HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-15; City Council; 15628; 2000 Traffic Signal Evaluation PolicyCl1 I: OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA ;LL &$d9
AB# /+?f TITLE:
CITY OF CARLSBAD MTG. 2/l woo 2000 TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY CITYATTY. ’
DEPT. ENG
.
.
I RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. dm--dsapproving the City of Carlsbad 2000 Traffic Signal Evaluation
Policy.
I
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Transportation Division of the Engineering Department has completed the 2000 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, which also includes the Traffic Signal Qualification List. Prior to 1988, the City of
Carlsbad did not have a list that prioritized warranted traffic signal locations for future installations.
By adopting the initial Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy with Resolution Number 88-252 on July 19,
1988, the City Council established the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and authorized staff to
periodically update the warranted traffic signal list and present the information to the Traffic Safety Commission and City Council. Staff updates the traffic signal list on a bi-annual basis.
The Traffic Safety Commission recommended, by a 4-O vote, at their January 3, 2000 meeting that
the 2000 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy be adopted by the City Council. This is the sixth update
since 1988, however, the policy for evaluating traffic signals has not been revised from the
originally approved 1988 policy. Approval of the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and Traffic Signal
Qualification List does not obligate the City Council to authorize installation of a traffic signal or to
install traffic signals in the order as listed on the Traffic Signal Qualification List. Future traffic
signals to be installed by the City of Carlsbad are placed in the annual Capital Improvement
Program (CIP). Other intersections that will be signalized may be the responsibility of private
development and will be installed as a condition of developing private property.
I FISCAL IMPACT:
No impact until a traffic signal is installed. Design and construction of a traffic signal costs about
$125,000. Once installed, yearly operation and maintenance costs for each traffic signal is
approximately $5,000.
I EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. &?@2+ bf approving the City of Carlsbad 2000 Traffic Signal Evaluation
Policy.
2. 2000 Traffic Signal Qualification List.
I 3. 2000 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy.
4. Minutes of the January 3, 2000 Traffic Safety Commission meeting.
-
1
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2000 CITY OF
CARLSBAD TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY.
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad recognizes the need for the installation of traffic signals
at various intersections to promote the safe and efficient movement of people and goods; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad recognizes the need for an objective policy to determine
when and where traffic signals will be installed in the future; and
WHEREAS, maintaining an up-to-date qualification list of warranted traffic signals will
assist staff when reviewing future Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) or developer projects to
determine the need and schedule of the traffic signal installation; and
WHEREAS, the 2000 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy contains the 2000 Traffic Signal
Qualification List.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad hereby adopts the evaluation procedures
and the updated Traffic Signal Qualification List as contained in the 2000 Traffic Signal
Evaluation Policy.
3. The Engineering Department of the City of Carlsbad is hereby authorized to
periodically update the Traffic Signal Qualification List as contained in the Traffic Signal
Evaluation Policy and present such updated list to the Traffic Safety Commission and the City
Council for review and approval.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council
held on the 15th day of February ,200O by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Finnila, Nygaard and Kulchin
II ATTEST: . (p&--a? *-
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL)
EXHIhT 2
1
00 I- F F (3 N w s-
-
W
O I- I-
-
0
0
-
n
-
w r -
00
-
0
3
-
3
-
d
-
3
In *
0 0
-
0
-
0
0
-
0
-
0
0
- >
0
I
-
>
-
i
i
-
>
w
-
0)
lo
-
W
!
0
-
8 a’
-
n 6 u’
-
F 3 J a : tlg ?: :. 2: CoE g
-
I)
-
r) d
-
Q 4
-
n
-
s ‘C 9
E E 3 a z 3
$ m s > u 2 v, GG 3)c
lw
2 cci
-
F oi 05 ti
Pi
9 -t 0
i? E
2 0
k% Q!F UT ml; 0 ffa
g: ca f$ OC -
N r >
- 3 5
EXHIBIT 3
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION
POLICY
PREPARED BY:
TRANSPORTA T/ON DIVISION
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SECTION
JANUARY 2000
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY REPORT
JANUARY 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
INTRODUCTION.. ........................................................................................................................ 1
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE.. .............................................................................................. 1
POLICY.. ...................................................................................................................................... 2
GENERAL .................................................................................................................................... 2
DATA.. ........................................................................................................................................ 3-4
2000 TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION LIST ......................................................................... 5
TRAFFIC SIGNALS CURRENTLY BEING DESIGNED/CONSTRUCTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
INTERSECTIONS INVESTIGATED (Did not meet CALTRANS Signal Warrants) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
APPENDIX
A. TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION RATING SYSTEM
B. CALTRANS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
5
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Transportation Division
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The City of Carlsbad, located in North San Diego County, has grown from a small, agricultural based residential community in its early history to a city of approximately 78,000 residents.
Various industrial, commercial, recreational, residential and agricultural land uses are found in Carlsbad. Associated with population increases has been an increase in vehicular, bicycle, and
pedestrian traffic.
With increased volumes on Cartsbad’s roadway system, it is apparent that there is need for a
more detailed method of evaluating and determining future traffic signal locations. At this time,
there are 101 signalized intersections in Carlsbad. Ownership and maintenance responsibility is
as follows:
n 95 signals owned and maintained by the City of Carlsbad (7 of which are partially
maintained by Caltrans).
n 3 signals owned and maintained by Caltrans.
n 3 signals owned and maintained by other agency.
This report has been prepared with the purpose of identifying and evaluating future traffic
signals at various locations throughout the City of Carlsbad. It is the mechanism to continually
re-evaluate and update potential traffic signal locations on a regular basis.
The Traffic Signal Qualification List is not steadfast. Financial constraints, private development,
capital improvement projects or other valid considerations may dictate that a lower qualifying signal be installed at a given location. The qualification list does, however, serve as a guide for
future traffic signal installations and only includes locations meeting CALTRANS traftic signal
warrants.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
As traffic volumes increase there becomes a need to consider various right-of-way controls at intersections. Depending upon traffic characteristics at a given intersection, the City will
evaluate and choose from a variety of traffic control methods or devices to facilitate the safe and
efficient movement of traffic and pedestrians.
Included among the various intersection traffic control devices are: basic rules of the road
governing right-of-way at intersections, yield sign installations, 2-way STOP sign installations,
3-way and 4-way STOP sign installations, channelization and median control and traffic signals.
6
This report focuses on establishing a Citywide listing of one of the most efficient methods for
intersection right-of-way control, the traffic signal. The purpose of a traffic signal qualification list
is to compare and impartially rank the intersections under consideration. A Traffic Signal
Qualification List was originally established for the City of Carlsbad in 1988 by City Council
Resolution Number 88-252 and was updated in 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998. This report
is an update of the 1998 qualification list. All locations included on the list have met California Department of Transportation criteria (CALTRANS Traffic Signal Warrants) for the installation of
a traffic signal.
j?OLlCY
As with most traffic engineering departments, it has been the policy of the City of Carlsbad
Transportation Section to only recommend installation of traffic signals that meet the minimum
criteria established by the California Department of Transportation. All data collection and
evaluation to determine if criteria is met for a location to qualify for a traffic signal is under the
direction of the City Traffic Engineer.
GENERAL
Traffic signals are electrically powered traffic control devices that direct the movement of
vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians at an intersection. Traffic signals provide for the positive assignment of the right-of-way to effect the orderly movement of traffic and pedestrians with
minimum delay and maximum safety.
Many cities use a priority list system for ranking traffic signal projects. To qualify for this list, the
signal analysis takes into account the relative delays on approaching streets, the collision
history of the intersection and gaps in the major and minor street streams of traffic, pedestrian
volumes and various other factors. An evaluation is then conducted to determine if a signal will
minimize or correct an identified problem.
Establishing a Traffic Signal Qualification List helps answer two basic questions:
1. Do traffic conditions at the intersection meet the basic criteria that affect the benefits and costs of signal control; and
2. If so, how does this location compare with other locations throughout the City of Carlsbad
that meet the same basic criteria?
This evaluation provides a rational method of comparing one intersection with another, the end
result being a ranking that lists the greatest need for signalization between all potential signal
locations. The attached Traffic Signal Qualification List indicates each location under
consideration and is arranged in descending order based upon the total qualification points
accumulated at each location.
A listing of future traffic signals does not mean that signals will exclusively be installed in the
order of ranking. Existing conditions, right-of-way needs, need for left turn or right turn lanes, budget constraints, or other factors may indicate a location that is more appropriate for
signalization than one higher on the list. The list establishes locations for which preliminary engineering should take place and then be re-evaluated before proceeding to final design.
Traffic signals are not installed unless written authorization from the City Engineer directs their installation.
7
DATA
In recent years, traffic signals have experienced a technical evolution. Changes have evolved
from pre-timed signals in which control mechanisms operate on a predetermined time schedule allotting a fixed amount of time of each interval in the cycle; to traffic actuated microprocessor
units that can operate two to eight signal phases, highway ramp metering control, master controls for interconnected signal systems and traffic volume monitoring stations.
Traffic signals are an expensive control device to install and under certain conditions more
problems may be created than are solved. These problems can range from increased accident frequency, delays, increased air or noise pollution and higher energy use, to circuitous travel
along less desirable routes to avoid the signalized intersection.
A properly signalized intersection, however, can resolve many problems and provide
advantages ranging from reducing certain types of accident frequency, delay, and air pollutants,
to creating an orderly traffic movement. In a coordinated signal system they help maintain an
efficient, progressive traffic movement along an arterial roadway.
Rankings of the various intersections for potential traffic signal installation was accomplished by
using a Traffic Signal Qualification Rating System. Points were assigned to seven qualification
factors which are based on the California Department of Transportation criteria known as CALTRANS Traffic Signal Warrants.
Traffic Signal Qualification Rating System factors include the following:
Factor l- Minimum Vehicular Volume
This factor considers the fact that at certain traffic volume levels the delay can be reduced and
orderly flow through an intersection enhanced by signal controls.
Factor 2 - InterruDtion of Continuous Traffic
The interruption factor applies when the traffic volume on the major street is so high that few
gaps occur to permit the minor street traftic to cross or enter the intersection. As a result, the
minor street traffic may suffer long delays or experience hazards at the intersection.
Factor 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume
The minimum pedestrian volume factor reflects the length and frequency of gaps available for
pedestrians to cross the major street as compared to the number of pedestrians that cross the
street.
Factor 4 - School Area Traffic Sianals
This factor recognizes the special problems that may occur at intersections near schools or on
school walking routes. It is similar to the minimum pedestrian volume factor in that gaps in traffic are considered.
Factor 5 - Proaressive Movement or Sianal Systems
Existing or proposed signal systems are considered by this factor. Often traffic flow efficiency
can be enhanced if signals are installed at proper spacing along an arterial or signal network.
Such signals may assist in holding traffic in compact platoons that will arrive at adjacent
signalized locations in accordance with a timing plan.
Factor 6 - Accident History
This factor reflects the fact that certain types of accidents could be reduced by traffic signal
control. However, experience has shown that few changes in accident frequency can be
expected at a location that historically has less than five accidents per year, or an accident rate
of less than about 1 .O accident per million vehicles.
Factor 7 - Saecial Conditions
This factor recognizes the special problems that may occur due to the location of certain traffic
generators, certain geometric or roadway features, sight distance obstructions, and various
other criteria.
The above rating system is used to evaluate various potential signal locations; these locations are then ranked based on the following relative weight system:
TOYAL POSW3t.E
-
>
- >
- >
n
0 > > 0
u n n in
0 >
- >
-
> 0
0 3 0
0 la 0
n 0 >
-
: i
-
2) 0 d
U
F i P 6 i a’ 5 d B d
.
d 0, ua n n
3 : !! a C 3 2:
f-z 0, PC c=
N c 0 T-
-
co v- b 3, D
-
5
1. Aviara Parkway/Poinsettia Lane
2. Cannon Road/El Camino Real
3. Carlsbad Village Drive/Tamarack Avenue
4. Carlsbad Village DriveNalley Street
5. El Camino Real/Plaza de La Costa
6. Faraday Avenue/Priestly Drive
7. La Costa Avenue/Plaza de La Costa Real
8. Melrose Drive/Ranch0 Bravado
9. Cannon Road/Faraday Avenue
INTERSECTIONS INVESTIGATED
(Did not meet CALTRANS Signal Warrants)
::
3. 4.
5. 6.
7.
8.
9.
Calle Barcelona/Paseo Aliso
Carlsbad Boulevard/Oak Avenue
Chestnut Avenue/Valley Street Hosp WayNVintergreen Drive/Grove Avenue
Las Flores Drive/Pi0 Pica Drive
La Costa Avenue/Calle Madero Tamarack Avenue/Pontiac Drive
Tamarack Avenue/Sunnyhill Drive
Ranch0 Santa Fe Road/Cadencia Street
6
TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALlFICATtON RATING SYSTEM
Factor 1 - Total Vehicular Volume
Points are assigned based upon the graph below which considers major and minor street
volumes and capacity. The entering volumes are based upon 4-hour counts (usually from 200
to 630 P.M. on a weekday), A maximum of 15 points may be assigned to this factor.
1. All. VOLUMES ARE FOR 4 HOURS (lJsuAuY 2-6 P.M.)
2 MAXlMUM POWS - 15
750
700
600
s,
ii!
ij 400
c v) B 300
F 200
lNlERSECllON OF: ’ I
2-2 Lana sta. 1600 1800 2#K) m 2400 26m = 3wo 3aoo 3400 381x) 3900+
l-2814LanesL ZOO 2400 2600 2800 3#)[1 3200 3400 = = ~ 4200 4400+ 24bneSb. 2600 2800 3ma 3200 3400 3mo 3800 ~ 4200 4400 4600 4800+
PQneWay Sta. 3200 3400 3800 3840 4om 4200 44rJo 4644 m 5oao 5200 54w+
It
C
Factor 2 - Intemmttron of Continuous Traffic
Vehicles on through streets, if uncontrolled, tend to travel through minor street
intersections at speeds that make it difficult and hazardous for vehicles and pedestrians
from the side street to cross or enter the principal traffic stream. The total of the minor
street vehicles plus pedestrians crossing or entering the major street must exceed 300 in
four hours to receive any points. A maximum of 10 points may be assigned to this factor.
Factor 3 - Pedwtrian Volumg
A traffic signal may be needed where many pedestrians cross a ma@ street. A maximum of 10 points may be assigned to this factor.
3200
2800
z4w
2ooo
1600
1200
1. ALL VOLUMES ARE FOR 4-HOURS (USUAUY 24 P.M.)
2 MAXIMUM POINTS = 10 3. NO POW-I-S IF LESS THAN 100 PEDESTRIANS DURING THE 4 HOUR PERIOD.
4. NO POINTS IF LESS THAN 1200 MAJOR STREET VEHICLES DURING THE 4 HOUR
PERIOO.
t- ---- t-“i;tyq-Aq-y~~~~ ------ p-(-q
I- ---- + ------- * ---I * --e-e -a-- +c: ++?a --j.y ---- j--y1
100 200 4w 600 606 loo0 1200 i400 l!iOO&
PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET
Factor 4 - School Area Traffic Slanals
Points are assigned based upon the number of school age pedestrians crossing tho major street as compared to the major street traffic. This factor will apply only to locations within one mile of a school and where the nearest controlled intersection or potential crossing
point is more than 600 feet away. A maximum of 10 points may be assigned for this factor.
250 200
350 (Urban) 220 (Rural)
PEDESTRIANS C OSS NG lH MAJOR STREET
(lk 2-Hbur Perk51
.
NOTE: No polnta will be assigned H nearest controlled crorslng Is less
than 600 feet away.
Factor 5 - Proaressive Movement or Sianal Svstems
This factor depends upon engineering studies and must include the present and future traffic
demands of the area. A signal may be justified when it forms a part of an interconnected or
coordinated system. A maximum of 5 points may be assigned to this factor.
Factor 6 - Accident History
Only those accidents susceptible to correction by traffic signals are considered and then only if
less restrictive measures such as warning signs, proper lighting, painted markings, etc. have
failed. A maximum of 15 points may be assigned to this factor.
o-2 0
3 1
4 3
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8 9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13 14 14
15 &Over 15
NOTE: Use the average of the last two years, provided the intersection has been in
operation for two years,
Factor 7 - SDecial Conditions
This factor considers extenuating circumstances that are not covered in the previous six factors. These may include: the proximity of schools, churches, public buildings, and
other traffic and pedestrian generators; an abrupt change from a rural to an urban area; the need for police control during portions of the day; a steep hill; a horizontal curve; re-
stricted sight distance. This factor requires engineering judgment based on physical inspection of the site. A maximum of 15 points may be assigned to this factor.
A summary of the factors considered to be special conditions and the points that were
assigned follows:
1. Four-way STOP Control (5 points): Typically, right-angle accident frequency drops
sharply after installation of a Four-Way STOP. However, total delay, as well as rear-
end collision frequency, increase to a level higher than that which would be reflected by the results of Factors #I and #2.
2. Proximity of a school (1 to 5 points): Depending on the type of school and its distance from the intersection in question, points are assigned to reflect the potential benefit to
school-age pedestrians and bicycle traffic.
3. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature and Visibility (1 to 5 points): The alignment of a
major street can affect the visibility available to side-street motorists, and the relative safety of their crossing or merging maneuvers. There may also be other restrictions to
visibility, such as utility poles and appurtenances and trees and shrubs on private
property.
4. High Speed on a Through Street (1 to 3 points): In addition to worsening the problems
caused by visibility restrictions, very high approach speeds can worsen the severity of
the accidents which occur.
17
APPENDIX
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-l r-1996
CHAPTER 9
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Traffic Signals, Basic Information and Warrants 9-01
941 .l Introduction
A traffic signalisanelectricallypoweredtraffic
control device, other than a barricade warning light
or steady burning electric lamp, by which traffic is
warned or directed to take some specific action.
The following types and uses of traffic signals
arediscussedinthischapter: TrafficControlSignals,
Pedestrian Crossing Signals, Ramp Metering
Signals, Flashing Beacons, Lane-use Control
Signals,TmfficControlatMovableBridges,Priority
Control of Traffic Signals, Traffic Signals for Oue-
lane, Two-way Facilities and Traffic Signals for
Construction Zones.
Trafficcontrol signalsaredevices forthecontml
of vehicle and pedestrian traffic. They assign the
right of way to the various traffic movements.
Traffic control signals have one or more of the
following advantages:
1. They provide for the orderly movement of
traffic.
2. They increase the traffic handling capacity
of the intersection.
3. They reduce the frequency of certain types
of accidents, especially the right angle type.
4. They can be coordinated to provide for
continuous or nearly continuous movement
of traffic at a definite speed.
5. They permit minor street traffk, vehicular
or pedestrian, to enter or cross continuous
traffic on the major street.
Experience shows that the number of right-
angle collisionsmay decrease after the installation
of signals, but the number of rear-end collisions
may increase. The installation of signals may
increase overall delay and reduce intersection
capacity. Consequently, it is of the utmost
importance that the consideration of a signal
installation and the selection of equipment be
preceded by a thorough study of traffic androadway
conditions made by an engineer experienced and
trained in this field. Equally important is the need
for checking the effkiency of a traffic signal in
operation. This determines the degree to which the
typeofinstallationandthetimingprogrammeetthe
requirements of traffic.
941.2 Traffic Signal Warrants
The justification for the installation of a traffic
signal at an intersection is based on the warrants
statedinthisManua.landintheMauual OnUniform
Traffic Control Devices published by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA). The decision
to install a signal should not be based solely upon
the warrants, since the installation of traffic signals
may increase certain types of collisions. Delay,
congestion, approach conditions, driver confusion,
future land use or other evidence of the need for
right of way assignment beyond that which could
be provided by stop signs must be demonstrated
See Section 4-03 of this Manual for stop sign
WZUTlilltS.
When the 85th percentile speed of traffic on the
major street exceeds 64 km/h in either an urban or
rural area, or when the intersection lies within the
built-up area of an isolated community having a
population of less than 10,000, the location is
considered rural. All other areas are considered
urban.
9-2
749%
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LlGHTiNG Traffic Manual
Figures g-1,9-2,9-3 and 9-4 are examples of
warrant sheets. Warrant Sheet 9-4 should be used
only for new intersections or other locations where
it is not reasonable to count actual traffic volumes.
The installation of a trafEc signal should be
considemd if one or more of the warrants listed
below are met:
A. Watmnrt I - Minimum Vehicle Volume.
The Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant is
intended for application where the volume of
intersecting traffic is the principal reason for
consideration of a signal installation. The warrant
is satisfied when for each of any 8 hours of an
average day the traffic volumes given in the table
below exist on the major street and on the higher-
volume minor street approach to the intersection.
N&her of
lanes for
moving
t&iCOll
each approach
Vehicles per Vehicles per
houron hour on
ma&r street higher-volume
(total of both minor-street
approaches) approach (one
direction only)
Major St. Minor St. Urban Rural Urban Rural
1 1 500 350 150 105
2ormore 1 600 420 150 105
2 or more 2 ormore 600 420 200 140
1 tormore 500 350 200 140
The major street and the minor street volumes
are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours the
direction of higher volume on the minor street may
be on one approach during some hours and on the
opposite approach during other hours.
B. Warrant 2 = Interruption of Continuous
Traffic.
The Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant
applies to operating conditions where the t&f%
volume on a major street is so heavy that t&f= on
a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay
or hazard in entering or crossing the major street.
The warrant is satisfied when, for each of any 8
hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given
in the table below exist on the major street and on
the higher-volume minor street approach to the
intersection, and the signal installation will not
seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow.
Number of
lanes tix
moving
tlXfliCOIl
each approach
Vehicles per Vehicles per
hour on houroll major stnzt higher-volume
(total of both minor-street
approaches) approach (- directiononly)
Major St. Minor St. Urban Rural Urban Rural
1 1 750 525 75 53
2ormore 1 900 630 75 53
2ormore 2ormore 900 630 100 70
1 2or more 750 525 100 70
The major street and the minor street volumes
are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours the
direction of higher volume on the minor street may
be on one approach during some hours and on the
opposite approach during other hours.
C. Warrad34himum Pedesbian Volume.
A traffic signal may be warranted where the
pedestrian volume crossing the major street at an
intersectionortnid-blocklocationduringan average
day is:
100 or more for each of any four hours; or
190 or more during any one hour.
-
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LlGHTlNG 9-3
7-1996
Thepedestrianvolumecrossingthemajor street
may be reduced as much as 50% of the values given
above when the predominant pedestrian crossing
speed is below I m/s. ,
In addition to a minimum pedestrian volume of
that stated above, there shall be less than 60 gaps
per hour in the traffic stream of adequate length for
pedestrians to cross during the same period when
the pedestrian volume criterion is satisfied. Where
there is adivided street having amedian of sufficient
width for the pedestrian(s) to wait, the requirement
applies separately to each direction of vehicular
traffic.
Where coordinated traffic signals on each side
of the study location provide for platooned traffic
which result in fewer than 60 gaps per hour of
adequate length for the pedestrians to cross the
street, a traffic signal may not be warranted.
This warrant applies only to those locations
where the nearest traffic signal along the major
street is greater than 90 m and where a new traffic
signal atthe study location would not unduly restrict
platooned flow of traffic. Curbside parking at non-
intersection locations shouldbe prohibited for 30m
in advance of and 6 m beyond the crosswalk.
A signal installed under this warrant should be
of the traffic-actuated type with push buttons for
pedestrians crossing the main street. If such a
signal is installed within a signal system, it shall be
coordinated if the signal system is coordinated.
Signals installed according to this warrant shall ’
be equipped with pedestrian indications conforming
to requirements set forth in other sections of this
Manual.
D. Warrant 4 - School Areas.
See Chapter 10 of this Manual.
E. Warrant 5 - Progressive iUovement.
The Progressive Movement warrant is satisfied
when:
1. On a one-way street or on a street which has
predominantly unidirectional traffic,
adjacent signals are so far apart that the
necessary degree of platooning and speed
control of vehicles would otherwise be lost;
or
2. On a tweway street, where adjacent signals
do not provide the necessary degree of
platooning and speed control and the
proposed and adjacent signals could
constitute a progressive signal system.
The installation of a signal according to this
warrant should be based on the 85th percentile
speed unless an engineering study indicates that
another speed is more desirable.
The installation of a signal according to this
warrantshouldnotbeconsideredwheretheresultant
signal spacing would be less than 300 n
F. Warrant 6 -Accident Experience.
The Accident Experience warrant is satisfied
when:
1. Five or more reported accidents of types
susceptible to correction by traffic signal
control have occurred within a 12-month
period, each accident involving personal
injury or property damage to an apparent
extent of $500 or more AND
2. Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies
with satisfactory observance and
enforcement has failed to reduce the accident
frequency; AND
9-4
7.19s6
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
3. There exists a volume of vehicular traffic
not less than 80% of the requirements
specified in the Minimum Vehicular
Volume Warrant or the Interruption of
Continuous Traffic Warrant; AND
4. The signal installation will not seriously
disrupt progressive traffic flow.
G. Warrant 7 - Systems Wmrant.
A traffic signal installation at some intersections
may be warranted to encourage concentration and
organization of traffic flow networks. The systems
warrant is applicable when the common intersection
of two or more major routes has a total existing, or
immediately projected, entering volume of at least
1,000 vehicles during the peak hour of a typical
weekday, or each of any five hours of a Saturday
and/or Sunday.
A major route as used in the above warrant has
one or more of the following characteristics:
1. Itispartofthestreetorhighwaysystemthat
serves as the principal network for through
traffic flow;
2. It includes rural or suburban highways
outside of, entering or traversing a city; or
3. It appears as a major route on an official
plan such as a major street plan in an urban
area traffic and transportation study.
H. Warrant 8 - Combination of Warrants.
In exceptional cases, a signal may be justified
where no single warrant is satisfied but where
Warrants 1 and 2 are satisfied to the extent of 80
percent or more of the stated numerical values.
I. Warrant 9 -Four Hour Volume Warrant.
The Four Hour Volume Warrant is ,satisfied,
when for each of any four hours of an average day,
the plotted points representing thevehicles per hour
on the major street (total of both approaches) and
the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher
volume minor street approach(one direction only)
all fall above the curve in Figure 9-6 for the existing
combination of approach lanes.
When the 85th percentile speed of the major
street traffic exceeds 64 km/h, or when the
intersection lies within a built-up area of an isolated
community having a population of less than 10,000,
the four hour volume requirement is satisfied when
the plotted points referred to fall above the cuNe in
Figure 9-7 for the existing combination of approach
lanes.
J. Warrant IO - Peak Hour Delay Warrant.
The Peak Hour Delay Warrant is intended for
application where traffic conditions are such that
for one hour of the day, minor street traffic suffers
unduedelay inenteringorcrossiugthemajorstreet.
The peak hour delay warrant is satisfied when the
conditions given below exist for one hour (any four
consecutive Eminute periods) of an average
weekday. The peak hour delay warrant is met
when:
1. The tomi delay experienced by traffic, on
one minor street approach controlled by a
STOP sign, equals or exceeds four vehicle-
hours for a one-lane approach and five
vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND
2. The volume on the same minor street
approach equals or exceeds 1OOvph for one
moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two
moving lanes; AND
2%
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-5
7.19%
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.
K. Wattarntll -PeakHoutVolume Wwa&
f
ThePeakHourVolumeWarrantisintendedfor
application where traffic conditions are such that
for one hour of the day minor street traffic suffers
undue delay in entering or crossing the major street.
The peak hourvolume warrant is satisfied when
the plotted point, representing the vehicles per hour
on the major street (total of both approaches) and
the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher
volume minor street approach (one direction only)
for one hour (any four consecutive 15minute
periods) of an average day, falls above the curve in
Figure 9-8 for the existing combination of approach
lanes.
When the 85th percentile speed of major street
traffic exceeds 64 km/h, or when the intersection
lies within a built-up area of an isolated community
having a population of less than 10,000, the peak
hour volume warrant is satisfied when the plotted
point, referred to above, falls above the curve in
Figure 9-9 for the existing combination of approach
lanes.
941.3 Guidelines for Left-Turn Phases
Since separate signal phases for protected left
turns will reduce the green time available for other
phases,alternatemeansofhandlinglefttumconflicts
should be considered first.
The most likely possibilities are:
1. Prohibition of left turns. This can be done
only if there are convenient alternate means
of making the movement. Typical alternate
means are:
a. A series of right and/or left turns around
a block to permit getting to the desired
destination; or
b. Making the left turn at an adjacent
unsignalized intersection during gaps
in the opposing through traffic.
2. Geometric changes to eliminate the left
turn. An effective change would be a
complete separation or a complete or partial
“clover leaf’ at grade. Any of these, while
eliminating left turns, requires additional
cost and right of way.
3. provide protected-permissive orpermissive-
protected left turn operation. The protected
left turn interval may be prohibited during
certain periods of the day to allow only
permissive intervals for left turn movement
in order to increase the green time available
for other phases. Refer to Section 9-03.8
fortherequirementsofprotected-permissive
or permissive-protected left turn operation.
Protected left turn phases should be considered
where such alternatives cannot be utilized, and one
or more of the following conditions exist:
1. Accidents. Five or more left turn accidents
for a particular left turn movement during a
recent la-month period.
2. Delay. Left-turn delay of one or more
vehicles which wem waiting at thebq$nning
of the green interval and are still remaining
in the left turn lane after at least 80% of the
total number of cycles for one hour.
3. Volume. At new intersections where only
estimated volumes are available, the
following criteria may be used. For a
9-6
7-lgg(l
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LlGHTlNG Traffic Manual
pretimed signal or a background-cycle-
controlledactuated signal, a left turn volume
of more than two vehicles per approach per
cycle for a peak houq or for a traffic-
actuated signal, 50 or more left turning
vehicles per hour in one direction with the
product of the turning and conflicting
through traffic during the peak hour of
100,000 or more.
9-01.4 Removal of Existing Signals
Changes in traffic patterns may result in a
situation where a traffic signal is no longer justified.
When this occurs, consideration should be given to
removing the traffic signal and replacing it with
appropriate alternative traffic control devices.
4. Miscelluneoz4s. Other factors that might be
considered, include but are not limited to:
impaired sight distance due to horizontal or
vertical curvature, or where there is a large
percentage of buses and trucks.
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Figure 9-1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
9-7
7-1996
DIST CO RTE KPM
CALC DATE
CHK DATE
Major St: Critical Approach Speed km/h
Minor St: Critical Approach Speed km/h
cl Criticalspeedofmajorstreettraffii~ 64kn-& --------- ---- or
1
RURAL (R)
In built up area of isolated community of C 10,000 pop. _ _ _ _ _ - - - - 0
0 URBAN (U)
WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES 0 NO q
80% SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
APPROACH LANES
60th Apprdls. tD4ajj SllefA
Highest Apprch.
Minor street
80% SATISFIED YES 0 NO
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
cl
WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATlSFiED YES 0 NO 0
r
REQUIREMENT FULFILLED
Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more
for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one Yes 0 No 13 hour; Aj!Q
There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf-
fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross; @.Q Yes Cl No 0
The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater
than 90 m; m II Yes Cl No 0
I The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive
traffic flow on the major street. II Yes 0 No q
The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal; Delay, congestion, confuslon or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. zcf
9-8
I-1996
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Figure 9-2
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
Traffic Manual
WARRANT 4 - School Areas Not Appkable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..m... q
See School Protection Warrants Sheet 0
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YESO NOa
MINIMUM REOUIAEMENTS I DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL 1 FULFILLED
I ) 300m JN m, S m, E m. W
ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT
SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING 1 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 0 Cl
WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
I REQUIREMENTS WARRANT J FULFILLED
ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATlSFlED ------------------------------.-
OR 80% WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTlON OF CONTlNUOUS TRAFFIC YESO NO[7
SlGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW cl q
ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY cl q
ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTlBLE OF CORR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR 1 $!500 DAMAGE ---------------- ------------------------------.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
SDRMORE 0 cl
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
MINIMUM VOLUME
RECXJlREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES J
1000 VEWHR
DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR VEHIHR
--------------------______________I_
OR
DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS. OF A SAT. AND/OR SUN. VEHlHR
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES 1 MAJORST. i MlNORST.
HWY. SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC --------------------_______________I____--------
RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY _------I---------------------------------------
APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN
ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERlSTlCS MET, BOTH STREETS
FULFILLED
YES 0 NOa
cl cl
The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other
evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown.
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-9
7-1996
Figure 9-3
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT 6 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES q NO 0
I REQUIREMENT I WARRANT IJ I FULFILLED 1
TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATISFIED 80% 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume
Approach Lanes
Both Approaches - Major Street
Highest Approaches - Minor Street
2or One more
SATISFIED* YES 0 NO 0
Hour
* Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-7 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; @,jQ YES 0 NO 0
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; w YES 0 NO q
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 0 NO 0
WARRANT 1 1 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES 0 NO 0
Approach Lanes
Both Approaches - Major Street
Highest Approaches - Minor Street
2af One more 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 justlficatlon for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
! of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown.
C
9-10 ‘I-mm TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
Figure 9-4
TRAFFIC SJGNAL WARRANTS
(Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note)
I
URBAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RURAL Minimum Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EAOT
1. Minimum Vehicular
Satisfied Not Satisfied
Number of lanes for moving .traffii on each approach
Major Street Minor Street
1 . . . ..-.............................-.. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-................
2 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-....................... 2 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vehiiles per day on
major street (total of
both approaches)
Urban Rural
8,000 5,600
9,600 6,720
9,600 6,720
8.000 5,600
Vehicles per day on
higher-volume minor
street approach (one
direction only)
Urban Rural
2,400 1,680
2.400 1,680
3,200 2,240
3,200 2,240
2. lnteruptior~ of Continuous Traffic Vehiiles per day on Vehicles per day on
Satisfied Not Satisfied _ major street (total of higher-volume minor
both approaches) street approach (one
direction only)
Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach .
Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*....- 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,400 10,080 1,200 850 2 or more . . . .._.................. 2 or more . . . .._................... 14,400 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . 2 or more . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.000 8,400 1,600 ,, 1 120 L
3. Combination
Satisfied Not Satisfied
No one warrant satisfied, but folfowing warrants
ft~lfilied 809/o or more . . . . . . . . . 1 2
2 Warrants 2 Warrants
NOTE: To be used only for NEW INTERSECTKMS or other locations where it is not reasonable to countactueitmfikvoiumes.
2%
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-l 1
7.1996
Figure 9-5
SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS
--- DlSTco RTE KPM
.-
CALC DATE
CHK DATE
Major St:
Minor St:
Critical Approach Speed
Critical Approach Speed
km/h
km/h
Critical speed of major street tiaffii ) 64 km/h _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ y
In built up area of isolated community of c 10,000 pop. - - - - - - - - - - •l >
RURAL (R)
cl URBAN (U)
FLASHING YELLdW SCHOOL SIGNALS SATISFIED YES
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
II Minimum Requirements II ,
SATISFIED YES
PART B
AND
Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 56 km/h
AND
PART C
SATISFIED YES
Is nearest controlled crossing more than 160 m away? SATISFIED YES
cl
q
q
cl
NO q
NO q
NO 0
SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
SATISFIED
SATISFIED YES
PART B
AND
Is nearest controlled crossing more than 180 m away? SATISFIED
YES
YES
q
q
q
NO q
NO 0
NO q
9-12
7-19s
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
Figure 9-6
FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Urban Areas)
iE > I I iiiy go t;% PC% Hi sz 8
-2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 MORE LANES (MINOR)
*
*
300 400 500 800 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
115 VFH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VDLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 80 VFN APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
30
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-13 1-1996
Figure 9-7
FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
I
400
300
200
100
I OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 UNE (MINOR)
*
*
0
200 300 400 600 600 700 800 900 1000
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
*NOTE:
80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 60 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
9-14
7-1996
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
Figure 9-8
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Urban Areas)
I I I I I I I I I
- 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) a 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
600
2
? 500
I ‘s y. 2 g 400
iii:
= 4 300 52: I
93 g 200
3 I 100 .
1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MlNOR) - 0 I I I I I I
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
* NOTE:
150 VPH APWES 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.
32
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-15
7.1996
Figure 9-9
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
500
3 k a.
w"g 300
Fg aa
i5 100 E
0
.
.
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
*NOTE:
tO0 VPH APPLIES AS THE - THRESNOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WKH TWO OR Moc# LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MlNOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
33
January 3,200O TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 2
NEW BUSINESS:
6A. Reauested Action - Review and Drovide recommendations regardine the 2000 Traffic
Signal Evaluation Policv and Traffic Sienal Oualiflcation List.
Jim Murray, Associate Engineer presented the staff report as follows: The Traffic Signal Evaluation
Policy was first adopted by City Council in 1988. It is updated on a biannual basis. The policy was established with the intention of providing a mechanism to establish a system to evaluate potential future traffic signal locations. For the year 2000 Qualification List, 28 locations were analyzed of which 19 locations met at least one Caltrans Traffic Signal Warrant and were included in the current list. Of the 19 locations on the current list, eight are new locations. In 1998, 21 locations were evaluated. Of those 21 locations, eight have been removed from the list due to the fact that six have been constructed
and two are currently in design.
Mr. Murray explained that the qualification factors used in ranking the signals on the list are generally straightforward and take into account such factors as traffic volumes and patterns, pedestrian volumes and accident history. Qualification Factor #7 (Special Conditions) considers items not included in the previous
six factors and incorporates engineering judgment, which is based on field observation of the location and other available data.
In conclusion, Mr. Murray stated that the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends adoption of the 2000 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, including the Traftic Signal Qualification List and that the policy be submitted to the City Council for adoption.
Commissioner Blake asked if there was a traffic signal at Carlsbad Boulevard and State Street. Mr. Murray indicated there was no traffic signal at that location.
Chairperson Gillfillan opened Public Testimony.
Kim Trujillo, 3720 Sierra Morena Avenue, Carlsbad, expressed concern of the lack of a traffic signal at Carlsbad Boulevard and Cherry Street due to the amount of pedestrians accessing the public beach area, although she doesn’t know the number of pedestrians crossing at that location. Ms. Trujillo alluded to an incident involving her van and a truck rapidly approaching from behind. She stated that if she had not used her horn, an accident might have occurred. Ms. Trujillo stated that a traffic signal is needed at Carlsbad Boulevard and Cherry Street for public safety.
Nick Arvanitis, 2712 Via Plato, Carlsbad, explained that he goes to the beach frequently to surf and has observed many near-accidents at Carlsbad Boulevard and Cherry Street and believes a traffic signal is needed.
Dylan Trujillo, 3720 Sierra Morena Avenue, Carlsbad, stated that he goes to the beach nearly every day during summer and feels unsafe crossing the street at Carlsbad Boulevard and Cherry Street. He said he sometimes crosses Carlsbad Boulevard at Tamarack Avenue. He requested a traffic signal or some measure be implemented to slow cars down.
. January 3,200O TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 3
Don Friedlander, 2245 Nob Hill Drive, C&bad, stated that a traffic signal is needed at Carlsbad Village Drive and Donna Drive and that he was in disagreement with the findings of the 2000 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and Traffic Signal Qualifications List as presented by Mr. Murray. He felt that this intersection should be ranked higher on the Traffic Signal Qualification List. First, he felt that the limited sight distance at the intersection due to it being situated on a crest of a hill should result in a higher value for Factor #7 (Special Conditions) than was given by staff.
Mr. Friedlander’s second concern involved staff’s calculation of Factor #2 (Interruption of Continuous Traffic). He mentioned a letter he received from Mr. Murray which stated that the traffic on C&bad Village Drive is “approximately 11 times the volume on Donna Drive”. Based on the volume shown on the 2000 Traflic Signal Qualification List for Carlsbad Village Drive and Donna Drive (4,009 vehicles), Mr. Friedlander calculated the volume on Donna Drive to be over 300 vehicles and therefore should have
resulted in a non-zero value for Factor #2. He concluded by comparing other locations on the list with
Donna Drive and reiterated his request for a traffic signal at that location.
Mr. Johnson stated that a new development on the north side of Carlsbad Village Drive at Donna Drive. has been conditioned to install a traffic signal at the intersection.
Commissioner Courtney asked Mr. Friedlander if he understood the comment made by Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Friedlander replied that he was aware of the proposed development, but didn’t know when the project would be built.
Commissioner Courtney stated that since the project is ongoing, the traffic signal would be installed more quickly than if it were a strictly City-tided capital improvement project. Mr. Courtney also pointed out that sight distance is only one criteria for installing a traffic signal and that management of traffic flow is another important consideration.
Mr. Friedlander reiterated his concerns of the time frame of the proposed development project and said that he previously requested an ALL-WAY STOP be installed, which would be a very simple interim solution, in his opinion.
Commissioner Courtney stated that installation of an ALL-WAY STOP is not necessarily “simple” and the proper procedures need to be followed.
Chairperson Gillfillan asked Mr. Johnson if he knew the current status of the development project.
Mr. Johnson replied that the final map for the project was recently approved.
Chairperson Gillfillan asked staff to clarify for Mr. Friedlander his concerns regarding the qualification factors used in ranking the locations for the Traffic Signal Qualification List.
Mr. Murray, referring to the data collected for the 2000 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, verified the accuracy of Qualification Factor #7 as shown on the Traffic Signal Qualification List for the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Donna Drive. Mr. Murray stated that the letter Mr. Friedlander was quoting may have referenced older, non-current data. Mr. Murray said he had all of his calculation sheets in case the Commission wanted to review any location in detail.
35
January 3,200O TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 4
Mr. Johnson summarized the process used to prepare the 2000 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy. He stated that meeting at least one Caltrans traffic signal warrant puts the analyzed location on the Traffk Signal Qualification List. The qualification factors in the Policy are then used to rank the intersections in order of approximate need. Mr. Johnson stated that order of construction does not necessarily follow the priority
order found on the Traffic Signal Qualification List and the installation timing is dependent on such
factors as funding and private development. Mr. Johnson concluded by stating that installation of traffic signals does not eliminate accidents and may, in fact, increase the number of certain types of accidents if the traffk signals are not warranted.
ACTION: On motion by Commissioner Whitton, and duly seconded, the Traffic Safety
Commission upheld the recommendation of the Traftic Safety Coordinating Committee to approve the 2000 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, including the Traffic Signal Qualification List, as presented, and forward it to the City Council.
VOTE:
AYES: NOES:
4-o Gillfillan, Whitton, Blake, Courtney None
REPORT FROM TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSIONERS:
None
REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER:
Mr. Johnson announced that the next meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Monday, February 7,2000, at 3:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers.
ADJOURNMENT:
By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of January 3,2000, adjourned at 394 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
AE BROWN Office Specialist