HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-03-05; City Council; 16553; 2002 Traffic Signal Evaluation PolicyCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL
.B# !&I553 DEPT!” 54 m: CITY OF CARLSBAD
ITG. 3/05/02 CITY Am. @ 2002 TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY
1EPT. ENG CITY MOR.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. -0bY approving the City of Carlsbad 2002 Traffic Signal
Evaluation Policy.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Transportation Division of the Engineering Department has completed the 2002 Traffic Signal
Carlsbad did not have a list that prioritized warranted traffic signal locations for future installations.
Evaluation Policy, which also includes the Traffic Signal Qualification List. Prior to 1988, the City of
By adopting the initial Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy with Resolution Number 88-252 on
to periodically update the warranted traffic signal list and present the information to the Traffic Safety
July 19, 1988, the City Council established the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and authorized staff
Commission and City Council. Staff updates the traffic signal list on a bi-annual basis.
the 2002 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and 2002 Traffic Signal Qualification List be adopted by the
The Traffic Safety Commission recommended, by a 3-0 vote, at their February 4, 2002 meeting that
City Council. This is the seventh update since 1988, however, the policy for evaluating traffic signals has not been revised from the originally approved 1988 policy. A total of 22 intersections met one or more Caltrans Traffic Signal Warrants and are shown in prioritized ranking on the
2002 Traffic Signal Qualification List. Ten intersections have been added to the list with the
remaining 12 intersections having been on the 2000 Traffic Signal Qualification List. Two of the new
traffic signals added to the list are the responsibility of private development.
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
developing private property. be signalized may be the responsibility of private development and will be installed as a condition of
FISCAL IMPACT:
the funding source is uncertain at this time. The funding source may be from the General Fund
Eight additional signals will be included in the 2002-2003 CIP. The total cost is $1,100,000 and
unless an alternative source is identified. Design and construction of a traffic signal costs about $150,000. Once installed, yearly operation and maintenance costs for each traffic signal is approximately $5,000.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. 3&Cia-cJGi9 approving the City of Carlsbad 2002 Traffic Signal
Evaluation Policy.
2. 2002 Traffic Signal Qualification List.
3. 2002 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy.
4. Minutes of the February 4, 2002 Traffic Safety Commission meeting.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-069
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2002 CITY OF
CARLSBAD TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY.
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad recognizes the need for the installation of traffic signals
t 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
rhen and where traffic signals will be installed in the future; and
WHEREAS, maintaining an up-to-date qualification list of warranted traffic signals win
ssist staff when reviewing future Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) or developer projects to
etermine the need and schedule of the traffic signal installation; and
WHEREAS, the 2002 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy contains the 2002 Traffic Signal
ualification List.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
alifornia, 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
id the updated Traffic Signal Qualification List as contained in the 2002 Traffic Signal Evaluation
olicy.
1
1
2
I
8
f
$
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. The Engineering Department of the City of Carlsbad is hereby authorized to
periodicalty update the Tmffic 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 5th day of MARCH , 2002 by the following vote, to wit
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Finnila, Nygaard, Hall
NOES: None
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT 2
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION
POLICY
PREPARED BY:
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SECTION
JANUARY 2002
5
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY REPORT
JANUARY 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ..................................................................................... 1
POLICY ............................................................................................................................ 2
GENERAL ........................................................................................................................ 2
DATA ................................................................................................................................ 3-4
2002 TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION LIST ............................................................... 5
TRAFFIC SIGNALS CURRENTLY BEING DESIGNEDEONSTRUCTED ........................ 6
INTERSECTIONS INVESTIGATED (Did not meet CALTRANS Signal Warrants) ............. 6
APPENDIX
A. TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION RATING SYSTEM
B. CALTRANS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Transportation Division
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY REPORT
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 83,500 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 Carlsbad'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 127 signalized intersections in Carlsbad. Ownership and maintenance responsibility is
as follows:
W 110 signals owned and maintained by the City of Carlsbad
W 14 signals owned and maintained by Caltrans.
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 traffic signal
warrants.
BACKGROUNDANDPURPOSE
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.
1
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. 1998, and 2000.
This report is an update of the 2000 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.
POLICY
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.
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 maxjmum 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
accumulated at each location.
consideration and is arranged in descending order based upon the total qualification points
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
Traffic signals are not installed unless written authorization from the City Engineer directs their
engineering should take place and then be re-evaluated before proceeding to final design.
installation.
n L
- 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
frequency, delays, increased air or noise pollution and higher energy use. to circuitous travel
problems may be created than are solved. These problems can range from increased accident
along less desirable routes to amid 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
factors which are based on the California Department of Transportation criteria known as
using a Traffic Signal Qualification Rating System. Points were assigned to seven qualification
CALTRANS Traffic Signal Warrants.
Traffic Signal Qualification Rating System factors include the following:
Factor 1- Minimum VehicularVolume
This factor considers the fact that at certain traffic volume levels the delay can be reduced and
orderly flow through an intersection enhanced bysignal 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 traffic 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 Siqnals
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 mlume factor in that gaps in traffic
are considered.
3
4
Factor 5 - Proaressive Movement or Slanal Svstems
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 mhicles.
Factor 7 - Snecial 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 larious other
criteria.
The above rating system is used to evaluate various potential signal locations; these locations
are then ranked based on the bllowing relative weight system:
MAXIMUM RELATIVE
FACTOR DESCRIPTION QUALIFICATION POINTS WEIGHT
I
4
5
TRAFFIC SIGNALS CURRENTLY BEING DESIGNEDKONSTRUCTED
1.
2.
3.
1. 2.
4.
3.
5.
6.
7.
9.
10.
11. 12.
14.
13.
15.
16.
a.
Carlsbad Village Drive/Pontiac Drive
Carlsbad Village Drive/Avenida de Anita
Aviara ParkwaylKingfisher Lane
INTERSECTIONS INVESTIGATED
(Did not meet CALTRANS Signal Warrants)
Aviara ParkwaylNightshade Road
Aviara Parkwaynowhee Lane
Carlsbad Village DrivelGlasgow Drive
College Boulevardnamarack Avenue
Chestnut AvenuelHarding Street
Chestnut AvenuelHighland Drive
Chestnut Avenue/Pio Pico Drive
Chestnut AvenueNalley Street
Grand Avenue/Harding Street
Grand Avenue/Madison Street
Hosp WayiWintergreen Drive
La Costa Avenue/Nueva Castilla
Las Flores Drive/Pio Pic0 Drive
Tamarack AvenuelGarfield Street
Tamarack AvenuelPark Drive
Tamarack AvenuelSkyline Road
6
APPENDIX
TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION 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 &hour counts (usually from 2:OO to 6:W P.M. on a weekday). A maximum of 15 points may be assigned to this factor.
NOTES
750 OVER
700
100
TOTAL VOLUME ENTERING INTERSECTION
Factor 2 - IntermDtion 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.
1650- 7 949
Factor 3 - Pedestrian Volump
A traffic signal may be needed where many pedestrians cross a major street. A maximum
of 10 points may be assigned to this factor.
NOTES
1. ALL VOLUMES ARE FOR 4-HOURS (USUALLY 2-6 P.M.)
2 MAXIMUM POINTS = 10
3. NO POINTS IF LESS THAN 100 PEDESTRIANS DURING THE 4 HOUR PERIOD.
4. NO POINTS IF LESS THAN 1200 MAJOR SlREET VEHICLES DURING THE 4 HOUR
PERIOD.
32 00
2800
2400
2000
1600
1200
100 200 400 800 loo0 1200 1400 OVER 15M) i
Factor 4 - School Area Tram Slanalq
Points are assigned base1 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.
1w 60 150 100 200 110 w 180
PEDESTRIANS CROSSING ME MAJOR STREET
(Per 2-Hour Period)
Factor 5 - Proaressive Movement or Siqnal 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 madmum 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 madmum of 15 points may be assigned to this factor.
ACCIDENTS
0-2
3
4 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 14
15 & Over
POINTS
0
1
3 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 14
15
NOTE: operation for two years.
Use the average of the last two years, provided the intersection has been in
Factor 7 - Special 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; restricted sight distance. This factor requires engineering judgment based on physical inspection of the
site. A madmum 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 #1 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 bicyde 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 priwte 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.
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-1
CHAPTER 9
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Traffic Signals, Basic Information and Warrants 9-01
7-1996
941.1 Introduction
Atrafficsignalisanelectricallypoweredtraffic
control device, other than a banicade warning light
or steady burning electric lamp, by which uaffic 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, Traffic Control at MovableBridges, Rioty
Control of Traffic Signals, Traffic Signals for One-
lane, Two-way Facilities and Traffic Signals for
Construction Zones.
Trafficcontrolsignalsaredwicesfortcontrol
of vehicle and pedestrian uaffic. 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
uaffic.
2. They increase the traffic handling capacity
of the intersection.
3. They reduce the frequency of certain typcs
of accidents, especially the right angle type.
4. They can be coordinated to provide for
continuous or nearly continuous movement
of uaffic at a definite speed.
5. They permit minor street traffic, vehicular
or pedestrian, to enter or cross continuous
traffic on the major street.
Experience shows that the number of right-
angle collisions may 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 athorough study of uaffic androadway
conditions made by an engineer experienced and
trained in this field. Equally important is the need
for checking the efficiency of a traffic signal in
operation. This determines the degree to which the
typeofinstallationandthetimingprogrammeetthe
requirements of traffic.
9-01.2 Tralfic Signal Warrants
The justification for the installation of a traffic
signal at an intersection is based on the warrants
statedinthisManualandintheManualOnUniform
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,
fum 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
warrants.
When the 85th percentile speed of uaffic on the
major street exceeds 64 km/h in either an urban or
nual area, or when the intersection lies within the
built-up area of an isolated community having a
population of less than 10,OOO, the location is
considered rural. All other areas are considered
urban.
9-2 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
7-1M
Figurcs 9-1.9-2,9-3 and 9-4 are exatnples of
warrant sheets. Warrant Sheet 9-4 should be used
only fornew intersections orother locations where
it is not reasonable to count actual traffic volumes.
The installation of a traffic signal should be
considered if one or more of the warrants listed
below are met:
A. Warrant 1 -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.
Number of Vehicles per Vehicles per
lanes for hour on hour on
traflic on
moving major street higher-volume
(total of both minor-street
each approach approaches) approach (one
directiononly)
Major St. Minor St. Urban Rural Urban Rural
1 1 500 350 150 105
2ormore 1 600 420 150 105
2ormore 2ormore 600 420 200 140
1 2ormore 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 tmffic
volume on a major street is so heavy that mffz on
a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay
or hazard in entering or crussing 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 dimpt progressive Mi flow.
Number of Vehicles per Vehicles per
lanes for houron hour on
moving trafiic on
major sveet higher-volume
(total of both minor-street
each appmch approaches) approach (one
directiononly)
MajorSt. 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. Warrant3 -MinimumPedestrian Volume.
A traffic signal may be warranted where the
pedeseian volume crossing the major street at an
intersectionormid-blocklocationduringanaverage
day is:
100 or more for each of any four hours; or
190 or more during any one hour.
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-3
The pedestrianvolumecrossing themajor stnet
may be reduced as much as 50% of the values given
above when the predominant pedestrian crossing
speed is below 1 ds. ,
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
thereisadividedseeethavingamedianofsufficient
width for the pedestrian(s) to wait, the requirement
applies separately to each direction of vehicular mam.
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 ttaffic
signal atthe study location wouldnot unduly restrict
platooned flow of traffic. Curbside parking at non-
intersectionlocationsshouldbeprohibitedfor30m
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 equippedwithpedestrian indicationsconforming
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 Movement.
TheF'rogressiveMovement warrant is satisfied
when:
1. Onaone-waystnetoronasmetwhichhas
predominantly unidirectional traffic,
adjacent signals are so far apart that the
necessary degree of platooning and speed
conmlof vehicles would ohenvise be lost;
or
2. Onatwo-waystnet,whereadjacentsignals
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 m.
F. Warrant 6 - Accident Experience.
The Accident Experience warrant is satisfied
when:
1. Five or more reported accidents of types
susceptible to correction by Wfic signal
conml have occurred within a 12-month
period, each accident involving personal
injury or propmy damage to an apparent
extent of $500 or more; AND
2. Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies
with satisfactory observance and
enforcementhasfailedtoreducetheaccident
frequency; AN2
9-4 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
7-1-
3. There exists a volume of vehicular maffic
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 Warrant.
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 thecommon intersection
of two or more major routes has a total existing, or
immediately projected, entering volume of at least
1,OOO 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. Itispanofthestreetorhighwaysystemthat
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.
€I. 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 WarranL
The Four Hour Volume Warrant is satisfied,
when for each of any four hours of an average day,
theplottedpointsrepresentingthevehiclesperhour
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 abuilt-up areaof anisolated
communityhavingapopulationoflessthan10,000,
the four hour volume requirement is satisfied when
the plotted points referred to fall above the curve in
Figure 9-7 forthe existingcombination of approach
lanes.
J. Warrant IO - Peak Hour Delay WarmnL
The Peak Hour Delay Warrant is intended for
application where M1c conditions are such that
for one hour of the day, minor street traffic suffers
unduedelayinenteringorcrossingthemajorstreet.
The peak hour delay warrant is satisfied when the
conditions given below exist for one hour (any four
consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average
weekday. The peak hour delay warrant is met
when:
1. The total 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-hoursforatwo-laneapproach;
2. The volume on the same minor street
approach equals or exceeds lOOvph for one
moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two
moving lanes;
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-5
7-1996
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. Warrant 11 -Peak How Volume WarranL
The Peak Hour Volume Warrant is intended for
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
theplottedpoint,representingthevehiclesperhour
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 15-minute
periods) of an average day, falls above the cwe 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 isolatedcommunity
having a population of less than lO,OOO, 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.
901.3 Guidelines for Left-Turn Phases
Since separate signal phases for protected left
turns will reduce the green time available for other
phases,altematemeansofhandlinglefttumconflicts
should be considered fmt.
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 seriesof 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 traffc.
2. Geometric changes to eliminate the left
turn. An effective change would be a
complete separationoracompletorpatid
“clover leaf‘ at grade. Any of these, while
eliminating left turns, requires additional
cost and right of way.
3. Rovideprotected-permissiveorpermissive-
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
fortherequimnentsofprotected-permissive
or permissive-protcctedleft 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 12-month period.
2. Delay. Left-turn delay of one or more
vehicles which were waiting at the beginning
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 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
7-1 oo(L
pretimed signal or a background-cycle- 941.4 Removal of Existing Signals
controlled actuatedsignal, aleft turn volume
of more than two vehicles per approach per Changes in traffic patterns may result in a
cycle for a peak hour, or for a traffic- situation whereatraffic signalisnolongerjustified.
actuated signal, 50 or more left turning When this OCCUTS, consideration shouldbe given to
vehicles per hour in one direction with the removing the traffic signal and replacing it with
product of the turning and conflicting appropriate alternative traffic conel devices.
through traffic during the peak hour of
100,OoO or more.
4. Miscellaneous. 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 9-7
Figure 9-1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
7-1 5%
DlST co RTE KPM - CALC
CHK
DATE
DATE
Major St: Critical Approach Sped kmlh
Minor st: Critical Approach Speed kmlh
Crnicalspeedofmalorstreettraffic > 64kmh------------- or 7 RURAL(R)
in buiH up area of isolated community of C 10,000 pop. - - - - - - - - - OJ ..
0 URBAN(U)
WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
I MNIMUM REOUIREMENTS
[%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) I 80XSATlSFlED YES 0 NO 0
WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
I MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
1- SHOWN IN BRACKElSl I 80% SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
I REOUIREMENT FULFILLED 1
for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one
Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more
hour; &jQ Yes 0 NO 0
There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street trai-
fic stream of adeauate lenoth for pedestrians to cross; AMQ Yes 0 No 0
I than 90rn; &Q
The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater 11 Yes No I
The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive
traffic flow on the major street. 11 Yes No I
The satisfaction ot a warrant Is not necessarily )ustlflcatlon for a signal; Delay, congestlon. confusion or other
evidence of the need.for right-of-way assignment must be shown.
'Lla
9-8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
7-199S
Figure 9-2
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT 4 - School Arms Not Applicable ....................................... 0
See s~h001 Protection Warrants Sheet 0
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YESO NO0
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS I DISTANCETO NEARESTSIGNAL FULFILLED
> 300m N m. S m. E m. W m. YES 0 NO0
ON ONE WAY ISOIATED SlREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT
SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING 6 SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST
ON 2-WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENTSIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING AND
SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM 00
"""""_""""""""""""""""""
WARRANT 6 -Accident Experience SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
I REQUIREMENTS
WARRANT i - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ONE WARRANT
FULFILLED I J WARRANT
SATISFIED OR """-""""""""""""
8Mc YES 0 NO 0 WARRANT 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW
00 ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREOUENCY
on
ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. h INVOLVING INJURY OR 2 SSW DAMAGE
"""""""" """"""""""""""".
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
5 OR MORE I 00
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
MINIMUM VOLUME
REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES ~ ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED
I I ,I
DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR
DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS. OF A SAT. AND/OR SUN. VEH/HR { YES NO0
loo0 VEWHR """"""~"""""""""~ -
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES
HWY. SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NElWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC
RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CIM
APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PIAN
"""""""""""""""""~
"""""""""""""""""~
ANY WR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STREI rs no
The satlsfactlon of a warrant Is not necessarily justlflcatlon for a signal. Delay, congestlon, confuslon or other evldsnce of the need for right-of-way asslgnment must be shown.
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-9
Figure 9-3
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
7-1996
WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
REQUIREMENT FULFILLED J WARRANT
TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATISFIED
80% 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES NO 0
WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES NO
-roach Lanes 2 or One more Hour
Both Approaches - Major Street II 1
Highest Approaches - Minor Stpet
II I I
* 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 NO
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; ACQ YES [7 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; YES 0 NO 0
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds BOO vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES 0 NO 0
WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES NO CI
2 or Approach Lanes One more Hour
Both Approaches - Major Street
Highest Approaches - Minor Street I I * Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied.
The satlsfaction of a Warrant is not necessarily justification for a slgnal. Delay, congestion, confuslon or other evidence
of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown.
9-1 0 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
Figure 9-4
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
(Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note)
7-1-
URBAN ......................... RURAL ............................. I Minimum Requirements
EADT
1. Minimum Vehicular
Satisfied Not Satisfied
Number of lanes for moving.traffii on each approach
Major Street Minor Street I ...................................... 1 ......................................
2 or more ........................ 1 ......................................
2 or more .... :.. ................. 2 or more .........................
1 ..................................... 2 or more .........................
2. Interuption of Continuous Traffic
Satisfied Not Satisfied -
Vehicles per day on
major street (total of
both approaches)
Urban Rural
9,600 6,720 8,000 5,600
8,000 5,600
9.600 6.720
Vehicles per day on major sheet (total of
both approaches)
Vehicles per day on
higher-volume minor
street approach (one
direction only)
Urban Rural
2,400 2.400 1,680 1,680
3,200 3.200
2,240
2,240
Vehicles per day on
higher-volume minor
direction only) street approach (one
Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach 1- Major Street Minor Street
1 ...................................... 1 ......................................
2 or more ........................ 1 ...................................... 2ormore ........................ 2ormore .........................
1 ..................................... 2 or more .........................
Urban Rural Urban Rural
12,000 8,400
12,000 8,400
14.400 10,080
1,200 850 14.400 10.080 1,200 850
1,600 1,120
1,600 1,120
3. Combination I I
Satisfied Not Satisfied I 2 Warrants 2 Warrants
No one warrant satisfied, but following warrants
fulfilled 80% or more ......... I
NOTE: 10 bt, used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where it Is not reasonable to
count actusl traffic volumes.
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-1 1
Figure 9-5
SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS
749%
“” DlST CO RTE KPM
CALC DATE
CHK DATE
Major 8: Crltical Approach Speed kmh
Minor St: Critical Approach Speed kmh
Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In buiH up area of isolated community of c 10,000 pop. - - - - - - - - - - 0
z} RURAL(R)
0 URBAN(U)
FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS SATISFIED
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
SATISFIED
PART B
AND -
Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 56 kmh SATISFIED
PART C
AND -
1s nearest controlled crossing more than 180 rn away? SATISFIED
YES NO 0
YES 0 NO
YES 0 NO
YES NO 0
SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
SATISFIED
SATISFIED
AND
PART B
Is nearest controlled crossing more than 160 rn away? SATISFIED
YES 0 NO
YES NO
9-1 2 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
7-19911
Figure 9-6
FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Urban Areas)
500
E 400
I I-6 YIU YI 0 300 EU big
0 YI 200 a<
ZI 53
0 > 100 I cl I
0
300 400 500 800 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF Born APPROACHES - VPH
* NOTE:
115 VPH APPLIES AS THE u)yvu) THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. APPROICH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-1 3
Figure 9-7
FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
749%
400 I I *>2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
2 OR MORE LANES (M4JOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
0 I I I I
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 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 MlNOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
9-1 4 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
7-1896
Figure 9-8
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Urban Areas)
600
E
ci:
Eg
? 500
LY 0 400 w4
nn g g 300
2 200
s 100
> r * *
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF Born APPROACHES - VPH
NOTE
150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET
THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
33
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-1 5
500
h
5
> 400
I-4 9 300 $8
UW = 200
3 100 I
0
Figure 9-9
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
* '*
* NOTE
100 VPH APPLIES AS Tm WER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR NOM UNES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MNOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
3.1
February 4,2002 .uWFlC SAFETY COh4MISSION
Courtney. Schall
ITEM 4 -ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Engineer, Transportation Division, informed
was addressed at the regular Traffi the City Council later this month for
prima facie 40 mile per hour spe
Engineer, Transportation
City Council would be appoi Safety Commissioner Ch
NEW BUSINESS:
ITEM 6A Review, provide recommendations and approve the 2002 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and Traffic Signal Qualification List
Referring to an overhead slide, Associate Engineer, Jim Murray, Transportation Division, stated that the
Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and Traffic Signal Qualification List. He noted that there are 22 intemctions requested action regarding agenda item MA is to review and provide recommendations regarding the 2002
on the list, all of which have met at least one or more of the 11 CALTRANS traffic signal warrants.
that it has been updated biannually since 1988. The policy is intended to provide a mechanism to establish a Mr. Murray stated that the Traffic Signal Qualification List was originally established on July 19, 1988 and
ranking system to evaluate and compare potential future signalized intersection locations. A total of 22
the 2002 Traffic Signal Qualification List that were not on the 2000 list. By their designated qualification intenections are included on the 2002 Traffic Signal Qualification List. Ten intersections have been added to
and both intersections tied for 21. number, those intersections are: Numbers 4, 5, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 (Faraday Avenue/Camino Hills Drive)
February 4,2002 .RAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION page 3
Continuing, Mr. Murray mentioned that City Council adoption of the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy that establishes the Traffic Signal Qualification List does not commit or require the signals to be installed in the order of ranking. The list provides a Systematic listing of intersection priorities based. upon preliminary
design, once authorized by the Ci Council.
engineering. An engineering study and further evaluation would have to be conducted priorto beginning final
Referring to the overhead slide and explaining qualification factors 1 to 7 of the qualification rating system,
determine points. He noted that of the seven factors, factor #7 is what is referred to as the 'special Mr. Murray informed the Commission that there is a Traffic Signal Ranking System, which staff uses to
conditions" factor, which is the most subjective of all of the factors and takes into account conditions and
special considerations that are not covered by the other qualification factors.
In conclusion, Mr. Murray stated that the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends that the Traffic Safety Commission review and provide recommendations regarding the 2002 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, including the Traffic Signal Qualification List. and that the policy be submitted to the City Council for adoption. City Council approval and adopting, by Resolution. of the 2002 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, including the Traffic Signal Qualification List, will be required.
Vice-Chairperson Courtney asked if there were questions of staff.
Referring to the overhead slide, 2002 Traffic Signal Qualification List, Commissioner Schall requested an overview of #4, Calle BarcelonaPaseo Aliso. He noted that under the qualification factor #7, Calle BarcelonalPaseo Aliso ranking is 16.
Noting that there is an ALL WAY STOP sign at Calle BarcelonaPaseo Aliso, Mr. Murray stated that the ALL
to special condition #7: WAY STOP sign is 700 feet from the traffic signal at El Camino Real. He mentioned that there are four parts
o Part 1: Points are given for existing ALL WAY STOP .
o Part2: Proximity to schools
o Part3:
o Part4: Horizontal and vertical curvature and sight visibility High speed on the through street
Mr. Murray gave the following overview, detailing the elements regarding the ranking and points awarded to Calle BarcelonaPaseo Aliso:
5 points were given to Calle BarcelonaPaseo Aliso because it is an existing ALL WAY STOP; 5
points were given for part 2, proximity to schools, due to the fact that there is an elementary school north on Paseo Aliso; 3 points awarded for part 3, e.g. vehicle facing southbound Paseo Aliso at Calle Barcelona looking to the east there is horizontal curvature to Calle Barcelona; and 3 points were granted because Calle Barcelona has a critical speed of 50 miles per hour, e.g. criteria: if the critical speed is 5 miles per hour over the posted speed limit 3 points are awarded.
the intersection. Mr. Murray mentioned that factor #4 takes into consideration the number of school age pedestrians crossing
Commissioner Mertz asked if the text additions to the chart were the only changes in the overall document.
Mr. Murray stated that there were update changes to the document.
Vice-Chairperson Courtney noted that the qualification listing had also changed, some intersections gained ranking, some lost ranking, and othes dropped off the list.
February 4,2002 1 RAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 4
on page one of the document, which talks about the Ciy itself e.g. population of the City has increased, and Referring to the overall text of the document, Mr. Mumy commented that other than the updated introduction
the number of signalized intersections in the City has increased, nothing has really changed in the document.
Commissioner Schall requested Clarification referring to page 6 of the staff report regarding traffic signals
currently being designed or constructed.
signals are being designed and will be constructed. Mr. Murray stated that the implementation of the traffic signals were currently in the design process; traffic
Commissioner Schall asked if the traffic signals were being installed.
Mr. Murray stated that at Carlsbad Village Drive and Pontiac Drive the Ciy has advertised for the construction of the project and the traffic signal will be constructed in the next couple of months.
Mr. Johnson informed the Commission that Carlsbad Village Drive and Pontiac was currently under
construction and would probably be energized by the end of March or early April 2002.
Mr. Johnson explained the elements of design and construction as it relates to the installation of traffic signals. He noted that the traffic signal at Carlsbad Village Drive and Avenida de Anita will be a developer's signal, there is a subdivision being constructed on the comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Avenida de Anita; the Aviara ParkwayKingfisher Lane signal bids were opened last week and it will go to Ci Council in approximately one month to be awarded; with construction taking place in the summer.
Commissioner Schall wanted to know how many signals have been installed over the last two years.
Mr. Johnson stated that approximately twelve to fourteen traffic signal lights have been installed within the last two years.
As there were no additional questions of staff, Vice-Chairperson Courtney opened public testimony.
As there was no public testimony, Vice-Chairperson Courtney Closed public testimony,
Vice-Chairperson Courtney called for a discussion by the Commissioners.
DISCUSSION:
Vice-Chairpenon Courtney stated that the intersections with ALL WAY STOP signs, e.g. The ALL WAY STOP in La Costa Valley and the ALL WAY STOP at Tamarack and Highland, were functioning very well
and believed that the installation of traffic signals would impact and impede the flow of traffic.
Mr. Johnson stated that the idea of the qualification list was to prevent citizens from requesting a trafficsignal arbiirarily on their respective street comers. The qualification criterion is an objective way of evaluating whether there should be a traffic signal at a particular location.
Vice-Chairperson Courtney questioned the logic of installing traffic signals at intersections with ALL WAY STOP signs currently in place and functioning well.
road. Staff determined that in a multilane situation both drivers will stop most of the time; one driver will move Mr. Johnson commented that at Cake Barcelona and Paseo Aliso there is a school crossing and a multilane
forward to go through and the pedestrian is crossing in front of the car next to him, it is the classic multilane
type of conflict. He noted that due to the short height of the school pedestrians, drivers ofIen do not see the
February 4,2002 I'R~FFIC SAFETY COMMISSION page 5
child pedestrian walking in front of the car. In many cases, a multilane ALL WAY STOP that is a school
crossing is a very good candidate for a traffic signal. He noted that total points based upon the criteria dictated the ranking of an intersection.
Vice-Chairperson Courtney closed discussion and called for a Motion.
MOTION:
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Mertz, and duly seconded, that the
recommendations of the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee regarding the 2002 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and Traffic Signal Qualification List
be adopted and that the policy be submitted to the City Council for adoption.
VOTE:
AYES: 3-0-0 Courtney, Mertz, Schall
ABSTAIN: None NOES: None
through July 2003.
, Deputy City Engineer, ion of the Traffic Safety
could function as t usually takes over
em to a future date
2. The Commission ca
The individuals
Vice-Chairperson Court called for a discussion. 7 \
The commiT discussed the various options available in detail. \