HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - June 27, 2000 SSCITY OF LODI
INFORMAL INFORMATIONAL MEETING
"SHIRTSLEEVE" SESSION
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 2000
An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday,
June 27, 2000 commencing at 7:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members — Hitchcock (left at approximately 7:50 a.m.), Land, Nakanishi
and Mann (Mayor)
Absent: Council Members — Pennino
Also Present: City Manager Flynn, Deputy City Manager Keeler, Finance Director McAthie,
Community Development Director Bartlam, Public Works Director Prima, City Attorney
Hays and Interim City Clerk Taylor
Also present was a representative from the Lodi News Sentinel and The Record.
TOPIC(S)
1. Transportation Projects
ADJOURNMENT
Council adjourned discussion of the closed session item to Wednesday, June 27, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. The
meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:50 a.m.
ATTEST:
r
LODI SHIRTSLEEVE SES
AGENDA TITLE: 2000 Signal Priority Study
June 27, 2000
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
At the Shirtsleeve Session, the Public Works Department staff will be presenting a summary of the City's
Signal Priority Study. This item is on the July 5, 2000, Council agenda. The following key items will be
briefly discussed:
Primary Purpose — The Public Works Department began a program of studying non -signalized
intersections with high volumes and accidents. The primary purpose was to determine if any of these
intersections met the minimum traffic signal criteria established by Caltrans and, if so, in what order of
priority they should be installed. It also became necessary to prioritize the signal installations when the
cost of installing a traffic signal exceeded available construction funds.
Previous Intersections Installed Based on Past Signal Priority Studies — Since 1970, the
City has installed slightly over one new traffic signal per year, as shown in the attached study.
Caltrans Traffic Signal Guidelines — Caltrans has adopted eleven traffic signal warrants that the
City uses as a guideline to determine where signals are considered for installation.
Priority System Worksheet — After the Caltrans signal warrants and other factors are reviewed, the
intersections are ranked using the priority system. Points are assigned for the traffic volumes entering
the intersection, accident history, speed of traffic, proximity to nearest existing traffic signal, and special
conditions.
Results — Fourteen of the nineteen intersections satisfied the Caltrans guidelines. The scoring results
are summarized in Table 1 below.
Funding — Staff has applied for funds from the Hazard Elimination Safety (Safe Routes to School),
CMAQ, REMOVE, STP, and TDA programs. There is $120,000 budgeted in the fiscal year 2000/01 CIP
for one traffic signal installation. Regional Impact Fee funds can also be appropriated for several
intersections.
Summary — Table 2 presents a summary and description of the top ten intersections. We have
received requests for traffic signals at all of the top ten locations except at one intersection
(Stockton Street and Tokay Street). Although the Study provides a systematic process to determine
which intersections should be considered for a signal, City Council can choose any intersection for
installation in fiscal year 2000/01.
APPROVED:
H. Dixon Flynn -- City Manager
SS2000SIGNLPRIORITY 06123100
2000 Signal Priority Study
June 27, 2000 Shirtsleeve Session
Page 2
TABLE 1
INTERSECTION SCORE
1. Harney Lane and Stockton Street 352
2. Lodi Avenue and Mills Avenue 330
3. Harney Lane and Ham Lane 308
4. Lockeford Street and Stockton Street 307
5. Cherokee Lane and K -Mart south driveway* 277
6. Lockeford Street and Sacramento Street 275
7. Stockton Street and Tokay Street* 242
8. Century Boulevard and Ham Lane 241
9. Mills Avenue and Elm Street 172
10. Turner Road and California Street/Edgewood Drive 143
11. Elm Street and Pacific Avenue* 130
12. Cherokee Lane and Tokay Street 109
13. Turner Road and Sacramento Street* 98
14. Cherokee Lane and Elm Street 97
15. Century Boulevard and Scarborough Drive* N/A, did not satisfy Caltrans warrants
16. Cherokee Lane and Vine Street N/A, did not satisfy Caltrans warrants
17. Hutchins Street and Pine Street N/A, did not satisfy Caltrans warrants
18. Lockeford Street and California Street* N/A, did not satisfy Caltrans warrants
19. Pine Street and Stockton Street N/A, did not satisfy Caltrans warrants
Notes:
1. Intersections with pending fund applications are shown above in bold.
2. The intersections with an asterisk were included in the 1991 Study.
3. The Lower Sacramento Road and Tokay Street intersection was not included in the Study since a
signal will be installed with the Lower Sacramento Road Widening Improvement Project.
Richard C. Prima, J .
Public Works Director
Prepared by Paula J. Fernandez, Associate Traffic Engineer,
and Rick S. Kiriu, Senior Engineering Technician
RCP/PJF/RSK/Im
Attachments
cc: Street Superintendent
Transportation Manager
Associate Traffic Engineer
SS2000SIGNLPRIORITY
TABLE 2
2000 SIGNAL PRIORITY STUDY
TOP TEN INTERSECTIONS
1. Harney Ln & Stockton St
The ranking at this intersection is attributed to increasing daily traffic on Harney Ln (up 4,000 vehicles
or 30%), which creates fewer gaps for drivers entering from Stockton St and also the high vehicle
- speeds on Harney Ln. Drivers stopped south on Stockton St can also experience difficulty seeing
approaching westbound traffic due to the alignment of the east leg and unimproved northeast corner
(only the NW corner is improved). This intersection is four legged, although the south leg is a dead
end county road with approximately 10 residences. The City has recently received a Tentative Parcel
Map for a one acre site on the northeast corner. This map will dedicate the necessary right-of-way so
the improvements at this corner will be included with the signal installation.
2. Lodi Ave & Mills Ave
The ranking at this intersection is due to increasing traffic volumes on both streets and relatively high
number of accidents. At multi -way stop controlled intersections with several lanes of traffic entering
the intersection, it can be difficult at times to determine who can proceed. This may contribute to
accidents at this intersection.
Harney Ln & Ham Ln
The ranking at this intersection is due to the increasing traffic volumes on both streets, accidents, and
high speeds on Harney Ln. Daily traffic volumes entering from both streets increased by 3,500
(30%). The increase in volume on the Harney Ln reduces the number of gaps for drivers making a
left turn from Ham Ln. Although this intersection will likely be signalized at some time, it is currently a
"T" intersection, and the eventual extension of Mills Ave to Harney and Century Blvd to Lower
Sacramento Rd may relieve some of the traffic now using the intersection.
4. Lockeford St & Stockton St
The need for a traffic signal at this intersection has been demonstrated as it has ranked number one
since first studied in 1988. In 1997 a 4 -way stop was installed as an interim measure until a traffic
signal could be installed. This action reduced accidents, hence the fall in ranking. The reasons we
have not proceeded with the signal installation is primarily due to the cost, as there are design
considerations created by the elevated railroad tracks adjacent to the intersection. We are awaiting
the results of an application for federal funds we have submitted to install the costly signal. Current
funds budgeted for a traffic signal would be insufficient for this intersection since this intersection
needs major roadway improvements.
5. Cherokee Ln & K -Mart SC
The ranking at this location is due to the high traffic volumes on Cherokee Ln, the shopping center
driveway and accidents. The increased accidents is likely associated with increased volumes at this
driveway. As part of the Cherokee Lane Improvements, a median was installed across the northern
driveway. The median eliminated left turns into and out of the north driveway, directing these drivers
to the remaining southern driveway. This location is also considered a "T' intersection. Although it
appears to be a four legged intersection, the Flora St alignment, located across the driveway on
Cherokee Ln has been abandoned. Our main concern at this location is it's close proximity to the
signal at Lodi Ave. An interconnected system would need to be installed with the Cherokee Lane and
Lodi Avenue intersection and coordinating the signals. Another alternative is to provide an additional
access across the railroad tracks at Lodi Avenue.
6. Lockeford St & Sacramento St
The ranking at this intersection is due to the high traffic volumes on Lockeford St providing fewer
gaps for driver on Sacramento St. Considering traffic volumes on Sacramento St are relatively low,
the number of accidents are fairly high, although they have dropped following the correction of a
suspected visibility problem in 1990. Although there may be a need for a signal at this location
sometime in the future, staff will pursue action to further reduce accidents, particularly since this
intersection is close to the existing signal at Church St and will be relatively close to the proposed
signal at Stockton St.
7. Stockton St & Tokay St
The ranking at this intersection is due to the traffic volumes on both streets and accidents. While
neither street alone has a particularly high volume, the combined volume at this four-way stop
intersection is high. There have been few accidents and the volume split between the two streets are
favorable for a four- way stop.
8. Century Blvd & Ham Lane
The ranking at this intersection is due to the traffic volumes on both streets. Daily traffic volumes
entering the intersection have increased by more that 3,500 vehicles (20%); however, traffic
accidents have declined. The intersection is adjacent to a high school and park and can experience
occasional high traffic periods and pedestrian activity. Although traffic volumes are relatively high,
accidents are low implying that it appears to be working as a four-way stop at this time. However, of
the four-way stop intersections studied, it has the most lanes approaching the intersection to monitor
and it has been noted that during peak periods it can be difficult to determine when you can proceed.
Because of this intersections proximity to the school site, we have applied for and are awaiting the
results of our request for funding a traffic signal at this intersection.
9. Mills Ave & Elm St
The ranking at this intersection is due to the volumes on both streets. Daily traffic volume increased
only slightly and accidents fell slightly. The four-way stop intersection is adjacent to an elementary
school and can experience periods of high traffic and pedestrian volumes. The intersection also
currently receives some traffic from a nearby high school and there is a Middle School to be
constructed north of the intersection which will undoubtedly increase traffic in the area. Because of
this intersections proximity to the school site, we have applied for and are awaiting the results of our
request for funding a traffic signal at this intersection.
10. Turner Road and California Street/Edgewood Drive
The ranking at this intersection is due to traffic volumes on the major street. Daily traffic volumes
have increased slightly on Turner Road. In the past four years, there has been one accident that is
considered correctable with a traffic signal. There have been several left versus thru accidents on
Turner Road and a left turn lane could eliminate this type of collision. Removal of parking adjacent to
intersections and fronting several residences would be necessary to install left turns lanes on Turner
Road.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
PRIORITY STUDY
(Abridged Edition)
July 2000
CITY OF LODI
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
CITY OF LODI
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PREPARED BY:
Paula Fernandez, Associate Traffic Engineer
Rick Kiriu, Senior Engineering Technician
Jaime Cordoba, Engineering Intern
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF:
Richard C. Prima, Jr., Public Works Director
F. Wally Sandelin, City Engineer
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
PRIORITY STUDY
(Abridged Edition)
July 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
{Abridged Edition}
I. Scope of Study...........................................................................................1
-- II. The Warrants..............................................................................................1
111. The Priorities..............................................................................................1
IV. The Intersections........................................................................................3
Appendix Signal Priority Worksheets
sigpri2000_con
CITY OF LODI SIGNAL PRIORITY STUDY
PULIC WORKS DEPARTMENT July 2000
I. SCOPE OF STUDY
In 1970, the Engineering Division began a program of studying high traffic
volume and high accident non -signalized intersections within the City of Lodi.
The primary purpose of these studies was to determine whether any of these
intersections warranted the installation of traffic signals and, if so, in what order
of priority should they be installed. Since 1970, the study has been updated
several times, most recently in 1991.
THE WARRANTS
The warrants used for traffic control signals are those adopted by the State of
California and published in the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
"Traffic Manual."
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. The City may also find it advantageous to install signals at one
intersection ahead of another because of a scheduled street project.
The types of warrants are:
Warrant 1
— Minimum vehicular volume
Warrant 2
— Interruption of continuous traffic
Warrant 3
— Minimum pedestrian volume
Warrant 4
— School crossings
Warrant 5
— Progressive movement (not applicable)
Warrant 6
— Accident experience
Warrant 7
— Systems (not applicable in Lodi)
Warrant 8
— Combination of warrants
Warrant 9
— Four hour volume
Warrant 10
— Peak hour delay
Warrant 11
— Peak hour volume
Since the last study update, there have been some minor changes to Warrant 3.
Pedestrian volumes needed were modified and requirements for vehicle gaps,
signal spacing, and progressive movement were added. Warrant 3 is difficult to
satisfy, and none of the locations met this warrant.
III. THE PRIORITIES
When the cost of installing traffic signals exceeds available construction funds, it
is necessary to determine a systematic method of prioritizing signal installation.
Intersections meeting one or more of the Caltrans Warrants are assigned priority
ranking based on a point system.
sigp62000 con
In 1985, the City Council and the former Highway and Transportation Committee
of the Chamber of Commerce expressed concerns over the relative weighting of
various factors, such as, accidents and speeds in the 1970 priority system. The
priority system was revised based upon a study that compared five systems used
by northern California cities, including Lodi.
In summary, the intersections that meet the Caltrans signal warrants would rate
highest on the priority system if they have the following characteristics:
a. High traffic volume entering the intersection;
b. Large number of accidents of a type that could be corrected by the
installation of signals;
C. High approach speeds;
d. Be located a considerable distance from another signalized intersection.
Exhibit A is an example of the priority worksheet. A more detailed description of
each priority characteristic is provided below.
Traffic Volumes — Points are assigned using a combination of total approach
volume and percentage of minor street traffic. More points are given as the total
approach volumes increase. Some additional points are given as the minor
street percentage increases. Points for vehicular volumes are taken from a
volume table shown on the priority worksheets.
As an example, an intersection with a total of 12,000 vehicles daily entering from
all four approaches and 2,400 (20%) vehicles entering from the two minor
approaches, would have a point rating of 92. The closer the traffic from the
minor street approaches 50% of the total volume entering the intersection, the
higher the point rating. The same intersection with 4,800 vehicles (40%) entering
from the minor approaches would have a point rating of 132.
Accidents — Only accidents that can be corrected by installation of a signal are
considered; such as right angle collisions and most pedestrian accidents. A four-
year period is evaluated with 12 points per accident for the present year and 6
points per accident for the second to fourth years. Pedestrian accidents count as
1.5 points. Assigning more points for the most current year makes the system
more responsive to recent changes.
Approach Speed — Points given for approach speeds range from 0 points for
25 mph to 150 points for 50 mph and more. More points are given as the
approach speeds on the major street increase because of the higher potential of
serious accidents. Four-way stop sign controlled intersections are given 0 points.
Coordinated Movement — Negative points are given to intersections within
1,200 feet of another signalized intersection. The minimum distance between
signalized intersections is 600 feet. When signalized intersections are properly
located and timed, traffic can effectively flow through the intersections.
sigpd2000_con
Special Conditions - This factor is applied to two-way controlled intersections
unless the accident history indicates existing four-way stop control is insufficient.
Additional factors may be considered such as traffic at adjacent intersections,
unusual geometry or project scheduling requirements.
IV. THE INTERSECTIONS
Since 1970, the Engineering Division has studied many intersections to
determine whether they warranted the installation of traffic signals. As a result of
these studies, signals have been installed at the following thirty-four
intersections:
1. Turner Road and Ham Lane
2. Ham Lane and Elm Street
3. Lodi Avenue and Stockton Street
4. Lodi Avenue and Crescent Avenue
5. Lockeford Street and Church Street
6. Kettleman Lane and Ham Lane
7. Kettleman Lane and Church Street
8. Hutchins Street and Century Boulevard
9. Kettleman Lane and Stockton Street
10. Ham Lane and Vine Street
-11. Lodi Avenue and Fairmont Avenue
12. Hutchins Street and Harney Lane
13. Pine Street and Sacramento Street
14. Ham Lane and Tokay Street
15. Cherokee Lane and Lockeford Street
16. Ham Lane and Lockeford Street
17. Victor Road and Cluff Avenue
18. Turner Road and Church Street
19. Turner Road and Lower Sacramento Road (N)
20. Cherokee Lane and Hale Road
21. Hutchins Street and Vine Street
22. Kettleman Lane and Central Avenue
23. Kettleman Lane and Crescent Avenue
24. Kettleman Lane and Mills Avenue
25. Lower Sacramento Road and Elm Street
26. Lower Sacramento Road and Lodi Avenue
27. Lower Sacramento Road and Vine Street
28. Turner Road and Lower Sacramento Road / Woodhaven Lane
29. Turner Road and Mills Avenue
30. Turner Road and Stockton Street
The intersections included in the current study that satisfied one or more of the
Caltrans warrant(s) for the consideration of a traffic signal have been prioritized.
A summary of the warrant results and priority ranking are presented on Tables 1
& 2. Existing a warranted traffic signal locations are graphically presented on
Exhibit B. The intersections that warrant consideration of a traffic signal are
listed below, in priority order. Of the fourteen signals ranked, the City has
applied for funding for traffic signals at the six intersections shown in bold.
sigpd2000_con
1. Harney Lane and Stockton Street
2. Lodi Avenue and Mills Avenue
3. Harney Lane and Ham Lane
4. Lockeford Street and Stockton Street
(� Lockeford Street and Sacramento Street
Cherokee Lane and K -Mart south driveway
7. Stockton Street and Tokay Street
8. Century Boulevard and Ham Lane
9. Mills Avenue and Elm Street
10. Turner Road and California Street / Edgewood Drive
11. Elm Street and Pacific Avenue
12. Cherokee Lane and Tokay Street
13. Turner Road and Sacramento Street
14. Cherokee Lane and Elm Street
352
330
308
307
275
?2 Z n
242
241
172
143
130
109
98
97
The point totals presented in Table 2 are close for some intersections; thereby,
indicating that their ranking are basically equal. Differences of less than 20
points are not considered significant. The Signal Priority Worksheets are
presented in the Appendix; however, the signal warrant sheets, collision
diagrams, and volume sheets for all of the intersections studied are not included
in this abridged edition.
Intersections studied that do not warrant the installation of traffic signals at this
time are:
1. Century Boulevard and Scarborough Drive
2. Cherokee Lane and Vine Street
3. Hutchins Street and Pine Street
4. Lockeford Street and California Street
5. Pine Street and Stockton Street
sigpri2000_con
CITY OF LODI
Public Works Department
Exhibit A
TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY
WORKSHEET
Major St:
Volume:
Minor St:
Volume:
% of
Total
Total Volume:
(Volumes in 1000's}
FACTOR
COMPUTATIONS
POINTS
Volume
Minor
Street Total Entering Intersection
% 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17
18
19
20
5 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 18
21
24
27
30
33
10 10 12 15 18 22 26 30 34
41
48
55
62
70
15 25 31 37 45 53 62 71 80
93
106
119
132
145
20 42 51 60 76 92 108 124 140
160
180
200
220
240
25 51 62 72 90 107 125 142 160
180
208
232
256
280
30 61 73 85 104 123 142 161 180
208
236
264
292
320
35 63 75 87 108 128 148 169 188
210
249
278
308
338
40 65 77 89 111 132 154 176 196
229
261
292
323
355
45 67 79 91 114 137 160 183 206
240
273
306
338
372
50 68 80 95 117 141 165 190 215
250
285
320
353
389
Do not interpolate - use next highest value
Accidents
12 points per accident for recent year
X
12
=
0
6 points per accident for second to fourth year
X
6
=
0
(Pedestrian accidents count as 1 .5)
TOTAL
Speed
Use highest 85 percentile approach speed (4 -way stop =0)
Speed (mph) 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
40
42
44
46
48 50
Points 4 12 20 28 36 46 58
70
82
96
112
130 150
Coordinated
Distance from proposed signal to nearest existing signal.
Movement
(Minimum distance is 600 feet)
Distance (ft) 1200 1000 900 800 700
600
Points 0 -20 -35 -50 -65
-80
Special
Apply to two-way stop controlled intersections unless accident history
Conditions
indicates existing four-way stop control is insufficient.
CONDITION
P INT
Signal warranted under Caltrans pedestrian or school crossing
warrant
100
Meets 50% of above requirements
75
Intersection adjacent to school, major pedestrian generator or RR tracks
within intersection
50
On school or major generator route or RR tracks adjacent to
intersection
25
Other
(Describe)
By: Date:
TOTAL POINTS
pnority_worKsheet
I Exhibit B
y QFC OF LODI 2000 SIGNAL PRIORITY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STUDY
FO
2000 SIGNAL PRIORITY STUDY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT RESULTS
r
� L
Q
LOCATION
1. Harney Ln & Stockton St
Y
Y
N
N/A
NIA
N
N/A
Y
Y
NIC
Y
2. Lodi Ave & Mills Ave
Y
N
N
NIA
N/A
Y
N/A
Y
Y
N
Y
3. Harney Ln & Ham Ln
Y
N
N
N/A
N/A
N
N/A
Y
Y
N/C
Y
4. Lockeford St & Stockton St
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
Y
NIA
Y
N
N
N
5. Lockeford St & Sacramento St
N
N
N
L N/A
N/A
Y
N/A
N
N
N/C
N
6. Cherokee Ln & K -Mart SC
Y
Y
NIC
N/A
N/A
N
N/A
Y
Y
N/C
Y
7. Stockton St & Tokay St
Y
N
N
N/A
N/A
N
N/A
N
Y
N
N
8. Ham Ln & Century Blvd
Y
N
N
N/A
N/A
N
N/A
Y
Y
N
Y
9. Mills Ave & Elm St
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
N
N/A
N
Y
N
N
10. Turner Rd & California St
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
N
N/A
N
Y
N
Y
11. Elm St & Pacific Ave
N
N
N/C
N
N/A
N
N/A
N
N
N/C
Y
12. Cherokee Ln & Tokay St
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
N
N/A
N
Y.
N/C
N
13. Turner Rd & Sacramento St
N
Y
N
N/A
NIA
N
N/A
N
Y
N/C
Y
14. Cherokee Ln & Elm St
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
N
N/A
N
N
NIC
Y
15. Century Blvd & Scarborough Dr
N
N
N
N
N/A
N
N/A
N
N
N
N
16. Cherokee Ln & Vine St
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
N
N/A
N
N
N
N
17. Hutchins St & Pine St
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
N
NIA
N
N
N
N
18. Lockeford St & California St
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
N
NIA
N
N
N
N
19. Pine St & Stockton St
N
N
N
N/A
N/A
N
N/A
N
N
N
N
. = 80% SATISFIED N = No Y = Yes N/A = Not Applicable N/C = Not Calculated, satisfied by other warrant(s)
2000 SIGNAL PRIORITY STUDY
PRIORITY RANKING RESULTS
Number of Points
COORDINATED SPECIAL
LOCATION VOLUME ACCIDENTS SPEED MOVEMENT CONDITIONS TOTAL
1. Harney Ln & Stockton St
160
42
150
0
0
352
2. Lodi Ave & Mills Ave
240
90
0
0
0
330
3. Harney Ln & Ham Ln
148
48
112
0
0
308
4. Lockeford St & Stockton St
180
102
0
0
25
307
5. Lockeford St & Sacramento St
124
120
46
-65
50
275
6. Cherokee Ln & K -Mart SC
162
72
58
-8U -1R5
50
2g 0�
7. Stockton St & Tokay St
206
36
0
0
0
242
8. Ham Ln & Century Blvd
229
12
0
0
0
241
9. Mills Ave & Elm St
160
12
0
0
0
172
10. Turner Rd & California St
41
6
96
0
0
143
11. Elm St & Pacific Ave
72
30
58
-80
50
130
12. Cherokee Ln & Tokay St
62
69
58
-80
0
109
13. Turner Rd & Sacramento St
48
18
82
-50
0
98
14. Cherokee Ln & Elm St
77
42
1 58
-80
0
97
Cr
cD
IV
Appendix
CITY OF LODI TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY
Public Works Department WORKSHEET
Major St:
Harney Ln Volume: 12.5
Minor St:
Stockton St Volume: 3.1
% of Total 20
Total Volume: 15.6
(Volumes in 1000's)
FACTOR
COMPUTATIONS
POINTS
Volume
Minor
Street Total Entering Intersection
0/0 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18
19
20
5 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 18 21 24
27
30
33
10 10 12 15 18 22 26 30 34 41 48
55
62
70
15 25 31 37 45 53 62 71 80106
119
132
145
20 42 51 60 76 92 108 124 140 160 180
200
220
240
25 51 62 72 90 107 125 142 160 208
232
256
280
30 61 73 85 104 123 142 161 180 208 236
264
292
320
35 63 75 87 108 128 148 169 188 210 249
278
308
338
40 65 77 89 111 132 154 176 196 229 261
292
323
355
45 67 79 91 114 137 160 183 206 240 273
306
338
372
50 68 80 95 117 141 165 190 215 250 285
320
353
389
Do not interpolate - use next highest value
160
Accidents
12 points per accident for recent year 1 X 12
=
12
6 points per accident for second to fourth year 5 X 6
=
30
(Pedestrian accidents count as 1.5)
TOTAL
42
Speed
Use highest 85 percentile approach speed (4 -way stop =0)
Speed (mph) 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
44
46
4850
Points 4 12 20 28 36 46 58 70 82
96
112
130 150
150
Coordinated
Distance from proposed signal to nearest existing signal.
Movement
(Minimum distance is 60 et)
Distance (ft) 1000 900 800 700 600
Points -20 -35 -50 -65 -80
UO
0
Special
Apply to two-way stop controlled intersections unless accident history
Conditions
indicates existing four-way stop control is insufficient.
CONDITION
POINTS
Signal warranted under Caltrans pedestrian or school crossing warrant
100
Meets 50% of above requirements
75
Intersection adjacent to school, major pedestrian generator or RR tracks
within intersection
50
On school or major generator route or RR tracks adjacent to intersection
25
Other
(Describe)
0
By: Rick Kiriu Date: June 7, 2000
TOTAL POINTS
352
priority_worksheet
r 3 - CITY OF LO DI TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY
Public Works Department WORKSHEET
Major St:
Lodi Ave Volume: 8.8
Minor St:
Mills Ave Volume: 6,7
% of
Total 43
Total Volume: 15.5
(Volumes in 1000's)
FACTOR
COMPUTATIONS
POINTS
Volume
Minor
Street Total Entering Intersection
% 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18
19
20
5 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 18 21
24
27
30
33
10 10 12 15 18 22 26 30 34 41
48
55
62
70
15 25 31 37 45 53 62 71 80 93
106
119
132
145
20 42 51 60 76 92 108 124 140 160
180
200
220
240
25 51 62 72 90 107 125 142 160 180
208
232
256
280
30 61 73 85 104 123 142 161 180 208
236
264
292
320
35 63 75 87 108 128 148 169 188 210
249
278
308
338
40 65 77 89 111 132 154 176 196
261
292
323
355
45 67 79 91 114 137 160 183 206 240
273
306
338
372
50 68 80 95 117 141 165 190 215
285
320
353
389
Do not interpolate - use next highest value
240
Accidents
12 points per accident for recent year 5 X
12
=
60
6 points per accident for second to fourth year 5 X
6
=
30
(Pedestrian accidents count as 1.5)
TOTAL
90
Speed
Use highest 85 percentile approach speed (4 -way stop =O)
Speed (mph) 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
42
44
46
48 50
Points 4 12 20 28 36 46 58 70
82
96
112
130 150
0
Coordinated
Distance from proposed signal to nearest existing signal.
Movement
(Minimum distance is 60 et)
1000 900 800 700 600
Distance (ft)UOOO
Points -20 -35 -50 -65 -80
0
Special
Apply to two-way stop controlled intersections unless accident history
Conditions
indicates existing four-way stop control is insufficient.
CONDITION
POINTS
Signal warranted under Caltrans pedestrian or school crossing warrant
100
Meets 50% of above requirements
75
Intersection adjacent to school, major pedestrian generator or RR tracks
within intersection
50
On school or major generator route or RR tracks adjacent to
intersection
25
Other
0
(Describe)
By: Rick Kiriu Date: June 7, 2000
TOTAL POINTS
330
priority_worksheet
=_;� CITY OF LODI TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY
• ' Public Works Department WORKSHEET
Major St:
Harney Ln Volume:
8.5
Minor St:
Ham Ln Volume:
4.3
% of Total 34
Total Volume:
12.8
(Volumes in 1000's)
FACTOR
COMPUTATIONS
POINTS
Volume
Minor
Street Total Entering Intersection
% 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17
18
19
20
5 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 18
21
24
27
30
33
10 10 12 15 18 22 26 30 34
41
48
55
62
70
15 25 31 37 45 53 62 71 80
93
106
119
132
145
20 42 51 60 76 92 108 124 140
160
180
200
220
240
25 51 62 72 90 107 125 142 160
180
208
232
256
280
30 61 73 85. 104 123161 180
208
236
264
292
320
35 63 75 87 108 128 148 169 188
210
249
278
308
338
40 65 77 89 111 132 176 196
229
261
292
323
355
45 67 79 91 114 137 160 183 206
240
273
306
338
372
50 68 80 95 117 141 165 190 215
250
285
320
353
389
Do not interpolate - use next highest value
148
Accidents
12 points per accident for recent year 2
X
12
=
24
6 points per accident for second to fourth year 4
X
6
=
24
(Pedestrian accidents count as 1.5)
TOTAL
48
Speed
Use highest 85 percentile approach speed (4 -way stop
=0)
Speed (mph) 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
40
42
4446
48 50
Points 4 12 20 28 36 46 58
70
82
96
112
130 150
112
Coordinated
Distance from proposed signal to nearest existing signal.
Movement
(Minimum distance is 60 et)
Distance (ft) 20 1000 900 800 700
600
Points 00, -20 -35 -50 -65
-80
0
Special
Apply to two-way stop controlled intersections unless accident history
Conditions
indicates existing four-way stop control is insufficient.
CONDITION
POINTS
Signal warranted under Caltrans pedestrian or school crossing
warrant
100
Meets 50% of above requirements
75
Intersection adjacent to school, major pedestrian generator
or RR tracks
within intersection
50
On school or major generator route or RR tracks adjacent to
intersection
25
Other
(Describe)
0
By: Rick Kiriu Date: June 7,2000
TOTAL POINTS
308
priority_worksheet
`"��•' CITY OF LODI TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY
WORKSHEET
Public Works Department
Major St:
Lockeford St Volume:
10.2
Minor St:
Stockton St Volume:
3.9
% of
Total 28
Total Volume:
14.1
(Volumes in 1000's)
FACTOR
COMPUTATIONS
POINTS
Volume
Minor
Street Total Entering Intersection
% 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17
18
19
20
5 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 18
21
24
27
30
33
10 10 12 15 18 22 26 30 34
41
48
55
62
70
15 25 31 37 45 53 62 71 80
93
106
119
132
145
20 42 51 60 76 92 108 124 140
160
180
200
220
240
25 51 62 72 90 107 125 142 180
180
208
232
256
280
30 61 73 85 104 123 142 161180
208
236
264
292
320
35 63 75 87 108 128 148 169
210
249
278
308
338
40 65 77 89 111 132 154 176 196
229
261
292
323
355
45 67 79 91 114 137 160 183 206
240
273
306
338
372
50 68 80 95 117 141 165 190 215
250
285
320
353
389
Do not interpolate - use next highest value
180
Accidents
12 points per accident for recent year 1
X
12
=
12
6 points per accident for second to fourth year 15
X
6
=
90
(Pedestrian accidents count as 1.5)
TOTAL
102
Speed
Use highest 85 percentile approach speed (4 -way stop
= 0)
Speed (mph) 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
40
42
44
46
48 50
Points 4 12 20 28 36 46 58
70
82
96
112
130 150
0
Coordinated
Distance from proposed signal to nearest existing signal.
Movement
(Minimum distance is 60 et)
Distance (ft) 200 1000 900 800 700'
600
Points 0 -20 -35 -50 -65
-80
0
Special
Apply to two-way stop controlled intersections unless accident history
Conditions
indicates existing four-way stop control is insufficient.
CONDITION
POINTS
Signal warranted under Caltrans pedestrian or school crossing
warrant
100
Meets 50% of above requirements
75
Intersection adjacent to school, major pedestrian generator or RR tracks
within intersection
50
On school or major generator route or RR tracks adjacent
to
intersection
25
Other
25
(Describe)
By: Rick Kiriu Date: June 7, 2000
TOTAL POINTS
307
priority worksheet
r CITY OF LODI TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY
Public Works Department
WORKSHEET
Major St:
Lockeford St Volume:
11.2
Minor St:
Sacramento St Volume:
2,4
% of
Total 18
Total Volume:
13.6
(Volumes in 1000's)
FACTOR
COMPUTATIONS
POINTS
Volume
Minor
Street Total Entering Intersection
% 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17
18
19
20
5 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 18
21
24
27
30
33
10 10 12 15 18 22 26 30 34
41
48
55
62
70
15 25 31 37 45 53 62 80
93
106
119
132
145
20 42 51 60 76 92 108 124 140
160
180
200
220
240
25 51 62 72 90 107 125 160
180
208
232
256
280
30 61 73 85 104 123 142 161 180
208
236
264
292
320
35 63 75 87 108 128 148 169 188
210
249
278
308
338
40 65 77 89 111 132 154 176 196
229
261
292
323
355
45 67 79 91 114 137 160 183 206
240
273
306
338
372
50 68 80 95 117 141 165 190 215
250
285
320
353
389
Do not interpolate - use next highest value
124
Accidents
12 points per accident for recent year 4
X
12
=
48
6 points per accident for second to fourth year 12
X
6
=
72
(Pedestrian accidents count as 1.5)
TOTAL
120
Speed
Use highest 85 percentile approach speed (4 -way stop = 0)
Speed (mph) 26 28 30 32 34 38
40
42
44
46
48 50
(g36)
Points 4 12 20 28 36 58
70
82
96
112
130 150
46
Coordinated
Distance from proposed signal to nearest existing signal.
Movement
(Minimum distance is 600 feet)
Distance (ft) 1200 1000 900 800
nOO600
Points 0 -20 -35 -50
-80
-65
Special
Apply to two-way stop controlled intersections unless accident history
Conditions
indicates existing four-way stop control is insufficient.
CONDITION
POINTS
Signal warranted under Caltrans pedestrian or school crossing warrant
100
Meets 50% of above requirements
75
Intersection adjacent to school, major pedestrian generator or FIR tracks
within intersection
50
On school or major generator route or RR tracks adjacent to
intersection
25
Other
50
(Describe)
By: Rick Kiriu Date: June 7, 2000
TOTAL POINTS
275
priority_worksheet
CITY OF LODI TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY
Public Works Department
WORKSHEET
Major St: Cherokee Ln Volume:
17.1
Minor St: K -Mart South Driveway Volume:
3,0
% of
Total 15
Total Volume:
20,1
(Volumes
in 1000's)
FACTOR
COMPUTATIONS
POINTS
Volume
Minor
Street Total Entering Intersection
%
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18
19
20
21 22
5
4 5 6 8 10 12 15 18 21
24
27
30
33
38 43
10
10 12 15 18 22 26 30 34 41
48
55
62
7084
15
25 31 37 45 53 62 71 80 93
106
119
132
145
162 179
20
42 51 60 76 92 108 124 140 160
180
200
220
240
298
25
51 62 72 90 107 125 142 160 180
208
232
256
280
314 348
30
61 73 85 104 123 142 161 180 208
236
264
292
320
359 398
35
63 75 87 108 128 148 169 188 210
249
278
308
338
379 420
40
65 77 89 111 132 154 176 196 229
261
292
323
355
398 441
45
67 79 91 114 137 160 183 206 240
273
306
338
372
418 463
50
68 80 95 117 141 165 190 215 250
285
320
353
389
437 484
Do not interpolate - use next highest value
162
Accidents
12 points per accident for recent year 4
X
12
=
48
6 points per accident for second to fourth year 4
X
6
=
24
(Pedestrian accidents count as 1.5)
TOTAL
72
Speed
Use highest 85 percentile approach speed (4 -way stop
=0)
Speed (mph) 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
40
42
44
46
48 50
Points 4 12 20 28 36 46 (58)
70
82
96
112
130 150
58
Coordinated
Distance from proposed signal to nearest existing signal.
Movement
(Minimum distance is 600 feet)
Distance (ft) 1200 1000 900 800700
600
Points 0 -20 -35 -50 -65
-80
-65
Special
Apply to two-way stop controlled intersections unless accident history
Conditions
indicates existing four-way stop control is insufficient.
CONDITION
POINTS
Signal warranted under Caltrans pedestrian or school crossing
warrant
100
Meets 50% of above requirements
75
Intersection adjacent to school, maior pedestrian generator
or RR tracks
within intersection
50
On school or major generator route or RR tracks adjacent to
intersection
25
Other
(Describe)
25
50
By: Rick Kiriu Date: June 7, 2000
TOTAL POINTS
2
priority worksheet Z:7
CITY OF LODI TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY
WORKSHEET
Public Works Department
Major St:
Stockton St Volume:
8.6
Minor St:
Tokay St Volume:
5,9
% of
Total 41
Total Volume:
14.5
(Volumes in 1000's)
FACTOR
COMPUTATIONS
POINTS
Volume
Minor
Street Total Entering Intersection
% 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17
18
19
20
5 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 18
21 24
27
30
33
10 10 12 15 18 22 26 30 34
41 48
55
62
70
15 25 31 37 45 53 62 71 80
93 106
119
132
145
20 42 51 60 76 92 108 124 140
160 180
200
220
240
25 51 62 72 90 107 125 142 160
180 208
232
256
280
30 61 73 85, 104 123 142 161 180
208 236
264
292
320
35 63 75 87 108 128 148 169 188
210 249
278
308
338
40 65 77 89 111 132 154 176229
261
292
323
355
45 67 79 91 114 137 160 183 206
240 273
306
338
372
50 68 80 95 117 141 165 190
250 285
320
353
389
Do not interpolate - use next highest value
206
Accidents
12 points per accident for recent year 0
X 12
=
0
6 points per accident for second to fourth year 6
X 6
=
36
(Pedestrian accidents count as 1.5)
TOTAL
36
Speed
Use highest 85 percentile approach speed (4 -way stop
=0)
Speed (mph) 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
40 42
44
46
48 50
Points 4 12 20 28 36 46 58
70 82
96
112
130 150
0
Coordinated
Distance from proposed signal to nearest existing signal.
Movement
(Minimum distance is 60 et)
Distance (ft) 200 1000 900 800 700
600
Points 0 20 -35 -50 -65
-80
0
Special
Apply to two-way stop controlled intersections unless accident history
Conditions
indicates existing four-way stop control is insufficient.
CONDITION
POINTS
Signal warranted under Caltrans pedestrian or school crossing
warrant
100
Meets 50% of above requirements
75
Intersection adjacent to school, major pedestrian generator
or RR tracks
within intersection
50
On school or major generator route or RR tracks adjacent to intersection
25
Other
0
(Describe)
By: Rick Kiriu Date: June 7, 2000
TOTAL POINTS
242
priority worksheet
CITY OF LODI TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY
Public Works Department WORKSHEET
Major St:
Ham Ln Volume: 9.6
Minor St:
Century Blvd Volume: 6.2
% of
Total 39
Total Volume: 15,8
(Volumes in 1000's)
FACTOR
COMPUTATIONS
POINTS
Volume
Minor
Street Total Entering Intersection
0/0 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17
18
19
20
5 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 18 21
24
27
30
33
10 10 12 15 18 22 26 30 34 41
48
55
62
70
15 25 31 37 45 53 62 71 80 93
106
119
132
145
20 42 51 60 76 92 108 124 140 160
180
200
220
240
25 51 62 72 90 107 125 142 160 180
208
232
256
280
30 61 73 85 104 123 142 161 180 208
236
264
292
320
35 63 75 87 108 128 148 169 188
249
278
308
338
40 65 77 89 111 132 154 176 196 229
261
292
323
355
45 67 79 91 114 137 160 183 206
273
306
338
372
50 68 80 95 117 141 165 190 215 250
285
320
353
389
Do not interpolate - use next highest value
229
Accidents
12 points per accident for recent year 1 X
12
=
12
6 points per accident for second to fourth year 0 X
6
=
0
(Pedestrian accidents count as 1.51
TOTAL
12
Speed
Use highest 85 percentile approach speed (4 -way stop = 0)
Speed (mph) 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
42
44
46
48 50
Points 4 12 20 28 36 46 58 70
82
96
112
130 150
0
Coordinated
Distance from proposed signal to nearest existing signal.
Movement
(Minimum distance is 60 et)
Distance (ft) 0 1000 900 800 700 600
Points 0200
-20 -35 -50 -65 -80
0
Special
Apply to two-way stop controlled intersections unless accident history
Conditions
indicates existing four-way stop control is insufficient.
CONDITION
POINTS
Signal warranted under Caltrans pedestrian or school crossing
warrant
100
Meets 50% of above requirements
75
Intersection adjacent to school, major pedestrian generator or RR tracks
within intersection
50
On school or major generator route or RR tracks adjacent to
intersection
25
Other
0
(Describe)
By: Rick Kiriu Date: June 7, 2000
TOTAL POINTS
241
priority_worksheet
h CITY OF LODI TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY
Public Works Department WORKSHEET
Major St:
Mills Ave Volume:
7.3
Minor St:
Elm St Volume:
5,7
% of
Total 44
Total Volume:
13
(Volumes in 1000's)
FACTOR
COMPUTATIONS
POINTS
Volume
Minor
Street Total Entering Intersection
0/0 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17
18
19
20
5 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 18
21 24
27
30
33
10 10 12 15 18 22 26 30 34
41 48
55
62
70
15 25 31 37 45 53 62 71 80
93 106
119
132
145
20 42 51 60 76 92 108 124 140
160 180
200
220
240
25 51 62 72 90 107 125 142 160
180 208
232
256
280
30 61 73 85 104 123 142 161 180
208 236
264
292
320
35 63 75 87 108 128 148 169 188
210 249
278
308
338
40 65 77 89 111 132 154 176 196
229 261
292
323
355
45 67 79 91 114 137 160 183 206
240 273
306
338
372
50 68 80 95 117 141 190 215
250 285
320
353
389
Do not interpolate - use next highest value
160
Accidents
12 points per accident for recent year 0
X 12
=
0
6 points per accident for second to fourth year 2
X 6
=
12
(Pedestrian accidents count as 1.5)
TOTAL
12
Speed
Use highest 85 percentile approach speed (4 -way stop
=0)
Speed (mph) 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
40 42
44
46
48 50
Points 4 12 20 28 36 46 58
70 82
96
112
130 150
0
Coordinated
Distance from proposed signal to nearest existing signal.
Movement
(Minimum distance is 60et)
Distance (ft) 120 1000 900 800 700
600
Points UO -20 -35 -50 -65
-80
0
Special
Apply to two-way stop controlled intersections unless accident history
Conditions
indicates existing four-way stop control is insufficient.
CONDITION
POINTS
Signal warranted under Caltrans pedestrian or school crossing warrant
100
Meets 50% of above requirements
75
Intersection adjacent to school, major pedestrian generator or RR tracks
within intersection
50
On school or major generator route or RR tracks adjacent to intersection
25
Other
(Describe)
0
By: Rick Kiriu Date: June 7, 2000
TOTAL POINTS
172
priority worksheet
CITY OF LODI
Public Works Department
TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY
WORKSHEET
Major Si:
Turner Rd Volume: 14.1
Minor St:
California St / Edgewood Dr Volume: 1 .5
% of
Total 10
Total Volume: 15,6
(Volumes in 1000's)
FACTOR
COMPUTATIONS
POINTS
Volume
Minor
Street Total Entering Intersection
% 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18
19
20
5 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 1824
27
30
33
10 10 12 15 18 22 26 30 34 41 48
55
62
70
15 25 31 37 45 53 62 71 80 106
119
132
145
20 42 51 60 76 92 108 124 140 160 180
200
220
240
25 51 62 72 90 107 125 142 160 180 208
232
256
280
30 61 73 85 104 123 142 161 180 208 236
264
292
320
35 63 75 87 108 128 148 169 188 210 249
278
308
338
40 65 77 89 111 132 154 176 196 229 261
292
323
355
45 67 79 91 114 137 160 183 206 240 273
306
338
372
50 68 80 95 117 141 165 190 215 250 285
320
353
389
Do not interpolate - use next highest value
41
Accidents
12 points per accident for recent year 0 X 12
=
0
6 points per accident for second to fourth year 1 X 6
=
6
(Pedestrian accidents count as 1.5)
TOTAL
6
Speed
Use highest 85 percentile approach speed (4 -way stop = 0)
Speed (mph) 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
44
46
48 50
Points 4 12 20 28 36 46 58 70 82
96
112
130 150
96
Coordinated
Distance from proposed signal to nearest existing signal.
Movement
(Minimum distance is 60et)
Distance (ft) 200 1000 900 800 700 600
Points 00 -20 -35 -50 -65 -80
0
Special
Apply to two-way stop controlled intersections unless accident history
Conditions
indicates existing four-way stop control is insufficient.
CONDITION
POINTS
Signal warranted under Caltrans pedestrian or school crossing warrant
100
Meets 50% of above requirements
75
Intersection adjacent to school, major pedestrian generator or RR
tracks
within intersection
50
On school or major generator route or RR tracks adjacent to intersection
25
Other
(Describe)
0
By: Rick Kiriu Date: June 7, 2000
TOTAL POINTS
143
priority worksheet
x CITY OF LODI TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY
Public Works Department WORKSHEET
Major St:
Elm St Volume:
7.9
Minor St:
Pacific Ave Volume:
2.1
% of
Total 21
Total Volume:
10,0
(Volumes in 1000's)
FACTOR
COMPUTATIONS
POINTS
Volume
in r
Street Total Enterina Intersection
% 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17
18
19
20 21
5 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 18
21 24
27
30
33 38
10 10 12 15 18 22 26 30 34
41 48
55
62
70 77
15 25 31 37 45 53 62 71 80
93 106
119
132
145 162
20 42 5176 92 108 124 140
160 180
200
220
240 269
25 51 62 72 90 107 125 142 160
180 208
232
256
280 314
30 61 73 104 123 142 161 180
208 236
264
292
320 359
35 63 75 87 108 128 148 169 188
210 249
278
308
338 379
40 65 77 89 111 132 154 176 196
229 261
292
323
355 398
45 67 79 91 114 137 160 183 206
240 273
306
338
372 418
50 68 80 95 117 141 165 190 215
250 285
320
353
389 437
Do not interpolate - use next highest value
72
Accidents
12 points per accident for recent year 1
X 12
=
12
6 points per accident for second to fourth year 3
X 6
=
18
(Pedestrian accidents count as 1.5)
TOTAL
30
Speed
Use highest 85 percentile approach speed (4 -way stop
= 0)
Speed (mph) 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
(511)
40 42
44
46
48 50
Points 4 12 20 28 36 46
70 82
96
112
130 150
58
Coordinated
Distance from proposed signal to nearest existing signal.
Movement
(Minimum distance is 600 feet)
Distance (ft) 1200 1000 900 800 700
600
Points 0 -20 -35 -50 -65
-80
-80
Special
Apply to two-way stop controlled intersections unless accident history
Conditions
indicates existing four-way stop control is insufficient.
CONDITION
POINTS
Signal warranted under Caltrans pedestrian or school crossing
warrant
100
Meets 50% of above requirements
75
Intersection adiacent to school, major pedestrian generator or RR tracks
within intersection
50
On school or major generator route or RR tracks adjacent to intersection
25
Other
(Describe)
50
By: Rick Kiriu Date: June 7, 2000
TOTAL POINTS
130
priority_worksheet
' CITY OF LODI TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY
WORKSHEET
Public Works Department
Major St:
Cherokee Ln Volume:
17.3
Minor St:
Tokay St Volume:
1.2
% of Total 7
Total Volume:
18.5
(Volumes in 1000's)
FACTOR
COMPUTATIONS
POINTS
Volume
Minor
Street Total Entering Intersection
% 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17
18
19
20
5 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 18
21
24
2733
10 10 12 15 18 22 26 30 34
41
48
55
62
70
15 25 31 37 45 53 62 71 80
93
106
119
145
20 42 51 60 76 92 108 124 140
160
180
200
220
240
25 51 62 72 90 107 125 142 160
180
208
232
256
280
30 61 73 85 104 123 142 161 180
208
236
264
292
320
35 63 75 87 108 128 148 169 188
210
249
278
308
338
40 65 77 89 111 132 154 176 196
229
261
292
323
355
45 67 79 91 114 137 160 183 206
240
273
306
338
372
50 68 80 95 117 141 165 190 215
250
285
320
353
389
Do not interpolate - use next highest value
62
Accidents
12 points per accident for recent year 1
X
12
=
12
6 points per accident for second to fourth year 9.5
X
6
=
57
(Pedestrian accidents count as 1.5)
TOTAL
69
Speed
=0)
Use highest 85 percentile approach speed (4-wan38
Speed (mph) 26 28 30 32 34 3640
42
44
46
48 50
Points 4 12 20 28 36 4670
82
96
112
130 150
58
Coordinated
Distance from proposed signal to nearest existing signal.
Movement
(Minimum distance is 600 feet)
Distance (ft) 1200 1000 900 800 700
0 -20 -35 -50 -65
nOOPoints
-80
Special
Apply to two-way stop controlled intersections unless accident history
Conditions
indicates existing four-way stop control is insufficient.
CONDITION
POINTS
Signal warranted under Caltrans pedestrian or school crossing warrant
100
Meets 50% of above requirements
75
Intersection adjacent to school, major pedestrian generator or RR tracks
within intersection
50
On school or major generator route or RR tracks adjacent to
intersection
25
Other
(Describe)
0
By: Rick Kiriu Date: June 7, 2000
TOTAL POINTS
109
priority_worksheet
• CITY OF LODI
Public Works Department
TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY
WORKSHEET
Major St:
Turner Rd Volume: 15.1
Minor St:
Sacramento St Volume: 1.2
% of Total 7
Total Volume: 16,3
(Volumes in 1000's)
FACTOR
COMPUTATIONS
POINTS
Volume
Minor
Street Total Entering Intersection
% 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18
19
20
5 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 18 2127
30
33
10 10 12 15 18 22 26 30 34 41 48
55
62
70
15 25 31 37 45 53 62 71 80 93
119
132
145
20 42 51 60 76 92 108 124 140 160 180
200
220
240
25 51 62 72 90 107 125 142 160 180 208
232
256
280
30 61 73 85 104 123 142 161 180 208 236
264
292
320
35 63 75 87 108 128 148 169 188 210 249
278
308
338
40 65 77 89 111 132 154 176 196 229 261
292
323
355
45 67 79 91 114 137 160 183 206 240 273
306
338
372
50 68 80 95 117 141 165 190 215 250 285
320
353
389
Do not interpolate - use next highest value
48
Accidents
12 points per accident for recent year 1 X 12
=
12
6 points per accident for second to fourth year 1 X 6
=
6
(Pedestrian accidents count as 1.5)
TOTAL
18
Speed
Use highest 85 percentile approach speed (4 -way stop = 0)
Speed (mph) 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
46
48 50
Points 4 12 20 28 36 46 58 70 (n244
96
112
130 150
82
Coordinated
Distance from proposed signal to nearest existing signal.
Movement
(Minimum distance is 600 feet)
Distance (ft) 1200 1000 900800 700 600
Points 0 -20 -35 -50 -65 -80
-50
Special
Apply to two-way stop controlled intersections unless accident history
Conditions
indicates existing four-way stop control is insufficient.
CONDITION
POINTS
Signal warranted under Caltrans pedestrian or school crossing warrant
100
Meets 50% of above requirements
75
Intersection adjacent to school, major pedestrian generator or RR tracks
within intersection
50
On school or major generator route or RR tracks adjacent to intersection
25
Other
(Describe)
0
By: Rick Kiriu Date: June 7, 2000
TOTAL POINTS
98
priority_worksheet
CITY OF LODI TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY
wo
WORKSHEET
Public Works Department
Major St:
Cherokee Ln Volume:
19.6
Minor St:
Elm St Volume:
1.2
% of
Total 6
Total Volume:
20,8
(Volumes in 1000's)
FACTOR
COMPUTATIONS
POINTS
Volume
Minor
Street Total Entering Intersection
% 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17
18
19
20 21
5 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 18
21 24
27
30
33
10 10 12 15 18 22 26 30 34
41 48
55
62
70C
15 25 31 37 45 53 62 71 80
93 106
119
132
145
20 42 51 60 76 92 108 124 140
160 180
200
220
240 269
25 51 62 72 90 107 125 142 160
180 208
232
256
280 314
30 61 73 85 104 123 142 161 180
208 236
264
292
320 359
35 63 75 87 108 128 148 169 188
210 249
278
308
338 379
40 65 77 89 111 132 154 176 196
229 261
292
323
355 398
45 67 79 91 114 137 160 183 206
240 273
306
338
372 418
50 68 80 95 117 141 165 190 215
250 285
320
353
389 437
Do not interpolate - use next highest value
77
Accidents
12 points per accident for recent year 2
X 12
=
24
6 points per accident for second to fourth year 3
X 6
=
is
(Pedestrian accidents count as 1.5)
TOTAL
42
Speed
Use highest 85 percentile approach speed (4-wan58
=0)
Speed (mph) 26 28 30 32 34 3640
42
44
46
48 50
Points 4 12 20 28 36 4670
82
96
112
130 150
58
Coordinated
Distance from proposed signal to nearest existing signal.
Movement
(Minimum distance is 600 feet)
Distance (ft) 1200 1000 900 800 700600
Points 0 -20 -35 -50 -65
-80
-80
Special
Apply to two-way stop controlled intersections unless accident history
Conditions
indicates existing four-way stop control is insufficient.
CONDITION
POINTS
Signal warranted under Caltrans pedestrian or school crossing warrant
100
Meets 50% of above requirements
75
Intersection adjacent to school, major pedestrian generator or RR tracks
within intersection
50
On school or major generator route or RR tracks adjacent to intersection
25
Other
(Describe)
0
By: Rick Kiriu Date: June 7, 2000
TOTAL POINTS
97
priority worksheet