CC - Item 5C - Request for Traffic SignalE M F
S
p ~ 9
ORATED •
•
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: OLIVER CHI, CITY MANAGER G LAIA
DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2008
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF RUSH
STREET AND ANGELUS AVENUE
SUMMARY
On January 3, 2008, the Traffic Commission reviewed a request to install flashing
yellow beacons or a traffic signal at the intersection of Rush Street and Angelus
Avenue. This item was reviewed in response to a petition from local residents and
parents of students attending Rice Elementary School. After visiting the site and
conducting a traffic study, staff found that the traffic conditions did not warrant additional
traffic calming measures. The Traffic Commission opposed staffs recommendation and
is requesting that the City Council consider additional traffic calming measures for the
intersection.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to continue monitoring traffic issues
at Rush Street and Angelus and increase law enforcement efforts during school start
and release times.
DISCUSSION
In late November 2007, staff received a petition to evaluate the traffic conditions at
Rush Street and Angelus Avenue, adjacent to Rice Elementary School. After reviewing
a study of the same area conducted in May 2007, staff found that the traffic counts,
pedestrian counts, and accident records did not meet the California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) requirements to warrant installation of new
flashing beacons or traffic signals.
At its January meeting, staff recommended to the Traffic Commission that additional
traffic control measures not be installed at the intersection. After reviewing this study
and considering resident concerns, the Traffic Commission voted unanimously (one
commissioner was absent) to reject staff's recommendation and instead ask the City
Council to consider additional traffic calming measures along Rush Street.
APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: O L Ve-4, c Y
City Council Meeting
February 12, 2008
Page 2 of 2
Recommendations from the Traffic Commission included:
• Consider installing traffic signals at Rush Street/Angelus Avenue and Rush
Street/Delta Avenue
• Consider installing longitudinal lines (parallel to traffic flow) in the crosswalk at
Rush Street/Angelus Avenue
• Consider installing red curb on the south side of Rush Street from Delta Avenue
west to fifteen feet beyond the existing fire hydrant at this location
• Increase law enforcement personnel during school start and release times
• Review the Conditions of Approval #41 of the Wal-Mart development as a means
to fund these recommended improvements
Since the traffic study in the area did not warrant additional traffic calming measures,
the improvements can not be funded under the Wal-Mart Conditions of Approval #41.
FINANCIAL REVIEW
Funding for this project is not provided in the engineering division's fiscal year 2007-08
budget. Should the City Council decide to move forward with traffic calming measures,
additional funds will need to be budgeted to complete any mitigation work.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable
LEGAL REVIEW
This staff report has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
Prepared by:
Chris Marcarello
Administrative Services Officer
Submitted by:
+s~ki
Brian Saeki
Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
(1) Traffic Commission Agenda Report, January 3, 2008
•
lJ
ROSEMEAD TRAFFIC COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS
FROM: JOANNE ITAGAKI, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPUTY
DATE: JANUARY 3, 2008
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF RUSH
STREET AND ANGELUS AVENUE
SUMMARY
A petition (attached) was received by City staff requesting the installation of a traffic
signal at the intersection of Rush Street and Angelus Avenue. The petition appears to
be from parents of students attending Rice Elementary School and residents in the area
of the subject intersection.
Staff Recommendation
It is staffs recommendation that flashing yellow beacons or a traffic signal not be
installed at the intersection of Rush Street and Angelus Avenue at this time.
ANALYSIS
Rush Street is an 84-foot wide east-west roadway with two lanes of traffic in each
direction. A raised center median separates opposing lanes of traffic. There are
dedicated left turn lanes on Rush Street at its intersection with Angelus Avenue. There
is a yellow crosswalk on the east leg of the intersection. School pedestrian warning
signs exist at and in advance of this crossing. There is a crossing guard assigned to
this intersection during school start and release times. "SLOW SCHOOL XING"
pavement markings also exist in advance of this crossing. Parking is generally allowed
on both sides of the street except during street sweeping days. The posted speed limit
on Rush Street is 40 mph.
Angelus Avenue is a 40 foot wide north-south roadway with one lane of traffic in each
direction. There is no striping separating opposing lanes of traffic. Street sweeping
parking restrictions are posted on Angelus Avenue. Rice Elementary School is located
on the east side of Angelus Avenue north of Rush Street. The prima facie speed limit
on Angelus Avenue is 25 mph.
Exhibit "A" depicts existing conditions at the intersection of Rush Street and Angelus
Avenue.
• 0
Traffic Commission Meeting
January 3, 2008
Page 2 of 4
Discussion
Staff received this petition request in late November. This item would not have been
placed on the December Traffic Commission meeting agenda because the deadline had
passed. Therefore, it was placed on the January Traffic Commission agenda.
However, staff did not have sufficient time to collect traffic and/or pedestrian data before
the holiday period.
.Staff did collect data, including pedestrian counts, in April and May 2007. This data was
collected in conjunction with the follow-up analysis of the Wal-Mart development. The
following tables summarize the data collected at the intersection of Rush Street and
Angelus Avenue.
24 Hour Traffic Volume
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Rush Street
-
4,995
5,530
Angelus Avenue
669
795
Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Rush Street
-
474 (7:45 AM)
459 (7:15 AM)
507 (5:15 PM)
543 (5:15 P.M)
Angelus Avenue
92 (7:30 AM)
140 (7:30 AM)
102 (2:15 PM)
100 (2:15 PM)
Pedestrian Count
8:00 - 9:00 AM
12:35 to 1:35 PM
Elementary Age
Adults
Elementary Age
Adults
Crossing East Leg
10
23
9
9
Crossing North Leg
0
0
0
4
Reported traffic collision data was reviewed for the intersection of Rush Street and
Angelus Avenue. The reported collision history of the intersection was reviewed for the
period from January 1, 2005 through October 31, 2007. There were 3 reported
collisions during this period summarized on the next page.
0 0
Traffic Commission Meeting
January 3, 2008
Page 3 of 4
Description Time & Date
1. Southbound vehicle broadsided a 2:48 PM, 10/12/07
westbound vehicle (no injuries).
2. Westbound vehicle rearended a 9:10 AM, 5/27/07
westbound vehicle (1 injury).
3. Northbound vehicle broadsided a 10:15 AM, 2/8/05
westbound vehicle (no injuries).
Field observations were made of the intersection of Rush Street and Angelus Avenue
during student start and release times for Rice Elementary School. During these
observations, pedestrians were identified crossing Rush Street. The majority of the
elementary age pedestrians were crossing with adults. Motorists were observed driving
through the yellow crosswalk when pedestrians were crossing.
Flashing Yellow Beacon Analysis
The installation of traffic signals and flashing beacons is based on guidelines presented
in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). These
guidelines state:
Flashing yellow beacons may be installed to supplement standard school signing
and markings for the purpose of providing advanced warning during specified
times of operation when justified.
A flashing yellow beacon may be justified when ALL of the following conditions
are fulfilled:
1. The uncontrolled school crossing is on the "Suggested Route to School"; and
2. At least 40 school pedestrians use the crossing during each of any two hours
(not necessarily consecutive) of a normal school day; and
3. The crossing is at least 180 m (600 ft) from the nearest alternate crossing
controlled by traffic signals, stop signs or crossing guards; and
4. The vehicular volume through the crossing exceeds 200 vehicles per hour in
urban areas or 140 vehicles per hour in rural areas during the same hour the
students are going to and from school during normal school hours; and
5. The critical approach speed exceeds 55 km/h (35 mph) or the approach
visibility is less than the stopping sight distance.
Exhibit B demonstrates how the traffic and pedestrian volumes at Rush Street and
Angelus Avenue compares to the CA MUTCD guidelines. As shown on Exhibit B, "All
Parts" of the guidelines must be satisfied. The data collected indicates the intersection
of Rush Street and Angelus Avenue does not satisfy the CA MUTCD guidelines for the
installation of flashing yellow beacons at this time.
• 0
Traffic Commission Meeting
January 3, 2008
Page 4 of 4
Recommendation
Based on the analysis of the traffic and pedestrian volumes collected at the intersection
of Rush Street and Angelus Avenue, the installation of flashing yellow beacons are not
recommended at this time.
Traffic Signal Analysis
The CA MUTCD provides guidelines for the installation of traffic signals at intersections.
The guidelines consist of 8 Warrants as follows:
Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
Warrant 5, School Crossing
Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
Warrant 7, Crash Experience
Warrant 8, Roadway Network
The CA MUTCD states: "The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not
in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal."
Exhibit C provides a summary and the complete Warrant analyses for Rush Street and
Angelus Avenue. As shown in the summary of Exhibit C, none of the 8 Warrants are
satisfied. Therefore, the installation of a traffic signal at Rush Street and Angelus
Avenue is not recommended at this time.
Recommendation
Based on the data collected at the intersection Rush Street and Angelus Avenue, the
installation of a traffic signal is not recommended at this time.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Submitted by:
Joanne
Traffic Engineering Deputy
Petition requesting traffic signal
Exhibit A: Existing Conditions at Rush Street and Angelus Avenue
Exhibit B: Flashing Yellow Beacon Worksheet
Exhibit C: Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Q:yM6774-Rsd Retainer 07-08\Traffic Commission AgendasUanuary 2008\Rush 8 Angelus - Signal Request.doc
0 i
CONCERNED PARENTS WANT A TRAFFIC LIGHT
October 25. 2007
Road & Transport
City Hall
Los Angeles, Ca, and City of Rosemead
Concerned parents of the school district would like to see a traffic light installed at the
intersection fo Rush & Angelus, city of Rosemead.
We the undersigned citizens (parents) of the Eldridge Rice School District and residents of this
area, have found the intersection of Rush & Angelus in Rosemead Ca., to be dangerous.
In response to the numerous accidents at this location, we believe a traffic light should be
installed here.
The notoriety of this intersection needs to end. The clear and present danger represented by this
intersection has been noted by parents, students, administrators, citizens, and visitors of the
Eldridge Rice School District (2150 N. Angelus Ave. Rosemead, Ca 91770).
To alleviate the concern and the dangers to the involved parties, a traffic light needs to be
installed at this location.
F'1"1
H
L~
cn
w
a
Q
.
~
o
U
~
z
O
~
0
0
lk
. a~
M
~
b
p
Q
O
`
W
v' P
0 P
s A
N
1
rr
E
p o
a
O~ 1
J
r
1 \
1
K
c
~
t
J
O
y
`
q
v`
34
xr~
~
J
i"
ti
~
.y
L
Jl
a ~
S r
_7^
Y T
l
2
U
Q
V]
z
Q
W
z
0
a
~a
0
O
N
U ~
Irl
§
1
O
~
~
1
1
1
1
~ O
c
O
~
o
P
O
r ~
+
~
J
v
`C
i
N Z
~
µ TP~
3
s
z ~
~
N
V
~
1
u
I
Ilk
vi
N
o
N
5
1 ~
a
5
a
ff//
r`~ 1
• •
z~
0
0
1
O
r
~
c
c
~
r
,~'<r;
~0 M
hl
I
~
M
,J
r7
M
1
\
1
,
~y
'o-~
:P;.
° r
ao
o
O
O
a
1
o
O
0
o
~
v
`
r}
r
r
s
1
fi
P
, Si
k
u'S
n
r
x
,1
u
~
vv~~
.
i
tf ~
N ~
C 1
Lf
6 d
d S
~
V
d f
Q o
~
tV5
3 ,
LL
1L
~
R
'N
-1- r_.
~ v
AI
o
>
Q
~
?iii
r 6
<
a v
h
CS
G
-
d J
~
3 V
~
n
a
N-
s
a
3~
v
r
a
e
r
wa
m
r
N
v
r~ y
~qjx
L
~
'
i'
U
1
7:2
G4
o~
~
6
S
3
s
~c
v
s
h
~
-ac
J
e
•n
• J
J
w
H
z
Q
U
O
U
0
x
rl
o
N:
A
c7
`
y~
L
~
X11
<D
p
t'
FF
S
F:y
~
V
C~
~
f\
IE
F
r
CA-
'
y `
\
C
N
M
3
M
ib;
~
N
c
oo
N
co
'
S
n
I~J
S
-a
"
-
z,
-
Rc
✓
S
• 0
M
I~
y:
\
I
~
I
o
I
_
•
is
V ~
-
o
y\
C
CF
-
r.~
0
lp
r
tu' ,
V\
~
71o
4
R
'C1~
U
O
=
-
F
~p
q
-
,x
Ir
y0
s
J
o
y
Z~y
r. ;
a
Zr-
%
4
O
23
Q
0
I
t
~9
:
'
M
~
u
I
s
i
W
\
L
rD --o
A
W
ih
i
;q.
v
~•l
2
c~
-
\j
IS:
75
t
~
b
<
O
.V
i,
d
•
~
d
a
fy
~
J
(n
~
J
r.
`J
0
777
}vV
'
:'I,pr1;
V o6
k
Jd
9
Q
>a.
Z~j
{ydr,
M
l
_
l~
~
~
21.
~,a-M
I
Y1
r;
~
~
N
5
l
,
;
~
fs:
• 0
f\
A
r:
t
~
f
N
Nlm
N
V
y
6
c
~ S
1r
a
as
V
Y\
v
s
o
J
-S
j
'fig
o
~
c.
o~
~ ~
~
Y
.1
~
~
C
U'
d
cb
C5K
4
fz~
its)
Ll
s
d
• 0
\ r~
0
~
p
I
b
b
P
a
°
0
s
d
S
~ Q
a
J
y qj
~
-k
U
4
I
b
S
~
f
J
2
~
`
M
M
C'1
M
I
C%
W,
t
3
o r•1 CC ~t~J\ M1 f.-. ,fir. ~
• w
s
~
3
3
S
M
C,
v
C
S
I
z'
S~ ~ ~
w
LLJ
Mf~ M ~ N
WYu W _
S
R I IC Y'-y N
Y O
y K OJ o
J
2nN2AV 'd1
m II w
U ry N
nnoO Qw
0 O (1
w a~Na'~pLL~
n ~
~pw~- I O
LLN
Q
rc'I I b I ~ ~
wr
N IN _ N I N I s
<mE_.
W 00.,Y ~~~N
N
mnnrom¢w u - Q (D v
~irY ~i p~O~e s J Off J J
F Yij W O3_ -
Q
•R
- ~ 30 W II Q ~1x Q Ai;
> Fm J J W W W
g Y ;i o o
v. Zia N
Qm
_ _ C1C1
'~IAV Gn 1DONH a a'
~ w
n
N
roQw
~Otr _
wec L
ry N O- I N L J a
L`v w w wU'
U a
= o
w v) w _
X Q D Q F
W Q n
u U o
UQ ~ a
m
mm m m o
N
l~ivi `mm ~iN[
~ Exl+l~51r B
California MUTCD Page 4K-6
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4K-101 (CA). Flashing Beacon at School Crossings Worksheet
DIST CO RTE PM
Major St: RrA~ilf~ fJ f te,+_
Minor St: tna e(u9 A ue
COUNT DATE Apr-J jHr ~ zow
CALC ~Cr DATE
CHK DATE
Critical Approach Speed 4 4- mph
Critical Approach Speed mph
Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic > 64 km/h (40 mph)........ RURAL (R)
In built up area of isolated community of <.10,000 population ❑
❑ URBAN (U)
Flashing Yellow Beacon at School Crossings
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
PartA U R
Vehicle Volume
Each of
2 Hours
200
140
eA7
606
School Age Pedestrians
Each of
40
40
(O
9
Crossing Street
2 Hours
AND
Part B
Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 55 km/h (35 mph)
AND
Part C
Is Nearest Controlled Crossing More Than 180 m (600 ft) away?
(Cro~fatv~~ guars( a~i°rl'h~d to tn4tr~ec-~~o~~
(This space left intentionally blank)
Chapter 4K- Flashing Beacons
Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
r SATISFIED YES E] NO ;4
SATISFIED YES $ NO E]
SATISFIED YES D NO X
September 26, 2006
E-mo5m C
I oj~Z
City of Rosemead
Summary of Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
(From MUTCD 2003 CA Supplement)
Location: Rush Street and Angelus Avenue Date: Dec. 2007
Warrant 1 - Eight Hour Vehicular Volume
Condition A or B or Combo A & B Satisfied Yes No
• Condition A - Minimum Vehicle Volume
100% Satisfied Yes No
80% Satisfied Yes o
• Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
100% Satisfied Yes No
80% Satisfied Yes No
• Combination of Conditions A & B Satisfied Yes
Warrant 2 - Four Hour Vehicular Volume Satisfied Yes No
Warrant 3 - Peak Hour Part A or Part B Satisfied Yes No
• Part A Satisfied Yes No
• Part B Satisfied Yes No
Warrant 4 - Pedestrian Volume 100% Satisfied Yes No
Warrant 5 -School Crossing Parts A and B or Part C Satisfied
• Part A Satisfied Yes No
• Part B Satisfied Yes No
. Part C Satisfied es
Warrant 6 - Coordinated Signal System Satisfied Yes
Warrant 7 - Crash Warrant Satisfied Yes No
Warrant 8 - Roadway Network Satisfied Yes
Yes No
Number of Warrants Satisfied: 0 (Zero)
Installation of a traffic signal:
0 is not recommended based on _n0 Warrants being Satisfied.
EmtifNT
Z of?
IMUTCD 2003 R~%ision I. ns auicnitcd f'or we m "I
ii I*01-111xl
it
COUNT DATE -/'t ^i 1
CAL C - k1Z UA I E
DIST CO RTE Fid
CHK DATE
+
~ ' CNC.t
Major Si: ~
Critical Approach Speed
r-1-,h
,
hiiir;or St: l..L !ti ICL7 t1t
Critical Approach Speed
mph
~q
Speed Ilmit or critical speed on major street traffic > 64 I;m!h f40 mph)........ o l
i!
f
RURA
L )R)
i'
In built up area of isolated community of < 10.000 population . ❑ I
;r.
'
❑ URBAN (U)
VIPAIRRAN'f 1 -Eight Hour Vehicular Volume
SATISFIED
YES ❑ NO
i
(Condition A or Condition B or combination
of A and B must be satisfied)
r
'
i
Condition A - N'linimum Vehicle Volume
100% SATISFIED
'DES ❑ NO
MINIMUM REQUIREb1EINTS
80% SATISFIED
YES ❑ NO ~K-
(80%SHO`✓IIN IN BRACxeTS)
I
APPROACH 1 2 or More
LANES
1 f(j \ v
Hour
1tl
eur "si=et s
Major
(anoi
tzao)
taeo)
(33s
6(sF $4ZIbLfi
luu7
73~
6R9
lul~f
914
'
Kg.hestAppmach
Minor Street
150
1127)
105
184)
200
(160)
(112)
/r
74- ill 41
4t,
iY
5b
/
7r+
71
G.
Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED
YES ❑ NO ;9
' MINIMUM REQU!P,EMENTS
80% SATISFIED
YES ❑ NO S'
(801/i SHO',NN IN BRACKETS)
v
r
APPROACH 1 2 or More
/
/N /i
/ Hrur
Both Apprnacr,es
dlaiar ;reet
750 525
rem (42o)
?OG
Izzc
d3G
soa
b(4
)
4L aet.
tJi
G
"j3t{
b99
iCiYj `i14'
p
o
I
H;ghestAppraach
75 ; '3
17G
70
7 -
4
q7 41
4k,
M
5L.
7L' 171
Combination of Conditions A & B
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO'K
REQUIREMENT
CONDITION
J
FULFILLED
A. MINIMUM VEHICULAR, VOLUME
T✓JO CONDITIONS
\
❑ N
(
°s
o
SATISFIED 800/6
AND,
8. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TIRAFFIC
i-NQ, .4N .40EQUATE , RIAL OF OTNE.R ALTERNATIVES TFIP,T COL'L O
1
Y
❑ il
CAUSE LESS DELAY AND :NCONVENIENCE TOT RAFFIC HAS FAILED
es
o
TO SOLVE THE TRAFFi C PROBLEMS
f
Tile :-.atisfaction of a traffic signa' :saran? or wararts she!! not !n its-i` rrcuire :ne installation of a tr;5ic cortroi s!;nal.
' Oive 4, Trif-ic 1 . w,ol 4ia:i `_td, S'itditg C.Cpt:'Ir •c1 6. _Wlt,
N:::[1 HiGin,. at Tr:rt;ia >~eoa':
1 0
I r21i4;n:ia?J.TCD .
I Fl W V.i >IL i C D 'On; Re%: is:on I. as a:mndcd Fur use in Co I; foram
EY,4151T C
307
WARRANT 2 - Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED' YES ❑ ido .Q
Record hourly vehicular volumes for any four hours of an avera9f daV
2 or
APPROACH LANES One More Hour
Both Approaches - Major Street 1
1 1
1S
L-L4 EA
7?4
A
Higher Approach - Minor Street 1
1 f- 1
74- ej 7
84
'11 1
-All plotted points fall above the curves in Figure 4C-1. (URBAN AREAS)
P/A
Yes ❑
No
❑
y>g. All ploHed points fall above the curies in Figure 4C-2. (RURAL AREAS)
`{es ❑
^!o
T~
'A; ;RANT 3 - Peak Hour SATISFIED YES ❑ NO )-4---
(Part A or Part B must be satisfied)
PART A SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied for the same
one hour, for any four consecutive 15-minute periods)
1 T'na total delay eyp erienced for traffic on one minor street approach (one direction only)
coniroil,~tl by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hour 5~~ 14ane Yes [I No
approach, or five vehic_e_hours for a Cmo-lane approach: AND /l
2. The volume on the same minor street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds yes ❑ No
100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or '50 vph for two moving lanes; AND
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds E00 vph .~l
for:ntersecliors vith four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with Yes A No ❑
hree approaches.
PART 8 'A SATISFIED YES ❑ NO k
,I~
APPROA-H I.ANFS One 7 or CL Hour
Both Approaches - Major Street
.X
IL>Q
Higher Approach - Minor Street
e
The plotted point falls above the cunie in Figure 4C-11.
N~
'{es ❑
No
❑
2 The plotted point falls above he curve in Figure 4C-4.
r
Yes ❑
i`lo
The safisfacfion of a'raific slonal varrant or warrants shail not in itself require the instal'a;lon of a tragic control s;gna!.
4u^^:rte(- Imr.i< C: onr,.d S,mi:J \cad, Sind;.",
Pan = :!^I',:. ay La: iic S.i_nuis
c-"!! o bur'.. -Irln
k
u
f
I:
i
I
I •
~XH1BlT C
l ~e„~~
4 0
(alilbrnia 4i Urcn
P:r_c T(-?
1 i IM , NIt ~TCD 200' Re%lsi J:1 I. it, amenced t
m- iise in Cvdifnrain)
Frr.ua«C-1C'i(C.A." !la
m:`fIIal'✓o'•:+i,~n(;
bi'~irislir~e!('Shee`
ur4)
I
~
WARRANT 4 - Pedestrian Volume
rJ
SATISFIED
YES ❑ NO
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
I
'Hart A (Parts S or 2 most be satisfied'
H
~~ly /
SATISFIED
YES ❑ P40 VL E
ours
1
Pedestnan Volume
D
n
-
Any hour? 190.
Yes ❑ No K' I
.
I
1
1
OP, any 4 hours > 900
Yes ❑ No
Adequate Crossing Gaps
1
e .'*j
1 1
E'
'7
~3at~`
~If
1
AND < 50 gap/hr
Yes ❑ No tci
2
'art P, SATISFIEDD ~YE~Sf:o
AND. The tllstanre to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater yes No
is an go m (no ft) !
OR. The proposed traic signal will riot restrict progressive traffic flow along the major Street. Yes No
WARRANT 5 - School Crossing SATISFIED YES C] NO l~[
(Parts A and B, or Part C %lust Be Satisfied) IN
Part A Ae'z SATISFIED YES ❑ ,10
GaplMinotes and # of Children pp
L' Hour
Gaps
Minutes Chlldmn Using Crossing
60
vs
A1!nutes
Number Of Adequate Gaps
School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street hr
e~rt. 7 60,yk?"Ar
Gaps < Minutes YES ❑ NO
AND Children > 20/hr YES ❑ NC 'x
AND, Consideration has been given to less restrictive remedial measures. Yes ❑ No
Part B SATISFIED YES P- NO ❑
The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the ;r,a,w wreei is yrecler YES No
than 90 In j300 ft)
OP,. The proposed signal.viil not -astrict the progressive moverient of traffic ! `/_s El Ho
Part C (A!! Parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied) SATISFIED YES ❑ NO Tj.
U Ry'
9
'JehiclesPor
.`.OD
350
~
'L
,
Yes No ❑
I
AN'D. School .Age F'edes`.rians Crassing Steet %hr
10D
J
70
U
1'es ❑ No
OR. School Aoe PedesVians Crossing Street, day
500
3i,,o
W/A Yes ❑ No ❑
' 1Nher !he Critical (35th percenUe approach speed exceeds 55 km/h 135 mph) or tie sight distance to the
ntersect:cn is less than the r=equired stopping distance. rural criter'la should be used.
2. (tiger 519na!,asrrants are .me: ~ Yes ❑ No,
3. The distance to the rearest conho'led crossings greater than 180 or (600 3?. I Yes' . No U• f
Pie sat,sfacdon Of a traffic signal o-va rani cnvarran!s snail no: in ~!ae!f ,.quire the inscail?tiorl of a V,2-r c.,r!ra s;g^el
. A!;,c ',1efE. C, ;:.i.,! Sign;! }:cccb itadie, S:p~... 11, r .:Olin
r 4 - I:ierlm a% Ti.,tf:c Sis~,,rs
ca5fc-n 6 . P iL:I CD
i FH"d .A Nil- TCD 200; Rccisiou I. as amcndcd tnr ❑sc in Califonlial
41
:,WARRANT 6 - Coordinated Signal System
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
Adequate trial of altematives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to
c
),es c Noi-
e the crash frequency.
redu
REQUIREMENTS
Number of crashes within a 12 month period susceptible
tc correction by a traffic signal. and involving injury or
Yes[] rJo
damage exceeding the requirements for a reportable crash.
S OR MORE
I (0}101105 '1'fl /0~3f ~U•7~
REQUIREMENTS I
C01,70ITiONS
v
Warrant 1. Condition A-
Minimum Vehicular Volume
ONE CONDITION
Warrant 1, Condition B -
Yes ❑ No '
SATISFIED &00/
Interruption of continuous traffic
OR. Warrant 4. Pedestrian Volume Condition
Ped Vol > 152 for any hour
-
Vol > 30 for any e hours
QR Ped
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL '
a 300 m (1000 RI
N rjm-- t, S ' H, E 7I5 ft. W r [U ft
Yes ❑ NoXL
On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction. the adjacent
,
traffic control signals are solar apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of
vehicrular platoc:ling. . -
-
T
Yes ❑ Nol-
. On a tyro-~.vay street, adjacent traffic con
o sig na!s do not provide the necessary
dl
degree o' platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals vd ll collectively
provide a progressive operation.
Vdu,RRfANT 7 - Crash Experience Warrant SATISFIED VES ❑ NO
(.All Parts klust Be Satisfied)
I
1
LJ
0
I
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO'Se
SATISFIED YES ❑ NO
WARRANT 8 - Roadway Network
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
MIIJhbIUM VOLUME
PEOU!REHENTa
ENTERING VOLUMES -ALLAFPROACHES
During TypicalWeekday Peak Hour g Y j
`yen/Hr
and `tai 5-yea projected traffic .,ricmes that meet one or more
of Warrants t. 2 and 3 dung an average weekda;,.
1000 itch/Hr
OR
During Each of Any 5 Hrs. of a Sat. ar,d.or Sun
Veh.'Hr
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES
t°JOR
ROL'T_A
MA-'OR
RO•JTEe
System Serving as Principal Network for Through Traffic
-
-
hj
-
-
N
-
H.:ral or
INj
Suburban Highway Outside Cf. cnterino, or Traversing a City
=
T
Appears as Major Rode on an. Offiria! ?Ian
N
Q
Any Vajor cut:: CharaQeristss MEA Both Streets
EXt+15tr C
oP~
15
FULFILLED
Yes❑ IJoYP
""SE] No
TM- •=Usfacr6?a Of e ..aEfc signal warrant or warrants s=ail r !-i itself require the irstallaticT, of a traff-c cor:lrel .=.j2nz:
I
1 • /j •
Ca!rfonuz: \1L IC D
(F I !,1l'TCI) 2003 Rc%is ion I, as ammi I dcc! for use in Cit I fom:al
T
0-
> 5n-•
S
U
F Q 1(il
W J
w Q
F- a
?nn
- CL
CO Q
C) 2
20:1
210
Uj 0:1
ill
2
S
Figure 4C-7. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
2 OR MORE LANES d 2 OR MORE LA ES
2 OR MORE LAN' R. 1 LA!JE
!
1 LAME S I LANE
I
I
~KtHBITC
6 o~Z
I XJ 3rn} J7Li ri0v [.00 t00e 100 12.10 150i. 1np
STREET-TO
TAL OF BOTH APPROA.CHES-
I VEHICLES S PER HOUR (VPH)
Note: 115 vph applies as the lower th resho!d volume fora minor-street
approach with tveo or more lanes and d0 vph applies as the lo:;a
threshold vobime for a minor-street approach with one lone.
Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor)
(COto MU41T'f LESS THAN 10.070 POPULATION OF ABOVE 7£ 64 km h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON hdAJOR STREET) W
S 4e!:
a
U ;:nr
LU
Fa
L9 Q N:i
,S w
O J
g O py1
W
(7
I
OH (,'OR
"c'-FNES 21 OR 1iO9E LANES
1
2 OR MORE I ANES & 1 LANE"
1 LANES " LANE
I
I
I
I i ~
~ I 1
I
MiAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-
VEHICLER PER HOUR ;'JPH)
Idle. A0 :pf, a~:!9.:es a,, in,,, i;,r c'
~opic-ac:. '':Ph n,n of morn I?n.=.< znd u0 (,I. .is t:'1e
!I is=Si ~Itl 'N!un'L `(`i n:niar. vlrm?i :~❑p~rn,~L v'tII One 'ar~:;
~o
E0
' :,;vex r ntlis ; p :IMl _-!,it :imaic: Set.. ~nl,er . ?nu.
!i:cy-IIL:'::•.a~ Tial ri.S ::I:
Calif L' min \ILjT( 1)
WHVA', MUT( 6 2001 Rcci>ion I. as amended for nsc in ('alilornia)
_ `'"I
_ ,rr
w X0 J'J .
wa
¢a
~ c 3qr
W
C_) Z
5i 0 L J 20:
W
T
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Ho ~jr
E) t~l51T L'
7olr7
P-,u 4C - l u
/ 2 OR 1009E L S 8 2 OR MORE L.Af
i OR. M1.10P,E LF,NES E t LAN[
I
~
~
''t LANE ~8 7 -ANE
r
I'!:I btin f`i -I " .,1 PIO .A'. I1100 1?0 131),1 Lb:p i.-I" Poi,: 17D' It.
MAJ STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-
VEHICLES PER HOUR 1VPH)
'Note 1.50 'ph app,es as the In'xer threshold VnNm- for n Mine. -street
approach wt, two of mrre lanes and 00 vph appDes as the inwel
:hremio!o volt imn In, a mmor5trent approach vRh on,: ;one,
Figure 4C-4, V'arrart 3, Peal: Hour (70% Factor)
(COLIMUNiTY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULA71014 OR ABOVE 70 Fa Fm h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET
1
a
~J .In:• '~S - 2 OR !210 RE LANES S 2 OR MORE LANES - -
w ¢ el 0o- 0.10RE LA: "EC n 1 LE
0 t LANE 8 7 LANE
y W \
02 2r,
C
S
MAJOR STREET-TOTAL 0= BOTH APPROAC:HES-
EHr, LS-S PER HO UR
9pr i11:]!. ~1 ~.,?r'C~iOJIC : :+n:. .'.~'.hi. fi• pc tP.n'11''.
w
( 1laric: -1( I raffia ('or!r d :;i;•1,a! `.re:l,