The URL can be used to link to this page

TC - 02-01-96AGENDA ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION 8838 E. Valley Blvd., Rosemead, CA 91770 Regular Meeting Februaryl, 1996 Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. Roll Call: Commissioners Larson, Ruiz, Tirre, Vice- Chairperson Knapp, Chairman Alarcon Pledge of Allegiance: Chairman Alarcon Invocation: Commissioner Tirre I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular meeting of January 4, 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. NONE IV. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROLS AT JACKSON AVENUE AND GRAVES AVENUE - This is a request from Commissioner Knapp to review the intersection for the installation of a traffic signal or stop signs. B. REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS ON HELLMAN AVENUE AT EVELYN AVENUE - This is a request from Ms. Adrian Aviles for the installation of stop signs to slow down traffic and reduce accidents. V. STAFF REPORTS VI. COMMISSIONER REPORTS VII. ADJOURNMENT Thursday, March 7, 1996 at 7:00 p.m., Rosemead Council Chambers, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770. ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4. 1996 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Chairman Tirre, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California 91770. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Tirre Commissioners: Larson, Knapp, Alarcon, Ruiz Ex Officio: Associate Planner: Carl Holm Deputy Traffic Engineer: Joanne Itagaki Sheriff Liaison: Lt. Heller REORGANIZATION Chairman Tirre turned the meeting over to the Associate Planner for nomination and election of the new Chairman. The Associate Planner called for nominations. Chairman Tirre nominated Commissioner Alarcon, there being no further nominations, nominations were closed. Commissioner Alarcon was named Chairman for 1996. Chairman Alarcon assumed his chair and opened nominations for Vice - Chairperson. Commissioner Tirre nominated Commissioner Knapp, there being no further nominations, nominations were closed. Commissioner Knapp was named Vice - Chairman for 1996. CALL TO ORDER The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Tirre The Invocation was delivered by Commissioner Ruiz I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Chairman Tirre, seconded by Commissioner Knapp, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes for December 7, 1995. Commissioner Alarcon abstained his vote, due to the fact he was not present at the December meeting. II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None IZZ. OLD BUSINESS A. REVISION #2; DRAFT SPEED HUMP FLYER Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that two revisions were made to the Speed Hump Flyer as of the December meeting. These revisions included a sentence under "What are Speed Humps ?" and a sentence under "Will the City of Rosemead use Speed Humps ? ". The following is the draft wording and the revised wording for your reference: WHAT ARE SPEED HUMPS? DRAFT Speed humps are designed so that the occupants of a vehicle don't get thrown about when going over the hump, however, there is no mistake about having crossed from one side of the speed hump to the other. Page 1 REV. NO. 2 Speed humps are placed across a roadway to encourage vehicles to slow down as they pass over them. They are intended to allow a vehicle to pass over at a reasonable speed, but would create an uncomfortable jarring if crossed too quickly. WILL THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD USE SPEED HUMPS? DRAFT Although many cities have installed speed humps on public streets... REV. NO. 2 Although some cities have installed speed humps on public streets... It was recommended the Traffic Commission approve REVISION NO. 2 of the DRAFT speed hump flyer. Upon approval, it will be submitted to the City Council for final approval. Once Council has approved the flyer, the flyers will then be distributed by staff as needed. It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Commissioner Ruiz, and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation. B. DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO DIAMOND SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER - FLEXIBLE DELINEATORS Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that as requested by the Traffic Commission, staff prepared a diagram depicting the installation of flexible delineators on the double yellow line on Garvey Avenue west of San Gabriel. These delineators will prohibit vehicles from turning left into and out of the Diamond Square Shopping Center. Commissioner Knapp stated that her concern is for the residents of the trailer park that want to make a left -hand turn. Chairman Alarcon inquired if there is an alternative to delineators. He expressed concern over creating other traffic problems for neighboring properties. He felt other options should be investigated first. Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that there are "Turtle Dots" that are currently being used in Temple City but are less visible. Commissioner Knapp stated that she would like the residents affected to be notified. Commissioner Ruiz stated that delineators are a main and only alternative at this location, and are cheaper than medians. It was moved by Commissioner Larson, seconded by Commissioner Tirre to recommend installation of delineators as shown in Figure 1 of the staff report. Vote resulted: Yes: Commissioners Larson, Tirre, Knapp, Ruiz Noes: Chairman Alarcon Absent: None Abstain: None IV. NEW BUSINESS - None Page 2 V. STAFF REPORTS Lt. Heller presented a report indicating the accident statistics for November, 1995. Lt. Heller spoke on the problems with the Highway Patrol not citing people in unincorporated areas in the City. Lt. Heller stated that most citations are given on major streets. VI. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Larson stated that the school on Jackson and Garvey, the gates need be closed. Commissioner Knapp stated that the signal at San Gabriel Boulevard and Graves is too short, not allowing pedestrians to get across. Commissioner Knapp recommended moving the crosswalk from the north side of the street to the south side of the street. Commissioner Knapp stated that the sign on Hellman and Delta has been turned around. Commissioner Ruiz stated that the traffic signs on the island at Temple City Boulevard, coming off the freeway have been knocked down. Commissioner Ruiz stated that at Valley Boulevard and Temple City Boulevard on the southwest corner, there is a tree that needs to be trimmed. Commissioner Ruiz thanked the Commissioners for their support in joining the Traffic Commission. Commissioner Tirre thanked the Commission for the past year as Chairman. Chairman Alarcon thanked the Commission for electing him Chairman for 1996. VII. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. The next meeting will take place on February 1, 1996. Page 3 STAFF REPORT = TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, DEPUTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER \g DATE: JANUARY 24, 1996 RE: REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CONTROLS AT JACKSON AVENUE AND GRAVES AVENUE REQUEST Commissioner Knapp recently requested staff to review the traffic conditions at the intersection of Jackson Avenue and Graves Avenue. Commissioner Knapp indicated the need for additional controls at this intersection which may include the installation of a traffic signal or stop signs. A request for a traffic signal or stop signs at this intersection was reviewed at the January 7, 1993 Traffic Commission meeting. The Commission voted not to install additional traffic controls at this intersection. A copy of the staff report and meeting minutes is attached. CONDITIONS Graves Avenue is a 56 foot wide east/west roadway striped for one lane of traffic in each direction separated by a two -way left turn lane. Parking is permitted on both sides of the street except for the red curb on the south side of the roadway in the vicinity of Maryvale School. There is a horizontal curve, or hill, that begins approximately 300 feet west of Jackson Avenue and flows downhill towards Del Mar Avenue. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Jackson Avenue is a 40 foot wide north /south roadway striped for one lane of traffic in each direction separated by single yellow skip striping. Jackson Avenue terminates at Graves Avenue and is STOP controlled at this 'T" intersection. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. Figure 1 depicts these conditions. DATA The reported accident history from January 1, 1992 to September 30, 1995 was reviewed. This accident history revealed three accidents occurring within 100 feet of the intersection. These accidents are summarized on the following page: TRAFFIC COMMISSION Page 2. Location and Description Date Time At intersection - Southbound vehicle 12/25/94 2:20 PM proceeding straight broadsided a westbound vehicle proceeding straight (Right -of -way Automobile). 6 feet west - Eastbound vehicle proceeding 3/25/94 6:30 AM straight rearended an eastbound right turning vehicle (Not stated). 85 feet east - Eastbound vehicle rearended 6/22/93 4:15 PM an eastbound vehicle proceeding straight (Too close / Inattention). Twenty -four hour approach counts were taken at the intersection. These counts revealed the following: Graves Avenue - EB Graves Avenue - WB Jackson Avenue - SB DISCUSSION 24 -hour AM Peak PM Peak 4,086 313 (8:00) 402 (5:00) 4,000 314 (8:00) 353 (5:00) 763 54 (9:00) 59 (5:00) Field review of the location revealed the horizontal curve does limit visibility of eastbound vehicles on Graves Avenue from Jackson Avenue. However, the speed of the vehicles traveling on Graves Avenue provides adequate sight distance for vehicles to exit from Jackson Avenue onto Graves Avenue. The visibility of westbound traffic on Graves Avenue is adequate. The traffic volume count of the intersection reveals a total 24 -hour volume of 8,086 on Graves Avenue. Assuming the 24 -hour approach count on Jackson Avenue is doubled, the total 24 -hour volume count on Jackson Avenue is estimated at 1,526. The City of Rosemead uses the Caltrans Traffic Manual as a guideline for the installation of traffic signals and STOP signs. Primarily, traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes and accident history are analyzed in these guidelines. Page 3. Attached are the guidelines for the installation of multi -way STOP signs. The first guideline will be discussed after analysis is made for the installation of a traffic signal. The accident guideline at the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue is not met. Only one accident would be susceptible to correction (12/25/94) with the installation of a multi -way STOP at this location. This accident was a right - angle type accident. For the minimum traffic volume guideline, 7 of the 8 average hours of the day meet the 500 vehicles per hour requirement. However, the combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street falls well below the 200 units per hour. Attached are the traffic signal guidelines found in the Caltrans Traffic Manual. All 11 warrants were reviewed. Pedestrian counts and delay were estimated based on field review of the location. The traffic volumes and accident history of this intersection do not satisfy the requirements for the installation of a traffic signal. Therefore, the first guideline for the installation of a multi -way STOP sign is also not satisfied. During the 5:00 - 6:00 PM peak hour, the traffic volumes are close to satisfying the guidelines. However, this is only one hour of the day. Any delay that may occur lasts for only a short period of time. Speeding on Graves Avenue is a continuing complaint. However, the installation of traffic signals or STOP controls may increase the accident potential at this intersection. Traffic signals and STOP controls are used to assign right -of -way at an intersection and are not intended as a speed deterrent. RECOMMENDATION The installation of additional traffic controls at the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue is not recommended at this time. It is recommended the Sheriffs Department monitor Graves Avenue on a regular basis by including it on the radar trailer rotation list. Attachments JI: GRVSJACK t Y* 02 Llj �q LU w o J N N CC Q W LL N O 77- >::> ~ 2 I. QQ� �o u U � I 7 . � W --3n'V Nosy per m ci wl z w T ` d- I N � W Y* CITY OF ROSEMEAD MULTI -WAY STOP SIGN WARRANTS (FROM CALTRANS TRAFFIC MANUAL) LOCATION: Gccves Avenue. DATE: 1/Z4-ly6 The installation of multi -way STOP signs are based on the following: 1. Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multi -way STOP may be an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the signal installation. 2. An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents within a 12 month period of a type susceptible to correction by a multi - way STOP installation. Such accidents include right- and left -turn collisions as well as right -angle collisions. 3. Minimum traffic volumes: (a) The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and (b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but (c) When the 85- percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements. VOLUME WORKSHEET Guideline �pP N pc (� h b <Hour A U' ��' �L 7 lx (a) Total Volume 500 (350) 1651 1¢241494154716641 6751614 1 781 1 (b) Combined Volume 200 (140) 1 54 1 5Z 156 15D 15q 1 58 1 59 1 5"7 1 9-6. TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1 -1992 Figure 9 -1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC DATE I Z4 6 DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE Po ind 35 mph Major St: aye7 wev ue e}pppreae:Speed P Minor SC Critical Approach Speed 3 mph Critical speed of major street traffic ? 40 mph - - - -- - - - - - - - - �r y RURAL (R) In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. - - - - - - - - - ❑ J IS URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R APPROACH t 2 Of more i ti �e �Q� , � //� k Hour Both Apprchs, 750 525 900 630 Major strmt 600 (420) (720) 504) G 7 377 438 E5`1 617 755 724 Highest Apprch. 75 53 100 70 r /� 5 5� GJ� 68) Cj�( C Minor street (601 (42) (80) (56) .�" WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO REQUIREMENT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) �� 4N 2`' ,4` e R O \ V\ b � ?' �;� '� �'� �j (o Hour U R Yes ❑ No APPROACH 1 2 or more LANES Both Apprrhs. 500 350 600 420 4q1 3�2 �-3B 497 �a5 btu 755 7Z4- major street 400 (280) (480) (336) Highest Apprrh. 1 0 105 200 1 140 54 52 S( 5� GJq 5i� 55 57 Minor Street (120) (84) (160) (112) The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R APPROACH t 2 Of more i ti �e �Q� , � //� k Hour Both Apprchs, 750 525 900 630 Major strmt 600 (420) (720) 504) G 7 377 438 E5`1 617 755 724 Highest Apprch. 75 53 100 70 r /� 5 5� GJ� 68) Cj�( C Minor street (601 (42) (80) (56) .�" WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more Yes ❑ No for each of any lour hours or is 190 or more during any one ,® hour: ALM ( lecg than 50 � - There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street trat- Yes ❑ No fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross: ARD 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 SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9 -7 Traffic Manual 1 -1992 Figure 9 -2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 4 - School Crossings Not Applicable _ _ _ _ _ — — — — — ❑ See School Crossings Warrant Sheet K WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES ❑ NO,9 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 1000 FT. N � ?-'500 ft. - S -- ft. E N 1 DODO ft. W > 2000 It. YES NO I_l ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING 8 SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST _ _ - WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ON 2 -WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING AND ❑ SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM OR _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES ❑ NO a WARRANT 7 - Svstems Warrant SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 4i MINIMUM VOLUME REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES ALL APPROACHES ✓ I FULFILLED DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR P) A VEH.!HR 1000 VEHiHR _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS OF A SAT AND,OR SUN VEH!HR YES ❑ NO CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST MINOR ST 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 NWA 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. WARRANT FULFILLED REQUIREMENTS ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME _ SATISFIED OR _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ YES ❑ NO 80% WARRANT 2 INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC Ell SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ED 0 ACC WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR 8 INVOLVING INJURY OR ? S500 DAMAGE _ MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS I (I1 /c14 IZ /25) ❑ 5 O MORE WARRANT 7 - Svstems Warrant SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 4i MINIMUM VOLUME REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES ALL APPROACHES ✓ I FULFILLED DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR P) A VEH.!HR 1000 VEHiHR _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS OF A SAT AND,OR SUN VEH!HR YES ❑ NO CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST MINOR ST 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 NWA 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 11991 Figure 9 -3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO REQUIREMENT WARRANT J FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 2 INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO 80 WARRANT 9 -Four Hour Volume SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 2 or DQ� �4� b�� VtA Approach Lanes One more our Both Approaches Major Street V 605 6 t� ASS 7 Z4 Highest Approaches Minor Street ✓ 59 Sa ' Refer to Figure 9.6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9.7 (RURAL AREAS) to determine it 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 tr ll by a STOP sign equals or exceeds lour vehicle -hours for a one -lane app vehicle-hours for a two lane approach: AND (E,:+ cz4ecl) YES ❑ NO 2 The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 1 SO vph for two moving lanes: AND YES ❑ NO 0. intersections with o more approches vph for intersectio ex vph for l e a i u 00 wi three approaches. YES NO ❑ ❑ WARRANT 11 -Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED r YES NO One more 6-6'�j Hour Bosh Aoproaches Major Street '� 75_ H,gnest Approaches Minor Street ✓ 59 '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. 9-10 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual f -1992 Figure 9 -5 SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS CALC , C$ DATE DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE PoS +&A 35 mph Major St: t ,Qe`� AU�n�E — �+ A Speed 33 mph Minor St: AV ev u� Critical Approach Speed Critical speed of major street traffic ? 40 mph _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 ` RURAL (R) ❑ I In built up area of isolated community of < 10.000 pop. _ _ _ — _ — — — — — )Z URBAN (U) FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) PART A Vehicle Volume toI Age Pedestri ]rossina Street Minimum Requirements AND PART B Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 05 mph AND PART C Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) Minimum Requirements / 1 11 U I R rrn i r i U R Each or 200 140 2 hours Each of 40 40 2 hours AND PART B Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 05 mph AND PART C Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) Minimum Requirements / 1 11 U I R rrn i r i Vehicle Volume Eacnof 500 350 2 hours Each of 100 70 School Age Pedestrians 2 hours Crossing Street or 500 350 per day AND SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED SATISFIED -E- YES ❑ NO YES ❑ NO (e75 41av\ solkY YES NO ❑ YES NO ❑ YES ❑ NO 0 YES ❑ NO 0 l ei +1 r y\ 5bA'y PART B Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SATISFIED YES NO ❑ Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9 -11 9 1991 Figure 9 -6 I /Z4-146 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Urban Areas) 6rave� /�venu%c�c�o+1 f��ehu� -IS x 400 x w a0 300 2 Q c a rn a 0 w 200 z J O > 100 x L1 x 0 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH NOTE: 115 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET So VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER APPROACH WITH O D THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MANOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. (�{ bl� 755 X24 Z3 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-13 Traffic Manual Figure 9- 8 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Urban Areas) 6f�ave7 A�enu� /.�ack�o�� l�Oel�ur? 600 x IL 500 x H U w 0 400 ¢ ¢ r p, w a 0 w 300 z f m 0 200 z 100 v w 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 160 7 UU MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH * NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET THE LOWER APPROACH WITH O APPROACHING APPL S THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET WITHONE LANE. Qt �,lo _755 �9 I I I ml ■ 111 •. •. till .- •" •' • .. ■ Ew ONE��1�v�� OEM MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH * NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET THE LOWER APPROACH WITH O APPROACHING APPL S THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET WITHONE LANE. Qt �,lo _755 �9 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI,.DEPUTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER DATE: DECEMBER 22, 1992 RE: REQUEST FOR A PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL OR STOP SIGNS ON GRAVES AVENUE AT JACKSON STREET REQUEST A request has been received from a resident of the City of Rosemead for the installation of a pedestrian signal or stop signs on Graves Avenue at Jackson Street. The resident did not leave their name and specific details of this request, therefore, could not be addressed. CONDITIONS Graves Avenue is a 54' wide east /west roadway in the southern portion of the City. This roadway was recently reconstructed by the County. This reconstruction included the installation of the traffic signal at Graves Avenue and San Gabriel Boulevard. Graves Avenue is striped with two lanes of traffic in each direction separated by a two -way left turn lane. The posted speed limit on Graves Avenue is 35 mph. Jackson Street is a 40' wide north /south roadway. The southerly end of Jackson Street terminated at Graves Avenue to form a "T" intersection. Jackson Street is striped with a single yellow skip stripe. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. Figure 1 depicts existing conditions at the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Street. DATA The accident history from January 1, 1989 to March 31, 1992 was reviewed. This accident history revealed 5 accidents occurring in the vicinity of the intersection in this 3 1/4 year period. The accident summary is as follows: Page 2. Locati and Description Jackson 152' north of Graves. Northbound vehicle proceeding straight rearended two north- bound parked vehicles (improper turn). Graves 15' west of Jackson. Eastbound vehicle turning right broadsided an eastbound vehicle turning right (improper turn). Graves 7' east of Jackson. Eastbound vehicle proceeding straight rearended an east- bound vehicle proceeding straight (unsafe speed). N Date 07/04/91 04/01/91 11/28/90 Graves 581' east of Jackson. 02/25/89 Northbound vehicle turning left sideswiped a westbound vehicle proceeding straight (right -of -way automobile). Graves Avenue at Jackson Avenue. 05/01/89 Southbound vehicle turning left broadsided a westbound vehicle proceeding straight (right -of - way automobile). Time 8:30 p.m. 11:55 a.m. 11:45 a.m. 3:00 a.m. 6:45 p.m. A 24 -hour traffic count was taken on the approaches to the intersection on Graves Avenue and Jackson Street. This count revealed approximately 3,900 vehicles in the eastbound and westbound directions of Graves Avenue. On Jackson Street, the southbound traffic count revealed approximately 950 vehicles. DISCUSSION Field review of the intersection during various times throughout the day revealed less than 10 pedestrians crossing the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Street. The guidelines for the installation of a pedestrian signal or flashing beacon are very specific. These guidelines require a minimum of 40 pedestrians in any two hours of the day. The intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Street does not meet this minimum pedestrian volume guideline. Therefore, the installation of a pedestrian signal is not recommended. Page 3. The purpose of "stop controls" is to assign positive right -of -way. The basic stop control" is typically assigned to the street with the least volume of traffic. Additional control, beyond the basic right -of -way assignment, is usually reserved for those locations where the volume of traffic exceeds 500 vehicles per hour for any eight hours of an average day aqd where both streets have about the same amount of traffic. This lends credibility to the higher level of intersection control. Without credibility, voluntary compliance is poor and without voluntary compliance, traffic safety is severely compromised. The intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Street does not have an equal volume of traffic. The total volume of traffic on Graves Avenue is approximately 7,800 vehicles per day. The total volume of traffic on Jackson Street is approximately 2,000 vehicles per day. Because Graves Avenue is the through street at this "T" intersection, motorists on Graves Avenue are less likely to expect "stop controls" in their direction. Knowing Jackson Street "T's" into Graves Avenue, they expect traffic on Jackson Street to stop and yield the right -of - way to them. Installation of "stop controls" on Graves Avenue would result in a higher accident potential than is currently being experienced at this intersection. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis presented in this report, the installation of a pedestrian signal or stop controls on Graves Avenue at Jackson Street is not recommended. JCI:nv Attachment A:TRAFFIC:2 1 10,, 30, N "J I— RED CU B Q ri V7 dOIS Zz� II' 54' z1' G2AVES AVENUE AMD JACK5GAJ STPEET CITY OF ROSEMEAD TOW AWAY / NO PA CKIN6 VEf1ICLE5 OVE2 80" WIDE UFOAJ Au I / 57REE'T POP- OVEP- 2 HOU25 EXCEPT LDAMAJ6 AND UNLOADING" ' "SPEED LIMIT 30" NO PA2KNG MONDAYS 6; OOAM - 10 00AH STREET SWEE P)KIG" RE) cuaza GZAVE5 AVE, FIGUP-E I ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 7. 1993 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Traffic Commission was called to order by Chairman Pinon, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California 91770. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR A PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL OR STOP SIGNS ON G RAVES AVENUE AT JACKSON STREET Deputy Traffic Engineer Itagaki stated that a request was received from a resident for the installation of a pedestrian signal or stop sign on Graves Avenue at Jackson Street. The resident did not leave their name and specific details of this request could not be discussed. Graves Avenue is a 54' wide east /west roadway which was recently constructed by L.A. County. This reconstruction included the installation of a traffic signal at Graves and San Gabriel. Graves is striped for two lanes of traffic in _ each direction separated by a two -way left turn lane. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Jackson Street is a 40' wide north /south roadway. It forms a "T" intersection with Graves Avenue. Jackson Street is striped with a single yellow skip strip and is posted 30 mph. The accident history from January 1, 1989 to March 31, 1992 was reviewed. 5 accidents were identified in the vicinity of the intersection. It should be noted that these accidents were in the vicinity of the intersection and not necessarily right at the intersection. There was only 1 accident that occurred at the intersection of Graves Avenue and Jackson Avenue which was a southbound vehicle turning left which broadsided a westbound vehicle proceeding straight. That was a violation of right -of -way automobile. A 24 -hour traffic count was taken on the approaches to the intersection of Graves and Jackson. On Graves this revealed a count of 3900 vehicles during the day. On Jackson Street in the southbound direction only, the count was approximately 950 vehicles. A field review was conducted of the intersection during various time throughout the day and this revealed less than 10 pedestrians crossing the intersection at Graves and Jackson. The guidelines for the installation of a pedestrian signal or flashing beacon are from Caltrans. These guidelines require a minimum of 40 pedestrian in any two ' hours of the day. Graves and Jackson does not meet this minimum pedestrian volume guildline. Therefore, the installation of a pedestrian signal is not recommended. This intersection was also reviewed for additional "stop controls ". Basic "stop controls" is typically assigned to the street with the least volume of traffic. Anymore control beyond that is usually reserved for locations where the traffic exceeds 500 vehicles per hour in any 8 hours of an average day, and where both streets have about the same amount of traffic. This lends credibility to the higher level of intersection control. without credibility, voluntary compliance is poor and without voluntary compliance, traffic safety is severely compromised. Graves Avenue and Jackson Street does not have an equal volume of traffic. The total volume of traffic on Graves Avenue is approximately 7,800 vehicles per day. on Jackson Street it is only approximately 2,000 vehicles per day. Graves Avenue is a "T" intersection and motorist are less likely to expect a "Stop" on this street. They would expect that traffic would stop on the intersecting street. The installation of "stop controls" on Graves Avenue would result in a higher potential than is currently being experienced at this intersection. RECOMMENDATION It was moved by Commissioner Knapp, seconded by Vice Chairman Larson, and carried unanimously to approve the Traffic Engineer's recommendation that pedestrian signal or stop signs on Graves Avenue at Jackson Street is not recommended. VIII. MATTERS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF Commissioner Knapp requested an update from the Deputy Traffic Engineer about the status of the southbound left turn lane on Del Mar Avenue at Hellman Avenue. ,STAFF REPORT = TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, DEPUTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER T, DATE: JANUARY 24, 1996 RE: REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS ON HELLMAN AVENUE AT EVELYN AVENUE REQUEST A letter, attached, has been received from Mr. Adrian Aviles, 3356 N. Evelyn Avenue, for the installation of STOP signs on Hellman Avenue at Evelyn Avenue. Mr. Aviles indicates that eastbound vehicles turning right from Hellman Avenue onto Evelyn Avenue have difficulty maneuvering because of their high rate of speed on Hellman Avenue. He feels the installation of STOP signs will slow down the vehicles so that slower turns can be made. CONDITIONS Hellman Avenue is 40 feet wide west of Evelyn Avenue and 44 feet wide east of Evelyn Avenue. Hellman Avenue is a collector street striped with one lane of traffic in each direction separated by a double yellow centerline. Parking is permitted on both sides of the roadway in the vicinity of Evelyn Avenue. The posted speed limit on Hellman Avenue is 30 mph. Evelyn Avenue is a 36 foot wide north /south residential roadway with no centerline striping. Evelyn Avenue is STOP controlled at its intersection with Hellman Avenue. The prima facie speed limit is 25 mph. Figure 1 depicts existing conditions at this intersection. DATA The reported accident history from January 1, 1992 to September 30, 1995 was reviewed. This accident history revealed seven accidents occurring within 100 feet of the intersection. These accidents are summarized on the following page: TRAFFIC COMMISSION Page 2. Location and Description Date At intersection - Northbound vehicle 9/20/95 turning left broadsided a westbound vehicle proceeding straight (Right - of -way automobile). At intersection - Northbound vehicle 10/1/94 turning left broadsided an eastbound vehicle proceeding straight (Right - of -way automobile / Vision obscured). 70 feet west - Northbound vehicle 6/17/94 backing sideswiped a westbound vehicle proceeding straight (Starting/ backing). At intersection - Westbound vehicle 6/18/93 proceeding straight rearended a west- bound vehicle proceeding straight and a westbound vehicle slowing (Too close). Time Fj 8 _u 10:00 AM 10:OOAM 5:40 PM At intersection - Westbound vehicle 11/4/93 1:00 PM proceeding straight rearended a west- bound vehicle slowing (Too close). 40 feet west - Eastbound vehicle 4/9/93 10:30 AM making an unsafe turn sideswiped an eastbound parked vehicle (Not driver / Other equipment). At intersection - Northbound vehicle 5/15/92 3:15 PM turning right collided with 2 westbound pedestrians (Right -of -way pedestrian). Twenty -four hour approach counts were taken at the intersection. These counts revealed the following: 24 -hour AM Peak PM Peak Hellman Avenue - EB 4,327 242 (8:00) 441 (5:00) Hellman Avenue - WB 4,207 401 (8:00) 349 (5:00) Evelyn Avenue - NB 627 39 (7:00) 48 (5:00) Page 3. DISCUSSION Field review of the intersection of Evelyn Avenue and Hellman Avenue revealed on- street parking was moderate on Hellman Avenue. This may be from the multi- family residential units located on Hellman Avenue. Visibility of vehicles on Hellman Avenue from Evelyn Avenue was adequate with the parked vehicles. During the field review, the south curb, west of the intersection, did not have any vehicles parked on the street. In addition, no vehicles were parked on Evelyn Avenue in the immediate vicinity of Hellman Avenue. The traffic volume count of the intersection reveals a total 24 -hour volume of 9,289 on Hellman Avenue. Assuming the 24 -hour approach count on Evelyn Avenue is doubled, the total 24 -hour volume count of Evelyn Avenue is estimated at 1,254. Due to the location of Hellman Avenue and Evelyn Avenue and the surrounding traffic controls, the installation of a traffic signal would be more appropriate, if warranted. However, the installation of a multi -way STOP control and a traffic signal were investigated. Attached are the guidelines for the installation of multi -way STOP signs. The first guideline will be discussed after analysis is made for the installation of a traffic signal. The accident guideline at the intersection of Hellman Avenue and Evelyn Avenue is not met. Only two accidents would be susceptible to correction (9/20/95 and 10/1/94) with the installation of a multi -way STOP at this location. Both accidents were considered broadside, or right - angle, type accidents. For the minimum traffic volume guideline, 5 of the 8 average hours of the day meet the 500 vehicles per hour requirement. The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street falls well below the 200 units per hour. Page 4. Attached are the traffic signal guidelines found in the Caltrans Traffic Manual. All 11 warrants were reviewed. Pedestrian counts and delay were estimated based on field review of the location. The traffic volumes and accident history of this intersection do not satisfy the requirements for the installation of a traffic signal. Therefore, the first guideline for the installation of a multi -way STOP sign is also not satisfied. Skid marks around the corner would indicate a possible problem with vehicles turning right from Hellman Avenue onto Evelyn Avenue. However, field review of the location did not reveal any skid marks or broken glass in the vicinity of the intersection. In addition, only one accident involving an eastbound vehicle was reported in the period analyzed. There is no evidence that an excessive number of vehicles turning right are hitting parked vehicles. However, this is not to say the accidents do not occur, only that they are not reported to the Sheriffs Department. RECOMMENDATION The installation of a traffic signal or STOP control at the intersection of Hellman Avenue and Evelyn Avenue is not recommended at this time. Reported accident data will be monitored at this location to determine any increase in reported accidents for a six month period. Any unusual findings will be reported to the Traffic Commission. Attachments JI: HLMNEVLN 11 . C To whom it may concern, My name is Adrian J. Aviles. As a resident of the city of Rosemead, I'm informing you on a situation that needs immediate attention. Since your administration is the only one that can help, this is why this letter is directed to you. First let me asses the situation for you in order for you to better understand the purpose of this letter. I live at 3356 Evelyn Ave. in the city of Rosemead, and conveniently located at the corner of Hellman and Evelyn avenues Since there is a lot of traffic occurring near my home everyday We, as a family, have first hand knowledge of the bad accidents and "near" accidents that have occurred The problem is that the traffic coming east -bound on Hellman Ave. (from New Ave towards Del Mar) are coming at a very dangerous speed. The reason, I believe, is that there's a gradual downward sloping in the street starting from the location of Ingleside Hospital and going east -bound to Del Mar Ave. This slope is causing the cars to speed up without the driver noticing. But the problem, however, is when the cars turn right onto Evelyn Ave. from Hellman. Since the cars are coming at a high rate of speed, when they turn right, they find that the turn is hard to control safely. The reason I know this is because a telephone pole (outside my parent's bedroom) has already been struck by a car, cars that are parked on the street have been hit repeatedly -and to add, these cases have been hit - and -runs because once the oncoming car has hit a parked one, they merely leave the scene. As a matter of fact, a week ago some person(s) hit a. parked car right outside our front door! A month ago, a car turning right onto Evelyn from Hellman, was turning too fast and almost hit a father and his son, who was crossing the street. Since our house doesn't have a fence, we fear everytime we hear a car screeching his wheels wondering if he will hit someone's car as well as our own cars. My family suggests that you, the City of Rosemead, would please put up a stop sign facing the traffic coming from New Ave (east- bound) towards Del Main order to atleast slow ,�etE :face a .sjp � - 0(\ -{it (inner �ellmar ark ftz�yti cu� s +. (fas+ urol i�a�h� ) . down the traffic, and make the turns slower and safer for the driver as well as the citizens and their cars for that matter. I, on behalf of my family, appreciates your time in reading this lengthy letter and hope that you will solve this problem before someone gets hurt. Please. If you have any questions, please feel free to call anytime at (818)572 -3658. I have kept a copy for my records, please, this problem requires immediate attention. Thank Yo Ad J. Aviles A n 1 1 �y.2519 5 /ter a✓� - ReY�ee A v P-5 33 b E , je.lyvn kQE' j2 o Se r� ead Cf1 C A VI -10 a SCALE I "- Zo' HE!.1_ AVE. Zo , 20' 40 , 44' 20' 24' po �� PAKK�NG STEP MouOAY'� oRH- ZPM 7 < 5Tt26ET 7w E'EP�u4" � "ND PARKING ? J MWIDAYO I� IogM•2PM a ST RCGT 5w 6GP W 6" 36' FIRE kFYDRAnlT Ft6URE 1 OELLM AQ AV. f E\ISL`iM AV. EXP5T)Nb CUNDIrION5 .o CITY OF ROSEMEAD �r u 1 a CITY OF ROSEMEAD MULTI -WAY STOP SIGN WARRANTS (FROM CALTRANS TRAFFIC MANUAL) LOCATION: �vely� 76'- uA ° DATE: �7.� The installation of multi -way STOP signs are based on the following: 1. Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multi -way STOP may be an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the signal installation. 2. An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents within a 12 month period of a type susceptible to correction by a multi - way STOP installation. Such accidents include right- and left -turn collisions as well as right -angle collisions. 3. Minimum traffic volumes: (a) The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and (b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour, but (c) When the 85- percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 percent of the above requirements. VOLUME WORKSHEET e Guideline �� oP� Q �2� �4� �R� o�� O Hour 1\1 o I (a) Total Volume 500 (350) 144- 1 743 18-391 7641 593144(, 1 35 (b) Combined Volume 200 (140) 1 39 138 1 56 1 4a 135 1 39 1 39 148 1 9 -6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 11992 Figure 9 -1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC = DATE t Z¢ rf6 DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE ' II e��rva� avenue IticalA proachSpeed 4 o mph Major St: t+ C � �5 mph Minor St: >cvC� r � 1 enuE Critical speed of major street traffic 2t 40 mph — — — -- — — — — - — — — Or RURAL (R) C In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. — — — — — — ❑ URBAN (U) 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO C9 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (Be% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R APPROACH 1 2 or more . p \� �' Gj (O 't• LANES Both Appichs. 50o 3s0 600 420 73 7D� 790 715 555 377 30q Major Street (400) 280 (480) (336) n Highest Apprch. 150 1 5 200 140 3� 3G, Q-g ?�9 3F- — 4v Minor Street (120) (84) (160) (112) WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 80 °o SATISFIED YES ❑ NO �I MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R P� R� CV �kA QO �Q�' �qtA APPROACH 1 2 or more ,t��` p` p �j� tp' 1� (^ Hour LANES Both Apprrhs. 750 525 (goo) 30 �{Oq 473 708 79D 715 555 377 - bDq Major Street (600) Highest Apprch. 75 53 10 70 3a 35 4 3.1 38 39 48 Minor Strcot (60) (421 (80) 156) WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ;. REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more Yes ❑ No for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one hour: AND (Eo};mn�ed - 125 titan IQO /c(a There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street tral- Yes ❑ No tic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross; PU12 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. 0 Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9 -7 -7 Figure 9 -2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 4 - School Crossings WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Not Applicable _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - } See School Crossings Warrant Sheet ❑ SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ,® DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL > I000 FT. N h S — it E'er 500 1t. W ^ ZZOO ft. ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING 8 SPEED CONTROL WOULD 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 REQUIREMENTS I WARRANT FULFILLED YES ❑ NO)j El 9 YES ❑ NO FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT t - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME - _ - SATISFIED OA -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - _ 80% WARRANT' INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ACC WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. 8 INVOLVING INJURY OR ? 5500 DAMAGE ______ MINIMUM REQUIREMENT r NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE 2 (10/94 1 0/95 WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant MINIMUM VOLUME REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES ALL APPROACHES SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ v / I FULFILLED DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR 38 VEH!HR 1000 VEH:HR — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS OF A SAT AND,OR SUN VEH!HR YES ❑ NO CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST MINOR ST. 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 d -4991 Figure 9 -3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO REQUIREMENT WARRANT J FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES E] NO 1. 80 SATISFIED YES ❑ NO J WARRANT 9 -Four Hour Volume t1 Approach Lanes One more '1'� `i, our Soth Approaches Malor Street ✓ 4cf ct - Jq0 - 115 309 Highest Approaches . Minor Street ✓ 39 4'8 3`1 4P, ' Refer to Figure 9 -6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 -7 (RURAL AREAS) to determine it this warrant is satisfied, WARRANT to -Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO Icv (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a r�yy1t STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -I n YES [:1 NO approach and live y�l vehicle -hours for a two -lane approach. AND (Eg.lrrw4f� 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes. AND YES ❑ NO 3 The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES P NO ❑ WARRANT t 1 -Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 2 o r ed Approach Lanes Oo' t Aoproaches - M ajor Street ✓ H gnest Approaches - Minor Street ✓ Hour ' Refer to Figure 9.8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9 -9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right•of -way assignment must be shown. TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-11 - Traffic Manual 1.1991 Figure 9 -6 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Urban Areas) f�ellw a� Avehue��vel�n AJE mu `- 500 400 . I S H U w 0 300 ¢ ¢ a w a 0 W 200 2 J O > 100 S U 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH NOTE! 115 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 409 X40 X15 �t 1400 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 2 OR MORE LANES OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) (MAJOR) & 2 MORE & 1 LANE LANES (MINOR) (MINOR) E (Mhll'OR) 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LA 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH NOTE! 115 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 409 X40 X15 �t 1400 Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9 -13 1 -1991 Figure 9 -8 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Urban Areas) ��,llwan>2ire�uE�Evelyvt ��enue .99 _ a ' 500 p 400 �¢ y a a 0 w 300 z 2 0 200 100 rel 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 VA •' . . ■ W .' . MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH * NOTE: 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. M X40 48