HomeMy WebLinkAboutCitywide Traffic Signal Left Turn Phasing Study approvedCouncil/Agency Meeting Held:
Deferred/Continued to:
-Appr ed El Conditionally Approved ❑Denied
�c� t Cler s Signature
Council Meeting Date: November 7, 2011
Department ID Number: PW 11-061
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Travis K. Hopkins, PE, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Approve the Citywide Traffic Signal Left Turn Phasing Study
Statement of Issue: The City of Huntington Beach, as a part of its Strategic Plan, undertook
a comprehensive study of the existing signalized intersections in the City to determine the
need for the installation of left turn arrows. This study resulted in the development of a
prioritized list for the potential installation of left turn arrows at existing signalized
intersections.
Financial Impact: 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 Citywide Left Turn Phasing Study can be used to develop the annual Capital
Improvement Program and identify grant opportunities.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
Approve the Citywide Traffic Signal Left Turn Phasing Study.
Alternative Action(s):
1. Modify evaluation methodology (e.g. revise ranking criteria)
2. Other Alternatives as identified by the City Council.
Analysis: The City of Huntington Beach, as a part of its Strategic Plan, undertook a
comprehensive study of the existing signalized intersections in the City to determine the
need for the installation of left turn arrows.
The priority list developed through this study fulfills several purposes including the following:
• Identifies future infrastructure needs for long-term fiscal planning and capital project
funding prioritization;
• Provides a tool for evaluating potential grant opportunities to enhance City infrastructure
funding;
• Identifies locations that may require urgent attention;
• Aids in communication with residents and property owners requesting left turn arrows.
Item 9. - 1 xB -16o-
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 11/7/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 11-061
An initial task of this study developed an objective rating system to evaluate the
intersections. Forty-seven signalized intersections which currently do not have left turn
phasing in at least one direction were identified for analysis. For these 47 intersections, the
analysis of 66 separate street segments was undertaken. As an example, for an intersection
with existing north -south left turn arrows, the study of the east -west left turns would constitute
a single street segment. For an intersection with no existing left turn arrows, the study of
both the east -west and north -south left turns would be considered two street segments.
Each pair of directions (east/west or north/south) is considered together for left turn phasing,
though each left turn is evaluated independently.
The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) identifies two measures of analysis
for the consideration of the installation of left turn arrows at an existing signalized
intersection. The first measure is the collision history of the incidents which could be
corrected by the installation of left turn arrows. The second measure is the delay time
encountered by vehicles waiting to complete a left turn at the subject intersection.
Collision Criteria
The MUTCD states that left turn arrows may be considered when five or more left turn
collisions for a particular left turn movement occur within a recent twelve month period which
could be correctible by the installation of left turn arrows.
Three locations were identified which met the criteria. In addition, twenty additional locations
were identified which had three or four collisions within a recent twelve month period in a
particular direction and were recommended for continued monitoring.
Delay Criteria
The MUTCD states that left turn phasing may be considered if, over the period of one hour,
one or more vehicles, which were waiting at the beginning of the green interval, are still
remaining in the left turn lane after the signal turns red after at least 80% of the traffic signal
cycles in an hour. Delay studies were conducted at those study intersections where delay
was considered a potentially significant factor and none were found to meet this threshold.
Ranking
With three movements recording five correctible collisions, four movements recording four
correctible collisions and 16 movements recording three correctible collisions, a ranking
system was developed to prioritize intersections with similar collision counts. The ranking
system employs a series of thresholds to act as "tiebreakers" among left turn movements
with similar collision counts.
Under the criteria, the initial threshold was number of left turn collisions within a recent twelve
month period, analyzing three years worth of data. The time period of September 1, 2006 to
August 31, 2009, was selected since these were the most recent complete three year data
sets that were available at the start of the study efforts.
HB -161- Item 9. - 2
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 11/7/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 11-061
As stated earlier, three left turn movements met the five collision criteria for consideration of
left turn phasing. In order to develop a ranking among these three locations, a second
threshold was developed considering the number of collisions within the latest twelve month
period (September 1, 2008 to August 31, 2009). This was selected in an attempt to account
for any recent increase in collisions. With this ranking system, a ranking of the top three
locations was determined.
Next, a ranking process was undertaken for the locations that recorded three or four
correctible collisions within a recent twelve month period. While not meeting the criteria for
consideration of left turn arrows, the number of collisions does warrant continued monitoring
as updated collision data is obtained.
The first threshold for ranking the three collision and four collision locations was the recent
twelve month collision count, similar to that employed for the locations with five collisions.
The next threshold was considering the highest twelve month collision count over the past
nine years. A final tiebreaking threshold was considering the total number of collisions over
the three year period from September 1, 2006 to August 31, 2009.
A copy of the report is available for review at the Public Works counter during normal
business hours.
Conclusions
The study identified locations which meet the criteria for consideration for the installation of
left turn arrows, along with identifying and ranking other locations, which while they do not
record the quantity of collisions that meet the criteria for left turn arrows, should be monitored
for potential changes in collision patterns. This ranking is included within the study and is
also included separately as Attachment 1.
Public Works Commission Action: The Public Works Commission supported the
recommended action at its September 21, 2011 meeting by a vote of 6-0-1 (Herbel absent).
Environmental Status: Not applicable
Strategic Plan Goal:
Maintain, improve and obtain funding for public improvements.
Attachment(s):
1. jAnalysis Summary Table and Rankings
Item 9. - 3 xB -162-
ATTACHMENT #1
MMMMMJ
HB -163- Item 9. - 4
TABLE B -CRY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LEFTTURN STUDY
COLLISION ANALYSIS BASED ON COLLISION DATA FROM JANUARY 2000 TO SEPTEMBER 2009
- ---
-..,
BODO
Past 12 months (9/08 -
9/09) z
.�,-;_Yea
42-mo�iparrod�'7ast49
Yeas(2;000 '�2.009)'�._
TOTAL last 3 years (2006 -
2009) a
1 Yr. 1 Yr.
NB or SO or
Max Single
Approach
- -1Yr
1Yr S&or
M�xSmgle
Apiacft_
3 Yr. 3 Yr.
NB or 5B or
Max Single
y _'
aid 1NaxSngle
Sor A pro
t
np otecttd
ar of
EB WB
N/5 or
�LB�or _-S
oar
E8 WB
Approach N/5
gR_n
Ap boa, a-,
T,'33L
ULT ULT
EJW
1,.U�Yz=ULT
_
ULT ULT
orE/W
1
8
Heil and Gothard
NB/SB
1
tr 2' 1'
2
7 4
7
30 3
.10-
2
17
Talbert and Gothard
N8/SB
0
�:Os 4
4
O 6
6
0 16
10
3
29
Yorktown and Magnolia
EB/WB
3
4 2
4
_i0 1.._-:
-. ..1
3 5
5
'4 -7 -
_ 7
4
24
(Garfield) and (Magnolia)
NB/5B
M -. 2.
- ..2
4 5
5
- 4- 6 ' -
b
5
19
(Garfield) and (Edwards)
NB/58
2 4
4
2 0-
2
2 4
4
4-9-
9..
6
13
(Warner) and (Gothard)
NB/5B
2 4
4
1
5 4
5
5 61
.6
7
18
Ellis and Newland
EB/WB
4 2
4
0-• -.1 .
1
4 3
4
3 -3. -
3
B
2
McFadden and (Springdale)
EB/WB
3 2
3
3. -- - 1
3
4 4
4
9 3
9: -
9
29
Yorktown and Magnolia
NB/SB
3 2
3
3' - 1
3
3 4
4
7 4
7
10
16
Slater and Newland
EB/W8
1 3
3
:O- 3
3
3 3
3
3 8
8
11
18
Ellis and Newland
NB/SB
3 0
3
3 0
3
3 1
3
7 1
7
12
39
Hamilton and Bushard
NB/SB
2 3
3
2 3
3--
2 3
3
3 .4
4
13
14
Slater and Gothard) S
(---
EB/WB
0 3_
-1 --3
3
--3--�
0 2
-�-Z-
_ 2 _
--2
3 3
-Z --3
-� 3
-0 7
_- 7
14
_
23
__
(Garfield)andNewland ---
- NB/SB--
1
3--
1__• 4
4�
1s
1
McFadden and Graham
EB/WB
0 3
3
�
- 0
, Z., - •
,,,,, 1 _ B
3_ ,--
.3
0
3
16
38
Hamllton and (Magnolia)
EB/WB
3 1
3
•.2:
'1 0
"^
1.
5 2
5
6 2
6
17
16
Slater and Newland
NOSS
3 2
3
0 1. ..
- �-.., ��
1
••„ 4... �. 2
, 4 _
5
..._.._ 3_...:..:,.�
.....'--
._........._...,
18
40
__..._..._....._._. _.r.._.._............
(Hamllton) and (Brookhurst)
....._..........
EB/WB
--._..--•--..._......_...._.....
1 3
3
..
1. 1'
...._._:........
1
2 3
3
19
46
(Edinger) and Sher
NB/S8
2 3
3
1 0
1
2 3
3
3 3,
3.
20
11
(Warner) and Graham
EB/WB
0 3
3
6 0.
- 0
4 3
4
'0 3
3.
21
25
(Garfield) and Bushard
NB/SD
3 2
3
0 0
0
3 2
3
4 3
4.
22
.7
Heil and (Goldenwest)
EB/WB
1 3
3
:0..0
0-
2 3
3
1 3.
3
23
35
Indianapolis and Bushard
NB/SB
1 3
3
.:00
- 0
2 3
3
1- 3
3.
24
12
(Warner) and (Edwards)
NB/SB
1 2
2
.1 2
- 2
2 6
6
3, 3
3:
25
38
Hamilton and (Magnolia)
N8/5B
0 2
2
0 2
2
1 5
5
1 6-
6
26
17
Talbert and Gothard
EB/WB
1 2
2
.0. 2
2
3 5
5
2 6
6
27
8
Heil and Gothard
EB/WB
1 2
2
0- 2
2
2 5
5
2 5
5
28
6
Hell and Edwards
EB/WB
1 2
2
0 -2
2
3 2
3
3 4
4
29
1
McFadden and Graham
NB/SB
1 2
2
'0 2
.z
1 2
2
1 2
2
30
6
Heil and Edwards
NB/SB
2 1
2
1.
1
6 2
6
2 1
2. -
31
47
Slater and (Goldenwest)
EB/WB
0 2
2
-0- 1.
1
2 4
4
.1 5-
5
32
2
McFadden and (Springdale)
NB/5B
1 2
2
1 1•
1
2 3
3
3 5
5
33
44
(Slater) and Edwards
NB/SB
1 2
2
.0 1
1
2 - 3
3
1 5
5
34
26
(Yorktown) and (Main)
EB/WB
2 0
2
1- 0
'1
3 3
3
4. 0
4
35
28
Yorktown and Newland
N8/SB
2 1
2
-1.- -0
1
2 2
2
4, 1
4
36
36
Atlanta and Bushard
EB/WB
2 0
2
1 0
1
2 1
2
3 •0
3
37
39
Hamilton and Bushard
EB/WB
2 0
2
1 .0,
1
2 2
2
3 1
3
38
5
Hell and (Springdale)
EB/W8
2 2
2
0 - 0
'0
2 3
3
2 3
3
39
3
(McFadden) and (Goldenwest)
EB/WB
2 2
2
0 0
'0-
2 3
3
3- 2
3
40
4
Edinger and Graham
NB/58
1 2
2
0 0
0
1 3
3
-2 2
2
41
46
(Edinger) and Sher
EB/W8
0 2
2
0 0
0-
0 2
2
0 4
-4
42
36
Atlanta and Bushard
NB/SB
2 1
2
:0" 0
0.
2 2
2
3 2
3
43
11
(Warner) and Graham
NB/SB
1 0
1
1-•0
.1 -
4 2
4
3 -0
3.
44
37
Atlanta and (Brookhurst)
EB/WB
1 0
1
1 0
1
3 1
3
5 0
-5
45
33
Indlanapolis and Newland
NB/SB
1 i
1
1. 1-
1
1 3
3
-1 4
- 4
46
27
Yorktown and lake
EB/WB
1 1
1
1 0
.1
1 2
2
2. 3
3
47
22
(Garfield) and Florida
EB/WB
1 1
1
1- 0
1•
1 2
2
2 1
2-
48
34
(Indianapolis) and (Magnolia)
EB/W8
1 1
1
0, :1
1
1 2
2
2.- 2
2
49
45
(Ellis) and (Goldenwest)
EB/W8
1 1
1
'1 1-
1
1 1
1
1- 1
1
50
32
(Adams) and (Bushard)
EB/W8
0 1
1
.0 - 0--
0:
6 4
6
0 1
1
51
42
(Warner) and Nichols
EB/WB
1 1
1
000
1 4
4
1 2
.2
52
4
Edinger and Graham
EB/WB
0 1
1
0 00
2 2
2
0 2
2
53
42
(Warner) and Nichols
NB/SB
0 1
1
0 0-
:0
1 2
2
.0 2
2
54
28
Yorktown and Newland
EB/WB
1 1
1
.0 , 0
0
2 1
2
1 1
1
55
33
Indianapolis and Newland
EB/WB
0 1
1
0 0
0
1 1
1
1 2
2
56
21
(Garfield) and (Gothard)
NB/SB
1 1
1
- 0 -0-
�6
1 1
1
1 1
1
57
32
(Adams) and (Bushard)
NB/SB
0 1
1
0- 0
0.
1 1
1
0 1
1
58
35
Indianapolis and Bushard
EB/WB
0 1
1
0- 0
0
0 1
1
0 •1
1_
59
43
(Warner) and Ash
EB/WB
0 0
0
0. 0
0
1 2
2
0� 1
1
60
31
(Adams) and Newland
NB/58
0 0
0
0 0
0.
1 2
2
0 0
_0
61
15
Slater and (Nichols)
EB/WB
0 0
0
0 0-
0
1 1
1
0 0-
0
62
20
(Garfield) and Saddleback
NB/5B
0 0
00-
0
0
0 1
1
.0. 0
0
-
63
30
(Adams) and Coldwater
EB/WB
0 0
0
0 -0
.0-
0 1
1
0 0
0
64
9
Heil and (Newland)
EB/WB
0 0
0
.0 0
.6
0 0
0
A 0
-0.
65
SO
(Warner) and Plaza/Greentree
NB/5B
O 0
0
-6 0.
-0
0 0
0
0 0
0-
66
41
Bolsa and Boeing
EB
0 D
0
0. 00
0 0
0
- 0 0
0
Notes:
Data provided in columns are for the street in BOLD.
(Street) = Approaches on street have existing protected or protected -permissive left turn phasing.
= MUTCD Collision Guidance Criteria of 5 or more collisions in a recent 12 month period met "Recent" is defined as the last three years of reporting.
s- Number of collisions in a particular left turn approach within a 12 month period between September 2006 to September 2009 (3 year period).
z- Number of collisions in a particular leftturn approach in the past 12 months between September 2008 to September 2009 (1 year period).
a - Number of collisions in a particular left turn approach within a 12 month period between September 2000 to September 2009 (9 year period).
4- Number of collisions in a particular left turn approach for a TOTAL 3 year period between September 2006 to September 2DO9 (last 3 years).
5 - The highest "Not Cleared" location in the delay analysis. The Intersection is NOT flat Gothard Street is higher than Slater Avenue.
Item 9. - 5 HB -164-