The URL can be used to link to this page

TC - 08-07-95f ific� oscmcad MAYOR PRO TEM: MARGARET CLARK, COUNCILIAEMBERS: ROBERT W. BRUESCH JAY T. IMPERIAL GARY A. TAYLOR 8838 E. VALLEY BOULEVARD • P.O. BOX 399 ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA 91770 TELEPHONE (818) 288 -6671 TELECOPIER 8183079218 MEMORANDUM TO: Frank G. Tripepi, City Manager FROM: Carl P. Holm, Administrative Aide DATE: August 7, 1995 -SUBJECT: TRAFFIC COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY August 3, 1995 I. The Traffic Commission took the following actions: A. INSTALL TRAFFIC RESTRICTIONS IN ALLEY SOUTH OF GARVEY AVENUE BETWEEN LA PRESA AVENUE AND BARTLETT AVENUE. Mr. Henry Chavez had requested to install speed humps to slow cars speeding through the alley. The Commission voted to recommend installing 11 15 mph" speed limit plus stop signs at each end of the alley. B. INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT MISSION DRIVE AND ENCINITA AVENUE. This was a request from Ms. Joan Mitten (through Mayor Vasquez). This intersection meets the warrants to install a signal. The Commission is recommending to install a signal. C. INSTALL CROSSING GUARDITRAFFIC SIGNAL AT NEW AVENUE AND NEWMARK AVENUE. Bitely Elementary School Principal, Ms Barbara Razo, requested a crosswalk and crossing guard. Staff contacted Monterey Park to discuss the issue. This intersection meets the warrants for a traffic signal. The Commission voted to recommend installing a signal and meanwhile to place a crossing guard at that location. Monterey Park has notified staff that they are "more than willing to pay for half of the cost of the signal ". I am planning to schedule all of these items for the August 22, 1995 City Council meeting. II. Communications from the Commission and the public was presented as follows: 1. Commissioner Larson; raised an issue regarding the chicken factory in Rosemead. Staff informed him we would investigate AGENDA ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION 8838 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA 91770 Regular Meeting August 3, 1995 Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Commisioners Larson, Knapp, Vice - Chairman Alarcon, Chairman Tirre Pledge of Allegiance: Chairman Tirre Invocation: Commissioner Larson I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular meeting of July 6, 1995. II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 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 3 minutes; total time allocated is 15 minutes). III. OLD BUSINESS A. NONE IV. NENV BUSINESS A. INSTALL SPEED HUMPS IN ALLEY SOUTH OF GARVEY AVENUE BETWEEN LA PRESA AVANUE AND BARTLETT AVENUE. This is a Request from Mr. Henry Chavez to reduce speeding in the alley. B. INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT MISSION DRIVE AND ENCIN'ITA AVENUE. A request from Nis. Joan Mitten to install a signal for easier access from Encinita Avenue onto Mission Drive. C. INSTALL CROSSWALK AND CROSSING GUARD ON NEW AVENUE AT NEWMARK AVENUE. A request from Ms. Barbara Razo, Principal of Bitely School, to aid the students attending the school to cross New Avenue. V. STAFF REPORTS VI. COMMISSIONER REPORTS VII. ADJOURNMENT Thursday September 7, 1995 at 7:00 p.m., Rosemead Council Chambers, 8838E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770. Xi ( r ✓C�1 �r(t�( UA[ICL a 1 S zPv A--i uIU",t y� LJa �I ZE . 4,.MAC.. (!!� ele� Z: 60 19 .' 30 c-yc;o li n., i I jj A,r i G�tGC L o / ' s c0.4 11 b 2 � t� s � ►° /�? C�x^l s s ke-4 c.. t Pet . 4-- S S ►1S i ova ( Z ^ Y- a P %ed 4 -0 i 5gw-A 4_ i .,r 4 'a r— d vck bypfe. v 4e- c STAFF REPORT MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: CARL P. HOLM, ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE DATE: JULY 25, 1995 SUBJECT: JULY 6, 1995 COMMISSION MINUTES The minutes have not been completed in time for this agenda due to an unexpected shortage of staff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Traffic Commission continue the July 6 minutes to the regular meeting of September 7, 1995. TRAFFIC COMMISSION A , LARSON TIRRE c z n v o g o v c r z M z r� o °v z i b o r,'riari 5UU vetYicles ye 4 5 Its Y10 COMMISSION DEPUTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER HUMPS IN ALLEY SOUTH OF GARVEY AVENUE AVENUE AND BARTLETT AVENUE from Mr. Henry Chavez, 2733 N. Bartlett the alley described above. Mr. Chavez sinesses fronting Garvey Avenue allow -ear of their businesses. This loading ley and has caused an increase in the alley is approximately 20 feet. There Ley. A drainage gutter exists in the length of the alley between La Presa , is approximately 350 feet. "No Parking i at both entrances to the alley. The ;the alley is 15 mph. consists of the rear entrances to the Avenue. These businesses include ABC ding Corp. and Auley Furniture. °nces on the south side of the alley. and one fronting Bartlett Avenue. itions. In was conducted during business hours. that time. It is estimated that fewer travel in this alley in a 24 -hour period. The current policy of the City is not to install speed humps on public roadways. This policy has been in response to the liability issues associated with the installation of a non - standard traffic control device in a public roadway. TRAFFIC COMMISSION Page 2. The conditions in the alley south of Garvey.Avenue between La Presa Avenue and Bartlett Avenue do not warrant the installation of speed humps. Based on the field review, there were no vehicles traveling at excessive speeds. There is a minor volume of traffic in the alley and it does not appear to be used as a "cut- through" route. However, the installation of "15 mph" speed limit signs is recommended to reinforce the. prima .,facie ,speed. rlimit . of.the alley.. City staff continues to receive requests from residents for speed humps to slow down traffic in their neighborhoods'. ., A written policy regarding speed humps on residential streets should be considered. This will allow staff to immediately address the concern of the resident. The written policy would not prohibit the complaint to be further pursued through the Traffic Commission. There are several agencies in Los policies for the installation neighborhoods. These policies roadway including: Angeles County that have adopted of speed humps in residential consider several aspects of the 1. Roadway classification. 2. Traffic volume. 3. Roadway characteristics. 4. Accident history. 5. Recorded speed data. Staff is.requesting the Traffic Commission consider directing staff to develop a written policy on the installation of speed humps. Based on this study, the installation of speed humps in the alley south of Garvey Avenue between La Presa Avenue and Bartlett Avenue is not recommended. The installation of "15 mph" speed limit signs is recommended on the existing sign posts at the entrances to the alley. It is also recommended that staff be directed to develop a written policy, to be considered at a future meeting, for the installation of speed humps on residential roadways. Attachment JI: RSDALLEY NOT To SCALE G4�v�Y AV. 7 � ALt_Ey �Zo � 2 b �� d w �P�� v EK. "Nd PARKW6 EK. "NO PgRKWG W ALLEY` IU ALLEy" PROP, pkop. SPEED LIM %T 15" LIMIT 15" CITY OF ROSEMEAD m C COMMISSION DEPUTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER TIRRE IC SIGNAL AT MISSION DRIVE AND d from Ms. Joan Mitten, 9331 E. Marshall .on of a traffic signal at Mission Drive litten is concerned for left -turn traffic Mission Drive. L iNl i M Z 0 w\ U) H l*1 foot wide north /south collector street. tffic in each direction separated by a in the vicinity of Mission Drive. strolled at its intersection with Mission k exists on the north leg of Encinita Encinita Avenue is signalized at Lower deed limit on Encinita Avenue is 30 mph. g' • u Z 0 11 ro N oot wide east /west secondary arterial lanes of traffic in each direction low centerline. An eastbound dedicated Mission Drive for access onto Encinita signalized at Valley Boulevard and at osted speed limit on Mission Drive is 40 conditions. � tory was reviewed from January 1, 1992 at the intersection of Mission Drive at n accidents were reported at this ients are depicted in Figure 2. TRAFFIC COMMISSION Page 2. A 24 -hour traffic volume count :was conducted at the intersection. These counts identified the traffic on the approaches to the intersection. The traffic volume data indicated the following: Approach 24 -hour Volume Peak Hour Volume Southbound 2,716 229 (6 pm) Eastbound 6,685 735 (5 pm) Westbound 6.181 382 (3 pm) Total 15,512 - -- 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 Caltrans' Traffic Signal Warrants, attached, were analyzed with the data collected at the intersection of Mission Drive and Encinita Avenue. The traffic volume data satisfies the Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant, theiInterruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant, the Four Hour Volume Warrant and the Peak Hour Volume Warrant. The reported accident history also satisfies part of the Accident Experience Warrant. ! The satisfaction of 5 of the 11 warrants indicates a need for traffic signal control at the intersection. I RECOMMENDATION Based on this analysis, the installation of a traffic signal at Mission Drive and Encinita Avenue is recommended to improve traffic safety and overall intersection congestion. Attachments JI: RSDMISEN I I 1 P I I 1� I No SGO\e �i cd CO rn � b � o •, bW o ♦, U CO C0 � q P In �i a •� W a • o z co ,09 y < ,4l ,U ,OL ,ll ,4l w O sW J g w d O ; U COLLISON DIAGRAM LOCATION: - Encio;+c. Av/ 7A:t STovt Dr H v 2 a/26�9A� $tjOgH — 12�1il P — 61Ke BI�J 9�J IZ;oo?M OH 12:IOPH * 2I25195 Zt45PM .. RoLJ-A 9 /7 42 iIOOPH RoLS -q Z/ZLA!) 9C Rpw M�Sgior.� DR -k 5 /ZStEi3 1 t19 PM Row FIGURE z OPD- DRIVER PHYSICAL DEFECT OV- DEFECTIVE VEHICLE FTC- FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE HBO -HAD BEEN DRINKING H -R -HIT AND RUN ILC- IMPROPER LANE CHANGE IP- IMPROPER PASSING IT- IMPROPER TURN RS -RAN STOP SIGN OR SIGNAL ROW -RIGHT OF WAYKA• AUTO SPD- SPEEDING P. PED WS -WRONG SIDE OF STREET * - PARTY AT FA" LT L -LIGHT D -DARK nu - n1uFC tkA 7Z4l20 LEGEND VEH. MOVING AHEAD HEAD -ON VEH. BACKING UP �— SIDE SWIPE HEAD -ON PEDESTRIAN SIDE SWIPE REAR END PARKED VEHICLE REAR ENO FIXED OBJECT Y RIGHT ANGLE PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY LEFT TURN INJURY ACCIDENT /�'- \�.iya OUT OF CONTROL .�-- VEHICLE TURNED OVER FATAL ACCIDENT LJ V OPD- DRIVER PHYSICAL DEFECT OV- DEFECTIVE VEHICLE FTC- FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE HBO -HAD BEEN DRINKING H -R -HIT AND RUN ILC- IMPROPER LANE CHANGE IP- IMPROPER PASSING IT- IMPROPER TURN RS -RAN STOP SIGN OR SIGNAL ROW -RIGHT OF WAYKA• AUTO SPD- SPEEDING P. PED WS -WRONG SIDE OF STREET * - PARTY AT FA" LT L -LIGHT D -DARK nu - n1uFC tkA 7Z4l20 9-6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1 -1992 Figure 9 -1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC 3. - T �g L DATE L DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE Major St: M l-Y1tO1n 17f 2V a Critical Approach Speed 4-1 mph ' Minor St: CytCly i4 A \Jev1up Critical Approach Speed mph Critical speed of major street traffic >_ 40 mph — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 1 RURAL (R) In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. — — — — — — Cl J ❑ URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES C'NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES Il NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U I R APPROACH 1 2 or more ,�R% �� /, ;-6 /o 1 // Both Appr hs. 500 350 600 420 733 IC4C 757 891 1111 ID76 74q 561 Major Street (400) (280) (480) 336 Highest Apprch. 150 05 200 140 1� ZD4 175 170 Z15 ZZ 161 Zt5 Minor Street (120) (84 (160) (112) WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES ['NO ❑ Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more 80% SATISFIED YES NO ❑ for each of any four hours or is 1 g0 or more during any one MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS hour; AEQ e-� wo (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street trat- Yes No ET U R U I R A ; 1 ' � c '�� / APPROACH 1 2 Or more �Yl � \ .�� our � LANES \� The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive Yes ❑ No Both AOprrhs. Mater sweet '50 (600) 525 (420) goo (720) 630 504 733 10 757 131 I I I 11 I076 74`1 56 Wghest Apprch 75 53 100 70 180 204 175 170 Z15 2L`1 187 ZI Minor stroot (hot (4z (sot (561 WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more [if for each of any four hours or is 1 g0 or more during any one Yes ❑ No hour; AEQ e-� wo There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street trat- Yes No ET tic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross; ALU yl The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater Yes No ❑ than 300 feet: 6LU The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive Yes ❑ No (� traffic flow on the major street. 0 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 9-7 1.7992 Figure 9 -2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Mt ,,l, Dr/ Enc A\j WARRANT 4 - School Crossings Not Applicable _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement See School Crossings Warrant Sheet ❑ SATISFIED YES . 0 NO C' MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 1000 FT. N 000 ft. S n1 /q ft, E 00 ft, W I6C0 ft. YES ❑ NO [✓r ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING & SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — ON 2 WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATCONING AND ❑ a SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM OF WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 5 REQUIREMENTS WARRANT ,/ FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — OF YES Q NO ❑ 80 WARRANT 2 INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ❑ Q ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ❑ Q ACC WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR ? $500 DAMAGE ______________________ _______________ MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE rive (S) Z�I Ig3' 3 /'JI /44 (14 mo.�tk� WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑� MINIMUM VOLUME / FULFILLED REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES ALL APPROACHES J (5 -6 PN DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR 1326 VEH.'HR 1000 VEHiHR _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS. OF A SAT AND,OR SUN VEH!HR YES aNOD CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST MINOR ST HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC W� - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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 ❑ 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 assigmmnent must be shown. 9 _8' TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual t -1997 Figure 9 -3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Mt tom Dr /EY1cioI i0. AV WARRANT a - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES [D' NO ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT J FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME S6I Highest Approaches . Minor Streel 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC ✓ SATISFIED YES 0 NO ❑ BO% 21 5 WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED YES E�f NO ❑ 2 or \Qt `/ ' 0 Z �' t 2� 7. �oF H lino mnro . (n 1,: Hour Both Approaches . Major Street �•• - 11 '--' ✓ _ It74a It I I 1076 S6I Highest Approaches . Minor Streel ✓ 11 . Zo. 1 II ' Z I5 ZZq 21 5 * 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) 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 live vehicle-hours for a two -lane approach: AND 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 II Cesi: n qi� YES [a NO ❑ , J The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with tour or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES NO ❑ WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED YES ED NO ❑ 2 et �.00Q lino mnro Hour H [vacii Laren I E3otn Approaches � Mayor Street �•• - 11 '--' ✓ _ - 1 11 Hignest Aooroacnes Minor St 11 ✓ 1 II Z15 * 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. 9 -12 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1.1991 Figure 9 -7 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) M15s�o� Dr /Eno- 4-e. Av 400 2 a = 300 �U w w Q 0 I... a N a Q a 200 Ow z� J 0 > = 100 0 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH �Q1 � q e lo4o till 1076 561 Zoo Z(5 ZZ9 Z15 * 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. 9 -14 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual Figure 9 -9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 1 /� I O !> IEYV-1 n, lu Al -11 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) x IL > 400 x U w Q w ¢ 300 ¢ a � a ,n a Cr w z D 200 J O > 0 100 S m 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) 300 .. 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH 1200 1300 Q W15 * 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. 0 l i i l KNAPP I I I IC COMMISSION DEPUTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER TIRRE ! I , PARK A ND CROSSING GUARD ON been received from Ms. Barbara Razo, School. Ms. Razo is requesting the and for students crossing New Avenue at ates 60 to 70 students live west of New cross this street to access the school. eceived from Ms. Susan Aguilar, 303 S. is also requesting additional traffic n of New Avenue and Newmark Avenue. Her ALARCON M to 2:25 PM. Students generally cross TRAFFIC COMMISSION e from 7:45 - 8:30 AM and from 2:15 - hool is on its summer vacation. C> W north /south secondary arterial highway onterey Park. There is one lade of parated by a single yellow skip stripe. ides of the street except during street limit is 35 mph. o y wide east /west roadway entirely within M N The roadway is STOP controlled at its Z A white crosswalk exists on the west z � ro o ed on Fern Avenue east of New Avenue. ditions in the vicinity of New Avenue TRAFFIC COMMISSION Page 2. DATA A 24 -hour traffic volume count was conducted at the intersection. These counts identified the traffic on the approaches to the intersection. The traffic volume data indicated the following: i' Northbound 4,500 442 (8 am) Southbound '7,424 651 (6 pm) Eastbound 3.319 287 (6 pm) Total 15,243 - -- The reported accident history was reviewed from January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1994 at the intersection of New Avenue and Newmark Avenue. Four accidents, all occurring in 1993, were reported at this intersection. These accidents are summarized below: Description Date Time Eastbound vehicle turning left 5/26/93 10:15 am broadsided a northbound vehicle proceeding straight (Right -of -way Auto). Eastbound vehicle turning left 3/26/93 7 :00 pm broadsided a southbound vehicle proceeding straight (Right -of -way Auto). Eastbound vehicle turning left 11/11/93 6:40 pm broadsided a northbound vehicle turning left (Right -of -way Auto). Eastbound vehicle turning left 11/12/93 6 :45 pm broadsided a southbound vehicle proceeding straight (Right -of -way Auto). Pedestrian counts were taken at the intersection of New Avenue and Newmark Avenue during the morning and afternoon periods when children travel to and from school. These pedestrian counts are summarized in Figure 2. Students crossing New Avenue at Newmark Avenue appear to travel north to Egley Avenue to access the school. Few students, if any, travel south on New Avenue to Fern Avenue. Page 3. HISTORY The City boundary line with the City of Monterey Park runs through the intersection of New Avenue and Newmark Avenue. As such, we contacted the City of Monterey Park to discuss the request for additional traffic controls at this location. Mr. Steve Hilton, Traffic Engineer for the City of Monterey Park, was contacted. Mr. Hilton indicated that Monterey Park investigated the intersection a few years ago and, at that time, it was recommended by their traffic consultant to install a traffic signal. A copy of this report is attached. After this report was approved, the City of Rosemead was contacted for concurrence regarding the installation of a traffic signal. It appears that there was some disagreement with the installation and the item was not further pursued. DISCUSSION Field review of the intersection of New Avenue and Newmark Avenue was made during the periods when students were travelling to and from school. Students cross in varying locations in the vicinity of New Avenue and Newmark Avenue. They may continue walking along New Avenue until gaps are available in traffic and then cross wherever they may be at the time. The Caltrans Traffic Manual provides guidelines for the assignment of crossing guards to a location. These guidelines are summarized below: The assignment of an adult crossing guard is desirable when at least 40 elementary school pedestrians for each of any two hours (not necessarily consecutive) daily use the crossing while going to or from school. Adult crossing guards may be used under the following conditions; At uncontrolled crossings where there is no alternate controlled crossing within 600 feet; and In urban areas where the vehicular traffic volume exceeds 350 during each of any two hours (not necessarily consecutive) in which 40 or more school pedestrians cross daily while going to or from school. The pedestrian counts crossing New Avenue and Newmark Avenue is 60 from 7:45 - 8:45 AM and 87 from 2:15 - 3:15 PM. This meets the pedestrian volume guideline for a crossing guard. Page 4. The nearest controlled crossing is at the intersection of New Avenue at Garvey Avenue. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal and is approximately 1,000 feet north of the subject intersection. This meets the guideline of a controlled crossing farther than 600 feet. The traffic volumes on New Avenue during the two hours when children are travelling to or from school correspond to 7 :45 - 8 :45 AM and 2:15 - 3:15 PM. During these hours, the traffic volume exceeds the 350 per hour required to meet the traffic volume guideline. Discussions with Mr. Hilton indicated the City of Monterey Park would not be in favor of the installation of a crosswalk and crossing guard without a traffic signal or STOP sign. Therefore, traffic.volume counts were reviewed and compared to the Caltrans' Traffic Signal Warrants. The Caltrans' Traffic Signal Warrants, attached were analyzed with the data collected at the intersection of New Avenue and Newmark Avenue. The traffic volume data satisfies the Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant, the Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant, the Combination of Warrants, the Four Hour Volume Warrant, the School Protection Warrant and the Peak Hour Volume Warrant. The reported accident history is very close to satisfying the Accident Experience Warrant (4 reported accidents, 5 to satisfy the warrant). The satisfaction of 6 of the 11 warrants indicates a need for traffic signal control at the intersection. Mr. Hilton has been contacted regarding the satisfaction of traffic signal warrants at the intersection of New Avenue and Newmark Avenue, Mr, Hilton indicated the location may require an interim measure until the installation occurs. We discussed the assignment of a crossing guard to the intersection and agreed this would be the appropriate interim measure. Based.on this analysis, the installation of a traffic signal at New Avenue and Newmark Avenue is recommended to improve traffic safety and overall intersection traffic flow. However, due to time required to coordinate this installation with the City of Monterey Park, it is recommended that a crossing guard be assigned to this location during the regular school session. This crossing guard will be an interim measure to the traffic signal installation and will be reevaluated at the time of the installation. Attachments .J I : RSDNEW GARVEY SCHOOL DISTRICT Arlene BilelF Scat" • 7501 L Fire Avtnue, Roscmead, CA. 9 sr ( 918) 307.331: - FAX `Jumbn (lit) 7.1964 Barbara Razo, Principal l ,. rr ; z tJ:c: ( ,1 1 &. 80al) OF EDUCATION Loretta 0onz21ea Ween Oreen David LAu John Nunez Jemn Smith SUPERINTENDENT Anita 1_ Su „o. Ph D. I � I r, January 18, 1995 Dear Mr. Holm, I am writing this letter as principal of Arlene Bitely School in the city of Rosemead to request consideration for a crossing guard position at the corner of New Avenue and Newmark. I spoke to you during the week of January 9, 1995 concerning this situation and you requested a letter with pertinent specifics. We are in the Garvey School District and our school is within the city of Rosemead. However, we have between 60 and 70 students attending our school who reside in the city of Monterey Park. The majority of these students cross at the corner of New Avenue, and Newmark. There is no sig- nal, step sign, or even crosswalk markings at this corner. The traffic on New Avenue is very heavy, especially in the morning hours. Our school hours are from 8:30 a.m. - 2:25 p.m. which means students are crossing from 7:45 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. We ar- concerned that there may be an acci- dent involving our students. Th is also a hazard for the students of the Garvey Intermediate School. Students from our school who reside in Monterey Park as well as students from Hillcrest and Monterey Vista Schools cross at this crossing daily, coming to and fro,, school. These older students, grades 7 and 8, are no more careful than our elementary age students when cross- ing at this corner. While I realize that New Avenue at this point is the dividing line between Rosemead and Monterey Park, I feel the number of youngsters cross- ing and the amount of traffic on this street warrants consideration of assistance at this corner. Please let me know what the chances are of obtaining a crossing guard for our school. . Sincerely, l V Barbara Razo, Principal Arlene Bitelv School rc.lC ::•L - ;. a•a-'m,'V: osmm m 9- 1"I"'Cam SL:�.=< ^v. �l' / -? 1 / �L1 %� C?C % %/UC�C.e.0 .�•t c� "f l2 t 2 � -� C)�, �h � l �!, C (�) C s<f ti C 0 v 4 F d-a e el o qs sfr?C CT ac ma c: c� �.{ -f- C L, Lq, c- N Eec � c IL N- -c , �� r F_ CA�� dGti 4 E0 c- -) slaw dc c `` .ti t'-: c r:Vtf� I k-�h� rt I �' ti LI I LL_ C.-u II,, �I•`LE�- Cl CAS S c� �� hs Cl i!-7 5 I Be el Ttt C CIZL- TtIC l5z) � 1I x „11 28' NEWMARK STI I 7 NQ� COMMERCIAL PARKING VEHICLES THURSDAY OVER 6000 Ibs _ BAM-12NOON GROSS y SIRED SWEEPING PROHIBITED --J L WHITE ........... 0 CROSSWALK 04 ................ . . ....... ...... I" Y 0 04 j x X o . .. ...... STOP F.77, I 3KING NEWMARK AVE FEW —AVE l ARKING WEDNESDAY WEDNESDAY 8AM-12NOON NEWMARK AVE SRJET SWEEPING STREET SWEEPING PARKI ' MONDAY AR 1 0 aAM 2N ON ST SVEPING LEGEND EXISTING SIGN EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT FERN AVE 'EXISTING LUMINAIRE EXISTING RED CURB X EXISTING DRIVEWAY 28' 28' in NEW AVENUE AND NEWMARK AVENUE FIGURE L O AN AN ASSOCIATES EXISTING CONDITIONS ENGWEERS • PLANNERS I fn I NO PARKING WEDNESDAY SAM-12NOON S911 SWEEPING R. X NO SCALE L 28' NEWMARK STI I 7 NQ� COMMERCIAL PARKING VEHICLES THURSDAY OVER 6000 Ibs _ BAM-12NOON GROSS y SIRED SWEEPING PROHIBITED --J L WHITE ........... 0 CROSSWALK 04 ................ . . ....... ...... I" Y 0 04 j x X o . .. ...... STOP F.77, I 3KING NEWMARK AVE FEW —AVE l ARKING WEDNESDAY WEDNESDAY 8AM-12NOON NEWMARK AVE SRJET SWEEPING STREET SWEEPING PARKI ' MONDAY AR 1 0 aAM 2N ON ST SVEPING LEGEND EXISTING SIGN EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT FERN AVE 'EXISTING LUMINAIRE EXISTING RED CURB X EXISTING DRIVEWAY 28' 28' in NEW AVENUE AND NEWMARK AVENUE FIGURE L O AN AN ASSOCIATES EXISTING CONDITIONS ENGWEERS • PLANNERS I fn I PEDESTRIAN COUNTS North Leg South Leg West Leg Time Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child From: 7:45 am 2 13 1 21 0 4 To: 8:00 am From: 8:00 am 1 4 2 12 1 3 To: 8:15 am From: 8:15 am 2 5 1 3 1 2 To: 8:30 am From: 8:30 am 2 2 3 0 0 1 To: 8:45 am Total From: 7:45 am 7 24 7 36 2 10 To: 8:45 am From: 2:15 pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 To: 2:30 pm From: 2:30 pm 1 23 2 20 1 7 To: 2: 45 pm From: 2:45 pm 0 15 3 19 0 5 To: 3:00 pm From: 3:00 pm 0 7 0 3 0 5 To: 3:15 pm Total From: 2:15 pm 1 45 5 42 1 17 To: 3:15 pm E of Rosemead �7 WLWAN ASSOCIATES VV ENOWM AND P HERS Pedestrian Counts New Avenue at Newmark Avenue FIGURE 2 MONT.PRRK COMM DEV DEPT. 0103071402 CITY OF MONTEREY PARK INTEROFFICE MEMO Date December I, 1988 TO TRAFFIC COMMITTEE FROM JERRY CRABILL, CONSULTING TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUBJECT STOP SIGN AT NEW AND NEWMARK P.02 The subject in has been undergoing evaluation for several months. Inasmuch as the presence of nearby curb parking has previously created undesirable sight distance conditions, red zones were installed in an effort to improve sight distance. Although the red zones did improve sight distance to a certain extent (and with it a moderate improvement to public safety), it is the conclusion of staff that the intersection would be better served if it were under traffic signal control. To justify signal installation, traffic counts were obtained and the results indicate that current traffic volumes satisfy Stat e warrant t criteria. we anticipate that at least one year will be required to the both budget the signal for the next y a it is design /construction process. On that basis, recommended that the Traffic Committee approve not only the signal but also an interim measure which involves the installation of a three -way stop. It is noted that the stop sign improvement is also justified based on the satisfaction of State warrants. These warrants not only discuss traffic volume requirements, but also provides for use of a stop sign if a traffic signal is justified and planned to be constructed. Since the City of Rosemead will b involved i this the a letter will be sent to the appropriate approval othehconcurrence Committee ofRosemead ,baeresoluti n will be Following presented st the City subject intersection. o a Council for three -way COM! N A 10 : the Traffic Committee support the It is recommended that installation of the stop sign immediately which will be followed as soon as possible by the construction of a signal. JLC:agh 9 -6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1.1992 Figure 9 -1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC J =rct ,nK i DATE 2/I'1L DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE Major St: A)e IP✓ 1 "P Critical Approach Speed mph' Minor St: Critical Approach Speed mph Critical speed of major street traffic > 40 mph — — — — — — — — — — — — — or 1 RURAL (R) In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. — — — — — — — — — 0a J ❑ URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES Q NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES E' NO ❑ _ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FULFILLED (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) Gj U I R U I R hour; QL1Q AP 1 2 Of more \CJ� l\ ��lo �. .�� Hour SCH 13 fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross; AUD 9) /IV ey }; —A A Both Apprrhs- Major Street 500 (400) 350 280 6001 (480) 420 (336) e65 657 63C; 789 - 746 85D 1 951 876 traffic flow on the major street. Highest Apprch. 150 105 200 1 140 26 t�l IC i96 203 2 ZE "] �.� Minor Street (120) (84 (160) (112) WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES I NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) R 2 APPROACH U \�� \\ � � � � �HOUr 1 or more . p� \ 0 • LANES B Botn App rchs. Malor sveoi 750 (600) 525 420 900 (720) 630 50a P.�S b5l 63C 789 - 74L 85'; 951 B76 Highest Apprch .. -- -.-. - - -. 75 1C 1 53 'Al , 100 (AM 70 ,u, Z6� l l 1 l(� 1 1 9 1- Zr Z.JJ Z8 1 �Ci WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 0 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 hour; QL1Q There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf- Yes ❑ No 13 fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross; AUD ey }; —A A The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater Yes No ❑ than 300 feet: 4,_N The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive Yes 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. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-7 .1992 Figure 9 -2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS New Av/MeWMark Av WARRANT 4 - School Crossings Not Applicable _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ❑ See School Crossings Warrant Sheet WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES ❑ NO Cr MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS . DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 1000 FT. N 1000 R, S ft, E -- ft, W ft. YES NO ❑ ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO 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 ❑ WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES ❑ NO D" REQUIREMENTS WARRANT FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ✓ SATISFIED _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 80% OR WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC ✓ YES NO ❑ SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW 0 ❑� ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY r ❑ U ACC WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR & INVOLVING INJURY OR ? S500 DAMAGE _______________ ______________________________ MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE 4- Cl I- 1-4 L 1 tZ -31 - 1'5 ❑ ❑w WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES ❑ NO C✓ �REOU REMENT I ENTERING VOLUMES -ALL APPROACHES ./ FULFILLED C 6p...) DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR 1 Z 3p VEH HR 1000 VEH,HR _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS, OF A SAT AND,OR SUN VEH,HR YES a NO ❑ CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES I 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 ❑ 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 assigmmnent must be shown. 9-8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual t -1991 Figure 9 -3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Ktu> AJ/NewyKar L AV WARRANT a - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES if NO ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT 11 6(,5 - FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME J:YE: Highest Approaches - Minor St reet 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC SATISFI ED ❑ NO ❑ 80 °,6 I ZAb H guest Aooroacnes Minor St ✓ WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED YES NO ❑ Both Approaches Major Street ✓ 11 6(,5 - � j '850 951 076 Highest Approaches - Minor St reet ✓ Zb-7 I Z53 I ZE �7 I ZAb ' Refer to Figure 9 -6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 -7 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. r WARRANT 10 -Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) I. 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: AND YES ❑ NO Q C5f-� , vic.�CGI 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 ff NO ❑ -3. The total entering volurne 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 ED NO ❑ WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED YES ID NO ❑ 2 or n— mnra ( _JJ k- / Hour 'EE - '✓ � j 6oyi Aooroacres Major Street H guest Aooroacnes Minor St ✓ II 2�� I i * 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. 9 -12 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1.,99, Figure 9 -7 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) Nc,z AvIA)twmark A\] E S CL = 300 L U w w a. CL �a cc a 200 0w z;E J 0 > = 100 I7 C 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 1 I I 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 L�NOR) OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE (MINOR) 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH * NOTE: 865 850 951 876 26l I Z53 Z07 Z6b 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. 9 -14 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual Figure 9 -9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) Ma,,.) A\j /mewyv Av -m 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) o_ > 400 U I- Q w 300 ca �- a (n Q cc w 02200 J O > 0 100 2 0 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) 0 L- 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH 1200 1300 6 951 28� ' 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. ,. g -io TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1 -1992 000000� Figure 9 -5 SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS _ CALC , =arn kr DATE 'Vi DIST Co RTE PM CHK DATE Major St: t�p rJ A\J, -y UC Critical Approach Speed mph Minor St: NeL,6wta k Critical Approach Speed mph Critical speed of major street traffic ? 40 mph — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ` RURAL R In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. — — — — — — — — — — URBAN (U) FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) Minimum Requirements / ewoT n 1 11 II I R Vehicle Volume Eacn of 2 hours 200 140 Qfj¢. j y School Age Pedestrians Each of 11 40 40 1 Crossing Street 2 hours 100 70 6p 81 SATISFIED YES ❑ NO i' / 1 j SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ AND PART B Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 35 mph SATISFIED YES ❑ NO [� AND PART C Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) y Minimum Requrements gA nAMT n U R -r: ' SATISFIED YES IJ NO ❑ a 6 Vehicle Volume S00 350 Qfj¢. j y rs 2 hou Each of 100 70 6p 81 School Age Pedestrians 2 hours Crossing Street or 500 350 per day SATISFIED YES [D NO ❑ AND PART 8 Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SATISFIED YES [a NO ❑ C l