HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPROVE THE 2006 RECOMMENDED CITYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORIT 0
h.
Council/Agency Meeting Held: M.7-1 146 2006 tuG 10 it 4: 20
Deferred/Continued to:
&
I(LAp rov d LJ Conditionally Approved 1, ` ity Itk'sVignat
4
Council Meeting Date: 8/21/2006 Department ID Number: 06-061
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
fl
SUBMITTED BY: PENELOPE CULBRETH-GRAFT--GLTY A"AINISTRATO
0 W
PREPARED BY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, PE,DIiE2 OR F PUBLIC W KS
SUBJECT: Approve the 2006 Recommended Citywide Traffic Signal Priority List
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue: Each year the City reviews a list of candidate locations for the
installation of new traffic signals and prioritizes those locations for consideration of funding
under the Capital Improvement Program. The data used to identify and prioritize these
locations has been updated to address current conditions.
Funding Source: None required for the recommended action. Traffic signals are
typically funded through a variety of sources including grants, Air Quality funds, and Traffic
Impact Fees. The Traffic Signal Priority List is used in developing a portion of the City's
annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Recommended Action: Motion to:
1. Approve the 2006 Recommended Traffic Signal Priority List
Alternative Action(s): Motion to:
1. Modify evaluation methodology (e.g. revise attribute weighting, revise point
assessments for specific locations).
2. Other alternatives as identified by the City Council.
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 8/21/2006 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: 06-061
Analysis: Staff completed a comprehensive review and update of the City's Traffic Signal
Priority List. The study identified and evaluated 124 potential, new traffic signal locations.
Based on initial screening and detailed study, 27 locations were identified as being likely
candidates for traffic signal installations. Those locations were then prioritized based on a
multiple attribute weighting system as has been done the last three years. Attachment 1
presents the recommended Traffic Signal Priority List for 2006. Several significant shifts
have occurred in the priority list based on changes in conditions and extensive update of
traffic and accident data.
A detailed description of the procedures and methodology used to identify and prioritize new
traffic signal locations was prepared as part of the report presented to the Public Works
Commission. For detailed reference, a copy of the report is included as Attachment 2.
It is important to note that several locations currently do not have traffic signals and are not
on the list, though they were included in previous priority lists. The locations are not included
because they have already been programmed for traffic signal installation and are at various
stages of design and construction at this time. The currently programmed locations are:
1. Bolsa Chica Street and Robinwood Drive
2. Yorktown Avenue and Windward Lane
3. Newland Street and Hamilton Avenue
4. Talbert Avenue at Brookshire/Kovacs Lane
5. Indianapolis Avenue at Titan Street
6. Beach Boulevard at Taylor Drive
The recommended Traffic Signal Priority List is based on the analyses and attribute
weighting system presented. The methodology for establishing traffic signal priorities
presents a formal method for reflecting both the actual street conditions and community
priorities. The list reflects sound application of the current State standards for traffic control
devices and a community-oriented approach based on local priorities for traffic safety.
Public Works Commission Action: The Public Works Commission supported the
recommended action at its July 19, 2006 meeting by a vote of 6-0-1 (Scheid absent).
Attachment(s):
City Clerk's
Page Number No. Description
1. 2006 Recommended Traffic Signal Priority List
2. July 19, 2006 Public Works Commission Report
-2- 8/10/2006 2:10 PM
ATTAC H M E N T # 1
2006 RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY LIST
Warrant 1-8 Hour Warrant 2-4 Hour Warrant 5-School Warrant 7 - Crash
Vehicle Volume Vehicle Volume Warrant 3-Peak Hour Crossing Warrant Adjustment Factor 1
2005
Total
Previous 2006
Location Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Points Priority Rank Rank
y
Adams at Ran Ranw r Yes 10 'Yea ' SiYes 811, No Yes 30' No 56 6 f t
CiatdeFlwest at-Rio Vista No No - No f No Yes 28 Yes 20 45 5 2
not'ra a#hAediterraneah Yep 10 Yes S Yes S I�lo No 14, Na 43 li 8 3
$each at$esbrid hiS Yres 10 Xas S Yes t10 No 15 No 41 4 4
Bdsa Chime at Pearce See 10 Yea 8 _ Yes S No No 10 No 36 6 6'
Gotdenwest st' Harbor Yas i ' Y 8 Yas ?8 No , Na 10 No - 36 13 ! 6
&OtursY a#� ort0r>erriaC= Yas 10 a�Yes 8 Yas 8a No
YoictoHm at Fluntin an Yee 10 "'Yes 8 Yas ! 8 No Na 10'
P
Bch 3t HollBnd," Nv �-- No Yet S Igo �Tlo 25 No � � 33 13 �
17thStreeta#tdams Yes 10 Yad "-8 Yas' $ No No 10 Yea ( 40 26 15 ' i0
olteiet` Yes. 10ii Yea.. - & N1(es ! $ NoNc No,
Beach at bl'X No �i"' Y 8 *a* 6 !fib No 10` No 2�3
K2o 10 I 10
Hell at Sabot Yas 10..' Yea 8 Yes 8 No Nc No - 26 22 1 d„
`
Slag at ara'. Yes ;Yea + 8 Yes S No Nao ! - 26 19 10
Batni ettlioU No No No ! Yas 26 ="N4 ¥io 25 19 15'
lief[ #hkxlme 26` No No Y5 8
r
chat$ 't No No^ H o
o o No 25: N 5 22
,rohamat Res�rcfi No No< 15 s Na 23 27 1S,
HeitatBrad No No ' No 20
Brookhitrst.2!'Gt l rr1s0 ion Na' No
"-
R'ac .atGrazjOdio N+i "i�p - No tl - Yas ;'� 8 No 10 -No-- 20
q
La atlltica`_= 8 " No to, No i f6 20
Atld &arowniteefJF61d1tf No No Na No No 17 No 17 10 23
ilisiatt3ziaware Yes ', 10 Yeitl 8 Y - 8`" NaT - Yes 10 16r 15 24
r ii y
n t LS}7Ya 14thi , Nq " No , u Yes 8 Yee $ No No 16 29;
I tCtest � Ns Na Nq ! i 2&u r No Yes 40 Y 5 =
dlrt attrrest No No Na 14es No ifi l No - 15 22 26
(1)Point adjustments-loth positive and negative-to account for factors not directly addressed in warrant analyses(e.g.less restrictive traffic control,Crossing guard presence,significant uncontrolled pedestrian activity)
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT #2
11•J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
�- PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
REQUEST FOR ACTION
Item No. 06-18
SUBMITTED TO: Chairman Mason and Members f the Commission
SUBMITTED BY: Robert F. Beardsley, PE/Dir of ublic Works
DATE: July 19, 2006
SUBJECT: 2006 Traffic Signal Priority List Update
Statement of Issue: The annual, comprehensive evaluation of the City's need
for new traffic signal installations is presented to the Public Works Commission to
review the methodology applied and the staff recommended priority list of
locations. The Public Works Commission has the opportunity to provide input,
suggestions and a recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council.
Funding Source: None required for this action. Traffic signals are typically
funded through a variety of sources including grants, Air Quality Management
funds, and Traffic Impact Fees. The Traffic Signal Priority List is used in developing
the City's annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Recommended Action: Motion to recommend the City Council:
l . Approve the methodology presented for developing the Traffic Signal
Priority List; and
2. Approve the revised Traffic Signal Priority List and ranking.
Alternative Action:
l . Recommend modification of evaluation methodology (e.g. revise
attribute weighting, revise point assessments for specific locations).
2. Other alternatives as identified by the Public Works Commission.
Analysis:
The City Council annually approves a Traffic Signal Priority List, establishing the
order in which new traffic signal projects are funded and completed. In 2004,
the City developed and applied a revised method of assessing traffic signal
priorities that included an attribute weighting element to better differentiate
between conditions at locations and reflect community priorities. The Public
Works Commission actively participated in the development of this
methodology. Last year, the methodology was updated to reflect new State of
California and national standards for signal warrants.
PWC 06-18 July 19 Traffic Signal Priority List(Stachelski).doc
The warrant analysis and attribute weighting system reflects the basic factors
used in evaluating the need for traffic signals (traffic volumes, accident history,
pedestrian volumes, school pedestrian activity, vehicle delay and roadway
system characteristics).
The warrants are summarized below:
Warrant 1 - Eight Hour Vehicle Volume
Warrant 2- Four Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 3 - Peak Hour
Warrant 4 - Pedestrian Volume
Warrant 5 - School Crossing
Warrant 6 - Coordinated Signal System
Warrant 7 - Crash Warrant
Warrant 8 - Roadway Network
For the purposes of this analysis, Warrants 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 were analyzed in detail.
Staff then applied the attribute weighting system shown in Attachment 1 . Staff
developed a list of 124 locations for potential traffic signal installations.
Attachment 2 presents the initial list of locations along with the initial screening
criteria summary. These criteria were used to identify those locations with the
greatest likelihood of ranking highly in this system.
Location Screening Criteria
Locations satisfying any of the following criteria were retained for further study.
a) Three or more correctable property damage accidents or one injury
accident at a location during a 12-month period in the past three years.
Correctable accidents are those that would likely be reduced with the
installation of a traffic signal such as broadside and head-on collisions.
b) Pedestrian activity meeting the traffic signal threshold based on school
area pedestrian crossings.
c) Locations on previous Traffic Signal Priority List.
Using these criteria, the initial list is substantially reduced from 124 to 41, with the
41 remaining locations requiring additional analysis. It is important to note that
several locations that currently do not have traffic signals are not on the list,
though they would appear to be good candidates. The following locations
have not been included because they have already been programmed for
traffic signal installation as part of the current Capital Improvement Program:
1 . Bolsa Chica Street and Robinwood
2. Yorktown Avenue and Windward
3. Newland Street and Hamilton Avenue
4. Talbert Avenue at Brookshire/Kovacs
5. Indianapolis Avenue at Titan Street
6. Beach Boulevard at Taylor
The detailed analyses and attribute weighting system applied to each of the 41
locations yielded a wide range of attribute scoring. The overall point system was
developed to weight each of the three major components of the warrant
system equally. The traffic volume-related warrants comprise 35 of the potential
points, school crossings 35 points, and accident history 30 points. Staff also
included an "adjustment" category to assess factors not directly included in the
warrants, but relevant in the ultimate decision of whether or not to provide
traffic signal control at an intersection. Each of the elements assessed in the
adjustment factor is reviewed in the following sections:
Non-school Pedestrian Activity- Up to 20 additional points were given to
locations where significant pedestrian activity was present at a location
where there are no other traffic controls to assist pedestrians in crossing
the streets. Since specific pedestrian counts were not conducted at non-
school locations, the assessment is based on staff experience. One
example of this application is the intersection of Goldenwest/Rio Vista.
This factor was not applied to locations where existing all-way stop traffic
control is provided.
Current or Potential All-Way Stop Control - Locations that meet signal
warrants but currently have or are good candidates for all-way stop
control had points deducted from their total. This adjustment reflects the
fact that stop signs generally work to assign right-of-way, reduce vehicle
conflicts and injury accident potential. This can be an effective way of
managing traffic if volumes are relatively low and evenly distributed
around an intersection. However, this operation limits capacity and can
result in significant delays as demand becomes high. Intersections
experiencing acceptable delays even during peak periods were reduced
20 points. Those with some periods of heavy delay were reduced 10
points.
The results of the attribute analysis help to further refine the list of intersections
down to those that should be considered viable candidates for signalization
and inclusion in the priority list. Based on the analysis, staff recommends that
only those intersections that scored 15 points or more in the attribute analysis be
considered viable traffic signal locations. Attachment 3 presents the results of
the attribute analysis and recommended priority ranking for the viable traffic
signal locations. Attachment 5 presents those locations that did not meet that
scoring criteria and the results of the associated attribute analysis.
Conclusions
The recommended Traffic Signal Priority List is based on the analyses and
attribute weighting system presented. The revised methodology for establishing
traffic signal priorities presents a formal method for reflecting both the actual
street conditions and community priorities. The updated traffic volume and
accident information has resulted in some significant changes in the priority list.
The list reflects sound application of the current State of California standards for
traffic control devices.
Attachments:
l . Attribute Weighting Assignment Summary
2. Initial Intersection Evaluation Summary
3. Recommended Traffic Signal Priority Ranking
4. Locations Not Meeting Minimum Scoring Criteria
5. 2005 City Council Approved Traffic Signal Priority List
ATTACHMENT # 1
TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY ATTRIBUTE WEIGHTING ASSIGNMENT
Criteria Points Point Value Description
Available
0 10 15
Warrant 1 -8 Hour
Vehicle Volume
15
0 8 10
Warrant 2 -4 Hour I� f
e a
Vehicle Volume
10
0 8 10
Warrant 3 -Peak
Hour
10
0 10 25 35
Warrant 5-School
Crossing
35
0 10 25 30
Warrant 7 -Crash
Warrant
30
20 -20 -10 -10
Other Traffic
Control Adjustment
+20 to -20
Total (excluding
adjustment
factor) 100
ATTAC H M E N T
#2
INITIAL INTERSECTION EVALUATION SUMMARY
2006 SIGNAL PRIORITY STUDY
1 12th Street at Main Street 0 No No No No
2 14th Street at Crest 0 Yes No No Yes
3 17th Street at Adams 2 n/a Yes Yes Yes
4 17th Street at Clay 0 n/a No No No
5 17th Street at Orange 1 n/a No No No
6 1 st Street at Orange/Atlanta 1 We Yes Yes Yes
7 6th Street at Oran e 1 n/a No No No
8 Adams at Crown Reef/Felcliff 4 n/a Yes No Yes
9 Adams at Lawson 0 n/a No No No
10 Adams at Piccailldl 1 n/a No No No
11 Adams at Ranger 6 n/a Yes Yes Yes
12 JAIgonquin at Davenport 2 n/a No No No
13 lAlabama at Frankfort/6th 1 n/a No Yes Yes
14 Banning at Malibu 1 Yes Yes No Yes
15 Beach at Seabrid a/Mem his 4 n/a Yes Yes Yes
16 Bolsa Chica at Pearce 4 n/a Yes No Yes
17 Bolsa Chica at Sisson 2 n/a No No No
18 Brookhurst at Constitution 4 n/a Yes No Yes
19 Bushard at Banning 0 n/a No No No
20 Bushard at Castle ate 0 No No No No
21 Bushard at Woodlawn/Nantucket 0 No No No No
22 Delaware at 17th Street 1 n/a No Yes Yes
23 Delaware at Atlanta 1 n/a No Yes Yes
24 Delaware at Frankfort 0 n/a No No No
25 Delaware at Indianapolis 1 n/a No No No
26 Delaware at Memphis 1 n/a No No No
27 Delaware at Utica 1 n/a No No No
28 Edin er at Belfast 1 n/a No No No
29 Edwards at Central Park/Varsity 1 n/a No No No
30 Edwards at El Corti'o 1 No No Yes Yes
31 Edwards at Wrenfield 0 No No No No
32 Ellis at Delaware 2 n/a Yes No Yes
33 Florida at Clay 0 n/a No No No
34 Florida at Utica 0 n/a No No No
35 Garfield at Coldchester/Mora Kai 1 No No No No
36 Garfield at Suva 0 No No No No
37 Golden West at beep Harbor 2 n/a Yes Yes Yes
38 Golden West at Rio Vista 4 n/a Yes Yes Yes
39 Graham at Glenstone 0 n/a No No No
40 lGraham at Meadowlark 0 No No No No
41 lGraham at Research 3 n/a Yes No Yes
42 Graham at Slater 0 n/a No No No
43 Green at Pearce 1 n/a No No No
44 Hamilton at Polynesian 1 n/a No No No
45 Heil at AI onquin/Seaview 1 n/a No No No
46 Heil at Bradbury 2 No Yes No Yes
47 Heil at Clubhouse 1 n/a No No No
48 Heil at Monroe 1 Yes Yes No Yes
49 Heil at Redlands 0 No No No No
50 Heil at Silver 1 No No No No
51 Heil at Trudy 1 No No No No
52 Huntington at Atlanta 1 n/a No No No
Page 1 of 3
INITIAL INTERSECTION EVALUATION SUMMARY
2006 SIGNAL PRIORITY STUDY
53 1 Indianapolis at Alisa 2 No No No No
54 Indianapolis at Farnsworth 0 No No No No
55 Indianapolis at Ives/Oakrid e 4 No No No No
56 Indianapolis at Titan 0 Yes No No Yes
57 Lake at 6th Street 1 n/a No Yes Yes
58 1 Lake at Memphis/1 1th Street 2 n/a No No No
59 Lake at Oran a/3rd Street 2 n/a No No No
60 Magnolia at Bedel/Villa e 1 n/a No No No
61 Magnolia at Mediterranean 3 n/a Yes Yes Yes
62 Magnolia at Moor ark/Seahurst 0 n/a Yes No Yes
63 Magnolia at Pioneer 1 No No No No
64 Main at Crest 3 n/a Yes No Yes
65 Main at Olive 2 n/a No Yes Yes
66 Main at Orange 2 n/a No No No
67 Main at Walnut 2 n/a Yes Yes Yes
68 Newland at Bridgeport/Naples 1 n/a No No No
69 1 Newland at Dee view/Doremere 2 n/a No No No
70 1 Newland at Friesland 1 n/a No No No
71 Newland at Kelso/Norfolk 0 No No No No
72 Newland at Rembrandt 0 n/a No No No
73 Newland at St.Augustine 0 No No No No
74 Orange at 11th Street 0 n/a No No No
75 Orange at 14th Street 0 n/a No No No
76 10range at 5th Street/Towns uare 0 n/a No No No
77 Orange at 9th Street 1 n/a No No No
78 Palm at 11th Street 0 n/a No No No
79 Palm at 14th Street 0 n/a No No No
80 Palm at Cher hill 0 n/a No No No
81 Palm at Island Bay 0 n/a No No No
82 1 Palm at Main 2 n/a Yes No Yes
83 Palm at Ofelia 0 n/a No No No
84 Saybrook at Branford 0 No No No No
85 Saybrook at Davenport 0 n/a No No No
86 Saybrook at Edinger 1 n/a Yes No Yes
87 Saybrook at Heil 1 n/a No No No
88 Saybrook at Humboldt 0 n/a No No No
89 Slater at Cordoba 0 No No No No
90 Slater at Jefferson 0 n/a No No No
91 S rin dale at Briarcliff 0 n/a No No No
92 Springdale at Croupier 1 No No No No
93 ISpringdale at Meadowlark 1 n/a No No No
94 Springdale at Orlando 0 n/a No No No
95 Springdale at Talbert 1 No No No No
96 Talbert at Varsi /lvo crest 1 n/a No No No
97 Walnut at 3rd Street 1 n/a No No No
98 Walnut at 5th Street 0 n/a No No No
99 lWalnut at 6th Street 0 n/a No No No
100 Warner at Oak 1 n/a No No No
102 Warner at Pinehurst 1 n/a No No No
103 Warner at Ross 2 n/a No No No
104 Yorktown at Brigantine 0 No No No No
105 Yorktown at Honeywood 1 No No No No
Page 2 of 3
INITIAL INTERSECTION EVALUATION SUMMARY
2006 SIGNAL PRIORITY STUDY
106 Brookhurst at Continental 4 n/a No No Yes
107 Beach at Holland 8 No Yes Yes Yes
108 Beach at Clay 6 No Yes No Yes
109 Beach at Graziadio 4 No Yes No Yes
110 Beach at Robidoux 4 No Yes Yes Yes
111 Beach at Speer 6 No Yes No Yes
112 Olive at 6th 4 No No Yes Yes
113 Yorktown at Huntington 3 n/a No No Yes
114 Lake at Utica 4 n/a No No Yes
115 Beach at Blaylock 2 No No No No
116 Ellis at Patterson 4 No No Yes Yes
117 Orange at 7th 6 No No No Yes
118 Edwards at Alexandria 3 No No No Yes
119 Heil at Sabot 1 No Yes No Yes
120 Slater at Keelson 2 No No No No
121 Main Street at Loma/14th 9 No No No Yes
122 Slater at Morgan 2 No Yes No Yes
123 Slater at Griffin 3 n/a No No No
11 124 lWamer at Green 3 n/a No No No
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT #3
2006 RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY LIST
Warrant 1-8 Hour Warrant 2-4 Hour Warrant 6-School Warrant 7- Crash
Vehicle Volume Vehicle Volume Warrant 3-Peak Hour Crossing Warrant Adjustment Factor 1
2005
Total
Previous 2006
Location Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Pants Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Points Priority,Rank Rank
Adams at Ranger Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No Yes 30 No - 56 6 1
Goldenwest at Rio Vista No No No No Yes 25 Yes 20 45 5 2
Magnolia at Mediterranean Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No No 17 No 43 8 3
Beady at Seabrid e/Mem his Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No No 15 No - 41 4 4.
Boise Chica at Pearce' Yes 10 '> Yes 8 Yes a No No 10 No 36 6 5.
Goldenwest at Deep Harbor Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No Nc 10 No 36 '. 13 6'
Brookhurst at.Continental Yea 10 yes" 8 Yes 8 No No 10 No 36 6
Yorktown at Huntington you 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No No 10 No 36 6
Beach at Holland No No Yea 8 No No 26, No 33 13 9
17th Street at Adams Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No No 10 Yes 10 26 15 10
MattrioliaatMoor rk Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No No No 26 15 10
Beach at Robidoux No - Yes 8 Yes 8 No No 10 No 26' 10 10
Heil at Sabot Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No No No 26 22 10'
Slater at-Morgan Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No No No 26 19 10;
Banning at Malibu No No - No Yes 25'' No No 25 r 19 15
Heil at Monroe No No No - Yes 25 No No 25 8 15:
Beach at Speer No No No No No 26° No 25 22 15'
Graham at Research.. No Yes 8 No - No No 15 No 23 27 16
Heil al Bradbu No No No No 10= No 10 No,, 20 12 19
Brookhurst at Constitution No No Yes 8 No No 10, No 18 27 20
Beach at Graziadio - No No Yes 8 No No 10 No 18 27 20`
Lake at Utica No No Yes 8 No No 10 No 1$ 20
Adams at Crown Reef/Felcliff No No No No No 17 No 17 10 23
Ellis at Delaware Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No No Yes 10 16 15 24`:
Main at Loma/14th No - No - Yes 8 Yes a 140 No 16 24
14th at Crest No No No Yes 26, No Yes 10 15 26.
Main at Crest No No No:, No No 164 No 15 22 1 26
(1)Point adjustments-both positive and negative-to account for factors not directly addressed in warrant analyses(e.g.less restrictive traffic control,crossing guard presence,significant uncontrolled pedestrian activity)
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT #4------,,
INTERSECTIONS NOT MEETING MINIMUM SCORING CRITERIA
Warrant 1-S Hour Warrant 2-4 Hour Warrant 5-School Warrant 7 - Crash
Vehicle Volume Vehicle Volume Warrant 3-Peak Hour Crossing Warrant Adjustment Factor 1
Total Previous
Location Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Points Priority Rank
Delaware at Atlanta No No - No - No No 10 No 10 -
Edwards at Alexandria No - No - No No, No 10 No 10 -
Edwards at El Corti'o No - No ; No = No = No 10 No 10
Ellis at Patterson No No No No No 10 No 10
Indianapolis at Ives/Oakridge No No = No No No 10 No 10
Main at Olive No - No No No = No 10 Yes - 10
Maim Street at Loma No No No No No 10 No - 10
Orange at 7th No - No No - No No 20 No 10 10
Warner at 5 Street No No No No No 10 No 10
Warner at Ross Street No No No No '' No 10 No 10
Lake at 6th Street No - No - Yes S No I No 10 Yes 10 8
Delaware at 17th Street No I No No No No 10 Yes 10
Heil at AJgonquirdSeaview No No No No No 10 Yes 10 18.
Olive at 6th No No No, No No 10 Yes 10
Edwards at Central Park/Varsfty No No No No No 5 Yes 10 5
14th:Streal at Crest No No No Yes 10 No Yes i 20 10 21„
Alabama at Frankfort/6th No No No No No 10 Yes 20 10
(1)Point adjustments-both positive and negative-to account for factors not directly addressed in warrant analyses(e.g.less restrictive traffic control,crossing guard presence,significant uncontrolled pedestrian activity)
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT #5
APPROVED 2005 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY LIST
Warrant 1-8 Hour Warrant 2-4 Hour Warrant 5-School Warrant 7- Crash
Vehicle Volume Vehicle Volume Warrant 3-Peak Hour Cro Ing Warrant Ad'ustment Factor 1
Total Previous
Rank Location Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Satisfied? Points Points Prlority Rank
1 Boise Chica at Robinwood Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No No 25 No 51
1 Talbert at Brookshire/Kovacs Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No Yes 25 No 51 11
1 Yorktown of Windward Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes; 8 Yes 25 No - No 51 17
4 Beach at Seabri his Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No No 20 No 46 6
5 Golden West at Rio Vista No No Yes 6 No Yes 26' Yes 10 43 13
6 Adams at Ranger Yes 10 Yes 8 : Yes 8 No No 10'• No, 36 2
6 Bolsa Chica at Pearce Yes 10 Yes 8 :' Yes 8 No No 10 No 36 5
8 Heil at Monroe No - No No ' Yes 25 No 10" No 35 7'
8 Magnolia at Mediterranean Yes 10 No Yes 8 No No 47" No 35
10 Adams at Crown Reef/Felcllff Yes 10 No Yes 8 No No 15; No 33
10 Beach at Robidoux No Yes 8 Yes 8 No No 17 i No ' 33
12 Heil at Bradbury No No No No 10 No 20! No 30
18 Beach at Holland No No Yes 8 No No 20 No 28
18 Golden West at Deep Harbor Yes 10 Yes 8 No No No 10 No - 28 10
16 17th Street at Adams Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No No 10: Yes 10 26 13'
15 1 st Street at Orange/Atlanta Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No No 10 Yes, 10 26
15 Ellis at Delaware Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No No 10 yes 10 26 4
15 Magnolia at M rk/Seahurst Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No No No - 26 8'
19 Banning at Malibu No No No Yes 25 No Yea` 25 14
19 Beach at Clay No No No No - Yes 25 No 25
19 Slater at Morgan No No No No No 25 No 25
22 Beach at Speer No No No No No 20' No 20
22 Heil at Sabot Yes 10 No No No No 10 No 20
22 Main at Crest No No No No No 20 No 20
22 Main at Walnut > No No No No No 20' Yes 20
22 Palm at Main No No No : No No 20 No 20
27 Beach at Graziadio No No Yes 8 No No 10 No - 18
27 Brookhurstat:Constitution No No Yes 8 No No 10' No 18 19
2T Graham at Research No Yes 8- No No No 10 No - 18 20S
80 Saybrook at Edinger Yes 10 Yes 8 Yes 8 No - No ,r 10 Yes 20 16 1 12`.
(1)Point adjustments-both positive and negative-to acmunt for factors not directly addressed In warrant analyses(e.g.less restrictive traffic control,crossing guard presence,significant uncontrolled pedestrian activity)
Page 1 of 1
RCA ROUTING SHEET
INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: Approve 2006 Traffic Signal Priority List
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 21, 2006
RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑
Not Applicable
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑
Not Applicable
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached
Not Applicable ❑
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑
(Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Attached ❑
(Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑
Not Applicable
Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted, over $5,000) Attached ❑
Not Applicable
Bonds (If applicable) Attached ❑
Not Applicable
Staff Report (If applicable) Attached El
Not Applicable
Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached ❑
Not Applicable
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached ❑
Not Applicable
EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS
REVIEWED RETURNED FOR WARDED
Administrative Staff ( )
Assistant City Administrator Initial )
City Administrator (Initial) ( )
City Clerk
EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM:
(Below Space • •
RCA Author: Stachelski:jg