.VUO /VVl MULTI -WAY STOP SIGN WARRANTS (FROM CALTRANS TRAFFIC MANUAL) LOCATION (5fAle-i A V�nssP�{ 4- ^�'s!`�^ CnuG DATE: The installation of multi -way STOP signs are based on the following: 1. Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multi -way STOP may be an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the signal installation. Satisfied: Yes No 2. -An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents within a 12 month period of a type susceptible to correction by a multt-way.STOP installation. Such accidents include right- and left -turn collisions as well as right -angle collisions. Z polliroto..7 %% ZoDZ Satisfied: Yes 3. Minimum traffic volumes: (a) The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and pqefttp= 7&Z Satisfied: es No (b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but py e= 8t- (ir alwait ea.�,e�.teiiue '� Satisfied: Yes No (c) 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. Satisfied: Yes No (a) Total Volume 500 350 Z �� V 7&1 ova . v b) Combined volume 200 (140) 10; 66 7C 7 3 78 .� t�deaielen VO(wW�Cb AD •l-1V a1 AAQA. 5*2 * -A O 0 oi4 Pe d. volume w �,ld a..rt•lo - le» +A,, IOPad�,.�tour• MAY.24 19:08 #2910 P.0U9 /UU9 Traffic Man TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-7 ••coos Figure 9 -1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC , •� DATE 5 _ DIST CO RTE KPM CHK DATE Major St: eyrfgal!ft &A'n% P Critical Approach Speed km/h Minor St: 66 1er..w zlr. ,nr! C Critical Approach Speed km/h Critical speed of major street traffic ? 64 km& 099"' 111— — — _ _ — _ or RURAL OU In built up area of Isolated community of < 10,000 pop. _ _ _ _ _ — — — _ ❑ ❑ URBAN M WARRANT 1- Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES 0 NO 19 80%SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ;4 MINIMUM F&OVIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) 1 II 2 or more L e 70 1 73 WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic MINIMUM REOUIREMENTS 0076 SHOWN IN BRACKETS) 2 or more 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO �l 8096 SATISFIED YES ❑ NO -� QP 4a '` 4 . j� fit ►' �. e y14 /'q % AV H our IAn�or Str eet )I (42i II i c 1 1 1591 1 64 I1o31661 70 Ilb 163178 I61 I WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100°/6 SATISFIED YES ❑ NO REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 at more for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one Yes ❑ No hour; 6W There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf- Yes ❑ . No fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to crass; ANQ The clearest traffic signal along the major street Is greater Yes $ No ❑ than . 90T: , AM The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive Yes No ❑ traffic flow on the majar street. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily Justification for a signal, Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for rigor -of -way assignment must be shown.