HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - September 2, 1987 (83)REVIEW OF CITY'S
TRAFFIC COMPLAINT
' PROCEDURE
• CC -45(a)
CC -48(a)
Council was reminded that at the July 15 City Council
meeting, a question was raised regarding handling of
traffic complaints. Briefly, the concern was that
complaints received by the Council are sent to staff for
immediate analysis and generally result in an engineering
study and Council discussion, while similar complaints
received by staff may not receive the same attention.
Addressing this concern requires a discussion of present
staffing, procedures, and policies. The following report
provides this discussion.
Traffic Section
In July 2985, the Public Works Department Engineering
Division was reorganized to provide greater emphasis on
traffic -related engineering. The workload of this section
has been much greater than originally anticipated. Costs
of providing traffic engineering services and its share of i
the total engineering function were presented for Council's.
perusal. The Traffic Section consists of cne engineer
(Paula Fernandez) and two technicians (Mark White and Rick £:
Kiriu). They perform the various studies relating to
f
c .
22:
' Continued September 2, 1987
traffic. Occasionally, other technicians or part-time
workers perform some of the data collection work. This
section also is responsible for engineering related
record-keeping and mapping functions including addressing,
street and utility system mapping, and computer drafting
system management. The Chief Civil Engineer (Richard
Prima) is responsible for supervising and setting the
priorities of this section.
Traffic Records
The Traffic Section works with information from a number of
sources. They include:
City traffic volumes - Counts are taken at the
beginning of each month at 10 control locations and
at approximately 250 locations on a two- to
three-year interval; additional counts for special
studies are taken as needed.
- Traffic accidents - The Section receives a copy of
alT the accident reports prepared by the Police
Department. The location of the accident is plotted
on a City map for a quick visual check and the
reports are filed by location so they can be
reviewed in detail.
- Complaints/questions - These are received from
many sources inc u ing:
- The public, Dy telephone, at the front counter,
letters, letters to the editor of local
newspapers, etc.
- Police Officers
t - Public Works maintenance personnel
- Other engineers
Traffic engineering information - This includes
journals, newsletters, otheragency standards,
professional contacts, and other sources of
} professional itidgement.
-
Internally -generated documents - This includes
po ides, guidelines, and statistics developed and
+ maintained by the Traffic Section. They are
4 discussed below.
One of the major goals of the Traffic Section was to take a
"proactive" role in going after problems rather than
"reactive" where we would wait for complaints. Accident
rate statistics are now maintained on intersections and
street segments for this reason. These statistics are
a) Do nothing - This is done on requests that are illegal,
require major capital improvements, or have already
been covered by a City policy.
Continued September ?, 1987
essentially dc,ne manually. A more automatic systerr, is
being developed in conjunction with the Police Department
under an Office of Traffic Safety Grant.
The rates for street segments (# accidents per million
vehicle -miles) are used in setting speed limits. Although
not necessarily speed -related, a street with a high
accident rate is a "condition not readily apparent to the
driver" and can be a reason to reduce the speed limit from
the 85 percentile. The rates can also be compared for
informational or other screening purposes. This list is
updated as needed. A program to study street segments on a
regular basis his not been instituted due to lack of staff
time.
The list of accident rates for intersections (# accidents
per million vehicles entering) is used to help prioritize
actions on intersection complaints. This list was begun in
1987 and was started by visually inspecting the accident
location maps and placing intersections with a high number
of accidents on the list. 1t is updated frequently
(usually twice a month). Any intersection receiving a
complaint is placed on the list. More emphasis has been
placed on this list than the segments because more than 50%
of the accidents occur within or near intersections. Since
the beginning of the year, 14 intersections have been
`
=.
studied by staff based on the list priorities. An
i
additional four intersections were studied based on Council
direction through public requests. A copy of this list
showing current intersection accident rates was submitted
for Council's perusal.
_
Complaint Procedure
Traffic complaints received by the Traffic Engineering
'
Section are logged on an action form. Callers are not
fi
required to give their name, etc.
The middle part of the form is filled out by the Traffic
Section based on a field review, a check of the accident_.
map, and any other information already available. No
formal study is done at this point. A recommendation on a
=
course of action is made and the form is given to the Chief
Civil Engineer for review. Calls for maintenance (i.e.
signs down, etc.) are referred immediately to the Street
Division.
The normal courses of action are:
a) Do nothing - This is done on requests that are illegal,
require major capital improvements, or have already
been covered by a City policy.
Continued September 2, 1987
b) Do nothing, already on study list - Includes complaints
on intersections or other problems that are already in
the intersection study list or other work program.
c) Take immediate action - These are usually requests
involving enforcement. Staff contacts the Police
Department and also encourages the caller to do so.
Also included are requests that can be dealt with in a
short amount of time such as loading zones. (tinder the
new Traffic Ordinance, these can be approved by the
Public Works Director.)
d) Place on study list - A complaint about an intersection
not on the list is added to the list.
e) Continue surveillance - On complaints involving parking
or other problems staff feels may be temporary, staff
rechecks the area periodically to see if the problem
continues.
The "recall date" is assigned by the Chief Civil Engineer.
This is the estimated month staff will study or recheck the
problem. It is, in effect, an assignment of priority. The
accident rate is a major factor in this decision.
Copies of the Outstanding Traffic Complaints and the total
Traffic Complaint List were presented for Council's review.
Discussion
The above procedure is working fafrly well. Most callers
understand that there are other problems in the City that
may have higher priority than their particular problem.
They are told that if. they are dissatisfied with our
response, they have the option of going to the City
Council. The fact that we even have a system: and are
attempting improvements without waiting for complaints is
reassuring to most citizens. However, telling the bearer
of a petition with hundreds of signatures that their
problem won't be considered until sometime in 1988 is not
politically practical.
Staff understands that political considerations guide many
of our actions. But we also are reluctant to make them
ourselves, particularly when an established procedure is in
place. This could lead to liability and other problems.
Other Work
Handling traffic complaints and studying problem
intersections is only part of the Traffic Section's work.
The section provides engineering support of traffic
Continued September 2, 1987
maintenance work and reviews development plans and
Environmental Impact Reports with respect to traffic. This
work is a high priority when plans are submitted.
Suggested Procedure
a) Telephone and Counter Complaints - We suggest that
the procedure for handling telephone and counter
complaints remain as is.
b) City Council Meeting Item - For requests made
directly to Council or a staff decision that is
appealed to the Council, staff could indicate the
priority we would give to it (high, medium, or low) and
make a short comment on the information we have on
file. In most cases, we would be able to show the
Council where this request fits in the present
Intersection Accident Rate list. The Council could
then make a more informed decision as to when the
matter should be studied and brought back to a regular
meeting.
Staff needs, at the very minimum, four weeks to perform a
normal traffic study. The Public Works Department would
like to see the Council adopt a guideline of allowing six
weeks for a traffic study. This would allow Public Works
to work it in with their ongoing and day-to-day work and -
they would not have to drop everything in the Traffic
Section in order to meet the current four week deadline.
For studies Council feels are a lower priority, a date
months away could be set.
No formal action was taken by Council on the matter.
CITY OF LODI
COUI CIt, COMMUNICATION
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
MEETING DATE: September 2, 1987
AGENDA TITLE: Review City's Traffic Complaint Procedure and Take Appropriate
Action
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council review this report and consider
the establishment of a procedure for dealing with normal traffic complaints
and requests received at a Council meeting.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the July 15 City Council meeting, a question was
raised regarding haRTing of traffic complaints. Briefly, the concern was
that complaints received by the Council are sent to staff for immediate
analysis and generally result in an engineering study and Council discussion,
while similar complaints received by staff may not receive the same
attention. Addressing this concern requires a discussion of present staffing,
procedures, and policies. The following report provides this discussion.
Traffic Section
In July 1985, the Public Works Department Engineering Division was reorganized
to provide greater emphasis on traffic -related engineering. The workload of
this section has been much greater than originally anticipated. Costs of
providing traffic engineering services and its share of the total engineering
function are shown=,on Exhibit A.
The Traffic Section consists of one engineer (Paula Fernandez) and two
technicians (Mark White and Rick Kiriu). They perform the various studies
relating to traffic. Occasionally, other technicians or part-time workers
perform some of the data collection work. This section also is responsible
for engineering related recordkeeping and mapping functions including
addressing, street and utility system mapping, and computer drafting system
management. The Chief Civil Engineer (Richard Prima) is responsible for
supervising and setting the priorities of this section.
Traffic Records
The Traffic Section works with information from a number of sources. They
include:
° City traffic volumes - Counts are taken at the beginning of each
month at 10 control -locations and at approximately 250 locations on a
two- to three-year interval; additional counts for special studies are
taken as needed.
APPROVED:
n
FILE NO.
CTRAFFI4/TXTW.02M August 25, 1987
'ity Council
September 2, 1987
Page 2
Traffic accidents - The Section receives a copy of all the accident
reports prepared by the Police Department. The location of the accident
is plotted on a City map for a quick visual check and the reports are
filed by location so they can be reviewed in detail.
Com laintsJ uestions - These are received from many sources including:
- The public, by telephone, at the front counter, letters, letters to the
editor of local newspapers, etc.
- Police Officers
- Public Works maintenance personnel
- Other engineers
° Traffic engineering information - This includes journals, newsletters,
other agency standards, professional contacts, and other sources of
professional judgement.
°
Internally -generated documents - This includes policies, guidelines,
and statistics developed and maintained by the Traffic Section. They
are discussed below.
One of the major goals of the Traffic Section was to take a "proactive" role
in going after problems rather than "reactive" where we would wait for
complaints. Accident rate statistics are now maintained on intersections and
street segments for this reason. These statistics are essentially done
manually. A more autrmidtic system is being developed in conjunction with the
Police Department under an Office of Traffic Safety Grant.
The rates for street segments (# accidents per million vehicle -miles) are used
in setting speed limits. Although not necessarily speed -related, a street
with a high accident rate is a "condition not readily apparent to the driver"
and can be a reason to reduce the speed limit from the 85 percentile. The
rates can also be compared for informational or other screening purposes.
This list is updated as needed. A program to study street segments on a
regular basis has not been instituted due to lack of staff time.
The list of accident rates for intersections (# accidents per million vehicles
entering) is used to help prioritize actions on intersection complaints. This
list was begun in 1987 and was started by visually inspecting the accident
location maps and placing intersections with a high number of accidents on the
list. It is updated frequently (usually twice a month). Any intersection
receiving a complaint is placed on the list. More emphasis has been placed on
this list than the segments because more than 50% of the accidents occur
within or near intersections. Since the beginning of the year, 14
intersections have been studied by staff based on the list priorities. An
additional four intersections were studied based on Council direction through
public requests. A copy of this list showing current intersection accident
rates is attached (Exhibit 8). Intersections marked with an asterisk (*) were
placed on the list due to a citizen complaint.
CTRAFFI4/'rXTW.02M August 25, 1987
City Council
September 2, 1987
Page 3
Complaint Procedure
Traffic complaints received by the Traffic Engineering Section are logged on
an action form (Exhibit C). Callers are not required to give their name, etc.
The middle part of the form is filled out by the Traffic Section based on a
field review, a check of the accident map, and any other information already
available. No formal study is done at this point. A recommendation on a
course of action is made and the form is given to the Chief Civil Engineer for
review. Calls for maintenance (i.e. signs down, etc.) are referred
immediately to the Street Division.
The normal courses of action are:
a) Do nothing - This is done on requests that are illegal, require major
capital improvements, or have already been covered by a
City policy.
b) Do nothing, already on study list - Includes complaints on intersections
or other problems that are already in
the intersection study list or other
work program.
c) Take immediate action - These are usually requests involving enforcement.
We contact the Police Department and also
encourage the caller to do so. Also included are
requests that can be dealt with in a short amount
of time such as loading zones. (tinder the new
Traffic Ordinance; these can be approved by the
Public Works Director.)
d) Place on study list - A complaint about an intersection not on the list is
added to the list.
e) Continue surveillance - On complaints involving parking or other problems
staff feels may be temporary, we recheck the area
periodically to see if the problem continues.
The "recall date" is assigned by the Chief Civil Engineer. This is.the
estimated month we will study or recheck the problem. It is, in effect, an
assignment of priority. The accident rate is a major factor in this decision.
Copies of the Outstanding Traffic Complaints (Exhibit 0) and the total Traffic
Complaint List (Exhibit E) are attached.
Discussion
The above procedure is working fairly well. Most callers understand that
there are other problems in the City that may have higher priority than their
CTRAFFI4/TXTW.02M August 25, 1987
City Council
September 2, 1587
Page 4
particular problem. They are told that if they are dissatisfied with our
response, they have the option of going to the City Council. The fact that we
even have a system and are attempting improvements without waiting for
complaints is reassuring to most citizens. However, telling the bearer of a
petit -'un with hundreds of signatures that their problem won't be considered
until s) etime in 1988 is not politically practical.
Staff understands that political considerations guide many of our actions.
Bu,. we also are reluctant to make them ourselves, particularly when an
est0lished procedure is in place. This could lead to liability and other
problems.
Other Work
Handling traffic complaints
the Traffic Section's work.
traffic maintenance work and
Impact Reports with respect
plans are submitted. A list
shown in Exhibit F.
Suggested Procedure
and studying problem intersections is only part of
The section provides engineering support of
reviews development plans and Environmental
to traffic. This work is a high priority when
of other projects assigned to the section is
a) Tele hone and Counter Complaints - We suggest that the procedure for
handling telephone an counter complaints remain as is.
b) CCitY Council Meeting - For requests made directly to Council or a
staff that is appealed to the Council_, staff could indicate the
priority we would give to it (high, medium, or low) and make a short
comment on the information we have on file. In most cases, we would be
able to show the Council where this request fits in the present
Intersection► Accident Rate list (Exhibit B). The Council could then make
a more informed decision as to when the matter should be studied and
brought back to a regular meeting.
Staff needs, at the very minimum, four weeks to perform a
study. Our Department wouf�fiTce to see the Council adopt
allowing six weeks for a traffic study. This would allow
with our ongoing and day-to-day work and we would not have
in the Traffic Section in order to meet the current four w
studies Council feels are a lower priority, a date months
Jack L. onsko
Fc : Public Works Director
JLR/RCP/ma
Attachments
CTRAFFI4/TXTW.02M
normal traffic
a guideline of
us to work it in
to drop everything
eek deadline. For
away could be set.
August 25, 1987
City of Lodi Public Works Dept
Traffic Engineering
Exhibit
'Total Expenditures for Traffic Engineering
0 20000 10000 60000 80000 100000
1982/83 J)
Z/7ZI
Does not include traffic
11963/84 engineering on Capital
Improvement projects or
Development Review.
1985/86
1986/37 717- /77
Z.
j1967/68 (Budget)
_Z7
0 io 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of Total Budgeted Engineering Labor Expense
Exhibit B
city of Lodi Public Rxis Cxprt ent
Intersection Accident Rates
Ode Revised: July 22, 1987
Analysis
Action
Controlled
2 Accidents
Sum of appy Vol
Total
Accident Verify: Study:
Street -1
@ Street -2 19841985 1986
Total
Str-1
Str-2
Volume
Rate Ace
Vol Safe Appr
Sight D Fld Ch Date Action
«...........
H
Lake (N)
H Loma
0
1
1 2
150
810
960
1.90
Hinohester
N Himbledon
0
1
2 3
330
1310
1640
1.67
Holly
N Hestmood
0
2
0 2
800
300
1100
1.66
Rutledge
H Tejm
1
1
0 2
2000
1000
3000
0.61 -
Scarbxoegh N Bran*ne
0
0
1 1
650
980
10
0-56 -
Oak (nest)
N Haw
0
2
0 2
720
IAO
15[QO
0.12
Calaveras
N Pioneer
0
0
0 0
15T
500
2075
0.00 -
Daisy
N Sdml
0
0
0 0
100
200
300
0.00 x
Y ok
x Feb -87 None
Park Oak
H Evergreen
0
0
0 0
200
400
600
0.00 -
Calaveras
H Domer
0
0
0 0
1,575
500
2F5
0.00 -
Lakeshore
N Newport
0
0
0 0
1250
460
1710
O.OD - x
x Y
x Jul -87 Yield (SA)
Lakeshore
N Timberlake
0
0
0 0
1250
200
1450
0.00 - x
x S
- x 11-87 Stop (SA)
Park Nest
N EwTeen
0
0
0 0
1010
400
141D
0.00 -
Lakeshom
N Wills
0
0
0 0
290
1610
1900
0.00 - x
x
x 11-87 Stop (11ru St)
Fairmont
H Drardyrine
0
0
0 0
112D
980
2100
0.00 -
x
Bordeau
N Bcrgrdy
0
0
0 0
100
200
300
0.00 x
- N ok
x Feb -97 None
Fairmont
Y Hal nut
3
5
3 11
380
740
1120
8.97 x
x S
- x Feb -87 Stop (t1Acc, SA)
Rose
V Walnut
1
1
3 5
410
740
1150
3.97 x
- -
- x Mary stop (mce)
Pleasant
Y Oak
1
0
6 7
300
M
1760
3.63 x
x N alk
x Feb -87 Stop (eAm)
Lincoln
Y Daisy
0
4
0 4
410
660
1070
3.41 x
- -
x Har -87 Stop (#Acc)
Orange
Y Nalrut
2
1
1 4
341
740
1080
3.38 x
- -
- x Apr -87 Stop (Okc)
G' estnut
Y Lee
0
1
5 6
750
910
1660
3.30 x
- S
x Har -87 Stop (t61cc, SA)
Fairmont
Y Oak
1
1
2 4
510
740
1250
2.92 x
x
- x Na• -87 Stop (MM)
Walrat
Y Washington
2
3
1 6
730
14'd0
2150
2.55 -
- -
Nov -85 Y switched
Oak
Y HazNngtm
3
1
1 5
500
1350
1850
2.47 x
- -
- Nov -85 Y switched
Washington
Y Lo=t
4
3
1 8
1350
1810
3160
2.31 x
x N ok
x Apr -87 Larger Yield Sign
Lomat
Y Gross
1
1
0 2
210
610
820
2.23 x
x S
- x 3urr87 Stop (SA)
Eden
Y Hashington
2
1
0 3
410
1010
1420
1.93 x
- -
- x Apr -67 Stop (Mm)
Locust
Y Crescent
2
2
0 4
630
1350
1980
1.84 x
x S
- x Jurr87 Stop ($A)
Nilborn
Y Garfield
1
2
0 3
510
1010
W
1.80 x
- S
- x Jun -87 Stop (Ike, SA)
Garfield
Y Walnut
2
0
1 3
1010
710
1720
1.59
-
Lee
Y Oak
0
2
1 3
3.90
1460
1850
1.48 x
-
Central
Y Locust
1
2
2 5
1310
4810
3120
1.46
x
Haple
Y Garfield
1
2
0 3
810
1510
732(1
1.18 x
-
Daisy
Y Pleasant
0
1
1 2
540
1055
1595
1.15 *
x
Pleasant
Y Locust
0
0
3 3
66D
1740
2400
1.14
x
Yosemite
Y Rutledge
1
3
0 4
2100
2D10
4110
0.89
Chestnut
Y School
3
0
0 3
710
4010
4720
0.58
Edgemood mb Y Edgemood nb
0
0
0 0
570
1010
1580
0.00 -
S
.......................+......+.«...t..«.+�+...+.....
Labe
S California
1
2
1 4
710
1510
-=
1.65 x
-
Crescnt
S Pine
3
3
1 7
15G1
L%
3890
1.64 x
x
Elm
S Stockton
6
5
3 14
2610
%10
k 0
1.5.66
Apr -86 Removed Fl Beacon
Central
S Pine
6
3
3 2
1310
6210
7519
1.45
Crescent
S Vine
3
2
2 7
JFlj
2510
41.10
1.40
x
N.rirington
S Elm
5
1
i 7
n�ii'
_*'i+
4.tal
1, -�'8 x
City of Lodi
R lic Wcrks Departowt
Intersection k66- it Rates
Date Revised: Ny t_'. 1:R7
Analysis Action
Controlled
4 Accide-ts
Sus of W Uol
Total
Accident Unify: Study:
Street-! @ Street -2 1984 1985 1986
Total
Str-i
Str-2
(Muse
Rate Acc Val We PW Sight. D Fld Ch Date Action
lkple S Stockton
7
1
2 10
510
6310
6820
1.34
Garfield S Pine
1
4
5 10
1110
5810
60
1.32
Washington S Pine
3
5
3 11
1110
6510
76M
1.32
Crewent S Tokay
3
3
3 9
2U
4410
6460
1.227 x
Elm S School
4
1
4 9
3070
3620
6mi90
1.23
School S Tokay
4
3
2 9
1510
5310
6820
1.21
Beckman S Kettlewan
5
4
3 12
1670
7800
9470
1.16 +
Stockton S Lockeford
7
5
4 15
3310
9410
1273)
1.15
Sacramento S Tokay
2
0
7 9
1710
5520
7'230
1.14
Fairmont S M.ettleaan
7
8
3 18
2650
12150
14F`t10
1.11 •
Cardinal S Crescent
I
1
1 3
700
2000
27M
1.01 -
Garfield S Lodi
7
5
5 17
920
15010
15930
0.97
California S Elm
2
4
0 6
1510
4190
5500
0.94
Stk yltivok S Tuner
4
2
5 11
1500
9230
191
0.94
Central S Elm
1
2
1 4
1310
2510
3920
0.93
Loamst S (torch
3
4
3 ill
2610
7280
9891
0.92
Swasento S Lockeford
5
4
6 15
2000
MIO
15010
0.91
Garfield S Uine
1
1
0 2
1200
900
2100
0.87 +
Has S Harney
2
0
3 5
IM
3980
5310
0.86 •
Vine S School
3
9
1 4
1500
2800
4300
0.35
Vine S Hutchins
5
4
2 11
1720
10310
12030
0.84
Vine S Lr. Sac.
3
3
2 8
92.0
8370
9290
0.79
Oak S Hutchins
3
3
2 8
500
8910
9410
0.78
Scarborrough S Century
1
2
2 5
1210
4710
5920
0.77
Els S Cherokee
7
2
7 16
2340
180D0
19340
0.76
Lake S hills
0
3
1 4
150
4710
40
0.75
Orange S Lodi
6
4
1 11
400
13000
13400
0.75
Poples S Central
1
1
2 4
1620
;3410
5030
0.73
Pioneer S Owokee
2
3
2 7
780
8I10
8890
0.72
Hain S Elm
0
3
0 3
1400
2610
4010
0.68
Lee S Kettleman
6
5
5 16
300
21100
21400
0.68 +
Main S Pine
1
1
4 6
1400
6710
8110
0.68
Hilborn S Chmrakee
4
5
3 12
540
18000
18540
0.59
Pak S School
1
0
1 2
400
2800
3200
0.57 +
Tokay S Ctkerokee
6
5
1 12
1210
}8000
19210
0.57
Village S Ctxrch
2
1
1 4
110
6310
6420
0.57
Lakewood S Testw
3
3
0 6
370
9290
96611
0.57
Elm S Sacramento
2
0
2 4
M
3420
64%
0.57 x x
Chewent S Kettlewam
2
4
2 8
IOW
12150
13230
0.55 +
Vine S Church
1
2
2 5
1110
7210
8320
0.55
Vine S Cherokee
3
2
5 10
710
18100
18810
0.49
Almond S Cherokee
1
3
1 5
784
8990
9770
0.47
Al wad S Stockton
0
1
2 3
780
5120
5900
0.46
Holly S Has
2
3
1 6
1010
10810
11820
0.46
Pleasant S Kettlewan
2
6
2 10
200
21100
210
0.43
Pacific S Elm
0
2
3 5
3650
7010
10660
0.43
Main S LocReford
2
2
1 5
114131
9410
M10
0.42
Loma S T rrxr
2
0
3 5
49r,
10620
11110
1).41
INT ACCR
city of Lodi
Intersection Axident Rates
public Works Department
Oats Revised: July 22, 1987
�:\12�,RfF�,iNT_utR
Analysis
Action
Controlled
4 Accidents
Sus of appy tbi
Total
Accident Verify:
Studs:
Street-! a Street -2
1984 1985 19% Total
Str-I
Str-2
Volume
Rate Act Viol
Safe Appr Sight D Fid Ch Date Action
Hurray S Cherokee
1
2
3
6
310
14000
14310
0.35
4binut S Has
1
3
3
7
2010
15210
17'1`'0
0.37
R34nngton S Tokay
1
1
0
2
990
4120
5110
0.36 ► x x
- - x
Nalnut (N) S Htthins
0
3
0
3
500
8210
6710
0.331
School S Kettleaan
4
1
3
8
2400
21100
23500
0.31
Laurel S Turner
I
1
1
3
100
10600
10700
0.26 •
Park S Hutchins
0
2
1
3
420
10310
!0730
0.25
Hills S Kettlesan
2
0
1
3
IM
14700
11830
0,23
Vine S Hills
0
1
0
1
2760
1910
490
0.2D
Eden S Central
0
1
0
1
510
4210
4720
0.19 x
Central S Keti. nn
2
0
2
4
1610
211M
71710
0.16 •
Ca-dinal S Hutchins
0
0
1
1
200
12010
12210
0.07 •
Pashington S Kettlesan
0
1
0
1
200
21100
21300
0.04 *
Lakeshore S Kettlesan
0
0
0
0
1100
10700
11800
0.00 •
Nestsood S Lodceford
0
0
8
0
300
4000
4300
6.00
Holly S Low
0
0
0
0
900
1000
1990
O.OD v
..+...«... S4.....«........+.
Garfield S4 TdW
7
0
0
7
1510
2410
3920
1.63
Beckman S4 Lodi
7
2
3
12
3610
4360
7970
1.38
Badksn S4 Pine
5
2
3
10
3410
4010
742)
1.23
Central S4 Tam
5
1
2
8
3810
2410
Q2D
L17
Pine S4 Stockton
4
6
3
13
6520
555u
12Q70
0.96
Ler Sac/i WM Tamer
2
4
4
10
4090
5250
9340
0.98
Cixrch S4 Tokay
4
4
3
11
7210
5310
12$20
0.80
Central S4 bine
0
3
1
4
3410
1410
482D
0.76
Oak S4 Pacific
3
0
0
3
720
30
4370
0.63 „
California S4 Lockeford
2
1
4
7
2410
7830
IM
0.62
Els S4 Hutchins
1
3
1
5
4510
4500
90
0.51
Fairmont S4 TdM
2
2
0
4
2940
4810
7750
0.47
Hutchins S4 Pine
2
2
0
4
4500
3610
8110
0.45
Century S4 Hrn
1
3
0
4
a 00
5870
3370
0.39
School S4 Walnut
2
0
1
3
5411
2010
7420
0.37
Lodi S4 Hills
1
2
2
5
7240
5410
12650
0.36
Lodi S4 Lw Sac
0
1
4
5
5890
9614
ON
0.29
Hills S4 Tokay
1
!
0
2
2w
4010
6660
as
Fairmont S4 thine
1
0
1
2
2940
3924
6860
0.27
Els S4 h1ills
3
1
0
4
50
8390
13650
0.26
Lr Sac (H) S4 Turner
1
1
2
4
5280
9780
15060
0.24
Stockton S4 Tokay
1
0
2
3
6310
5620
!1830
0.23
Oak S4 School
1
0
0
1
2330
5410
7740
0.12
........�.. TS
.«..r.........
Merdcce TS Lodi
14
15
15
44
!8900
6200
26200
1.53
Lodi IS Stockton
15
8
13
36
16900
W-
21900
1.00
Lodi IS Sacramento
20
8
4
32
!6800
4400
21200
1.38
Sep -86 Inst LT lames
Lodi TS School
21
5
10
36
1M
5400
3U
1.30
Sep -86 Inst LT lames
Church IS Lodi
18
15
?
4;,
M
194`.10
',%%
1.26
Cherokee TS Kettlesan
15
3
!4
K
1-21W
11450
^W
1 4
Cherokee TS Pine
16
14
S
33
IM
twi
I -W
1.21
�:\12�,RfF�,iNT_utR
City of Lodi Rlhlic Horks Oerart9ert
Intersection Accident Rates
Date Revised: July 2v, 1987
Analysis
Action
Controlled
a Accidents
Sun of aper Val
Total
Accident Verify:
Study:
Street -1
@ Street -2
1994 1965 1986
Total
Str-1
Str-2
Volume
Rate Acc liol
Safe Appy Sight D Fid Ch Date Action
Central
TS Lodi
9 3
7
19
3800
13200
11000
1.02
Elm
TS Mas
10 5
6
21
5640
13350
19190
1.00
Uchins
TS Kettlman
16 16
8
40
14500
71500
37000
0.99
Curds
TS Kettlesan
9 9
12
29
08
21100
27730
0.96
Pine
TS Sacramento
3 6
1
10
5130
4230
9930
0.92
Utrokeer
TS Lodkeford
10 5
5
2J
100
4800
21300
0.86
Kettlesan
TS Stockton
14 1
4
19
16250
4300
20550
0.64
Mas
TS Lockeford
6 4
4
16
10640
7000
17540
0.83
IN TS installed
Mas
TS Kettlesan
12 3
12
27
14470
;5000
30470
0.81
Has
TS Vine
5 5
5
15
235Uc
3960
17460
0.78 x
Merck"
IS Victor
6 7
6
19
'6510
6200
22710
0.76
Church
TS Elm
3 2
4
9
7310
4010
11320
0.73
Pine
TS School
5 1
2
8
5730
4510
10240
0.71
Ham
TS Turner
6 3
3
12
4630
11150
15780
0.69
Chtrds
TS Halrrat
3 3
1
7
7310
2010
9320
0.69
Mchins
IS Lodi
10 3
5
18
97"70
V590
26360
0.62
Hae
TS Tokay
2 3
8
13
14400
49M
15200
0.62 x
Cmtwy
TS Hutchins
2 6
4
12
4710
13050
17766
0.62
Has
IS Lodi
11 3
8
22
14540
18200
32740
0.61
Crescat.
TS Lodi
5 5
6
16
2030
220
24430
0.60
Harney
TS Hutchins
2 4
5
11
SM
11610
16900
0.60
Church
IS Oak
4 1
1
6
7310
2330
9640
0.57
Oach
TS Lockeford
7 1
2
10
6560
10360
M
0.54
Chinch
TS Pine
1 4
2
7
7310
47%
12070
0.53
Church
TS Turner
1 3
3
7
2500
12750
WjO
0.42
1987 IS installed
Mchins
TS Tokay
1 4
1
6
9910
3990
13900
0.39
Fairmont(S) IS Lodi
3 1
1
5
2940
18400
21340
0.21
Fairmont(H) TS Lodi
0 2
0
2
190
18400
M
0.10
Total:
550 0 415
Huber of intersections:
An 97
Heigrted Averages: All
0.75
No control 16
NO
control
0.29
Yields 23
Yields
1.97
Stops 70
Stops
0.65
MBti-sal Stops 23
Mbiti-may Stops
0.57
Traffic
Signal 35
Traffic Sial
0.65
Notes:
1. LEMO: N - no at:trol, Y = Yield, S • Stop, S4 = Hjln-ma, stop. TS = traffic signal
» indicates intersection plod or. list tit to a n"iz-n :veqlaint.
city of Lodi Public Ax+4 ieprtme
Irtersection Accident Rates Date Pivised: July 22, 1567
Analysis Action
Controlled z Accidents Sem of appr Vol Total Accident Verify: Study:
Stree`vi 9 Street -2 1564 1586 1986 Total Str-i Str-2 Volume Rate Ace Vol Safe Appr Sight 4 FEd Ch Date Action
x indicates analysis action done, appropriate data revised accordingly
- indicates rat applicable or action not done
2 DFWIK This list is far preiivi=V priority raitiw only. Kay
velums are est:imted and the aaeideft Mee not been vm'mfied. Because of
On =an ambers involved, clop in these miables ray greatly affect
the accids t rate.
3. Inter-=tioma included in this list detworined by visual inspection of
accident pin sap. All intersections vith acre than tlree accidents in too
yeas we included.
4. Volumes shomn to nearest 10 vehicles are based on actual counts at or near
the location. Carts st m to the nearest MG utricles are motivates.
5. Verified accidents are those correctable by the control being analysed.
5 r:\i20,\RCPI TT_ACCR
t
CITY `/ F L®® I
TRAFFIC COMPLAINT
TMENTPUBtEC WORKS DEPAR
ACTION
TAKEN BY:
F
FILE NO.
COMPLAINT/PROBLEM
CALLER
Name Address
-ph. #—
FIELD REVIEW NOTES:
DATE
SKETCH ON
REVERSE
VOLUMES:
ACCIDENTS: Current Year 0 Months RATE:
Intersection - per
Last Year
mill. veh. entering
_
Prior Year
Segment - per mill.
veh. miles
Segment length - mi.
PRESENT CONTROLS: SPEED LIMIT
posted
- prima facie
PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None
Place on study list
None -already on study list
Continue surveillance
Immediate
Notify
"Recall date
By: Approved:
Date: Date:
Notified Caller: Completed Action:
Date:
By: _
See Study Attached
File Date
Oatstandirg Traffic *laints 22-Ju1-9
Recall Street Loatio: Complaint
Jct -&5
Hay -87
May -8l
JM -87
JM
- 7
Jun -87
Aug -87
AN -87
Sep -87
Sep -87
Sep -87
Sep- 87
Oct -87
Oct -87
Oct -87
Nov -87
Nov -87
Nov -87
Nov -87
Dec -87
Dec -87
Dec -88
Der; -88
Da -88
DK -88
Dec-%
Ler Sacramento Rd Vine to Park ;Or
van ars
vanoks
Pirie St
@ Stockton
Harney
r/ %dins
Turner
Stkn to Nry 99
Iurer Rd
@ Nam
Pine St
@ Garfield
Has Ln
@ Els, Codi
Daisy Ave
@ Pleasant.
various
23 -Sep -86
Central Ake
@ Locoist
Tokay St
@ Crescent
Ahad Dr
02 -Jan -87
Central Ave
Eden to Flora
Almond Dr
471 (sob.hose pk)
Tkrner Rd
@ Arbor shop. cen.
Lockefkrd St
1401 W.
Has Ln
@ Chablis
Pune St
@ Centsai
School St
@ Vine & Park
Lower Sacramento Rd
@ Hoodlake Cir..
Nt"tmeod Ave
@ Loccefkrd
Hutchins St
@ Vine
Pik Oak Dr
@ Evergreen
Loss Dr
@ Holly
Scarborauglk Dr
@ Bra4*ne
Exhibit L
File # Date Rec. Crate Caap
need LI lana✓
86G{1�`'
21-3an-05
signal ',;ring
87005
19 -Jan 87
parked busses blocking stop sign
86037
04 -Dec -86
remove edgeline
87027
2` -Apr -87
merge/no parking
M
M2 -Apr -87
signal tiring
86621
23 -Sep -86
rants stop sign
86038
31 -Dec -86
signal coordination, tiring
87001
02 -Jan -87
charge yield to stop; sight distance
86011
26-Jur%
handicap reqs
87Cd`b
07 -Jul -87
doge yield to stop
86008
19 -Hay -86
install stop sign
86034
06-Hov-86
trucks, speed :one
87041
21 -Hay -87
convert ding. parking to parallel
85002
*85
sight distance @ drivemays
86012
27-3n-86
sight distance @ d-ivaays
86006
14 -Apr -86
sight Cistanve
8704E
28 -Hay -87
sight distance
87446
oS-N* 87
install stop sign
8M
06-oct-86
install 4-sny stop signs
M4
01-Ju1-87
left turn lane stacking
87022
03* -87
sunt distance
86414
08 -Jul -86
stop signs
87044
27-"
WAS some type of control
87017
23-lkrV
install stop sign
86407
21 -Apr -86
install yield or stop @ T int.
SW
29 -Qct -85
Notes:
1. Recall date on traffic control complaints is estioated date t. a intersection will be studied based on
its rank in the High Accident Location Study List. Recall dates beyond Dec. 1987 are all shah as Dec. M.
2. Complaints concerning maintenance or signal timing Which may involve equipment are also sent to the Haintenance
section when received.
Exhibit E
i
Traffic ':tla nt List -M-87
File r
Date R?c.
Street-
Location
Coepl.aint
Recall
Date
8705fi
08-.kf1-87
Nae Ln
Q tlnablis
install marked parking stalls
16-.J:1-87
87(155
07 -Jul -87
various
handicap rags
Sep -87
87054
01-Ju1-87
School St
A Bine S Park
install 4 -may stop signs
pec -87
87053
29 -Jun -87
Stockton St
1521 S.
red curb 9 Fire 4 , ant
16 -Jul -87
8705.?
18-.)rr87
a -Arch St
@ Olive
install marked parking stalls
16-1-1 -8?
87D51
18-3sr87
Vine St
@ Garfield
install 4 -may stop
IWO-87
M
18-Jum87
Pine St
@ Stockton
giants No Parking removed
16 -Jul -87
81049
17 -Jun -87
Fairmont Ave
610 S
requested loading zone
16 -Jul -87
87048
16 -Jun -87
Almond Cr
452 E.
parked vehicles @ d-iuemay, sight obst.
16-M-87
87047
04-3un-87
Nam Ln
Q Pine
sight distance
21 -Jun -87
87046
29-ttay-87
Nam Ln
sight distance
Nov -87
87�0,4t5
28 -May -87
Lockefrrd St
1410 H.
sight distance
HDY-87
�
87044
27 -May -b7
Hutchins St
@ QIne
stop signs
pet -S$
87043
26 -May -87
OakSt
East Oak
parking
12-1un-87
87042
21 -May -87
Me okee Ln
Nappy pays RV
yes
truck parking
V -afro
87041
21 -May -87
Almond Dr
trucks, speed zone
Oct -87
87040
20 -May -87
Loner Sacramento Rd
@ Park Bart Or
crossuik
11-3n-87
870-
15-tiaY-87
Paliforma St
@ Hutchins
parking tunes
ll-Jumfi7
870;'8
14 -May -87
!tills Ave
1510 S. Q fire hydrant
parking
11-87
16-11-87
81037
14 -May -87
Fairmant Ave
sped sign
11-Jurr87
87036
12 -May -87
Kettleman Ln
@ kine car" Plaza
sight distance @ drivemay
11-5rr$7
87035
07 -*87
Kettleman !n
@ Fairmont
anssmelk
11-111-87
87x34
O6 -May -87
Lakeshore Dr
stops, yields
01 -Jul -87
87033
05 -May -87
tokay St
@ Crescent
stop signs
Dec -87
il-Jur-87
MW
05 -May -87
Pine St
@ stain
c rossmalk
It -jun -87
87031
04 -May -87
Hutchins St
@ Cardinal
sight distance
11-Jur87
87030
04 -May -87
School St, Lot 5
handicapped stalls
03-,r-87
87O
29 -Apr -87
Lar Sac
@ Elm
crossmaik
11-3sn-87
87028
10 -Apr -87
Lockeford
@ Has
add'1 painted arras"
30 -Apr -87
M7
22 -Apr -9
Harney
m/ ddi ins
remove edgeline
Jun -87
87()26
22 -Apr -87
Turner
Stkn to piny 99
mecrt(ro perking
Jon -87
i3i1125
22 -Apr -87
Victor
@ tars, 99
meed merge sign
we?
02-3,1-67
M
22 -Apr-&'
Harney
@ Banyan
trick parking
KV87
87023
03 -Apr -87
Lambert Ct
,ants sign for dnId-en @ play
os -tom -s7
M
03-Apr17
Loner Sacramento Rd
@ lbodlake Cir.
left turn lane stacking
Oec-97
87021
01-Ap--87
Pine St
Ebluff
parking on WTM road (stere no ofg)
J41-87
16-Ju1-87
870`0
01 -Apr -87
Vine St
k/Stockton
parking/d'ivemay problems
Apr -87
01-K r87
87019
01 -fpr -87
RAA im St
S/Kettleman
pedestrian awings
06 -Apr -87
87028
34 -Mar -87
Has Ln
@ Oak
SMU 3 -say stop sign
Dt--88
87011
23 -Mar -87
Park Oak Dr
@ Evergreen
cants sae type of control
DM -88
87016
20 -Mar -87
Hastrirgton St
@ Loel Center
charge loading zone for handicap
Apr -87
06-Mty-87
87015
16 -Mar -87
Gwokee tar
820 S. (Ellis Car Hash)
truck parking - blocks vision
Apr -87
01 -MW -87
87014
19 -Feb -87
Main St
14 Horth
install driv%W sign, no parking
t9 -Feb -87
87013
19 -Feb -87
Vine St
@ Mills
install 4 -may stop
Dee -88
012
17 -Feb -87
Kettleman Ln
y11i 11S
extend left tarn lane
17 -Feb -87
27011
21 -Jan -87
Pacific Ave
vicinity of Lath Nigh
congestion
11 -Feb -87
87010
05 -Feb -87
Kettlmw Ln
@ Fair"t
install traffic signal
06 -Feb -87
87M
04 -Feb -87
Lwrt St
@ scrool
rcMove 2 'f parking
06 -Feb -87
M,
044eb-87
Kettlear.!n
R Pfl--,Mr
;rstzli 4 -way step
06 -Feb -87
8700?
03 -Feb -87
Crr.;cent
9 r, ,S 'okms
instal; 4 -ON stop
L5 -Feb -87
87Ca;6
:18-3.x,-87
Guff Ave
xyzts ?; sin. parkir$3 none
29 -Jan fi
Traffic, Complaint, List
22-Ja1-87
File #
Date Rey,.
Street
Uxation
Covlainnt
Recall
Date Comp
8700
19-Jw-37
variois
various
sial timing
Hay 87
87004
i6 Jai -87
Fairmont Ave
@ Halnut
sants stop sign
Feii-87
18 -Feb -87
870(13
14 -Jan -87
Fairmont Ave
@ 8randysine
wants stop sign
Dec -88
8700
06-33n-87
Nal rut St
@ Pleasant
speeding, congestion @ school
L� Jan 87
87001
02 -Jan -87
ika Ln
@ Elm, Lodi
signal wordination, timing
Au9-g7
86039
04 -Dee -86
Church St
SAOdi
dunce @ Leg's day blocks intersection
Dec -86
860;10
X -Dec -86
Pine St
@ Garfield
was stop sign
Aug -67
86037
04 -Dec -86
Pine St
@ Stockton
parked busses blocking stop sign
Nay -87
M
26 -Na 86
Alley NfEla
@ Garfield
speestirg
Dec -86
860
20 -Nov -86
Stockton St
23 N (RAHst 0txrch) *ant passenger loading sale
JarV
21 -Jan -87
860:#
O6 -Nov -86
Tokay St
@ Crescent
install stop sign
Sep -87
86033
04 -Nov -86
Calaveras St
@ Pioneer, Dorney
install stop sign
Dec -88
OM
2D -Oct -86
Alley N/Nalnut
EMeasant
ped xing sign, kids in alley
Oct -96
08 -Dec 86
86031
07 -Oct -86
Hills Ave
@ Vine
install stop sign
Jar -87
11 -Dec-%
86030
06 -Oct -86
Pine St
@ Central
install stop sign
HM -87
86029
3D -Sep -96
Harney Ln
@ Hoa
Install stop sign
Dec -88
56028
24-Sep46
Turner Rd
@ Lor Sac (N)
install traffic signal
Oct -86
08 -Dec -86
$6027
33 -Sep -85
Turner Rd
@ Has
signal timing
JM -87
86046
22 -Sep-%
Laurel Ave
@ Turner
sight distance
Dec -88
w
11 -Se@ -86
Apple*ood Or
@ S. end
install fence instead of barricade
Oct -86
31 -Oct -86
86024
04 -Sep -86
Central Ave
@ Acacia
install crossmaik
14 -Oct -86
86023
21 -Ag -86
Sacramento St
Sjtodi, *est side
install 2 ti- parking limit
Nov -86
Dec -86
8802.''
18 -Aug -e6
Industrial Si Vine
Effiecksan
install centerline stripe
02 -SV -86
86021
IB AXJ-86
Calaveras St
@ 16--tay & Pioneer
install stop or yield sign
Har -87
Feb -87
86Q2(1
04 Aug-%
Crescent Ane
iii Atiemuan
speeding, stop sign
On -86
Par -87
86019
30 -Jul -86
Muff Aro
M2 N,
sift distance @ driveway
28 -Ag -86
86f118
26 -Jul -86
Matson St
vicinity of PCP
cannery sacker parking
o1 -Oct-%
86017
24-JuT-86
McCoy Ct
@ end
parking adj. to FN
06-0ct-86
86016
23 -Jul -86
Un St
N/lcdi, *est side
pakingMrive ay
11 -Ag -86
86015
23 -Jul -86
Lilac St
@ Eilers
install stop sign
0x-87
Feb -87
86014
08 -Jul -96
Hest000d Ave
@ Lockeford
sight distance
Dec -88
86013
Jul -86
Edgeaood Or
@ Nillom Glen
dw9e yield to strip; sigh distance
Ox -88
861212
27 -Jun -86
Alw-4 Dr
471 (mob.heme pk)
sight distance @ drivemays
Oct -87
86011
26-Jur86
Oaisy Ave
@ Pleasant
dwV yield to stop; sight distance
*87
86010
13 -Jun -86
low St
@ Nashington
install stop sign
Dee -88
86009
30 -May -96
Has Ln
@ Tuner
install % RT an Rai"
30 -May -86
86008
19 -KW -86
Central Ave
@ Lomat
change yield to slap
Sep -87
86004
21* -86
Law Dr
@ Holly,
install slap sign
0x-88
86006
14 -Apr -86
Turner Rd
@ Arbor shop. cen,
sight distance @ drivemays
%WV
86005
14 -Har -86
Tuner Rd
@ Caiifa-nia
sight distance
23 -Sep -86
86004
O4 Mar -86
Hutcbinn St
@ bine
install stop sign
Dec -88
86003
27-JarrB6
Chestnut St
@ Lee
dwwge yield to stop; sight distance
Har -9
04 -Mr -87
6>f002
23-Jam86
Lw Sacramento Rd
Vine to Park N.Dr
teem LT lairs
Oct -96
86601
14-3an-86
School St
"Iestrut
truck parkiwjwght problem @ Long's
18 -ST -86
MA
^root -95
Scarboro, n Or
@ Orandymine
install yield or stop @ T int..
Dec -88
8x103
17 -Oct -85
Lodi Ave
615 East
trucks parking too close to dry
11 -Dec -85
M
Se; -85
Central Ave
Eden to Flora
convert diag. parking to parallel
Oct -87
85001
30-3ui-85
Uine St
25 East
loading zone request
Aug -85
14 -Ag -85
TRAFFIC SECTION PROJECT LIST
Project
Street Master Plan
Complaints - current month
Annexation EIRs
High Accident Location List
Speed Studies
Yellow Change Interval Study
Signal Timing
Crosswalk Evaluation @ Schools
FAU Routes
City Hall Parking Study
Elm @ Stockton
Signals - Lodi Avenue
Street Closing Guidelines
Woodbridge School Adult Xing Guard
Signal - Hutchins & Tokay
Church Street Signals
Traffic Study Files
Traffic Work Order
School & Oak, Walnut
Traffic Signal, Cluff @ Victor
Hutchins Street Median S/Lodi
Mid -Block Crosswalk Removal
Bus Depot Parking Study
Traffic Control Device Inventory
Task/Comments
Work w,consultant as necessary
See separate complaint list
Review & comment on traffic, 3 EIRs
Continue verification of accidents and volumes
Do ones on list, radar work underway
Establish standard & revise existing timing
Review all existing signals
Evaluate removal of extra school crosswalks, legend
policy, no parking at patrolled crosswalks
Update map, set up spreadsheet w/ciassifica tions
and mileage, percentages
Followup study underway
Followup study on beacon removal (removed 3/21/86)
Review PASSAR runs, evaluate controller replacement
Policy memo on closings, include commercial,
arterials, industrial
Study for adult crossing guard warrants
Study conversion to full actuation; do w/Hutchins
Construction Project
Study actuation, coordination; controllers
installed
Develop procedure/filing system to keep track of
traffic studies
Review present practice, develop form/procedure,
coordinate w/inventory
Before & after study of signal removal
Start field work/design
Followup traffic study four months after
reconstruction
Evaluate for unneeded locations
Followup study
Hold on decision to proceed
Traffic Signals - Lower Sac./Turner Monitor work