Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPortola Avenue Traffic Control &et oi Palm Vedette PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: RICHARD J. FOLKERS, ACM/DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: PORTOLA AVENUE TRAFFIC CONTROL DATE: July 13, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: Concur with Staff, Technical Traffic Committee and Public Safety Commission recommendations to install traffic signals on Portola Avenue at Shadow Mountain Drive, Fairway Drive, Grapevine Street and Vintage Drive/Marrakesh Drive. BACKGROUND: Over the past year the Public Works Department has presented various proposals to improve traffic conditions on Portola Avenue south of El Paseo. At the May 13, 1999 City Council meeting, staff was directed to evaluate Portola Avenue south of El Paseo in its entirety rather than in segments as staff had proposed. Staff has performed a variety of analysis for Portola Avenue south of El Paseo and a summary of the findings are provided below. Level of Service calculations were performed for the P.M. peak hour, which is 3:00 to 4:00. LOCATION STOP STOP LEVEL SIGNAL SIGNAL WARRANTED OF SERVICE WARRANTED LEVEL OF SERVICE SHADOW YES N/A YES B MOUNTAIN FAIRWAY YES F YES D GRAPEVINE NO F YES B MARRAKESH YES F YES B A Traffic conditions are currently unacceptable during peak hours due to the existence of several all-way stop controls. Replacing the all-way stops with coordinated traffic signals can improve conditions substantially. It appears that future traffic growth can be accommodated by the existing two through lanes at Vintage Drive/Marrakesh Drive and at Grapevine Street however, four through lanes will be needed at Fairway Drive and at Shadow Mountain Drive in the future. Staff videotaped traffic conditions during the P.M. peak hour on Portola Avenue. This videotape shows heavily congested conditions, with a continuous traffic queue from Grapevine Street nearly to Haystack Road, a distance of nearly IA mile. The northbound travel time from Haystack Road to Grapevine Street was nearly 5 minutes. This equates to a travel speed of approximately 5 MPH, resembling the daily crawl which is experienced in Los Angeles or Orange Counties. It is certain that the residents who must endure this daily traffic jam expect improvements to be made. A videotape of traffic conditions on Portola Avenue will be presented at the meeting. At the April 13, 2000 meeting, the City Council authorized staff to apply for grants to install traffic signals at the intersections of Portola Avenue and Shadow Mountain Drive and at Portola Avenue and Fairway Drive, through the new Safe Routes To School Program. These grant applications were submitted to Caltrans on April 27, 2000. At the April 25, 2000 meeting the Technical Traffic Committee concurred with the staff, recommending that signals be installed on Portola Avenue. At the June 21, 2000 meeting the Public Safety Commission concurred with Staff and Technical Traffic Committee, recommending that signals be installed on Portola Avenue. ' / r RICHARDJ. FOLK S, P.E. REVIEWED AND CONCUR ACTING CITY MANAGER H:\mgreenwood\wpdocs\Portola Signals City Council 71300.wpd *Approved traffic signal for CITY COUNCIL;ACTION: Shadow Mountain Drive only. APPROVED ✓ DENIED RECEIVED OTHER MEETI DATE -1 13- O AYES: ` NOES: _/tA ABSENT: n t AAA J1 ABSTAIN: AAjtiALIQe VA VERIFIED BY: d- 4 .eat -' Ov ;j on File with City Clerk' s Office !------ — —� nvAr m EL PASEO Fil 1s — - _ LARREA STREET 1 :: 0 SHADOW MOUNTAIN 0 CHCORY 5) ) I — WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL • STEP • . OFAFIWAY DRIVE 6fiP C 0 LEGEND fr.: •, EXISTING TRAFFIC SAL S GRAPEVNE S -t t — a IT EXISTING EXIST STOP SIGN S`(CP * 0 • ,o• PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL I • 0 • SH •--- • DRIVE 01 STY' PORTOLA AVENUE PROPOSED SIGNAL ZATlON XI—IIBIT "A" sic HAYSTACK ROAD_ 3j(� STD' ii ..._......, rit- 4 Pal., Deana NORTH maxr ' .: � �, pima r woFica o��vrT�err / NOT TO SCALE 73-510 FRED WARINC DRIVE =� ;. PAU1 DESERT. CA 92260-2576 ♦,. . T.'"Dhav: (760) 346-0611 `` - /• For. (760) 341-7096 !----- SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE & PORTOLA AVENUE 04/20/2000 Lanes, Volumes, Timings - -' -40 4- F '.- E, T r, 4 y 0 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL_ WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 r' 4 r vi T., vi + " Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Lane Width (ft) 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 First Detector(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Last Detector(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Right Turn on Reds Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow(prot) 0 1477 1289 0 1510 1289 1441 1513 0 1441' 1516 1289 Fit Perm. 0.950 0.926 0.950 0.987 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow(perm) 0 1404 1289 0 1497 1289 1441 1513 0 1441 1516 1289 Volume (vph) 26 22 72 2 20 70 62 601 7 41 415 35 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 50 76 0 23 74 65 640 0 43 437 37 Perm or Prot? Perm Pm+Ov Perm Pm+Ov Prot Prot Perm Phase Number 4 8 5 2 1 6 Maximum Split (s) 20 20 16 55 15 54 Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 g/c Ratio 0.17 0.29 0.17 0.28 0.12 0.56 0.11 0.54 0.54 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 234 372 250 358 176 841 160 825 702 V/C Ratio 0.21 0.20 0.09 0.21 0.37 0.76 0.27 0.53 0.05 V/S Ratio Prot 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.03 V/S Ratio Perm 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.42 0.29 0.03 Critical LG? Yes Yes Yes Uniform Delay, d1 24.6 15.7 24.1 16.2 27.6 11.7 27.8 10.0 7.3 Platoon Factor 0.64 0.56 0.64 0.57 0.88 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incr. Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.9 0.2 0.5 0.0 Webster's St Delay 15.8 8.8 15.4 9.2 25.0 15.2 28.1 10.5 7.3 LOS C B C B C C D B B Maximum Green (s) 15 15 11 50 10 49 Minimum Initial (s) 5 5 5 5 5 5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recall Mode Max Max None Coord None Coord Walk Time (s) 10 10 10 10 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20 20 20 20 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Area Type: Other G:\PubWorks\Traffic\Trafficware\DATA\Portola.sy5 Page 3 palmde-p300 SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE & PORTOLA AVENUE 04/20/2000 Cycle Length: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated • Lost Time: 15 Sum of Critical V/S Ratios: 0.49 Intersection V/C Ratio: 0.59 Intersection Webster Stopped Delay: 13.8 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE & PORTOLA AVENUE 2 1) 4 55 15 20 16 54 20 E1 5 ,I, 6 E— 8 G:\PubWorks\Traffic\Trafficware\DATA\Portola.sy5 Page 4 • palmde-p300 FAIRWAY DRIVE & PORTOLA AVENUE 04/20/2000 Lanes, Volumes, Timings a -, z, ,- 4- 2- T r4 y 1 4" Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR • Lane Configurations 4 ? 4' j( 11, '1 T Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Lane Width (ft) 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 First Detector(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Last Detector(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Right Turn on Reds Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1477 1289 0 1453 1289 1441 1444 0 1441 1507 0 Flt Perm. 0.950 0.818 0.950 0.812 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow(perm) 0 1240 1286 0 1231 1286 1441 1444 0 1441 1507 0 Volume (vph) 19 16 15 172 23 110 19 543 248 91 306 12 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 37 16 0 205 116 20 833 0 96 335 0 Perm or Prot? Perm Pm+Ov Perm Pm+Ov Prot Prot Phase Number 4 8 5 2 1 6 Maximum Split(s) 20 20 15 55 15 55 Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 g/c Ratio 0.17 0.28 0.17 0.28 0.11 0.56 0.11 0.56 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 207 358 205 358 160 802 160 837 V/C Ratio 0.18 0.04 1.00 0.32 0.12 1.04 0.60 0.40 V/S Ratio Prot 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.07 V/S Ratio Perm 0.03 0.01 0.17 0.05 0.58 0.22 Critical LG? Yes Yes Yes Uniform Delay, d1 24.5 15.5 28.5 16.8 27.4 15.2 29.0 8.7 Platoon Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.27 0.53 1.39 0.04 Incr. Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 48.1 0.2 0.0 34.9 4.3 0.2 Webster's St Delay 24.5 15.5 76.5 17.0 34.7 43.1 44.6 0.5 LOS C C F CD E E A Maximum Green (s) 15 15 10 50 10 50 Minimum Initial (s) 5 5 5 5 5 5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recall Mode Min Min None Coord None Coord Walk Time (s) 10 10 10 10 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20 20 20 20 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Area Type: Other G:\Pub Works\Traffic\Trafficware\DATA\Portola.sy5 Page 1 palmde-p300 L FAIRWAY DRIVE & PORTOLA AVENUE 04/20/2000 Cycle Length: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Lost Time: 15 Sum of Critical V/S Ratios: 0.81 Intersection V/C Ratio: 0.97 Intersection Webster Stopped Delay: 36.1 Intersection LOS: D Splits and Phases: FAIRWAY DRIVE & PORTOLA AVENUE 2 —) 4 15 55 20 15 55 20 E1 5 4, 6 F 8 G:\PubWorks\Traffic\Trafficware\DATA\Portola.sy5 Page 2 palmde-p300 rl I GRAPEVINE STREET & PORTOLA AVENUE 04/20/2000 Lanes,Volumes, Timings -, --, (-1 T y _ Lane Group EBL EBT EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR - Lane Configurations ) r vi t T r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Lane Width (ft) 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 First Detector(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Last Detector(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 Right Turn on Reds Yes Yes Satd. Flow (prot) 1441 0 1289 1441 1516 1516 1289 Flt Perm. 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow(perm) 1441 0 1289 1441 1516 1516 1289 Volume (vph) 79 0 35 36 577 459 71 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic (%) 0% 0% 0% Lane Group Flow(vph) 83 0 37 38 607 483 75 Perm or Prot? Prot Pm+Ov Prot PermPm+Ov Phase Number 4 4 5 2 6 Maximum Split(s) 22 22 17 68 51 Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 g/c Ratio 0.19 0.32 0.13 0.70 0.51 0.70 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 272 415 192 1061 775 902 V/C Ratio 0.30 0.09 0.20 0.57 0.62 0.08 V/S Ratio Prot 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.02 V/S Ratio Perm 0.02 0.40 0.32 0.04 Critical LG? Yes Yes Uniform Delay, d1 23.9 13.7 26.4 5.1 12.0 2.3 Platoon Factor 0.68 0.59 1.12 0.22 1.02 0.70 Incr. Delay, d2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.0 Webster's St Delay 16.3 17 8.1 29.6 1.7 13.4 1.6 LOS C 5 B D A B A Maximum Green (s) 17 3.0 12 63 46 Minimum Initial (s) 5 3.0 5 5 5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 0. 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 Max 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 10 0 0 0 Recall Mode Max 20 None Coord Coord Walk Time (s) 0 10 10 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20 20 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 Area Type: Other G:\PubWorks\Traffic\Trafficware\DATA\Portola.sy5 Page 5 palmde-p300 V GRAPEVINE STREET & PORTOLA AVENUE 04/20/2000 Cycle Length: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Lost Time: 10 Sum of Critical V/S Ratios: 0.46 Intersection V/C Ratio: 0.52 Intersection Webster Stopped Delay: 7.8 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: GRAPEVINE STREET& PORTOLA AVENUE T2 44 68 22 17 51 t1 5 1 6 G:\PubWorks\Traffic\Trafficware\DATA\Portola.sy5 Page 6 palmde-p300 t MARRAKESH & PORTOLA AVENUE 04/20/2000 Lanes, Volumes, Timings - - , -4, ,F E- 2 cl T r' y y Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR - Lane Configurations 4, 4, ) 1, r vi T r Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Lane Width (ft) 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 First Detector(ft) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Last Detector(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9 Right Turn on Reds Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow(prot) 0 1287 0 0 1175 0 1441 1516 1289 1441 1516 1289 Flt Perm. 0.950 0.533 0.950 0.975 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow(perm) 0 718 0 0 1152 0 1441 1516 1289 1441 1516 1289 Volume (vph) 50 0 5 20 1 175 5 550 20 60 350 70 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Growth Factor 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Blockages (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) Mid-Block Traffic(%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 58 0 0 206 0 5 579 21 63 368 74 Perm or Prot? Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Phase Number 4 8 5 2 1 6 Maximum Split (s) 27 27 15 48 15 48 Lost Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 g/c Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.48 0.48 0.11 0.48 0.48 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 176 282 160 724 616 160 724 616 V/C Ratio 0.33 0.73 0.03 0.80 0.03 0.39 0.51 0.12 V/S Ratio Prot 0.00 0.04 V/S Ratio Perm 0.08 0.18 0.38 0.02 0.24 0.06 Critical LG? Yes Yes Yes Uniform Delay, d1 21.2 23.8 27.1 15.1 9.5 28.2 12.3 9.9 Platoon Factor 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.12 0.07 0.05 Incr. Delay, d2 0.4 6.4 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.0 Webster's St Delay 16.9 24.8 27.1 19.5 9.5 32.4 1.3 0.5 LOS C C D C B D A A Maximum Green (s) 22 22 10 43 10 43 Minimum Initial (s) 5 5 5 5 5 5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Minimum Gap (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Recall Mode Max Max None Coord None Coord Walk Time (s) 10 10 10 10 Flash Dont Walk (s) 20 20 20 20 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Area Type: Other G:\PubWorks\Traffic\Trafficware\DATA\Portola.sy5 Page 7 palmde-p300 I0 MARRAKESH & PORTOLA AVENUE 04/20/2000 Cycle Length: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Lost Time: 15 Sum of Critical V/S Ratios: 0.60 Intersection V/C Ratio: 0.73 Intersection Webster Stopped Delay: 14.8 Intersection LOS: B Splits and Phases: MARRAKESH & PORTOLA AVENUE y1 T 2 —44 15 48 27 48 15 27 6 E1 5 f- 8 G:\PubWorks\Traffic\Trafficware\DATA\Portola.sy5 Page 8 palmde-p300 tL eiret pa/at Dwelt PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: RICHARD J. FOLKERS, ACM/DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM DATE: April 13, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file BACKGROUND: Caltrans has notified the Public Works Department of a new traffic safety program for construction of facilities to provide safe routes to schools. This is a two year funding program with deadlines for submission of applications on April 27, 2000 and November 9, 2000. Due to the very short deadline for the first funding cycle, staff will be submitting applications for signalization of Portola Avenue at Shadow Mountain Drive and Portola Avenue at Fairway Drive. Signalization of these two intersections will improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access to Washington School. These two signals are included in the Portola Avenue Traffic Control Study which will be completed and submitted to the City Council in the near future. Staff will coordinate with the schools to identify appropriate projects for the second year of the program. RI ARDJ. LKERS, P.E. REVIEWED AND CONCU CITY COUNCIL ACTION: CITY MANAGER APPROVED A DENIED RECE I4TED_ . 'c )( OTHER iETtri�G DATE —1 -db '4OE Sp,� 1L3S ENT: .eL ..c�v,�,L> > __......o..._.__ R.... u3STAIN: VERIFIED BY: 0-. 1'° t'4 le with City O erk ' s7— FOUR-WAY STOP SIGN WARRANTS DIST CO RTE PM CALC DATE 3//q /C/9 CHK DATE Major St: -1 1-- 1 a Critical approach speed (mph) U'7.. Minor St: c t71L E V,fl-e_ S* WARRANT I - Interim Traffic Signal Control Satisfied: No la Yes D No Yes Traffic Signals are warranted ❑ (see attached TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT sheet) ❑ and Need for interim traffic control measure is urgent El ❑ WARRANT 2 - Accident Experience Satisfied: Nol Yes❑ Accident wit hin a 12 month period susceptible of correction MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS - No Yes 5 or more (including right angle and / ® ❑ left turn collisions) WARRANT 3 - Minimum Volume Satisfied: No l Yes❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENT MAJOR ST APPROACH SPEED ANY 8 HOURS ON AN AVERAGE DAY 8 HR .K 40MPH '>4oMPH 8 '1 f I 12 2. 3 id- 5 AVG cc I- TOTAL w VEHICLES < v~i ENTERING `� +15 ;05�. ! �, lob . i f 5 12?4 1115 10, ( No Yes TOTAL 500 Avg 350 Avg CIM VEHICLES and— ENTERING IIq l0z q!: Ia3 86 109 IaD w I/S 200 Avg 140 Avg E1 0 F PED ED VOLUME cc 0 and— ' PEAK 30 second or more HOUR average delayAverage delay during peak hour: sec El ❑ DELAY g CONSIDERATIONS: Should not be used if other means of traffic control are adequate Should not be used unless volume on intersecting roads is about equal Undesirable at low volume intersections 9-6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1.1992 Figure 9-1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS D(ST CO RTE PM CALC DATE 3 /l q /qq CHK DATE Major St: 760r ki lam. Critical Approach Speed c! mph Minor St: rape V Critical Approach Speed mph Critical speed of major street traffic > 40 mph or RURAL(R) In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. ❑ ❑ URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO -Er MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED YES NO CI (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U j R U I R APtP�ROASCH 1 2 or more 8 /9 /ii l2/ /3 /-1.- 5 Hour Both Apprchs. 500 '350' 600 420 Major Street (400) (280) (480) (336) '13 1< c3q 5 f 053 i 1 E5 1066 1146 l2q i'�' l 1 f 5 Highest Apprch. 150 (105 200 140 Minor Street (120) \(84) (160) (112) Ir'T Q4 102- 9.5 103 85 l(xi I I00 WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES Eft NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED YES NO ❑ (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U I R APPROACH 1 2 or more / LANES e c1 /11 /l 2/2 3 /4-/5 Hour Both Apprctts. 750 7 525 , 900 630 Major Street (600) ,(420)" (720) (504) Highest Apprch. 75 ( 53 100 70 Minor Street (60) (42).: (80) (56) WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES E NO E • REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one Yes ❑ No E hour;AND There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf- I� fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross;AND I Yes ❑ No E The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater than 300 feet;AND Yes E No E The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow on the major street. Yes ❑ No El The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. ` Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-7 1-1992 Figure 9-2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 4- School Crossings Not Applicable See School Crossings Warrant Sheet❑ WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES Er NO CJ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 1000 FT. N ft, S ft, E ft, W ft. YES E1 NO ❑ ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING&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 la ❑ WARRANT 6- Accident Experience SATISFIED YES ❑ NO REQUIREMENTS WARRANT J FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 -MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ✓ SATISFIED OR 80% •WARRANT 2-INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES Z NO ❑ SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ❑ ❑ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ❑ ❑ - ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. &INVOLVING INJURY OR >_ $500 DAMAGE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE 1 ❑ g . WARRANT 7- Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MINIMUM VOLUME REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES-ALL APPROACHES J FULFILLED DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR ' - OS VEH/HR 1000 VEWHR OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS.OF A SAT.AND/OR SUN. VEH/HR YES`gl NO❑ CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. HWY.SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC ✓. RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING,OR TRAVERSING A CITY ✓ APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STREETS ❑ rg 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 assignmnent must be shown. i �-o TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1-1991 Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES g NO E REQUIREMENT WARRANT J 1 FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS t. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ✓ SATISFIED • 80% 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC ✓ YES 2 NO E WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES 2 NO E 2 or Approach Lanes One more 8 Ai / /4 Hour Both Approaches - Major Street ✓ 931-1. t053 1068 (2-qi-t Highest Approaches - Minor Street )1 `}- i0 2 I o 1 3 a 9 * 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 ❑ NOT 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; AND YES ❑ NO 23 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 YES El NO ❑ 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections OO with three approaches. YES g NO E WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ® NO E Approach Lanes 2or One more 8 /i j / Hour Both Approaches - Major Street )34 f053 10(o S I2Aq Highest Approaches - Minor Street l I i 1 24 102_ 105 (6 61 * 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 of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. 9-12 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1-1991 Figure 9-7 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 400 I 1 _ -2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR)2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) a > = 300 W U cc p 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) a OR 1 LANE(MAJOR) &2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) cn CCa 200 Ow zg J 1 LANE (MAJOR) &1 LANE(MINOR)' * 0 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 MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 9-14 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1-1991 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 I ( I I I 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) > 400 = 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) a OR 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) ¢ ri300 . I- Q. Va ) a c= w Z = 200 = 100 /\_ _x 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR)---) 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOWME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 03 N p r N 0 J O 10 C) O N - CO N 0 Q) f- S U) (`•) v •V r- co 0 CD t0 N Cn r- U) C'') 0 C) CO C) ix) N. V N r- r' O CD ,- (') N N 00 N O CV N0) N N (') 0) r- O N M O N Q N C) r- O N Tr TrC) N U) co coCn N V ODCO c CD N 01N '- CDCD OD V 01 R N Tr N CON G N N Q O co I- O') Cp C) CONNO OD NTrTrCn -7 0 O 0 (') N 'Q N N 0 U) •QO O N N COCO N 01 O N Q N N N CD "T OD TrCD0/ Tr C N- `t g U) 'O. R) N CO U) V V Cn 0) COI,- N O C~DN 0000 g - 00) (00 U V0' ,-,- Cn O V 0 O N N- OC CO) � CD 0 (el Ul (00 N CD cp 01 00 O CO N N ..--- ,- O C)) • 8 V V 0 r 7M 2 O CD )) ND CU) O O v Li) C NN (7 'N• C) Q n .- 0 CO N U) (0 C') CD CD C) CD O `�t CD U) CD C) C) O O COD CI CD CD O CO C U) V C) N 0) O CO .- C') N 0 0 r• .- r '- .- .- .- .- r• CV .- r• 8 V N CD N OD p N 00 CD U) U) U) N V co U) V 01 0 I (f) 0/ .- � Tr O N N r• N O U) CO `- .- r 8 rN C) O C) N C) 0 CO C'') et r` U) N 00 U) CO N NCO O O NC'� N We U) (n N N co U) CD U) U) N CD CD CO CD .- N CO J 8 01 O) .N- a- .e-- r Cn a- .0-- . .- f- N N Ct W V. O 8 CO Cn CV O r r- Cn O V V' U) •U) N CD C) CD N CO 0 ILI LT_ (V C') te r- CV CD (OD 01 CC ,T N CD N C) N O LL , ,- r -I Q CD CO CD CD r� N CM U) CO 0 N U) C) C) N U) Q' 8 V' NuQ .- O '- ACV N U) 0 NNC) N O U) Q I... U) r• r- O 0 r az lL 0_ C � ~ NN N CO..- N rn C) V) N COV OON CO VO O F- V ' V rn T .- 0 ill § N N CO C) N U) Tr N U) TrU) U) N N Tr CD 0 � OC) Cn0 C) V '�TC) C) C CD NNNN CD 00 Wr- r- r• r- r- r- 0 Z r� C) CO CO CO N Tr CD OD Tr Tr co C) N TrCD S 00 C N000 � N '- QC) CD ,- N .- " C) 0 0 111 V C) 0 V cocoV r� coN P V h U) (N C) C) V N V C) O U) CON COCO g 8 Tr Tr Q CDNCDC) 0 (0 � C) 00 CO � r• OU) CD CD0 C� cO 0N CO V U) F. r Et O Q N r- NC) .- CO 0 r ( r- (OV 0 0000 0 N 0, `�j a Z O Tr N r- r- O N O N 0 0 O .- r• 0 0 0 .- I Q F- C) Q 'i' - .- CD N � C) CD C) V. OD ', CD CD .- ,- 0) W C� Z 5 N N NI - .- r• OD .- - NN CO C) O OOO 0 C) W a < 8 r— N co 0) C) N C) 0 C) r- 0 ' co C) O '- 0 0 Z 0 = -' Z 0 O 0 F• CO CD N 0 Q m I NI N O coI- O O Z 0 0 0 Q W O J F- Z O Z W 3 W F-I ,ection Magic VER 5.511 :f Palm Desert, CA 03/19/1999 • ant listing • /1995 - 06/30/1998 /INE & PORTOLA i by <DATE;ACCI;ACCM> 1 STREET 2 DATE TIME DISTANCE DIRECTION INJ KIL VIOL CAT, COLL TYPE INVOLVED WITH VEH 1 MOV VEH 2 MOV VEH 1 VEI -A GRAPEVINE 04/08/1995 9:45 0 0 4 0 Auto right of way Broadside Other vehicle Left turn Straight 18 223 A GRAPEVINE 04/28/1998 9:45 0 SOUTH 0 0 Wrong side of road Hit object Fixed object Left turn 0 "1. Pan'? 1 1053 DRY NORM / / OTHER MV 902 312 I RUN 05/03/96 REPORT B. COLLISION LOCATION DETAILS--INVOLVED PARTY AND VICTIM DATA NCIC CA3311 PAGE 4 CUMULATIVE 01/01/95 THRU 12/31/96 ON PRIMARY AD DIST DR DAY LOC WETMRI K I HR FLT P C F < INVOLVED PARTYS > VICTIM S FROM SECONDARY AD DATE TIME NCIC WETHR2 LIOHTIHO CNTL-DEV TYPCLSH P TYPE I AGE S 0 P MOVEMENT D V E H I C L E SP OTHER P TYPE 1 AGE SA AT POSTNILE S BADGE RO-SURF -CON0/-0014D/-COND PED ACT NVIWT N SEX L 2 PRECEDING I TYPE MAKE INFO ASSOCIATED T M SEX LOCAL REPORT NO DST BEAT Y J COLLISION A STATEWIDE CHP YEAR FACTORS Y J •IHOIAN WELLS LH I THU 3316 CLEAR - 1 1 UNSAFE SPEED 1 DRVR 31N IOW PROC ST S PICKUPIPAN FORD94 2 DRVR C 32F RI III 062995 1145 330D DAYLIGHT CNTL OK REAREND 2 DRVR C 52F HNBD SLOWING S PASSISTNON CHRY93 ON III B 31.122 S 990 DRY CONST/NAROW/ OTHER NV 90) 297 INDIAN WELLS LA 4 S SUN 2316 CLEAR - - L R-U-N AUTO I DRVR 20N HNBD SLOWIHO N OTHER 91 RT 111 041695 1700 3/00 DAYLIGHT CRTL OK 1ROSIDE 2 DRVR 78H HEM ROT-TURN S PASSISTHGH CADI91 ON 111 A 36.122 S '777 NORM / / OTHER MV 903 305 MANITOU DR I WE0 3311 CLEAR - - 1 UNSAFE SPEED 1 DRVR 63N HMO PROC ST E PICKUPIPAN FORE9D RT 111 082896 1141 3300 DAYLIGHT CNTL OK REAREND 2 DAYA 50X HNBD STOPPED E PICKUPIPAN CHEV62 ON 111 8 35.405 S 2504 DRY NORM / / OTHER NV 903 PAINTED DESERT DR 50D 1 SAT 3316 CLEAR - 1 1 PEO C 21F HNBD it I FED C 23F RCH PALHERAS DR 051395 0900 3300 DAYLIGHT NO CNTL VEHIPED 2 DRVR II TNPU BACKING N OTHER 1160 DRY NORM / / IN ROAD PEDESTRAN 103 187 PORTOLA AV 13 N TUE 3316 CLEAR - I NOT DRIVER 1 ORVA V 81N HNBD UNE TURN E PASStSTWON CHEV91 I DRVR V BIM GRAPEVINE DR 081596 0950 3300 DAYLIGHT CNTL DX HIT OUJ 2262 DRY HORN / / FINED OUJ 903 27 RCH PALMERAS DR FOR INTERSECTION COLLISION DETAILS. SEE FAIRWAY DR FAIRWAY DR RCH PALNERAS OR AT 11 113 N SAT 331E CLEAR - - 1 UNSAFE SPEED 1 DRVR 31F HNBD PROC ST S PASSISTWON TDYT96 INATTENTION CLUB DR 120296 1524 3300 DAYLIGHT CNTL DX REAREND 2 DRVR 26M HNBD STOPPED S PASSfSTWON TDYT96 ON 1I1 8 35.960 S 2504 DAY NORM / / OTHER NV 9D3 AT 111 FOR INTERSECTION COLLISION DETAILS, SEE CLUB DR CLUB DR RT III RT 111 123 N THU 3311 CLEAR - - 1 UNSAFE SPEED 1 DRVR 22N HN60 PROC ST S PASS STUN OATS81 CLUB DR 051196 1741 3300 DAYLIGHT CNTL ON REAREND 2 DRVR SOF HAD SLOWING S PASS STWON GLDMBM UNSAFE SPEED OH 111 8 15.150 S 1771 DRY NORM / / OTHER MV 3 ORVA 66F HMO STOPPED S PASS ST)tON TOYTBB 903 4 DRVR 31F HNBD STOPPED S PASS SEWN HOND92 5 ORVA 77F HNBD STOPPED S PASSISTWON FORDO] FOUR-WAY STOP SIGN WARRANTS DIST CO • RTE PM CALC DATE 47/ /C 9 CHK DATE ' [ Major St: C/� I O is 4vim Critical approach speed (mph) T 3 Minor St: MQJ rc. <-?Sh WARRANT I - Interim Traffic Signal Control Satisfied: No E Yes❑ No Yes Traffic Signals are warranted ❑ (see attached TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT sheet) ❑ and _ Need for interim traffic control measure is urgent 2 ❑ WARRANT 2 - Accident Experience Satisfied: NolE Yes❑ Accident within a 12 month period susceptible of correction MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS No Yes 5 or more (including right angle andEt ❑ left turn collisions) WARRANT 3 - Minimum Volume Satisfied: No ❑ Yes! I MINIMUM REQUIREMENT MAJOR ST APPROACH SPEED ANY 8 HOURS ON AN AVERAGE DAY 8 HR �40MPH >40MPH I° i I I2_ 1 2 4 5 AVG cc w TOTAL O w VEHICLES ct ENTERING 532. �i+i q45 q12 9(co IoLfl q(ry g&ip cr p No Yes TOTAL 500 Avg 350 Avg VEHICLES 2o4 2 w ENTERING `�(, 2ue ZZO Z�I �5 ?v21 rig and_ w I/S •200 Avg 140 Avg 2 Z 9 0 Q rr I- PED in VOLUME ct and_ z E PEAK 30 second or more ❑ ❑ DELAY average delay HOUR Average delay during peak hour: sec CONSIDERATIONS: Should not be used if other means of traffic control are adequate Should not be used unless volume on intersecting roads is about equal Undesirable at low volume intersections 9-6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1-1992 Figure 9-1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC DATE 4 I2. 3 I q 9 MST CO .RTE PM CHK DATE Major St: PCr7L) /G� A 1/t. Critical Approach Speed `i 3 mph Minor St: u1/ /"c.Z,( -5 Critical Approach Speed mph Critical speed of major street traffic > 40 mph )Fr RURAL(R) In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. ❑ ❑ URBAN(U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED YES NO CI (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) UIR UIR _ / APPROACH / /�3 /z,L /5 LANES 2 or more /0 /11//Z/ 2` Hour Both Apprchs. 500 -350 600 420 Major Street (400) (280) (480) (336) R32 84f I q'-is q-72. 960 J04( Too 8( ,40 Highest Apprch. 150 1f05 200 140 Minor Street (120) (84) (160) (112) 10 I )25 /2.5 Ito IZ2 230 (05 WARRANT 2- Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES E NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED YES r23 NO 0 • (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R AP LANES PROACH 1 2 or more ( t / /0 / / /2/3 / `{ /.0 Hour Both Apprchs. 750 525 ' 900 630 Major Street (600) (4201_, (720) (504) Highest Apprch. 75 ( 53 100 70 Minor Street (60) �(42) (80) _ (56) WARRANT - Minimum Pedestrian Volume o 100/o SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ • REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one Yes ❑ No E hour;AND There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf- .. fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross;AND Yes ❑ No E The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater 1 than 300 feet;ANQ Yes El No El The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow on the major street. Yes ❑ No ❑ The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9 1-199^< Figure 9-2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 4- School Crossings Not Applicable See School Crossings Warrant Sheet E WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES E NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 1000 FT. N ft, S ft, E ft, W ft. YES,R NO E ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING&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 ❑ WARRANT 6 -Accident Experience SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ] REQUIREMENTS WARRANT FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 -MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED OR 130% •WARRANT 2-INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES at NO E SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ® ❑ ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ❑ ❑ ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. &INVOLVING INJURY OR >_ $500 DAMAGE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE I ❑ WARRANT 7- Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MINIMUM VOLUME REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES-ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED r DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR '- / VEH/HR 1000 VEH/HR - - OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS.OF A SAT. AND/OR SUN. VEH/HR YES [J NO CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. HWY.SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF,ENTERING.OR TRAVERSING A CITY APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN .. ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STREETS ❑ g 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 assignmnent must be shown. • •� ��" �"�� HNu LIGHTING Traffic Manual »s1 Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8 - Combtnatton of Warrants SATISFIED YES [l NO ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 80% 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC ,�� YES 2NO ❑ WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ® NO ❑ 2 or Approach Lanes One more 1 1 �2 / 1 A Hour Both Approaches - Major Street , Highest Approaches - Minor Street q(o4 I 125 1�-5 145 23 O * 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 ❑ NOI 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; AND YES ❑ NO CI 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 YES 1E1 NO ❑ 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for ntersect o0ns vph h three approaches. YES El NO ❑ WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ® NO ❑ Approach Lanes 2or One more I I / 2A A Hour Both Approaches - Major Street I i 614 I 945 912., q(o0 Highest Approaches - Minor Street I 12,5 IZS i 230 * 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 of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. 9-12 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1-1991 Figure 9-7 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 400 = 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) > i = 300 we CC p 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) F- a OR 1 LANE(MAJOR) &2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) cc a 200 O w z2 J �, O > X. x' 100 I 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR)' * 0 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 MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. ) v . TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) I > 400 i 1 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) w Q OR 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) crcr a Na a aces Z = 200 %r O 0 100 I 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR)—} 0 - 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. I•- * , ,\, wLUJIUN I-{tPUN • '.i55 PAGE 1 (Rev 2-92) OPI 042 91 63763 / PAGE /OF (J 7A1 CONOfTOM RUMMER ITt RUN CTT/ JI..v..•dUTTSCT LOCAL REPORT NJURED FELONY \ 11,-:._,c:/ ;_/? 0 0 p4 /l �6 Sg/Z7— PES672r NUMBER RETaRUN COUNTY RVORTWODISTRICT PLAT T�98/27083 KILLED IP50. . ? Aa ,2/UE/LS/OE 3Zc y 3 Z. aj OLLJfION OCCURRED ON W0. DAY YEAR Ma(3400) NCIc S OFFICER L 0. N. z 4:7/Z7-06 A A Vim• 06 z6`98 /557S 3300 iJ Z SD S/ 0- MILEPOST INFORMATION ` ` DAY OF WEEK TOW AWAY PHOTOGRAPHS ST: v .0 FFET/YLE7 OP SMTWT)S ❑YU �N0 O 3 OAT INTERSECTION YRTII 'J STATE NWT REL. I On: /0 FEET/ISMS SOP V/jJT4 C .D/[.• ❑M ZNO c NONE -V TTY DRYERS LICENSE MO NER STATE I CLA.0 I SAFETY TEN.YEAR WAKE/YODEL/COLOR UCENSE NUMBER STATE I 7000 Z (, ) vC EOUIP. c/aEV Y Aeue TEfIG Ill NAY[(FIRST,Ss DWI,LAST) 4 I JES- RUT ADDRESS OWNER'S NAME DfAMI AS DRIVER AN 3 'KED CITY/STATE/LP OWNER'S ADDRESS ❑PRIM[AS O1W[R 'Cl[ 3 Y. SEX NAIR [YES NODNT WOONT IIRT/DATI JST MO. OAT . TEAR RACY DISPOSITION OF VEHICLE ON ORDERS Or ❑OFFICER ONVfR [DOTTIER J /t1 S/Z.v 400? i GJ I /y1 G ASV G�J IER HOME PHONE �"/�`r "`^��/ BUSINESS PHONE ,�} J / / WOR MECI4APICAL DEFECTS: NONE APPARENT❑ REPU TO NARRATVE LXl ( ) ( ) CRP USE ONLY DESCRIBEVEMCLI OAMAO* WADE IN DAMAGED AREA 7 INSURANCE CARRIER POUCY Ruda ER Y[MCI.t TYPE ❑NONE ❑,INOR I ( �• ` , ❑MO0. ❑MAJOR DOTAL DIR. ON STREET OR HIGHWAY J1 SIEED ►CF DOT Q CA �C Q ruew V,i)7>9 Di/. =T ZZ/07 vc ITY ONVERSUCENSENUMSER STATE CLASS SAFETY VEN. I WAKE/YODEL/COLOR W ENSENIER STATE 2 [OUP. 'MAR IER NAME(FIRST,SIOOLE.LAST) 7 TES. STREET ADDRESS BAN OWNER'S NAUI ❑SANE AS DRYER 3 KID CITY/STATE/ZIP OWNERS ADDRESS ❑SAME Af DRIVER CLE 3 :Y. SEX NAIR ETES ROOM WEIGHT ■RTNOATE RACE DISPOSITION OR V[MRCLt ON ORDERS 01: :ST WO. DAY / T[AR ❑ORRCER DON,/ER ❑OTNU 3 EER HONE PRONE BUSINESS PHONE 7 / PRIOR MECNAMCAL DEFECTS: NONE APPARENT ElREFER TO NARRATIVE 0 ( ) ( ) CRP USE ONLY DESCRIBE VEMCLE DAWAOt SHADE N DAMAGED AREA INSURANCE CARRIU W POLICY N SER VUICLE TYPE DUNK. El HONK Ej MINOR I ❑MOO. 0Y.JOR OTOTAL MID DIR.OF ON STREET OR I1GNWAY I SPEED PCP DOT CA BCC PUC O TRAVEL UMrT ;Ty OWNERS LICENSE NUMBER STATE CLASS SAFETY VEIL TEAR MAKE/MODEL/COLOR ENS'.NUMIER STATE EOUiP. /ER NAME (FIRST.ADDLE,LAST) J TES STREET ADORES* AN OWNERS NAPE ❑SAYE AS OWNER 7 KID =TT/STATE/n/ CLE KID OWNERS ADDRESS rzli 1❑SAYE AS OWVER 7 SEX `I HAIR [YES HEIGHT f WE,GNr IIRTNOATE MO. OAT • YEARd1►057TfON Of VEhSCLE OiCFR3 0f• $❑OFFICE DDNVU ❑OTNU i ! 4 It k ,?- s,-„� Y !ER NOME PHONE BUSINESS PHONE t._� _ 7 PRIOR MECMANCAL DEFECTS: ' !NE AFMARENTa LIEfUYTO NAI RATIVE❑ ) VEHICLE TYPE DESCRIBE Mitt!!DAMAGE .:7�•• D[N DAMAGED AREA INSURANCE GARNER POUCT NWIU C DUNK. ❑NONE ❑YNOR S 0 Y00. El MAJOR ❑TOTAL DIET OP ON STREET OR NONwAY S►EEO PCf TRAVEL LAM' DOT❑ CA ❑ BCC ❑ ►UC❑ 0NEASt...•E f '/ DISPATCH NOTIFIED RENEWERS N OATE R[/V//EWED X(]. 1,4 1�j T//`� �I ZSO`� El YES ❑ ,NO arc N/A . .'iJ7IiIC�►'L_ / ( �V CO N ci C) CO 0 JQ pC)p ' - if) CD 0 CD N N nrH CCD D a) CD NTrC') N op n,NO �A 4 C) 0000 UP .- OTCI U O N Q) N Ch O CD InCCD .- a) O .- C C) R N. CD .- NUA UP CDtnN0 CN CD = M N •- (D N N — CA — C4 U N CK . Q 8 ea CO C7 v CD N c0i) C.) C') N N N co ea v CO nt v CA N Co C6)) ea . 2 (NI Q O CA CI '' C) CA N OC) 0T N. Cn .— (O •tCD a0 .- .- N `7 N N. O aD N .- NN CD CAC) NU) N r' N Q N 0 nt 0') CD N. N nt 0 CO O CO C) 't 0) N. C) nt CD N. 't Is. C1A N 8Cr C') N - .- N CAV* ntVt N Cr) ,— N N N aD A O D CD CA CD) CnO A A C) Cno CD C) CD 0 Iiin CD n N. ') D 0 0N cv Tr O O N N. 0 N N C) N. 0 N .— Cn CA C) I aD CD 0 0 CA n CD v) 000n T 0N .- N U) .- '— .— 0 C) N � � W NOi5 N 0 CDO CD C) 0 23 CA A C) CAN 0 CA 0 N o a- N a0 atCD N. N N .— •- O C) .— •- n 0 0 N. CO N Cn C) CD CD O O CA CD CA CA O P. N N. co — st N C') . nt .-O O N CD C) C) .— N .— N N Cn CD � CN') N N .— CD N C') Cn C) CD CA lA C) '7 CA CA Cn N N. CO N. N CA CD 8 0 - T- C) C() a- N N I- CD CA N N N N N C) N C) c7, N to 0 O .- aDCDCD .- co C') CA0 O .— NNCAN 0 NNCnn O .- 0000 . Cnt ttCDNN OD V, NC) NQ .- NNNN N N w .- .- .- .- � N N CA CA g '- 0 O Q CD O N n O CA N O C) v CD N. CD O N 0 N. NN Ntn O NN C') N n N. NN .- N v vvNN N El Q 1— VI .- .- a- CA .- .- .- .- 0 .- N Ce w > 0 N N 0 co co 0 .- CD CA CO CA C') CO C) N. O CA N CD CD CO CO C) (/) 0 0 C) CD .— 0 N .- C) '7 . Tr co N .- .- .- N N V' .- C') 0 CA O U- m < O Tr CD CD nt CD CD N. V C) CD C C) N. nt N. CO CD co CD CD ts .._! 0 CN') CAOCDCD C) V1N00 nt C NNNTr N C) NNC) N 00 Q — a- •- . • 0 az • 0 l� CD C) g CD CA C) A CD CO W N C) Cn CA CD a0 O O C) g CD O r C� C � O) (A00 C �' NC) N � O C') .- NN O .— C) NC)N. C04 C) } O o 0 CO CD C) N CD CA N n 0 v CD U) O CD CD ER C) C) N. n CA (� rt C0 0 .- 00 aD .- CCj � U) NC) 0) (D .— N .- .- 0 — NNC) CD N w z6 0 0 (0 ao cO ER N. rn 0 0 01 0 Cn 53 ao .- o ao cO C') N N. CD N. ''t N CA CO Cn C 4- •' N 'V' U) .- .- N .- .- .— Cn l!) Q co C) CA .- .- .- a- CO 0 F-- Zp OCD CAO4n .— CAn00 N N .— Nn 00 .- C) CD co O � C) � C) � � .— N C) Fos U) co I O CA CD CO CA N. N. O Nnt CC1 CC CD CC) CA C N CDC) CD 0000 CA CC) w CCD D C') N. , co Y w § CAN .— N .- . CD ONTrN C'7V O 0000 O 0000 CD N C ix 2 O TtCNV BOOC) .- 000 .- CA CD 0000 CD 0000 O CA Co '" • 8UJ CA N .- .- .- CD N0C) .- 0 0000 0 0000 0 .- C' S C) r- CDN CD N. N C) C) N C) CD 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 C) 0 CD O N H 8 Nt .- .- No Cn CD CD N .— CD 0 0000 CD 0000 CD CDas 0 0 0 Z Z D Z D0 0 J Z O� 0 CO H O 03 0 0 O0• CD 0 O 0 Q w O r- Z <n Z w w I- I CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works SUBJECT: INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF PORTOLA AVENUE AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE PORTOLA AVENUE AND FAIRWAY DRIVE DATE: January 14, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: By minute motion, authorize staff to move the subject project locations from future CIP years and to begin preparation of plans, specifications and estimates for the installation of traffic signals at the subject locations. Also appropriate funds in the amount of $300,000 for design and construction for both locations. BACKGROUND: In our efforts to maintain traffic safety and efficiency, the Public Works Department has evaluated traffic conditions on Portola Avenue between El Paseo and Fairway Drive. This portion of Portola Avenue provides two through lanes, a two-way left turn lane and bike/golf cart lanes. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street. It should be noted that Portola Avenue is included in the Circulation Network as a Major Thoroughfare, which would normally have four traffic lanes. There are 15000 vehicles per day on this portion of Portola Avenue and the speed limit is posted at 35 MPH, except for a 25 MPH speed zone when children are present near Washington School. A traffic signal is included in the 1999-2000 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the intersection of Portola Avenue and Shadow Mountain Drive, due to concerns for safety and delay at this location. The intersection of Portola Avenue and Chicory Street has been evaluated for the need for a traffic signal or stop control at the request of Washington School. This intersection does not meet the warrants for either signalization or stop control, due to very low traffic volume on Chicory Street. A Crossing Guard is located at this intersection to help children use the crosswalk at this location. The intersection of Portola Avenue and Fairway Drive is currently controlled by stop signs in all directions. 3° Due to ever increasing traffic volumes on Portola Avenue, and the existence of 5 all-way stop controlled intersections south of El Paseo, traffic conditions on Portola Avenue are deteriorating. During several hours of each day traffic queues of 5 to 10 vehicles can be observed at the stop signs at Fairway Drive, Grapevine Street and Vintage/Marrakesh. These queues occasionally reach up to 20 vehicles waiting to enter each intersection. These stop signs cause traffic on Portola to travel in a nearly continuous stream, as opposed to the platoons of traffic which would otherwise form. This stream of traffic makes it very difficult for traffic to enter onto Portola Avenue from the uncontrolled intersections and driveways. It also makes crossing Portola Avenue very difficult for school children and pedestrians, even with the crossing guard. The solution to this problem is not yet more control, but more efficient control. As stated previously, a traffic signal is scheduled for Portola Avenue and Shadow Mountain Drive in the 1999-2000 CIP. However, when signals and stop signs are placed in close proximity, such as Shadow Mountain Drive and Fairway Drive, operation is very inefficient. This is due to the signal stopping and releasing traffic in groups while the stop sign releases traffic one vehicle at a time. This causes long queues of traffic at the stop sign when platoons arrive from the signal, and wasted green time as the signal tries to respond to traffic from the stop sign. The result is excessive delay at both intersections. With the installation of a traffic signal at Fairway Drive, this condition can be somewhat mitigated as the distance from Fairway Drive to Grapevine Street is 325' more than Shadow Mountain Drive to Fairway Drive. This would also move the interface between signal and stop control away from the school area, which has heavy peak traffic. Installation of traffic signals at Fairway Drive and Shadow Mountain Drive, with interconnect to the existing signal at El Paseo, is expected to substantially improve traffic conditions on Portola Avenue by reducing stops and delay, while also improving conditions for the school crossing at Chicory by providing larger and more frequent gaps in traffic for pedestrians to cross Portola Avenue. The five year CIP includes installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Portola Avenue and Haystack Road in 2000-2001 however, this intersection operates well with the existing all-way stop control. Although moderate increases in traffic volumes are expected in the future at this location, the stop controlled intersections to the north and south on Portola Avenue would restrict the benefits of a traffic signal at Haystack Road. Therefore, it is recommended that funding for the traffic signal at Portola Avenue and Haystack Road be reallocated to Portola Avenue and Fairway Drive. It is recommended that traffic signals be installed at the intersections of Portola Avenue/ Fairway Drive and Portola Avenue/Shadow Mountain Drive with signal interconnect to Portola Avenue/EI Paseo by September 1999. Adequate funds for design and construction of the proposed traffic signals and interconnect are available in the Traffic Signal Account No. 234 3 ' It is recommended that City Council authorize staff to move the subject project locations from future CIP years and to begin preparation of plans, specifications and estimates for . the installation of traffic signals at the subject locations. Also appropriate funds in the amount of $300,000 for design and construction for both locations.. Ce_ 7244,Lietr7 RIC ARD J. F ERS, P.E. REVIEWED AND CONCUR CITY MANAGER REVIEWED AND CONCUR FINANCE DIRECTOR attachments 3� • CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT FIVE LOCATIONS DATE: February 25, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: By minute motion, authorize staff to request proposals for preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates for construction of traffic signals with interconnect at five locations. BACKGROUND: At the February 11, 1999 City Council meeting this issue was referred to the Public Safety Commission therefore, the issue was added to the February 17, 1999 Commission agenda. A brief report of the results of that meeting will be provided under separate cover. It should be noted that three of the proposed traffic signals are in school areas. If any of these signals are to be completed by September 1999, for the beginning of the school year, design must begin as soon as possible. The five year Capital Improvement Program includes construction of traffic signals as follows: LOCATION CIP TRAFFIC SAFETY YEAR PRIORITY RANKING Hovley Lane East and Corporate Way 98/99 3 Hovley Lane East and Beacon Hill 98/99 5 Portola Avenue and Shadow Mountain Drive 99/00 1 In addition, traffic signals are being considered to address safety and capacity concerns at the following locations: LOCATION TRAFFIC SAFETY PRIORITY RANKING Cook Street and Fred Smith Drive/Santa Fe Trail 9 (Pedestrian signal) Portola Avenue and Fairway Drive _ Page 1 of 3 33 A pedestrian signal is being considered at Cook Street and Fred Smith Drive/Santa Fe Trail as a possible response to pedestrian safety concerns of parents and staff at Palm Desert High School. Following is an excerpt from the Public Works Department evaluation of traffic control on Portola Avenue from El Paseo to Fairway Drive: In our efforts to maintain traffic safety and efficiency, the Public Works Department has evaluated traffic conditions on Portola Avenue between El Paseo and Fairway Drive. This portion of Portola Avenue provides two through lanes, a two-way left turn lane and bike/golf cart lanes. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street. It should be noted that Portola Avenue is included in the Circulation Network as a Major Thoroughfare, which would normally have four traffic lanes. There are 15000 vehicles per day on this portion of Portola Avenue and the speed limit is posted at 35 MPH, except for a 25 MPH speed zone when children are present near Washington School. A traffic signal is included in the 1999-2000 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the intersection of Portola Avenue and Shadow Mountain Drive, due to concerns for safety and delay at this location. The intersection of Portola Avenue and Chicory Street has been evaluated for the need for a traffic signal or stop control at the request of Washington School. This intersection does not meet the warrants for either signalization or stop control, due to very low traffic volume on Chicory Street. A Crossing Guard is located at this intersection to help children use the crosswalk at this location. The intersection of Portola Avenue and Fairway Drive is currently controlled by stop signs in all directions. Due to ever increasing traffic volumes on Portola Avenue, and the existence of 5 all-way stop controlled intersections south of El Paseo, traffic conditions on Portola Avenue are deteriorating. During several hours of each day traffic queues of 5 to 10 vehicles can be observed at the stop signs at Fairway Drive, Grapevine Street and Vintage/Marrakesh. These queues occasionally reach up to 20 vehicles waiting to enter each intersection. These stop signs cause traffic on Portola to travel in a nearly continuous stream, as opposed to the platoons of traffic which would otherwise form. This stream of traffic makes it very difficult for traffic to enter onto Portola Avenue from the uncontrolled intersections and driveways. It also makes crossing Portola Avenue very difficult for school children and pedestrians, even with the crossing guard. The solution to this problem is not yet more control, but more efficient control. As stated previously, a traffic signal is scheduled for Portola Avenue and Shadow Mountain Drive in the 1999-2000 CIP. However, when signals and stop signs are placed in close proximity, such as Shadow Mountain Drive and Fairway Drive, operation is very inefficient. This is due to the signal stopping and releasing traffic in groups while the stop sign releases traffic one vehicle at a time. This causes long queues of traffic at the stop sign when platoons arrive from the signal, and wasted green time as the signal tries to respond to traffic from the stop sign. The result is excessive delay at both intersections. With the installation of a traffic signal at Fairway Drive, this condition can be somewhat mitigated as the distance from Fairway Drive to Grapevine Street is 325' Page 2 of 3 '3 more than Shadow Mountain Drive to Fairway Drive. This would also move the interface between signal and stop control away from the school area, which has heavy peak traffic. Installation of traffic signals at Fairway Drive and Shadow Mountain Drive, with interconnect to the existing signal at El Paseo, is expected to substantially improve traffic conditions on Portola Avenue by reducing stops and delay, while also improving conditions for the school crossing at Chicory by providing larger and more frequent gaps in traffic for pedestrians to cross Portola Avenue. The five year CIP includes installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Portola Avenue and Haystack Road in 2000-2001 however, this intersection operates well with the existing all-way stop control. Although moderate increases in traffic volumes are expected in the future at this location, the stop controlled intersections to the north and south on Portola Avenue would restrict the benefits of a traffic signal at Haystack Road. Therefore, it is recommended that funding for the traffic signal at Portola Avenue and Haystack Road be reallocated to Portola Avenue and Fairway Drive. It is recommended that traffic signals be installed at the intersections of Portola Avenue/ Fairway Drive and Portola Avenue/Shadow Mountain Drive with signal interconnect to Portola Avenue/El Paseo by September 1999. Each of these signals will require interconnect and coordination with existing or other planned signals. Therefore, design as a single project by a single consultant is expected to provide the best design, at a lower cost, than if designed separately. Funding for the subject design services could be a combination of current (98/99) CIP budgeted projects (Traffic Signal Fund 234) and Professional Services Account (110-4300-413.30-10). It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to request proposals for preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates for construction of traffic signals with interconnect at the five locations. C .,...--;:-.0--- n RIC ARD J. LKERS, P.E. REVIEWED AND CONCUR CITY MANAGER A ..., REVIEWED AND CONCUR DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Page 3 of 3 3G V I Contract No. C15470 CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM • TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT FIVE LOCATIONS DATE: February 11, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: By minute motion, authorize staff to request proposals for preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates for construction of traffic signals with interconnect at five locations. BACKGROUND: The five year Capital Improvement Program includes construction of traffic signals as follows: LOCATION YEAR Hovley Lane East and Corporate Way 98/99 Hovley Lane East and Beacon Hill 98/99 Portola Avenue and Shadow Mountain Drive 99/00 In addition, traffic signals are being considered to address safety and capacity concerns at the following locations: Portola Avenue and Fairway Drive Cook Street and Fred Smith Drive/Santa Fe Trail (Pedestrian signal) Each of these signals will require interconnect and coordination with existing or other planned signals. Therefore, design as a single project by a single consultant is expected to provide the best design, at a lower cost, than if designed separately. Funding for the subject design services could be a combination of current (98/99) CIP budgeted projects (Traffic Signal Fund 234) and Professional Services Account (110-4300-413, 0wcIL ACTION! APPROVED Y DENIED RECBIVIE) OTHER `4EE'tIN-6 DATE .� ( AYES n,0t)Q,C u ' 2 �C'�' Page HOES: _2 T\i \- T—� 4B S SAr ' '5v._, - A TA1to 1 - _ 'rliZFI L: • :16� z�— �1 on File with •, - .. ' ;.. ;f.Lt It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to request proposals for preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates for construction of traffic signals with interconnect at the five locations. i RICHARD J. FJKERS, P.E. REVIEWED AND C NCUR CITY MANAGER rot, 10.5}' REVIEW D ND C CUR DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Page 2 of 2 31 CITY OF PALM DESERT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works SUBJECT: INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF PORTOLA AVENUE AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE PORTOLA AVENUE AND FAIRWAY DRIVE DATE: May 13, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: Concur with staff, Technical Traffic Committee and Public Safety Commission recommendations to install traffic signals at the Intersections of: Portola Avenue and Shadow Mountain Drive Portola Avenue and Fairway Drive BACKGROUND: In our efforts to maintain traffic safety and efficiency, the Public Works Department has evaluated traffic conditions on Portola Avenue between El Paseo and Fairway Drive. This portion of Portola Avenue provides two through lanes, a two-way left turn lane and bike/golf cart lanes. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street. It should be noted that Portola Avenue is included in the Circulation Network as a Major Thoroughfare, which would normally have four traffic lanes. There are 15000 vehicles per day on this portion of Portola Avenue and the speed limit is posted at 35 MPH, except for a 25 MPH speed zone when children are present near Washington School. A traffic signal is included in the 1999-2000 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the intersection of Portola Avenue and Shadow Mountain Drive, due to concerns for safety and delay at this location. The intersection of Portola Avenue and Chicory Street has been evaluated for the need for a traffic signal or stop control at the request of Washington School. This intersection does not meet the warrants for either signalization or stop control, due to very low traffic volume on Chicory Street. A Crossing Guard is located at this intersection to help children use the crosswalk at this location. The intersection of Portola Avenue and Fairway Drive is currently controlled by stop signs in all directions. Due to ever increasing traffic volumes on Portola Avenue, and the existence of 5 all-way stop controlled intersections south of El Paseo, traffic conditions on Portola Avenue are deteriorating. During several hours of each day traffic queues of 5 to 10 vehicles can be observed at the stop signs at Fairway Drive, Grapevine Street and Vintage/Marrakesh. These queues occasionally reach up to 20 vehicles waiting to enter each intersection. These stop signs cause traffic on Portola to travel in a nearly continuous stream, as opposed to the platoons of traffic which would otherwise form. This stream of traffic makes it very difficult for traffic to enter onto Portola Avenue from the uncontrolled intersections and driveways. It also makes crossing Portola Avenue very difficult for school children and pedestrians, even with the crossing guard. The solution to this problem is not yet more control, but more efficient control. As stated previously, a traffic signal is scheduled for Portola Avenue and Shadow Mountain Drive in the 1999-2000 CIP. However, when signals and stop signs are placed in close proximity, such as Shadow Mountain Drive and Fairway Drive, operation is very inefficient. This is due to the signal stopping and releasing traffic in groups while the stop sign releases traffic one vehicle at a time. This causes long queues of traffic at the stop sign when platoons arrive from the signal, and wasted green time as the signal tries to respond to traffic from the stop sign. The result is excessive delay at both intersections. With the installation of a traffic signal at Fairway Drive, this condition can be somewhat mitigated as the distance from Fairway Drive to Grapevine Street is 325' more than Shadow Mountain Drive to Fairway Drive. This would also move the interface between signal and stop control away from the school area, which has heavy peak traffic. Installation of traffic signals at Fairway Drive and Shadow Mountain Drive, with interconnect to the existing signal at El Paseo, is expected to substantially improve traffic conditions on Portola Avenue by reducing stops and delay, while also improving conditions for the school crossing at Chicory by providing larger and more frequent gaps in traffic for pedestrians to cross Portola Avenue. The five year CIP includes installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Portola Avenue and Haystack Road in 2000-2001 however, this intersection operates well with the existing all-way stop control. Although moderate increases in traffic volumes are expected in the future at this location, the stop controlled intersections to the north and south on Portola Avenue would restrict the benefits of a traffic signal at Haystack Road. Therefore, it is recommended that funding for the traffic signal at Portola Avenue and Haystack Road be reallocated to Portola Avenue and Fairway Drive. It has been suggested that the stop signs on Portola Avenue at Fairway Drive be removed, converting the intersection to two-way stop control. This is not recommended Staff, Technical Traffic Committee and Public Safety Commission recommend that traffic signals be installed at the intersections of Portola Avenue/ Fairway Drive and Portola Avenue/Shadow Mountain Drive with signal interconnect to Portola Avenue/EI Paseo as soon as possible. Adequate funds for design and construction of the proposed traffic signals and interconnect are available in the Traffic Signal Account No. 234 RIC RD J. FL KERS, P.E. REVIEWED AND CONCUR CITY MANAGER attachments 3c _• .-.• .- -:-.:. -:•,....-. :....--•• ' - ',....--;t.-:".".... ..44i - - ' ;,- - .„. -..*-. 1 .. •••'', ' — . •..-. • •'-:. ... •.'•.•••' . . .::-''.- ; • ,• . k .._... .. .... ...- - . .....• .. • ...••. . • •.. • a .. ... • . . • •• . .• • ' 0, . • . ,. . , . . . ... ...... .... . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . ..'....:.- - ',i.:., : -. , • . ..-. ...... , - 2. , • 4f• W- . 1 .,...,, •.- . .,. . ••• -. • •, ._.. .. .. . • • . - - .•-,. . .. , .. . - • • " .. . iL ....... iillt, i, . '-... ...- '.".:: . • . _ .... 1 . ' . 1 • .-' ,' ; .. 0 ' i '' .."7•:. ' . _ .. . i .' Itti411-4. ' -• . .• 411011 1 i ' ; .. 6.7' , :.• . • r . ....; P' ^°'''''''..'''''."",...,,.,.,,.....,„,.,,, .:, . ! .,•.4 ..-. 4, , •„it. -.,.. •—' --',.....,r1.-;-----4.-17.-.;. -..".• . 49*-....=.,,,,,,.,:,-..,r;-:-.- , -'• -^. '' - '-"- ' —- - .",-.......:---.'. : '..,'- .- •. " - •: •• -- ': . c!, C ',• . . . . . :•-,,-- :''.•,- . -':, . . ..: ' • -. , -4 , ...."4.--..., • . . - 1 . , . . . . • t . ..•• . . • . . I 4 g :--: i A... 4i11.1.4,4,„ --.-1.,......--;.,,..4...,....-----,-......., •=4---„• . .., i . . . -.......:k..,-,,,,-.,..zr-„,..----Le.....:...-z...::•- • .4.--, -fir-.,...ai.'‘. fi 4........1...004.0'...". -,........V.,.. . . ,_ .. ... . . 1.,,,,_...,.-.--X,',0.;1.1.::•et.'::'17,...:7f;',.,"?'',..:.......';':...""7..e'tt ',„,= • ... ..:,'.• ..' ...."! •... :...''L,..:.. :'... .-. .:' • .!"' . '.-- . • ._. - - —BUR-WAY STOP SIGN WARRANT`' CALL DATE 41 10//ci' DIST CO • RTE PM CHK DATE Major St: 7Sr-71---0 /a 74-I/ . - Critical approach speed (mph) 44 Minor St: 9h6761064-) A46 U1'7 / 11 -- )i!7 WARRANT I - Interim Traffic Signal Control Satisfied: No lE Yes No Yes Traffic Signals are warranted ❑ E (see attached TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT sheet) and _ Need for interim traffic control measure is urgent gt ❑ WARRANT 2 - Accident Experience Satisfied: No$ Yes- Accident within a 12 month period susceptible of correction MINIMUM REQUIREMENT I NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS• No Yes 5 or more (including right angle andlg a left turn collisions) • Satisfied: No El Yes WARRANT 3 - Minimum Volume . MINIMUM REQUIREMENT MAJOR ST APPROACH SPEED q ANY B HOURS ON AN AVERAGE DAYR 8 HR >40MPH ` /O / 2 2- A VG rr I- TOTAL _ 2 tillVEHICLES Q ENTERING �/1� /O // 1', /i2C0 //7C. /51.79 //7c) 9h,41 • %/j-7 No Yes ❑ f I.;, I/s 500 Avg 350 Avg TOTAL and_ VEHICLES 10 /G2 2Jii- /q4 /qz `l�� ��l `" � Elw ENTERING iii 1311 Ws 200 Avg 140 Avg "'' ►- PED `" VOLUME and - cc O ' z PEAK 30 second or more ❑ 0 = Average delay during peak hour: sec DELAY average delay CONSIDERATIONS: Should not be used if other means of traffic control are adequate Should not be used unless volume on intersecting roads is about equal Undesirable at low volume intersections ;^ '" -a m m ➢ 0 C °1 1 m' 00 - - -- - D CD 0 co co DI 0 C 0 z Z Z 0 0 0 A ! -a () w cn VI w CD8 0 CD j ! CD V A 0 V O (D O a A CT C.) Ni Ni (J -' Ni 71 C.) to8 Ni co O W -+ N O Nl00 C w CDAACD N CTW IN // ! o N p W ! ON CDOOAO A Ni W OCTCT A W ! NN CD m A h1 V 0 ! Ni O W Ni Ni O O A 8 C CO N 0000 O 0 0 ! ! m _ ! > O co -- ! p ! W O ! p ! N CD cocoon) W W N A W Ni Z W Z 8 ,, ! ! - A O ! a Ni NiC D W CJ 0 ! V v N CCD V V CO CD V CT CD w CD ! V I A ! W (T Cl) W N CD 8 0C _ N) Co a co a w Q A N a) co Co Ni 0 CD CUT CD W CT CD �++ co w C) O �I t,� UI CD CD _ ! -A, A ! ! a CD Z ! ! CO co co O v W Ni CD co N O O (OOD CD C � NOa OCD -. CD BCD 0 AA Vw CD CT �JCON 0 -1 r _ _ _ ! ! ! ! A -{ N n ! ! aOCTCD C� v j WUD A co a W a (UT A OCD V ! CO CD VA CD D m -1 Aa p W O ! • CT A V CD co ! Z n ! ! ! _a CT ! ! ! ! § Q 0 --I 0 ! ! p?1 OV w coC)- Nia coV 00 I Z -n m ! W Ni W CO O NiCD CD W N m p N (D Ni CD W ! D — — O A N ! W W 0 A COCl) CO O CT -� V N -n 0 A A CD co N co Ni -n rn '^ ! ! ! ! co ! ! a N co N N a A CD O ! W CD CJ1 V -� -4 O A co V (D A V CD Ni ! � 73 ! ! O (+) ! _ _ _ § S A A N A A _ TN W O to' W a Uat V CVJ CND a -4 CCP f-K ! rn ,� a a U) ! ! ! ! 00 S ! ! V CO CT CO CT U W ! N) W N A a ! 0 ! NiCD Oa co CD CT AvW ! � co co NlOOND O ! V OA V ! ! ! T ! _ ! CD ! ! ! ! Qw) O 2 � NIC —N !T ! !U) N V O) CT 21 it. V to ! • N ! ! ! aa — -4 ! N ! N N 0) CVD Ni A W W co C NNOCD co CD OU1 -4a W U0 aNi CO V m ACDON !o ! _a ! ! l ..a CT !•! ! ! j) 8! ! A ()1 a �! W co ! A Ni CO W W N N WlNN Q V CTN W O ACAa V O -4 A O CoCD a O O C11 CO CD ! ! V O CD ! ! ! ! A NlNA GDP CD CD ! W w ! A w A A W CT NJ N Ni N CO ! Q) -4 CD A A CD N coco co A w CA ! V C. -` Ni ! W _ O A CDO ^CO W v CD ANv Ni co ONN CO W COV CO)1W WA CT lNCD ! w 8 _ CD V CD V A A A V (T a CT CDC)) a W aaV N a CD OW 0V O UlCDCoN N 0 w _ D! _ as W (JWA �` a 8 > co txt ! ! ! A CD CD W Ni C� A (T O J co CD Cl) Ni co a rn . W (J A W CD (T Ni N _ - g D A CO COW �l W COA V A W CD Co co v CJ1 CD � A (D (T V W a 71 N �, w r CA) CD g A a !CDOCD CD CD VI W UI W m CD a0)) CA co 41 v C.) INCDCD 0 CD N Ap CD_ _ ! w O Co A W CoCD CD CD N W CD CT C D C..) O O O ! a A CD ! CO Ni -4 co 0 CT CO D • section Magic VER 5.26 of palm desert, ca 04/21/1998 ent listing /1995 - 06/29/1997 4LA c SHADOW MOUNTAIN d by <DATE> .T 1 STREET 2 DATE TIME DISTANCE DIRECTION INJ KIL VIOL CAT COLL TYPE INVOLVED WITH VEH 1 MOV VEH 2 MOV VEH 1 VEF )LA SHADOW MOUNTA 02/10/1996 17:00 0 0 0 0 Auto right of way Side swipe Other vehicle Left turn Straight 18 61 MOUNTA PORTOLA 11/13/1996 19:45 29 WEST 0 0 DUI Rear end Other vehicle Straight Stopped 31 36 )L 50 ALA SHADOW MOUNTA 11/13/1996 17:30 0 0 0 0 Traffic signals Broadside Other vehicle Straight Straight 0 )LA SHADOW MOUNTA 01/06/1997 15:10 0 0 0 0 Auto right of way Broadside Other vehicle Straight Straight 69 33 )l.A SHADOW MOUNTA 04/19/1991 10:45 0 0 0 0 Auto right of way Broadside Other vehicle Straight Straight 74 22 9-6 RAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHT► _i Traffic Manual 1-199 2 Figure 9-1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC DATE /2//cYf DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE �� Major St: Pr-� Q o/ Aire— Critical Approach Speed --�= mph Minor St: \--ShaCIOW /1/0u77 /7-) ',211-1 Critical Approach Speed Critical speed of major street traffic >_ 40 mph zrRURAL(R) In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. ❑ 0 URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES SI NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES i NO 0 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U 1 R U I R APPROACH •1 2 or more //o/iz// /2 /1-7(/ A Hour LANE Both Apprchs. 500 350`. 600 420 // /Q // l� R // I // D �j:{/ . Maior Street (400) '28oyL (480) (336) �{ 37 1 /-27 7 Highest Apprcn. 150 (105 \ 200 140 /8 /Z`I /Av /5L /7d 205 /7 7 /5 7 Minor Street (120) (84)/ (160) (112) 5 7 WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES 'Z NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES,1 NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U 1 R I U I R APPROACH 1 2 or more q //p 2// il. /`�/� / Hour LANES /// Major 900 630 1 1 1 1 H Streets I (600) r(420)750 II (720) (041 Highest Apprm 75 53 100 70 1 Minor Street (60) '1 (421, (80) (56) , WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one Yes ❑ No ❑ hour,AND There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf- Yes ❑ No ❑ tic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross;AND The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater Yes E No ❑ than 300 feet;ANQ , The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive Yes ❑ No 0 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. TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND L1G1• JG y-` Traffic Manual 1.1992 Figure 9-2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 4 - School Crossings Not Applicable El See School Crossings Warrant Sheet ❑ WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 1000 FT. N (o&) ft. S ft. E tt. W ft. YES ❑ NON2" ON oNE WAY ISOLATED STFIEETS OR SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING&SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST ADJACENT ..ON 2-WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING ANO ❑ SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM IR WARRANT 6- Accident Experience SATISFIED YES 0 NO Es REQUIREMENTS • WARRANT FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 -MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED -OR I✓ YES NO ❑ 80% WARRANT 2- INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW El ❑ ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY 0 ❑ ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. &INVOLVING INJURY OR >_ S500 DAMAGE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS ❑ 5 OR MORE • 3 WARRANT 7-Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES 0 NO X MINIMUM VOLUME FULFILLED REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES-ALL APPROACHES ✓ DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR 1'7 q 7 VEH/HR 1000 VEWHR OR VEH/HR YES NO 0 DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS.OF A SAT. AND/OR SUN. CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. HWY.SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC_- - •=• RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF,ENTERING,OR TRAVERSING A CITY t/ APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN I7 — Q ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET,BOTH STREETS CI .tom 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 assignmnent must be shown. A Y 1-1991 Figure 9-3 • TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS . WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES $1 NO ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT J FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ✓ SATISFIED 80% 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES Ei NO El WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES : NO ❑ 2 or Approach Lanes One more 9 /I / /2 Hour Both Approaches - Major Street ✓ // 744/ //3/p /5' 94/ Highest Approaches - Minor Street V /85 /54 Z5 /5'7 * 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 ❑ NOZ 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; 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: AND YES ® NO ❑ 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 NI NO ❑ WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES , NO ❑ 2 or Approach Lanes One more // /4 /2., Hour Both Approaches - Major Street ✓ //t,1i //3r, /5z9 94// Highest Approaches - Minor Street ✓ /3_ , 2D5 /5 7 * 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 of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. 9-12 T, =IC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING , Traffic Manual 1-1991 Figure 9-7 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 400 I 1 = 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE (LANES (MINOR) a v300 I w Q 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) CC 2 • OR 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) F' a I X cc a 200 Ow X zm X 2 = x 0 > 1100 = 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) * 0 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 MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 9-14 1 . FIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1-1991 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 I I f I I 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) I a > 400 1 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) a OR 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) w0 300 cc a Na a Cr w A 0 2 200 aJ x > = 100 I I I _} 411` . ----"`"1----.... .j * 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 4 CALC DATE DIST CO RTE PM `3 to CHK DATE Major St: or-l-o /a 74 veil ug Critical approach speed (mph) Minor St: / 1' y 5 -ee7`- WARRANT I - Interim Traffic Signal Control Satisfied: No ET Yes No Yes Traffic Signals are warranted (see attached TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT sheet) and — Need for interim traffic control measure is urgent ❑ WARRANT 2 - Accident Experience Satisfied: No Z Yes❑ Accident within a 12 month period susceptible of correction MINIMUM REQUIREMENT ' j NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS No Yes 5 or more (including right angle and E CI left turn collisions) �f WARRANT 3 - Minimum Volume Satisfied: No El Yes MINIMUM REQUIREMENT • MAJOR ST APPROACH SPEED ANY 8 HOURS ON AN AVERAGE DAY 8 HR �40MP1I� >40MPH 8 ! / 2 j 2 3 4 AVG cc I- TOTAL ff s VEHICLES 67o! 111 o 1 �d$ /179 )V/+'.1 ' ld�J u1 a ENTERING , L.)0 No Yes vs 500 Avg 350 Avg - El TOTAL VEHICLES 5 26 /- � g • and_ w ENTERING �2 �-c/ Z� G 1 -1 u )'200 Avg I40 Avg E • I- PED VOLUME o and_ z E PEAK 30 second or moreHOUR El ❑ DELAY average delay Average delay during peak hour: sec CONSIDERATIONS: Should not be used if other means of traffic control are adequate Should not be used unless volume on intersecting roads is about equal Undesirable at low volume intersections Li-0 I HAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHT . Traffic Manual 1-1992 Figure 9-1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS • CALC DATE 2i 4 /9� D1ST CO RTE PM CHK DATE Major St: O f7z� a '4'Veh Critical Approach Speed 1-/0 mph Minor St: / CO!"y Critical Approach Speed mph Critical speed of major street traffic > 40 mph or RURAL(R) In built up area of Isolated community of < 10,000 pop. 0 ❑ URBAN(U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 21 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO Ef- MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U l R. U R APPROACH g / I /z, / /4LANES 1 2 Or more /2/ // 3 Hour Both Apprchs. 500 350 ` ' 600 420 Maio!'Street (40o) 280V (48o) (336) Ig01 1101 1106 1i q 10214 is q 115' 147.1.) Highest Approh. 150 r°5 ) 200 140 �rj 20 �2 w'7 18Minor Set (120) 84) (160) I (112) .53 WARRANT 2 - interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U I R U I R APPROACH • LANES 1 I 2 or more a /9 4 /) /2_./3 7-4 /8, Hour Both Apprans. 750 25 900 630 Major Street (600) I (420)il (720) I (504) Highest Apprch. 75 S`�3 100 70 Minor Street (60) �i(�� (80) (56) • WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ REQUIREMENT FULFiLLED Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more for each of any four hours or Is 190 or more during any one Yes ❑ No ❑ hour, AND There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf- fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross;AND=: Yes El No El The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater ~ than 300 feet;Al 12 Yes ❑ No ❑ The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow on the major street. Yes ❑ No ❑ 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. �•••� •• �• �+�• • •4•'-+i F L .711311HLJ milk./ L1L: I1NL3 lii Figure 9-2 . TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 4 - School Crossings Not Applicable C See School Crossings Warrant Sheet. WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement r- g o ement SATISFIED YES LJ NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS i DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLE:; > 1000 FT. N /COO ft, S ft. E ft, W ft. YES E NO, ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING&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 EM ❑ WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES ❑ NO Z REQUIREMENTS - WARRANT I FULFILLED • ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED -OR 8" WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES E NO SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ❑ E ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ❑ E ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. &INVOLVING INJURY OR > 5500 DAMAGE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS SORMORE E X WARRANT 7- Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES E NOZ MINIMUM VOLUME I REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES I FULFILLED DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR f VEH/HR ✓ 1000 VEH/HR - — OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS. OF A SAT. AND/OR SUN. VEH/HR YES NO E CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. I MINOR ST. HWY.SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY 1/- APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STREETS E X The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestlon, confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assigmmnent must be shown. 1-1991 IIIIMEmmommilimmOMMININIMMIENIMMENNEmimi Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO El REQUIREMENT WARRANT I .1 I FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED gpo�, 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO • WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO\12:1 2or / 9A /^ Approach Lanes One more 8 J Hour Both Approaches - Major Street 1 t/ I q0i L j 0) I I I19 1 1°84 Highest Approaches - Minor Street / A 30 (05 1 602 I Z7 * 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 El NO X 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; 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; AND YES ❑ NO IX 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 El NO ❑ WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO 21 2 or Approach Lanes One more P /q / / A, Hour Both Aoproacnes - Major Street I r I I q0I no f ih q ) - Highest Approaches - Minor Street I L/ f 13b I Cos a)2 I Si * 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, contusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. l 1-1991 -- Figure 9-7 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 400 I 1 1 I 1 = 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) = 300 V • p 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) N = OR 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) = Q 200 I I ow z � J 0 > = no I ��C 1 LANE(MAJOR) &1 LANE(MINOR) * - 054 200 300 • 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 MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 9-14 I FFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1-1491 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) a > 400 = 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) a OR 1 LANE(MAJOR) &2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) LU cc 300 1 � a Cnn- a Ccu.I Z = 200 J > 0 100 = I * 'r 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) X I '`0 1 < x _ 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH * NOTE 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. • 5A Ii,tersection Magic VER 5.26 city of palm desert, ca 03/06/1998 Accident listing 01/01/1995 - 06/29/1997 PORTOLA L CHICORY Sorted by <DATE> STREET 1 STREET 2 DATE TIME DISTANCE DIRECTION INJ VIOL CAT COLL TYPE INVOLVED WITH VEH 1 MOV VEH 2 MOV VEH 1 V VIRTOLA CHICORY 08/22/1995 9:15 30 NORTH 0 Wrong side of road Side swipe Other vehicle Crossed into Straight 73 6 9-10 TR' —FIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1-1992 inimmemommionnmililmemmilimommnsimimmionsommliftmemnimmimomme Figure 9-5 SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS • CALC DATE /9° DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE Major St: '00SZTa--I-1 ��'��C Critical Approach Speed mph Minor St: 4-0a4 pF=�.7 Critical Approach Speed mph Critical speed of major street traffic 40 mph } RURAL (R) In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. ❑ ❑ URBAN (U) FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ‘)4 (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) Minimum Requirements PART A U 7R\ Vehicle Volume Each of 200 J140 110� 2 hours School Age Pedestrians Each of SATISFIED YES ❑ NO Crossing Street 2 hours 40 40)e 20 AND EStir4 A rE'0 PART B Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 35 mph SATISFIED YES NO ❑ AND PART C Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SATISFIED YES NO ❑ SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS SATISFIED YES ❑ NO (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) Minimum Requirements PART A II U 9 / ES;ivWTEC Vehicle Volume Each of 2 hours 500 1 3501 hot It School Age Pedestrians 2 no of 100 70o ZO SATISFIED YES 0 NO ritt Crossing Street or 500 50 per day AND PART B Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SATISFIED YES NO ❑ 9-6 1. 4FFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTIN( Traffic Manual 1-1992 Figure 9-1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC DATE 471/4:/ate - DIST Co RTE PM CHK DATE Major St: / �r�� /a 4 l Critical Approach Speed mph Minor St: F 7 Critical Approach Speed mph Critical speed of major street traffic > 40 mph or I RURAL(R) In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. ❑ ❑ URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES I NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES. NO E MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R APPROACH LANES1 2 or more 8 A /i,, / 1 / Z / A /!� Hour Both Apprchs. 500 350 i 600 420 /// Major Street (400) .12so)l (480) (336) 841 ‘1&3 9 i i q 63 9g2, 9g14 914 �qO Highest Apprch. 150 105 200 140 M1norStreet (120) L,(84) (160) (112) I,"f3 25O I'-4(D 2214 110 I41 153 151 WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES, NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES: NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R A APPROACH 1 2 or more / q/, j / / / / Hour LANES / / 2 Both Apprdls. 750 525 900 630 Major Street (600) (420) (720) (504) Highest Apprch. 75 53 100 70 Minor Street , (60) N(42)' (80) (56) WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO E REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one Yes ❑ No E hour;AND There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf- Yes E No E fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross AND, -- The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater Yes ❑ No ❑ than 300 feet;AND, The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive Yes ❑ No ❑ 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. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGH--NG 9-7 1-1992 Figure 9-2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 4 - School Crossings Not Applicable IT See School Crossings Warrant Sheet WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES ❑ NQ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 1000 FT. N ft, S ft. E ft, W tt. YESX NO ❑ ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING &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 E WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES ❑ N0X REQUIREMENTS WARRANT ✓ FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED — —OR 80% WARRANT 2- INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC ✓ YES,. NO ❑ SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ❑ E ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ❑ ❑ ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR 2 $500 DAMAGE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE ❑ WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES E NO MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES-ALL APPROACHES I FULFILLED REQUIREMENT / 28 ! DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR VEH/HR V 1000 VEWHR — — OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS.OF A SAT. AND/OR SUN. VEH/HR YESX NO E CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. HWY. SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC ✓ RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING,OR TRAVERSING A CITY ✓ APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN V� ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STREETS E X 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 assigmmnent must be shown. 5% na►rrt�, JICaNAL5 ANU LIVHTING_ Traffic Manual 1-1991 Figure 9-3 • TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES NO E REQUIREMENT WARRANT ✓ FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME l ✓ SATISFIED 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC 1/' YES ' NO E 80% WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES Zi NO E 2 or / Approach Lanes One more 9 4.,0 2 Hour Both Approaches - Major Street ✓ q8 3 2 I eq Highest Approaches - Minor Street t/ f G 221-/ t7U i51 * 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 SATISFIED YES ❑ N0 (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) ti 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; 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; AND YES NO E 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 D: NO E WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES NI NO E 2 or Approach Lanes One more /I ! Ad Hour Both Approaches - Major Street ✓ c/ I u S Highest Approaches - Minor Street I z~0 ��� I do 1 I e7 * 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 of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. 9-12 TR°=FIC SIGNALS AND UGHTING Traffic Manual 1-1991 Figure 9-7 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 400 1 r I I = -2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) > = 300 W V w 0 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) CI- cc jjjE(TMAJOR) & RTMORE LANES (MI � a cca 200 Ow o x x = 100 C7 * 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) * 0 I I 1 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 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 MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 9-14 Tr FFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1-1991 Amismimmimilmoimpammlis Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) • 500 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) > 400 = 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) Q OR 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) LU cc 300 CC Ca CI) a CCw X z 2 200 O �Q 100 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) 0 I 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Intersection Magic VER 5.26 ,;ity of palm desert, ca 04/02/1998 • Accident listing 07/01/1996 - 06/29/1997 FAIRWAY L PORTOLA Sorted by <DATE> STREET 1 STREET 2 DATE TIME DISTANCE DIRECTION INJ VIOL CAT COLL TYPE INVOLVED WITH VEH 1 MOV VEH 2 MOV VEH 1 VEH PORTOLA FAIRWAY 12/21/1996 13:45 0 0 1 Traffic signals Broadside Other vehicle Straight Straight 41 59 PORTOLA FAIRWAY 02/04/1997 10:12 0 0 2 Traffic signals Broadside Other vehicle Straight Straight 75 61 9-6 .RAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHT Traffic Manual 1-1992 Figure 9-1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC DATE U / I q?� DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE Major St: / ) Ave_- Critical Approach Speed y mph Minor St: �(1�S C,� i t , Critical Approach Speed mph Critical speed of major street traffic > 40 mph RURAL(R) In built up area of Isolated community of < 10,000 pop. ❑ ❑ URBAN(U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES El NO 0 80% SATISFIED YES El NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R• U R APPROACH LANES1 2 or more / l4o/ /i /q/5 Hour BothApprhs. 500 50', 600 420 ( Maior Street (400) (�280 (48o) (336) =f39 50 3 S �98 G�1 ti( 4 Highest Apprch. 150 10 200 140 Minor Street (120) C(84) ," (160) (112) Iqy 1 qq 1 157 153 1 fo 3 J s5 iqz 1 5 z WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 80% SATISFIED YES M NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U I R U I R APPROACH LANES 1 2 or more 9 /0 J 2 / L.7h 5- Hour Both Apprcls. 750 (5 900 630 Major Street (600) (420 (720) (504) Highest Apprch. 75 ( 53`. 100 70 Minor Street (60) (42).' (80) (56) WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one Yes ❑ No E hour,AND There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf- fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross-,AND Yes ❑ No ❑ The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater than 300 feet;AND, Yes ❑ No ❑ The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow on the major street. Yes ❑ No ❑ 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. I ra i ` Manual Ir1At-t-IC SIGNALS AND UGt-, JG 9-T t-199: Figure 9-2 . TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 4- School Crossings Not Applicable See School Crossings Warrant Sheet ❑ WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 1X MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 1000 FT. N ft, S ft, E tt, W tt. YES NO ❑ ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING&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 ❑ tg WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES ❑ NO)S[ REQUIREMENTS WARRANT FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 -MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED -OR 80% WARRANT 2-INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES,X NO 0 SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ❑ ❑ . ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY 0 0 ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. &INVOLVING INJURY OR >_ $500 DAMAGE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE /0 ❑ WARRANT 7- Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES ❑ NOjg MINIMUM VOLUME r REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES-ALL APPROACHES FULFILLED DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR q VEHMR 1000 VEH/HR - - OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS.OF A SAT. AND/OR SUN. VEH/HR YES ❑ NO 41 CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. HWY.SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC ✓ /" RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING,OR TRAVERSING A CITY V APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN ✓ � ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STREETS 1E1 ❑ 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 assigmmnent must be shown. - - " "'��^�� ��*4Li Ulan f IN I rank Manual 1-1991 Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WAR RANTS WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO REQUIREMENT WARRANT ./ FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS I. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ( ✓ SATISFIED • 80% 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ❑ NO WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ,8 NO ❑ 2 or Approach Lanes One more I /-3/ T/ Hour Both Approaches - Major Street ✓ 6 3 i Cot - 161 7a Highest Approaches - Minor Street !(z)3 ► d5 I C121 1 52 * 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 ❑ N0 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; AND YES ❑ NO Fl .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 YES El NO ❑ 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 ❑ WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES NO E 2 or 15 Approach Lanes One more 7-?� -� 5 Hour Both Aoproaches - Major Street i �� L O I k : -1 ,� f '70" �.e Highest Approaches - Minor Street 11 f II i i 185 I g Z t/5 * 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 of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. kJ 1- 11 rig., ,UivMLS AND UGHTING Traffic Manual 1.1991 Figure 9-7 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 400 I I •2 OR (MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) = 300 J 1-- V LLI p 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) CC OR 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) � a cc Q 200 Z2 x x 3 X O = 100 C7 = 1 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR)- * 0 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 MINOR STREETAYHHOACHING WITH ONE LANE. 9-14 T- .FFlC SIGNALS AND UGHTINC- Traffic Manual 1-1991 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) > 400 11 I C.) 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) Q OR 1 LANE(MAJOR) &2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) w 300cc - Na Q [C W z = 200 O � 100 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) 0 _ 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND.75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Intersection Magic VER 5.26 city of palm desert, ca 04/02/1998 Accident listing 07/01/1996 - 06/29/1997 HAYSTACK G PORTOLA Sorted by <DATE> STREET 1 . STREET 2 DATE TIME DISTANCE DIRECTION INJ VIOL CAT COLL TYPE INVOLVED WITH VEH 1 MOV VEH 2 MOV VEH 1 VEH PORTOLA HAYSTACK 04/29/1997 10:45 0 0 0 Traffic signals Hit object .Other object Straight 0 49 0 GIST CO • RTE PM CALC i DATE 4/2 Z /�-/ Fro CHK DATE Major St: /c Critical approach speed (mph) �� Minor St: /l''�i1 ://./ �Y WARRANT I - Interim Traffic Signal Control Satisfied: No 3 Yes ❑ No Yes Traffic Signals are warranted ❑ ❑(see attached TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT sheet) and — Need for interim traffic control measure is urgent 24 0 WARRANT 2 - Accident Experience Satisfied: NrySl Test: Accident within a 12 month period susceptible of correction MINIMUM REQUIREMENT • No OF ACCIDENTS• No Yes 5 or more (including right angle and ❑ left turn collisions) WARRANT 3 - Minimum Volume Satisfied: No❑ Yes El MINIMUM REQUIREMENT MAJOR ST ,..APPROACH SPEED ANY 8 HOURS ON AN AVERAGE DAY 8 HR ( 40MPH . >40MPH 9 t 0 II I ?i 3 i—i 5 AVG cc I- TOTAL ..--- ' G 4 triF=- ENTERING q lg 835 q l$ 88 No Yes ►orb Io_ I��2 ►�� 1��� I/S TOTAL 500 Avg 350 Avg 0 1 VEHICLES ; h and_ �' ENTERING ....,,,cam )(42... Vol l ?J�i 153 L01 Zu7 1�5 w Vs 200 Avg 140 Avg 0 8 .03 I- PED tn cc VOLUME O and_ z E PEAK 30 second or more HOUR a delayAverage delay during peak hour: sec 0 0 average g CONSIDERATIONS: Should not be used if other means of traffic control are adequate Should not be used unless volume on intersecting roads is about equal Undesirable at low volume intersections r ;ersection Magic VER 5.511 of Palm Desert, CA 03/22/1999 'dent listing /01/1995 - 06/30/1998 i•.TO1.A & FAIRWAY itr:d by <DATE;ACCI;ACCI> «EE'I' 1 STREET 2 DATE TIME DISTANCE DIRECTION INJ KIL VIOL CAT COLL TYPE INVOLVED WITH VEH 1 MOV VEIL 2 MOV VEH 1 VI Other vehicle Straight Stopped 45 3 k'1'OLA FAIRWAY 02/16/1996 16:354 05 NORTH 0 0 Unsafef speed Rear end 76 8 04/01/1996 12:40 0 0 0 Traffic signals Broadside Other vehicle Straight Straight I<POLA FAIRWAY0 1 0 Traffic signals Broadside Other vehicle Straight Straight 75 61 I<TOLA FAIRWAY 02/04/1996' 13:45 0 02/04/1991� 10:12 0 0 2 0 Traffic signals Broadside Other vehicle Straight Straight 38 7 , J<'I'OLA FAIRWAY NORTH 1 0 Unsafe speed Rear end Other vehicle Straight Stopped IrPo{,p FAIRWAY 12/29/1997 8:15 0 I Cr • 4 CD N I N to N CC) 0 co r O co N CD CO m N N- 0 U CD N .- Nr- co ,- N on N Q) N N cc N UJ O 01C3r- UD gll Ntn 0 co CO u, C'') ONO ,r on D � ,r Cn N W 0 N Nmvco O OMM .7 N h Nr- NN CO () moot, N ~ W S O N N N N co c l V on N N onN 0 (NV . •• C- M N ILL S P) Cn 0 Cn CA CO N CT) CO Cr) C7 ,r — M 8 O O v t1) CnMNM m N I— co co N �- '- N Q N a O O U) (n 0 A O ' M y '7 N N M `Q M O CU N U) CD ND CD 8 Chi QM MN N C� Q '�T CD N to ,, .- C) O v Q 2 N 7 '�7 CD (D st N '' 1 U) "r m m CD l!') CD In u 7) CD In N- CC) a) N Q 8 4 CD O D in gm � mQ) � otn � mtnmm Y) M MNN on CO cnr- S O O m D CD ifN CO .8 sp v D C` v N- TA; ER v om' v o Cn fD � v- � � y- mN y- CUp 7 Q 3.1 CO CD 2 Dm n s) - M O CO m N D m h M) N N-. . N . . 1- CCn j •- O m O) '�f CD ES CD `-' '- C)M in C) N Cn (n N- N M '0'; O N Cn tOD oa LU N (0 CD OC) 0 m M M C n m O C n N N 8 0 M MD M DC O) m o o mmm C N Q) CD Q) 7 on CD 0 0, .- ,- M N v v a) O W DCn o U ' N o up ER r` ' m r` n N v (n v r _1 � .M.- � � � QQC� Q N N Q 0 O ,- T- • >WV § M ER N O r C n ER M CMo O CO .7 C� D M N M M (N N W LT_ Nr - 8 T M M Cn Cn M m Yr CO CD in m CO M O CD N O • Q. 8 ,-N .— „ v M co .-- co C` N M,- M M v N m v Q M Q U_ O_ § N p mOQ CD CO C)) ER Cn CD to N "7 tt) Q ER M CD O .- v r- M co r W S Cm') N O S tOf) C`m') O Om) (n N CO CO C� CC7 U) In V 1;; to CD U Qj .- y- CD Q) Q M N N m .- .- .- v Cn N N UJ ZS (mn cog 00� M � mmN0 m N N- . vtn N CI O n M � o Ui> ER CD NMOCD M (nnnm C Cn O .- NCD ' Cv CO CDCN N N v- m (41 QCDQN ,rCO N tn0 CD CD O .— C) N .— C') Yr .— CD O N N CCn .- .— NC+) to CO000_ C) CO' ,- 000 N Of- O .— M N a. t 8 hS ,r � O — N ,r N — •-- O m .— 000 •- Y7 r- 00 M 0 M � 0 Z Q fOh O N 00 •- •- ONON CD 0 0000 •-- 000 r- C` CC CI QN 0 ... 0 •- C) ' MQ '- CD CD 000 N .- 0 0 .-- N M coI CtM N M coN N N M (n CD •-- CD -- O CD C") ,- N CD CDYr N Q r 8 LL 0 a a Z Z a Z Q 0 o m o m 0 0 _ J Q I F 0 m Q U w CC 0 w O O Z Cn Z w w -- CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC SAFETY PRIORITY LIST 22-Mar-99 SIGNAL WARRANTS COLLISIONS(3 YEARS) TOTAL PROPOSED NUMBER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ALL NIGHT RATE POINTS IMPROVEMENT POINTS 6 6 10 10 2 10 2 6 4 2 2 2 2 RANK DATE LOCATION • • 1 23-Jun-97 111 AND MONTEREY 74 34 0.986 108 6 LANES AND SIGNAL MOD PENDING 2 23-Jul-98 PORTOLA AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN 6 6 6 4 2 12 4 0.290 40 SIGNAL 3 19-Mar-98 HOVLEY LANE EAST AND CORPORATE WAY 6 6 6 4 2 14 2 0.535 40 SIGNAL 4 04-Mar-99 HOVLEY LANE EAST AND WARNER TRAIL 6 6 6 4 2 16 0.480 40 SIGNAL 5 19-Mar-98 HOVLEY LANE EAST AND BEACON HILL 6 6 6 4 2 4 2 0.140 30 SIGNAL 6 19-Mar-98 COOK STREET AND ST.JAMES PLACE 6 6 6 4 2 2 0.030 26 MEDIAN/SIGNAL 7 23-Jul-98 COOK AND FRED SMITH/SANTA FE 6 4 2 12 0.195 24 SIGNAL 8 19-Feb-99 HOVLEY LANE EAST AND CASBAH/INDIAN 3 6 6 4 2 2 0.060 23 SIGNAL REQUESTED BY OASIS C.C. 9 23-Jun-97 WASHINGTON AND FRED WARING 20 2 0.304 22 ADDITIONAL LANES PENDING DEVELOPMENT 10 23-Jun-97 FRED WARING AND PRIMROSE 16 4 0.381e 20 11 23-Jun-97 FRED WARING AND SAN PABLO 18 0.210 18 SIGNAL COORDINATION 12 23-Jun-97 COOK AND MARKET 6 6 12 13 23-Jun-97 COUNTRY CLUB AND SAGEWOOD 10 2 0.199 12 14 23-Jun-97 FRANK SINATRA AND ELDORADO 2 0.100 2 15 23-Jun-97 CALIFORNIA AND INDIANA 0 16 0 •=HALF POINTS FOR 80%SATISFIED NUMBERS ENTERED FOR COLLISIONS ARE POINTS. e=estimated t ._J DIST CO • RTE PM CALC DATE 3 l/c J C1`1 CHK . DATE Major St: tr-4-oIa 41/^ .— Critical approach speed (mph) Minor St: Cry Vin S-F WARRANT I - Interim Traffic Signal Control Satisfied: No M, Yes ❑ No Yes Traffic Signals are warranted ❑ ❑ (see attached TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT sheet) and Need for interim traffic control measure is urgent Ea ❑ WARRANT 2 - Accident Experience Satisfied: No Yes Accident within a 12 month period susceptible of correction MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS• No Yes 5 or more (including right angle and ® El turn collisions) WARRANT 3 - Minimum Volume Satisfied: No E Yes❑ • MINIMUM REQUIREMENT MAJOR ST APPROACH SPEED ANY B HOURS ON AN AVERAGE DAY 8 HR �40MPH >40MPH 1 I � � IZ 2 3 L 5 AVG rt I- TOTAL 0 w VEHICLES Q c ENTERING I A J i'J i;��, i'1-•4 1115. f O:1 ( No Yes I/S 500 Avg 350 Avg ❑ TOTAL VEHICLES IO2 IOC and— ENTERING �• w I/S 200 Avg 140 Avg ❑ I- PED VOLUME 0 and_ z - PEAK 30 second or more HOUR delayAverage delay during peak hour: sec ❑ El DELAY average CONSIDERATIONS: Should not be used if other means of traffic control are adequate Should not be used unless volume on intersecting roads is about equal Undesirable at low volume intersections � 3 • 1-1992 . . .`._ Figure 9-1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC DATE -3 //q /q9 DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE Major Si: 76or 71—o kQ 74 -- Critical Approach Speed mph Minor St: TCLP L/1 e St Critical Approach Speed mph Critical speed of major street traffic > 40 mph or RURAL(R) In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. ❑ ❑ URBAN(U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 80% SATISFIED YES-2 NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) UR U R • APLANE PROACH 1 2 or more s /9 /ii /IZ/z /3 /zt A Hour Both Apprchs. 530 • 600 420 Major Street (400) .:• (49o) (336) '1 {3� 9q5 /053 112 ro66 Ilis Highest Apprch. 150 105 200 140 Minor Street (120) \(84) (160) (112) If GLf 102- 9.5 103 85 tog 1100 WARRANT 2- Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES 12t. NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED YES E NO ❑ (80°'a SHOWN IN BRACKETS) • U R U R APPROACH i /f ��2- '2_ /3 / LANES 1 I 2 or more ,j �j 1 «< 5 Hour Both Apprchs. 750 525 900 630 Maior Street (600) (420)" (720) (5041 , Highest Apprcn. 75 ( 53' 100 70 Minor Street (60) (42) (801 (56) WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ REQUIREMENT u FULFILLED Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one Yes ❑ No 0 hour;AND There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traf- Yes 0 No ❑ fic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross;AND The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater ~ than 300 feet;AND Yes 0 No ❑ The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive Yes CI No ❑ 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. Figure 9-2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 4- School Crossings Not Applicable See School Crossings Warrant Sheet❑ • WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES sr NO E MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 1000 FT. N ft, S ft, E h, W ft. YESIRI NO ❑ ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING&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 5 ❑ WARRANT 6 -Accident Experience SATISFIED YES Cl NO n REQUIREMENTS • WARRANT FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT I -MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED — OR 80% •WARRANT 2-INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES 1E1 NO ❑ SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ❑ ❑ ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ❑ ❑ ACC. WITHIN'A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. &INVOLVING INJURY OR >_ $500 DAMAGE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE I ❑ . WARRANT 7-Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MINIMUM VOLUME FULFILLED REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES-ALL APPROACHES DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR / 0_, VEH/HR 1000 VEH/HR — — OR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS.OF A SAT.AND/OR SUN. VEH/HR YESsj2 NO ❑ CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. HWY.SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC ✓ RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF,ENTERING,OR TRAVERSING A CITY APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STREETS ❑ . 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 assigmmnent must be shown. L_ • Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES E NO ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT / I FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED • 80% 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC V"- YES 2 NO C1 WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES Ej NO E 2 or /Aroach Lanes One more 8 / 1 / /4 Hour Both Approaches - Major Street q3'4 /053 I Jo(n a (Zq4 • Highest Approaches - Minor Street 114 , )02 /03 Ia9 * 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 E 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; AND YES ❑ NO M 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 YES Q NO ❑ 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 E NO ❑ WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ® NO ❑ 2 or Approach Lanes One more 8 /i j / Z /"L Hour Both Approaches - Major Street ,� I r4)34 11053 IO(og (2q Highest Approaches - Minor Street :� j II 1114 1 f 02 I 105 I (OQ * 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 of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. ��V 1-1991 Figure 9-7 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 400 = -2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) Q. > = 300 F' U w 2 OR MORE LANES(MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) H a OR 1 LANE(MAJOR) &2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) N CL CC < 200 ow zg = X 100 ,'�', (..1 1 LANE(MAJOR) &1 LANE(MINOR)' * 0 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 APPUES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 9-14 TP IFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING - Traffic Manual 1-1991 Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 I I 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) a > 400 = 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) Ua OR 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES(MINOR) w cc 300 1--cc a Na a rrw Z = 200 ('3 100 1 LANE(MAJOR) & 1 LANE(MINOR) 0 • 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. r • utersection Magic VER 5.511 'ity of Palm Desert, CA 03/19/1999 .:cident listing 0/01/1995 - 06/30/1998 ,RAPEVINE & PORTOLA ;.,rted by <DATE;ACCI;ACCI> ;TA:ET 1 STREET 2 DATE TIME DISTANCE DIRECTION INJ KIL VIOL CAT COLL TYPE INVOLVED WITH VEH 1 MOV VEH 2 MOV VEH 1 VE 4 0 Auto right of way Broadside Other vehicle Left turn Straight 18 2` PoRTOLA GRAPEVINE 04/28/1998 9:45 0 0 31 0 [•nRTOi.A GRAPEVINE 04/28/1998 9:45 0 SOUTH 0 0 Wrong side of road Hit object Fixed object Left turn 0 097 ,-a m m Z Cl) z -i r O min > 0 OO m O f- 0O m co 0 I _ D-1 Z O O Q p 0 Z Z Z 0 0 C) CD Co • J � 0J C.) D) CO 1..) WJ CD Co -� N--' -4 8 D 13 _ rn Co 0 000 0 0 W NNJJ D) JJJA -4 g S Z gyp) rn co J J000 -• Co J00 W A NO --, � A O (/) -I a - J 000J J rn ° ONO N ° JJN A 8 z 0 CNT1 0 0000 0 U) JCA JO CD J W NJ -4 § 0 J CD U1 0 -` A Co 0 co W CO 0 0 CD CD N O O O A a J Co N.)0 CO N C..) _ CA CM CDA N A Co W -+ N D CD -+ CT1 -I A V N co -1 A co co J A 0 CD A rn J co JJJJ J J w CO _ 0 J C a N J Co O) co JN W 000 -1 CD A N coa) coA a CD UI 0 a -1 Co coCoCO -4 8 Z CC) A —I COrn JJJ .... CT J a cR cc, CD CD co co CA 0CD Co C.) rj X _ CD a N N U) VI A VI -1 A al -1 co CA J N -• N rn n J (CI J J J J A J J J a § p A CO JJ V NN CO Is.) A CD CD 0 N CI CD N CO U1 -4 CD V J A 0 -11 Z 71 .1 D (JJ 1 N W -W+ W ri l N W O ao JN) cJNr) CJCDD J. o C D CAD O Fs) O 8 v -n O JJJJ 01 UI -n rn . . CD N ((pp N A A co co co CA N J C.) coC0J1 -� C.) fD N U1' UI A A 0 CD -4 -4 0 N CO Co g 0 (n O JJJJ JJJJ � 8 (- 8 v NJ -r N -1 -+ NA co co A. N A U) A N1 c ODVJCDJ CO Co CD --4 U) CO CA UICDJ -.4 N) K _ _ _ __ J m J J J J U) a J — N Co N O 8 CO W W N N) A co A W a O 0W V UI -4 A CO CD 0 W V J CO 0 CO J -J O J J J J J J J J (J1 J J J J a !(oyJ (D N J N N co a co J J co --.1 CD w C.,) A CJ1 CI) AJN CT C1) CJ) CACDN C N) CD V A J NN 0 J NWJ W Jpp tD NW ACn m CO Co co CD W CD Co Co Co U1 8 A co co co CO co CO CA U) N J J J J J J j _ j J J J J VI -4 g 0) U) VI S CJl CoCD A � V 8 CT Aco coin CND 0 CD Co CO 8 J _ tJ CO J N�J A J J J a CO (� ono CDCJV N - CA N W 0co A 0CC.) 0) Co N 8 W J W O A J J A co� co CD A m coW 1! -. J co CD CD A CO CD V Co 0 N J --1 W CD -1 CA CoJ CO j J CO a co A Ut Co N) Ca (n UI a A -4 Cr) A Co J 0 a - CO a CD N N V v W JQ Q 0 A CD A A V A 8 0 N N CO CD A co A S U) 4) �1 J C)I C� m CO N)(((0� N) _ D AA 0) CoA -4CD m 0) U) NL.) A 0 NCnJW N) JJJJ A (5 = CWII -1 OJ CO CO --JCoCo W N 0 (Nll 0 NN WJ CO O _► -1 N ... a 0 C.) Ut J CD N CoCO 0 coV A A W A Cr) S tD coto _� CD _ m 0 ,t..rsection Magic VER 5.511 .ty of Palm Desert, CA 03/19/1999 • . ident listing 1/01/1995 - 06/30/1998 ,I..I E:VINE t PORTOLA <DATE;ACCI;ACCI> INVOLVED WITH VEH 1 MOV VEFI 2 MOV VEII 1 tEF by COLL TYPE STREET 2 DATE TIME DISTANCE DIRECTION INJ KIL VIOL CAT . 18 t<TO 131 04/08/1995 9:45 0 0 4 0 Auto right of way Broadside Fixed objects Left turn Left turn Straight GRAPEVINESOUTH 0 0 Wrong side of road Hit object �I<•fc;LA 04/28/1998 9:45 0 ,I<Int.A GRAPEVINE P-uu 1 r 1053 DRY NORM I / OTHER MY • 903 112 M m \ N f (L N co wRUN O6/O3/96 REPORT I. COLLISION LOCATION DETAILS--INVOLVED PARTY AND VICTIM DATA NCIC CA3316 PROF 4 A CUMULATIVE 01/01/95 THRU 12/31/95 ON PRIMARY AD DIST DR DAY LOC WETHRI K E HR FLT P C F < INVOLVED PARTYS > VICTIM S 0 FROM SECONDARY AD DATE TIME MCIC WETHA2 LIGHTING CNTL-DEV TYPOLSN P TYPE I AOE S D P HOVEMIMT D V ! H I C L E SP OTHER P TYPE 1 AGE IN RT POSTMILE 5 BODE RO-SURF -CONO/-COHD/-COND PEO ACT N V 1 W T N SEX 1 2 PRECEDING I TYPE HAKE INFO ASSOCIATED T M SEX LOCAL REPORT NO DST BEAT Y J COLLISION A STATEMIOE CHP YEAR FACTORS Y J `IMOIAN WELLS LM 1 THU 1116 CLEAR - 1 1 UNSAFE SPEED 1 DRVR 31IM MAD PAOC tT S PICKUP PAH F0RD14 2 DRVR C 622 RI 111 062995 1145 1100 DAYLIGHT CNTL ON REAREND 2 DRVR C 52F HNIO mama S PASSIStNOM CHRYAI ON Ill B 30.122 S 990 DRY CONST/NAROW/ OTHER HV 903 287 INDIAN WELLS LW 4 S SUM 3316 CLEAR - - I R-O-N AUTO I SAVE 20M RMBD ELOIIMO 1T OTHER 91 RT 111 041616 1700 1100 DAYLIGHT CNTL OK IRDSIDE 2 DRVR 781 H/DN ROT-TURN 1 PASSISTNBN CADI91 ON 111 1 36.122 S '777 NORM / / OTHER HV 103 305 HANITOU DR I WED 3311 CLEAR - - I UNSAFE SPEED 1 ORVA 61N HNID PRIM ST E PICKUP PAN FDRE9D cc' AT III 062195 1141 3200 DAYLIGHT CNTL OK REAREND 2 DRYR 60N HMO STOPPED E PICKUPIPAN CHEVI2 -- OM 111 8 15.405 S 2501 DRY NORM / / OTHER NV � 900 E PAINTED DESERT OR 600 11 SAT 1316 CLEAR - 1 1 PEO C 23F HMBD 1T 1 PEO C 23F Q Pal PALNERAS OR 051395 0900 3300 DAYLIGHT NO MIL VEHIPED 2 DRYR N IMPU SACKING N OTHER 2 1160 DRY NORM / / IN ROAD PEDESTRAN 103 187 F-- v PORTOLA AV 13 N TUE 3316 CLEAR - I NOT DRIVER 1 ODA V SIN HNBD UNS TURN E PASSISTWDN CHEV91 1 ORVA V BIN GRAPEVINE DR 091696 0950 i300 DAYLIGHT CNTL DX HIT OBJ 2262 DRY HORN / / FINED 06J 903 27 ACM PALMERAS DR FOR INTERSECTION COLLISIDA DETAILS. SEE FAIRWAY DR FAIRWAY DR RCH PALNERAS OR M RT 11 161 N SAT 3311 CLEAR - - 1 UNSAFE SPEED 1 ORVA 2611 HNBD PAOC ST I PALEITWON TOYT96 INATTENTION ' CLUB DR 120295 1624 3300 DAYLIOHT CNTL OX REAREND 2 ORVA 264 HMO STOPPED S PASS STWOM TDYTB3 ON 111 1 35.160 S 2504 DAY NORM / / OTHER NV ER 900 m AT 111 FOR INTERSECTION COLLISION DETAILS. SEE CLUI DR (N CLUB OR RT 111 i RT 111 123 N TMU 3318 CLEAR - - 1 UNSAFE SPEED 1 DRYR 22N HMO PROC ST S PASS ST1rON OATS11 CLUI DR 051196 1741 3300 0AYL10NT CNTL OK REAREND 2 DRVR SOF HMO SLOWING S. PASS STMON OLOS11 UNSAFE SPEED ON 111 8 15.110 1 1771 DAY ROAN / / OTHER NV 1 ORVA 65F HNID STOPPED S PASS ST110N TOYT39 903 4 ORVA 31F HNID STOPPED S PASS ST110N HO11092 441-1 5 ORVR 77F HNID STOPPED S PASS ST110N FORDO] r •e c / Q 4) (° I o a) Ales-andro Dr A essan• ro D n Pal Desert Dr N ',1 1 1 - Palm Cesert Dr S ) PROPOSED SIGNALry c • 0 E I D a S C o ' Larrea St j o Shadow Mtn Dr o� U o a- a) O a Tree St X----------) Chicory St I IL o Peppertree D a 0 r St a c (c: ° J • 0 St J _. c Fai -way Dr Q 0 St Old Prospector Tr PROPOSED SIGNAL -No° CD > / Covered Wagon T a \ a) Q (Alai I (Tikes 9` 3 0 m Grapevine St �O �— Amir Dr ah Dr All 1 ne HITS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 3.1 ALL-WAY STOP CON_ .JL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Worksheet 1 - Basic Intersection Information 1. Analyst: MG 2. Intersection: Portola and Fairway 3. Count Date: 12/2/98 4. Time Period: 3 pm Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L1 1. LT Volume: 25 0 116 300 5 100 2. TH Volume: 0 725 0 0 33 6 3. RT Volume: 0 0 0 0 5 94 4. Peak Hour Factor: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 5. Flow Rate LT: 27 0 128 333 5 111 6. Flow Rate TH: 0 805 0 0 36 6 7. Flow Rate RT: 0 0 0 0 5 104 8. Flow Rate Total: 27 805 128 333 47 222 9. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10. Subject Approach 2 2 2 2 1 1 11. Opposing Approach 2 2 2 2 1 1 12. Conflicting Approach 1 1 1 1 2 2 13. Geometry Group 5 5 5 5 2 2 14. T (Time in Hours) : 1.000 Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L1 1. Flow Rate Total: 27 805 128 333 47 222 2. Flow Rate LT: 27 0 128 333 5 111 3. Flow Rate RT: 0 0 0 0 5 104 4. Prop LT in lane: 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 0.50 5. Prop RT in lane: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.47 6. Prop. Heavy Vehicle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7. Geometry Group 5 5 5 5 2 2 8. hLT-adj by Table 10-18 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.20 0.20 9. hRT-adj by Table 10-18 -0.70 -0.70 -0.70 -0.70 -0.60 -0.60 10. hHV-adj Table 10-18 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 11. hadj 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 -0.05 -0.18 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Li L2 L1 L2 Li Li 1. Total lane flow rate 27 805 128 333 47 222 2. hd, initial value 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3. x, initial 0.02 0.72 0.11 0.30 0.04 0.20 4. hd, final value 6.7 6.2 6.7 6.7 6.5 6.3 5. x, final value 0.05 1.38 0.24 0.62 0.09 0.39 6. Move-up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 7. Service Time 4.4 3.9 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.3 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L1 L2 Li L2 L1 Li 1. Total lane flow rate 27 805 128 333 47 222 2. Service Time 4.4 3.9 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.3 3. Degree Utilization, x 0.05 1.38 0.24 0.62 0.09 0.39 4. Departure headway, hd 6.7 6.2 6.7 6.7 6.5 6.3 5. Capacity 544 590 536 530 564 560 6. Delay 9.7 710.8 11.6 20.5 10.2 13.4 7. Level Of Service A F B C B B 8. Delay Approach 687.4 18.0 10.2 13.4 9. LOS, approach F C B B 10. Delay, Intersection 373.4 11. LOS, Intersection F PORTOLA AVENUE & 'r.1%144 1A`l rOPME, March 31, 1999 Timings Summary Cycle Length: 65 Natural Cycle: 65 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated 1 L L,,.' .J Lj Lid EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Left Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Phase Number 2 6 3 8 7 4 Phase Lagging? Lead Lag Lead Lag Can Lead or Lag? Maximum Split (s) 19 19 8 37 9 38 Maximum Split (%) 29% 29% 12% 57% 14% 58% Minimum Split (s) 10 10 8 10 8 10 Yellow Time (s) 5 5 5 5 5 5 Lost Time (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Splits and Phases: PORTOLA AVENUE& 2 211 3 Ef4 MI 6 111E7 8 Volume Worksheet ���� �� �� L_a�:��l W.. 1 Iw -i [Id EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph) 5 33 5 100 6 94 25 725 0 116 300 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow(vph) 6 37 6 111 7 104 28 806 0 129 333 0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 49 0 0 222 0 28 806 0 129 333 0 Synchro 3 Report C:\SYNCHRO3\DATA\PALMDSRT.SY5 Page 1 ( r PORTOLA AVENUE & March 31, 1999 Lane and Saturated Flow l� ��Workshhe�eet �� �� 1�� �� ( � �� �� ( � I� bij l� I 1 LEI l�.:J Lli �,::,1 1. .:>i L:,i L� J Lid I Li EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR • Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Shared Lane? Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Bus Stops (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking (#/hr) 0 0 0 0 Frt Protected 0.884 0.837 Flt Protected 0.994 0.976 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow(prot) 1473 1370 1770 1676 1770 1676 Frt Perm. 0.884 0.837 FIt Perm. 0.928 0.864 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1375 1212 1770 1676 1770 1676 Area Type: Other Capacity and Level of Service Analysis Summary Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Perm or Prot? Perm Perm Prot Prot Adj Flow (vph) 49 222 28 806 129 333 Prot. Satd Flow 1770 1676 1770 1676 Perm. Satd Flow 1375 1212 Green Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.52 0.09 0.54 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 338 298 136 877 163 902 V/C Ratio 0.14 0.74 0.21 0.92 0.79 0.37 Critical LG? Yes Yes Yes Uniform Delay, d1 14.5 17.2 21.4 10.8 21.9 6.6 Platoon Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Incr. Delay, d2 0.0 6.6 0.1 10.5 14.9 0.1 Webster's Delay 12.4 21.2 18.3 19.7 33.6 5.7 LOS BCCCD B Cycle Length: 65 Lost Time: 9 Sum of Critical V/S Ratios: 0.74 Intersection V/C Ratio: 0.86 Intersection Webster Delay: 17.8 Intersection LOS: C Synchro 3 Report C:\SYNCHRO3\DATA\PALMDSRT.SY5 Page 2 D w PORTOLA AVENUE & March 31. 1999 Lanes,Volumes, and Timings Summary �� ��� �� �� l o,J L Lid J 1 J L:-j [2j lY i l.!.i r.`;.I 1 1. l�.i EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR - Volume (vph) 5 33 5 100 6 94 25 725 0 116 300 0 Adj Lane Grp Vol. 0 49 0 0 222 0 28 806 0 129 333 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Satd Flow(Prot) 1473 1370 1770 1676 1770 1676 Satd Flow (Perm) 1375 1212 1770 1676 1770 1676 Left Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Prot Right Turn Type Pm+Ov Pm+Ov Perm Perm Phase Number 2 6 3 8 7 4 Phase Lagging? Lead Lag Lead Lag Maximum Green (s) 14 14 3 32 4 33 Yellow Time (s) 5 5 5 5 5 5 V/C Ratio 0.14 0.74 0.21 0.92 0.79 0.37 Platoon Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Webster's Delay (s) 12.4 21.2 18.3 19.7 33.6 5.7 Level of Service B C C C D B Cycle Length: 65 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2-EBT and 6-WBT, Start of Green Intersection V/C Ratio: 0.86 Intersection Webster Delay: 17.8 Intersection LOS: C Splits and Phases: PORTOLA AVENUE & a;2 ®3 u4 Cli 6 E7 lil$ Synchro 3 Report C:\SYNCHRO3\DATA\PALMDSRT.SY5 Page 3 PORTOLA AVENUE & March 31. 1999 Queue Lengths, and Potential Blocking Problems II II ]] Lane Group EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Volume 49 222 28 806 129 333 Queue Length 50% (ft) 17 92 13 334 57 63 Queue Length 95% (ft) 50 #230 41 #645 #168 173 Link Length (ft) 614 1197 388 388 1324 1324 % of Link Used 8% 19% 11% 166% 13% 13% Blocks Upstream? Yes Storage Length (ft) % of Storage Used Fills Storage? % of Turning Storage Blocks Turning Storage? # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Synchro 3 Report C:\SYNCHRO3\DATA\PALMDSRT.SY5 Page 4 IL Delay, Stop, and Fuel Summary March 31, 1999 Intersection: PORTOLA AVENUE& Approach EB WB NB SB Total Volume (vph) 43 200 750 416 1409 Travel Distance (veh-mi/hr) 5.7 48.4 66.5 110.6 272.1 Webster Signal Delay (veh-hr/hr) 0.2 1.5 5.4 2.0 9.2 Stops (vph) 34 191 717 275 1217 Fuel Used (gal) 1 4 11 9 25 Synchro 3 Report C:\SYNCHRO3\DATA\PALMDSRT.SY5 Page 5 4 HCS: Signals Release 3 . 1 � -- Transportation Engineer City of Palm Desert Phone : Fax: E-Mail : OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Intersection: Portola and Fairway City/State: Palm Desert, CA Analyst : MG Project No: Time Period Analyzed: 3 pm Date : 3/31/99 East/West Street Name: Fairway Drive North/South Street Name : Portola Avenue VOLUME DATA Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume 5 33 5 100 6 94 25 725 0 116 300 0 PHF 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 0 . 90 PK 15 Vol 2 9 2 28 2 26 7 201 32 83 Hi Ln Vol Grade 0 0 0 0 Ideal Sat 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 ParkExist NumPark Heavy Veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 LGConfig LTR LTR L TR L TR Lane Width 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 12 . 0 RTOR Vol 5 30 0 0 Adj Flow 43 189 28 806 129 333 %InSharedLn Prop Turns 0 . 14 0 . 00 0 . 59 0 . 38 0 . 00 0 . 00 NumPeds 5 5 5 5 NumBus 0 0 0 0 0 0 Duration 1 . 00 Area Type: All other areas OPERATING PARAMETERS Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R Init Unmet 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 Arriv. Type 50 50 50 50 50 50 Unit Ext . 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 0 I Factor 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 Ext of . g 1 2 . 0 - t 2 . 0 12 . 0 2 . 0 (- 12 . 0 2 . 0 Ped Min g 1 16. 0 , 16. 0 1 10 . 0 1 10. 0 1 PHASE DATA Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left A NB Left A Thru A Thru A Right A Right A Peds Ped WB Left A SB Left A Thru A Thru A Right A Right A Peds Ped NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 20 . 0 15 . 0 45 . 0 Yellow 4 . 0 4 . 0 4 . 0 All Red ' 1 . 0 1 . 0 1 . 0 Cycle Length: 95. 0 secs VOLUME ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET Adjusted Prop. Prop. Appr. / Mvt Flow No. Lane Flow Rate Left Right Movement Volume PHF Rate Lanes Group RTOR In Lane Grp Turns Turns Eastbound Left 5 0 . 90 6 0 Thru 33 0 . 90 37 1 LTR 43 0 . 14 0 . 00 Right 5 0 . 90 0 0 5 Westbound Left 100 0 . 90 111 0 Thru 6 0 . 90 7 1 LTR 189 0 . 59 0 . 38 Right 94 0 . 90 71 0 30 Northbound Left 25 0 . 90 28 1 L 28 Thru 725 0 . 90 806 1 TR 806 0 . 00 Right 0 0 . 90 0 0 0 Southbound Left 116 0 . 90 129 1 L 129 Thru 300 0 . 90 333 1 TR 333 0 . 00 Right 0 0 . 90 0 0 0 * Value entered by user. SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORKSHEET Appr/' Ideal Adj Lane Sat f f f f f �� f f Sat Group Flow W HV G P BB A LU RT LT Flow Eastbound Sec LT Adj/LT Sat: LTR 1900 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000* 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 00* 1 . 00 1 . 000 0 . 962 1828 Westbound Sec LT Adj/LT Sat : LTR 1900 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 00* 1 . 00 0 . 848 0 . 803 1295 Northbound Sec LT Adj/LT Sat : L 1900 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000* 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 00 1 . 00 ---- 0 . 950 1805 TR 1900 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000* 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 000 1 . 000 1900 Southbound Sec LT Adj/LT Sat : L 1900 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000* 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 00 1 . 00 ---- 0. 950 1805 TR 1900 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 000* 1 . 000 1 . 000 1 . 00 1 . 00 1 . 000 1 . 000 1900 CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Adj Adj Sat Flow Green --Lane Group-- Appr/ Lane Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Ratio Capacity v/c Mvmt Group (v) (s) (v/s) (g/C) (c) Ratio Eastbound Pri . Sec. Left Thru LTR 43 1828 0 . 02 0 .211 385 0 . 11 Right Westbound Pri . Sec. Left Thru LTR 189 1295 # 0 . 15 0 . 211 273 0 . 69 Right Northbound Pri . Sec. Left L 28 1805 0 . 02 0 . 158 285 0 . 10 Thru TR 806 1900 # 0 . 42 0 . 474 900 0 . 90 Right Southbound Pri . Sec. Left L 129 1805 # 0 . 07 0 . 158 285 0 . 45 Thru TR 333 1900 0 . 18 0 . 474 900 0 . 37 Right Sum (v/s) critical f"� . 64 Lost Time/Cycle, L = 12 . 0L sec Critical v/c (X) J. 73 LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEET Appr/ Ratios Unf Prog Lane Incremental Res Lane Group Approach Lane Del Adj Grp Factor Del Del Grp v/c g/C dl Fact Cap k d2 d3 Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound LTR 0 . 11 0 .211 30 . 3 0 . 633 385 0 . 11 0 . 1 0 . 0 19. 3 B 19 . 3 B Westbound LTR 0 . 69 0 .211 34 . 7 0 . 633 273 0 .26 7 . 6 0 . 0 29. 6 C 29. 6 C Northbound L 0 . 10 0 . 158 34 . 2 0 . 594 285 0 . 11 0 . 2 0 . 0 20 . 5 C TR 0 . 90 0 . 474 22 . 9 0 . 950 900 0 . 42 13 . 4 0 . 0 35 . 1 D 34 . 6 C Southbound L 0 . 45 0 . 158 36. 3 0 . 594 285 0 . 11 1 . 1 0 . 0 22 . 7 C TR 0 . 37 0 . 474 16. 0 0 . 950 900 0 . 11 0 . 3 0 . 0 15. 4 B 17 . 4 B Intersection Delay = 28 . 4 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET for exclusive lefts APPROACH EB WB NB SB Cycle Length, C 95. 0 sec Actual Green Time for Lane Group, G Effective Green Time for Lane Group, g Opposing Effective Green Time, go Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N Number of Opposing Lanes, No Adjusted Left-Turn Flow Rate, Vlt Proportion of Left Turns in Opposing Flow, Plto Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo Lost Time for Lane Group, tl Left Turns per Cycle : LTC=V1tC/3600 Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle : Volc=VoC/3600f1uo Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo (Table 9-2 or Eqn 9-7) gf= [Gexp (- a * (LTC ** b) ) ] -tl, gf<=g Opposing Queue Ratio : qro=1-Rpo (go/C) gq= (4 . 943Volc**0 . 762) [ (gro**1 . 061) -t1] , gq<=g gu =g-gq if gq>=gf, =g-gf if gq<gf n= (gq-gf) /2, n>=0 Ptho=1-Plto P1*=Plt [1+ { (N-1) g/ (gf+gu/E11+4 .24) ) ) l E12= ('1-Ptho**n) /Plto, E12- 1 . 0 fmin=2 (1+Plt) /g or fmin- _ (1+P1) /g ' gdiff=max (gq-gf, 0) fm= [gf/g] + [gu/g] [1/ { 1+Pl (E11-1) } ] , (min=fmin;max=1 . 00) flt=fm= [gf/g] +gdiff [1/ { 1+Plt (E12-1) } ] + [gu/g] [1/ (1+Plt (E11-1) ] , (min=fmin;max=1 . 0) or flt= [fm+0 . 91 (N-1) ] /N** flt For special case of single-lane approach opposed by multilane approach, see text . * If Pl>=1 for shared left-turn lanes with N>l, then assume de-facto left-turn lane and redo calculations . ** For permitted left-turns with multiple exclusive left-turn lanes, flt=fm. For special case of multilane approach opposed by single-lane approach or when gf>gq, see text. SUPPLEMENTAL PERMITTED LT WORKSHEET for shared lefts APPROACH EB WB NB SB Cycle Length, C 95. 0 sec Actual Green Time for Lane Group, G 20 . 0 20 . 0 Effective Green Time for Lane Group, g 20 . 00 20 . 00 Opposing Effective Green Time, go 20 . 0 20 . 0 Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N 1 1 Number of Opposing Lanes, No 1 1 Adjusted Left-Turn Flow Rate, Vlt 6 111 Proportion of Left Turns in Lane Group, Plt 0 . 14 0 . 59 Proportion of Left Turns in Opposing Flow, Plto 0 . 59 0 . 14 Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo 189 43 Lost Time for Lane Group, tl 4 . 00 4 . 00 Left Turns per Cycle: LTC=V1tC/3600 0 . 16 2 . 93 Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: Volc=VoC/3600f1uo 4 . 99 1 . 13 Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo (Table 9-2 or Eqn 9-7) 2 . 38 2 . 38 gf= [Gexp (- a * (LTC ** b) ) ] -tl, gf<=g 11 . 3 0 . 0 Opposing Queue Ratio: qro=1-Rpo (go/C) 0 . 50 0 . 50 gq= (4 . 943Volc**0 . 762) [ (gro**1 . 061) -t1] , gq<=g 4 . 06 2 . 61 gu =g-gq if gq>=gf, =g-gf if gq<gf 8 . 73 17 . 39 n= (gq-gf) /2, n>=0 0 . 00 1 . 30 Ptho=1-Plto 0 . 41 0 . 86 Pl*=Plt [1+ { (N-1) g/ (gf+gu/E11+4 . 24) ) ) 0 . 14 0 . 59 Ell (Figure 9-7) 1 . 68 1 . 44 E12= (1-Ptho**n) /Plto, E12>=1 . 0 1 . 00 1 .28 fmin=2 (1+Plt) /g or fmin=2 (1+P1) /g 0 . 11 0 . 16 gdiff=max (gq-gf, 0) 0 . 00 2 . 61 fm= [gf/g] + [gu/g] [1/ { 1+Pl (E11-1) } ] , (min=fmin;max=1 . 00) 0 . 96 0 . 80 flt=fm= [gf/g] +gdiff [1/ { 1+Plt (E12-1) } ] + [gu/g] [1/ (1+Plt (E11-1) ] , (min=fmin;max=1 . 0) or flt= [fm+0 . 91 (N-1) ] /N** flt Primary 0 . 962 0 . 803 For special case of single-lane approach opposed by multilane approach, see text . * If P1>=1 for shared left-turn lanes with N>l, then assume de-facto left-turn lane and redo calculations . ** For permitted left-turns with multiple exclusive left-turn lanes, flt=fm. or when gf>gq, see text . SUPPLEMENTAL UNIFORM DELAY WORKSHEET EBLT WBLT NBLT SBLT Adj . LT Vol from Vol Adjustment Worksheet, v v/c ratio from Capacity Worksheet, X Primary phase effective green, g Secondary phase effective green, gq (From Supplemental Permitted LT Worksheet) , gu Cycle length, C 95. 0 Red = (C-g-gq-gu) , r Arrivals : v/ (3600 (max (X, 1 . 0) ) ) , qa Primary ph. departures: s/3600, sp Secondary ph. departures : s (gq+gu) / (gu*3600) , ss XPerm XProt XCase Queue at begining of green arrow, Qa Queue at beginning of unsaturated green, Qu Residual queue, Qr Uniform Delay, dl DELAY/LOS WORKSHEET WITH INITIAL QUEUE Initial Dur. Uniform Delay Initial Final Initial Lane Appr/ Unmet Unmet Queue Unmet Queue Group Lane Demand Demand Unadj . Adj . Param. Demand Delay Delay Group Q veh t hrs . ds dl sec u Q veh d3 sec d sec Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound t bound Intersection Delay 28 . 4 sec/veh Intersection LOS C