The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1973-01-16; City Council; 1012; Traffic Safety Policies and Warrantsl \ T'..S.., CITY OF CARLSBAD, CAL I FO~~A kg' enda 8°1·11 No. '" '" /() t K.. Date _Jan~ 16, 1973 ':,...-~-- Referred To: Subject: Submitted By: Tr~ffic Safety Policies and Warrants Traffic Safety Commission · Statement of the Matter I' At the City Council meeting of May 16, 1972, the Traffic Safety Commission was directed to study the applicability of the Traffic Safety Pol,icies & Warrants in the City of Carlsbad and report to the Council after a period of six months. The Traffic Safety Commi!3sion has used the Traffi9 Safety Policies & Warrants1' J!!r yajous traffic problems during this trial time period, and found thera to be very valuable and ap~licable to the City of Carlsbad. The Traffic Safety commission highly recommer.us City council adopt a motion establishing the Traffic Safety Policies & Warrants. Exhibit Council Policy Statement No. J.5,, adopting Traffic Safety Policies & Warrants. _Staff Recornmcnda ti ons Adopt a motion establishing Council Policy No. l~. I ' I ! I I i ' I :I <I ,I ii ;1 ·I :/ ., -'◄ 11 ;i ,I :1 l' ,I :, ., - •.. AB llo. Date: Jan. 16, 1973 , g1ty M~nayer's Recommenddtion Concur. Adoption of Starrdardized Policies will reduce the staff t'ime required to resolve routine recurring matters and allow time to be spe~t on ~atters wh~ch require individual in-depth review and analysis. I • Council' Action 1-16-73. Council Policy No. 15 was a.dopted, estabJishing Traffic Safety Policies & Warrants, as recpmmended by the Traffic Safety Commission. .. d i f ~ CITY OF CARLSBAD COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT General Subject: Traffic Engineering Specific Subject: Traffic Safety Policies and ~iarrants Policy No. 15 Date Issued January 16, 197~ Effective Date January 16, 1973 Cancellation Date Supersedes No. Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File PURPOSE: To standardize traffic saf~ty installations within the City of Carlsbad, bring Carlsbad installations into line with prevailing traffic engineer- ing practice in ,San Diego County, and provide guidelines for handling citizen requests. STATEMENT OF POLICY: The following policies are adopted as the ~raffic Safety Policies of the City of Carlsbad: 1. Through Highway Routes 2. Pedestrian Crosswalks 3. Speed Limit Regulations 4. 2-Way S~op Control 5. 4-Way Stop Control 6. Centerline Striping 7. Temporary Road Closures f .d i I ~ !. l ( I l PROPOSED TRAFFIC SAFETY POLICIES AND WARRANTS CITY OF CARLSBAD MJ\Y 1972 t ' .1 l l I .(' TABLE OF CONTENTS NUMBER TITLE SOURCE l 'l'HROUGH HIGHWAY ROUTES County Road Policy 2 PEDESTRIAN CP-OSSWALKS City of San Diego 3 SPEED LIMIT REGULATIOUS County Road Poliqy 4 ;-WAY STOP CONTROL City of San Diego 5 4-WAY STOP CONTROL City of San Diego 6 CENTERLINE STRIPING County Road Folicy 7 TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURES County Road Policy I \' PAGE .NO. 2 3 11 13 14 17 19 f j t t t \ .. ,. '1 ' Ji 'I \I ; .'i ,1 d f i ' - MAY, 1972 POLICY NO. l THROUGH HIGHWAY ROUTES Through Highways, as defined by Section 600 of the Cali- ~ornia V~hicle 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 vehicle~, 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 control of crossing con- flicts • .Upon establishment and signing of an arterial Through Highway, all intersecting traffic ~s required by law to stop before ~ntering or crossing. -1- .. _ ( : MAY, l97f POLICY NO. 2 .· PEDESTRxAN CROSSWALKS ·.2.10 Purpose The purpose of a r:arked crosswalk is to inforn drivers or a high pedestrien . flow o:r an unust:al crossing location, and to guide pedestrians by providing a marked area ir. ,;hich to cross. The purpose of these 11arrants is to establish ::iini::tl.l:!l cr.i teria for the installation or l?'.arked crossualks so trat they c.::;.y provide the greatest possible benefit to both drivers and pcdestria~s. ,2.;u Legal Definitions e.:!d Riaht of Way Control !J.'he follouing excerp-::s fl:-o:?!. the Ce.liforni;a Vehicle Code and the San Dieg(! Municipal Code are pertinent to these varrants: .. c;.v.c. 275. "Crossualk" is either: . . . . . . . . --.-- (a) That portion ot' a rcad,:ay included. trithin the prolongation or con.-iection of' the bou."lda-:-y lines of sidewalks at intersectior.s ·where the ini;ei-:- ~ecting roo.d~:ays ~eet at approxi:::ately ri;;ht angles, except ~h~ prclonse- -f?ion of' £'.lch lines fro:i an alley across a street. (b) Acy portion of a rcad,ray disti~ctly indicated 1'or pede~t;ians crossing by 1ines or other c.arki:1gs on ttf!! s:u-f'ace. c.v.c. 21950. Right of 'way at crosswalks: "(a) !J.'he Driver of a vehicle shall yield t~e ri0ht-of-~-ay to a pedestrian crossing the ro:i.di1ay ;;ithin any C?arkecr c;rossualk ::>r -within any w.::12.rked crosswalk at an intersection, except as othei"rise provided in this .. chapter. · (b) No pedestrian si-:n.11 sucidenly leave a curb ~r· othe:r;-place of safety and . wlk. or run i::ito the -path of a vehicle -which is to close as to constitute an im::.ediate hazard. c.v.c. 21954. Pedestrians outside cross.ra.lks: (a) Every pedestrian upon a road.ray at any point other than -within a marked crosswalk or uithin :i.n u.mr.:lrked crosswal!, at an intersection shall yield the rie;ht-of-"Way to all vehicles· upon the roadway. c.v.c. 21955. Crossins between controlled intersections: . . . . . Detwcen adjacent intcrocction~ controlled by traffic control sicnal devices 'or by. police ot'::':!.ccrs,. pedestrians shall not cross the r~dway at any place except in a c1·0:;s,:alk, -2- 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: A. Call the driver's attention to a high pedestrian flow or an unusual crossing location. B. Point out to the pedestrian the safest crossing path. c. Limit pedestrian cr~ssings to specific locations. Unjustified or poorly located rnark~d crosswalks may: A. Increase accident frequency by 1~1ling both pedestrians. and drivers into a false sense of security. B. Create general disrespect for ill traffic control devices. c. Result in unnecessarily high painting and maintenance costs to the City. 2.13 General Policy. 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 tl1an traffic signals, are in use. such devices include stop signs.and yield signs. However, a crosswalk may be marked at a controlled intersection if ;m unmarked crosswalk would not be clearly discernable due to peculiar geometrics or other unusual physical concitions. A marked ~idblock 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 withi~ a concentr.ated area no less than 400 feet from the nearest inter- section. 1here must be a high pedestrian volume generator nearby. -3- .I d ----~----~ ---------..-------,,----------- ·2.14 - : Warra~:: "ti The fc~l~~~n~ warrants are based on a point system evaluation inco=pora- ting cup time, pcde~trian volu:::es, vehicle appro~ch speed, and £ener~l conditions. Accident histoI"J and the investigating engin~~r•z opinion have been subordinated to afford :::axi~µ::i object~vity in dete:i::nining cro~s- walk ne'eds • · .2.15 Point System .. Gap Time Warrant Pedestrian Volu.":le Warrant Approach Speed ~-rarrant · General Conditions Warrant TQtal points · .2.16 Point Evaluation Maximum 10 points II 5 II II 5 " II .2 " .. ~ T'ae miniau:::i. l.-arrant for the installation of a C!a.rked cross,m.lk is satisi':e d viie'ii'""a ·iocation .rat~s lq OJ:: core _points, .. one, or vhich _must be for pedestrian _ycfiu::.es: ..• · · · · . . . . . .. . . • . . .. ·. : . . . -4-. I i . l l ;. . \ MAY, 1972 ... •• Gap Time Warrant Criterion· Warrants PEDESTRI!\N CROSSWALKS •' .'.Po1.nt Assignment. -Aver.age number Points The.number of unimpeded vehicle time gaps equal to ot exceeding the. required pedestrian crossi.-ig tir:ie in an average five m.nute period duri11g.th~ peak vehicle hour. Co:nputat:!ons rif gaps per 5 minute period 0 -0.99 J. -1.99 2 -2.99 3 -3.99 4 -4.99 5 or over .. · Maximum 10 a 6 4 :2 0 10 (1) P~destrian Crossing Time ad Street ·width curb . to curb · ," 4.0 feet per second. (2) Average !~umbe1· of Gaps per Five ?,!inute Period .. . Provisions = Total ~sable ga~ ti~e in seconds Fedestrian Crossir.g Ti~e x 12 (Al The above criterion is based on a one·hour field survey consisting of 12 i'ive_-minute samples. (B) All road,ro.ys having a r~ised media.~ or· a p~inted median (4 foot minim~~ ~idth) wil1 be considered as two separate roadira.ys. •(c) Sec Appendix One for survey methods and warrant field form. .. . . · .. -5- • I ii 'i . . ... Pedestrian Volu.~e Warrant Criterion 1l'he"total nu~bcr of pedestrians crossing the street u.~der study • during the peak vehicle hour. This includes nedestrie.ns in both.cross- wlks at an interse_ction-:-- Approach Speed Warrant C.dterion · The vehi~ular approach speed. fro~ both directions of travel as deteroined by the investig1ting engineer thro~gh speei study te~ques. General Conditions i·Tar?"ant Crite:r:;ion · !Chose conditions affecting the movement of oedestrian traffic other than gap tioe, pedestrian voluces, and vehicular apprcach tpeed. Consideration should be given to intersection layout, pedestrian nccident his~ory, vehicle turning ~over-ents, adjacent grounds and b.uiltlir:gs, and pedestrian generators. •' -6- Point As:;i~nr.:ent Pedestrio.n Tot:il Poin .. s 0-10 ll-30 31-6o 61-90 91-120 · Over J.00 Maxim1l!ll .. •. · ~roach S:ieed Under 20 HPH 20 or 25 t1 30 or 35" " 1i0· or 45 n• 50 or 55 · t1 6o or over Maximum. General • Conditions Values· assigned according to engineering judgment. "Maximum, .. 0 l 2 3 4 ..2... 5 Points 0 3 5 3 1 0 - 5 Points 0-5 -- 5 .. ! I .-:. I ll ,, ' " 'I 1 I ' I i ~ ·1 I I -.. I I . \ .. r I I ~ ( I I I I I :- .. J?PElIDIX OUE Survey Uethcds and Field Forci · !. Survey Uethods A. Personnel reouire:::ents: One man. B. Duration of sur,·ey: Or.e hour during the morning or evening ,i?eak .period ·o:r vehicle travel. c. Eguip::i.ent:· Stop watch (in s_econds) and "Wan-ant fiel.d foros. D. Type of Survey: : 1. lOCY{, pedestrian cot;nt uithin the crossualk area under study during tbe ~ cinute period. 2. 1oot, recordfag of unimpeded vehicle gaps during the same 60 minute period. a. Ea.ch gap that is equal to or ~xceeds t..~e calculated pedestrian . crossing ti::ie is defined as a "Usable Gap Time", and is .~ntered on the -warrant field form as such. 3. Spe~d study 'USing the floating car technique, or ~dar speed study. ll. Use of the Crossualk Warrant Field. For.n , .. A •. Co.npute the Ped~strfan ·crossing Tia:e and. enter the figure (in seconds) ' . ]3. c. D. in the appropriate space. Begin the ~;i,p time recording by entering ~n the :fie:?..d sheet the length (in seconds) of those gap times equal to or exceeding ~he calculated pedestrian crossing ti.ie. Total the Usable Gap Tic:e in seconds~ and compute the average number of gaps per fi~e minute period. Record the one hour pedestrian volu.~e, the approach speed, and existing general conditiono, including the three year pedestrian accident history. E. Based on each wrrant, assign the number of points ~1lowable. -7-. ' ' ., ·-·--·•·"'~··-· CROS?WALK WARRAHT '·1:v ALUA TION I.OCATION . ' CITY OF tLSBAD CALIFORNIA --. ..;. EHGl:-lEERl:-.v Di:PARTl.liNT DATE , .SUMMAhtZEO IIV I TR TRANSPORTATION t. TRAl'FIC ENGINEERING DIVISION . SUMMARY SKETCH: . ,, .. Pedestrinn Crossing Time: ' Width of street = = 4 ft, per second 4· ;_ . . {j Average Number Gaps Per Five Minute Period: . ' Total Usable Gap Time in Sec= Ped. Crossing Time x 12 -0 One Hour Pedestrian Volume: l Legal Approach Speed: . lj I General Conditions: , \ . .. ; ·~ l I ._ WARRANTS POINTS MAXIMUM POii-iTS . ' . . 1. Gap 'fimc 10 .,. _ .. ' '' 2. Pedestrian Volumes 5 . . . 3. Approach Speed ' 5 ~., 4. G,inernl Conditions 5 •' '•"": , .. t. ,. . Totnl' 25 l LOCAilON:_.,.... _____ ...,... - 0/\TE: _________ ~----DAY: ______ WEATHER: _______ ....;;... ____ _ RECORDED BY: ( . Fl ELD DATA - •USABLE USABLE USABLE USADLE USA9!.E GAP TIME GAP TIME GAP TIME GAP TIME GAP TIME TIME. ISEC, I TIME (SCC. I TIME (SEC. I TIME (SEC,) TIME (SEC.) - . I . . - ' TOTAL PEDESTRIAN COUNT : ,_J. . I . . I i· I I : . TOTAi. REMARICS1 I ' ' ' . ---I i I • ): J • I i . i ! ) - MAY, 1972 POLICY NO. 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 problems, except on established through highways carrying _in excess of 2000 vehicles per day. On such through highways, including arterial road~, 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 ~or 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 priraa-facie limits. Such limits shai1 be determined by the Traffic Engineer on the basis of an Engineering ai.'ld 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- listed by the State of California, Department of Public Works and shall be subject to the provisions of the California Vehicle Code. The sui·vcy includes a review of roadway charactcristi.cs such a$ alignment, grade, and roadside development; an inventory of existing -9- ' ! . traffic controls; a review of prevailing vehicle speeds, pedestrian movements, and traffic volumes; and an analysis of the roadway's I acciaent history. -10- l I ., I ,. MAY, 1972 POLICY NO. 4 2-WAY STOP CO~'"TROL . .. .. -· - 0 4.1 Purpose The purpose or stop signs is to control the right-or-· ~y assignment at an inter- section. Stop signs are placed at entrances to des!&-,.,ated through bighuays or at arsy intersection designated by resolution as a :.top intersection. In the latter ca.se, these locations are col!!m.only referred to as Intersection Stops. If such a location meets the following warrants, the signs are located on the street carrying the minor volu:n~ of' entering traffic~ Properly installed stop signs facilitate traffic 1110'/ement and promote traffic sa.rety. 4.2 General In order for an inters• •tion to receive consideration for two-way stop coptrol, c:srtain factual data must be obtained, These include accident records, visibility conditions, traffic and pedestrian volt:!!les, and unusual. conditions such as proxictlty or schools, fire stations, etc, .Points e.re assigned to eaclt ot these ·warrants. The total possible points is 30, The installation of a two~ ~ stop control is justified with a total of 18 points. l 4.'3 Accident Warran'!: Three points are assigned for each accident susceptible to correction by stop signs during one full year prior to the investigation. ?,Ja.ximum. 9 points. 44 Visibility '1-Ta.rrent Where the c~itical approach speed to the intersection is less than 17 MPH, l point sha....l be assigned for each MPH under 17 MPH. Mar.im.1.l!Il 9 points. 4.5. Volume Wnrrant a. l'Ajor Street: 1 point for every 100 · vehicles -per day in excess or 500. Ma,ximu:n 5 points. b. Minor Street: 1 point for every 25 vehicles and pedestrians* on minor etreet during t~c peak hour. Maximum. l~ points. *' Pcncstrians c~ossing tr.e minor stre~t. 4'.6 Unus\!!l.l Condition Warrant · tfuerc unusunl conditions cxfat, such o.s o. school, fire station, playground, steep hill, etc., points nrc assigned _on the basis of engineering judgment. Mrucicu:n 3 points. Reoolution 172823, 9-27-62 Council Policy 200-8 -ll- l ·1 ·i I : - ... - MAY, 1972 POLICY NO~ 5 4-WAY .STOP CONTROL : 5.1 Purccse A fully-justified, properly installed four-way stou can effectively assign right-or-way, reduce vehicle delar and decrease accidents. Generally, a .rour-way-stop is reserved for use at the intersection of two through-hi~hways, c>.nd only as an interim traffic cor.t-rol Jneasure priol' to signalization. · 5.2 General The posting of an intersection for four-way stop control .should be based on factual data. Included ai"e: Thro:.igh street conditions, accident rsco1-ds, traf.!'ic and pedestrian volumes, and unusual conditions such as pro:tlmi.ty of schools, fire stations, etc. Points are ~ssigned to each. of t~ese criteria. The total possible points is ..5.Q.: The instcl.lation of four-way stop control is justified ;.'i th a total of 23 points. -- Prirnar.r Warrant One of the streets at an intersection n,lst be a through highway . before. the intersection can b~ considered for ! our-way stop control. A. If street is a"through highway -0 p0ints. B. If both streotll are through highways -5 points. 5 .4 Accident Warrant Two points are assigned for each accident susceptible to correct.ion by !'our-way stop control c!-J.ring ono full year prior to the investi~ gation. Ma."O.lllun 20 points. 5 .5 Unusual Contliticn ~for:-ant Where unusunl conditions exist, euch-as a school, fire sto1.ti,on, playground, steep hill, etc., points are assir,ncd on the basis of cngi.ncctlno judcmcnt. A ~school. location in itself, is not sufficient justification for a £our-11ay stop in:.tallation. Maximum 5 point:i. -12- -. -·. d ( I I I ! . I ..... Total entering vehicle volu:ne must equal. 2,COO vehicles for !ou1• highest hours fa average day. B. 1-ani!n~ side street volume :uust e()_ual 6CO vehicles during sane four-hour period • .Points shall be a.sr.igned in r.ccordance '.'ti.th the following tabl.es: _l_1ajor Annroacli _ Minor .An:e1-::>ac!1 ls-4tour 'iolU.'?le Points 4-Hour Volu':!.e Points 0 -1400 0 600 -800 1 1401 -1700 l 801 -1000 2 J.701 -2)C0 2 1001 -1200 3 2001 -2;00 3 12:>l -14CO 4 2301 -2600 4 140l. -16CO 5 2601 -~00 5 1601 -1000 6 2901 -3Z.O 4 1$01 -2COO 7 3Z>l -3500 3 2:)01 -2200 8 3501 -:;sco 2 2201 -2400 9 3$01 -4100 l 2401 -over lD 4101 -over 0 -13- ! . ~ j I I ! \ . ' •' ·,j I J :i '.I I, ;! I }1: ,·, r ft' d ( .. Four-way stops operate best whore t1'o minor approach v9lum~ and the major approach V6lume are nearly equal. Points shall be assigned in accordance with the following table: Major Less Minor Aonroach Le2: Vol\lr:te Differen.ce Points o-:,co 5 301-6oo 4 601 .. 900 3 901 -1200 2 12)1 -1500 l 1501 -over 0 -14- i .1 i ! .! •• l -~-~~~----- POLICY NOo 6 CENTERLINE STRIPING MAY, 1972 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 ~treets having four or more driving lanes. 2. All 2-lane collector roads with pavements narrower than 20 feet but wider than 15 feet carrying an average daily traffic volume of 500 vehicles. 3. All principal recreational access routes. 4. All other locations where the reported accident records indicate an unmistakable problem susceptible to correction or alleviation by centerline striping. 5. All other locations subject to sporadic severe visibility reductions from fog and: a. The alignment of the roadway is winding. b. There is little or no roadway shoulder area. c. The area which the road traverses can generally be classified as hilly or mountainous. 6. All other locations subject to sporadic severe visibility reductions from fog, and having an average daily traffic in excess of ~00 vehicles per day. -15- ' l l I I ( i I ,I d -. - 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. a. All other locations where the reported accident records ·t , indicate a problem susceptible to correction or allevia- ·tion by centerline striping. Centerline striping shall not be installe~ and maintained at county expense on streets failing to qualify under one or more of the above warrants1 provided, however, the City will pro- vide such striping at local expense, based on fifty dollars t .{$50.00) per mi~e of broken yellow centerline, when a respon- si~le agency or association guarantees the payment for the installation, maintenance and periodic replacement of such striping. -16- ,: ' ' { . - . MAY, 1972 POLICY NO. 7 TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURES l~ 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 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 rea_sons why it would be impossible or impractical for him to proceed without closing the road, the length of time of such proposed closure and his agreement to place and adequately maintain all necessary barricades and warning signs and lights for the designated detour. The city Engineer 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. -17-I )