The URL can be used to link to this page

TC - 12-05-96AGENDA ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION 8838 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA 91770 Regular Meeting DECEMBER 5. 1996 Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Commissioners Larson, Ruiz, Tirre, Quintanilla, Vice - Chairperson Knapp, Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Tine Invocation: Commissioner Ruiz I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 7, 1996 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. REQUEST FOR GREEN CURB ON GARVEY AVENUE EAST OF DEQUINE AVENUE - This item was continued from the last meeting to provide the Traffic Commission with several alternatives to resolve the situation. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. CROSSING GUARDS AT NEW AVENUE /NEWMARK AVENUE AND MISSION DRIVE /NEWBY AVENUE - This item analyzes the location and need for the crossing guards at these locations with the installation of traffic signals at New Avenue /Newmark Avenue and Mission Drive /Encinita Avenue. V. STAFF REPORTS A. SIGNAL TIMING - ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND VALLEY BOULEVARD This item is a complaint regarding the short signal timing on Valley Boulevard at Rosemead Boulevard B GARVEY AVENUE WEST OF SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD - This item is a question regarding northbound vehicles turning right from Diamond Square blocking through traffic. VI. COMMISSIONER REPORTS VII. ADJOURNMENT Thursday, January 2, 1997 at 7:00 p.m., Rosemead Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770 ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7. 1996 A regular meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Vice - Chairperson Knapp, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead. ROLL CALL Present: Vice - Chairperson Knapp Commissioners Tirre, Larson, Ruiz Ex Officio: Administrative Aide: Brad Johnson Acting Deputy Traffic Engineer: Chris Turnbull CALL TO ORDER The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice - Chairperson Knapp The Invocation was delivered by Commissioner Tirre I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Tirre, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Commission minutes for October 3, 1996. II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None III. OLD BUSINESS - None IV. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR LEFT -TURN PHASING ON WALNUT GROVE AVENUE AND MISSION DRIVE This request came from the City Manager's office for the installation of left -turn signal phasing on Walnut Grove Avenue at Mission Drive. Acting Deputy Traffic Engineer Turnbull presented the staff report. An evaluation of the request to provide separate left -turn signal phasing for the Walnut Grove Avenue approaches at the intersection of Mission Drive intersection has been conducted. The evaluation demonstrated that the left turn traffic signal guidelines, as established by Caltrans, have not been met, and therefore, separate left turn signal phasing is not recommended. However, an increase in the "all red" clearance interval for Walnut Grove is recommended as a remedial measure. Commissioner Ruiz asked if any of the accidents had fatalities. Acting Deputy Traffic Engineer Turnbull stated that there were injuries, but none were fatal. It was moved by Commissioner Tirre, seconded by Commissioner Larson and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation. B. REQUEST FOR GREEN CURB ON GARVEY AVENUE EAST OF DEQUINE AVENUE This request came from the owners of Wienerschnitzel and Garvey Equipment Company to review parking conditions in front of the store as it relates to the recent opening of the Alhambra School District Southeast Adult Center School. Acting Deputy Traffic Engineer Turnbull presented the staff report. Page 1 RECOMMENDATION V VI. VII The installation of additional intersection of Mission Drive at this time. traffic controls at the and Earle Avenue is not recommended It was moved by Commissioner Tirre, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation. STAFF REPORTS A. HELLMAN- LAFAYETTE RED CURB REVIEW This request came from Mr. Bernard Ancheta of 8043 Hellman Avenue to review the need for red curb in front of his house installed recently as a result of previous requests and evaluations. Acting Deputy Traffic Engineer Turnbull presented the staff report and concluded that the original recommendation will stand as is. Administrative Aide Johnson stated that the City Council has conducted interviews for the opening on the Traffic Commission, and a new Commissioner should be on board in the month of December. Administrative Aide Johnson thanked Chris Turnbull for his hardwork during Joanne Itagaki's absence. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Larson stated that there is some shrubbery that is in need of trimming, located at the shopping center across the street, near the mail boxes. Commissioner Ruiz stated that at the north /east and north /west corner of Ellis Lane and Olney, there are a lot of bushes that prohibit visibility. Sheriff's Report - There are three (3) motorcycle officers giving out citations. For the month of October there were a total of 2700 citations issued, of the 2700 citations, 1057 citations were issued by the motorcycle officers. There will be D.U.I Check Points set -up for the months ahead. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:47 p.m. The next meeting will take place on December 5, 1996. There were 5 people in the audience. Page 3 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI n � DEPUTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1996 RE: REQUEST FOR GREEN CURB ON GARVEY AVENUE EAST OF DEQUINE AVENUE BACKGROUND This item was discussed at the November 7, 1996 Traffic Commission meeting. A copy of the report is attached. The Commission was concerned with the enforceability of the "20 Minute" green curb requested by the owner of Wienerschnitzel. In addition, there were concerns of visibility needs when exiting the driveway when a vehicle is parked in this location. The specific needs of Garvey Equipment were also a concern. DISCUSSION The parking conditions in the study area have not changed since last month's report. Staff did speak with Ms. Trina Panaqua of Garvey Equipment Company. Ms. Panaqua wanted to reiterate to the Commission that Garvey Equipment Company needs to have the on street parking in front of their business available for their customers. Because of the limited on street parking, most of their employees are parking on -site, reducing the number of available on -site spaces for customers. However, some customers are not able to park on -site due to the large size of their vehicles and /or the trailers they pull. Ms. Panaqua relayed that Garvey Equipment Company would prefer a 20 minute green curb over a yellow curb. Garvey Equipment Company feels the yellow curb would be more restrictive for their customers. The 20 minute green curb would allow enough parking time for the majority of their customers and provide curb space for their deliveries. At the request of the Traffic Commission, several alternatives have been identified for consideration. Page 2 Alternative 1 - Retain existing conditions This alternative would retain existing parking restrictions on Garvey Avenue east of Dequine Avenue. This would include the street sweeping and 2 hour parking restrictions. Alternative 2 - Install Green Curb Alternative 2 is the staff recommendation made at the November 7, 1996, Traffic Commission meeting. This would install green curb in front of Wienerschnitzel, Armstrong Auto Service, and Garvey Equipment. The total green curb (and driveway) length is approximately 150 feet. Alternative 3 - Install Red Curb at Wienerschnitzel Alternative 3 would install red curb in front of the Wienerschnitzel restaurant and keep the remaining curb unmarked. The unmarked curb would fall under the existing parking restrictions. The installation of red curb is not needed for visibility purposes. The red curb would provide ease of access for eastbound vehicles entering the restaurant's parking lot. Wienerschnitzel is not in favor of eliminating this parking space. They are requesting the green curb for their "stop and go" customers. Alternative 4 - Install Yellow Curb at Garvey Equipment This alternative would install yellow loading /unloading zone in front of Garvey Equipment and keep the remaining curb unmarked. The unmarked curb would fall under the existing parking restrictions. As discussed previously, Garvey Equipment Company is not in favor of a yellow curb in front of their business. They need the on street parking for all of their customers and deliveries. RECOMMENDATION Due to the alternatives requested by the Commission, staff has not made a recommendation on this issue. Attachment JI: RSD\GARGRN n TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM CHRIS TURNBULL ACTING DEPUTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE: OCTOBER 29,1996 RE: REQUEST FOR GREEN CURB ON GARVEY AVENUE EAST DEQUINE AVENUE REQUEST A request was received by the City Council from Kwok H. Yeung, owner of Wienerschnitzel, to paint the curb green with a "20 MIN PARKING' stencil for the space in front of the establishment. An additional request was received from Garvey Equipment for similar measures. The request indicated parking problems due to the newly opened Southeast Adult Center school, where students are parking in front of adjacent businesses for extended periods of time. The request is attached for reference. CONDITIONS Garvey Avenue is a 74 feet wide with two lanes of traffic in each direction separated by a 10 feet wide raised landscaped median. The posted speed limit on Garvey Avenue is 35 mph. On street parking is limited to two hours from 7 A.M. to 6 P.M. except for Sundays and Holidays. Dequine Avenue is a 30 -foot wide roadway with no striping. The prima facie speed limit is 25 mph. Dequine Avenue is stop controlled at its intersection with Garvey Avenue. Figure 1 depicts existing conditions DISCUSSION A field review of the area was completed and revealed that on street parking in this area is being used by vehicles for extended periods of time. Most likely, the on street parking is being used by students of the Southeast Adult Center school, because one of the two on -site parking areas was gated and the other area was under utilized. On street parking along Dequine Avenue was being fully utilized. As part of the Cities approval of the school, much consideration was given to parking conditions and requirements within the area. This is partly the reason the school has two parking areas onsite. The school has been put on notice regarding on -site parking conditions and are subject to their Conditional Use Permit. The attached letter provides some background on the City's position regarding parking. Garvey Avenue is a public street with 2 hour parking limits from 7 A.M. to 6 P.M. except for Sundays and Holidays. A public parking space is typically not allocated to just one user, however, it is commonly used by adjacent business owner(s). Given the nature of student parking, which is typically longer than two hours, and parking conditions placed on the school by the City to provide ample on site parking, it is appropriate for the Garvey Avenue public parking to be designated as high turr\over parking to the needs of the business located adjacent to the parking space. To accomplish this, it is recommended that approximately 85 feet of curb be painted green with white "20 MINUTE" messages stenciled on the top of each curb section. As part of this improvement, the removal of one existing parking sign and the installation of two new parking signs that enforce the new parking treatment is recommended. Figure 1 depicts proposed conditions. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on conditions discussed above in the vicinity of the Garvey Avenue and Dequine Avenue, it is recommended that approximately 85 feet of curb on Garvey Avenue east of Dequine Avenue be painted green with white "20 MINUTE" messages stenciled on top of the curb and noted parking signs installed as shown on Figure 1. Attachments P: \066 \chris \rosemead \gargren veacn ]xiro a W zz jt `I,"I zz .- x d 0 'Y II ° } r Q r- Z O W Z z J F I 10 W r `V) m W Q W D� > L) z g$ 1N3wdinO3 k3A8VO � 2 W Q Of a N W W raras� W LLI W i Y: J Z tJ & 301A83S O1nV ON08iSMRIV W Q _ w Lu 5 ; ' O O tn 13211NHOS83N31M O Q O Z _ K N Z W LLJ '. � o ¢ oo s ea Q Q aE 3 w 36 a C. LLJ L N� D J Lil t }w 0 Q > KK � .� F . �t��..� o c~n / fil W N Z i _ (J 0 J F N Q III I a W <w Oa LLJ R N o C3 0 r z Ns ? <� �z ��' O 3 Y Jw Y a QY$i O O K U Z o TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI DEPUTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE: NOVEMBER 21. 1996 RE: CROSSING GUARDS AT NEW AVENUE /NEWMARK AVENUE AND MISSION DRIVE /NEWBY AVENUE REQUEST On November 13, 1996, two new traffic signal installations - New Avenue /Newmark Avenue and Mission Drive /Encinita Avenue - were turned on. The associated reports prepared for the August 3, 1995 Traffic Commission meeting are attached. A crossing guard exists at New Avenue /Newmark Avenue. In the vicinity of Mission Drive /Encinita Avenue, a crossing guard exists at Mission Drive /Newby Avenue. This report analyzes both locations and need for crossing guards. CONDITIONS New Avenue /Newmark Avenue is a "T"- intersection. There are traffic and pedestrian signal indications for the west and south legs of the intersection and the private driveway on the east side of the intersection. Yellow crosswalks have been painted on the west and south legs of the intersection. The crossing guard assists students across New Avenue. Mission Drive /Encinita Avenue is also a "T- intersection. There are white crosswalks painted on all legs of the intersection. Traffic and pedestrian signal indications exist for all legs of the intersection. Mission Drive /Newby Avenue is a "T "- intersection. This in an unsignalized intersection with Newby Avenue STOP controlled at Mission Drive. A yellow crosswalk is painted on the east leg of the intersection with the appropriate advance warning signs and markings. This is location where the crossing guard assists the elementary students across Mission Drive. The crossing guard also attempts to, but is not required to, assist the high school students across Mission Drive. Page 2 DATA The reported accident history at the intersections of New Avenue /Newmark Avenue and Mission Drive /Encinita Avenue is no longer relevant with the change in the traffic controls of the intersections. Staff has requested the Temple Sheriffs Station to "tag" any accidents occurring in the vicinity of these intersections and report them to the Commission during the regular meeting. Traffic volume approach counts were taken at the intersections of New Avenue /Newmark Avenue and Mission Drive /Encinita Avenue. These counts were taken in 1995 and supported the recommendation for the installation of traffic signals at these locations. Pedestrian counts were also taken at New Avenue /Newmark Avenue in 1995. These counts identified an AM peak hour count of 60 pedestrians and a PM peak hour count of 87 pedestrians. Pedestrian counts were taken in March, 1996 at Mission Drive /Newby Avenue. These counts indicated the majority of pedestrians crossing at this location were high school students (63 AM peak and 66 PM peak). During the AM peak period 13 elementary pedestrians crossed Mission Drive with the assistance of the crossing guard. Thirty -six (36) elementary pedestrians crossed during the PM peak period. DISCUSSION The Caltrans guidelines for the assignment of crossing guards at a signalized intersection are: a. Where the number of vehicular turning movements through the school crosswalk exceeds 300 per hour while school pedestrians are going to or from school; or b. Where there are circumstances not normally present at a signalized intersection, such as crosswalks more than 80 feet long with no intermediate refuge, or an abnormally high proportion of large commercial vehicles. Due to the nature of the locations to be analyzed, they have been separated for ease of analysis. Page 3 NEW AVENUE /NEWMARK AVENUE As stated in the August 3, 1996 report, the assignment of the crossing guard to the intersection of New Avenue /Newmark Avenue was to be an interim measure and reevaluated after the installation of the traffic signal. The first guideline was analyzed using the traffic approach counts taken in 1995. A conservative estimate was made of the number of turning movements during the peak school pedestrian hours. Based on the roadway characteristics, it was estimated that 50% of the vehicles eastbound on Newmark Avenue turn right (southbound) onto New Avenue. It was then estimated that 10% of the vehicles on New Avenue turn through the yellow crosswalk. These estimates result in approximately 220 vehicles turning in the AM peak period and 175 vehicles turning in the PM peak period. This is slightly below the threshold suggested by the Caltrans guideline. The intersection of New Avenue /Newmark Avenue does not satisfy the second guideline for the assignment of a crossing guard at a signalized location. There are no unusual conditions or circumstances at this intersection. Due to the number of school aged pedestrians crossing New Avenue and the volume of traffic turning through the yellow crosswalk, the assignment of the crossing guard at the intersection of New Avenue /Newmark Avenue is recommended at this time. MISSION DRIVE /NEWBY AVENUE Crossing guards are assigned to assist elementary school pedestrians. They are not intended to assist high school pedestrians. In fact, high school pedestrians often ignore or avoid the use of a crossing guard. It is also important to remember that elementary students are influenced by what they see. If they see the older children ignoring the crossing guard, they may follow the "bad" example. Relocating the crossing guard at Mission Drive /Newby Avenue to Mission Drive /Encinita Avenue would separate most of the elementary school pedestrians from the high school pedestrians. The intersection of Mission Drive /Encinita Avenue is also a more direct route to the elementary school. Page 4 The first guideline was analyzed using the traffic approach counts taken in 1995. A conservative estimate was made of the number of turning movements during the peak school pedestrian hours. Based on the roadway characteristics, it was estimated that 50% of the vehicles southbound on Encinita Avenue turn right (westbound) onto Mission Drive. It was then estimated that 15% of the vehicles on Mission Drive turn through the crosswalks at Encinita Avenue. These estimates result in approximately 200 vehicles turning in the AM and PM peak periods. This is slightly below the threshold suggested by the Caltrans guideline. The intersection of Mission Drive /Encinita Avenue does not satisfy the second guideline for the assignment of a crossing guard at a signalized location. There are no unusual conditions or circumstances at this intersection. RECOMMENDATION Due to the volume of traffic turning through the crosswalks on Mission Drive at Encinita Avenue and the need to separate elementary from high school aged pedestrians, the relocation of the crossing guard from Mission Drive /Newby Avenue to Mission Drive /Encinita Avenue is recommended at this time. The crossing guard should cross pedestrians on the west leg of the intersection. The yellow crosswalk at Mission Drive /Newby Avenue should remain for use by the high school pedestrians. The associated advanced warning signs and marking should also be retained. Attachments A RSDXNGGRD STAFF REPORT - TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI DEPUTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE: JULY 13, 1995 RE: REQUEST FOR CROSSWALK AND CROSSING GUARD ON NEW AVENUE AT NEWMARK AVENUE REQUEST A letter, attached, has been received from Ms. Barbara Razo, Principal of Arlene Bitely School, Ms. Razo is requesting the Placement of a crossing guard for students crossing New Avenue at Newmfj�rk_Avenue. She indicates 60 to 70 students live west of New Avenue and are required to cross this street to access the school. In addition, a letter was received from Ms. Susan Aguilar, 303 S. New Avenue. Ms. Aguilar is also requesting additional traffic controls at the intersection of New Avenue and Newmark Avenue. Her letter is attached. The school hours are 8:30 AM to 2 :25 PM. Students generally cross New Avenue at Newmark Avenue from 7:45 - 8:30 AM and from 2:15 - 3:15 PM. Currently, the school is on its summer vacation. CONDITIONS New Avenue is a 56 foot, wide north /south secondary arterial highway Shared with the City of Monterey Park. There is one lane of traffic in each direction separated by a single yellow skip stripe. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street except during street sweeping. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Newmark Avenue is a 40 foot wide east /west roadway entirely within the City of Monterey Park. The roadway is STOP controlled at its intersection with New Avenue. A white crosswalk exists on the west leg of the intersection. Arlene Bitely School is located on Fern Avenue east of New Avenue. Figure 1 depicts existing conditions in the vicinity of New Avenue and Newmark Avenue. 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: r.Mgraa 24 -hour Volume IUMMODMIM Northbound 4,500 442 (3 am) Southbound _ 7,424 651 (6 pm) Zastbound _ 3,319 267 ( 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 arc. 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. 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 commended 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. 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. - Diso4,jssioas 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 JI: RSDNEW NO SCALE NO PARKING WEDNESDAY 7 NEWMARK ST > < NO PARKING THURSDAY tAU-1wnn ' OMME R C I A L V EHIC ES OV ER 6000 lb s G RO SS PROHI ................. .... ...... NO STOP PA�KING NO WE DNESDAY D D NEWMARK AVE PARKING EDNESDAY )ON aW-12NOON [NEWMARK AVE WEDNESDAY WE STREET WEPING aAM-12NOON STREET SWEEPING y LEGEND EXISTING SIGN EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT LLJ Z 'EXISTING LUMINAIRE WHITE CROSSWALK NO PARKING MONDAY a W - 12NOON STREET WEEPING FERN AVEJ LA13111410 Mt.L) 1 X EXISTING DRIVEWAY 2 8' 28' ;e NEW AVENUE AND NEWMARK AVENUE FIGURE VnI I AN ASSOCIATES . EXISTING CONDITIONS EMINEERS • PLANNERS I O PEDESTRIAN COUNTS North Leg South Leg West Leg Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child Time 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 "' s47 To: 3:15 pm City of Rosemead WWDAN ASSOCIATES CNLtXEFRS AND "!Cs FIGURE 2 Pedestrian Counts New Avenue at Newmark Avenue 9 -6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1 -1992 Figure 9 -1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC DATE �II DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE Major St: Qe ') rp ✓ AP Critical Approach Speed mph Minor St: Critical Approach Speed mph Critical speed of major street traffic > 40 mph - - - - - - - - - - - - - or RURAL (R) In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. - - - - - - - - - 0 ❑ URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES i_ NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES l3 NO ❑ WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS i 630 (60% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R ^ (� \ l'j '(°e� �QC' ' V Hour U R I U I R APPROACH 750 1255 LANES 1 2 Or mOrO .qA� \D eti Dc" GJ b -\� Both Apprchs. Major Street 500 (400) 350 210 60o (480) azo (336) S 65? 630 789 �% 95) 876 Highest Apprch. 150 1 105 200 140 2r� I 1 1P9 1 196 1 Z03 1 ?-53 - 7 Minor Street (120) 1 (84) (160) (112) WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES NO ❑ a I} Hour MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS i 630 (60% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R I U I R APPROACH LANES 1 2 Of more Both Apprchs. 750 1255 900 630 Major Street (600) R(42) (720) SOa Highest Apprch. Minor Street 75 (60) The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive 100 (80) 70 (56) WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES NO ❑ a I} Hour 100% SATISFIED YES ❑._ NO (� 4 REQUIREMENT 657 i 630 i 7PI9 for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one � 76 2� 7 1 177 109 119& 203 1255 1 7-87 1 Z6b 100% SATISFIED YES ❑._ NO (� 4 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 2� hour; 6±Q There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf- Yes ❑ No [� fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross; AUQ e5} a The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater Yes No ❑ than 300 feet: AND 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- 1 -1992 Figure 9 -2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Ne A'J//V1e1 axo'rk AV WARRANT 4 - School Crossings WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement Not Applicable _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ❑ See School Crossings Warrant Sheet a SATISFIED YES ❑ NO EY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 1000 FT. I N 1000 ft, S — ft, E — ft, W ft. YES ET 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 ❑ L�" WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES ❑ NO a REQUIREMENTS WARRANT FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ✓ SATISFIED - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - 80% OR WARRANT 2 INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC ✓ YES ET NO ❑ SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW 0 ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY r❑� ❑ lJ ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. 8 INVOLVING INJURY OR ? $500 DAMAGE --------------- ------------------------------ OR MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 O MORE 4 (F I - I-9L 4o tZ - 31-93 ❑ WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED REQUIREMENT DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR IZ 3a - VEH.!HR,_ 1000 VEH,HR _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS. OF A SAT. ANDiOR SUN VEH /HR YES NO ❑ CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST MINOR ST. HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC f - ---------------------------------------------- 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 1.1991 Figure 9 -3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS PJe� AJ/Ne". Yvtoo� L AV WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES If NO ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT J FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS I. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ✓ Highest Approaches - Minor Street 2 INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC ✓ SATISFIED YES Q NO ❑ 80 Z6CJ WARRANT 9 -Four Hour Volume SATISFIED YES IRJ NO ❑ n-- mnr 01 XerHour Both Approaches - Major Street ✓ 6toS Pj� 951 87(� Highest Approaches - Minor Street ✓ II Z(a 7 2 ZF} 7 Z6CJ * 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 IT (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and five vehicle -hours for a two -lane approach; AND YES ❑ NO Q 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 L=1 NO ❑ 3. 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 ED- NO ❑ WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED YES LJ NO ❑ 2 or I1 IVdL � � I f '� �5 I Boih ADProaches - Major Stree Highest Approaches - Mi nor Street ✓ I Z�fj1 * 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) New Ad /Ne"1rma�%k A\ 400 2 a = 300 f' U W Q W O ¢ ~ n. N a cc a 200 Ow z� J O > = 100 V 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH X r evx 665 650 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 268 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 8 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 X r evx 665 650 ci51 P,7C 267 253 ZSl 268 �E ' 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 1 -1991 Figure 9 -9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) Me,,� Aj /meu1vvLca - L Av 500 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) S IL > 400 2 U F Q w s 300 E L I- a N a Cr w z 2 200 0 O 0 100 s 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) 0 L 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH 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. 9-10 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 14992 =Wmumwlr_r• Figure 9 -5 SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS _ CALC DATE '2121/95 DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE Major St: k�>?1J AN11" ue Critical Approach Speed mph Minor St: Mewwtac k kit-nun— Critical Approach Speed mph Critical speed of major street traffic ? 40 mph — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 RURAL R In built up area of isolated community of < 10.000 pop. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6 ( ) URBAN (U) FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) Minimum Requirements PART A U / R hicle Volume Each of 2hours 200 140 Age Pedestrians Fs 2 hours sing Street 2hours 700 M35� SATISFIED YES ❑ NO j SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ AND PART 8 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) h Minimum Requirements 4 DnDT e U R r�Q�/ Vehicle Volume Each of 500 2 hours School Age Pedestrians Each of 2 hours Crossing 700 M35� Street 500 pe day SATISFIED SATISFIED YES - iD;�NO ❑ . YES [21 NO ❑ AND PART B Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SATISFIED YES if NO ❑ STAFF REPORT TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGARI, DEPUTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE: JULY 13, 1995 RE: REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT MISSION DRIVE AND ENCINITA AVENUE REQUEST A request has been received from Ms. Joan Mitten, 9331 E. Marshall Street, for the installation of a traffic signal at Mission Drive and Encinita Avenue. Ms. Mitten is concerned for left -turn traffic from Encinita Avenue onto Mission Drive. CONDITIONS Encinita Avenue is a 36 foot wide north /south collector street.. There is one lane of traffic in each direction separated by a double yellow centerline in the vicinity of Mission Drive. Encinita Avenue is STOP controlled at its intersection with Mission Drive. A white crosswalk exists on the north leg of Encinita Avenue at Mission Drive. Encinita Avenue is signalized at Lower Azusa Road. The posted speed limit on Encinita Avenue is 30 mph. Mission Drive is a 60 foot wide east /west secondary arterial highway. There are two lanes of traffic in each direction separated by a double yellow centerline. An eastbound dedicated left -turn lane exists on Mission Drive for access onto Encinita Avenue. Mission Drive is signalized at Valley Boulevard and at Rosemead Boulevard. The posted speed limit on Mission Drive is 40 mph. Figure 1 depicts existing conditions. - o- ; The reported accident history was reviewed from January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1994 at the intersection of Mission Drive at Encinita Avenue. Seven accidents were reported at this intersection. These accidents 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 Eastbound Westbound Total 2,716 6,685 6.181 15,512 229 (6 pm) 735 (5 pm) 382 (3 pm) 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, the Interruption 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. RECOMMENDATION Based on this analysis, the installation of a traffic signal at Mission Drive and Encinita Avenue is recommended t_o improve'f -Taffic safety and overall intersection congestion. Attachments Lcx? ' `e%(' r_, 4 -0 JI: RSDMISEN W U S . p e No r W G �7 f' Of 0 Z O J ,4 L LL 11 ,OL I ,LL ,4L t Q� r•'L QU cd � • r.L O •� U b � b � U C o b,O •� ;> W � O • r.1 . ►? b W c � t s c W t � O z a o= J g O ; U I�VLLIJVIV Vlr-»nr�lvl LOCATION: Ci4v csF ErneaG� - Ehct�i+c 1�y��1C551ov L1 Q 1 � v 2 U) D /Z5/94 , BI Ke films /in Z:00?,4 OH /I /94 IZ: IOPM ROW -A 2 /Z51` 6 Z:45PM ROW -q � 9/ 9Z t:00PN RG� Z/U/45 4: z5Ar1 ROW-A MtsS�cr� DR - � y /ZStFi� I�.19PN KOW -A c - Ft6u�E 2 E LEGEND DPD- DRIVER PHYSICAL DEFECT DV-DEFECTIVE VEHICLE FTC - FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE HBD -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 WAYt�A• A"TO SPO- SPEEDING `P- PED WS -WRONG SIDE OF STREET * - PAKTY AT FALA IT L -LIGHT D -DARK nU - rTHER lkhZ4wD VEH. MOVING AHEAD HEAD -ON VEH. BACKING UP +' .� SIDE SWIPE MEAD -ON PEDESTRIAN 7 SIDE SWIPE REAR END PARKED VEHICLE --►-„i REAR END CD FIXED OBJECT V RIGHT ANGLE O PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY LEFT TURN ® INJURY ACCIDENT /�' �ia OUT OF CONTROL - - K yaVEHICLE TURNED OVER FATAL ACCIDENT v DPD- DRIVER PHYSICAL DEFECT DV-DEFECTIVE VEHICLE FTC - FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE HBD -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 WAYt�A• A"TO SPO- SPEEDING `P- PED WS -WRONG SIDE OF STREET * - PAKTY AT FALA IT L -LIGHT D -DARK nU - rTHER lkhZ4wD 9 -6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1.1992 Figure 9 -1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC �• Z+caGr DATE 5 S DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE Major St: 17 "N a Critical Approach Speed 4.1 mph Minor St: Eyto'wida A\j"Lte- critical Approach Speed mph Critical speed of major street traffic >_ 40 mph — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 I RURAL (R) In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. — — — — — — — — — ❑ ❑ URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES IT ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES (n NO ❑ WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic APPROACH LANES Both Apprchs. r Major Street Highest Apprch MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R 1 2 or more A� 150 525 17 900 630 rcnm ream Inn 733 75 WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume MES l00% SATISFIED 80% SATISFIED V 1 h /�� %'�'/ YES C'NO ❑ YES 9 NO ❑ Hour 757 Q111 III1110761749 561 175 1 Z15 2Z`1 IPSI Z15 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ _N[9 El" E REQUIREMENT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is too or more (60% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) for each of any four hours or is Igo or more during anyone 0 \R j� ,5 ? � b .1R� � .A� U R I APPROACH Yes ❑ NO 13 LANES t 2 or more \ti Both Apprchs. Major Street 500 (400) 3so (260) soo (480) dzo 336 733 1 104-0 1 75 - 7 89 I 1111 1076 7.49 5E 1 Highest Apprrh. Minor Street 150 (120) 05 (84 200 (160) 140 (112) I� Zpq-, 175 L70 7-15 2Z9 181 215 WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic APPROACH LANES Both Apprchs. r Major Street Highest Apprch MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R 1 2 or more A� 150 525 17 900 630 rcnm ream Inn 733 75 WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume MES l00% SATISFIED 80% SATISFIED V 1 h /�� %'�'/ YES C'NO ❑ YES 9 NO ❑ Hour 757 Q111 III1110761749 561 175 1 Z15 2Z`1 IPSI Z15 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ _N[9 El" E REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is too or more for each of any four hours or is Igo or more during anyone Yes ❑ No hour; AbQ e- AAevv":l- 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 ma The nearest traff ic signal along the major street is greater Yes No ❑ than 300 feet; A1112 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 1.1992 Figure 9 -2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Mtz�,t, Dr� Enc'w 4a A%- WARRANT 4 - School Crossings Not Applicable _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ 9 WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement See School Crossings Warrant Sheet ❑ SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 1000 FT. N 2000 tt, S nt /q ft, E 00 ft, W If�,00 ft. YES ❑ NO [✓r ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT _____ V SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING 8 SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - ON 2 WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING AND ❑ L�" SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM OR WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 5 REQUIREMENTS WARRANT MINOR ST. FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME -___ _______________________________ RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF. ENTERING. OR TRAVERSING A CITY _____ V SATISFIED - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - _____ OR ✓ YES Q NO ❑ 80% WARRANT 2 INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ❑ ❑✓ ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ❑ C�7 ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. 8 INVOLVING INJURY OR a $500 DAMAGE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE ❑ t-'�VE ZIIIq �j- 5/--)I/q4 5/--)I/q4 (l4mont IT WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 19' MII IOU REMENT I ENTERING VOLUMES ALL APPROACHES I J FULFILLED (5 -6 i M) - - DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR - VEH /HR-_, E 1000 VEHiHR _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS. OF A SAT. AND,OR SUN VEHiHR YES aNO ❑ CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC ✓ -___ _______________________________ RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF. ENTERING. OR TRAVERSING A CITY _____ V _____ ----------------------------------------- APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN V/ _____ ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STREETS C 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 1.1991 Figure 9 -3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS H�S�too Dl-/FY1Ci✓tlio- A'1 WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ['f NO ❑ REOUIREMENT WARRANT J FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME 561 Highest Approaches . Minor Street 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC ✓ SATISFIED YES Q NO ❑ 80% 21 WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED YES [Zr NO ❑ 2 or \Q ty/ b Q j 1 Qt / H lino mnra �2' (n 4; Pi HOUf Both Approaches Major Street - ✓ ID40 11I I 1076 561 Highest Approaches . Minor Street ✓ ✓ ZpQ Zl5 229 21 * Refer to Figure 9 -6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 -7 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 -Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and 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^a - I�) YES [a 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 L"J NO ❑ -- E 2or . lino / _ no 6 Hour H ruau" Lance Both Approacrhes Major Street - ✓ 111 Highest Approaches - Minor Street ✓ 2l5 * 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) Dr /EviCiv Av 400 2 CL = 300 U w C w Q IZ ya IL cc a 200 Ow z� J 0 > = 100 r 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH E * 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. 1040 till 1076 50 ZC4 I Zl5 I ZZ9 12.15 1000 9 -14 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual Figure 9 -9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) Nt ss) 0,\ D,- /EvnC.) n i iza Av 500 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) 2 a > 400 U F 0 w cc 300 ¢a �a ,n a Q w 02200 0 O > 0 100 S 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) 0 L- 300 400 500 600 700 B00 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH k A NOTE: E 215 * 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. TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI DEPUTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 1996 RE: SIGNAL TIMING - ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND VALLEY BOULEVARD A complaint was recently received by the City with regards to the signal timing at the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Valley Boulevard. The primary complaint was the length of time allowed for vehicles on Valley Boulevard to turn left onto Rosemead Boulevard. The traffic signal operation at Rosemead Boulevard/Valley Boulevard is controlled by Caltrans. Any changes to this operation are approved and completed by Caltrans. As such, a letter (attached) has been sent to Caltrans requesting their consideration of extending the left turn timing on Valley Boulevard. Attachment JI: RSD \RSDVLY2 D� November 13, 1996 Mr' W. Yee — Senior Transportation Engineer California Department of Transportation 120 S. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Re: Rosemead Boulevard and Valley Boulevard Dear Mr. Yee: The City of Rosemead continues to receive complaints regarding the signal timing at the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Valley Boulevard. I spoke with Mr. Jeff Aragaki several months ago at which time he indicated that Rosemead Boulevard was under investigation to provide better coordination timing. I would like to know the status of this project. In addition, the City of Rosemead is requesting Caltrans consider increasing the left- turn phase time for Valley Boulevard. This is the most recent complaint received by the City. We look forward to your response. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (310) 908 -6226. Sincerely, CITY OF ROSEMEAD Joanne Itagaki Deputy Traffic Engineer copy: Brad Johnson Jl:tb 10096 \1002 \L02 6660 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI DEPUTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER I f DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 1996 RE: GARVEY AVENUE WEST OF SAN GABRIEL BOULEVARD - BLOCKING THROUGH TRAFFIC REQUEST A request was made by the City Council for staff to investigate vehicles blocking through traffic on Garvey Avenue as they exit Diamond Square west of San Gabriel Boulevard. The City Council was concerned that vehicles turning right from Diamond Square into the eastbound left turn lane on Garvey Avenue are making an illegal movement by blocking through traffic. DISCUSSION The California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22526, the Anti - Gridlock Act, requires vehicles to enter an intersection only if there is sufficient space on the other side to accommodate the vehicle. This section, however, does not include any discussion of blocking through traffic at a "non- intersection ". The CVC does not appear to contain any other applicable sections to the situation described. The right turn movement from Diamond Square into the eastbound left turn lane of Garvey Avenue at San Gabriel Boulevard may occasionally block through traffic on Garvey Avenue. The blocking of through traffic can be frustrating to motorists. Unfortunately, it does not appear to be illegal. JI: RSD \BLKTHRU