CC – Item 5B – Staff Report – Request for Traffic Signal at Mission Drive and Earle Ave. 1
r Al e
o ��0\1
:K ; staf f,epor di
Cn_
71 •
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR W
AND MEMBERS
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER .,4:61Z.'"T
DATE: AUGUST 26, 1997
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT MISSION DRIVE AND EARLE
AVENUE
BACKGROUND
The City first received a request for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Mission
Drive and Earle Avenue in October, 1996. Staff investigated the request and found that the
intersection did not meet the criteria for the installation of a traffic signal. On November 12, 1996,
the Rosemead Traffic Commission denied the petition by a vote of 5-0.
At the request of the California Christian Home and residents in the vicinity, the Traffic Commission
investigated the installation of a traffic signal at Mission Drive and Earle Avenue a second time. The
concern of residents is the safety of vehicles and pedestrians at the intersection. Two petitions were
submitted with this request to the Traffic Commission.
DISCUSSION
Staff again investigated the request and found that the minimum traffic volume requirements, reported
accident history, and pedestrian volumes were not satisfied. Based on this information, the
installation of a traffic signal at this location was not recommended.
On July 10, 1997, the Rosemead Traffic Commission heard testimony in support of the traffic signal,
and voted to continue the item to the next agenda in order to allow staff more time to evaluateI.
concerns raised by residents at the meeting.
COUNCIL AGENDA
• AUG 2 61997
ITEM No. ._ _._
On August 7, 1997, the Traffic Commission again heard from residents in the area in support of the
traffic signal. The primary comments were with regard to pedestrian safety in the crosswalk on
Mission Drive, the speed of vehicles traveling on Mission, and the difficulty in making left turns onto
Mission from Earle. The Traffic Commission voted 4-1 to recommend that the City Council approve
the installation of a traffic signal at the Mission Drive/Earle Avenue intersection.
The City of Rosemead uses the Caltrans Traffic Manual as a guideline for the installation of traffic
signals and stop signs. Traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes, and reported accident history are
analyzed in these guidelines. The minimum requirements for these criteria were not satisfied at this
intersection. For reference purposes, preliminary price information indicates that the installation of
a traffic signal would cost between $125,000 and $150,000 for the design, equipment costs, and
construction.
The installation of a traffic signal at the Mission/Earle intersection does not meet established warrants
for the installation of a traffic signal. Staff, therefore, is recommending denial of the Traffic
Commission recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the Traffic Commission's recommendation to install a
traffic signal at the intersection of Mission Drive and Earle Avenue.
Exhibits: A. Traffic Commission Staff Report,August 7,1997
B. Traffic Commission Minutes,Meeting August 7,1997
C. Traffic Commission Staff Report,July 10,1997
D. Traffic Commission Minutes,Meeting July 10,1997
E. Letters from residents in area to Traffic Commission
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS
ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION
FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, DEPUTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER
DATE: JULY 28, 1997 `�""n
RE: MISSION DRIVE / EARLE AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL REQUEST
FOLLOW-UP
DISCUSSION
At the request of the Traffic Commission, staff reviewed the comments presented
in the petitions received regarding this issue. Review of the legible comments
indicated that most disputable comments were addressed during last month's
discussion of the intersection of Mission Drive and Earle Avenue.
The primary comments were with regards to the safety of children crossing Mission
Drive. Other comments included: speed of vehicles on Mission Drive, difficulty
turning left from Earle Avenue, and school and park in the vicinity.
A copy of last month's complete staff report is attached for your review.
RECOMMENDATION
The recommendation of staff from the November 7, 1996 and July 10, 1997 Traffic
Commission meetings remains unchanged. The installation of a traffic signal at
the intersection of Mission Drive and Earle Avenue is not recommended at this
time, based on the minimum traffic volume requirements, reported accident history
and pedestrian volumes not being satisfied. •
RSDIMISERLUP
EXHIBIT "A"
T�AffIG CDww4, SSiO/J
meth 1 07/91
MISSION DRIVE/EARLE AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL REOIJEST
FOLLOW-UP
Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that, at the request of the Traffic
Commission, staff reviewed the comments presented in the petitions received
regarding this issue. Review of the legible comments indicated that most
disputable comments were addressed during last month's discussion of the
intersection of Mission Drive and Earle Avenue.
The primary comments were with regards to the safety of children crossing
Mission Drive. Other comments included: speed of vehicles on Mission
Drive, difficulty turning left from Earle Avenue, and a school and park in the
vicinity.
RECOMMENDATION:
The recommendation of staff from the November 7, 1996 and July 10, 1997
Traffic Commission meetings remains unchanged. The installation of a traffic
signal at the intersection of Mission Drive and Earle Avenue is not
recommended at this time, based on the minimum traffic volume
requirements, reported accident history and pedestrian volumes not being
satisfied.
Speaking before the Commission was:
Claudia Zelaya
4647 Earle Avenue
Rosemead, California 91770
Ms. Swaya stated that approximately 7-8 years ago she requested a stop sign
at this location, she never heard anymore about it, but noticed that the speed
limit had been raised. Ms. Zelaya stated that she is against the light, because
she lives on the corner, if a light is installed, it would be impossible for them
to get out of their driveway. She would like to the speed limit reduced.
Speaking before the Commission was:
Janice Dooley
4647 N. Earle Avenue
Rosemead, California 91770
Ms. Dooley stated that their driveway exits onto Earle Avenue and if a light is
installed and the traffic backs up, they will be trapped in their own driveway.
Ms. Dooley also feels that the speed limit should be reduced back to 35 mph,
to allow pedestrians enough time to cross the street.
Ms. Dooley drew a diagram on the marking board to show the location of her
driveway.
EXHIBIT "B"
Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that the traffic signal would probably
be green on Mission unless there is a car at Earle or the pedestrian pushes the
button, it's not going to change too much.
Ms. Dooley(4647 Earle Avenue), stated that there has been a
change/adjustment made to the signal at Walnut Grove and Mission Drive,
which has changed the flow of traffic.
Speaking before the Commission was:
Wayne Doolen, Retired Minister
California Christian Home
Mr. Doolen stated that he has chaired a Traffic Commission in a City with
over 75,000 residents. He was there to present a plea for a traffic signal or a
safe method of controlling the traffic at this intersection. Mr. Doolen stated
that their request to reconsider this location is based on human sentiment
rather statistics and facts. He feels he is speaking for the young and the
elderly, and asks that the Commission reconsider a better method at this
location.
Speaking before the Commission was:
Dolly Leong
9554 Ralph Street/8451 Mission Drive
Rosemead, California 91770
Ms. Leong thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak regarding
this intersection. Ms. Leong stated that there are approximately 200 residents
at the California Christian Home and she is speaking for the safety of all
people involved.
It was moved by Commissioner Ruiz, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, to
deny the Traffic Engineer's recommendation, and install a signal at this
intersection.
Vote results:
Yes: Chairman Ruiz, Commissioner Knapp, Commissioner
Quintanilla, Commissioner Baffo
Noes: Commissioner Tirre
Absent: None
Abstain: None
Ms. Dooley (4647 N. Earle Avenue)asked if the Traffic Engineer was aware
of a change in the light at Walnut Grove and Mission Drive.
Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that there has been a problem with the
loop detectors on south-bound Walnut Grove. There have been several
complaints in the last 6 months regarding this intersection and there could
have been a change at this location.
Ms. Dooley(4647 N. Earle Avenue) asked if the Commission would have to
reconsider a signal at this location, due to the fact that there has been a change
at the intersection on Walnut Grove and Mission Drive.
Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that when looking at the installation of
traffic signals, there are certain guidelines that need to be followed. It does
look at the progressive movement of traffic, the number of accidents, the
number of pedestrians, etc. She does not feel the timing at Walnut Grove and
Mission Drive would affect traffic travelling through the intersection on
Mission Drive and Earle Avenue.
Ms. Dooley (4647 N. Earle Avenue) had several questions about the way
traffic counts are taken at the certain intersection.
It was explained to her by Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki_
• EXHIBIT "C"
•
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS
ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION
FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI R
DEPUTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER \
DATE: JULY 4, 1997
RE: REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT MISSION DRIVE AND EARLE
STREET
•
REQUEST
At the request of the California Christian Home and residents in the vicinity, the
installation of a traffic signal at Mission Drive and Earle Street has been
investigated a second time. This location was first analyzed at the November,
1996 Traffic Commission meeting at the request of Ms. Dolly Leong. The original
staff report and meeting minutes are attached.
Two petitions have been received, one from the California Christian Home and one
circulated by Ms. Dolly Leong to residents in the vicinity. Copies of both petitions
• are attached.
CONDITIONS
The conditions described in the November, 1996 staff report have not changed.
Mission Drive is 64 feet wide east of Earle Street and 62 feet wide west of Earle
Street. The posted speed limit is 40 mph.
Earle Street is 38 feet wide north of Mission Drive and 35 feet wide south of Mission
Drive. The prima fade speed limit is 25 mph.
Figure 1 depicts existing traffic conditions.
•
DATA
The reported accident history from January 1, 1993 to September 30, 1996 was
reviewed using the City's Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).
Five accidents were reported at this location; two-1996, one-1995 and two-1994.
These accidents are depicted on Figure 2.
The Temple Sheriffs Station r viewed the reported accident history from O t Ler t
1, 1330 to the present. Only accidentyva`s`reported. nt }
Cauee cs-C acetchri- s
Z speectt9 Z utrikvictam ccts-e5
Page 2
Twenty-four hour approach counts were taken on Tuesday, May 6, 1997. Local
schools were in session on their regular schedule. No nationally recognized
holidays were identified on this date. These counts revealed the following:
24-hour AM Peak PM Peak
Mission Drive - EB 6,682 451 (8:00) 736 (6:00)
Mission Drive - WB 7,487 874 (8:00) 531 (6:00)
Earle Street - NB 237 30 (8:00) 30 (2:00)
Earle Street - SB 329 32 (10:00) 29 (4:00)
DISCUSSION
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.
The City of Rosemead uses the Caltrans Traffic Manual as a guideline for the
installation of traffic signals and STOP signs. Primarily traffic volumes, pedestrian
volumes and reported accident history are analyzed in these guidelines.
Attached are the summary sheet and detailed traffic signal warrant analysis for the
intersection of Mission Drive and Earle Street.
The summary sheet indicates that one warrant, Warrant 5, is satisfied. This
warrant, the Progressive Movement warrant, indicates that if a signal was installed
at Mission Drive and Earle Street, the traffic flow on Mission Drive would not be
significantly affected.
Warrants 1 and 2 analyzed the traffic volumes of Mission Drive and Earle Street.
The Warrants review the traffic volume on both approaches of Mission Drive and
the highest approach of Earle Street. As identified in the detailed traffic signal
warrant sheet, the volumes on Mission Drive are well above the minimum
requirements. On Earle Street, however, the traffic volumes fall below the minimum
requirements. As a comparison, staff totaled the traffic volumes on both
approaches of Earle Street. These totaled volumes remained below the minimum
requirements.
Page 3
As identified in the November, 1996 staff report, very few pedestrians, less than 5,
cross Mission Drive at Earle Street. A crossing guard is assigned to the
intersection during appropriate school hours. These hours are identified as having
the majority
of the pedestrian activity throughout the day. q
Jan. l 46—_ uhe 149�
The reported accident history revealed thrco accidents<curring at the intersection
of Mission Drive and Earle Street from May, 1096 through Juno, 1W. Only ign
of these accidents may have been "susceptible to correction" by the installation of
a traffic signal. An accident susceptible to correction by the installation of a traffic
signal includes right-angle or broadside-type accidents.
RECOMMENDATION
The installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Mission Drive and Earle
Street is not recommended at this time, based on the minimum traffic volume
requirements, reported accident history and pedestrian volumes not being satisfied.
Staff will review the traffic volumes for the new school district office proposed at
Earle Street and Wells Street when the site plans have been finalized. At that time,
this issue may need to be revisited based on those projected traffic volumes.
Attachments
JI:
RSD`MISEARL
•
Q IwU
11 Cg r
_ )- -r--6)-..- ,-- li
41
J
Q
U
N
I
> r)%\ %\‘3
J
o
-
0N�� j
I Qv
W
IX fL-
J C
I / I- C
Q U
•
a
PRE
/ I
B
I
J
1
7
0 y
Q W
W _Q
L
LU o
N Co
0 <
tr Q
O
LI-0 J
U
CITY OF
COLLISION
'o5GMEAD DIAGRAM
MIOSiovx Dr•w>;
AT
I E'a,�le Si-,V-P'F
e FROM
ro — 01 /01 /43
OPROPERTY DAMAGE .t TO
ONLY N
®INJURY - '+ — C�q %
*FATALITY SuiIrR5 2e�r-}.,
Row-P 5:5Ph lJ '�9PD •
SH4 /0'E
I "AZ X b 4:10 PM
p� RDW-Ac. o
C-
5/,/44 3'ID PH
SPO -µ.
3/4
MI55(0n1 P2\VE
STREET NAME
'k- FA RTY AT FAµLt II�,
Row.A_ E151...�.41. Au+o. 11u1J-
57D- Spee dr /'
Rou.P_ Ri51..ti. `1-
F-rc- Fol tn.,:-,l Tao C l .,,�
F1G��
WWF
J
cv z
w
1
co
co
D697 CITY OF ROSEMEAD
SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
(FROM CALTRANS TRAFFIC MANUAL)
LOCATION: 1‘41-5-,tnn Drlve /Fav-k `Jh^e-F DATE: F,/23q?
WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume
100% Satisfied Yes 'o
80% Satisfied Yes 4Th
WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
100% Satisfied Yes ro
80% Satisfied Yes eb
WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume
100% Satisfied Yes (CIO)
WARRANT 4 - School Crossings
Flashing Yellow School Signals School Area Traffic Signals
Satisfied Yes To-) Satisfied Yes �VJ
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement Satisfied OMs No
WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience Satisfied Yes No
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant Satisfied Yes \"�
WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants Satisfied Yes (No)
WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume Satisfied Yes ' o
WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay Satisfied Yes o
WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume Satisfied Yes No
•
•
9-6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
1-1992 Traffic Manual
Figure 9-1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
DIST CO RTE CALC J. =1a9ctlq; DATE &/23�i7
PM CHK DATE
Major St 1'{i M'oH j7ntVe, (8S4-h7t It-)Minor SI: _ Fc,,.(g ,5{.e� {.. Critical Approach Speed 42. mph
Critical Approach Speed — mph
Critical speed of major street traffic > 40 mph
In built up area of isolated community of< 10,000 pop. O RURAL(R)
❑ URBAN(U)
WARRANT 1 -Minimum Vehicular Volume
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80%SATISFIED YES NO X
•
f80%SHOWN IN BRACKB is)
U IM U R , e• l� 4514 `L* Q� �� Q, Q�
APPROACH /f \�/,(41/11.),.
ry/ rfi �/
LANES 1 2or ri10re 'n� p• r ry) �; Hour
Born Apprchs. 500350 600 420
Major Street (400) 1(280) (48011 336 14c41t375 4Z5 7Z7 62.71773 99 c3
Highest APprtlt 150 105 200 140 vI • + 1
Minor Street 1(120) 1 1841 I (160) 1 (112 1 14- 1 30 t5 15 14 .3D 11,
(is 14-
eon,
tAyr
Otho 36 52 47 42 36 59 45 3 tsOt:No
WARRANT 2- Interruption of Continuous Traffic SO e: NG
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 80% r�ga
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 8DSATISFIED YES C NO IE
(80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
U I R /I U I R ffwwd` I�' s-kx Q� e QC* �.
APPROACH 1 2 or more ^V ��/�j`v `
LANES �/(��
Baty ApprUis. 750 525 900 030 ��ti /� /✓' Hour
Major so-eet (600) [(420) pzol t504 �04 132 9Z51727 6271773,5a9 ER
t4-
Minor
ewre,=+.l (so) l(53)II
(42 (BBOO) 1 (56) 14 1 3D� 15 115 (sS. I30 f7 I�{- �-
+h Appnlctls- Al..e.- &rase.+ 36 51 47 42. 36 59 45 37
(8 1; \ley+- hou.-o - to+o t) <— lEc%' A10
east NO
WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO A
REQUIREMENT I1 FULFILLED
Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more II
for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one
hour:AN2 Ea1'.nncaa
t A ICC c eine 66.4 ord Yes ❑ No
There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street Ira-4
tic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross;LynYes ❑ No
The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater
than 300 feet:AND Yes gl No ❑
The new traffic signal will not seriously o'sruot progressive
traffic flow on the major street. JI Yes No ❑
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 Q.
1-15
Figure 9-2
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
i is otJ DR,/EDGE ST
WARRANT 4- School Crossings Not Applicable ❑
See School Crossings Warrant Sheet
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement
SATISFIED YES Z. NO ❑
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
FULFILLED
> 10D0 F7. N -- ft. 5' — ft, E 1100 It. W I
Qe::C It. YES 21 NO❑
ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT
SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING 8 SPEED CONTROL WOULD SE LOST
ON 2-WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING AND
SPEED CONTROL.PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM Xp71�
Yom- ❑
WARRANT 6-Accident Experience
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO n
REQUIREMENTS • WARRANT /
V FULFILLED
ONE WARRANT
WARRANT I -MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATISFIED
OR
80% WARRANT 2• INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YEScrf
❑ NO yy
SIGNAL WILL.NOY SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW gf ❑
ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY
❑
ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR $50
8 INVOLVING INJURY OR ? 0 DAMAGE I
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 1
NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
5 OR MORE nn.t (05/Q{,— (C,9?\ ❑ ,.
•
WARRANT 7-Systems Warrant ! - -I /
SATISFIED YESi0 ND In
MINIMUM VOLUME
REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES -ALL APPROACHES J FULFILLED
DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR t377 ($-q P#- VEH-HR
10'Y0 VEH/HR
OR -
DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS.OF A SAT. AND/OR SUN VEH HR
YES Z 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 ❑ Ipj
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 assignmnent must be shown.
9-8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
1 1991
Figure 9-3
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
MI5s1CN3 D2/E1}R_LE ST'
WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
REQUIREMENT I WARRANT ✓ I FULFILLED
TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATISFIED
80% 2..INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO 4.
WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED YES ❑ NO Y`u
Cx
2 or
C‘PtApproach Lanes One more q' /o'O/yN�/n7Hour
Both Approaches - Major Street II I V II13L5I ca5 177.3I959
Highest Approaches - Minor Street ✓ I Il so 1 PJ 13D 17
* 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
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) SATISFIED YES El NO
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a
STOP sign equals or exceeds lour vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five
vehicle-hours for a Iwo-lane approach; AND
YES ❑ NO X.
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 Z.
1 The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph
for intersections with lour or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with
three approaches.
YES NO jyl
WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO
2or �APj /
Approach Lanes One more Hour
c97 Approaches - Mater Street �I 1". At3Z5 f
Hgnes; Approaches Minor Street II V II
Reser to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
Thesatisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion. confusion or other evidence
of the need for right-ol-way assignment must be shown.
9-10 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
1-199= �� Traffic Manual
�
•
Figure 9-5
SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS
DIST CO RTE PMCALC -N. .tiryta i DATE A/?5 77
• CHK DATE
(Ri5+1pp1le)
Major St: MIS�JICJ11 ]�tJP
Minor St Critical Approach Speed mph
Ea 1p S lnett
Critical Approach Speed —
mph
Critical speed of major street traffic ? 40 mph ^
Inbuilt up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop: O RURAL (R)
_.. ❑ URBAN (U)
FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) SA l ISF)D YES 11 NO P.
Minimum Requirements ry)QiCx"
PART A U R ti
Vehicle Volume I Eacn of •
2 nouns II 200 I 01111
School Age Pedestrians Eacn of 1) SATISFIED YES
Crossing Street 2 hours 40 realJ ❑ NO Si
AND
PART B
Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 35 mph
SATISFIED YES El NO ❑
AND
PART C
Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SATISFIED
YES yi NO 9
SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) SATISFIED YES 111 NO
Minimum Requirements ro< -
PARTA U R
IV
Vehlde Volume I Eacn of
I2nowe 500 350 Ih73
(School Age Pedestrians Each of 700 70 rjSATISFIED YES ❑ NO
—
Crossing Street 2 hours I
per ua y I 500 350 7tOD
AND
PART B
Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SATISFIED
YES PNO ❑
•
9-12 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
11991 Traffic Manual
Figure 9-7
FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
h1155101J DR./EA-12Lt 51'
400
I I I I I
a 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR)2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR)
w - 300-- j 1
U
Q
2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR)51 MORE LANE (MINOR)
y a
OR1 LANE(MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR)
M a 200 \`
Ow
0
T
100
—
7 Ir_��
1 LANE(MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR)
0 i I X
•
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
MAJOR STREET-TOTALOFBOTH APPROACHES -VP
o.�` SON ,fie 'r
c0 0C rt, 6)1
1335 935 375 fl
3o 15 30 n
* 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.
1
9-14 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
-+w+ Traffic Manual
Figure 9-9
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
Mtt.39totJ 012. /EARLS ,t
500 II
1 1 I f I
2 OR MORE LANESS (MAJOR) &2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR)
z J I
> 400
•
=0
2D73 MORE LANES (MAJOR)31 LANE(MINOR) f
I--di Oa , DR 1 LANE(MAJOR)& 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
¢ ¢ 30D
H a1111 I
N a
a
¢ w
Z . 200
J
C
-± ml H......oaeilliai
IDD
*
0 X
•
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
MAJOR STREET_TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES_ VPH
41
325
go
* NOTE:
100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME 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.
California
Christian Home
Retirement Living
March 24, 1997
Chair and Members
Rosemead Traffic Commission
Rosemead City Hall
8838 E. Valley Blvd.
Rosemead CA 91770
Dear Sirs,
We understand that a request for a signal a the intersection of Mission Drive and Fade Avenue
was not recommended when previously brought before the Traffic Commission.
Many residents of California Christian Home have signed a petition requesting that the issue be
reconsidered as they feel that the intersection needs a traffic signal. Rose Manor, Massie Hall,
Garden Apartments and Rogers Hall are all names of buildings housing the elderly at California
Christian Home.
Your report indicating the number of accidents does not include a serious accident which
occurred last summer nor the number of near misses resulting in the screeching of tires heard
regularly. We would appreciate it if you would reconsider the traffic signal at a future meeting.
Please send a notice Mr. Wayne Doolen, Resident Council President, California Christian
Home, 4825 Earle Ave. #202, Rosemead, 91770 when this issue will again be considered by
the Traffic Commission so our residents can be notified.
Thank you for your consideration of our petition.
Sincerely, y�_-{�7
! /
Judy Thorndyke-Thompson
Executive Director
^AEL•f+
8417 MISSION DRIVE w ROSEMEAD. CALIFORNIA 91770-1192 r IR RI )R7f14'IR