Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 14-09; UPTOWN BRESSI RANCH; UPTOWN BRESSI RANCH INTERIM CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT; 2018-10-16' ., RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY Traf fie Division October 16, 20 18 Mr. David Rick City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 SUBJECT: UPTOWN BRESSI RANCH INTERIM CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT (RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY JOB NUMBER 17169-A) Dear Mr. Rick: The fo ll owing memonmdum summarizes the traffic assessment prepared for the CVS Pharmacy and Sprouts Market project (part of the Uptown Bressi Ranch Mixed-Use development), to determine traffic-related impacts at the intersection of Gateway Road/Finnila Place, as well as assess if a two-way stop is sufficient or if an all-way stop control is warranted at this intersection assuming only the occupation of CVS Pharmacy and Sprouts Market in the near-term/interim conditions. The project is located north of Gateway Road, south of Palomar Airport Road and west of El Fuerte Road in the City of Carlsbad, with the intersection of Gateway Road/Finnila Place serving as the main entrance to the site. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the overall project Uptown Bressi Mixed-Use, by Urban Systems, dated January 27, 2016 (See Appendix A for excerpts). The overall project consists of 125 residential condominiums and a I 00, 174 square feet community shopping center generating an estimated 9,014 Average Daily Trips (ADT), 401 A.M. and 901 P.M. peak hour trips. Based on these volumes, the intersection of Gateway Road/Finnila Place is anticipated to operate at an unacceptable level of service with a two-way stop control condition for Existing + Project, Near-term and Buildout 2030 scenarios. To mitigate the project impacts, a traffic signal is proposed to be installed at the intersection. For the near-term/interim conditions, based on the trip generation rates provided in the original TIA, CVS Pharmacy and Sprouts Market are anticipated to generate 3,457 ADT, with 138 A.M. and 346 P.M. peak hour trips as shown in Table 1 below. Table I Proiect Trio Generation Estimates Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips land Use Size Unit Driveway Peak hr/Out Peak hr/Out Rate1 ADT Hour % Split Inbound Outbound Total Hour % Split Inbound Outbound Total CVS Pharmacy 15.21 TSF1 80.0 1,217 4% 60/40 29 20 49 10% 50/50 61 61 122 Sorouts Market 28.00 TSF 80.0 2,240 4% 60/40 54 36 90 10% 50/50 112 112 224 Total Proiect Trios 1,457 81 56 118 171 171 346 Notes: I Thousand Square Feet 2 SANDAG Trip Generation Rates for Community Shopping Center (consistent with Uptown Bressi Mixed-Use TIA, January 27, 2016) 5620 Friars Road , San Diego, California 921 l 0-2596 • (619) 291-0707 • FAX: (619) 291-4 165 • rickengineering.com SAN DIEGO RIVERSIDE ORANGE SACRAMENTO SAN LUIS OBISPO BAKERSFIELD PHOENIX TUCSON Mr. David Rick October l 6, 2018 Page 2 of 3 The CVS Pharmacy and Sprouts Market project volumes were then added to the 'Near-Term without project' volumes provided in the original TlA and distributed to the study intersection utilizing the same distribution assumptions (See Appendix B). Based on the methodologies described in Chapter 19 (two-way stop controlled intersections) of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), the critical movement of the unsignalized intersection of Gateway Road/Finnila Place was calculated to operate at LOS B for the AM peak period and LOS E for the PM peak period for the northbound and southbound left turn movements (See Appendix C). An all-way stop warrant analysis was also conducted for this intersection. The installation of all- way stops are based on national and state guidelines set forth in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). In general, all way stops are installed where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal and are also based on engineering study, which includes the following criteria (See Appendix D for CA MUTCD warrant excerpt): A. Minimum Volumes 1. The vehicular volumes entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day, and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour, but 3. {f the 85th percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular warrants are 70 percent of the above values (210 vehicles for the major street and 140 vehicles for the minor street). Based on the minimum volume criteria listed above, the intersection of Gateway Road/Finnila Place falls below the requirements for the installation of all-way stop in the interim conditions. However, the CA MUTC D also states that all-way stop applications can be considered where sight distance is restricted, including cases where warrants based on minimum volumes and accident hi story are not met. A sight distance analysis was then conducted following City of Carlsbad requirements, which also follows Highway Design Manual (HOM) standards. Exhibit 1 demonstrates that neither the minimum corner sight distance nor the minimum stopping sight distance requirements are met for the intersection of Gateway Road/Finnila Place per the posted speed limit. Based on these results, an all-way stop is recommended at this intersection until the ultimate traffic signal is installed. Furthermore, the CA MUTCD Section 2B.07-A also states that where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal, further justifying the installation of all-way stop. ... 1 Mr. David Rick October 16, 2018 Page 3 of 3 The all-way stop control condition was also evaluated with the same volumes and assumptions as the two-way stop control condition for the near-tenn. Results showed the intersection operating at LOS A and C for the AM and PM peak hour respectively (See Appendix C). Sincerely, Associate Attachments Exhibit 1 -Sight Distance Assessment Appendix A -Excerpts from Uptown Bressi Mixed-Use TIA Appendix B -Project trip distribution Appendix C -Intersection LOS Calculation Sheets Appendix D -Excerpts from CA MUTCD All-way stop warrant requirements ,-, ,. o· j :J __ l '-=-" .;</ "-'~-~ ' ~ ..... '""' "'!. k•.,._ " ...... '{ ~c J:l/:::: ~ Q, 11 ~ \ ,It l'- \ '~, \> \ ", 11a \ t '. -....... , '-'/•: } .,,I. \ \ ~ ' ,) \ ~' } \ ) \' ' 'o \' \ -.\:' \ .'\; ~-~'I " / -~; ·-~- Ii .t"-..... .. ~r ' / ~/ r ~-· r c~) ~~ /., ./r",,... .--~ ?· ,,_.· • _-· .r'~r;·;_ C ,_.,-~"'- /,I( .,:d:I', ~ ., if.--:;/' ,,"l ( ~ .,,,.,,, ,,, ..,-~) Q a ~~1,,,,0~ \J ~?,:•·"' /) ltt ' ~- ,,, xt;; ,:, ,.It , ~, -,,,_, ~ .,. r-...:--(!-_..;,.,... -• .; • ;•~_·, "'""Y'"'·--r--· __,,,,, • ...,, ....,,,.-,.,,,,'··\ i\ "' RICK ENGINEERING _COMPANY EXHIBIT 1 SIGHT DISTANCE ASSESSMENT GATEWAY ROAD/ FINNILA PLACE UPTOWN BRESSI RANCH . R1 \ 1 7169 -A-Uptown-Br-ess I -Roncn\. Tr-of f I c\ Inter-imCond 1 t Ions-A I I -woyStop-CVSOn I y\ 17169A.01 .Exh I 01 t _s I ohtd I stance. dQn R1 \ 1 7169-A-Uptown-Bress I -Ranch\ Troff le\ Inter lmCond It Ions-A I 1-WayStop-CVSOn I y\SO CorpStds 2005. dscr I pt :.~J d, ~ --',:,, ~ t} () N I f' -~-,1.,') ~-y F·• ,., , ,--·• -V ,, 0 0 <.) ~ 4i ti .~---JJ ,}~ 1"= 100' L -300• _ 440' .... --- _ MINIMUM STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (SSOl -pm HOM TABLE 201.1 & SIGHT LJNE _ CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE (CSO) PER HOM -TABLE 405.1A & SIGHT LINE ~cl 201s R%~~~"o'Pa er;~'.;¥ r , I APPENDIX A Uptown Bressi Mixed-Use TIA Excerpts Uptown Bressi Mixed-Use Shea Homes .S Gateway Rd. ~ <'l .; tr " 0 0 ll) ,,., '--,,., ,_ 0 -(X) 0 El Comiro Real at Gateway Dr. Gatew«y Rd. .,._ 170/288 r 13/20 N (X) ,,., '-'- " (X) ,<) N Gateway Rd. at Vi loge Green Dr. Gateway Rd. .,._ 209/247 r 89/244 00 "' '-N 00 N '-II) (X) Gateway Rd. at lown Center Drwy. '-17/1 .,._ 144/62 r 96/125 Catewny Rd. Gateway Rd ol Alicon te Rd © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. " ,,., " " -'-'-~ [;; ~ .s ) ~1 Gateway Rd. 64/94J 80/215- Janua,y27, 2016 '-40/51 .,._ 142/113 ~G~ "' N '-._ ,o '-12/7 ~ o: .,._ 183/138 I~ lD - ) ~ ~ ~ C Gateway Rd. 1 --------IL..--....;.. ___ ~ Gateway F~d ot Colt Pl. ll) "'0 -,,; (X) N ,--N '-'-._ O> 0 "' N CJ> lD '-35/140 ~ .,._ 36/46 ! _,-25/56 c;; ,,. Gateway Rd. 160/362J 62/181- 22/119 ~ Gateway Rd al [I ruerte St. FIGURE 2-4 I • ..,_ 160/117 r 57/138 Gatewc1.y Rd. N CJ> ,,., "' '-.. --'-N (X) " Gateway Rd. at FiMila Pl. '-41 /69 j .,._37/13 ) ! ~ c;; r 97/124 43/74J 10/10- 34/65~ Town Carden Rd. 0 ll) " N N ll) '-._ N - 00 -'-.. -'-" -N -CX) -N Town Gorden Rd at E. Camino Rea Existing AM I PM Peak Hour Traffic 004014 2-9 004014-Reporl_ E Uptown Bressi Mixed-Use Shea Homes Signalized L 1061258 Gateway Rd. tr Gateway Rd. / El Camino Real 129 /453- 23 I 37♦ Unsignalized -214 /299 r 13120 Gateway Rd. , r N CXl ("') I'-CX) ("') N Gateway Rd ./ VIiiage Green Dr. Unsignalized -253 /258 ,r89/244 Gateway Rd. CX) (J) N CXl N l() CX) Gateway Rd./ Town Center Drw. Unsignalized ... Or:: ~ t,_17/1 ., " N lO I'-~ -210 /79 Jll "'<: r 1701148 Gateway Rd. 1 11.J itr CXl N (0 ~-CX) 96/200--(0 ~ (0 -6 / 39 """l-("') (0 Rd./ Allcante Rd. N 0 J l 2,2.J 152/465- Gatewa l() (J) CX) ~ MCXlN -~~ N --(J) (0 ("') N o, (0 J • l. 160 /362.J 62 / 181- 33 / 163-,_ Unsignaliz t-1217 -227 /149 Gateway Rd. Rd. / Colt Pl. Signalize <';J ~ L 35/140 ti: ii:j -36/46 ,. 25155 Gateway Rd. ,tr CX) CX) ~ I'-'<I" I'--~-N-(0 (J) l() (0 N Gatewa Rd./ El Fuerte St. FIGURE 5-4 © Urban Systems Associates, Inc. January 2 7, 2016 Unsignalized "" ~ ~ 0 '<I" L 40 /51 I'-., -~ ("') " -186 / 123 CX) CX) ;,. J t " t: .!:; Gateway Rd. 97/191.J 91 /259- Gateway Rd. / Innovation ii; :§ t: 111 /367-~ 25174-,_ (0 ! ~ l() I'-~ (0 " l()-~ .;; ~N -£: -osi-0 l'-N("') I'-~("') ii:j J • l. own ar en ,. 43174.J 10110- 34 /65-,_ -204 /128 r 57 1138 Gateway Rd. N o, ("') ("') ~ N CXl '<I" t,_ 63 / 190 -37 /13 r 1221196 itr Q(ON N CXl (0 -N~ CX) ~ -~-m ~ l() ("') l() ~ ("') El Camino Real/ Town Garden Rd. Near Term Without Project AM / PM Peak Hour Traffic 004014 5-12 004014-Report_E Uptown Bressi Mixed-Use Shea /-Jomes © Urban Sys/ems Associates, Inc. January 27, 2016 ~ = \01 <lo11 Count Add:, lo 8!i~ Exler nttl Tnpt-15-: l11lernnl lu Brc~1 Rauch Pla11neJ Jndusln .. ,I dtld ~llxt'U u~u~ ,Y.,,,.' :z-ProJec-l Only Internal Percentages ",thin Cordon do uol udd to 05"- • ProJccl ,t~ FIGURE 3-2 Project Distribution Percentages 004014 3-5 004014-Report_E APPENDIXB Project Trip Distribution RICK ™ 5620 Friars Rend San Diego, CA 92110.2596 ENGINEERING COMPANY Tel: (619) 291-0707 Fax: (619) 291-4165 Date Jou No. Page Done By IQ J IS \ 1.ot 9, i Of 1. ChcckL'<I By _______ _ f R.0J 8:X ,rt.,( A<;.~lc....S r\~T/Ot.5of~t (3...,..TI,.N l't""IL U PTPv-1~ ~6Sl H1-c,a) • use "ilA p ('tA J ~(:.(" <;, l n:° 5i O I. ..J cs. cv~ It;, 2.to .s· r-.......- A t-1 . 2 C\ trJ / 1.-o O\.J"T ?M -lo I f/J' I (o I 6).ft" l'rOT -I, 2-• ~ < ...... -~ ~ ~~ .... rt '-'-' '-# 'CV 'N ~ '"!>I'-J J \. [iii) q A« 1,11,y (ZO 9/ 1'1 ..J 1 In ®~ Y.X/>t:Y:-::: f,,.M /l'M f~" 11ft •nt,p~ [..c ,c >' 1 ~ A t:ff" 7 9 ·, .. 5 f IZ.c,.n s '2. ~ €)DO ~F r AM -l:>'r 1/J , :!>'-c:>JT P t"\ -11 '2-I ,-1 1 H 2-& JI /'<"'>T -3,'-'>'t l • ..J "' 0 ~c.. I"' -1-L. '-' = _,.,.., -'-I-~ 5/11 J ~ \_. ,~q.~J 1,/ 1~ J c;,..tn-J""( e..o 'l 0 0~ APPENDIXC Intersection LOS Calculation Sheets HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Finnila & Gateway Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Lane Configurations lo Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 111 25 57 @P Future Vol, veh/h 26 111 25 57 204 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized -None Storage Length 100 -100 Veh in Median Storage, # -0 0 Grade,% 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 29 123 28 63 227 Conflicting Flow All 236 0 0 151 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy 4.12 -4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 Critical Hdwy Stg 2 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 -2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1331 -1430 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1331 -1430 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 Capacity (veh/h) 400 776 1331 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.058 0.08 0.022 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.6 10 7.8 HCM Lane LOS B B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.3 0.1 Nearterm + Project AM-CVS+Sprouts 10/15/20 18 lo lo 8 21 8 48 6 5 17 8 21 8 48 6 5 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop None -None -None 50 50 0 0 0 0 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 23 9 53 7 6 19 0 565 557 137 584 567 231 -195 195 358 358 -370 362 226 209 -7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 -6.12 5.52 -6.12 5.52 -6.12 5.52 -6.12 5.52 -3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 -436 439 911 423 433 808 -807 739 -660 628 -650 625 -777 729 400 411 911 372 405 808 -400 411 -372 405 -789 723 -646 600 601 597 -707 713 -1430 -372 659 -0.044 -0.018 0.037 7.6 -14.9 10.7 A B B 0.1 0.1 0.1 10/15/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 TWSC 3: Finnila & Gateway Int Delay, s/veh 6.6 Lane Configurations 'I Traffic Vol, veh/h 54 Future Vol, veh/h 54 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 Sign Control Free RT Channelized Storage Length 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - Grade,% Peak Hour Factor 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 Mvmt Flow 60 Conflicting Flow All 161 Stage 1 Stage 2 Critical Hdwy 4.12 Critical Hdwy Sig 1 Critical Hdwy Sig 2 Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1418 Stage 1 Stage 2 Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1418 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver Stage 1 Stage 2 HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 HCM LOS Capacity (veh/h) HCM Lane V/C Ratio HCM Control Delay (s) HCM Lane LOS HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) f+ "I 367 74 138 367 74 138 0 0 0 Free Free Free -None -100 0 0 90 90 90 2 2 2 408 82 153 0 0 490 -4.12 -2.218 -1073 -1073 4.3 150 502 1418 0.237 0.341 0.042 36.3 15.8 7.7 E C A 0.9 1.5 0.1 Nearterm + Project PM-CVS+Sprouts 10/15/2018 f+ "I f+ 'I f+ 128 17 32 15 139 17 15 54 128 17 32 15 139 17 15 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop -None -None -None 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 142 19 36 17 154 19 17 60 0 0 1066 1037 449 1112 1068 152 569 569 -458 458 497 468 -654 610 -7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 -6.12 5.52 -6.12 5.52 -6.12 5.52 -6.12 5.52 -3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 - - - - - - 200 507 555 150 150 486 429 19.3 C -1073 -0.143 8.9 A 0.5 231 506 561 190 190 485 481 610 - 610 - - 186 583 456 112 112 558 315 19.8 C 222 567 485 182 182 486 464 -112 483 -0.169 0.159 43.6 13.9 E B 0.6 0.6 894 894 10/15/2018 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 201 0 AWSC 3: Finnila & Gateway 10/15/2018 Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.3 Intersection LOS A Lane Configurations f. Traffic Vol, veh/h 26 111 25 57 Future Vol, veh/h 26 111 25 57 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 29 123 28 63 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 2 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 HCM Control Delay 8.9 9.8 HCM LOS A A Vol Left,% 100% 0% 100% Vol Thru, % 0% 6% 0% Vol Right,% 0% 94% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 21 51 26 LT Vol 21 0 26 Through Vol 0 3 0 RT Vol 0 48 0 Lane Flow Rate 23 57 29 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.04 0.08 0.045 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.232 5.063 5.604 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 574 706 639 Service Time 3.977 2.808 3.339 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 0.081 0.045 HCM Control Delay 9.2 8.3 8.6 HCM Lane LOS A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 0.3 0.1 Nearterm + Project AM AWSC-CVS+Sprouts (iQP "' 8 21 204 8 21 0.90 0.90 0.90 2 2 2 227 9 23 0 1 SB 2 EB 2 WB 2 8.6 A 0% 100% 0% 82% 0% 96% 18% 0% 4% Stop Stop Stop 136 57 212 0 57 0 111 0 204 25 0 8 151 63 236 7 7 7 0.209 0.097 0.325 4.972 5.489 4.96 Yes Yes Yes 721 653 726 2.707 3.22 2.692 0.209 0.096 0.325 9 8.8 10.1 A A B 0.8 0.3 1.4 f. 3 48 3 48 0.90 0.90 2 2 3 53 1 0 100% 0% 0% 23% 0% 77% Stop Stop 6 22 6 0 0 5 0 17 7 24 7 7 0.012 0.036 6.299 5.248 Yes Yes 567 680 4.049 2.998 0.012 0.035 9.1 8.2 A A 0 0.1 "' 6 6 0.90 2 7 1 NB 2 WB 2 EB 2 8.4 A f. 5 17 5 17 0.90 0.90 2 2 6 19 0 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 HCM 2010 AWSC 3: Finnila & Gateway 10/15/2018 Intersection Delay, s/veh 18.6 Intersection LOS C Lane Configurations 'I f. 'I Traffic Vol, veh/h 54 367 74 138 Future Vol, veh/h 54 367 74 138 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 60 408 82 153 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 2 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 HCM Control Delay 26.3 11.9 HCM LOS D B Vol Left,% 100% 0% 100% Vol Thru, % 0% 10% 0% Vol Right,% 0% 90% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 32 154 54 LT Vol 32 0 54 Through Vol 0 15 0 RT Vol 0 139 0 Lane Flow Rate 36 171 60 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.075 0.306 0.109 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.59 6.434 6.51 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Cap 470 554 549 Service Time 5.372 4.215 4.27 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.077 0.309 0.109 HCM Control Delay 11 12.1 10.1 HCM Lane LOS B B B HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 1.3 0.4 Nearterm + Project PM-CVS+Sprouts AWSC f. 'I 128 17 32 128 17 32 0.90 0.90 0.90 2 2 2 142 19 36 1 0 1 SB 2 EB 2 WB 2 11.9 B 0% 100% 0% 83% 0% 88% 17% 0% 12% Stop Stop Stop 441 138 145 0 138 0 367 0 128 74 0 17 490 153 161 7 7 7 0.801 0.29 0.279 5.885 6.815 6.224 Yes Yes Yes 613 524 574 3.645 4.589 3.997 0.799 0.292 0.28 28.3 12.4 11.4 B B 7.9 1.2 1.1 f. 15 139 15 139 0.90 0.90 2 2 17 154 1 0 100% 0% 0% 22% 0% 78% Stop Stop 17 69 17 0 0 15 0 54 19 77 7 7 0.041 0.144 7.857 6.783 Yes Yes 453 524 5.653 4.578 0.042 0.147 11 10.7 B B 0.1 0.5 'I 17 17 0.90 2 19 1 NB 2 WB 2 EB 2 10.8 B f. 15 54 15 54 0.90 0.90 2 2 17 60 1 0 Synchro 9 Report Page 1 APPENDIXD CA MUTCD ALL-WAY STOP WARRANTS California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 129 (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions I & 2, as amended for use in California) Support: 11 Caltrans will grant such permission only when an investigation indicates that the STOP (R1 -1) sign will benefit traffic. Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Applications Guidance: 01 At intersections where a full stop is not necessa,y at all times, consideration should.first be given to using less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Sections 2B.08 and 2B.09). 02 The use of STOP signs on the minor-street approaches should be considered if engineering judgment indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions: A. The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or highway exceed 6,000 vehicles p er day; B. A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe co,?flicting traffic on the through street or highway; and/or C. Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible lo correcfion by fhe installation of a STOP sign have been reporred within a 12-month period, or that jive or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. Such crashes include right-angle collisions involving road users on the minor-street approach failing to yield the right-of-way to traffic on the through street or highway. Support: 03 The use of STOP signs at grade crossings is described in Sections 8B.04 and 8B.05. Section 2B.07 Multi-Way Stop Applications Support: 01 Multi-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with mu lti-way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multi-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. 02 The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.04 also apply to multi-way stop applications. Guidance: 03 The decision to install multi-way stop control should be based on an engineering study. 04 The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi-way STOP sign installation: A. Where h·affic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Afinimum volumes: 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersectionji·om the major street approaches (total of both approache~) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersectionji-om the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 unifs per hour for fhe same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of al least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour; but 3. If the 85,1,-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excludedji-om this condition. Option: os Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include: A. The need to control left-turn conflicts; B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and Chapter 2B -Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates Pa11 2 -Signs November 7, 2014 I