Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-01-09 - AGENDA REPORTS - WHITES CYN TRAFFIC CONTROL (2)NEW BUSINESS DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: BACKGROUND E AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval Item to be presented by: Ed Cline January 9, 1990 WHITES CANYON ROAD AND DELIGHT STREET ADDITIONAL TRAFkIC CONTROL Public Works The traffic engineering staff has completed' a thorough study of traffic conditions at Whites Canyon Road and Delight Street to determine the appropriateness of a traffic signal. The study included 12 -hour manual pedestrian and traffic counts, a survey of vehicle speeds on Whites Canyon Road, observation of roadway conditions, and research of traffic accident records. The study showed that the intersection does not meet the minimum criteria for installation of traffic signals. Careful consideration of. pedestrian traffic and safety was given to this study. The study revealed a fairly light volume of pedestrian traffic crossing Whites Canyon Road at Delight Street. On November 15, 1989, the date of the counts, 26 pedestrians crossed Whites Canyon Road in the marked crosswalks at the north side of the intersection during the 12 hour count period (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.). There were 12 pedestrians recorded crossing the south leg of the intersection where the crosswalk is unmarked. Based on the fact that the traffic signals are not recommended at this intersection, and signalized intersections with marked crosswalks are available both north and south of Delight Street, removal of the incentive to cross Whites Canyon Road at Delight Street would appear appropriate. Visibility -for traffic exiting the church driveway on the east- side of the intersection could be enhanced by prohibiting parking at.the east curbs of Whites Canyon Road within 250 feet of Delight Street. The traffic engineer's detailed report on the matter is attached for your review. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita adopt the following recommendations relative to traffic safety at Whites Canyon Road and Delight Street: 1. Retain the existing level of control (A signal is not recommended); 2. Remove the crosswalk markings across Whites Canyon Road at the north side of Delight Street; and 3. Prohibit parking at the east curb of Whites Canyon Road from 250 feet south of Delight Street to 250 feet north of the intersection. ��rflUU� Agenda Item: l Whites Canyon Road and Delight Street January 9, 1990 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS Memorandum Exhibit A i MEMORANDUM TO: JOHN MEDINA DIRECTOR ORINEER BLIC WORKS FROM: ED CLINE TRAFFIC EN SUBJECT: WHITES CANYON ROAD AND DELIGHT STREET - ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL ' DATE: DECEMBER 4, 1989 Request The City has received a number of expressions of concern for traffic safety at Whites Canyon Road and Delight Street. These expressions came as a result of a pedestrian accident which occurred last month at the intersection. This accident resulted in fatal injuries to the teenage pedestrian. A traffic signal was suggested. We also received a letter from Mr. Russ Lowe, Treasurer of the North Oaks Church of Christ, requesting parking prohibitions on the east side of Whites Canyon Road near the church driveway located opposite Delight Street. Recommendation A thorough evaluation of these requests has been conducted. This evaluation included complete traffic counts, including pedestrians, over a twelve (12) hour period on a normal school day, radar speed measurements of traffic on Whites Canyon Road, a review of the available accident history and field observations during peak traffic and school periods. Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations are made: Retain the current level of traffic control. A signal is not recommended. - Remove the existing white pedestrian crosswalk markings and attendant advance warning. Establish "No Parking Anytime" regulations on the east side of Whites Canyon Road for 250 feet either side of Delight Street. December 4, 1989 Page 2 Conditions Whites Canyon Road is an 80 ft. wide major arterial highway running in a north/south direction. The roadway is marked for two lanes in each direction with a striped median. A left turn lane is marked for northbound traffic. The speed limit on Whites Canyon Road is posted at 35 mph. There are street lights on both sides of the road, with lights positioned at and near the intersection of Delight Street. Delight Street is a 36 ft. wide residential street which intersects Whites Canyon Road from the west, forming a "T" intersection. Traffic on Delight Street is required to stop before entering Whites Canyon Road. There is a driveway serving the parking lot to North Oaks Church of Christ on the east side of the intersection directly opposite Delight Street. The speed limit on Delight Street is 25 mph. There are white painted crosswalks across the north and west approaches to the intersection. There are "Pedestrian Crossing" signs and advance pavement markings for both directions of traffic on Whites Canyon Road. Parking is prohibited on the west side of Whites Canyon Road for approximately 250 feet north of Delight. Parking is otherwise permitted on the highway. Abutting property along Whites Canyon Road is primarily back-up or side -on residential development. The North Oaks Church of Christ is located on the east side of the street in the vicinity of Delight Street. Pedestrian access to residential property east of Whites Canyon Road is gained by walking through the church parking lot. Informal pedestrian access is also taken over two six foot wide sewer easements running east from Whites Canyon Road. These easements are found approximately 150 feet north of Delight Street and 220 feet south of the intersection. There are traffic signals located on Whites Canyon Road at Ranier Street, about 1000 feet north of Delight Street at Nadal Street, about 900 feet north of Ranier Street, at Pleasantdale Street, about 1500 feet south of Delight Street, and at Stillmore Street about 900 feet south of Pleasantdale Street. All of these signalized intersections have yellow marked school crosswalks, as well as pedestrian signal equipment. These signals serve to accommodate school age pedestrians from four (4) schools in the area; Canyon High School located at Whites Canyon Road and Nadal Street, Bowman High School located just south of Canyon High, Sierra Vista Junior High at Whites Canyon between Stillmore Street and Pleasantdale Street, and Cedarcreek Elementary School located on Camp Plenty Road north of Delight Street. December 4, 1989 Page 3 Data A 12 -hour traffic count was taken from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. at the intersection on November 15, 1989, a normal school day. This count revealed the following data: AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR PEDS ACROSS DIRECTION ( 7a18a) (6p/7p) (12 hrs.) Northbound (South line) 876 Southbound (North line) 1106 Total (NB & SB) Eastbound (West line) Westbound (Church) Total (EB & WB) 1982 1191 12 536 26 1727 38 209 (204 Rts) 133 (129 Rts) 140 0 0 N/A 209 133 140 Intersection Total 2191 1860 This information is summarized on Exhibit "A". Radar speed measurements conducted on Whites Canyon Road near Delight Street on November 15, 1989, revealed the following data: Average Speed - 42.6 mph 85th Percentile - 47.5 mph 10 Mile Pace - 37 to 46 mph (% in Pace) - 77% There have been three traffic collisions reported at the intersection during the three-year period ending November 1, 1989. They are summarized below. August 4, 1988 (Thur.) 7:05 p.m. July 21, 1989 (Fri.) 12:15 p.m. Oct. 26, 1989 (Thur.) 3:00 p.m. An eastbound vehicle and a southbound vehicle were involved in a right-angle type collision. An eastbound vehicle and a through vehicle on Whites Canyon Road were involved in a right-angle type collision. An eastbound pedestrian was struck by a southbound vehicle while crossing Whites Canyon Road in the crosswalk. 9 • December 4, 1989 Page 4 Signal Warrants The attached traffic signal warrant sheets would generally indicate that the total vehicular volume entering the intersection would satisfy both the minimum volume warrant and the interruption of continuous traffic warrant. However, over 95 percent of the minor street traffic turns right. This traffic is usually discounted in figuring traffic signal warrants. This is due to the lack of delay caused by right -turning traffic. Consequently, none of the vehicular volume warrants are met. Pedestrian volume was also observed for school crossing protection controls. The minimum number of pedestrians required for consideration of traffic signal controls is 70 pedestrians per hour for each of two hours crossing the major street. During the heaviest hour for pedestrian traffic, only 12 pedestrians were observed crossing Whites Canyon Road. There were only 38 pedestrians recorded during the 12 hour count period. The accident experience warrant also failed to be satisfied with only two reported traffic collisions that would be expected to be prevented with signals reported during the latest 12 -month period. It is the opinion of the Traffic Engineering staff that installation of traffic signal controls at this intersection could actually increase the number of traffic accidents reported. Discussion As previously indicated, none of the nationally recognized criteria used to determine appropriate traffic signal locations are satisfied at Whites Canyon Road and Delight Street. The vast majority (96%) of all vehicular traffic entering Whites Canyon Road from Delight Street during the day make right turns. Observations indicate that these turns are made with relative ease. A signal would not be expected to improve this situation. The other potentially conflicting turn at the intersection is the northbound left turn from Whites Canyon Road onto Delight Street. This volume is fairly heavy, but experiences little or no delay due to acceptable gaps in southbound traffic created by signals at Ranier Street and at Nadal Street. Pedestrian traffic crossing Whites Canyon Road at Delight was found to be light. Only 38 pedestrians were observed during the 12 hour count (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.). The majority of the pedestrians observed were either Junior or Senior High School pupils. In all cases, these pedestrians passed up opportunities to cross Whites Canyon Road at a traffic signal. December 4, 1989 Page 5 The presence of the pedestrian crosswalk markings seems to offer an encouragement to cross at Delight Street rather than those school crossings established at nearby signals. The crosswalk markings may also offer a false sense of security for pedestrians. Several studies conducted in southern California over the past 17 years have shown the accident rate involving pedestrians to be significantly higher (2 to 3 times) at unprotected crosswalks than at similar locations where the crosswalks have been left unmarked. This situation seems to be aggravated at mid -block locations and at "T" intersections. Recommendation The Traffic Engineering staff recommends against the installation of traffic signal controls at Whites Canyon Road/Delight Street. None of the acceptable engineering standards for considering traffic signal controls are satisfied. Removal of the marked crosswalk across Whites Canyon Road at Delight Street would remove the incentive to cross Whites Canyon Road at this intersection. The opportunity to cross lawfully would still exist without the markings. This action may serve to encourage the use of nearby signals for crossings of Whites Canyon Road. Visibility for traffic exiting the church driveway could be improved by establishing a "No Parking Anytime" zone on the east side of the street. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-5 12-1986 Figure 9-1 A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC, DATE CHK DATE DIST CO RTE PM Major St: Wl>N rES C4/IYz)A) Critical Approach Speed Vb mph Minor St: .ea,�� �` .Sf Critical Approach Speed ZS mph Critical speed of major street traffic i 40 mph ----- .9 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 C9 150 Feet (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) 800/b SATISFIED YES ❑ NO �I MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS APLANESH 1 I 2ormore p1�D p?So0 (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) Both Sr No Median (4600 80) (336 Major ets Volume4' U R U I R 750 525 900 630 APPROACH 1 2 or mored' 0 60 0 0 0 EJ �p v I� I� 1 69 I� Hour LANES Med an p� II )� (420) (720) Both Apprchs. 500 350 600 420 170Z ( 5S7 7S` 113C 4// /q5-7 1� /727 Major Street (400) (280 (480) (336 103 (84) Highest Apprch Minor Street* 75 (60) 53 (42) Highest Apprchj Minor Street* 150 105) 1200 140 (120) (84) (160) (112) I Zo j /7 / /7 //y / r 2 / z. z /6 /OS /SGS /Z4) (/sio 33 /Zq) 0?7") * NOTE. Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT -phasing is proposed ❑ WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO MIN. REQUIREMENT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FULFILLED 150 Feet (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R APLANESH 1 I 2ormore p1�D p?So0 0 --IIDD o IOD I��D 1�8 1$ Hour Both Sr No Median (4600 80) (336 Major ets Volume4' Both Apprchs 750 525 900 630 1%7- Ifs? %S` I113� I ���� I /0-? 1.1-16 -7 Med an Major Street (600) (420) (720) 504 I Ped's On Highest Volume X -Walk Xing Major Street 150 (120) 103 (84) Highest Apprch Minor Street* 75 (60) 53 (42) 100 (80) 70 (56) Zoq 117 Zoe 17j //G //Z) I / Z /es a 2 I /z,/ /S[ t!1Zo / /55 /33 /2q 6e 7--) *NOTE. Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT -phasing is proposed ❑ WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 19 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO K MIN. REQUIREMENT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FULFILLED 150 Feet (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) Yes 11 No ❑ ��0 400 to'1 IIDoo 1 00 (,17v" Hour wOi7 OQAZI Both Sr No Median (4600 80) (336 Major ets Volume4' Raised 1000 700 tQ$Z I �5� �y b I lab Il I�f llol� I?�1 Med an (800) (560) Ped's On Highest Volume X -Walk Xing Major Street 150 (120) 103 (84) 2 f Z 3 S IF MIDBLOCK SIGNAL PROPOSED ❑ MIN. REQUIREMENT DISTANCE TO NEAREST ESTABLISHED CRWLK FULFILLED 150 Feet N/E ft S/W ft Yes 11 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. TS -10A • Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 12.1979 Figure 9:16 A)64-5 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 5 — Progressive Movement / Satisfied Yes ❑ No LK MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 1000 ftN /boo _ Ste_ ft, E ft, W ft YES❑ No ON ISOLATED ONE WAY ST. OR ST. WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE ADJACENT SIGNALS WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOOMING 4 SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST 3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME ON 2 -WAY ST. WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING 6 ❑ y 0 SPEED CONTROL. PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM WARRANT 6 — Accident Experience Sat i sf ied Yes ❑ No [✓r REQUIREMENT WARRANT FULFILLED FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC 3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME SATISFIEDWARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TFC e0: --pp-----------------------,-- -YES❑ NO©' WARRANT 3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ❑ lrJ ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACC. FRED. ❑ Er U ACC WITHIN A 12 MON. PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. 0 INVOLVING INJURY OR>S200DAMAGE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS ❑ S OR MORE • 7ADO • NOTE: Lett tum accidents can be included when LT -phasing is proposed WARRANT 7 — Systems Warrant Satisfied Yes ❑ No 13/ MINIMUM VOLUME REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES V DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR 600 VEM/MR — — YEN/NR — — — OURNG EACH OF ANY S MRS OF A SATURDAY AND/OR SUNDAY VEX/MR CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST MINOR ST PART OF MWYSYSTEM SERVINGAS PRINCIPLE NETWORKFOR THROUGH TFC CONNECTS AREAS OF PRINCIPLE TRAFFIC GENERATION RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY HAS SURFACE STREET FWY OR EXPWAY RAMP TERMINALS APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STS_ WARRANT 8 — Combination of Warrants (used if no one warrant satisfied 100%) Sat isf ied Yes ❑ NO FULFILLED ar No ❑ 1 I REQUIREMENT WARRANT FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS SATISFIED 60; I - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME YES❑ NO 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC 3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME Ts -10B The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for signals. 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 12-1986 Wh� Cs vr- 0 Figure 9-1 C TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS �ell9hf -� WARRANT 8 -Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ NO REQUIREMENT WARRANT v FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS 1 -MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 2 INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES 1:1 NO ❑ 80% 3 MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume Approach Lanes Both Approaches , Major Street Highest Approaches , Minor Street SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO Ef 2 or One more Hour *Refer to Fig. 9-2A (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-2B (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10- Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ 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 6 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 Approach Lanes Both Approaches , Major Street Highest Approaches , Minor Street SATISFIED* YES ❑ NO 9 2 or One more Hour *Refer to Fig. 9-2C (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-2D (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. Ts -10C 3 Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-9, 12-1986 Figure 9-1 E SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS CALC DATE CHK DATE DIST CO RTESP.M. Major St: /T 1 e Critical Approach Speed �� mph Minor St: Critical Approach Speed 25-- mph Critical speed of approach traffic—>40 mph --------- -- oa RURAL (R) In built up area of isolated community of<10,000 pop. --'---"-"" ❑ ❑ URBAN (U) FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS SATISFIED YES ❑ NO (All parts must be satisfied) Minimum Requirementselo/I og PART A U R y Vehicle Volume Each of 200 140 i/qtt /c/// 2 hours School Age Pedestrian Each of 40 40 /2 S Crossing Street 2 hours AND PART B Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 35 mph AND PART C Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 0 SATISFIED YES 0 NO ❑ SATISFIED YES 'I NO ❑ SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS SATISFIED YES ❑ NO (Ali parts must be satisfied) . AND PART B Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SATISFIED YES ❑ NO SATISFIED YES $f NO ❑. Minimum Requirements p0 PART A U R 0� 1 Each of 500 350 my /S-// Vehicle Volume 2 hours Each of 100 70 /Z S School Age Pedestrians 2 hours --------- _____Crossing Crossing Street or er da 500 350 AND PART B Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SATISFIED YES ❑ NO SATISFIED YES $f NO ❑.