CC - Item 4C - Installation Traffic Signal Del Mar Ave and Highcliff St•
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS
ROSEME CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BILL CRO E, CITY MANAGER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2005
•
RE: INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT DEL MAR AVENUE AND
HIGHCLIFF STREET
At the request of a councilmember who was concerned about the safety of Williams'
Elementary School pedestrians and the speed of traffic on Del Mar Avenue, staff
analyzed the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Highcliff Street 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 Del Mar
Avenue and Highcliff Street does not satisfy any of the 8 warrants for the installation of
a traffic signal. Based on this, the installation of a traffic signal was not recommended
at this time.
After comments and testimony from the public and deliberations by the Traffic
Commission, the Traffic Commission unanimously recommended installing a traffic
signal at the Del Mar/Highcliff intersection.
RECOMMENDATION
If the City Council concurs with the Traffic Commission's recommendation, approve the
installation of a traffic signal at Del Mar Avenue and Highcliff Avenue.
S EP 2 7 2005
ITEM N -
Staff Report F
Rosemead Traffic Commission
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS
ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSSION
FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY
DATE: July 25, 2005
RE: Request for Traffic Signal Installation at Del Mar Avenue and
Highcliff Street
REQUEST
Councilmember Nunez has requested staff analyze the intersection of Del Mar
Avenue and Highcliff Street for the installation of a traffic signal. Councilmember
Nunez is concerned about the safety of Williams' Elementary School pedestrians
and the speed of traffic on Del Mar Avenue.
Del Mar Avenue is a 64-foot wide north-south roadway with two lanes of traffic in
each direction. A double yellow centerline separates opposing lanes of traffic.
There is parking allowed on both sides of the roadway with a passenger loading
zone in front of Williams Elementary School. The posted speed limit on Del Mar
Avenue is 35 mph.
Highcliff Street is a 36-foot wide east-west roadway with one lane of traffic in
each direction. A single yellow skip striping separates opposing lanes of traffic.
The east end of Highcliff Street is Stop controlled at its "T" intersection with Del
Mar Avenue. The prima facie speed limit on Highcliff Street is 25 mph.
There is a marked yellow crosswalk on the south leg of the intersection of Del
Mar Avenue and Highcliff Street. This crosswalk is controlled by a school
crossing guard during school hours.
Exhibit A depicts existing conditions at the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and
Highcliff Street.
DATA
The reported collision history at the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Highcliff
Street was reviewed for the period from January 1, 2000 to May 2005. These
collisions are summarized in Exhibit B. There were 3 collisions reported during
this period within 150 feet of the intersection. Two of these collisions occurred in
2003. The third collision occurred in 2005.
• •
August 4, 2005 Traffic Commission Meeting
Request for Traffic Signal Installation at
Del Mar Avenue and Highcliff Street
Page 2 of 3
Twenty-four hour traffic volumes were obtained for the intersection of Del Mar
Avenue and Highcliff Street. These counts revealed the following:
ADT
•
Northbound
•
Southbound
•
Eastbound
•
Westbound
AM Peak Hour
•
7:30 AM
•
7:45 AM
PM Peak Hour
•
5:15 PM
•
6:30 PM
Del Mar Avenue
16,435
8,318
8,117
1,320
1,386
Hiahcliff Street
755
329
426
71
70
DISCUSSION
Field observations were made of the intersection throughout the day including
school release time. A crossing guard controls the crosswalk on Del Mar Avenue
during school start and release times. The guard was able to cross pedestrians
at gaps in the traffic flow. There were periods when traffic flow was extended
and pedestrians were delayed. This delay, however, was not more than 90
seconds. As is the case at most schools, the traffic congestion associated with
the school pedestrians and parents vehicles "disappeared" 15-minutes after the
release bell.
Well-designed and properly operating 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.
The results of these studies are compared to the guidelines (warrants), which
have been prepared based on nation-wide examinations of a broad cross-section
of locations. When traffic conditions at the study site are found to satisfy these
guidelines, signals are usually recommended. When these justified signals are
installed, traffic safety and overall intersection congestion is improved.
When signals are installed at locations where they are not justified, safety is often
compromised and congestion is increased. When this occurs, the community as
a whole is poorly served by the device.
• •
August 4, 2005 Traffic Commission Meeting
Request for Traffic Signal Installation at -
Del Mar Avenue and Highcliff Street
Page 3 of 3
The 24-hour traffic volumes were compared to the Caltrans guidelines found in
the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Exhibit C depicts how
the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Highcliff Street compares to the MUTCD
guidelines.
Based on the guidelines of the MUTCD, the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and
Highcliff Street does not satisfy any of the 8 warrants for the installation of a
traffic signal. Therefore, the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of
Del Mar Avenue and Highcliff Street is not recommended at this time.
Attachments
Q:yn 1 5606-Rsd TE 2005-06\Traffic Commission Agendas\August-Del Mar & Highcliff-Signal Request.doc
JJL.2612005 11:09 •
W
W
4
a
.
`..3
W
1
wow
I
I
i
.
a
ti
~
a
i
I
I
I N
z
90
I
I
w
•
C
•
I~a
z,-~
~e
w
w
Z
Do-
A U ~
x ~
i~ij1=616%1
JUL.2612005 11:09
T
it CL
s
c a
•
n _
M
o D =
C a
V a v
W `
H
0
O
T
U) .
~o
o
0
~ N
r
y
Sol
CA
a A
0
~
JO
P. O
O
O
5 r-
o
0
H
L
u a
a
Q
r>
g
ca
N
~S s
~d a LW
a~
r
C= a ~
V
• tl ~ OI
E E~
as av~
41
Z
c~ » z ~
i~
S o
•i ~ ~ ugi
~ in w
Q to
CM
_M T
F
N
Cl
T
N
r
0
t
b
~
a
a
a
i
o
p`
0
b
ao
z
w
~
#6471 P.006
a
w
a
e
V w
O
y y z
C v
<
vO to-
in `
w ~ $ v Y o o in
$^.qrr
cix== 9 $
a~
C
s
S
Y
O
v 3
Y ~ ~ ~ w
aw v V (a w
Ex*+BiT
JUL.2612005 11:09 •
MLITCD 2003 California Supplement
#6471 P.007
Page 4C-t
Figure 4Cr101. Tralflc Signal Warrants Worksheet (Shoot 1 of 4)
cALc - a►Tr: ?
DIST CO RTE KPM CHK DATE
me~r Mai- CAu t! Cridoal Approtadi 8peee 4.wa -
k&Mw$C Cracal Approach Spend knih
"cs' -peed of major street bait o IN 4mlh W mph) RURAL. IR)
In bull up area of isolated comm Myof < 10.000 populadon........ ❑
O ~w (U)
WARRANT 1 - Eight Hour Vehicular Volume
Condition A - Minimum Vehicle Volume
100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
80% SATISFIED YES D NO
U R U R
2 or MOM
A e le,
li"A'L.__'' '°'I 42M I( AA%)1 f;~, I ; 124.124 I ZJ ITS I Zt 156 I Zt IZ4
100% SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
30% SATISFIED YES O NO ,15A
Combination of Conditions A A B
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
RECUIREMM IlvA ANT J rIILJFILLED
TWO WARRAMM I. Ur4% b vEHIC%M v*wM9 lte: E3 N6
SATtgF1E0 !ID% Z MiMMILPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
F,xwls%T G (~A)
May 20, 2004
Condition B -interruption of Continuous Traffic
JUL.2612005 11:09
MUTCD 2003 Calitornis Suppltment •
464'11 P.008
Page 4W-4
Figure 4C•101. Tratft S/pnal Warrants Worksh"t (Sheet Z 01 4)
WARRANT 2 - Four Maur Uit ftuiar 11bkom
SATISFIED' YES 0 NO
Record AOUAy VOKU%r voWM for tour hOUr{.
2 or
I EowApproachas-MtW%VM I I X hMII(L314r jtIjIK1
I tepl+, Appro.c M- loner street 1)( 1 1 L6 1241 t$ I'b
'All pkltled p0111411 tall above the turves In MWCD Figure 4C-1 or 4C.2. Yes 0 No
Le.a.r +iAPPoiA s 40"%+ dm% N+irtbo viset6+
WARRANT 2 - Peak Hour P T A or PART H SATISFIED YES O NO
PART A
(All part 1, 2, and 3 below must be sUbflad)
1. The egad delay asperlenced fair ftaft on one rhlnor street approach om*o lad
by a sT ppn .goals or eoc0r.das torn w1:w-horns far • 0ntar>• approa~fi
erM eve bows tOr • two-lane approach: 6M2 Mdl~ * +ed
2. The vokirne on the same minor street approach equob or excsoda 100 vph for
am moving lam or bait or 150 vph for Mo moving lanes: 6t
3. Th. total am cUom vokrns serviced during the hour aouab or exceeds e00
for Intense oweaocf w Ms. four or rmm approaches or 630 vph for krEerss ftm wNh
ttntre vph
appro tIl`"V6
SATISFIED YES 0 NO
Yes o No ffi
Yes O No )6
6;~-Mvw
SATISFIED YES 0 NO
V
2or
HOur
APPROACH LANES One Mo!fitffi
Bosh Approaches - MIW SUW
Hlghesl Approad+aa - lk for finest Y. The piaft pant Ow vehidee per hour on fmW streets (both approaches)
and the conespondkV per hour higher vokow whide nwic r Areal approach
Cw 0lnrrgla+**) W am hpr (any ~O fpAiiva 15 m:kAa period)
e
show ttM--``~-- cut1 rv``es in MU iguru 4C-3 0r 4G-4.
LoWOr `Ft~`b~4:AJ r '7 vfA% on MZ r441r bk'CjP-+
IFx►tl$lT C (Z/6)
May 20, 2004
JUL.26'2005 11:09
•
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement
#6471 P.009
Page 4C.S
Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Shoot 3 of 4)
CALC DATE 7 ~ O
DMT CO RTE KPM CW DATE
Major et: PJL1 He,.- nut - CrMalApprowIN Speed - 41 wph -
PAnor 9' 14 ~.rf,rGGt Criernl Approach Speed kmlh
Critical spoed of maW Owl P 64 WIN (40 mph) AURAL (R)
In bunt up we* of isolated community of < 10.000 population......... ❑
❑ woo NI
WARRANT 4 - Pedestrian VbhwW
(A!t Parts Must Be Satisfied)
VON
ftotrno
PeAesetan vblunsa 167-11511
/tdeowb Cmes ft Gaps
At~ The d 3lence to tM nearest kat6c signal along the major
street b 9MGW then 90m (300 fl) 'r 4010 f,
ANp The new eafDo signal will not seriously dhrupt pro0resalwo
FM flow in tro major street
100'x. SATMIED YES ❑ NO A
Any haw > 190
OR 4 Hours > 100
Yes ❑ ND !4
Yes O No IS
Yes ❑ ue Iff
Yes 10 ND ❑
Yes PL No ❑
WARRANT S - School Crossing
(AM Pacts Must Be Satisfied)
Part A
Cs= M rAme and 1 of Chlldran
such of T" Noun - -
^rr -
Go"
Wailes Chre.+
115
►5'
Mrslter
~ OY s
}ER!
i~o0
tdwotAeeoians
bL
131
Part a
Distance to Nearest Controlled Crossing
w
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 19
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 0
SATISFIED YES J& ND ❑
Is Nearest Controlled Croesinp More Then f OD m (600 ft) way? SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
EM4%51r G [3/4)
May 20, 2004
JUL.2612005 11:09
vb411 Y.ULU
MUTCD 2003 California • lement Page 4C-6
Del MAa►-~lN~ e It ~t
Rore 4C f01. Traffic Signal WarrantsWorkshsot (Shoot 4 of d)
S
WARRANT 6 - Coordinated Signal System
(All Paris Must So Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES Z] NO JO
MNa"RECUREMENTS
DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
FULFILLED
> 300 m (1000 II)
N IZIOD STft-% E m W-b*-m
Yes Q Note
so
onawe w r~e"Wso ery P~^0 vay sno traTeed nce and adiacwt
s+Onw an tar amn VW ~ iar~ epea0 WIN would be bd.
On 2Tray streets wrtwe N#ww=3 de nol P~t~ neoestaq Pt~In and
sp"d co roa PmPow ev" 21= a s
❑
WARRANT 7 - Crash Warrant
)All Pans Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO %
RECOIREAENTS
WAitltW
V
FUl.FrL
ED
Ono W*rwt
tMsrma 1- Mb* we vehloularmAvae
Satlsfed
OR
00%
Wwraan 2 - Oft"WOM d Caew %M TMlft
Yee p No®
Sigrwt Mir Not SotKiSfy Disrupt Pmgms" Tmft Flow
10
❑
Adequaft Tarter of Lase Reese Rerne - Hhw Failed ID Reduce Aeclderrf Fmquaacy
0
10
Aot VAM a 12 Mand Period Susoeplrie for Corr. 4 IrnONlrg " a a SW DINIMP
M*AA M NUMBER OF ACCrDENTS
3orMore y M (Ot/ol/64 Ao D~31lD9)
❑
tff
(All Parts
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 03
nEE~MT ENTERINGVOL)MIES-ALLAPPROACMES FULFILLED
I Du*V Typical VWWMW Peak Flory 15106 VbWW ✓
tooovw++F+r
OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST .1 ST.
Hwy syewn Swvhv as Mw*W Meseom for TWOUP Tmf~c 4eotp
S ~in F ddside Of_Err wft orTrmmv a City- yeAP- - - - -
Appaare as Mayor Aoule an an OIIkW Plan
Any NY joy Rauh OwederWw Met OM Or"fs ❑
The s wwoon ore warrant to not ne6essariy JwAlicalion for a agnw. Osasy. congeolon, awam on or ovw
svidanee of low need for 69901-wary 9019nnreM "jet be showwt
ey, % 13I T C NO
May 20, 2004
JUL.26'2005 11:10
2003 Edition
x
> SM
~ R 400
W Q
U) Q 300
0 2
z g Z) 200
100
W
eprl H.,, v~/t t~~h•~ 5+ 0
Rgure 4G1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour VaNx
a
VVI14 r. V11
1
Page 4C-5
-115
480
300 400 600 700 NO 600 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
R STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
'Note:116 vph approa as the lower dwasloW vduma br a ralnor,~
approach with two or lanes end 80 vph applies a the tower
threshold volume for a mhlor-sbaet approach wi4h ow Jana.
Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehkular Volume (M% Factor)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 kWh OR ABOVE 40 tnph ON MAJOR STREET)
goo
300
to a
W 2110
O~
2~
100
2 OR
1
1
t
+ + 4♦
200 300 400 800 e00 700 800 900 1000
MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
`Nola: 80 vph applies as the lower throshold volume for a mirm-streel
approach with two or more lades and 60 vph applies as 0* lower
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lens.
November 2000 Seer. 4C.04
~)Ct}t~1T C C%~
JUL.2612005 11:10
2003 Edition
40 Dal 1J."', *V r
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
z Soo
soo
W cc +oe
ac &
y W no
Z
~ Q 200
100
Z
W
400 SW 600 700
#6471 P.012
1
I
900 1000 1100 1200 1900 1400 1500 1600 1700 1000
MAJOR EET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
50 vph apptNs a& Vw lower threshold volume for a minor4treet
with two or more lanes and 100 vph ap An as No lower
arreetaid volume for a minor-street approach with one Ism
Page 4C-7-
I
Ffgum 4C4 . Warrant 3, P" k Hour ('M Factor)
(COMMY LESS THAN 10.000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 belh OR ABOVE 40 mpA ON MAM "MET)
4W
Q a. 900
W
~
m
W
Z ow
W 100
Z
300 400 500 000 700 000 900 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 and 76 vph applies as the lover
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
xW^W*er 200? 5WL IC.06
~n~~elr c c6r~)
•
0
ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION
AUGUST 4, 2005
The regular meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by
Chairman Quintanilla at 7:00 p.m., 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 -July 7, 2005
II.
It was moved by Commissioner Matsdorf, seconded by Commissioner Knapp,
and carried unanimously to approve the minutes for July 7, 2005.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None
III. 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:
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.
i
•
Speaking before the Commission was:
Dolly Leong (Property Owner)
7665 Graves Avenue
Rosemead, California 91770
Ms. Leong stated that she has spoken to City staff and does not agree with the findings
of the Traffic Engineer. She does not feel there is adequate parking in front of this
location. Ms. Leong urged the Commission not to make a decision tonight until all the
facts have been re-examined.
Commissioner Knapp stated that she agrees with Ms. Leong and wants to look further
into this before making a decision.
It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Matsdorf, and
carried unanimously to defer this item until staff can look further into it and bring it
back to the October meeting.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT DEL MAR AVENUE AND
HIGHCLIFF STREET
Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki presented the staff report.
Recommendation:
Based on the guidelines of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD), the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and Highcliff Street does not
satisfy any of the 8 warrants for the installation of a traffic signal. Therefore,
the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Del Mar Avenue and
Highcliff Street was not recommended at this time.
Speaking before the Commission was:
Bob Bruesch
President of the Garvey School District Board
7570 Wilmar Place
Rosemead, California 91770
Mr. Bruesch stated that this is a re-occurring problem. They would like a
pedestrian activated crossing light. Del Mar has a 45 mph speed limit, going
north bound, if a car sees that the light is turning yellow, they speed up. He
has seen cars coming through the intersection at a screeching halt and yelling
at the crossing guard as he/she approaches the middle of the street. Mr.
Bruesch stated that Del Mar is being used as a by-pass for the 60 freeway or 10
freeway, and during the hours afterschool and/or rush hour when children are
crossing there is no crossing guard.
Speaking before the Commission was:
Michael Cognet, Assistant Superintendent
Garvey School District
2730 North Del Mar Avenue
Rosemead, California 91770
Mr. Cognet read a letter from the Superintendent stating his reasons for
wanting a traffic signal at Del Mar and Highcliff Street.
Commissioner Knapp stated that a pedestrian activated crossing light is a
much better recommendation than a traffic signal.
Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki's recommendation would be for a full signal,
because of the location.
Assistant City Manager Wagner stated that he received a call from Mrs.
Schmidt, who lives in the area, and is in favor of the traffic signal at this
location.
It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Matsdorf,
and carried unanimously to install a full traffic signal at the intersection of Del
Mar and Highcliff.
0 0
V. STAFF REPORTS
Assistant City Manager Wagner stated that the staff has received 8 bids on the
Public Safety Center at Zapopan Park, and recommend award of bid on
Tuesday.
VI.
Commissioner Matsdorf thanked staff for all their hard work.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was
adjourned at 7:40 p.m.