HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-20; City Council; 17594; 2004 Traffic signal eval policyCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
TITLE: I- 46# 17,594
I u~TG. 4/20/04
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2004 TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY CITY ATTY. e
CITY MGRW
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 2004-126 Evaluation Policy.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
approving the City of Carlsbad 2004 Traffic Signal
The Transportation Division of the Engineering Department has completed the 2004 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, which also includes the 2004 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 continues to update the traffic signal list on a bi-annual basis.
The Traffic Safe Commission recommended, by a 5-0 vote, at their February 2, 2004 meeting that the 2004 Traffic 3 ignal Evaluation Policy and 2004 Traffic Signal Qualification List be adopted by the City Council. This is the ei hth update since 1988, however, the policy for evaluating traffic
one or more Caltrans Traffic Signal Warrants and are shown in prioritized ranking on the 2004 Traffic Signal Qualification List. Three new intersections have been added to the qualification list with the remaining 12 intersections having been on the 2002 Traffic Signal Qualification List. One traffic signal on the qualification list is the primary responsibility of private development to fund. The other signals will be funded in the annual Capital Improvement Pro ram (CIP).
and Carlsbad Boulevard/ State Street.
signals has not been revised ? rom the originally approved 1988 policy. A total of 15 intersections met
Three intersections listed on the 2002 Traffic Si nal Qualification List were not inc 7 uded in the 2004 list. The intersections are Tamarack Avenue 9 Highland Drive, La Costa Avenue/Calle Madero,
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) in the year they are expected to be needed. Other future intersections that will be signalized may be the responsibility of private development and will be installed as a condition of developing private property.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy is a planning study with no environmental review required and is exempt under CEQA regulations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Four traffic signals on the recommended 2004 Traffic Signal Qualification List will be recommended for inclusion in the 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The City Council will consider approval of the CIP in June 2004. The four traffic signals are:
0
0 Faraday Avenue/Priestly Drive
0 La Costa Avenue/Levante Street
0 Tamarack Avenue/Pontiac Drive
Paseo del Norte/Car Country Drive
The estimated cost for the proposed four traffic signals is $840,000 and the funding source is
uncertain at this time. The funding source may be from the General Fund unless an alternative
source is identified. Design and construction of a traffic signal costs about $210,000. Once installed,
yearly operation and maintenance costs for each traffic signal is approximately $5,000.
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 9 594
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. 2004-126 approving the City of Carlsbad 2004 Traffic Signal
2.
3.
4.
Evaluation Policy.
2004 Traffic Signal Qualification List.
2004 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy.
Minutes of the February 2,2004 Traffic Safety Commission meeting.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Robert T. Johnson, Jr., (760) 602-2752, biohn8ci.carlsbad.ca.us
1
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. 2004-126
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2004 CITY OF
CARLSBAD TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY.
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad recognizes the need for the installation of traffic signals
3t 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
Nhen and where traffic signals will be installed in the future; and
WHEREAS, maintaining an up-to-date qualification list of warranted traffic signals will
issist staff when reviewing future Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) or developer projects to
letermine the need and schedule of the traffic signal installation; and
WHEREAS, the 2004 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy contains the 2004 Traffic Signal
2ualification List.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
=alifornia, as follows:
1.
2.
That the above recitations are true and correct.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad hereby adopts the evaluation procedures
md the updated Traffic Signal Qualification List as contained in the 2004 Traffic Signal Evaluation
3olicy.
11
11
11
I!
11
11
11
I/
11
11
3
1
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
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 20th day of ADril , 2004 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila, Kulchin, Hall and Packard
NOES: None
(SEAL)
4
1
. N
- * N d
3
-
n
3 3 3
7- N
3 3
P
I
5
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRA FFlC SIGNAL EVA L UA TION
POLICY
PREPARED BY:
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SECTION
JANUARY 2004
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY REPORT
JANUARY 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
INTRODUCTION 1
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ..................................................................................... 1
POLICY ............................................................................................................................ 2
GENERAL ......................................................................................................................... 2
DATA. ............................................................................................................................... 3-4
2004 TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION LIST ............................................................... 5
TRAFFIC SIGNALS CURRENTLY BEING DESIGNED/CONSTRUCTED ........................ 6
6
..............................................................................................................
INTERSECTIONS INVESTIGATED (Did not meet CALTRANS Signal Warrants) .............
APPENDIX
A. TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION RATING SYSTEM
B. CALTRANS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
7
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 93,000 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 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 142 signalized intersections in Carlsbad. Ownership and maintenance responsibility is
as follows:
125 signals owned and maintained by the City of Carlsbad
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, 1996,1998,2000, and 2002.
This report is an update of the 2002 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.
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.
2
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 1- 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 - Interruption 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 Signals
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.
3
Factor 5 - Progressive Movement or Signal 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 Historv
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 - Special 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:
DESCRIPTION
4
a a m d
7 cu
b
0
0
0
-
0
m
a
0
0
-
0
- m
d
-
m CD W (u
TRAFFIC SIGNALS CURRENTLY BEING DESIGNEDKONSTRUCTED
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Alga RoadEana Way
Calle BarcelondPaseo Aliso
Camino de 10s Coches/Calle Acervo
Carlsbad Village Drive/Chatham Road
Carlsbad Village Drive/Glasgow Drive
Cannon Road/Car Country Drive
College BoulevardRamarack Avenue (North)
Poinsettia Lane/Paseo Escuela
Poinsettia Lane/Snapdragon Drive
INTERSECTIONS INVESTIGATED
(Did not meet CALTRANS Signal Warrants)
Aviara Parkway/Nightshade Road
Aviara Parkwayflowhee Lane
Carlsbad Boulevard/Christiansen Way
Chestnut Avenue/Harding Street
Chestnut Avenue/Highland Drive
Chestnut Avenue/Pio Pic0 Drive
Chestnut Avenue/Valley Street
Grand Avenue/Harding Street
Grand Avenue/Madison Street
Hosp Waywintergreen Drive
La Costa Avenue/Nueva Castilla Way
La Costa Avenue/Quinta Street
Las Flores Drive/Pio Pic0 Drive
Park Drive/Hillside Drive
Paseo del Norte/Ginger Avenue/Harbor Point Road
Tamarack Avenue/Garfield Street
Tamarack Avenue/Park Drive
Tamarack Avenue/Skyline Road
Carlsbad Village DriveNictoria Avenue
Armada Drive/Grand Pacific Resorts
6
APPENDIX
s A
0 >
t w K I- VI
K 0
z 3
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 200
to 6:M) P.M. on a weekday). A maximum of 15 points may be assigned to this factor.
NOTES
1. AU VOLUMES ARE FOR 4 HOURS (USUALLY 2-6 P.M.)
2 MAXlMUM POINTS = 15
750 OVER
700
600
500
400
300
200
loo
ERSECTION OF:
: Lane Sts.
1814LaneSt
I Lane Sts.
)ne-Way Sts.
TOTAL VOLUME ENTERING INTERSECTION
A- 1
Factor 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
4-HOUR MAJOR
STREET VOLUMES
0-1 649
1 650-1 949
1950-2249
2250-2549
2550-2849
2850-31 49
31 50-3449
3450-3749
3750-4049
4050-4349
4350-Over
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.
APPROXIMATE
POINTS ADT
0 4,700
1 5,600
2 6,400
3 7,300
4 8,200
5 9,000
6 10,000
7 10,700
8 1 1,600
9 12,400
10 12,500 And Up
A-2
Factor 3 - Pedestrian Volume
A traffic signal may be needed where many pedestrians cross a major street. A maximum
of 10 points may be assigned to this factor.
NOES
1. ALL VOLUMES ARE FOR 4-HOURS (USUALLY 2-6 P.M.)
2. MAXIMUM POINTS = 10
3.
4.
NO POINTS IF LESS THAN 100 PEDESTRIANS DURING THE 4 HOUR PERIOD.
NO POINTS IF LESS THAN 1200 MAJOR STREET VEHICLES DURING THE 4 HOUR
PERIOD.
3600 6
OVER
32 00
2800
2400
2000
1600
1200
OVER -
PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET
A-3
Factor 4 - School Area Traffk Sianals
Points are assigned based upon the number of school age pedestrians crossing thc 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.
1800
1400
lo00
600
CI 3
5 P
Y
200 100 60 150 loo zoo 140 250 180
PEDESTRIANS CROSSING THE MAJOR STREET
(Per 2-Hour Period)
350 (Urban) 220 (Rural)
NOTE: No points will be assigned if nearest controlled crossing is less
than 600 feet away.
A- 4
Factor 5 - Proqressive Movement or Siqnal Systems
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.
ACCl DENTS POINTS
0-2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 & Over
0
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
NOTE: Use the average of the last two years, provided the intersection has been in
operation for two years.
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 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 #1 and #2.
A-5
2. Proximity of a school (1 to Spoints): 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 prop-
erty.
4. High S,peed 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.
A-6
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-1
CHAPTER 9
TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
Traffic Signals, Basic Information and Warrants 9-01
?-19%
9-01.1 Introduction
A traffic signal is an electrically powered traffic
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
are discussedin this chapter: Traffic Control Signals,
Pedestrian Crossing Signals, Ramp Metering
Signals, Flashing Beacons, Lane-use Control
Signals, Traffic Control at MovableBridges, Priority
Control of Traffic Signals, Traffic Signals for One-
lane, Two-way Facilities and Traffic Signals for
Construction Zones.
Traffic control signals are devices for the control
of vehicle and pedestrian traffic. They assign the
right of way to the various traffk 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 traffk 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 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 traffic and roadway
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
type of installation and the timing program meet the
requirements of traffic.
9-01.2 Traffic Signal Warrants
The justification for the installation of a traffic
signal at an intersection is based on the warrants
statedin this Manual andin the Manual On Uniform
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
warrants.
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 lO,OOO, the location is
considered rural. All other areas are considered
urban.
B- 1
9-2 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
7-1996
Figures 9- 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 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
moving major street higher-volume
traffic on (total of both minor-street
each approach approaches) approach (one
directiononly)
MajorSt. Minorst. 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 wmt
applies to operating conditions where the nzlffic
volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic 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 Vehicles per Vehicles per
lanes for hour on hour on
moving major street higher-volume
traffic on (total of both minor-street
each approach approaches) approach (one
directiononly)
MajorSt. MinorSt. Urban Rural Urban Rural
1 1 750 525 75 53
2ormore 1 900 630 75 53
2ormore 2ormore 900 630 100 70
1 2ormore 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 dtking other hours.
C. Warrant3 -Minimurn Pedestrian Volume.
A traffic signal may be warranted where the
pedestrian volume crossing the major street at an
intersection or mid-block location during an average
day is:
100 or more for each of any four hours; or
190 or more during any one hour.
8-2
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-3
The pedestrian volume crossing the major street
may be reduced as much as 50% of the values given
above when the predominant pedestrian crossing
speed is below 1 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 tu 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 wouldnot unduly restrict
platooned flow of traffic. Curbside parking at non-
intersection locations shouldbeprohibitedfor30 m
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 Movement.
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 two-way 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
warrant shouldnot beconsideredwhere theresultant
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 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 toreduce the accident
frequency; AND
B- 3
9-4 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
7-1 996
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 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 the common 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. It is part of the street or highway system that
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.
If. 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 30
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 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)
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 lO,OOO,
the four hour volume requirement is satisfied when
the plotted points referred to fall above the curve in
Fimpre 9-7 for the existingcombination of approach
lanes.
J. Warrant 10 - 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
undue delay in entering or crossing the major street.
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-hours for a two-lane approach; AND
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; AND
B-4
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-5
7-1 996
3.
K.
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.
Warrant I1 -Peak How Volume Warrant.
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 skeet.
The peak hour volume 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 15-minute
Figure 9-8 for the existing combination of approach
lanes.
When the 85th percentile speed of major street
traffic exceeds 64 kmm, or when the intersection
lies within a built-up area of an isolated community
having a population of less than 10,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.
I periods) of an average day, falls above the curve in
9-01.3 Guidelines for Left-Turn Phases
Since separate signal phases for protected left
turns will reduce the green time available for other
phases, alternate means of handling left turn conflicts
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:
2.
3.
a.
b.
A series of right and/or left turns around
a block to permit getting to the desired
destination; or
Making the left turn at an adjacent
unsignalized intersection during gaps
in the opposing through traffic,
Geometric changes to eliminate the left
turn. An effective change would be a
complete separation or acomplete or partial
“clover leaf’ at grade. Any of these, while
eliminating left turns, requires additional
cost and right of way.
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
forthe requirements of protected-pennissive
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.
2.
3.
Accidents. Five or more left turn accidents
for a particular left turn movement during a
recent 12-month period.
Delay. Left-turn delay of one or more
vehicles which were waiting at thebeginning
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.
Volume. At new intersections where only
estimated volumes are available, the
following criteria may be used. For a
B-5
9-6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
7-1 996
pretimed signal or a background-cycle-
controlled actuated signal, a left turn volume
of more than two vehicles per approach per
cycle for a peak hour; 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,OOO or more.
9-01.4 Removal of Existing Signals
Changes in traffic patterns may result in a
situation where a traffic signal is nolongerjustified.
When this occurs, consideration should be given to
removing the traffic signal and replacing it with
appropriate alternative traffic control devices.
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.
B-6
i
APPROACH LANES
BothApprchs. . Wpr Street
HighestApprch. I MinorStreet
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-7
Figure 9-1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
7-1996
U(R UIR
1 2 or more
500 350 600 420
(400) (280) (480) (336) '
150 105 200 140
11201 (84) (160) (112)
CALC DATE
DlST co RTE KPM CHK DATE
REQUIREMENT
Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more
hour;
There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf-
fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross; ec?p
for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one
Major St: Critical Approach Speed . kmh
Minor St: Critical Approach Speed kmh y) RURAL(R)
0 URBAN(U)
100% SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
80%SATlSFlED YES NO 0
Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 km/h - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In buitt up area of isolated community of 10,000 pop. - - - - - - - - - 0
WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume
(60% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
FULFILLED
Yes Cl NO 0
Yes 0 No 0
iour
WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
MINI MUM REQU I R EME NTS 80%SATlSFlED YES 0 NO
UIR UIR
1 2 or more Houi APPROACH
BothApprchs. 750 525 900 630 Major Sbeet (600) (420) (720) (504)
HighestApprch. 75 53 100 70
Minar Sbeet
, LANES
I
0
Yes NO 0 The nearest traff ic signal along the major street is greater
than 90rn;
Yes 0 No 0 The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive
traffic flow on the major street.
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. 27 B-7
9-8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
Figure 9-2
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
7-1996
REQUIREMENTS
ONE WARRANT
SATISFIED
80%
WARRANT 4 - School Areas
WARRANT J FULFILLED
WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
OR
WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
--------------------__________._
YESO NOD
Not Applicable ......... .. ..... ... ...... . ............. 0
See School Protection Warrants Sheet 0
SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW
ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REOUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY
ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. L INVOLVING INJURY OR 2 $500 DAMAGE --_--_--__-__----------------------------------.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES 0. NO 0
00
00
I MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED
5 OR MORE
ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT
SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING 8 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 00
on
WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
1000 VEWHR
DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR
OR
DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS. OF A SAT. AND/OR SUN.
VEHlHR -----------------------------------.
VEHlHR YES 0 NO0
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES 0 NO a I ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES MINIMUM VOLUME
REQUIREMENT
I HWY. SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC I I I
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.
B-8
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-9
7-1996
- REQUIREMENT
TWO WARRANTS
SATISFIED
00%
Figure 9-3
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT J FULFILLED
1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES 0 NO 0
SATISFIED YES NO 0 WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants
I
WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES NO
2 or
Approach Lanes One more Hour
Both Approaches - Major Street
Highest Approaches - Minor Street
~~ ~
* 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 amroach controlled bv a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-iane approach and f6e vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND YES NO
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; &llJ YES 0 NO n .
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 NO 0
WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES NO n
2 or
Approach Lanes One more Hour
Both Approaches - Major Street
Highest Approaches - Minor Street
I
* 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 justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence
I of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown.
B-9
9-1 0 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
7-1 996
Satisfied Not Satisfied
No one warrant satisfied, but following warrants
fulfilled 80% or more .........
Figure 9-4
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
(Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note)
URBAN ......................... RURAL .............................
1. Minimum Vehicular
Satisfied Not Satisfied
Number of lanes for moving .traffic on each approach
Major Street Minor Street I ...................................... 1 ......................................
2 or more ........................ 1 ......................................
2 or more ........................ 2 or more .........................
1 ..................................... 2 or more .........................
I 2. Interuption of Continuous Traffic
Satisfied Not Satisfied -
Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach
Major Street Minor Street
1 ...................................... 1 ......................................
2 or more ........................ 1 ......................................
2 or rnore ........................ 2 or more .........................
1 ..................................... 2 or more .........................
t
Minimum Requirements
EADT
Vehicles per day on
major street (total of
both approaches)
Vehicles per day on
higher-volume minor
street approach (one
direction only)
Urban Rural
8,000 5,600
9,600 6,720
9,600 6,720
8,000 5,600
Urban Rural
2,400 1,680
2,400 1,680 3,200 2,240
3,200 2,240
Vehicles per day on major street (total of
both approaches)
Vehicles per day on
higher-volume minor street approach (one
direction only)
Urban Rural
12,000 8,400
14,400 10,080 14,400 10,080
12,000 8,400
Urban Rural
1,200 850
1,200 850
1,600 1,120 1,600 1,120
2 Warrants 2 Warrants
NOTE: To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other -ions where it is not reasonable to
oount actual traffic volumes.
B-10
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-1 1
7-1 996
PART A
Vehicle Volume
School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street
Figure 9-5
SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS
UR 5:::; 200 140
Each of 4o 40 2 hours
DlST co RTE KPM
CALC DATE
CHK DATE
Major St: Critical Approach Speed kmlh
Minor St: Critical Approach Speed kmlh
g} RURAL(R)
0 URBAN(U)
Critical speed of major street tiaffic > 64 km/h - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In built up area of isolated community of e 10,000 pop. - - - - - - - - - - 0
FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
~~~ ~~
I/ 11 Minimum Requirements 1
AND - PART B
Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 56 km/h
PART C
AND
Is nearest controlled crossing more than 180 rn away?
SATISFIED YES c]
SATISFIED YES c]
SATISFIED YES 0 NO c]
SATISFIED YES 0
SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS
(ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED)
11 Minimum Reauirements 11
PART A IU R
500 350 I I 2 hours Vehicle Volume
AND - PART B
Is nearest controlled crossing more than 180 m away?
SATISFIED
SATlSFiED
SATISFIED
YES
YES
YES
0
0
0
NO
NO
NO
0
0
0
B-11
9-1 2 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
7-1 996
Figure 9-6
FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Urban Areas)
-2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) i? 2 MORE LANES (MINOR)
* *
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
* NOTE
115 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
8-12
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-1 3
7-1996
Figure 9-7
FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
n
400
300
200
100
0
I I
-r-2 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 LANE (MINOR)-
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOM APPROACHES - VPH
* NOTE:
80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME 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.
B-13
9-1 4 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual
7-1996
Figure 9-8
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Urban Areas)
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I / - 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
600
* *
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 APPLIES 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.
6-14
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-1 5
7-1996
Figure 9-9
PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT
(Rural Areas)
I / 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
- * '*
-
300 400 500 60 0 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH
* NOTE
100 VBH APPLIES AS THE WER THRESHOLD VOWWE FOR A MINOR STREET
APPROACH WITH TWO 08 MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER
THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE.
B-15 35
February 2,2004 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
ITEM 4 - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
ITEM 5 - PREVIOUS BUSINESS:
None
ITEM 6 - NEW BUSINESS:
ITEM 6A: Review, provide recommendations, and approve the 2604 Traffic Signal
Evaluation Policy and Traffic Signal Qualification List.
Referring to an overhead slide, Jim Murray, Associate Engineer, Transportation Division, stated that the agenda item is the biannual Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy update for 2004. He explained that the policy is intended to provide a mechanism for evaluating intersections throughout the City of Carlsbad using the eleven (11) CALTRANS traffic signal warrants. He noted that the 2004 Traffic Signal Qualification List is provided on page 5
in the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy report.
In addition, Mr. Murray noted that fifteen (15) intersections in the City of Carlsbad met one or more of the eleven
(I 1 CALTRANS traffic signal warrants. He mentioned that a total of thirty-five (35) intersections were evaluated in 2003 to determine if traffic signal warrants were met.
Mentioning the use of machine traffic counters and the fact that the studies are conducted on Tuesday through
Thursday only, Mr. Murray explained the process of the traffic signal warrant evaluations in detail. He noted the minor street traffic volumes data is used to determine whether or not a delay study is required. Delay studies are conducted during the identified peak hour on the minor street. If the location being studied is a school location; a turning movement count is conducted. All of the aforementioned data is used in the traffic signal warrant
analysis.
Referring to page 4 in the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy report and noting that the points for the seven (7)
assignment factors are based on CALTRANS traffic signal warrants, Mr. Murray discussed the point assignment factors in detail.
Mr. Murray mentioned that the following three (3) intersections are new on the list and were not included on the
2002 Traffic Signal Qualification List:
Faraday AvenudPriestIy Drive
La Costa AvenuelLevante Street La Costa AvenueIEsfera Street
In conclusion, Mr. Murray stated that the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends that the Traffic Safety Commission review and provide recommendations regarding the 2004 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, including the Traffic Signal Qualification List, and that the policy be submitted to the City Council for adoption of a
resolution establishing the 2004 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy.
February 2,2004 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 3
PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Chairperson Schall opened public testimony.
As there was no public testimony, Chairperson Schall closed public testimony and called for Commission
discussion.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Gardner requested clarification regarding the cost of traffic control measures.
Mr. Johnson replied that the cost for operation, minor administrative work and maintenance of a signal has been
tracked and monitored. It has been determined that the cost is approximately $5,000.00 per year per signalized intersection.
Commissioner Gardner requested clarification as to how the pedestrian count is determined in the downtown Carlsbad Village area.
Referring to the pedestrian count conducted in the summer at the intersection of Carlsbad Boulevard and Cheny Street, Mr. Murray replied that the count is conducted on a case-by-case basis, depending on where it is known that there may be a higher pedestrian volume.
Mr. Johnson stated that staff considered the trip generator to determine the time frame when traffic volumes, turning movement counts or pedestrian counts should be gathered. In addition, traffic counter hoses are used to gather data on a 24-hour basis to determine peak hour traffic volume time frames.
Noting that she would like Carlsbad to be bicycle friendly, Commissioner Gardner questioned if bicycles were counted on the traffic counter hoses.
Mr. Johnson responded that bicycles are counted whenever they drive over the traffic counter hoses. Assuming that most bicycles drive in the bike lane, he noted that in order to get an exclusive bicycle count, short traffic counter hoses are occasionally placed in the bike lane only. He informed the Commission that bicycles are counted in the traffic volumes and turning movement surveys as vehicles.
Noting that the traffic manual mentions crossing distance of 300 meters versus 600 feet, Commissioner Gardner referring to policy factor four, School Area Traffic Signals, she requested clarification regarding the allowable
nearest control crossing distance.
Mr. Johnson replied that 600 feet is approximately the distance a pedestrian will walk to a controlled intersection
and the distance is used in the special factors as part of the policy. He noted that the CALTRANS traffic manual and warrant for traffic signal uses a different distance measurement.
Mr. Johnson stated that staff could look at the control crossing distance specification to determine if changes
should be made, e.g. making all distances the same or leave as is. He asked the Commissioners to comment on whether or not revisions should be made in the policy update that will be done in 2006.
Mr. Johnson discussed in detail the criteria used to determine whether or not a traffic control device or traffic signal should be installed and asked the Commissioners if there are any locations not mentioned in the report that they believe should be studied and subsequently taken before the City Council.
Commissioner Cress requested clarification regarding the total non-recurring cost as it related to the installation
of a traffic signal.
February 2,2004 Traffic Safety Commission Page 4
Mr. Johnson replied that in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget each four-leg traffic signal is budgeted for $210,000.00 and each T-intersection is budgeted at $190,000.00. This cost typically covers
design, installation, inspection and administrative paper work related to the traffic signal.
Mr. Johnson noted that an award for a traffic signal at Alga Road and Xana Way is going before the City Council
tomorrow night. He stated that the $210,000.00 did not cover the entire construction cost because of high bids, therefore an additional appropriation of funds will be requested. He mentioned that costs related to the traffic
signal operations has been reduced by the conversion to the LED indications, which are very energy efficient.
Commissioner Dorsey requested clarification regarding how intersections are selected for traffic signal evaluation.
Mr. Johnson replied that the history of the traffic signal list dates back to the late 1980s. Staff was directed by the City Council to create a traffic signal evaluation policy including the traffic signal qualification list to assist the
City Council to objectively evaluate a candidate location based upon volumes, pedestrians, collision history, or unusual circumstances.
Commissioner Courtney mentioned in detail the formula and point system used to determine if a traffic signal
should be installed at a particular intersection.
Commissioner Courtney requested clarification regarding the ranking of intersections last year.
Mr. Murray responded that Alga RoadKana Way is on the list being designed or constructed and it was #12 on
the 2002, Calle BarcelondPaseo Aliso also is on the list being designed or constructed and it was #4 on the 2002 list, and Camino de 10s Coches/Calle Acervo was not on the 2002 list.
Noting that a number of variables determine whether an intersection is considered for being included on the
traffic signal qualification list, Mr. Johnson mentioned that due to the very close proximity to the high school Camino de 10s Coches/Calle Acervo had several traffic collisions that will be addressed with installation of a
traffic signal.
Mr. Murray mentioned that Carlsbad Village Drivelchatham Road and Carlsbad Village DrivelGlasgow Drive are
on the list of being designed and constructed due to the anticipation of the opening of College Boulevard.
Mr. Johnson noted that the Four-way STOP at Highland at Tamarack was removed from the 2004 traffic signal list after staff evaluated the intersection and determined the traffic signal was not a viable option due to the crest
vertical curve, the high turning movement counts, the school pedestrian crossings, and the narrow street width
of the intersection.
He mentioned that after additional evaluation the intersections at State and Carlsbad Boulevard and La Costa
Avenue and Calle Madero were pulled off of the 2004 traffic signal list. Mr. Johnson reiterated that traffic signals or STOP signs do not prevent traffic collisions.
Chairperson Schall mentioned that part of the funding for traffic signals is covered by land developers in the
area.
Commissioner Courtney commended staff for a job well done and expressed his support for the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee about the 2004 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy.
Chairperson Schall closed discussion and called for a motion.
February 2,2004
MOTION:
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Page 5
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Courtney, and duly seconded by Commissioner Cress, to accept the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Coordinating
Committee, as it relates to the 2004 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, including the Traffic Signal Qualification List, and that the policy be submitted to the City
Council for adoption of a resolution establishing the 2004 Traffic Signal
Evaluation Policy and Traffic Signal Qualification List.
VOTE: 5-04 AYES:
NOES: None ABSTAIN: None
Schall, Cress, Courtney, Dorsey, Gardner
Robert Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, Transportation Division, mentioned that City Council approval and
adoption, by a Resolution, of the 2004 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, including the Traffic Signal Qualification List, will be required.
REPORT FROM TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS
asked if anything can be done to eliminate bottle ing place, e.g. Hillside and Highland. He wanted to rious locations or landowners
Mr. Johnson stated that whe
development section will get a Noting that when enough NIA's fulfill their obligation per the Nei
top of Madonna Hill located at Cougar Drive.
Mr. Johnson replied that particular I
Improvement Program for 2 widen. He noted that there widening of the street.
Commissioner
ible for costs related to the
if legislature could be passed which gave the City lien on the property for reimbursement once the land i
lied that there are ways of forcing an assessment district that can be considered.
3Y