Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 3, 1985 (76)CITY OFIODI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: City Council COUNCIL COMMUNICATION FROM: City Manager DATE: March 27, 1985 SUBJECT: Turner Road & California Street Traffic Study RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Council review the attached traffic information and based on information therein, take no action at this time to install traffic signals or a 4 -way stop at Turner & California. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the request of the City Council, the Public Works Department initiated a traffic study.'at the intersection of Turner and California and the information from that study is included on the attached exhibits. Exhibit A is an accident diagram which indicates that there were 11 accidents at the intersection during the'last 27 months of which 7 were susceptible to cor- rection by installation of traffic signals or a 4 -way stop. During -the last 12 months there were 7 accidents of which 6 were susceptible to correction. Exhibit B is the Minimum Traffic Signal Warrant from State Standards which in- dicates that the intersection does meet the minimum vehicular volumes for . Warrant 2, Interruption of Continuous Traffic. It also meets the warrant for correctible number of accidents during a 12 -month period. Exhibit C is the signalization priority worksheet used by the City of Lodi which indicates Turner Road and California Street have a total point score of 193. To place this in context, three other intersections, Ham and Lockeford, Lodi and Mills, and Lower Sacramento and Lodi have 398 points, 297 points, and 229 points respectively indicating that this intersection would be fourth or lower on the priority list for installation of signals. Exhibit D shows that the Turner -California intersection has an accident rate for 1983-84 of 1.13 accidents per million vehicles. Of the 13 intersections with.higher or equal accident rates, 10 are signalized, and the three inter- sections - Sacramento and Elm Stockton and Elm, Stockton and Lockeford - all have higher accident rates and are also 2 -way stops. It is highly likely that these three intersections would also meet the minimum requirements for 4 -way stops or traffic signals. If one considers the six signalized intersections on Lodi Avenue that do not have a left turn phase, Sacramento, Stockton, School, Cherokee, Church, and Central, there is an average accident rate of 2.15. By comparison, the two intersections on Lodi Avenue that do have left turn phases, Ham and Hutchins, FILE NO.� i City Council March 27, 1985 Page 2 have an accident rate of 0.85. if the installation of left turn phases at the six intersections were to have the equivalenteffect on the reduction of acci- dents, the number of accidents would decrease by S5 per year, considerably more than the number of accidents that might,be.eliminated by installation of signals at two or three other locations that are not now signalized. While a 4 -way stop is sometimes considered to be a reasonable -alternative to installation of traffic signals, three specific things should be considered at this 'particular 'intersection: First, ,the number of vehicles on Turner Road (10,609 ADT) that aregoing to have to be':stopped in order to allow California Street, (1,634 ADT) easy access to or across Turner Road, second, installation of a 4 -way stop would be detrimental from'`a noise standpoint because of the number of trucks that are going to have to stop and go through the full range of gear. shifting 24 hours per clay, and third, the interruption of through traf- fic and the costs therein to the traveling public. This summer we will be studying all of the high rate intersections throughout the City to determine the.best way to use the available funds. s%cf�cn.�t. P�iG Jack -L. Ronsko Pubic Works Director Attachments JLR/GER/eeh cc: Ponce Chief CITY OF si 4 ... PUBLIC •• DEPARTMENT ? JT I 5 .dor i 0. a b t1� a. s G wLO a u Of i■t 0. i m� N0. DAT1✓ `CINI 6.MbGS U1. A,PP4Q1E:NT CAUSE 0'74-5 Maj.Mcc - p w Volk �o ``i�eid i� Atex op 2 Z•14.84 114`1 Mal -Mn,,. p c, •• ,. �� 3 "2- 31-84 tC�OC tl�locl-Ma:�. o a ►, .- •� ,� 4 9-1-84 1812 ?�4a•Mag: Q a sperm 9 24 -a4 1900 N1tin- N1oc1. O a V OLO A -o yield (v 9-28-b4 1545 Min-M;r, O Q, Onyyy OWv, Vk*Z '7 10-115- E4 0730 Min .1Mi , O a Fail to 8 11-4.84 1239 Tot..To� 2 a �� '� •� �, 9 2-15-85 113D2 Mag -Md; . 2 a Unsafe Speed, �A p- \0 2-21-85 1713 MOA-MO8. 1 a rat4oY\e14 ,b Spe� � 3-1-85 ►"tl? Min-Uba-t�;o� 2 Gt, Sperm ,. 9-4 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRAM a: CALL DATE GIST CO NTE ►M CHK DATES Major St: r2 - r7— Critical Approach Spoed-s'— mph A.. t Mirror St: _.� is.it✓ Qr- V I _._ Critical Approach Speed mph S -MIP SYZA) Y Critical speed of major street traffic> 40 mph ------------- ❑ RURAL (R) In built up araa of isolated community of < 10,000 pop. -------- (� © URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 10096 SATISFIED Yes D No lt+os SHOWN IN BRACKETS) Q� 809L SATISFIED Yes ❑ Now Q U R U R �Q IV � J� ( 1 APPROACH ANEt 2 a more n� `�� qr �� �► CJI Hour \ t -:: 420 Both >s. leoo) (2550) (,� ( "792 fad$ �S y 0 Q Z Hippest Apprcq 150 toy 200 1401-11 �D ( 4�3 t4 . t7 , t �x Mina Street• oto) (w neo) (112; + NOTE: Heavier of left can movement from Major Street included when LT -Phasing is pfCVOsW ❑ WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 100% SATISFIED Yes No Q l9OS SHOWN IN BRACKETS) - U R. U R 809E SATISFIED Yes Q No ❑ a c Q (.Q APPROACH � U \ -1 � `�. � ( LANES 1 2 a mcxe �� C(} \ �� _ Har Both P4)Prchs. 750 525 900 83ii Major Street (600) (no) r7wz 19-N �S ('s" 'f `' t„v J i2` `'7• ��Z Hippest Appr 75 S3 100 TO Y JL.; 1 'r Dina straet • (60) ,.z) toot (s6) 17 Gr D G t �' Y� -1 y *NOTE., hwvier of left turn movement from Major Strcet included %1vn LT-Pf+esinp is prtposad Q `. WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 1009E SATISFIED Yes (] No MINIMUM REQUIREMENTSr 809E SATISFIED Yes (] No � 1. (90% S"OW-A IN 9RACC.ETS) k r U I R .� Hour t: Both Apprchs. Street No Median 600 420 "tj • P`' Major 1490) (336) Raitsdd 1000 700 Volume Ian 900 ) N Pod's On Highest Volun a 150 105 X -Walk Xing Ma•a Street (120 l94) r IF MIDSLOCK SIGNAL PROPOSED ❑ l= MIN. NE IREMENTDISTANCE TO NEAREST E51'ABLiSIKp CRMLK. FULFILLED 150 Fest N/E - ft S/W ft Yes ❑ No Q WARRAN'r 4 - School Crossings Not Applicable [� See School Crossirrjs Warrant Sheet [j TS-IOA [Exhibit B t -Traffic !Manua! TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 12-"79 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 5 — Progressive movement Satisfied Yes ❑ No ❑ >L-INIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > low ft N , S ft, E ft. W t YES❑ NO ON ISOLATED ONE WAY ST. OR ST. WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE ADAACENT SIGNALS ARE SO fAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLT OONING A SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST -ISR WARRANT 2_-_INTE_RR_UP_TI_ON_O_r CO_NTIN_UOUS_TFC ON 2 -WAY ST. WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING & 60% SPIED CONTROL. PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PP4GRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM YES NO ❑ WARRANT 6 — Accideat Experience Satisfied Yes No ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED' -ISR WARRANT 2_-_INTE_RR_UP_TI_ON_O_r CO_NTIN_UOUS_TFC YES❑ NO 0 60% _ _ _ _ _ _ _ YES NO ❑ WARRANT 3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ❑. ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACC. FRED. ACC W11HIH A 12 MON. PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. 6 INVOLVING INJURY UR>S200 DAMAGE - MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS ❑ S OR MORE NOTE' Lett tum accidents can be included when LT-p;iasing Is proposed WARRANT 7 — Systems Warrant _ MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES REQUIREMENT V DURING TYPICAL WE DAY PEAK HOUR W..,VEH/;R--._�_- DURING EAC; OF v F A SATURDAY ANI? DR SUNDAY - VEH/HR CHARACTERiq-pCf AJOR ROUTES 64AJOR ST MINOR ST F CTT OF HWY SYSTEM SERVING A JR NCI►LE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TFC CONNECTS AREAS OF P IZ P-' RAFFIC GENERATION RURAL OR SUBURBAN H E OF, ENTCRIN6. OR TRAVERSMG A CITY HAS SURFACE NEfET FWY OP E%PWAY RAMP TERMINALS- ArPEARS AS ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STS. FULFILLED I WARRANT 8 — Combination of Warrants JUsed it no one warrant satisfied 100%) 1 _ Satisfied Yes 0 No ❑ 181ME11 s REQUIREMENT R R A N VFULFILLED TWO WAF.RANTS 1- M NIMUM AR VOLUME SATISFIED ®Oi 2 - t 1 N OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES❑ NO 0 9 Illi P DESTRIAN VOLUME - VpN The satisfacticn 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. CITY OF LODI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SIGNALIZATION PRIORITY WORK SHEET For the intersection of -T U W EZ QD and UUV- 0Z'\) N ST Umajor street)— minor street ADT in 1000's = V $7t ADT in 1000's , (D = S 1-- , 1 FACTOR Volume Accidents Pedestrians l Through Street i ADT entering intersection in 1000's NZ,.Z, = T COMPUTATIONS From Volume Table 10 x average annual number of accidents correctible by signo liza tion (Cl Points O to 100 estimated Main street distance (in 1000 ft.) to nearest signal xV2= distance factor Z. Z x Factor= 100 150 200 20 300 350 400 500 600 700' 800 Points = 7 15 22 8 32 35 38 -43 47 51 54 43 >d Approach Speed Speed (estimated in MPH) = 25 30 ' 35 40 45 50 points = 0 10 20 35 50 75 pis Coordination Now signal between 2 exist, s' 2 cyc s apart 50 of " " ycle apart 20 " 1/2 cyclor 1/3 2 off fro 1 ycl am l exist_ segnal 20 t frog cycle distance - 20 /2 cycle distance - 50 4-woy StopIf now 4 -way, compute T( V + 1 S } Select System 5 x each approach of intersection on Select Street System 1983-84 INTERSECTION ACCIDENT RATES 1983-84 * 1974-76 *� *Accident Rate: Number of Annual Accidents Million Vehicles Annually entering intersection Lodi C Sacramento = 14 + 20 = 2.66 (1983-84) 2 •39M ** From 1977 Accident Identification Study prepared by George Nolte 6 Associates Legend: (S) - Signal (4WS) - 4way Stop (2WS) - 2way Stop (Y) - Yield Existing 1983 1984 Accidents per Accidents per Location Control Accidents Accidents Million Vehicles Million Vehicles Lodi & Sacramento S 14 20 2.66 1.38 Lodi S Stockton S 16 15 2.53 1.99 Sacramento & Elm 2WS 2 7 2.46 7.51 Lodi E School S 11 21 2.25 2.43 Lodi s Cherokee S 18 14 ).99 1.74 Stockton S Elm 2WS 1 6 1.91 2.83 Lodi & Church S 12 18 1.86 2.49 Lodi & Central S 8 9 1.63 2.58 Hutchins & Kettleman S 14 16 1.47 2.10 Nam b Kettleman S 9 12 1.42 0.68 Stockton E Lockeford 2WS 3 7 1.40 2.43 Stockton & Kettleman S 6 14 1.34 1.11 Cherokee & Kettleman S 6 15 1.13 2.61 Turner & California 2WS 1 7 1.13 0.87 Lodi & Ham S 5 11 0.93 1.05 Church & Lockeford S 2 7 0.88 0.92 Lodi S Crescent S 4 6 0.83 1.30 Ham b Lockeford 4WS 1 8 0.78 0.92 Lodi S Hutchins S 4 10 0.77 1.58 Lodi S Fairmont S 1 4 0.41 0.67 *Accident Rate: Number of Annual Accidents Million Vehicles Annually entering intersection Lodi C Sacramento = 14 + 20 = 2.66 (1983-84) 2 •39M ** From 1977 Accident Identification Study prepared by George Nolte 6 Associates Legend: (S) - Signal (4WS) - 4way Stop (2WS) - 2way Stop (Y) - Yield I . �L ', � .L .� � \ � �\ ..4 y ;� , ♦ .�. C �o ? �� J � c'. .I 1 y1 � �'\j � li �. � 11!%LI•�Q y nJ YIj lt-jj� it :1'`4:1. sV;t b lln Z I At � b, I ', � .L .� � \ � �\ ..4 y ;� , ♦ .�. C �o ? �� J � c'. .I 1 y1 � �'\j � li �. � 11!%LI•�Q y nJ YIj lt-jj� it :1'`4:1. sV;t