Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-05-02; City Council; 732; Traffic Safety Policies and Warrantsr � f THE -CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNLA A�ienda B i i i No. - UL_ Date May 2, 1972 Referred To: Subject: Submitted By: Traffic Safety Policies and %:arrants Traffic Safety Commission Statement of the Matter It is becoming increasingly essential that the City of darlsbad adopt a standardized set of Safety Policies and Warrants which can be used by the Traffic Safety commission -for reviewing Traffic Safety matters. A re- view of the items being considered by the Traffic Safety Commission at the regular monthly meetings reveals certain recurring categories. The majority of the requests concern items which are not unique and have been considered in a similar form, at another location at another time. Many of the request;. are generated because of a particular incident at a par- ticular location. They are therefore often emotional in nature. Stand- ardized guidelines will assist the Commission in reviewing such requests on a rational basis. It will further allow the Commission to consider all requests on a common basis and thereby reduce the possibility of anyone alleging favoritism. The Safety Policies and Warrants which are being recommended by the Commission are the result of extensive work by both the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. The commission has reviewed the current policies of both these agencies and has extracted those policies from each agency which are most applicable to use in this City. Lkhibit 1.) Council Policy Statement No.,_adopting Traffic Safety Policies and Warrants. Staff Recommendations 1.) Adopt a motion establishing Council Policy No. as the Y cit of Carlsbad Policy regarding Traffic Safety Policies nd Warrants. ' A No. Hate: May 2, 1972 • f cite Manager's Recommendation concur. 'Adoption of Standardized Policies will reduce the staff _ ' time "required to resolve routine recurring matters 'and allow time to be ndividual in-depth review and analysis. spent on matters which 'require i Council'Action •• 5-2-72 Matter regarding Policy, Statement #9, Traffic safety policies {j and warrants, deferred until'May .16, 1072. t 5-16-72 1t was agreed that recommendations be accepted on an informal y bisis fo- a trial period of six months.prior to adoption of a Council Policy in order to,determine apolicabrlity to the City. -2- i Od CI.. OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT General Subject: Traffic Engineering Specific Subject:Traffic Safety Policies and Warrants Po11c No. 9 Date Issued Effective Date Cancellation Date ,Supersedes No. Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards Press, File __ _ J PURPOSE: To standardize traffic safety installations within the City of Carlsbad, bring Carlsbad installations into line with prevailing traffic engin- eering practice in San Diego County, and provide guidelines for handlinc citizen requests. STATEMENT OF POLICY: The following policies are adopted as the Traffic Safety Policies of the City of Carlsbad: 1. Through Highway Routes 2. Pedestrian Crovswalks 3. Speed Limit Regulations 4. 2-Way Stop Control S. 4-Way Stop Control 6. Centerline Striping 7. Temporary Road Closures Page 1 of 19 TABLE Or CONTENTS NUMBER TITLE 1 TIIROUGH HIGHWAY ROUTES 2 PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS 3 SPEED LIMIT REGULATIONS 4 2-WAY STOP CONTROL 5 4-WAY STOP CONTROL 6 CENTERLINE STRIPING 7 TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURES 1 SOURCE PAGE NO s •il County Road Policy 2 City of San Diego 3 County Road Policy 11 City of San Diego 13 City of San Diego 14 County Road Policy 17 County Road Policy 19 1 (a) MAY, 1972 POLICY NO. 1 I THROUGH HIGHWAY ROUTES Through Highways, as defined by Section 600 of the Cali- fornia Vehicle Code, shall be established on arterial and major roads carrying predominantly through -traffic, as evidenced by minimum average daily traffic volumes of 500 to 1000 vehicles, or on collector roads and streets carrying in excess of 1000 vehicles per day, particularly where an analysis of reported accidents indicates a need for route contrul. of crossing con- i fliers. l Upon establishment and signing of an arterial Through Highway, all intersecting traffic is required by law to stop before entering or crossing. i -2-x MAY, 1972 POLICY NO. 2 PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS 2.10 Purpose The purpose of a marked crosswalk is to inform drivers of a high pedestrian flow or an unusual crossing location, and to guide pedestrians by providing a marked area in which to cross. The purpose of these warrants is to establish minim a criteria for the installation of marked crosswalks so � that they r•.dy provide the greatest possible benefit to both drivers and { pedestrians. 2.11 Leila' nefiritions and Right of Way Control ' The following excerpts from the California Vehicle Code and the San Diego Municipal Code are pertinent to these warrants: C.V.C. 275. "Crosswalk" is either: - • (a) That portion of a readray included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections where the inter- secting roadways meet at approximately right angles, except the prolonga- tion of Zuch lines from an alley across a street. (b) Any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrians crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. • C.V.C. 21950. Right of tray at crosswalks: '(a) The Driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked' crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otheiiiise provided in this chapter. (b) Ho pedestrian shall sriden y leave a curb or other place of safety and Walk or run Lnto the path of a vehicle which is to close as to constitute an immediate hazard. C.V.C. 21954. Pedestrians outside crosswalks! (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk. at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles* upon the roadway. C.V.C. 21955. Crossing between controlled :intersections: Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal device:, •or by, police officers, pedestrians shall not cross, the ra�duay at any glace except in a crosswalk. a -3- i 1 S. D. M. C. 83.03 Interfering with traffic: it shall be unlawful for any person to stand in any road- , way, other than in a safety zone or in a crosswalk, if such action interferes with the lawful movement of traffic. 2.12 General When justified and properly located, a marked pedestrian cross- walk may achieve the following results: i A. Call the driver's attention to a high pedestrian flow or I an unusual crossing location. B. Point out to the pedestrian the safest crossing path. C. Limit pedestrian crossings to specific locations. Unjustified or poorly located marked crosswalks may: A. Increase accident frequency by lulling both pedestrians and drivers into a false sense of security. B. Create general disrespect for all traffic control devices. C. Result in unnecessarily high painting and maintenance costs to the City. 2.13 General Polic By legal definition there are three or more unmarked crosswalks at every intersection. The City does not normally install a marked crosswalk across an intersection approach where more re- strictive traffic control devices, other than traffic signals, are in use. Such devices include stop signs,and yield signs. However, a crosswalk may be marked at a controlled intersection if an unmarked crosswalk would not be clearly discernable due to peculiar geometrics or other unusual physical conditions. A marked midblock crosswalk may be installed when warranted on the basis of sound engineering judgment. The length of the block between intersections should be no less than 1,000 feet. There must be a reasonable demand by pedestrians to cross within a concentrated area no less than 400 feet from the nearest inter- section. There must be a high pedestrian volume generator nearby. ' s • 2.14 Warrants The following warrants are based on a point system evaluation incorpora- ? ting gap time, pedestrian volumes, vehicle approach speed, and general conditions. Accident history and the investigating engineer's opinion have been subordinated to afford ,raximimi objectivity in determining cross- i walk needs. 2.15 Point Systea Gap Time t•Tarrant Maximum 10 points j Pedestrian Volwie I -Tarrant �� 5 Approach Speed Warrant 5 i General Conditions Warrant�� 5 " Tgtal points 25 2.16 Point Evaluation ' The minimum warrant for the installation of a marked crosswalk is satisfSe d whenn a_location rates_16 or more,points,,kone,of which must be for . pedestrian voles. • i • - my, 1972 Warrants PEDESTRIU CROS_S'r1ALiCS ;t Gap Time liarrant Point Assignment Criterion Average number Points of gaps per 5 • minute period The number of unimpeded vehicle 0 - 0.99 101 8 { - 1.99 time gaps equal to or exceeding 2 - 2.99 6 the required pedestrian crossing 4 3 - 3.99 time in an average five minute 2 4 - rove k period during the peak vehicle 0 5 or over hour. • Maximum. 10 Computations • (1) Pedestrian Crossing Time = Street vidth curb to curb .0 feet per second •• 2 Average Number of Gaps per Five ISinute Period Total usable gap time in seconds Pedestrian Crossing Time x 12 Provisions (A) The above criterion is based on a one hour field survey , • • consisting of 12 five-minute samples. • (B) Ali -roadways having a raised median or a painted median will be considered as two separate k i (4 foot minimum width) f roadways. ' •(C) See Appendix One for survey methods and warrant field form. Pedestrian Volume ttarrant Point Assignment Criterion Pedestrian Total Points ` The total ntraber of pedestrians 0-10 -g0 1 ' crossing the street under study 2 during the peak vehicle hour. This 6i^90 3 � includes pedestrians in both cross- 91-120 4 valks at an intersection. Over 100 5 I' maximum 5 Approach Sneed Warrant ; Approach Sneed Points I Criterion ---- The vehicular approach speed from Under 20 1.2 20 25 0 3 both directions of travel as or 30 or 35 5 determined by the irvestigatirg 0' or 45 ,� 3 engineer through speed study 50 or 55 '�� . 1 techniques. 60 or over 0 Maximum 5 General Conditions Warrant � ' General Points Criterior. Conditions - Those conditions affecting the Values assigned according to 0-5 movement of pedestrian traffic time, pedestrian engineering other than gap volumes, and vehicular approach judgment. speed. Consideration should be 'Maximum 5 given to intersection layout, pedestrian accident history, vehicle turning _ovements, adjacent grounds and ouildir:gs, and pedestrian , generators. —7- i ' S APPEliDIX ONE ' Survey tdethods and Field Form j I, Survey- Methods A. Per reauirements:' One man* " B. Duration of survey: Ore hour during the morning or evening peak period t of vehicle travel. i C. E92ipment: Stop watch (in seconds) and warrant field forms. D. Tune of Survey: 1. 10or,/, pedestrian co -ant irithin the crosswalk area under study during the 60 minute period. .} ek 2. 100,,, recording of unimpeded vehicle gaps during the same 60 minute � period. t ` a. Each gap that is equal to or exceeds the calculated andpisestrian r crossing time is defined as a "Usable Gap Time", entered on the warrant fiel: form as such. ting car technique, or radar speed study. 3. Speed study using the floa{{ • 1 ]_. Use of the Cross1ralk tlarrant Field Form A. 'Compute the pedestrian Time and enter the figure (in seconds) in the appropriate space. e B. Begin the gap time recordingnsentering sheet length equal to or exceeding the calculated (in seconds) of those gap pedestrian crossing time. C. Total the Usable Gap Time in seconds', and compute the average number of gaps per five minute period. • approach speed, and existing D. Record the one hour pedestrian thelthreetyearpedestrian accident a general conditions, including i G history. E. Based on each warrant, assign the number of points allowable. CROSSWALK WARRANT EVALUATION LOCATION CITY OF ,CARLS$AD CALIFORNIA DATC SVMMARIzeD OY TR -ENGINEERING DEPARTMINT TRANSPORTATION G TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION SKETCH., SUMMARY Pedestrian Crossing Time: Wf th of street 4 ft. per second 4 Average number Gaps Per Five Minute Period: Total Usable Gap Time in Sec__ Ped. Crossing Time x 12 One flour Pedestrian Volume: -- to Legal Approach Speed: I' General Conditions: S POINTS MAXIMUM POINTS 10 1. Gap Time 2. Pedestrian, Volumes 5 3, Approach Speed 5 y A 4, Gencrid Conditions 5 Total' 25 /011M CC•133 t t LOCATION: DAY: WEATHER: DATE: i RECORDED BY: j FIELD DATA USABLE USABLE USABLE USABLE USABLE GAP TIh1E GAP TIME GAP TIME GAP TIME GAP, TIME TIME (SEC.) TIME (SEC.) TIME (SEC.) d TIME (SEC.) TIME (SEC.) 3 . j i 1 • TOTAL PEDESTRIAN COUNT TOTALI REMARKS: . � —10— MAY, 1972' POLICY N0. 3 SPEED LIMIT REGULATIONS The Traffic Engineer may post prima -facie 25 mph speed limits as specified under California Vehicle Code Section 22352 (b) in valid Business and Residence Districts on identification of speed related i problems, except on established through highways carrying in excess of 2000 vehicles per day. On such through highways, including arterial roads, major roads, and collector streets, realistic speed limits shall be established by action of the City Council on the basis of an Engineering and Traffic Survey as provided for in Section 22357 of the California Vehicle Code. On City roads and highways carrying in excess of 2000 vehicles per day, and which do not qualify as valid residence or business districts, the City Council shall establish realistic prima -facie limits. Such limits shall be determined by the Traffic Engineer on the basis of an Engineering and Traffic Survey as provided in Sec- tions 22358 and 22358.5 of the California Vehicle Code. Where such prima -facie limits are established, "Reduce Speed Ahead" and/or "End Speed Zone" signs may be used to identify the posted limit. The Engineering and Traffic Survey shall follow a method estab- r listed by the State of California, Department of Public Works and # shall be subject to the provisions of the California Vehicle Code. } The Survey includes a review of roadway characteristics such as alignment, grade, and roadside development; an inventory of existing } -11- traffic controls; a review of prevailing vehicle speeds, pedestrian movements, and traffic volumes; and an analysis of the roadway's accident history. -12- POLICY NO. 4 F MAY, 1972 2-WAY STOP CONTROL f 4.1 Purpose The purpose of stop signs is to control the right-of-way assignment at an inter- section. Stop signs are placed at entrances to designated through highways or at any intersection designated by resolution as a stop intersection. In the latter case, these locations are commonly referred to as Intersection Stops. If such a location meets the following warrants, the signs are located on they street carrying the minor volume of entering traffic. Proir.%rly installed stop signs facilitate traffic mov!ment and promote traffic safety. 4.2 General In order for an intersection to receive consideration for two-way stop control, certain factual data must be obtained. These include accident records, visibility conditions, traffic and pedestrian volumes, and unusual conditions such as proximity of schools, fire stations, etc. Points are assigned to each of these warrants. The total possible points is 30. The installation of a two- way stop control is justified with a total of 18 points. 4.3 Accident Warrant Three points are assigned for each accident susceptible to correction by stop signs during one full year prior to tha investigation. Maximum 9 points. 4.4 Visibility Warrant Where the critical approach speed to the intersection is less than 17 MPH, 1 point shall be assigned for each MPH under 17 MPH. Maximum 9 points. 4.5, Volume Warrant a. Major Street: 1 point for every 100 vehicles per day in excess of 500. Maximum 5 points. b. Minor Street: 1 point for every 25 vehicles and pedestrians* on minor street during the peak hour. Maximum 4 points. *7 Pedestrians crossing the minor street. 4'.6 Unusual Condition Warrant Where unusual conditions exist, such as a school, fire station, playground, steep hill, etc., points are assigned on the basis of engineering judgment. Maximum 3 points. Resolution 172823, 9-27-62 Council Policy 200-8 -13-. MAY, 1972 POLICY NO* 5 4-WAY,STOP CONTROL - 5.1 Purcose A fully -justified, properly installed four-way stoc can effectively assign right-of-way, reduce vehicle delay and decrease accidents. Generally, a four-waY stop is reserved for use at the intersection of two through -highways, only as an inteeLmt traffic control measure prior to signaliization. 5.2 Ge, ners� The posting of an intersection .for four-way stop control .should be based on factual data. Included are: Through street conditions, accident records, traffic and pedestrian volumes, and unusual conditions such as proximity of schools, fire stations, etc. Points are assigned to each of these criteria. The total possible points is_50. The installation of four-way stop control is justified with a total of 23 points. 5.3 Pr , ary 'el.rrant One of the streets at an intersection must be a through highway before the intersection can be conzidored for four-way stop control. A. If street is a through highway - 0 points. B. If both streets are through highways, - 5 points. 5.4 Accident N12-rrant Two points are assigned for each accident susceptible to correction by four-way stop control curing one full year prior to the investi- Zation. Ma:dmu-a 20 points. 5.5 (unusual Condition Tarrant Where unusual, conditions t;d.st. such as a school, fire station, playground, steep gill, etc., mints are assigned on the basis of chool location in itself, is not engineering judgment. A.s sufficient justification for a four-way stop installation. Maximum 5 points. I SEC t 5.6 V'olum�'arant A. Total entering vehicle vOIXIMe must equal 2,000 vehicles for four highest hours in average day. B. %inimum side street volume must equal 600 vehicles during same four-hour period. Points shall be assiped in accordance with the following tables: Mayor Annroach _ 4-Hour Volume Points Mi1or hnproach__ Ij-Hour V��iume Paints 0 - 11,00 0 600 - 800 1 1401 - 1700 1 801 - 1000 2 1701 - 23C 2 1001 - 12M 3 2001 - 2300 3 1201 - 2.400 4 2301 - 2600 4 viol - 1600 5 2601 - 2900 5 1601 - 1800 6 2901 - 3200 4 1801 - 2000 7 3201 - 3500 3 2001 - 2200 8 3501 - 3800 2 2201 - 2400 9 ` 3801 - 4100 1 2401 - over 10 4101 - over 0 -15- 5.7 . volume Split L%Iarrarant Four-way stops operate best whore tho minor approach volume and the major approach volume are nearly equal. Points shall be assigned in accordance with the following table: Major Less Minor Annroach Lea Volume Difference Points 0 - 300 5 .i01 - 600 4 601 900 3 901 - 1200 2 12D1 - 1500 1 1501 - over 0 . !M -16- MAY, 1972 POLICY No. 6 tt CENTERLINE STRIPING ,x Centerline striping will be installed and maintained at City expense on the following categories of streets and roads in the City maintained system, subject to the availability of manpower and funds: 1. All streets having four or more driving lanes. 2. All 2-lane collector roads with pavements narrower than 20 feet but wider than 16 feet carrying an average daily traffic volume of 500 vehicles. 3. All principal recreational access• routes- 1 4. All other locations where the reported accident records indicate an unmistakable problem susceptible to correction or alleviation by centerline striping. 1 5. All other locations subject to sporadic severe visibility F reductions from fog and: a. The alignment of the roadway is winding. b. There is little or no roadway shoulder area. E c. The area which the road traverses can generally be t classified as hilly or mountainous. i 6. All other locations subject to sporadic severe visibility t reductions from fog, and having an average daily traffic in i excess of 500 vehicles per day. -17- 7. All specific spot locations such as approaches to inter- sections, extreme vertical and horizontal curvature, and crosswalks where it is necessary to alert the motorists of an unusual condition not readily apparent. g, All other locations where the reported accident records indicate a problem susceptible to correction or allevia- tion by centerline striping. Centerline striping shall not be installed and maintained at county expense on streets failing to qualify under one or more. cf the above warrants; provided, however, the City will Pro- vide such striping at local expense, based on fifty dollars ($50.00) per mile of broken yellow centerline, when a respon- sible agency or association guarantees the payment for the installation, maintenance and periodic replacement of such striping. ! i� -is- MAY, 1972 POLICY N0. '7 TEI4PORARY ROAD CLOSURES 1. Public Events. A written request shall be submitted by the applicant to the Public works Department for review and recommendation to the Traffic Safety Commission and to the City Council. Department and Commission recommendation for approval by E the City Council shall be made provided that closure does not seriously disrupt through traffic, adequate signing for detours is provided and the duration is within a reasonable time limit, not generally to exceed 8 hours. 2. For Convenience of a Contractor. A written request shall be submitted to the City Engineer by the contractor doing work within a road traveled way, stating reasons why it would be impossible or impractical for him to proceed without closing the road, the length of time of such proposed closure and hi§ agreement to place and adequately maintain all necessary barricades and warning signs and lights for the designated detour. The City Enain, r shall review and approve or disapprove of such a request or modify the same so that public interest, convenience and safety will be the paramount consideration. -1'9-