Loading...
CC - Item 4A - Request for Stop Signs on Hellman at Jackson Ave r a� staff j report TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL ' FROM: ,4ANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER DATE: �VVVp FEBRUARY 23, 1999 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS ON HELLMAN AVENUE AT JACKSON AVENUE DISCI ISSION Ms. Vonda Dessaint requested that the Traffic Commission consider the installation of stop signs on Hellman Avenue at Jackson Avenue. After an analysis of traffic counts and traffic controls at the surrounding intersections, staff further reviewed the intersection for the installation of a traffic signal. A summary sheet and detailed traffic signal warrant analysis for this intersection indicated that two warrants satisfied a need for a traffic signal control. At the Traffic Commission meeting on February 4, 1999, staff recommended the installation of a traffic signal control at Hellman Avenue and Jackson Avenue in order to improve traffic flow and clarify vehicular right-of-way. In addition, the crossing guard at the subject site, will no longer be required for the safe movement of school-aged pedestrians. Staff recommends that the crossing guard be temporarily retained for four (4) months after the installation of the traffic signal, at which time, the crossing guard will assist in educating the school-aged pedestrians on the pedestrian traffic signal indications. Fliers will be provided by staff and will be distributed to the pedestrians and surrounding neighborhood. The Traffic Commission voted 4-0 to approve this staff recommendation. COUNCIL. AGENDA 8T 31999 ITEM No. C-e- J Rosemead City Council February 23, 1999 Page 2 of 14 RFCOMMFNDATION It is recommended that the Rosemead City Council approve staff recommendation to install a traffic signal at Hellman Avenue and Jackson Avenue so as to improve traffic flow and clarify vehicular right-of-way. Exhibits: A. Traffic Commission Staff Report, dated January 26, 1999 B. Summary of Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis,dated January 25, 1999 C. Letter from Ms. Vonda Dessaint D. Figure 1 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY DATE: JANUARY 26, 1999 RE: REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS ON HELLMAN AVENUE AT JACKSON AVENUE REQUEST A letter has been received from Ms. Vonda Dessaint, 7565 E. Columbia Street, for a four-way STOP at Hellman Avenue and Jackson Avenue. Ms. Dessaint is concerned about the pedestrians crossing at this intersection. A copy of her letter is attached. CONDITIONS Hellman Avenue is a 40-foot wide east/west roadway with a double yellow centerline. There is one lane of traffic in each direction. Parking is allowed on both sides of the roadway. The fronting land uses along Hellman Avenue is residential. The posted speed limit on Hellman Avenue is 35 mph. Jackson Avenue is a 36-foot wide north/south roadway with no striping on the street. Jackson Avenue is STOP controlled at its intersection with Hellman Avenue. Parking is allowed on both sides of Jackson Avenue. The prima facie speed limit is 25 mph. A yellow school crosswalk exists on the west leg of the intersection of Hellman Avenue and Jackson Avenue. A crossing guard controls this crosswalk during school hours. There are advance pavement markings and signs alerting motorists of this crossing. Figure 1 depicts conditions at the intersection of Hellman Avenue and Jackson Avenue. (Figure 1 will be distributed during the Traffic Commission meeting.) EXHIBIT "A" Request for STOP signs on Hellman Avenue at Jackson Avenue Page 2 DATA The reported accident history of the intersection was reviewed for the period from January 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998. This accident history revealed two accidents reported at the intersection as follows: Description Date & Time 1. Northbound vehicle proceeding straight 02/06/98 @ 1:55pm broadsided a westbound vehicle proceeding straight (Right-of-way automobile). 2. Eastbound vehicle making an unsafe turn 04/12/97 @ 12:08pm broadsided a southbound vehicle proceeding straight (Improper turn). Pedestrian counts were estimated at the intersection based on field review. It is estimated that 20 pedestrians cross this intersection during the two peak school crossing hours. DISCUSSION Ms. Dessaint requested the installation of STOP signs on Hellman Avenue at Jackson Avenue. However, upon review of the traffic counts and traffic controls at the surrounding intersections, staff reviewed the intersection for the installation of a traffic signal. 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 judgement, 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 to determine the need to install traffic signals at specific locations. Attached is the summary sheet and detailed traffic signal warrant analysis for the intersection of Hellman Avenue and Jackson Avenue. The summary sheet indicates that two warrants, Warrants 1 and 8, are satisfied. Warrant 1 indicates the vehicular volume of the intersection meets the Caltrans' guidelines. Warrant 8 is a combination warrant that considers if Warrant 1 and Warrant 2 (Interruption of Continuous Traffic) is 80% satisfied. Request for STOP signs on Hellman Avenue at Jackson Avenue Page 3 The satisfaction of 2 of the 11 warrants indicates a need for traffic signal control at the intersection. RECOMMENDATION The installation of a traffic signal at Hellman Avenue and Jackson Avenue is recommended to improve traffic flow and clarify vehicular right-of-way. With the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, the crossing guard is no longer required for the safe movement of school aged pedestrians. It is recommended the crossing guard be temporarily retained for 4 months after the installation of the traffic signal. During this period, the crossing guard will assist in educating the school-aged pedestrians on the pedestrian traffic signal indications ("Red Hand" & "Walking Person"). Staff will provide flyers to be distributed to the pedestrians and surrounding neighborhood. Attachments JI1\Rs0\Hellma nJa ckson CITY OF ROSEMEAD SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS (FROM CALTRANS TRAFFIC MANUAL) LOCATION: }FC°.IIwNAnA,\.}E1nl, -ALL \ Avc✓lue DATE: V2-5/99 WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% Satisfied 0 No 80% Satisfied 0 No WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% Satisfied Yes CF1p 80% Satisfied a No WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% Satisfied Yes IJo WARRANT 4 - School Crossings -ria-s-'•• Yellow Scho' .rials School Area Traffic Signals Sa -• Yes 'o_ Satisfied Yes 0o WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement Satisfied Yes No ) WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience Satisfied Yes N1 WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant Satisfied Yes No WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants Satisfied (C'es' No WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume Satisfied Yes No WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay Satisfied Yes No) WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume Satisfied Yes NO EXHIBIT "B" Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-7 • 71996 Figure 9-1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC --S• -7-7--i6iSiki DATE V7S/ 9 DIST CO RTE KPM CHK DATE Major St: Ile I nlrnn A -VIOL Critical Approach Speed 42 Y.,OIr) *MT Minor St: aP LSO✓l AJeviUP Critical Approach Speed km/h Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h 00 QHS RURAL(R) In but up area of isolated community of< 10,000 pop. ❑ • ❑ URBAN(U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES 0 NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES cn NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) .. O APPROACHLANES D I R 2 or more -\-- j�U�\'l,y a k�j��J jh,lo�/1p1 Hour Both Apprchs. 500 /350 600 420 Maior Street (400) `(260) (480) (336) 3Z6 606 407 475 7Z7- 693 813 833 Highest Apprch. 150 /105\ 200 140 Minor Street (120) (884) J (160) (112) 11\3 131 122 1143 122- 113131 I t'?i3 WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES 0 NO Z1 80% SATISFIED YES gf NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) UR 2` h22 \ APPROACH t 2ormB ,vt.jvCj� /i'/4 /b� /(7' /' HourLANE Both ApprCss. 750 525900 630 Major Street (600) 420),) (120) (504) 326 .606 .4-01 475 77.2.. g S ER3 t3 33 Highest Apprrh. 75531 100 70 113 137 17-7 143 til tZ3 it t minor street (60) I.(421i (80) (56) WARRANT 3- Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO_gi REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one Yes ❑ No 0.1 hour; +LNQ E An,c4a ZO pecbb all c{oy. There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf- Yes ❑ No,stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross;,gfdQ $gNnt4e.� The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater than 90 ANQ Yes ❑ No The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive Yes 21 No ❑ traffic flow on the major street. 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. -8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 996 Figure 9-2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS VA RR ANT 4- School Areas Not Applicable ❑ See School Protection Warrants Sheet 0. /ARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 300 m (1000 4) N — m, S — m, E 1300(+- p(, W 19QOrt pi. YES 0 NO❑ ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE 50 FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING&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 ❑ ❑ /ARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED / YES ❑ NO I. REQUIREMENTS WARRANT y FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 -MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ✓ SATISFIED -OR ✓ YES NO ❑ aoe WARRANT 2-INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ® ❑ 4DEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ❑ .® 'CC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR.B INVOLVING INJURY OR i $500 DAMAGE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE 2 gaC1p1£ `�rlol/o1 k-7 - 06/30/48 ❑ M ARRANT 7- Systems Warrant SATISFIED ) YES ❑ NO is MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES-ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED REQUIREMENT ( lP DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR IDa-I VEHMR 67- 1000 1000 VEH/HR - - OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS.OF A SAT. AND/OR SUN. VEH/HR YES NO❑ CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. 1 WY.SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC �J MO RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING,OR TRAVERSING A CITY les NO .PPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN �O ,p ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERIS T1CS MET.BOTH STREETS ❑ 0 e satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other idence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Traffic Manual ' TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-9 71996 Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8- Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ® NO ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT J FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ✓ SATISFIED 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC ✓ YES [c] NO ❑ WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO a tX t 2 or q LQ / Y Approach Lanes One more �" /' /t (( V Hour Both Approaches - Major Street x E06 4-Cil 4?5 1 3 K �3 Highest Approaches - Minor Street 131 lL1 1 135 * 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 El NO p.:.+ (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 oF: �.�co. vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND Ew YES ❑ NO j:KI 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 ® 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 WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES D NO 2ort'' Approach Lanes One more 1. 1 / / Hour Both Approaches - Major Street X 4.75 • Highest Approaches - Minor Street )C 0-3 * 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. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-11 71996 Figure 9-5 SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS CALC —S •I tk �I DATE I/Z5/9I DIST I _ CO RTE KPM CHK DATE Major St: 4&.IIn'b.V\ r1 nue. Critical Approach Speed 4 Z 610 i1mk1- MinorSI: Snit nrl AVP✓1W Critical Approach Speed km/h Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h (40 mphI l or ) RURAL(R) In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. ❑ J ❑ URBAN(U) FL ING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS SATISFIED YES • '0 0 (AL RTS MUST BE SATISFIED) (Minimum Requirements PARTA I U R / Vehicle Volume Each of 200 ` ' 2 hours SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ School Age Pedestrians Each of I 40 40 . Crossing Street 2 hours AND PART B Critical Approach Speed ceeds 56 km/h (3.5.•-ph) SATIS • YES ❑ NO 0 AND PART C Is rest controlled crossing more than 180 m away? SATISFIED YES 0 ❑ (book) SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS SATISFIED YES ❑ NO M. (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) Minimum Requirements ,��� PARTA U R n�/'t; / Each of Vehicle Volume Zhours \ 500 350) SZ6 4-75 Each ot 2 SATISFIED YES ❑ NO S�y u' School Age Pedestrians 2 hoursrs 100 70 Crossing Street or 500 350 per day AND 4 E ++e4 Frk PART B Is nearest controlled crossing more than 180 m away? SATISFIED YES ®, NO 0 (boo G) Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-13 7-1996 Figure 9-7 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT JI (Rural Areas) �tElln ,� A\)noel Val" k500 AVShu&- 400 d 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR)2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) = 300 F Lu 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR) &1 LANE(MINOR) % R1LANEMAOR) &2ORMO RE LANES(MINOR) cncr Ow 200 Ow 2 O C = 100 0 = 1 LANE(MAJOR) &1 LANE(MINOR) 0 I I 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -VPH • 606 -C7 4sr5 E33 k31 tC1 Ida * NOTE: 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 60 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-15 71g96 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) IHn A\IettLr/irintcvAVe, ,,0 500 � I 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) &2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) a aoo 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR)&1 LANE(MINOR) V OR 1 LANE(MAJOR)&2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) 1-4 LLL ¢ 300 4111‘h: cc a F a N Q Q W Z 2200 J O r). > y C7 100 1 LANE(MAJOR)& 1 LANE(MINOR) 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-VPH VJ ti 4-75 43 * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. c Vonda Dessaint V 1565 6. Columbia St. Rosemead, CA ¶17o To the Traffic Commission I'm requesting that there should be a four way stop on Hellman and SacK- son. £ven though there is a crossing guard there, she is only there between school hours. After that your on your own to safely cross the street. I've seen how fast the cars go down the street. There was a crossing light put up for In- gleside Hospital for the patients. Why can't there be something for the corner of SacKson and Hellman? It is too difficult for anybody to walK across the street, and even harder during traffic hours. Respectfully, Vonda Dessaint it. NOV i 9 1998 i; j i C '1 L(1`�vJL! VEL✓ EXHIBIT "C" M01€ 1001.1* OD •X 2 Figure 1 V IN N y T ` v M co, vAd mix? N1 O C D : 3 y 'y N 0 c _la n X G T v y�ryy� m En CD /YYIIA�AAJJ X O J SCHOOL IS SLOW Z 11\Rsd\Exh Fg\HcIman Jackson EXHIBIT "D"