Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Signal Installation - Priority List - Prioritzed by from the desk of: EVELYN SCHUBERT, CMC So DEPUTY CITY CLERK / Ac-hve (714) 536-5405 3r �d S .,ems n p a �- P.O. BOX 190 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 �U o 1 4 j ----------------------- . ..:n. vnv., C• �.v, l� Win• r... 2 C :�, t t,�of _ - i �i 'A+F. , - taa♦ S%•yr x h S� $ WHAT IS A TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY LIST? • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING HAS IDENTIFIED 18 INTERSECTIONS THAT MEET CALTRANS & FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES • THESE GUIDELINES ARE CALLED TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS • THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DETERMINES WHICH LOCATIONS ARE THE MOST CRITICAL AND DEVELOPS A PRIORITY .LIST • THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY LIST IS PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL FOR THEIR F I NAL AP P ROVAL WHY DO WE HAVE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY LIST? .............. ............... . .... .. .. .... • AS FUNDS BECOME AVAILABLE , SIGNALS CAN BE INSTALLED AT THE MOST CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS - CITY CAN BE SUED FOR BIG WHEN SIGNALS ARE INSTALLED ARBITRARILY AT INTERSECTIONS • COURTS HAVE ACCEPTED THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION PRIORITY LIST AS A DEFENSE FOR INTERSECTIONS THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN SIGNALIZED HOW DOES AN INTERSECTION GET ON THE LIST? .......... .. ............. ............. .........% . . ... ................. .. .... ................. ................. ........ • EACH INTERSECTION ON THE LIST HAS MET ONE OR MORE OF THE 11 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS INCLUDE .- - TRAFFIC VOLUMES - NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS - VEHICLE DELAY HOW IS THE LIST ORGANIZED ? ............... ................. :}. A •M • A••\••••••..Q vA•••LA•••'••v{.•v • x, Vx•A v vvv •\ •• • ••\ uv •atA'iiii.••'v:• ••i•C.•2•vv•••.•: • ••A <• v•P Av A' \\\ •v . • • •••• • MA ••• •• • ■ INTERSECTIONS ARE LISTED FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST PRIORITY ... ........ ........... _ }vv{i{•'�{. (} k.k;:i- ..:G;.i;:} ,yr yt}}••:;,{y,..: :.gs #<=: N i:::4:'•w};C•LJykn vi-{: ��k}+}vvJ}�vkvv.•.};r.}:kin:?:S:i::A::vx: #;.\. k .>c-..�:-is-::::.....}... _ R✓...vc p +?iiiiiiSii: -:vK}:..::} ? -}ii{.}:•n.:r:- i-k:Cr+:::: %�L:.i-.r.:}?+}:::.ti.y ..�.:�:v-:'::•:}.. C4jki:'-:4vi:?2'.i�:4kYn�'.}?'`--+{!r'-:xi-: J-:h}:}:v:-}:::.::-.-'vv:..':}}•}vi:'..:;.'vY. ..... .......... kz �.}}.:i}#i{+:............ .?:�iF�;ti-:�,' -}.hJ:{•:�:rJ::+v,-�vv'e'vf::.ry.'•::•.t'i?:i }}:k•# ff- ':>i :ri. .......... ....... THE PRIORITY CRITERIA USED : - NUMBER OF WARRANTS MET - NUMBER OF CORRECTABLE ACCIDENTS - RATIO OF ACCIDENTS TO TRAFFIC VOLUME CONTINUED ON NEXT SLIDE PRIORITY CRITERIA CONTINUE ® :: :. . .. :::::: ....... — IS THE INTERSECTION AN ARTERIAL STREET CROSSING ANOTHER ARTERIAL STREET — IS THERE A PUBLIC FACILITY WITH ACCESS FROM AN ARTERIAL — IS THE INTERSECTION A RESIDENTIAL STREET CROSSING AN ARTERIAL STREET � .: :{:,rtia. .... .Y WHAT IS A TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY LIST? The City of Huntington Beach has 18 intersections that have been identified as meeting traffic signal warrants for the consideration of signal installation. It is necessary to decide the order in which these intersections will be signalized. To assure that the most critical locations are installed first, the identified intersections have been prioritized by the Transportation Commission. The Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List was first presented to the Huntington Beach Transportation Commission at their May, 1992 meeting. This issue was also discussed at their June 1992 meeting. WHY DO WE HAVE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY LIST? The following paragraph was copied from the magazine "Civil Engineering" July 1992. The article was titled "Steering Clear of Tort Claims". Economic or budgetary defenses, in which the government agency pleads lack of resources as the reason for not correcting a roadway hazard, have also come under attack, often successfully. This defense can be adopted even when the agency knew the condition existed and did not fix it, provided the agency can establish it was reasonable in using its funds. Usually, this is done by showing that the agency: (1) was aware of the sites that needed treatment; (2) had developed a program of corrective treatments, and (3) was correcting the sites as funds became available using a priority scheme that treated the most hazardous sites first. This procedure is reasonable because it provides the greatest safety improvements per public dollar spent. WHAT CRITERIA WAS USED TO ESTABLISH THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY LIST? The following describes the methodology and terminology used in analyzing the intersections for the Traffic Signal Installation Priority List. The Intersection Prioritization Criteria are as follows: A. Number of warrants met B. Number of correctable accidents C. Accident/traffic volume ratio The warrants for signalization are described in the Federal Highway Administration publication The Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Correctable accidents are those types of accidents (such as broadside accidents) that would likely be eliminated with the installation of a traffic signal. Estimated Annual Traffic is Average Daily Traffic x 365 Days Per Year. Average daily traffic was counted at each intersection listed. Accident/Traffic Volume Ratio. The number of accidents occurring in an intersection in the most recent 12 month time period are divided into four categories as follows: A. Zero Accidents = 0.5 Point Rating B. Property Damage = 1.0 Point Rating C. Casualties = 3.0 Point Rating D. Fatalities = 10.0 Point Rating Each accident receives one of the above point ratings regardless of the severity of the accident. The total points (for an individual intersection) are added together and multiplied by 1,000,000. This value is divided by the estimated annual traffic to produce the accident/traffic volume ratio. WHAT HIERARCHY WAS USED IN THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY LIST? Proposed installations fit into the following hierarchy: 1. Installations at crossing arterial streets (usually higher traffic volumes). 2. Installations at public facilities on arterial streets (such as schools, hospitals, park entrances, etc.). 3. Installations at local residential street intersections with arterial streets (usually lower traffic volumes and potentially disrupts signal progression). This hierarchy was utilized to maximize the benefit/cost ratio, considering the most public traffic through an intersection to be signalized with public funding sources. PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION PRIORITY LIST' (JULY 6, 1"2) Note: Intersections on this list will likely be funded by Gas Tax Funds, Traffic Impact Fees, General Funds, or some combination of these sources. RANKING INTERSECTION NAME ACCIDENT/TRAFFIC DAILY INTERSECTION # ACCIDENTS # WARRANTS VOLUMES RATIOZ APPROACH VOLUMES' CORRECTABLE MET 1 DELAWARE/YORKTOWN 0.96727 19827 5 7 2 ADAMS/LAKE 0.07790 17596 0 6 3 EDINGER/SAYBROOK 0.21337 12840 1 5 4 DELAWARE/ELLIS 1.18819 11529 3 4 5 GRAHAM/MCFADDEN 0.75495 14516 2 4 6 SPRINGDALE/SLATER 0.50080 16412 1 4 7 SAYBROOK/HUMBOLDV 0.12906 10614 0 4 8 PALM/17TH 0.10294 13306 0 4 9 DELAWARE/GARFIELD 0.70945 15447 4 3 10 HEIL/SAYBROOK 0.12122 11301 0 3 11 ATLANTA/HUNTINGTON 0.26180 10465 1 2 12 GRAHAM/GLENSTONE 0.14914 9185 0 2 13 GRAHAM/SLATER 0.14209 9641 0 2 14 ALGONQUIN/HEIL 0.13172 10367 0 2 15 BANNING/BUSHARD 0.17804 7694 0 1 16 ORANGE/17TH 0.17011 8033 0 1 17 EDISON HIGH SCHOOL 2.46 13381 6 1 18 ATLANTA/MIRAMAR/GRN .60863 18006 2 5 Ranking criteria: 1) Number of warrants met; 2) Number of correctable accidents; 3) Accident/traffic volume ratio. Z ACCIDENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES RATIO = Each type_ of accident is assigned a point value. This value is multiplied by one million and the product is divided by the estimated annual traffic volume. Property Damage = 1 Point; Casualties = 3 Points; Fatal = 10 Points 3 Vehicle traffic from all directions approaching the intersection is counted for a 24 hour time period. Humboldt is a residential street but is the only ingress/egress point to Humboldt Island. NAME OF INTERSECTION WARRANTED - NOT RANKED IST/PACIFIC VIEW MEETS PLANNING WARRANT, FUTURE INTERSECTION (NOT EXISTING AS OF 1992) UNWARRANTED INTERSECTIONS NAME OF INTERSECTION STATUS ..LAKE/3RD/ORANGE WARRANTS NOT MET AT THIS TIME (1992) SPRINGDALE/TALBERT WARRANTS NOT MET AT THIS T[ME (1992) EDWARDS/VARSITY/CENTRAL PARK WARRANTS NOT MET AT THIS TIME (1992) RMH:TRAFSIGP.CHA FUTURE/PENDING TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS WITH IDENTIFIED FUNDING SOURCES (NOTE: INTERSECTION LETTERS DO NOT INFER PRIORITY OR SCHEDULING) A. EDWARDS & ELLIS = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development B.* EDWARDS & GARFIELD = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development C. DEL MAR & HEIL = Funded by Meadowlark Development D. GREENLEAF & WARNER = Funded by Meadowlark Development E. 11TH & PCH = Funded by Bluff Bottom Parking Project F. BEACH & TAYLOR = Eligible for funding by Superstreet Project and OCTA G. BEACH & MEMPHIS = Eligible for funding by Superstreet Project and OCTA H. BEACH & HAMILTON = Funded by Waterfront Development J. SEAPOINT & PCH = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development K. SEAPOINT & PALM = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development L.* SADDLEBACK & GARFIELD = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development M. YORKTOWN & LAKE = Funded by Pacific Ranch Bond N. CENTER & 1 PACIFIC PLAZA = Funded 88% by Huntington Center Mall and 1 Pacific Plaza, Funded 12% by Redevelopment Agency P. CENTER & HUNTINGTON VILLAGE LANE = Funded by 1 Pacific Plaza and Redevelopment Agency Q. EDWARDS & TAL.BERT. = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development, as fee credit against Traffic Impact Fees. - R. GARFIELD & WARD = Will likely be funded by Measure M funds in FY 93-94 (shared with Fountain Valley) S. NEWLAND & HEIL = Will likely be funded by Measure M funds in FY 93-94 (shared with Westminster) T. GRAHAM & HEIL = Approximately one half funded by Meadowlark Development, remainder funded by the City U. NEWLAND & HAMILTON = Funded by Ascon site developer V. FLORIDA & YORKTOWN = Funded by MPAH and IIP. * Indicates signals that have been installed as of 1/27/93. RMH:TRAFSIG.P11d This traffic signal will only be installed in conjunction with the construction of the Bluff Bottom Parking Lot. i TQAFF/C SIGNAL INS TALLA TION P2/ORI Tr LIST (1992) i tIfYM1G AK. 1 I i CRY AK WY AK M}13Y AK , 5 Yo.�, .K YO.OGp AK }� �G AK II WY AK 9 8 mYou AK i 3 � R AK 10 14— T S AK . _ 12 13 , - AK 6 YA O1 AK OG Tµgpti AK I,YRI,t AK a9� F G 8 � k � 4 g GL! AK Q1II AK A K B 9 AK R }gyp J 1 YOWf10N AK ■ M 0 8 AO.YS .K 16 x G YOY,YAKM AK i 18 An IA «o> 17 33ayp i �1.IIL1CF1 AK � ■ � LEGEND U ® - PRIOR MZED,CfTY-FUNDED SMALS ® _ TRAFFIC SKNALS WTM iDENTFED 15 FUNDING SOURCES A - INSTALLED 1&17 /- - 0 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date August 16, 1993 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED BY CITY CQUNCII Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator �— 8' G 19 Prepared by: �uis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department c cL� Subject: PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION PRIORITY LIST Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommended Council Action, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachumts: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The City of Huntington Beach has a number of intersections that have been identified as meeting traffic signal warrants for the consideration of signal installation. It is necessary to decide the order in which installation will be scheduled. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Approve the Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List. ANALYSIS: To assure that the most critical locations are installed first, the identified intersections have been prioritized by the Transportation Commission. This list includes Magnolia Street at Edison High School and Atlanta Avenue at MiraMar Lane/Greenfield Lane as directed by the City Council. The Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List was first presented to the Huntington Beach Transportation Commission at their May, 1992 meeting and was also discussed at their June meeting. The Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List was on the City Council Agenda for the July 6, 1992 meeting. At that time the City Council requested that this item be continued for further discussion. The Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List was brought back to the City Council at their December 21, 1992 meeting. The City Council requested that the list be continued until a joint study session with the City Council/Transportation Commission could be held. The joint study session was held on February 16, 1993. The Transportation Commission was requested to continue to evaluate and reprioritize the list and return this item to Council as soon as possible. The Transportation Commission considered the Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List at the March, April, May, June, and July 1993 meeting. The vote by the Commission was 3 - 2 in favor of approving the attached list and presenting it to the City Council. Proposed installations should fit into the following hierarchy to maximize the benefit/cost ratio. This ratio takes into account that the most benefit to signalizing an intersection will be received by the greater motoring public and will be funded with public funding sources. 1. Installations at crossing arterial streets. 2. Installations at public facilities on arterial streets (such as schools, hospitals, park entrances, etc.). 3. Installations at local residential street intersections with arterial streets. FUNDING SOURCE: A funding source is not required for approval of the Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Do not approve the Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List. 2. Change the priority of the installation of future traffic signals. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List Location Map of Proposed Traffic Signal Installations MTU:LFS:JDO:RMH:7/110 RMH:TRAFSI02.RCA 2 JPage 11 - Council/Agency Agenda - 8/16/93 (11) i F-3 . (City Council) 1993/94 CITY COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES Communication from Administration transmitting the City 120 .30 Council goals and objectives as modified to incorporate comments by the City Council . CONT RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the 1993/94 City Council Goals FROM and Objectives as modified. 8/2/93 F-4. (City Council) PROPOSED HANDBILL ORDINANCE Communication from the Community Development Director 640 . 10 regarding options for amending the existing handbill ordinance as it has proven unenforceable for the Code Enforcement staff due to its ambiguity and confusion. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the City CONT Attorney be directed to prepare an ordinance which FROM prohibits the distribution of commercial handbills within 8/2/93 residential zones . This ordinance would exempt non-commercial handbills such as leaflets, pamphlets and flyers intended for non-profit functions from the ordi ance. ^po N oT fro C--c ck wean,- mop-`w- o'E- 50C 0 4001, F-5. (City Council) PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION PRIORIT LIST 580 . 50 Communication from the Director of Public Works transmitting a Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Proposed Traffic Signal &—wroo2D A.S Installation Priority List as follows : Delaware/Yorktown, Delaware/Ellis, Delaware/Garfield, Springdale/Slater, arAer-do'b +D Lake/Adams, Edison High School, Graham/McFadden, Saybrook/Edinger, 17th/Palm, Atlanta/Miramar/Greenfield, / - _Atlanta/Huntington, Graham/Slater, Saybrook/Humboldt, /,�QIAA0aAL �/tlrb- range/17th, Banning/Bushard, Graham/Glenstone, CCz 6 wl/saybro�k, Algonquin/Heil . Z� C�lS on 1m4ei A*RA MAR 6 re en��a 14 wl N 1c."n o(Ar' rn4 M�' h S�tioo (3-) A'�' I 0(own 6n oo-dl 5I F-6. (City Council) HOLLY-SEACLIFF AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN Communication from the Community Development Director 430 . 50 transmitting for Council consideration of the Holly-Seacliff Affordable Housing Plan. The Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan CONT requires all developers of residential projects to submit an FROM affordable housing plan in conjunction with any subdivision. 8/2/93 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Continue to the 9/7/93 Council meeting at the request of the applicant. Con -i r)U ED +11 9 7193 7 F-7. (City Council) PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY WIDENING/BICYCLE LANES - GOLDENWEST TO BEACH BOULEVARD 800 .20 Communication from the Director of Public Works in response to the City Council ' s request that staff make a presentation regarding issues relating to the widening of Pacific Coast Highway from four to six lanes between Golden West Street and Beach Boulevard and the addition of bicycle lanes . RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion item �D �ar�es C (8/16/9 3) G�- va� rn,osr (11) i INTERSECTION TRANSPORTATION POLICE COMMISSION DEPARTMENT RANKING RANKING DELAWAREIYORKTOWN 1 DELAWARE/ELLIS 2 DELAWARE/GARFIELD 3 1 SPRINGDALE/SLATER 4 ** LAKE/ADAMS 5 EDISON HIGH SCHOOL 6 3 GRAHAM/MCFADDEN 7 SAYBROOK/EDINGER 8 ** 17TH/PALM 9 ** ATLANTA/MIRAMAR/GREENFIELD 10 10 ATLANTA/HUNTINGTON 11 6 GRAHAM/SLATER 12 7 SAYBROOK/HUMBOLDT 13 2 ORANGE/17TH 14 11 BANNING/BUSHARD 15 5 GRAHAM/GLENSTONE 16 9 HEIL/SAYBROOK 17 4 ALGONQUIN/HEIL 18 8 Notes: * To be installed by Cash- Contract No. 880 utilizing Community Development Block Grand Funds. ** HBPD/Traffic Enforcement did not rank these locations. These locations had been submitted to OCTA for Measure M Funding, which has been subsequently denied. MTU:LFS:JDO:RMH:rmh RMH:TRAFSK32.RCA - - 3 - r • 1. L NUNTINGTON BEACH T2AFFIC SIGNALS . (EXISTING AND FUTURE) wESTMINSTER AVE - . BOLSA, AWhOOLSA ARCOS AVE viMCFADD MCFADDEN AVE W < HVE m 5 zEDINGER AYE EDINGER AYE . NEIL AVE ME4 AVE AVE $ WMWR AYE N < TER AVEN SLATER AVE - W ~ S ALBERT IA TALBERT AVE o - ELLS AVE ci ELL15 AVE GARiELD AVE ' R1CT0 AVE -i <77 O < N WAWSr AVE 1� !,NM MS T, / m N TLMR z ME - NO SCALE A LEGEND - FUTURE CITY-FUNDED SIGNALS - RECENTLY INSTALLED TRAFFIC.SIGNALS 0- EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNALS ► 1 e5 t REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date December 21, 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department Subject: PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION PRIORITY LIST /9 A _ 4 .QI-� -4 Gam. x-- Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• The City of Huntington Beach has a number of intersections that have been identified as meeting traffic signal warrants for the consideration of signal installation. It is necessary to decide the order in which installation will be scheduled. To assure that the most critical locations are installed first, the identified intersections have been prioritized by the Transportation Commission. This list includes Magnolia Street at Edison High School and Atlanta Avenue at MiraMar Lane/Greenfield Lane as directed by the City Council. The Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List was first presented to the Huntington Beach Transportation Commission at their May, 1992 meeting. This issue was also discussed at their June meeting. RECOMNIENDATION COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List. ANALYSIS: Proposed installations are considered in the following hierarchy: 1. Installations at crossing arterial streets. 2. Installations at public facilities on arterial streets (such as schools, hospitals, park entrances, etc.). 3. Installations at local residential street intersections with arterial streets. Page 2 Traffic Signal Installation Priority List December 21, 1992 This hierarchy was utilized to maximize the benefit/cost ratio, considering the most qpblig traffic through an intersection to be signalized with public funding sources. The following describes the methodology and terminology used in analyzing the intersections for the Traffic Signal Installation Priority List. The Intersection Prioritization Criteria are as follows: A. Number of warrants met B. Number of correctable accidents C. Accident/traffic volume ratio These criteria generally follow those discussed in the Manual of Traffic Signal Design (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2nd Ed., 1991), Prioritizing Warranted Signals. The warrants for signalization are described in the Federal Highway Administration publication The Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Correctable accidents are those types of accidents (such as broadside accidents) that would likely be eliminated with the installation of a traffic signal. Estimated Annual Traffic is Average Daily Traffic x 365 Days Per Year. Average daily traffic was counted at each intersection listed. Accident/Traffic Volume Ratio. The number of accidents occurring in an intersection in the most recent 12 month time period are divided into four categories as follows: A. Zero Accidents = 0.5 Point Rating B. Property Damage = 1.0 Point Rating C. Casualties = 3.0 Point Rating D. Fatalities = 10.0 Point Rating Each accident receives one of the above point ratings regardless of the severity of the accident. The total points (for an individual intersection) are added together and multiplied by 1,000,000. This value is divided by the estimated annual traffic to produce the accident/traffic volume ratio. Intersections are ranked, highest priority first (please see Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List). Nineteen intersections throughout the City have been scheduled for traffic signal installation, with funding sources identified at this time. These intersections have not been included in the installation priority listing (please see Future/Pending Traffic Signal Installations List). Page 3 Traffic Signal Installation Priority List December 21, 1992 Several requests for installation of traffic signals at non-arterial street crossings have been made in the recent past. Recently the administration of Edison High School has requested a traffic signal installation at the main entrance to the high school. It should be noted that school sites receive special attention in a traffic signal warrant study. Traffic Engineering staff conducted a traffic signal warrant study for this location, which did meet the warrants for consideration of the placement of a traffic signal. FUNDING SOURCE: A funding source is not required for approval of the Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Do not approve the Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List. 2. Change the priority of the installation of future traffic signals. ATTACHMENTS: City Map With Proposed Signal Locations Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List Future/Pending Traffic Signal Installations MTU:LFS:JDO:RMH:rme RMH:TRAFSIGI.RCA PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION PRIORITY LIST' (December 21, 1992) Note: Intersections on this list will likely be funded by Gas Tax Funds, Traffic Impact Fees, General Funds, or some combination of these sources. RANKING INTERSECTION NAME ACCIDENT/TRAFFIC DAILY INTERSECTION #ACCIDENTS #WARRANTS VOLUMES RATIOZ APPROACH VOLUMES' CORRECTABLE MET i DELAWARE/YORKTOWN 0.96727 19827 5 7 2 ADAMS/LAKE 0.07790 17586 0 6 3 EDINGER/SAYBROOK 0.21337 12840 1 5 4 DELAWARE/ELLIS 1.18819 11529 3 4 5 GRAHAM/MCFADDEN 0.75495 14516 2 4 6 SPRINGDALE/SLATER 0.50080 16412 1 4 7 SAYBROOK/HUMBOLDT° 0.12906 10614 0 4 8 PALM/17TH 0.10294 13306 0 4 9 DELAWARE/GARFIELD 0.70945 15447 4 3 10 HEIL/SAYBROOK 0.12122 11301 0 3 11 ATLANTA/HUNTINGTON 0.26180 10465 1 2 12 GRAHAM/GLENSTONE 0.14914 9185 0 2 13 GRAHAM/SLATER 0.14209 9641 0 2 14 ALGONQUIN/HEIL 0.13172 10367 0 2 15 BANNING/BUSHARD 0.17804 7694 0 1 16 ORANGE/17TH 0.17011 8033 0 1 17 EDISON HIGH SCHOOL 2.46 13381 6 1 18 ATLANTA/MIRAMAR/GRN .60863 18006 2 5 1 Ranking criteria: 1) Number of warrants met; 2) Number of correctable accidents; 3) Accident/traffic volume ratio. 2 ACCIDENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES RATIO = Each type of accident is assigned a point value. This value is multiplied by one million and the product is divided by the estimated annual traffic volume. Property Damage = 1 Point; Casualties = 3 Points; Fatal = 10 Points 3 Vehicle traffic from all directions approaching the intersection is counted for a 24 hour time period. 4 Humboldt is a residential street but is the only ingress/egress point to Humboldt Island. NAME OF INTERSECTION WARRANTED -NOT RANKED FLORIDA/YORKTOWN ALTERNATIVES TO SIGNALIZATION EXISTS, RIGHT OF WAY NEEDED 1ST/PACIFIC VIEW MEETS PLANNING WARRANT, FUTURE INTERSECTION(NOT EXISTING AS OF 1992) UNWARRANTED INTERSECTIONS NAME OF INTERSECTION STATUS LAKE/3RD/ORANGE WARRANTS NOT MET AT THIS TIME (1992) SPRINGDALE/TALBERT WARRANTS NOT MET AT THIS TIME (1992) EDWARDSNARSITY/CENTRAL PARK WARRANTS NOT MET AT THIS TIME (1992) RMH:TRAFSIGP.CHA S Left turn movements can be prohibited at this location and traffic can be encourged to use the nearby intersection of Yorktown/Delaware which is ranked number one on the proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List. FUTURE/PENDING TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS WITH IDENTIFIED FUNDING SOURCES As of December 21, 1992 (NOTE: INTERSECTION LETTERS DO NOT INFER PRIORITY OR SCHEDULING) A. EDWARDS & ELLIS = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development B. EDWARDS & GARFIELD = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development C. DEL MAR & HEIL = Funded by Meadowlark Development D. GREENLEAF & WARNER = Funded by Meadowlark Development E.1 11TH & PCH = Funded by Bluff Bottom Parking Project F. BEACH & TAYLOR = Eligible for funding by Superstreet Project and OCTA G. BEACH & MEMPHIS = Eligible for funding by Superstreet Project and OCTA H. BEACH & HAMILTON = Funded by Waterfront Development J. SEAPOINT & PCH = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development K. SEAPOINT & PALM = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development L. SADDLEBACK & GARFIELD = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development M. YORKTOWN & LAKE = Funded by Pacific Ranch Bond N. CENTER & 1 PACIFIC PLAZA = Funded 88% by Huntington Center Mall and 1 Pacific Plaza, Funded 12% by Redevelopment Agency P. CENTER & HUNTINGTON VILLAGE LANE = Funded by 1 Pacific Plaza and Redevelopment Agency Q. EDWARDS & TALBERT = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development, as fee credit against Traffic Impact Fees. R. GARFIELD & WARD = Will likely be funded by Measure M funds in FY 93-94 (shared with Fountain Valley) S. NEWLAND &HEIL = Will likely be funded by Measure M funds in FY 93-94 (shared with Westminster) T. GRAHAM & HEIL = Approximately one half funded by Meadowlark Development, remainder funded by the City U. NEWLAND & HAMILTON = To be constructed with Hamilton Avenue extension between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street. RMH:TRAFSIG.PLN ' This traffic signal will only be installed in conjunction with the construction of the Bluff Bottom Parking Lot. T2AFF/C SIGNAL INSTALLA TION PP/O21 T Y LIST (1992) K:Tmsrn•vc W-SA,K \.41 - .KdST AVE5 T,DOd ;AWItl.OLd .K CE r . 9 MWC-AVE 3 8 CWKLY.K 7 Wis 10 _ 14 C K0. ,K �• KR .K 12 /^� 4 Jyy - 13•.Tn .K V 1 Z SLAT- ,K qw d TALK T AVE T•LSSRT.K F LIS.� 4 A b� B L g WT1R0 •K J1 rpRTpVN .K i 3 NG a —Aml_ .K E � `J 1 18 .TL.RA •K M SC,L[ y N� 17 « . i LEGEND Fi Y xT .K U PRIORITIZED,CITY-FUNDED SIGNALS ,� ,K 15 _ TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITH IDENTIFIED FUNDING SOURCES JLAE23.� REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION z-- Date Tuly 6. 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City AdministratoraRV Prepared by: Louis F. Sandoval, Director, Public Works Department Subject: PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION PRIORITY LIST 7l6/g.l - Coin /"' 3o a07,o-.. d" " - Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The City of Huntington Beach has a number of intersections that have been identified as meeting traffic signal warrants for the consideration of signal installation. It is necessary to decide the order in which installation will be scheduled. To assure that the most critical locations are installed first, the identified intersections have been prioritized by the Transportation Commission. The Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List was first presented to the Huntington Beach Transportation Commission at their May, 1992 meeting. This issue was also discussed at their June meeting. RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List. ANALYSIS: Proposed installations fit into the following hierarchy: 1. Installations at crossing arterial streets. 2. Installations at public facilities on arterial streets (such as schools, hospitals, park entrances, etc.). 3. Installations at local residential street intersections with arterial streets. .011 Page 2 Traffic Signal Installation Priority List July 6, 1992 This hierarchy was utilized to maximize the benefit/cost ratio, considering the most public traffic through an intersection to be signalized with public funding sources. The following describes the methodology and terminology used in analyzing the intersections for the Traffic Signal Installation Priority List. The Intersection Prioritization Criteria are as follows: A. Number of warrants met B. Number of correctable accidents C. Accident/traffic volume ratio The warrants for signalization are described in the Federal Highway Administration publication The Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Correctable accidents are those types of accidents (such as broadside accidents) that would likely be eliminated with the installation of a traffic signal. Estimated Annual Traffic is Average Daily Traffic x 365 Days Per Year. Average daily traffic was counted at each intersection listed. Accident/Traffic Volume Ratio. The number of accidents occurring in an intersection in the most recent 12 month time period are divided into four categories as follows: A. Zero Accidents = 0.5 Point Rating B. Property Damage = 1.0 Point Rating C. Casualties = 3.0 Point Rating D. Fatalities = 10.0 Point Rating Each accident receives one of the above point ratings regardless of the severity of the accident. The total points (for an individual intersection) are added together and multiplied by 1,000,000. This value is divided by the estimated annual traffic to produce the accident/traffic volume ratio. Intersections are ranked, highest priority first (please see Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List). Nineteen intersections throughout the City have been scheduled for traffic signal installation, with funding sources identified at this time. These intersections have not been included in the installation priority listing (please see Future/Pending Traffic Signal Installations List). Page 3 Traffic Signal Installation Priority List July 6, 1992 Several requests for installation of traffic signals at non-arterial street crossings have been made in the recent past. Recently the administration of Edison High School has requested a traffic signal installation at the main entrance to the high school. It should be noted that school sites receive special attention in a traffic signal warrant study. Traffic Engineering staff conducted a traffic signal warrant study for this location, which did not warrant a traffic signal. This information was conveyed to the City Council in the City Administrator's Weekly Report of February 14, 1992. FUNDING SOURCE: A funding source is not required for approval of the Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Do not approve the Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List. 2. Change the priority of the installation of future traffic signals. ATTACHMENTS: City Map With Proposed Signal Locations Proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List Future/Pending Traffic Signal Installations MTU:LFS:JDO:RMH:rmh RMH:TRAFSIGI.RCA T2AFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION P2/02/TY LIST (1992) V[L,NR6TCR.K BOLSA AVE ROLSA AA ARGOSY AW 5 ARm .K NC'mom Av< cvN • cvs a -v Adh3 AVE 7 $ 14 SiT d D � Y VARICR AK vARrcR A 12 AAT 13 A•TGR • 6 CR WE OmIENT AVE TAL®T AVE a F Lli AVC 8 - [ 11 Al GAATICLR AVC a� J1 YR4T A, s �4 ARANS A, IRV 6 G E � iATLANTA AK AO SW-S n �^ H4 NANn w .K LEGEND U - PRIORITIZED,CITY-FUNDED SIGNALS ,,,, AVE 15 _ TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITH IDENTIFIED FUNDING SOURCES PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION PRIORITY LIST' (JULY 6, 1992) Note: Intersections on this list will likely be funded by Gas Tax Funds, Traffic Impact Fees, General Funds, or some combination of these sources. RANKING INTERSECTION NAME ACCIDENT/TRAFFIC DAILY INTERSECTION #ACCIDENTS #WARRANTS VOLUMES RATIO2 APPROACH VOLUMES; CORRECTABLE MET 1 DELAWARE/YORKTOWN 0.96727 19827 5 7 2 ADAMS/LAKE 0.07790 17586 0 6 3 EDINGER/SAYBROOK 0.21337 12840 1 5 4 DELAWARE/ELLIS 1.18819 11529 3 4 5 GRAHAM/MCFADDEN 0.75495 14516 2 4 6 SPRINGDALE/SLATER 0.50080 16412 1 4 7 SAYBROOK/HUMBOLDV 0.12906 10614 0 4 8 PALM/17TH 0.10294 13306 0 4 9 DELAWARE/GARFIELD 0.70945 15447 4 3 10 HEIL/SAYBROOK 0.12122 11301 0 3 11 ATLANTA/HUNTINGTON 0.26180 10465 1 2 12 GRAHAM/GLENSTONE 0.14914 9185 0 2 13 GRAHAM/SLATER 0.14209 9641 0 2 14 ALGONQUIN/HEIL 0.13172 10367 0 2 15 BANNING/BUSHARD 0.17804 7694 0 1 16 ORANGE/17TH 0.17011 8033 0 1 ' Ranking criteria: 1) Number of warrants met; 2) Number of correctable accidents; 3) Accident/traffic volume ratio. 2 ACCIDENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES RATIO = Each type of accident is assigned a point value. This value is multiplied by one million and the product is divided by the estimated annual traffic volume. Property Damage = 1 Point; Casualties = 3 Points; Fatal = 10 Points 3 Vehicle traffic from all directions approaching the intersection is counted for a 24 hour time period. 4 Humboldt is a residential street but is the only ingress/egress point to Humboldt Island. NAME OF INTERSECTION WARRANTED - NOT RANKED FLORIDA/YORKTOWN ALTERNATIVES TO SIGNALIZATION EXISTS, RIGHT OF WAY NEEDED 1ST/PACIFIC VIEW MEETS PLANNING WARRANT, FUTURE INTERSECTION (NOT EXISTING AS OF 1992) ATLANTA/MIRAMAR/GRN THIS IS A NON-ARTERIAL CROSSING INTERSECTON UNWARRANTED INTERSECTIONS NAME OF INTERSECTION STATUS LAKE/3RD/ORANGE WARRANTS NOT MET AT THIS TIME (1992) SPRINGDALE/TALBERT WARRANTS NOT MET AT THIS TIME (1992) EDWARDSNARSITY/CENTRAL PARK WARRANTS NOT MET AT THIS TIME (1992) RMH:TRAFSICP.CHA 5 Left turn movements can be prohibited at this location and traffic can be encourged to use the nearby intersection of Yorktown/Delaware which is ranked number one on the proposed Traffic Signal Installation Priority List. FUTURE/PENDING TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS WITH IDENTIFIED FUNDING SOURCES (NOTE: INTERSECTION LETTERS DO NOT INFER PRIORITY OR SCHEDULING) A. EDWARDS & ELLIS = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development B. EDWARDS & GARFIELD = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development C. DEL MAR & HEIL = Funded by Meadowlark Development D. GREENLEAF & WARNER = Funded by Meadowlark Development E:' 11TH & PCH = Funded by Bluff Bottom Parking Project F. BEACH & TAYLOR = Eligible for funding by Superstreet Project and OCTA G. BEACH & MEMPHIS = Eligible for funding by Superstreet Project and OCTA H. BEACH & HAMILTON/Pacific View Avenue = Funded by Waterfront Development J. SEAPOINT & PCH = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development K. SEAPOINT & PALM = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development L. SADDLEBACK & GARFIELD = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development M. YORKTOWN & LAKE = Funded by Pacific Ranch Bond N. CENTER & 1 PACIFIC PLAZA = Funded 88% by Huntington Center Mall and 1 Pacific Plaza, Funded 12% by Redevelopment Agency P. CENTER & HUNTINGTON VILLAGE LANE = Eligible for funding by Redevelopment Agency Q. EDWARDS & TALBERT = Funded by Holly Seacliff Development, as fee credit against Traffic Impact Fees. R. GARFIELD & WARD = Will likely be funded by Measure M funds in FY 93-94 (shared with Fountain Valley) S. NEWLAND & HEIL = Will likely be funded by Measure M funds in FY 93-94 (shared with Westminster) T. GRAHAM & HEIL = Approximately one half funded by Meadowlark Development, remainder funded by the City U. NEWLAND & HAMILTON = Funded by Ascon site developer RMH:TRAFSIO.PLN ' This traffic signal will only be installed in conjunction with the construction of the Bluff Bottom Parking Lot.