HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1989-14120 RESOLUTION NO. 14120
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A COUNCIL POLICY FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, for a number of years the City has been
informally using CalTrans warrants for the installation of
traffic signals, (warrants 1 thru 8 as shown on Exhibit "A"), and
WHEREAS, CalTrans has recently added three new warrants
(warrants 9 through 11 as shown on Exhibit A), and
WHEREAS, Staff believes the informal application and use
of the CalTrans warrants, including the three additional warrants
used by CalTrans should be formally adopted as City policy by the
City Council, and
WHEREAS, the Safety Commission at their meeting of March
10, 1988, voted 5-0 to accept staff's recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt a Council policy for
the installation of traffic signals as set forth in Exhibit "A",
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set
forth in full.
Presented by Approved as to form by
5764a
COUNCIL POLICY
CJl'f OF CHULAVZSTA
EUECT POLICY EFFECnW
Installation of Traffic Signals NLIvSER DATE PAGE ,
1
Ai3C)P~u BY RESOLUTION NO. DATI~:
BACKGROUND
Staff has been informally using the CalTrans warrants for the
installation of traffic signals. CalTrans has recently added three new
warrants. It is felt that the informal procedure needs to be formalized
and the three new warrants need to be included into a City Council
policy. The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) has 11
warrants to evaluate whether a signal should be installed or not. Staff
had added one special condition to the traffic signal warrants. The new
traffic signal warrant sheets have 11 warrants and one special
condition. One hundred (lO0) points is the maximum points which an
intersection would receive. These points should be used to prioritize
new installation and not whether a signal should be installed.
These warrants are based on years of study and experience for determining
whether or not a traffic signal should be installed at a particular
intersection.
PURPOSE
Since staff has been following the traffic signal warrants set forth by
CalTrans, it has been decided to establish a policy to make City Council
aware of how these traffic signal warrants function.
The primary purpose of a traffic signal is to assign the right-of-way at
locations where there is evidence of delay, congestion, confusion or
other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment. Traffic signals
can reduce the number of right angle accidents occurring at an
intersection, but could also increase the number of rear-end accidents.
Traffic signals can also facilitate pedestrians crossing the street.
The use of the warrant system helps to decrease serious right angle
traffic accidents, and reduce delay and congestion caused by competing
demands for the right-of-way through an intersection.
The use of warrants limits traffic signal installation to those
intersections which really need that installation to provide for the
public safety and convenience. Overall safety is generally enhanced and
congestion and travel delay are almost always decreased, and of course,
the cost to the City and the taxpayers is minimized.
Y
rn~-,..cn-nnl ~.1/.//~0~
COUNCIL POLICY
CI'IYOF CHULAVISTA
IBJECT POLICY EFFECnVE
Installation of Traffic Signals Ntt4BER DATE PAGE
2
AIX)PI~u BY RESOLLFFION NO, DATE)3:
The warrants, with a brief explanation of each, follows:
1. Minimum Vehicular Volume - This warrant requires that both streets at
an intersection have substantial volumes of traffic for a minimum of
8 hours/day.
2. Interruption of Continuous Traffic - This warrant applies to street
conditions where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy
that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay
or hazard in entering or crossing that major street for 8 hours/day.
3. Minimum Pedestrian Volume - This warrant is satisfied when
substantial volumes of pedestrians/hour for 8 hours/day crossing the
street.
4. School Crossing - This warrant is satisfied when substantial volumes
of school age pedestrians/hour for 2 hours/day crossing the street.
This warrant is not part of this point system. Whenever this warrant
is satisfied then it is recommended to install a traffic signal.
5. Progressive Movement - This warrant is intended to provide signals at
locations where adjacent signals do not maintain vehicle platooning
and speed control. It is based solely on intersection location and
not on vehicle or pedestrian volumes.
6. Accident Experience - This warrant is satisfied when there are five
or more accidents/year susceptible to correction by the installation
of a traffic signal and adequate trial of less restrictive remedies
with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the
accident frequency. Also the volume of vehicle and pedestrian
traffic should not be less than 80 percent of warrant l, 2 or 3.
7. Systems Warrant - This warrant is used to encourage concentration and
organization of traffic flow networks.
8. Combination of Warrants This warrant is satisfied when no single
warrant is satisfied but where any two of warrants l, 2 and 3 are
satisfied to the extent of 80 percent or more of the stated numerical
values.
9.Four Hour Volume - This warrant is based on traffic volumes during
the four highest hours of the day.
rn ,-.~. cn - n n ~ /~_/~Z/~OL~
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OFOntILAVISTA
I ECF POLICY EFFeCr'ZVE
Installation of Traffic Signals NtI4BER DAllE PAGE
3
AjXgHI~U BY RESOLUTION NO, DATI~:
10. Peak Hour Delay This warrant is intended for application where
traffic conditions are such that for one hour of the day, minor
street traffic suffers undue delay in entering or crossing the major
street.
11. Peak Hour Volume - The peak hour volume warrant is intended for
application where traffic conditions are such that for one hour of
the day minor street traffic volume is high and traffic suffers undue
delay in entering or crossing the major street.
12. Special Conditions - Engineering judgment shall be used to award
points based on special conditions such as sight distance, narrow
road widths, schools, etc.
POLICY
See attached TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS.
WPC 3695E
Exhibit "A"
Total Points Calc Date
Ck Date
Meet Warrants # Period from to
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
Intersection: (No. ) ADT
Major Street
Minor Street
8Bth Percentlie Speed on Major Street MPH
Is 85th Percentlie Speed Greater than 4u MPH on major street?
Yes Rural (R) No Urban (U)
WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume
Did VPH exceed minimum requirements ALL 8 hours? 100% Satisfied Yes No
80% Satisfied Yes ' No '
If Yes to 100%, then warrant 1 is met.
Minimum Requirements
(80% shown in brackets) Time
U R U R
Approach Lanes 1 2 or more (Hour)
Both Apprchs. 500 3~0 600 420
_Major Street (400) (280) (480) (336) VPH
IHighest Apprch. 150 105 200 140
Minor Street* {120) (84) 1160) {ll2) VPH
*Note: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT-phasing is
proposed , however, LT vehicles must be subtracted out from major street.
Circle hours when satisfied.
(Maximum 8 hours) Number of Hours
{Maximum points 12) Satisfied 100% Points
0 0
1 0
2 0
3 1
4 2
5 3
6 4
7 6
8 12
TOTAL POINTS
WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
~id VHP exceed minimum requirements ALL 8 hours? 100% Satisfied Yes No
80% Satisfied Yes ' No
If Yes to 100%, then warrant 2 is met.
Minimum Requirements
(80% shown in brackets) Time
U R U R
Approach Lanes 1 2 or more (Hour)
Both Apprchs. 750 525 900 630
Major Street (600) (420) (720) (504) VPH
Highest Apprch. 75 53 lO0 70
Minor Street* (60) (42) (80) (56) VPH
*Note: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT-phasing is
proposed , however, LT vehicles must be subtracted out from major street.
Circle hours when satisfied.
(Maximum 8 hours) Number of Hours
(Maximum points 8) Satisfied 100% Points
0 0
1 0
2 0
3 1
4 2
5 3
6 4
7 5
8 8
TOTAL POINTS
-2-
WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume
Did VPH exceed minimum requirements ALL 8 hours? 100% Satisfied Yes No ~
80% Satisfied Yes No
If Yes to 100%, then warrant 3 is met.
Minimum Requirements
· ,(80% shown in brackets) Time
U R (Hour)
Both Approaches No median 600 420
Major Street (480) (336) VPH
Volume Raised min.
4' lO00 700
Median (800) (560) VPH
Pedestrian Crossing 150 105
Major Street (120) (84) VPH
Circle hours when satisfied.
(Maximum 8 hours) Number of Hours
(Maximum points 8) Satisfied 100% Points
0 0
1 0
2 1
3 2
4 3
5 4
6 5
7 6
8 8
TOTAL POINTS
WARRANT 4 - School Crossing
Not Applicable /"'7
See School Crossing Warrant Sheet
IF
A. The signal has been requested by the City Council /'7
OR
B. The crossing is on the "Suggested Route to School Maps" /'7
OR
C. The signal has been requested by the school board ~
WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement Satisfied Yes No
--~ Minimum Requirements Distance to Nearest Signal Fulfilled
1000 ft. N ft, S ft, E ft, W ft Yes No
On one way isolated street or street with one way traffic
of significant volume and adjacent signals are so far apart
that necessary platooning and speed control would be lost.
............................................................................ Yes No
On two way streets where adjacent signals do not provide necessary
platooning and speed control. Proposed signals could constitute a
progressive signal system.
(If satisfied the warrants give 8 points.) TOTAL POINTS
WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience Satisfied* Yes No
Requirement Warrant ~ Fulfilled
One'Warrant Warrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume
or
Satisfied Warrant 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
or
- 80% Warrant 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume Yes No
Adequate trial of less restrictive measures such as warning Yes No
signs, proper lighting, painted markings, etc. have failed
to reduce the correctible accidents (in previous 12 months)
to less than 5 correctible accidents.
5 or more correctible accidents (in previous 12 months) Yes No
left-turn accidents can be included when LT-phasing
is proposed
Period from to
Correctible ~s/Total accidents /
Correctible Accidents x 2.0 points/acc. =
1Maximum points 16)
*must satisfy all 3 warrants TOTAL POINTS
-4-
WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant Satisfied Yes No
A signal may be warranted at the intersection of two (2) or more major streets and/or
prime arterials where the total entering traffic volume is at least 800 during the peak
hour of any average weekday, or for any five (5) hours of a Saturday and/or Sunday. On
Saturday and/or Sunday each hour must have a total entering traffic volume of at least
800.
(If satisfied the warrants give 8 points.) TOTAL POINTS
WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants
Are 2 of 3 requirements met? Satisfied Yes No__
Requirement Warrant Points ~ Fulfilled
Two Warrants 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 3
Satisfied 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 3
80% 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 2 Yes No
Total Points = TOTAL POINTS
(Maximum points 8)
'ARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume Satisfied* Yes No
Number of Lanes on Major Street One Two or more
Number of Lanes on Minor Street One Two or more '
Time
(Hour)
Both Approaches, Major Street
Highest Approaches, Minor Street
* A signal may be warranted, when for each of any four hours of an average day, the
plotted points representing the vehicles per hour.entering the intersection from both
approaches on the major street and the vehicles per hour entering the intersection
from the higher-volume minor street approach (one direction only) for the same
one-hour all falls above the curve in Figure 9-2A (urban areas) or Figure 9-2B (rural
areas).
Number of hours satisfied x 2.0 points/hr.
(Maximum points 8) TOTAL POINTS
-5-
WARRANT lO - Peak Hour Delay Satisfied* Yes No__
--I1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach
controlled by a stop sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane
approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; and
Yes No
2. Ine volume on t~e same minor street approac~ equals or exceeds
lO0 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; and
Yes No
3. I~e tota~ entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds
800 vhp for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph
for intersections with three approaches. Yes No
* A signal may be warranted when the conditions given above exist for one hour {any four
consecutive 15 minute periods) of an average weekday.
(If satisfied, this warrants give 8 points).
(Maximum points 8) TOTAL POINTS
WARRANT ll - Peak Hour Volume Satisfied* Yes No
'umber of Lanes on Major Street One __ Two or more ~
~umber o~ Lanes on Minor Street One Two or more
Time
(Hour)
Both Approaches, Major Street
Highest Approaches, Minor Street
* A signal may be warranted, when for any one hour of an average day, the plotted point
representing the vehicles per hour entering the intersection from both approaches on
the major street and the vehicles per hour entering the intersection from the higher
volume minor street approach (one direction only) for the same one hour both falls
above the curve in Figure 9-2C (urban areas) or Figure 9-2D (rural areas).
Number of hours satisfied 100% x 8 points/hr. =
(Maximum points 8) TOTAL POINTS
-6-
12. Special Conditions o Engineering judgment shall be used to award points based on
special conditions. A range of +8 to -8 points may be awarded based on either
benefits or disbenefits to be derived from installation of traffic signal.
TOTAL POINTS
13. Summary
Points Maximum Points
1. Volume Warrant 12
2. Interruption Warrant 8
3. Pedestrian Warrant 8
4. School Crossing Warrant 0
5. Progressive Movement 8
6. Accidents Warrant 16
7. Systems Warrant 8
8. Combination ~arrant 8
9. F~ur Hour Volume Warrant 8
lO. Peak Hour Delay 8
11. Peak Hour Volume Warrant 8
12. Special Conditions 8
TOTAL lO0
-7-
A-
12. Remarks
WPC 2835E
-8-
O
0 0 O O O
HdA--HOVOt:IddV 91NN'IOA HDIH
133M15 HONIIN
T
HdA--HOVOBddV 31NIT'IOA HDIH
13~BIS BONIIN
HdA--HOVOldddV 3~N"IOA HDIH
J.331:I..L$ I:tONI//~I
f~- /,-fl at) "
0
0
HdA--HOVO~4ddV 3~I~'IOA HOIH
,L:13~'I,.L$ I:IONI~I
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
tULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 6th day of June
19 89 , by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Malcolm, Moore, Nader, Cox
NAYES: Counc~ 1 members None
ABSTAIN: Counci]members None
ABSENT: Councilmembers McCandliss
~f the City 0 Chula Visto
City Clerk
~TE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss.
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chulo Vista, California,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY thor the obove and foregoing is 0 full, true ond correct copy of
RESOLUTZON NO. 14120 ,and fhot the same has not been amended or repealed
DATED
City Clerk
CC-660