HomeMy Public PortalAbout9A Adoption of Resolution No. 15-5055 Approving the Installation of an All-Way Stop Control at the intersection of Longden Avenue and Encinita AvenueAGENDA
ITEM 9.A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 6, 2015
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Bryan Cook, City Manager
By: Michael D. Forbes, Community Development Directo r~
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 15-5055 APPROVING THE
INSTALLATION OF AN ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE
INTERSECTION OF LONGDEN AVENUE AND ENCINITA AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION :
The City Council is requested to adopt Resolution No . 15-50 55 (Attachment "A")
approving the installation of an all-way Stop control and re lated signs and pavement
markings at the intersectio n of Longden Avenue and Encinita Avenue .
BACKGROUND:
1. In November 2012, the City Council adopted the Traffic Calming Master Plan that
made recommendations for improvements to he lp reduce vehicle speeds and cut-
through traffic throughout Temple City. The intersection of Longden Avenue and
Encinita Avenue was identified in the plan as having limited sight distance, with
suggestions for installing an all-way Stop control or roundabout, and warning signs
on Longden Avenue .
2. In early-and mid-2014 , staff received feedback from residents around the
intersection of Longden Avenue and Encinita Avenue that it is difficult for vehicles
to cross or turn onto Longden Avenue from northbound or southbound Encinita
Avenue due to limited sight distance at the intersection. This l im ited visib i lity
results from the layout of the intersection and curves in Longden Avenue east and
west of the intersection with Encinita Avenue.
3. In October 2014, Transtech Engineers, Inc., the City's consultant for engineering
services, prepared a Safety Review of Conditions at the Intersection of Longden
Avenue and Encinita Avenue in the City of Temple of City.
4. On October 22, 2014, the Transportation and Public Safety Commission
considered the proposed all-way Stop control and unanimously recommended
approval.
City Council
January 6, 2015
Page 2 of 4
5 . On November 18, 2014, the City Council considered the proposed all-way Stop
control and directed staff to bring the matter back to the City Council at a future
date with the following: 1) input from the California Joint Powers Insurance
Authority (JPIA) about the City's potentia l liability exposure in installing the
recommended Stop control, and 2) recommendations on additional improvements
to increase visibility and awareness of the Stop control and curve in Longden
Avenue.
ANALYSIS:
The Safety Review prepared by Transtech determined that an all-way Stop control is
justified for the inte rsection of Longden Avenue and Encinita Avenue. This is discussed
in greater detail in the November 18 , 2014 , staff report (Attachment "B").
In response to the City Council's direction, staff contacted JPIA, the City's liability
insurance provider, to determine the City's potentia l liabi li ty exposure in installing the
Stop control and related signs and markings. JPIA staff stated that so long as a
proposed Stop control or any other traffic improvements are recommended and
designed by an engineer, are consistent with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (CA-MUTCD), and are approved by the City Council , the City assumes
no liability for the installation of the Stop signs or other improvements pursuant to the
principle of design immunity. Design immunity applies generally to all traffic
improvements, so the City's l iability does not depend on the specifics of any particular
intersection or situation so long as the proper process is followed .
JPIA provided a white paper (Attachment "C") that discusses design im munity in greater
detail. In summary, significant reliance is given to professional engineers in their
assessment of roadway conditions and recommendations for design. Design immunity
provides that a public entity is not liable for an injury caused by an improvement to
public property in which the design and construction conforms to approved standards
and/or is approved by the entity's legislative body. Design immun ity applies if a court
determines that a reasonable public employee could have adopted the design or a
reasonable leg islative body could have approved the design.
Also in response to the City Council's direction, Transtech staff prepared a
supplemental memo to the original Safety Review memo (Attachment "D") with
recommendations for additional measures to increase motorist visibility and awareness
of the Stop control and street configuration, both in the transition period immediately
following installation and in the long term . Transtech has revised the recommended
improvements for the intersection and surrounding area to incorporate the additional
measures, as follows:
• Install two Stop signs with Stop control pavement legends and Stop bar striping
at the east and west legs of the intersection on Longden Avenue . Use
oversized (48-inch by 48-inch) Stop signs to increase visibility. Install
City Council
January 6, 2015
Page 3 of 4
supplemental All-Way placards beneath all Stop signs at the intersection as
recommended by the Transportation and Public Safety Commission.
• During the transition period immediately after the Stop signs are installed,
install temporary orange flags on the top of the Stop signs to increase visibility .
The flags may be removed after 30 days.
• Install white striping for the Stop sign at the west leg of the intersection to
delineate and square off the curve toward Encinita Avenue. This will direct
vehicles to see oncoming traffic and align the intersection.
• Install Stop Ahead signs and pavement legends for the east and west
approaches to the intersection on Longden Avenue. Install a flashing beacon
on top of each sign to increase visibility.
• Replace the existing curve warning sign on the south side of Longden Avenue
(eastbound) with an updated sign and install a 25 mph speed limit sign beneath
the curve warning sign. The existing curve warning sign on the north side of
Longden Avenue (westbound) is adequate and does not need to be replaced.
• Replace the existing 25 mph speed limit sign on the south side of Longden
Avenue (eastbound) with an updated sign and install a neon green School
plaque with the speed limit sign.
• Conduct a speed survey measuring the 85th percentile speed of traffic two to
three months after the all-way Stop control and other signs and markings are
installed, to determine if the existing speed limit should be reevaluated and/or if
additional measures should be implemented.
CONCLUSION:
The intersection of Longden Avenue and Encinita Avenue has previously been
identified as having limited sight visibility. A Safety Review of the intersection has
determined that the installation of an all-way Stop control is appropriate and justified
pursuant to CA-MUTCD requirements . The recommended all-way Stop control will
improve safety and operations at the intersection.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Transtech estimates that the cost to install the all-way Stop control and related signs
and pavement markings is about $4,000. This amount can be covered by funds
allocated in the Fiscal Year 2014-15 budget for traffic signs and striping maintenance.
There would be no budget impact.
City Council
January 6, 2015
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution No. 15-5055
B. City Council staff report from November 18, 2014
C. JPIA white paper on design immunity
D. Supplemental memo on Stop control measures to be installed during transition
period; and original Safety Review of Conditions at the Intersection of Longden
Avenue and Encinita Avenue in the City of Temple of City attached thereto
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION N0.15-5055
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF AN ALL-WAY STOP
CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTION OF LONGDEN AVENUE AND
ENCINITA AVENUE
WHEREAS, the California Vehicle Code and the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices provide factors that cities may consider to justify the appropriateness of proposed all-way Stop
controls; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the safety review prepared by Transtech
Engineers, Inc. justifying the appropriateness of an all-way Stop control and related signs and pavement
markings at the intersection of Longden Avenue and Encinita Avenue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Temple City approves
the installation of an all-way Stop control and related signs and pavement markings at the intersection of
Longden Avenue and Encinita Avenue.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 61h day of January, 2015.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, Resolution No. 15-5055, was duly passed, approved
and adopted by the City Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 61h day of
January, 2015, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmember-
Councilmember -
Councilmember -
Councilmember-
City Clerk
ATTACHMENT 8
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE : November 18,2014
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM: Bryan Cook, City Manager
By: Michael D. Forbes , Community Development Director
SUBJECT: INSTALLATION OF ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE
INTERSECTION OF LONGDEN AVENUE AND ENCINITA AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council is requested to adopt Resolution No. 14-5049 approving the
installation of an all-way Stop control and related signs and pavement markings at the
intersection of Longden Avenue and Encinita Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
1. In November 2012, the City Council adopted the Traffic Calming Master Plan that
made recommendations for improvements to help reduce vehicle speeds and cut-
through traffic throughout Temple City. The intersection of Longden Avenue and
Encinita Avenue was identified in the plan as having lim ited sight distance, with
suggestions for installing an all -way Stop control or roundabout, and warning signs
on Longden Avenue.
2. In early-and mid-2014, staff received feedback from residents around the
intersection of Longden Avenue and Encinita Avenue that it is difficult for vehicles to
cross or turn onto Longden Avenue from northbound or southbound Encinita
Avenue due to limited sight distance at the intersection. This limited visibility results
from the layout of the intersection and curves in Longden Avenue east and west of
the intersection with Encinita Avenue.
3. In October 2014, Transtech Engineers, Inc., the City's consultant for engineering
services , prepared a Safety Review of Conditions at the Intersection of Longden
Avenue and Encinita Avenue in the City of Temple of City (Attachment "B").
4. On October 22, 2014, the Transportation and Public Safety Commission considered
the proposed all-way Stop control and unanimously recommended approval.
City Council
November 18, 2014
Page 2 of 3
ANALYSIS:
The installation of an all-way Stop control requires the satisfaction of certain
requirements, or warrants, set by the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (CA-MUTCD). The warrants required under CA-MUTCD include the following,
and are discussed in greater detail in the attached Safety Review:
• minimum traffic volume on street approaches to the intersection
• minimum volume of pedestrians crossing at the intersection
• speed of traffic through the intersection
• number of accidents at the intersection
The CA-MUTCD also allows cities to consider additional criteria to justify installation of
a Stop control :
• the need to control a left turn conflict at the intersection
• the need to contro l vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations generating high
pedestrian traffic volumes
• locations where a motorist, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not
able to safely negotiate the intersection unless conflicting traffic is also required
to stop
• the desire to utilize a multi-way Stop control to improve traffic operational
characteristics at the intersection of two residential streets of similar design and
operating characteristics
The Safety Review prepared by Transtech determined that all all-way Stop control is
justif ied for the i ntersection of Longden Avenue and Enci nita Avenue due to the
reduced sight distance at the i ntersection for vehic les crossing Longden or turning onto
Longden from Encinita , pedestrians crossing at the intersection, and cars backing out of
driveways near the intersection. Installation of an a ll-way Stop control would enhance
operations and safety at the intersection .
In addition to an all -way Stop control, the Safety Review recommends the following
additional measures:
• install "Stop Ahead" signs and pavement markings using highly reflective paint
on Longden Avenue
• install curve warning signs on Longden Avenue
• install updated speed limit signs and neon green school speed limit signs on
Longden Avenue
• conduct a speed survey measuring the 85t h percenti le speed of traffic two to
three months after the all-way Stop contro l and other signs and markings are
installed, to determine if the existing speed l imit should be reevaluated and/or if
additiona l measures shou ld be implemented
City Council
November 18 , 2014
Page 3 of 3
The Transportation and Public Safety Commission considered the proposed all-way
Stop control and related improvements on October 22, 2014. The Commission
unanimously recommended approval of the proposed improvements, with the
recommended modification that supplemental "All-Way" placards be added below each
of the Stop signs. Adding these supplemental placards is common practice and these
would be included if the all-way Stop control is approved by the City Council.
CONCLUSION:
The intersection of Longden Avenue and Encinita Avenue has previously been
identified as having limited sight visibility. A Safety Review of the intersection has
determined that the installation of an all-way Stop control is appropriate and justified
pursuant to CA-MUTCD requirements . The recommended all-way Stop control will
improve safety and operations at the intersection .
FISCAL IMPACT:
Transtech estimates that the cost to install the all-way Stop control and related signs
and pavement markings is about $4,000. This cost would be reduced if the signs and
markings were installed by City staff rather than an outside vendor. This amount can
be covered by funds allocated in the Fiscal Year 2014-15 budget for traffic signs and
striping maintenance. There would be no budget impact.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution No. 14-5049
B. Safety Review of Conditions at the Intersection of Longden Avenue and Encinita
Avenue in the City of Temple of City
CALIFORNIA JPIA
White Paper Series
The Design Immunity
White Paper Purpose:
Roadway design cases represent the single greatest
liability exposure for California JPIA Members. This
white paper will present a discussion on the statutory
and legislative background of The Design Immunity.
Other Resources:
The Design Immunity Webcast
ATTACHMENT C
Important:
This reference material is compiled for
use by Authority members in the
preparation, development and
implementation of risk management
policies, programs, and procedures .
Since this document is des igned to
meet the needs of the general pool
membership, please be aware that the
present form is best considered an
educational resource for use by your
agency in drafting specific documents.
This white paper should not be
construed as legal advice.
Accordingly, any resulting policy,
program or procedure that results from
this white paper -should always be
reviewed and approved as is c ustomary
by your agency, including the purview
of any necessary legal and/or
governing body authorities to ensure
the policy being developed meets the
unique need s of your jurisdiction.
Policies shou ld be implemented after
proper training has been provided.
This reference material is to be
considered proprietary and confidential
and may not be disclosed to any person
without the express , prior permission
of the California JPIA. This reference
material is for Authority member use
on ly and does not app ly in any criminal
or c iv il proceed ing. Thi s reference
material should not be con strued as a
creation of a higher legal standard of
safety or care in an evidentiary sense
with respect to third party claims.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... .4
Elements of the Design Immunity .................................................................................................. .5
Preserving Design Immunity ........................................................................................................... 7
Loss of Design Tmmunity ................................................................................................................. 8
Resurrecting Design Immunity ........................................................................................................ 9
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... ! 0
Call to Action ................................................................................................................................. ll
2
Executive Summary
Roadway design cases repre sent the single greatest li ability exposure for California JPIA
Members. ln the past five years, m ember s have spent over $75 million in settlement a nd
judgments in these cases. Members are often unwittingly involved in road desig n cases where
liability is remote, at best. Frequently, the person found to be the most li ab le fo r th e accident is
''judgment proof," with little or no insurance or assets. Therefore, plaintiffs pursue local
governments, which may be minimally at fau lt , to receive a full recovery.
Joint and several liability has long been the rule under common law, and has su rvi ved for
centu ri es for a very important reason: it ensured that the risk of a defendant's insolvency would
fall o n one who was also responsible to some degree for the plaintiffs injuries, and not upon the
plaintiff. Joint responsibil ity means that the plaintiff is deserving of the court's award for
damages, without respect to the degree of responsibility.
Tn I 986 , California changed the law with regard to non-economic damages, such as pain and
s uffering, and now limits t he damages required by each defendant ; thereby apportioning non-
economic damages. This means that, in the case of multiple defendant s, each shall be li able on ly
for the damages attributable to each defendant.
Roadway design cases often involve catastrophic injuries consisting of brain damage, paraplegia,
quadriplegia, death, amputations, or serious orthopedic injuries. These injuries include
s ig nificant economic damages consisting ofloss of support and earnings combined with lifetime
medical care . Therefore, it becomes a disadvantage to allow trial of these cases in order to prove
driver negligence, since such negligence will ultimately result in the member paying all
econom ic damages as part of the tria l verdict. As such, one of the strongest defenses available to
a public entity to defeat joint and several liability is the Design Immunity.
This paper presents a discussion on the statutory and legislative background of the Design
Immunity. Following w ill be an outline of the elements ofthe Design Immunity, with attention
devoted toward immunity preservation. The paper then discusses how membe rs lose t hi s
important protection, coupl ed with steps to take in order to re-establish des ign immunity.
T hrou ghout, the reader will learn that the concept of the Design Immunity is inva luable as it
re lates to the opportunity to remove a member from a case earl y in the trial proceedings . Because
the Design Immunity is an issue of law for a judge to decide, any plaintiff injurie s are le ss likel y
to be a sympathetic factor in the co urt's decision. The paper conclud es with a call to action.
3
Introduction
With certain exceptions, public entities are immune from liability, and governed by standards
that differ from private persons. Being sovereign, the State cannot be sued unless it consents
through statutory exceptions specified in the Tort Claims Act (Government Code Sec. 800-900).
Even with statutory exceptions, a public entity can create situations where it is not immune from
lit igation, such as in roadway liab ility cases . Government Code Sections 835 and 830 govern
liability relating to roadway des ign cases.
"A public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property ifthe plaintiff
establishes that t he property w as in a dangerou s condition at the time of the injury, that the injury
was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a
reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and either a negligent or
w rongfu l act or omission of an employee created the condition or the public entity had actual or
constructive notice of the dangerous condition a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken
measures to protect against the dangerous condition."
Government Code Section 830 defmes a "dangerous condition" of public property:
"A dangerous condition means a condition of property that creates a substantial (as distinguished
from a minor, trivial or insignificant) ri sk of injury when such property or adjacent property is
used with due care in a manner in which it is reasonably foreseeable that it will be used."
Public entities would be liable for any roadway condition which creates a substantial risk of
injury without the protection of the Design Immunity as set forth in Government Code Section
830.6.
The Design Immunity provides that a public entity is not liable for an injury caused by an
improvement to public property in which the design and construction conformed to approved
standards or w as approved by the entity's legi s lative body. The Design Immunity applies if a
court determines that (a) a reasonable public employee could have adopted the design, or (b) a
reasonable legislative body could have approved the design.
T he legislative intention is clearly to protect governmental entities by preventing a jury fro m
second guessing the legislative body's decision to adopt the design (Cameron v. State (1972) 7
Cal.3d 318, 326).
4
Elements of the Design Immunity
To invoke the Design Immunity, the public entity must establish three elements:
I . A causal relationship between the accident and the design ;
2. Discretionary approval ofthe design before construction;
3. Substantial evidence of the reasonableness of the design
Establishing a causal relationship is usually a minor issue and plaintiffs are unlikely to attack this
point. If the plaintiff argues against a relationship between the design and the accident, they are
essentially arguing that no dangerous condition existed.
However, the public entity mu st prove that the roadway feature producing the injury was part of
the design (Grenier v. City ofirwindale (1997) 57 Cal. A pp. 4th 931 ). Allegations in the
pleadings (complaint or written discovery) commonly prove thi s point (Fuller v. Department of
Transp. (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 1109).
Discretionary approval of the plan before construction can be established seve ral ways:
• Approval by the legislative body;
• Approval by another body authorized to give approval (e.g. planning commission or
traffic commission);
• Approval by an employee authorized to approve a plan or design (e.g. city engineer)
Conformity with standards previously approved for use by the legislative body (Cal Tr ans
Traffic and Design Manual, The Green Book for Public Works or, the Manual for U niform
Traffic Control Devices)
The courts recognize that outside engineering fi1ms are commonly used by publi c entities to
design public improvements. In the se cases, the city council, th e city engineer or other
authorized body can establish that discr etionary approval was g iven for the design provided by
an o utsid e engineering firm .
The design approval must be an informed decision based on observation in operation, weighing
options, and considering alternatives. So long as a reasonable employee (i.e., th e city engineer)
would hav e approved the option, it shou ld satisfy this option for prior discretionary approval.
Establi shin g "sub stantial evid e nce" on the "rea sonabl eness" of the design is the issue of greatest
importance for securing the Design Immunity . This means that the evid ence used to approve the
design is ev idence re lied up on by any reasonabl e employee or public body in reaching a
decision. The design does not h ave to be perfect, "state of the art" or beyond criticism. This
5
element is normally established by the employee who prepared or approved the design or by
demonstrating that the plan conformed to professional standards of design and safety.
The court has recognized that in design immunity cases, plaintiff experts will not agree with
defendant experts as to the reasonableness of the design. Even if experts disagree on this, the fact
that a plan was prepared or approved by an engineer is substantial evidence of the reasonableness
of the design. In most cases, the signature of the city engineer or the design engineer will suffice.
Establishing the Design Immunity is a process specific and document intensive activity and
requires that public entities maintain records of the approval process.
6
Preserving Design Immunity
Record maintenance, organization and retrieval concerning the design of a particular roadway
segment are essential to assert the Design Immunity. As many Authority members were
incorporated from areas once under county government jurisdiction, documentation on road
design and approval is often lacking. For example, crosswalks are often placed at intersections
without the benefit of analysis to determine whether it was warranted or installed with
appropriate warning signs.
Roadways within the city should be broken down into segments to provide for the indexing and
retrieval of documents related to design, approval, construction and maintenance. Documents
should include as-built plans, construction plans, drawings, and specifications, aerial photos
inventories of roadway markings and inventories of roadway signage. Sometimes, members are
provided a roadway marking inventory from the county that contains crosswalk data such as
when they were installed, last inspected, last painted and when they were removed.
Similarly, traffic sign inventories store information about the installation, inspection,
modification, and removal dates for signs and their distance from an intersection or crosswalk.
Many public entities contract with private companies or their county for inspection and
maintenance ofroadway signage, markings, and traffic signals. In these arrangements, it is
important that written records be regularly provided to the public entity, and preserved for
establishing the Design Immunity.
7
Loss of Design Immunity
Once established, however, Design Immunity may not last forever. The Design Immunity can be
lost if the plaintiff can establish "changed physical conditions" which render the init ial design no
longer reasonable. Changed physical conditions can relate to an increase in traffic vo lume o r
accident rates related to a specific design feature.
For example, an intersection was initially designed with stop signs controlling only one direction
of travel. When the surrounding area was developed, an increase in traffic volume led to a
corresponding increase in accidents. When initially approved, the design was reasonable. With
the increase in traffic and accidents at the intersection, the design may no longer be reasonable
because of"changed conditions." The changed conditions must relate to a specific feature of the
original design.
If physical conditions have changed s ince the original design was approved , a pub lic entity may
sti II be able to preserve the design immunity. The plaintiff must also establish that the public
entity had reasonable time to obtain funds and implement remedial work to the property. If the
public entity is unab le to remedy the condition due to a practical impossibility o r lack of funds,
the plaintiff must prove that the public entity fai led to provide adequate warnings. Government
Code§ 830.6; Cornette v. Department ofTransportation (200 1) 26 Cal.4th 63, 66.
In the previous example involving the inter section with an increase in traffic fl ow and accident
rate, the public entity may decide to install add itional signals at the intersection. The public
agency may have prepared the design, but lacked current fundin g to im p lement. In this instance,
the courts may refuse to invalidate the Design Immunity.
In another case, two people were struck while walking in a marked crosswalk at an intersection
contro lled by traffic and pedestrian s ignals. One was killed a nd the other seriously injured. The
plaintiffs alleged that the pedestrian s ignal was too short to allow for safe crossing. The
intersection and traffic controls were designed by a professiona l en g ineer, and constructed about
20 years be fore the accident.
The roadway marking s, signage and traffic signals were consistent with the original design. The
traffic sig nals, although updated, were still in the same location as provided in the o riginal
design. However, s ignal timing had changed over the years due to an increase in traffic volume
and other factors. The city had the signal timing records for the 12 month per iod befo re the
accident, but could not locate the original s igna l timing records .
The original traffic engineer who designed the intersection and the engineering firm for which he
worked were no longer in business. In add iti on, the city co uld not locate the orig in a l s ignal
timing records to su pport that the design was reasonable at the time the intersection was
approved and built. As a consequence, the city spent over $200,000, and was actually ab le to
s uccessfully defend the case. Despite the city's success, less than $10,000 could have been spent
if it had the records needed to support design immunity.
8
Resurrecting Design Immunity
The lack of records to establish the reasonableness of the original design does not necessarily
preclude the assertion of the Design Immunity. "Reasonableness" can be established if roadway
improvements have been made with evidence that an engineer reviewed and approved the
original design. These construction works can consist of roadway re-striping or resurfacing,
updating or re-timing traffic signals at an intersection, repainting roadway markings, or
upgrading existing signage.
A case involving a member illustrates this principle. A husband and wife crossed a heavily
traveled roadway in a marked crosswalk where she was struck and ki lled by a vehicle. The
county had installed the crosswalk many years before the city's incorporation. A diligent records
search to determine why the crosswalk was placed at this location was unsuccessful. Aerial
photographs documented the crosswalk at this location for at least 30 years before the accident ,
but no one could establish who approved the installation ofthe crosswalk or why.
The roadway was resurfaced and re-striped about five years before the accident. The re-striping
plan placed the r oadway markings in the same locatio n as before resurfacing, including the
placement and location of the crosswalk. The city engineer and traffic engineer signed off and
approved there-striping plan. They reviewed speed surveys to determine if the posted speed
limit was still reasonable, and also examined traffic volume for any substantial changes. T hey
evaluated the location, placement, type and number of advance pedestrian warning signs, and
examined the adequacy and placement of roadway markings to warn motorists of an approaching
crosswalk. They also studied th e intersection, and determined the necessity of a crosswalk to
channel pedestrians to a location that ensured better visibili ty for motorists. Finally, th e
engineers approved there-striping plan to place the crosswalk at exactly the same location it had
been before resurfacing. T he court found the resurfacing plan to be reasonable, and summary
judgment was granted on design immunity.
The very same member is now undertaking a large capital improvement project on one of its
major arterial highways that has had a numerous pedestrian accidents in the past. A traffic
engineer is reviewing every intersection to determ in e the necessity and location of a marked
crosswalk, and whether it should be a standard crosswalk or a "high visibi lity" crosswalk. The
engineer i s also examining the need for a traffic signal at the intersection and its potential to
create traffic control problems elsewhere on the roadway. T he use of "bulb outs" to increase
pedestrian safety and other safety factors are being considered in the design. While the
intersection designs may remain unchanged after the review, the member wi ll have a basis to
assert the Design Immunity in the event of litigation.
9
Conclusion
The Design Immunity is an extremely cost-effective, economical, and expedient means by which
a member can be removed from exposure related to a catastrophic injury. Since the issue of
design immunity is one oflaw, it can be raised before trial by a public entity, and heard by the
trial judge without impaneling a jury. The probability is greater that a judge will follow the law,
and not be persuaded by the jury's sympathy for a seriously injured plaintiff. If a ruling in favor
of the public entity is appealed, it is more likely that the Appellate Court will sustain the ruling
without having knowledge of the plaintiffs injuries.
10
Call to Action
Since hundreds of thousands of dollars in defense costs and subsequent millions of dollars in
settlement or judgments can be saved ifthe Design Immunity can be asserted early in litigation,
members can and should inventory their records in order to determine if sufficient
documentation exists for road designs.
To begin, it is recommended that all roadways within your jurisdiction be broken into segments.
These segments will then form the basis for indexing and retrieval of documents related to
design, approval, construction and maintenance. In all instances, these documents should
include as-built plans, construction plans, drawings, specifications, aerial photos, inventories of
roadway markings and roadway signs. If your agency contracts for inspection and maintenance
of roadway signage, markings, and traffic signals, make sure that written records of these
activities be regularly transmitted and preserved.
Next, if original design plans are not available, the roadway should be identified, and in
conjunction with a future capital improvement project on that roadway, the proper pre-work
should begin to resunect design immunity. A traffic engineer should review every intersection
to determine necessity and location of marked crosswalks and whether a standard or high
visibility crosswalk is appropriate. The engineer should also examine the need for a traffic signal
along with other safety factors and document the basis for all design features.
If funding associated with the capital improvement project is delayed or reduced, and delays
completion of the work, your agency must carefully docmnent the budgetary decision-making
process, along with subsequent plans to complete the work.
Finally, review your agency's process for approving design plans. Design plans must be
approved by the legislative body unless others, on behalf of the legislative body, have been
formally authorized to do so.
11
MEMO
TO
FROM
DATE
SUBJECT
ATTACHMENT D
TRANSTECh
Michael D. Forbes, Community Development Director, City of Temple City
Yunus Rahi, PE, TE, PhD, Traffic/Civil Engineer, Transtech Engineers, Inc.
Jana Robbins, PTP, Professional Transportation Planner, Senior Transportation Analyst,
Transtech Engineers, In c.
Melissa Demirci, Transportation Analyst, Transtech Engineers, Inc.
December 16, 2014
STOP CONTROL MEASURES TO BE INSTALLED ON LONGDEN AVENUE AT ENCINITA AVENUE
I N THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DURING TRANSITION PERIOD
STOP CONTROL MEASURES TO BE INSTALLED
After careful review of existing roadway conditions and operations, engineering staff has determined that
the intersect ion of Longden Avenue and Encinita Avenue justifies the installation of all-way stop control
due to red uced sight visibility for turning vehicles, crossing pedestrians, and back ing cars. Please refer to
attached report: Safety Review of Conditions at the Intersection of Longden Avenue and Encinita Avenue
in the City of Temple City for detailed analysis of existing conditions.
Based on an engineering review and study, the installation of an all-way stop w ill enhance operations and
safety as well as provide acceptable gaps in traffic for vehicles to make left turns into and out of the
intersection of Longden Avenue and Encinita Avenue.
To enhance operations during the transition time the following measures may be implemented:
../ Stop Signs and Stop Pavement Legends: Installation of two stop signs (Rl-1) and stop control
pavement legends and stop bar striping at th e west and east leg of the intersection across
Longden Avenue . The stop signs for the EB/WB Direction should be oversized stop signs (48" x
48") to increase visibility of the stop. During the trans ition period temporary orange flags should
be installed on the new EB/WB stop to increase visibility. The flags may be removed after 30 days.
13367 Benson Avenue I Chino CA 91710 I T 909 595 8599 I F 909 590 8599 I Transtech.org
Per the CAMUTCD Figure 2A-1 Examples of Enhances Conspicuity for Signs are provided.
Figure 2A-1. Examples of Enhanced Conspicuity for Signs
A -W16·15P plaque above
a regulatory or warning
sign if the regulation or
condition is new
0 -Solid yellow, solid fluorescent
yellow, or diagonally striped
black and yellow (or blacl< and
fluorescent yellow) strip of
re1roreflective sheeting
around a warning sign _....
EXIT
25
MPH
SPEED
LIMIT
35
E -Vertical re1roreflective
s1rip on sign support
C-W1&-18P plaque above
a regulatory sign
NOTICE
WEIGHT
LIMIT
10
TONS
F -Supplemental beacon
D
./ White Striping for Stop Sign at the West leg ofthe Intersection: White striping should be painted
for the stop sign at the west leg of the intersection on Longden Avenue (EB Direction) to delineate
and square off the curve toward Encinita Avenue directing vehicles to see oncoming traffic and
to align the intersection as shown in the diagram .
./ Stop Ahead Signs and Pavement legends: Installation of stop ahead signs (W3-1) with flashing
beacon and stop ahead pavement legends approaching Encinita Avenue on Longden Avenue to
alert drivers of a stop sign. The stop ahead pavement legend shou ld be installed in advance of
the curve per CAMUTCD warning before Encinita Avenue approaching from the EB and WB
directions since the approach is on a curve. The stop ahead signs should be places after the curve
warning signs on Longden Avenue.
F!ash in:s --........ n
Beaco n "
Page 2 of 4
Guidelines of suggested dist ances of w here warn i ng signs shou ld be placed are per the CAMUTCD
Section 2C.OS; signs should be placed so that they provide an adequate Perception-Response Time
(PRT). The distances contained in Table 2C-4 are for guidance purposes and should be applied
with engineer ing judgment.
Warning signs should not be placed too far in advance of the condition, such that drivers might
tend t o forget the warning because of other driving distractions. The distances shown in Table 2C-
4 can be adjusted for roadway features, other signing, and to improve visibility.
Table 2C-4 . Gu id el i nes f o r A d va n ce Pl ac ement o f Warning Sig ns
Advance Placement Di s t a n ce'
Posted Condition A: Co n dition B : Decelera tio n to t he l isted advisory sp eed (mph) for the con dition o r 85th-Speed reduction
Percentile a nd lana
Speed changing in 03 104 204 30' 40 ' 504 60'1 704
heavy traHic"
20mph 225 It 100 h' N IA' ------
25mph 325 ft 100 ft' N/A' N/A' --· --·-·-
3D mph 460ft 10 0ft" N/A' NIA' - ----
35mph 565 ft 100 It' NIA5 NIA 5 N/A' ----
40mph 670ft 125 ft 10 0 It" 100ft" NIA' ----
45mph 775 It 175 It 125 It 100 11' 100 tt• NJA' ---
50 mph 885ft 250 It 200 fj 175 ft 125 11 100 It" ---
55 mph 990ft 325 tt 275 It 225 ft 200 It 12 5ft NfA' --
60 mph 1,100 1! 400 It 350 ft 325 ft 27 5 It 2 00ft 100ft" --
65 mph 1,2001t 475 It 4 50 ft 400 It 350 It 275 fj 200 It 10011' -
70 mph 1,250ft 550 ft 525 ft 500 It 450 ft 375 It 275ft 150 ft -
75 mph 1,3501! 650ft 6 25ft 600 I t 55 0 It 475 II 375 II 250 11 100 It'
• Typ tcal cond itiOns are locahons where th e road user must use e)(lra 11n1e lo adjust spe ed and ch an ge lane s 1n heavy tralfic be cause of a complex
dri vmg si lualion. Typical signs are Merge Mil Right lane En ds. n,c dista nces ar e dete rmined by provi di ng the driver a PAT of 14.0 to 14.5 seconds
tor vehicle maneuvers (2 005 AASHTO Policy, Exhibrt 3-3, Oeciston S1ghl Di stance. Avoid ance Maneuver E) minu s the leg,bil ity drs tance ol 180 teel lor
111e appropriate sign .
3 Typ ica l con dilion is the warning of a potential slop si tua tion. Typical sign s are Slop Ah ead , Yie ld Ahead, Signal Ahea d, and Intersection Warnin g signs
The distances are based on the 2005 AAS HTO Policy, Exhibi t 3· 1, Stop pi ng Sigh I Distanc e, providing a PRT of 2.5 seconds, a deceleration rate of
11 .2 feet/secon d~. minus the sign legibility distance of 180 feet.
..! Curv e Warning Signs w ith Updated Speed limit Signs : The existing yellow curve warning sign east
of Lama Avenue on Longden Avenue is obstructed and facing the wrong direction; the sign should
be updated with Wl-4 Curve warning and 25 mph yellow speed limit signage underneath (R2-1)
per Horizontal Alignment Signs and Plaques found in Figu r e 2C-1 of the CAMUTCD.
Page 3 of 4
School Speed limit Sign: The existing 25 mph speed limit sign on the south side of Longden Avenue
approaching Oak Avenue should be remo ve d and installed w ith a school speed lim it assembly sign. The
sig ns should have SCHOOl (S4-3P) plaque above the 25 mph speed limit. The sign should be of highly
reflective paint and neon green.
School Speed
Limit Assembly
SCHOOL!] S4-3P
SPEED
LIMIT R 2_1 25
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS DIAGRAM
Recommended Improvements Diagram
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Safety Review of Conditions at t he Intersect ion of Lon gden Avenue and Encinita Aven ue
in the City of Temple City
Page 4 of 4
Attachment 1
MEMO
TO
FROM
DATE
SUBJECT
INTRODUCTION
TRANS TECH
Michael D. Forbes, Community Development Director, City of Te mp le Cit y
Yunus Rahi , P.E., T.E., Deputy City Engineer, Transtech Eng in eers, Inc.
Jana Robbins, Senior Transportation Analyst, Transtech Engineers, Inc.
Melissa De mirci, Transportation Ana lyst, Transtech Engineers, Inc.
October 8, 2014
SAFETY REV IEW OF CONDITION S AT THE I NTERSECTION OF LO NGDEN AVEN U E AND
ENCINITA AV ENUE IN THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY
Residents have expressed to City staff t hat it is difficu lt for vehicles to cro ss or turn onto Longden Ave nu e
via Encinita Ave nue due to limited sight visibi lity of not being abl e to see oncom in g vehicl es traveling
eastbou nd (EB) an d westbound (WB) on Longden Avenue. Currently, only the northbound (NB) and
so uthbound (S B) directions on Encinita Avenue are stop contro lle d, whi le the EB and WB directions on
Longd en Avenue are free flow ing. East of t he intersection along Longden Avenu e at Oak Avenue is
Longden Elementary Schoo l. The Lon gde n Ave nu e and Oak Avenue intersection is a sig nalized
intersection .
There is a c urve appro ac hin g Encinita Aven ue from the west that limits t he line of sigh t for ve hicles wa iting
at the intersection. W hil e t here is no marked crosswa lk, pedes tria ns w ho d o cross Longden Ave nu e are
also s ubj ect t o the same lin e of sight iss ue due to the curve. The curve in the ro adway also presents a
problem for ve hicles backing out of residential driveways along Longden Aven ue.
A City Wide Traffic Ca lmi ng M aste r Plan was ado pted by the City at the end o f 2012 to hel p r ed uce and
mitigate vehicle sp eed s and cut-through traffic through th e use of bot h passiv e d ev i ces, like signs and
striping, and physical devices such as changes in roa d elevation or path. The plan identifies 13 Focus Areas
A through M. Th e study intersection of Lo ngden Avenue and Encinita Avenue is discussed w ithin Focus
A rea C and Focus Area D as East of Rosemead Boulevard Cut Through Traffic, and Longden Ele me ntary
Sc hool, r es pectively .
City staff has conducted a sa fety review analys is th at includes a field study of ex isting condit ions, line of
sight ana lys is, acci d ent hi story, and warra nt studies. As part of this study, turning m ovement co unts and
24-hour tube counts wer e take n at th e intersect io n and across the roadway w hile sc hool was i n sess ion.
13367 Be nson Aven u e I Ch i no CA g1710 I T gog 5g5 85gg I F gog sgo 8599 I Transtech .org
Attachment 1
This report i ncludes all of the above mentioned findings with a summary of recommendations provided
at the end.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The below image shows the vicinity map of the subject location in relation to the surrounding a rea.
Longden Avenue: According to the Temple City Circulation Element, Longden Avenue is a
collector street with single family homes lin ing both sides of the street. The street has one
lan e in each direction separated by a center lin e striping. There is no stop control on
Longden Avenue at Encinita in the EB/WB directions, but a NB/SB stop control for Encinita
Avenue. There are no marked crosswalks at this location. The street width is
approximately 40 feet at the Encinita Avenue intersection, and increases up to 48 feet at
the curve between Loma Avenue and Encinita Avenue. Parking is permitted on both sides
with light to moderate parking in this area. Longden Avenue connects to Rosemead
Boulevard to the west, and to Temple City Boulevard the east . Per the 2010 Engineering
and Traffic Survey conducted for the City of Temple City, the speed limit on Longden
Avenue between east and west City limits is posted 35 mph, however a curve warning
sign with 25 mph is posted on Longden Avenue at each side ofthe beginning ofthe curve
for EB and WB traffic approaching Encinita Avenue.
Longden Avenue EB
Longden Avenue WB
Page 2 of 16
Attachme nt 1
Encinita Avenue: According to the Temple City Ci rculation Element, Enc inita Avenue at th is location is also
a collector street with sing le family homes on both sides of t he roadway. The street has one lane in eac h
direction with a center line striping (Encin ita Avenue at Longde n Avenue is stop controll ed (NB/SB
directions). There are no marked crosswa lks at this location. The st reet w idth is approx imately 36 feet at
the Longden Avenue intersection. Parking is permitted on both sides with l ight to moderate pa rk i ng in this
area. Per the 2010 Engineering and Traffic Survey conducted for the City of Temple City, the sp eed lim it
on Encinita Avenue between Longden Avenue and Las Tunas Dr ive is posted at 30 mph.
RADAR DATA SUMMARY FOR SEGMENTS ALONG LONGDEN AVENUE AND ENCINITAAVENUE
City staff conducted a radar speed survey along six different segments of Longden Avenue between Burton
Avenue and Agnes Ave nue, and Encinita Ave nu e between Lemon Avenue and La s Tunas Drive. Data was
collected for each segment regarding the preva iling speed of veh icles, traffic coll isio ns, vi sibility
r est riction s, roadway cond itions, pedestrian activities, on-street parking and land use adjacent to the
road ways. Radar speed measurements were co nducted duri ng the month of Ju ly 20 14.
@
@
l.J .Maxx ti
vo\SI
. LEGEND A
N
Radar speed
survey segments
High way, traffic and roads ide land uses for eac h segme nt were analyzed for co nditions not readily
apparent t o motorists. Traffic volume and spe ed i n both di rections was recorded. Th e hours of radar
operation were re stricted to off-peak on a weekday.
All surveys were conducted in cle a r wea ther. Th e radar measure me nts were taken f rom an unmarked
veh i cle so as not to alter or impede the free flow of traffic. A tota l of about 100 samp les were obtai ned
Pa g e 3 o f 16
Attachment 1
for each of the six segments surveyed. In no case were sample sizes less than 50 vehicles for each
direction.
The following tables summarizes the field data for each segment included along Longden Avenue and
Encinita Avenue.
~~---
SEGMENT llONGDEN AVENUE : EAST OF BURTON AVENUE TO ROSEMEAD BLVD
Streets in Segment that Intersect with Longden Avenue (ADT: 6,569)
• Muscatel E/0
• lvar Avenue
• Reno Avenue
• Rosemead Blvd W/0
• E/0 Burton Avenue
• Avon Avenue
• Lemon Avenue
851h Percentile Speed 35.7 Posted Speed 35 mph
length 2376' 10 MPH Pace 29-38
Accident History from SWITRS (2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009) 5 Years
Number of Accidents 4
Severity Injury (4); Property Damage (0)
location of Accident Intersection (2); Midblock (2)
Type of Accident Rearend/lmprop Turn; Broadside (2); Rearend (SP)
Surrounding Land Use/Roadway Conditions
• Single Family Units some Multi Family • Parking on Both Sides of Street
• Oversize Speed signs: W/0 Rosemead WB, E/0 • Lots of Driveways
Vista WB. • County on North side of Longden
• Regular Size Speed Signs: E/0 Furton EB • Dip at Rosemead
• All-Way Stop at Muscatel • Signal at Rosemead
• Sidewalks on S/S intermittent on N/S • Strip Commercial and MFDU near Rosemead
Page 4 of 16
Attachment 1
SEGMENT 2 LONGDEN AVENUE: ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD TO ENCINITA AVENUE
Streets in Segment that Intersect with Lon gden Avenue (ADT: 8,308)
• Rosemead Blvd E/0
• Su ltana Avenue
• Hart Avenue
• Lom a Avenue
• Livia Avenue
• Encinita Avenue W/0
85th Percentile Speed 35.4 Posted Speed 35 mph
Length 1728' 10 MPH Pace 26-35
Accident History from SWITRS (2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009) 5 Years
Number of Accidents 6
Severity Injury (4); Property Damage (2)
Location of Accident In t ersection (5); Midblock (1)
Type of Accident Rea rend/Too Close (3); Broads ide (2); Broads ide v s Bike (1)
Surrounding Land Use/Roadway Cond iti ons
• Single Family Units • Sidewa lks Both Sid es
• 35 mph E/0 Rosemead EB regu lar siz e • Lots of Driveways
• 25 mph Warning of Curve Sign W/0 • Parking on Both Sides
Enci nita Ave • Horizontal Curve Approach ing Encinita
SEGMENT 3 LONGDEN AVENUE: ENCINITA AVENUE TO TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD
Stree t s in Segment that Intersect with Longd en Avenue (ADT: 7,747)
• Encinita Avenue E/0
• Oak Avenue
• Primrose Avenue
• Temple City Boulevard W/0
85th Percentile Speed Sch oo l Zo ne 25 mph (Radar is not Posted Speed 25 mph
performed eve 22352, 4 0802}
Length 1920' 10 MPH Pace N/A
Accident History from SWITRS (2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009) 5 Years
Number of Accidents 4
Page 5 of 16
Attachment 1
Severity Injury (3); Property Damage (1)
Location of Accident Intersect ion (2); Midblock (2)
Type of Accident Head On; Rea rend Sp; Broadside; Veh vs Ped (age 8)
Surrounding Land Use/Roadway Conditions
• Single Family Units • Curve and 25 mph Warning Signs at Encinita
• Signal at Oak Ave • 25 mph School W/0 Oak EB
• Crossing Guard at Oak • Longden School between Oak Ave and
• Peds Crossing Midblock Primrose Ave
• Sidewalks on Both Sides • Drop Off t o School S/S W/0 Primrose
• No Left turns onto or out of • Heavy Parking on N/S
Primrose (school hours)
SEGMENT 4 LONGDEN AVENUE : TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD TO WEST OF AGNES
Streets in Segment that Intersect with Longden Ave (ADT: 6,757)
• Temple City Boulevard
• Kauffman Avenue
• Golden West Avenue
• Salter Avenue
• Agnes Avenue W/0
85th Percentile Speed 34.4 Posted Speed 35 mph
Length 1872' 10 MPH Pace 27-36
!-----------
Accident History from SWITRS (2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009) 5 Years
Number of Accidents 6
Severity Injury (4); Property Damage (2)
Location of Accident Intersection (6); Midblock (0)
Type of Accident Rearend (1); Broadside (3); Veh vs Bike (2)
·--·
Surrounding La nd Use/Roadway Conditions
~---
• Single Family Units • All-Way Stop at Golden West
• 2 Churchs at Kauffman • 35 mph 50' E/0 Temple City Blvd EB (reg
• Signal at Temple City Blvd W/Yellow size)
X walks • 35 mph E/0 Golden West EB (reg size)
• Sidewalks on Both Sides • 35 mph W/0 Golden West WB (reg size)
• Some Multi-Family Units • Lots of Driveways
• Dashed Yellow Center Line
Page 6 of 16
Atta chm ent 1
SEGMENT 5 ENCINITAAVENUE : LEMON AVENUE TO N/0 LONGDEN AVENUE
Streets in Segment that Intersect with Encinita Ave (ADT: 1,278)
• Lemon Avenue
• Fortson Drive
• Wooley Street
• Olema Street
• Longden Avenue (N/0)
851h Percentile Speed 31.2 Posted Speed Not Post ed
Length 1200' 10 MPH Pace 24-33
Accident History from SWITRS (2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009) 5 Years
Number of Accidents 2
Severity Injury (2)
Location of Accident Intersection (2); MidBiock (O)
Type of Accident Broadside (2)
Surrounding Land Use/Roadway Conditions
• Single Family Units • Parking on Both Sides
• Encinita Turns into Lemon Avenue to the • Dash Yellow Center Li ne
North
• No Sidewalks
• Residential Driveways
SEGMENT 6 ENCINITAAVENUE : S/0 LONGDEN AVENUE TO LAS TUNAS DRIVE
Streets in Segment that Intersect with En cinita Avenue {ADT: 1,889 )
• Las Tuna s (N/0)
• He rmosa Drive
• Woodruff Avenue
• Garibaldi Avenue
• Flaherty Street
• Longden Avenue (S/0)
851h Percentile Speed 33.3 Posted Speed 30 mph
length 2760' 10 MPH Pace 25-34
Pag e 7 of 16
Attachment 1
Accident History from SW ITRS (2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 and 2009) 5 Years
Number of Accidents 5
Severity Injury (3); Property Damage (2)
l ocation of Accident Inte rsection (3); M idblock (2)
r----
Type of Accident Sideswipe (1)
Broads ide (2)
Broadside/Overturned (1)
Rearend (1)
Surrounding land Use/Roadway Conditions -----
• Single Fami ly Units • N/S Stop at Garibaldi
• Posted 30 mph South of Longden SB • Posted 30 mph South of Garibaldi SB
• Driveways on West Side • Offices/Commercial at Las Tunas
• Random Sidewalks • Signal at Las Tunas
• Parki ng on Both Sides • Posted 30 mph at Hermosa NB
• Large Front Yards • Posted 30 mph N/0 Ga riba ld i NB
• N/S Stop at Longden • Small Decorative Street lights on E/S
• Regular Street Lights near Longden
• Faint Center Line
SIGHT DISTANCE AT LONGDEN AVENUE AND ENCINITA AVEN UE
Stopping sight distance is defined as the distance needed for drivers to see an object or vehicle on the
roadway ahead and bring their ve hicles to a safe stop before colliding. The distances are derived for
various design speeds.
Curr ently Longden Avenue curves in both the WB and EB direction approaching Encin ita Avenue, causing
decreased line of sight for vehicles and pedestrians on Encinita Avenue wishing to turn onto or drive
through Longden Avenue. Per field measurements, the vehicle sight d istance from the stop sign for
vehicles traveling NB on Encinita Avenue wanting to make a left turn is 206 feet; the vehicle sight distance
from the stop sign for vehicles traveling SB on Encinita Avenue wanting to make a left turn is 170 feet.
There is no stop control at the intersection west of Encinita Avenue at Lorna Avenue either for vehicles
traveling on Longden Avenue, since vehicles traveling through the intersection have no stopping point,
this tends to increase their travel speed. Per the Traffic Calming Master Plan at that time, the measured
85th percentile speeds on Longden Avenue exceeded the posted speed limit by more than 7 to 9 mph.
85th percentile speeds were reported in excess of 34 to 35 mph.
Page 8 o f 16
Attachment 1
WB View of the Curve on Lon gden Avenue
Stopping Sight Distance View from Encinita Avenue (NB} for vehicles making
left, right, or driving through Longden Avenue
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE FOR MINOR STREET1
Design Speed {MPH) Sight Distance {Feet)
20 115
25* 155
30 200
35** 250
40 305
45 360
50 425
55 495
60 570
65 645
.. *25 MPH 1s the posted speed hm1 t at the c u rve
**3 5 MPH is the posted speed of traffic
Stopping Sight Distance View from Encinita Avenue {58} for vehicles making
left, right, or driving t hrough Longden Avenue
Maintena nce of adequate sight dista nc e for drivers is im portant in av oiding both vehicle-ve hicle and
vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. The size of corner rad ii can have a marked effect on pedestrian and vehicle
crossing dista nce, the distance between crossing pedestrians, and right/left turning vehicles as well as the
speed ofturning vehicles. There are currently ten driveways that ex perience the same line of sig ht issues ,
making it very difficult t o back out of t he d riveways onto Longden Avenue.
1 MUTCD, Table 6E-1 St opp ing Si ght Distance as a Function of Speed
Page 9 o f 16
Attachment 1
The diagram below shows the Sight Di stance measured from a stopped veh icle on En ci nita Avenue to
vehicles traveling on Lo ngden Avenue. Driveways along the curve on Longden Avenue are identified with
a red circle.
Lin e of Sight Diagram
Sight distance is provided at intersections to allow drivers to perceive the presence of potentially
conflicting vehicles. Motorists should be able to see another motorist in order to adjust their speed to
stop in order to avoid a collision at an intersection. The driver of a vehicle approaching an uncontrolled
intersection as well as a driver stopped at an intersection should have an unobstructed view of the entire
intersection to permit a driver to avoid a potential co lli sion, this is referred to as sight distance.
Posted regulatory warning sign of upcoming curvature
with a speed limit post of 25 mph on Lon gden Avenue
near Oak Avenue
Encinita Avenue at Longden Avenue
Page 10 of 16
Attachment 1
Avenue
EXISTING CONDITIONS DIAGRAM
Posted 25 mph speed limit sign on Longden Avenue
approaching Oak Avenue (Longden Elementary School)
Posted regulatory warning sign of upcoming curvature with
speed limit of 25 mph on Longden Avenue near Oak Avenue
The diagram below shows existing cond it ions at the subject intersection i ncluding signage and street
w idths.
school
Page 11 of 16
Attachm ent 1
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC APPROACH COUNTS
24 Ho u r autom atic traffic cou nter machines and tubes w ere p laced o n ea ch appr oach of t he Encin ita
Ave nue/Longden Ave nu e intersection on Thursday Jun e 5, 2014 w hi le scho o l w as st ill i n sess ion . The da ily
tota l count of v ehicles were u sed in d etermin i ng m inimum volumes t h res ho ld s f or poss ib le all -way stop
co ntrol at the in tersection.
T AB LE 1: TUBE CO U NTS -ENCIN ITA AV ENUE AT LONGDEN AVENUE APPROACH COUNTS
NB Approach (Encinita Avenue): 1,175
SB Approac h (Encinita Avenue): 652
EB A pproach (Longden Av en ue): 3,599
WB Approach (Longden Avenue): 3,547
Total A DT Entering Intersection : 8,973
The f o llo w ing summarizes the vehicle counts during the highest 8 hours o f a give n d ay. Thi s is used to
dete r mine if mi nimum ve hi cu lar volume th res holds are exceeded for t he in stallation of all-way stop
control.
Time
(Highes t 8
Hours)
7 :00-8:00
8 :00-9:00
12:00-13:00
1 4:00-15:00
15:00-16:00
16:00-17:00
17:00-18:00
18:00-19:00
*
**
TABLE 2: VEHICLE COUNTS DURING THE HIGHEST 8 HOURS OF A GIVEN DAY
Longden Avenue Encinita Avenue
(Major St reet -Avg 300 vph*) (Minor Street -Avg ZOO units ph**)
Ped/Bi ke
Met Vol .
NB SB Vol
Warrant? EB WB T ot al E+W Total N +S
Approac h Approac h Approach
Approac Approac Crossing
Approach
h h Longden
Ave
206 249 Yes 119 64 13 196 NO
23 1 333 Yes 129 112 10 25 1 YES
179 176 Yes 5 5 31 86 NO
262 225 Ye s 109 39 6 154 NO
349 288 Yes 84 77 16 1 NO
3 15 2 26 Yes 72 42 7 121 NO
3 94 30 0 Yes 105 49 5 159 NO
33 1 280 Yes 103 38 141 NO
Vph : veh icles per hour
Units ph : units per hour exit in g from eith er direction of t he minor street. (Threshold includes ve h icles,
bicycles an d p edestrians)
Page 12 of 16
Attachment 1
EXISTING INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT
To determi ne the di rectional f low of traffic at t h e i n tersection a manual turni ng movement count
was taken during typica l peak commute and sc hool hours of 7:00 to 9:00am, 1 :00 to 3:00 pm
and 4:00 to 6:00 pm on a typica l weekday (Tuesday, Wed n esday or Thursda y). T h e cou nt was
conducted on Th ursday June 5, 2014, when school was stil l in sess ion.
FIGURE 2:
Turning Movement Counts
AM Peak Hour Counts
Encinita Ave and Longden Ave
53 60 12 "--17
)~ \.. r:~,
36 _j ~,1--+-
2~~ ~ "'11 (' ~ 268141 ..__ __ _
ACCIDENT DATA
--~ FIGURE 3:
Turning Movement Counts
AFT Peak Hour Counts
Encinita Ave and Longden Ave 1
"--9 ~ 185
r18
ll_j
138~
2 0~ 32 46 28
FIGURE 4:
Turning Movement Counts
PM Peak Hour Counts
En cinita Ave and Longden Ave
1 6_j
N
342 ~
30~
33 37 34
Accident data was obtained from the computerize d accident records system maint ained by the State of
California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). As seen in the followi ng su mmary, one
accident occurred in t h e past 5 years between 2013 and 2009. One (1) accident occurred i n the last 12
month period
2013: 1 r ec o rd ed accident
2012: No reco r ded acci dents
2011: 1 recorded acc ident
2010: No r ecorded accidents
2009: No re co rded accidents
No. Date Location
2013: One (1) Accident
1 01/11/2013 Encinita/Longden
2012 No Accidents
2011: One (1) Accident
Dist. Time
I 17:30
Collision
Day
Type
Severity Description
Tue Broadside INJ
SB Thru Veh Hit
WB Thru Veh
Page 13 of 16
Attachment 1
1 07/09/2011 Encinita/Longden I 12:07 Sat Broads ide INJ
SB Thru Veh Hit
EB Thru Ve h
2010: No Accidents
2009: No Accidents
CRITERIA FOR PLACEMENT OF ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL (WARRANTS AND ANALYSIS)
The cr iteria for placement of al l-way stop control are set by the Ca lifornia Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (CAMUTCD). The placement of All-Way stop control is warranted when2 :
• Traffic control signals are justified
• A crash problem exists as indicated by 5 or more accidents in a 12-month period
• Minimu m Volumes are met:
• Vo lum e enteri ng intersection from the maj or approach (total of both approaches) averages 300
veh icl es per hour for any 8 hours of an average day. And
• The com bined veh icl e, pedestrian and bi cycle volumes enterin g the intersection from the minor
street approaches averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hou rs.
• If the 85 1h percentile approach speed of the major-street exceeds 40 mph the minimum volumes
are 70 percent ofthe above va lu es.
Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include :
• The need to control left turn con flict
• The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations generating high pedestrian
volumes
• Locat ions where a road user, after stoppi ng cannot see conflicti ng t raffic an d is not able to safely
negotiate the intersection un less co nflicting traffic is a lso required to stop.
• An intersection of two resident ial neighborhood co ll ector (through) streets of similar design and
ope r ating chara cte ri stics where multiway stop contro l would improve traffic operational
characterist ic s of the intersection.
The City ofTemple City fo ll ows State policies and the Ca liforn ia Veh icle Code . The state manual covers all
aspects of the placement, constructio n and maintena nce of every fo rm of approved traffic co nt ro l. Th e
gu idel ines prescri be five basic r equirement s for all devices. They must:
• Fu lfil l a need
• Command attention
• Convey a clear and simple meaning
• Command respect of road users
• Give adequate time for proper response
Ca lifornia Manual of Un if orm Tr affic Control Devi ces, Section 2B.07 Multiway Stop Applications page 2B-7
Page 14 of 16
Attachment 1
CRITERIA FOR PlACEMENT OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL (WARRANTS AND ANALYS IS)
CAMUTCD Section 4C.01 Studies and Fa ctors for Justifying Traffic Control Signa ls: When dete rm ining if a
location or intersection should be signalized, an eng ineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian
characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether
installation of a traffic control signal is justified.
The investigation of the need for a traffic contro l signal includes an ana lysis of factors related to t he
existing operation and safety at the study location and the potent ial to improve these conditions, as well
as the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants:
• Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular 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 Experience
• Warrant 8, Roadway Network
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itse lf require the in sta llation of a traffic
control signal. A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that
insta lling a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection. A
traffic control signal should not be installed if it will seriously disrupt progressive traffic (CAMUTCD Section
4C.01).
Based on Traffic Counts on Longden Avenue and Encin ita Ave nue, Traffic Signa l Warrants were ana lyzed.
Please refer to Appe ndix Section 3 Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheets. No warrants were 100% met for
the install ation of a traffic signa l. Th e Traffic Sig nal Warrants used for the subject inte rsectio n are per t he
California MUTCD 2012 Edit ion Chapter 4C, Traffic Co ntrol Signa l Needs Studies, Part 4, High way Traffic
Signa ls are included as part of Appendix Section 3.
RECOMMENDATIONS
After carefu l review of existing roadway cond itions and operations, staff has determined that the
intersection of Longden Avenue and Encinita Avenue justifies the installation of all -way stop control. Due
to reduced sigh t vis i bil ity for turning vehicles, crossing pedestrians, and backing cars it is recommended
that an all-way stop be in stalled at this location.
The Ca lifornia Ve hicle Code (CVC) sections 21100.1, 21400 and 21351 gives loca l authorities t he r ight to
place/maintain traffic sig ns, sig nal s and other traffic co ntrol devices on local streets as long as they
Page 15 of 16
Attachment 1
conform to Uniform Standards of Traffic Control Devices as determined by the Department of
Transportation.
Based on these, along with an engineering review and study, the installation of an all-way stop is justified
and will enhance operations and safety as well as provide acceptable gaps in traffic for vehicles to make
left turns into and out of the intersection of Longden Avenue and Enc inita Avenue.
To enhance operations the following measures should be implemented along with signage installation
(See proposed diagram) in two phases:
PHASE 1:
• Advanced Signage
(Stop Ahead Signage)
• Pavement legend s
• Curve Warning Signs
• Updated Speed limit Signs
• Highly reflective paint and
green school signs
neon
PHASE 2:
After construction is finished on Longden Avenue and the
proposed all-way stop is insta lled per Phase 1, it is
recommended that a field survey with speed samp les
measuring the 85th (%) percentile speed of traffic is
completed. This should be done in September, or a period at
least 2-3 months after any improvements are installed when
school traffic on Longden Avenue can be captured to
determine if the existing posted speed limits should be
reevaluated and if additional measures should be
implemented.
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS DIAGRAM
Recommended Improvements Diagram
Page 16 of 16
Attachment 1
Appendix Section
Appendix Section 1................................................................................ Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts
Appendix Section 2................................................................................ Peak Hour Vehicle and Pedestrian Counts
Appendix Section 3................................................................................ Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheets
Attachment 1
Day: Th ursday
Date: 6/5/2014
Prepared by NOS/Am
VOLUME
En cinita Ave & Longden Ave
City: Temple City
Project#: CA14_5380_001
DAILYTOTALS ~
--
AM Pe riod NB SB EB WB TOTAL PM Period NB SB EB WB TOTAL
00:00 1 4 6 5 16 12:00 16 12 34 47 109
00:15 4 0 4 8 16 12:15 8 7 59 48 122
00:30 2 0 4 3 9 12:30 20 6 42 41 109
00:45 1 8 0 4 2 16 1 17 4 45 12:45 11 55 6 31 44 179 40 176 101 441
0 1:00 0 0 1 2 3 13:00 8 7 53 33 101
01:15 1 0 3 2 6 13:15 8 8 46 34 96
01:30 0 0 2 0 2 13:30 16 13 49 46 124
01:45 0 1 0 1 7 1 5 2 13 13:45 18 50 4 32 37 185 41 154 100 421
02:00 0 1 0 2 3 14:00 16 13 51 56 136
02:15 0 0 1 2 3 14:15 16 6 54 41 117
02:30 0 0 0 0 0 14:30 31 5 70 52 158
02:45 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 5 3 9 14:45 46 109 15 39 87 262 76 225 224 635
03:00 1 0 1 1 3 15:00 31 32 94 80 237
03:15 0 0 1 0 1 15:15 1 5 22 87 69 193
03:30 1 0 2 0 3 15:30 22 14 8 1 74 191
03:45 0 2 1 1 1 5 1 2 3 10 15:45 16 84 9 77 87 349 65 288 177 79!t
04:00 1 1 2 2 6 16:00 16 14 72 61 163
04:15 3 0 0 2 5 16:15 27 8 79 49 163
04:30 0 1 1 0 2 16:30 15 8 80 59 162
04:45 1 5 0 2 3 6 2 6 6 19 16:45 14 72 12 42 84 315 57 226 167 655
0 5:00 2 1 2 4 9 17:00 20 7 81 64 172
0 5:15 2 0 1 4 7 17:15 20 8 102 80 210
05:30 2 1 4 5 12 17:30 30 11 114 84 239
05:45 4 10 1 3 10 17 17 30 32 60 17:45 35 105 23 49 97 394 72 300 227 848
06:00 3 3 5 15 26 18:00 22 11 106 91 230
06:15 5 3 10 16 34 18:15 33 5 75 68 181
06:30 11 4 13 22 50 18:30 28 11 88 64 19 1
06:45 18 37 8 18 17 45 36 89 79 189 18:45 2 0 103 11 38 62 33 1 57 280 150 75 2
07:00 29 17 60 71 177 19:00 17 11 50 63 141
07:15 18 13 29 61 121 19:15 14 1 65 56 136
07:30 25 7 38 49 119 19:30 11 7 53 39 110
07:45 4 7 119 27 64 79 206 68 249 221 638 19:45 10 52 4 23 31 199 44 202 89 4 76
08:00 52 4 7 110 116 325 20:00 11 3 51 33 98
08:15 50 43 53 103 249 20:15 10 5 43 40 98
08:30 17 12 32 60 121 20:30 9 7 38 33 87
08:45 10 129 10 112 36 231 54 333 110 805 20:45 11 41 5 20 42 174 5 1 157 109 392
09:00 10 4 37 57 108 21:00 8 5 31 42 86
09:15 10 7 37 49 103 21:15 4 3 30 29 66
09:30 10 3 34 52 99 21:30 5 2 22 31 60
09:45 10 40 7 21 34 142 56 214 10 7 417 21:45 7 24 5 15 20 103 17 119 49 26 1
10:00 15 9 31 56 111 22 :00 5 2 32 19 58
10:15 14 6 33 50 103 22:15 7 1 27 19 54
10:30 8 5 36 36 85 22:30 2 3 15 11 31
10:45 15 52 5 25 34 134 47 189 101 400 22:45 4 18 2 8 16 90 13 62 3 5 178
11:00 12 5 37 50 104 23:00 0 1 19 10 30
11:15 16 6 43 45 110 23:15 3 0 5 8 16
11:30 13 7 53 47 120 23:30 4 3 4 11 22
11:45 10 51 3 21 43 176 40 182 96 430 23:45 0 7 2 6 3 31 8 37 13 81
TOTAL S 455 272 9 87 1321 3035 TOTALS 720 380 2612 2226 5 938
SP LIT% 15.0% 9.0% 32.5% 43.5% 33 .8% SPLIT % 12.1% 6 .4 % 44.0% 37.5% 66.2%
DAILY TOTALS hill-
AM Peak Ho ur 07 :30 07:45 07:30 07:45 07:45 PM Pea k Hou r 14:15 14:45 17:15 17 :15 17:15
AM PkVolume 174 129 280 347 916 PM PkVolume 124 83 4 19 327 906
Pk Hr Factor 0.837 0 .686 0.636 0.748 0.705 Pk Hr Factor 0 .674 0.648 0.919 0.898 0.948
7 -9 Vo lume 248 176 437 582 1443 4 ·6Volum e 177 91 709 526 1503
7 -9 Peak Hour 07:30 07:45 07:30 07:45 07:45 4 -6 Peak Ho ur 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00 17:00
7-9 Pk Volume 174 129 280 347 916 4 -6 Pk Volume 105 49 394 300 848
Pk Hr Factor 0 .837 0.686 0.636 0.748 0 .705 Pk Hr Factor 0.750 0.533 0.864 0.893 0.887
Att ac hment 1
Turning Movement Count TURNIN G MOVEMENT COU NT Prepared by: G. E. Traffic Surveys
PROJECT NAME: Tern ec·
PROJECT NO: 14212
DATE: Thursday June 5. 2014
N-S STR EET: Encinita Avenue E-W STRE ET: Loogs!en Avenue
TIME NORTHBOUND SOUTH BOUND N-S EAST BOUND WEST BOU ND E-W PEDCOUNT
LEFT THR U RIGHT LE FT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL NL SL EL WL
07:00-07:15 7 18 6 2 7 8 48 18 42 2 3 61 2 128 7
07:15-07:30 4 9 3 3 9 28 9 18 1 1 1 51 90 2 1
0 7:30-07:45 6 14 5 0 3 4 32 2 32 6 3 39 2 84 1 4
07:4 5-08:00 4 21 12 3 13 8 6 1 12 57 7 4 64 2 146 5 10 2
08:00-08:15 4 27 19 6 20 21 97 18 78 9 9 97 6 2 17 1 11 5
08:15-0830 14 26 7 2 21 20 90 5 43 11 14 82 7 162 3 2 2
08:30-08:45 4 7 3 1 6 4 25 1 26 3 2 59 2 93 2 4
08:45-09:00 3 4 3 2 3 4 19 2 33 3 3 43 5 89
13:00-13:15 4 3 2 2 5 16 3 44 8 1 30 86 3 2
13:15-13:30 4 1 2 1 2 3 13 4 39 1 2 31 1 78 1 1 1
13:30-13:45 7 3 5 3 3 7 28 2 41 3 0 39 85
1 3'4 5-14:00 4 8 3 1 1 3 20 3 28 2 1 36 2 72
14:00-14:15 9 5 3 1 4 6 28 5 36 8 5 49 0 103 3 2 3
14'15-14:30 7 6 3 3 3 22 2 39 7 3 35 2 88 2
14:30-1 4:45 12 12 6 4 1 35 4 63 5 2 43 3 120 3 2
14:4 5-15:00 4 23 16 1 6 5 55 8 58 4 70 7 9
16:00-16:15 6 8 3 1 5 9 32 6 64 4 3 52 2 131 1 2 2
16:15-16:30 14 6 6 1 1 4 32 2 63 3 4 30 3 105 2 1
16 :30-16:4 5 7 4 4 1 1 7 24 3 66 8 2 51 1 131 2
16:45-17:00 8 4 2 2 3 7 26 1 73 6 1 45 2 128 4 6 2
17:00-17:15 6 8 5 1 2 4 26 3 73 7 3 42 2 130 1
17:15-17:30 11 8 4 1 1 3 28 3 96 3 5 70 1 178 2 1
17:30-17:45 8 8 13 3 6 4 4 2 4 94 12 3 63 2 178 5 4 2
17:45-18:00 8 13 12 4 6 9 52 6 79 8 6 61 1 16 1 2
PEAK-HO UR VOLUME AN A LYS IS
CALCULATED PEA~ l:JQ!JB ~QL!JM!;S-IIM ADJ!JS!!;Q E!;ll~ l:JQ!JB ~QL!JMES:IIM
53 60 12 ------
SR ST SL SR ST S L
36 EL WR 17 --EL WR --
204 ET 07 :45-08:45 WT 302 --ET ---WT --
30 ER W L 29 --ER WL --
NL NT NR NL NT NR
26 81 41
CllbC!.ILATED PEAK HO!.J R V QL.I.IM !;S-~QQ~ ADJUSTEQ P ~A~ l:JQUB ~L.!J MES-~QQ~
15 17 2 ------
SR ST SL SR ST SL
11 EL W R 9 --EL WR --
138 ET 14:00-15:00 WT 185 --ET ---WT --
20 ER WL 18 ER WL ----
NL NT NR NL NT NR
32 46 28
QA! Q ~l LIIT EQ Pi;AK l:JQUB VQb!JM!iiS -EM A DJUSTED P&;A~ HQ!JB llQL !JM E:iH~M
20 15 9 ------
SR ST SL SR ST S L
16 EL WR 6 --EL WR --
342 ET 17:00-18:00 WT 236 ET WT -------
30 ER WL 17 --ER WL --
NL NT NR NL NT NR
33 37 34
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
Attachment 1
Based on Traffic Counts on Longden Avenue and Encinta Avenue, Traffic Signal Warrants were analyzed.
No warrants were 100% met for the installation of a traffic signal. The Traffic Signal Warrants used for
the subject intersection are per the California MUTCD 2012 Edition Chapter 4C Traffic Contro l Signa l
Needs Studies, Part 4, Highway Traffic Signals are included as part of the Appendix.
MINOR
STREET
HIGHER-
VOLUME
APPROACH-
VPH
Longden Avenue at Encinita Avenue
Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
500
400
300
200
100
300 400 soo sJ4 so~ ! ~oo aoo soo 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
611 : 694
MAJOR STREEi -TOTAl OF BOTH APPROACHES-
VEtiiCLES PER HOUR (VPH)
6h
•Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Attachment 1
600
500 lo. ........
MINOR 400 STREET ' .........
HIGHER-
VOLUME 300
APPROACH-
VPH 200
100
Longden Avenue at Encinita Avenue
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
~ to-...
""
..... ~ 2 OR MORi LAN iS & 210R MFRE LINES v
~ ......... ~ ""' r'> k:.2 OR MORE LAINES i 1 LAIE
too... "' ~ ~ ..... ~ ..... t> !_./1 LANE & 1 LANE
""' r---..... f-.-..._ -.... k ~ I"'--.....
l(.!l r--...... r--. .....
I I
I
I
150'
100'
400 500 600 ~00 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
6~4
MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 1 00 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one Jane.
Longden Avenue at Encin ita Avenue
N/A--Figure 4C-5. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Four-Hour Volume
500
400
TOTAL OF ALL
PEDESTRIANS 300
CROSSING
MAJOR STREET-
PEDESTRIANS 200
PER HOUR (PPH)
100 107'
300 400 500 600 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
MAJOR STREET-
VEHICLES
107 pph applies as the lower threshold volume.
Attachment 1
Longden Avenue at Encinita Avenue
N/A ---Figure 4C-7. Warrant 4,
700~-r--~~---r--~~~
TOTAL OF ALL 500 f---+-t--~-t---+-t---+-+-----'
PEDESTRIANS
CROSSING 400 f---+--+--+----poo...,
MAJOR STREET-
PEDESTRIANS 300 r--+-~r---+----+-+
PER HOUR (PPH) 200 f---+---11---+---+-+--+
300 400 500 600 700 800
TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-
PER HOUR (VPH)
lower threshold volume.
Attachment 1
Figure 4C·101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 1 of 5)
COUNT DATE-----------------
DIST co RTE
CALC ____ _
PM CHK ----------
DATE June 2014
DATE-----
Major St: Longden Avenue
Minor St: Encinita Avenue
Critical Approach Speed .:;3.:.5 -----
Critical Approach Speed .:::3.:::.0 ____ _
mph
mph
Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic > 40 mph ......................... 0 }
or
In built up area of isolated community of< 10,000 population ....................... 0
0
RURAL(R)
URBAN(U)
WARRANT 1 -Eight Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED YES 0 NO IRl
(Condition A or Condition B or combination of A and B must be satisfied)
Condition A -Minimum Vehicle Volume 100% SATISFIED YES 0 NO IRl
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED YES 0 NO I&]
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
u R u R ~·~0~~~~~~ APPROACH
LANES 1 2 or More '\';b <Oo, :f"' --;"' "i'> 'oi"> <?<o r.o" H our
Both Approaches I I ~J 350 600 420 455 564 355 487 637 541 694 611 Maior Street 1400 (280) (480) (336)
Highest ACtproach 1 ~15(1"\ 105 200 140 132 139 55 115 84 79 110 103 Minor treet 1\.(120)_ (84) (160) (1 12)
Condition B -Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES 0 NO £&)
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED YES 0 NO I&]
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
u R u R
APPROACH ~~~~~~0~~0 ~~ LANES 1 2 or More '\' <Oo, :f.._, ,-,:"> ,""' ,:"> <?fo r.o" H our
Both Approaches I GT5~~ 525 900 630 455 564 355 487 637 541 694 611 Major Street 600 (420) (720) (504)
Highest Approach IG 75\ 53 100 70 132 13 9 55 115 84 79 110 103 Minor Street (60) (42) (80) (56)
Combination of Conditions A & B SATISFIED YES 0 NO [I
REQUIREMENT CONDITION .; FULFILLED
A . MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME 80%
TWO CONDITIONS Yes 0 No I]] SATISFIED 80% AND,
B . INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC ./
Al':ill. AN ADEQUATE TRIAL OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD
CAUSE LESS DELAY AND INCONVENIENCE TO TRAFFIC HAS FAILED Yes £&I No 0
TO SOLVE THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or w arrants shall not in itself require the Installation of a traffic control signal.
At tachm e nt 1
Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 2 of 5)
WARRANT 2 -Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED* YES 0 NO IE]
Record hourly vehicular vol umes for any four hours of an average day.
2 or ~~fl~q~ APPRO ACH LANES One More <1:5 o, ...,"" <1<o ro" Hou r
Both Approaches -Major Street ../ 564 637 694 611
Higher Approach -Minor Street ../ 139 84 110 103
•Aif plotted points fall above the appl icable curve in Figure 4C-1 . (URBAN AREAS ) Yes 0 No [)
QB. All plotted points fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-2 . (RURAL AREAS) Y es 0 No IE]
WARRANT 3 -Peak Hour SATISFIED YES 0 NO IE]
(Part A or Part B must be satisfied)
fABI.A SATISFIED YES 0 NO [[)
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied for the same
one hour, for any four consecutive 15-minute periods)
1. The total delay experienced by traffic on one minor street approach (one direction only)
contro lled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane Yes 0 No IE]
approach, or five vehicle-hours for a lwo·-lane approach; Al:::lQ 60 x 4 = 240
2 . The volu me on the same minor street approach (one di rection only) equals or exceeds Yes 18] No 0
100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; 8t:lQ
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph
for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with
three approaches.
Yes 00 No 0
SATISFIED YES 0 NO 18]
our 2or q~
APPROACH LANES One More <1<o H
Both Approaches -Major Street ../ 694
Hi gher Approach -M inor Street ../ 110
The plotted poi nt f alls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3. (URBAN AREAS) Yes 0 No 00
QB, T he plotted point falls above the appl ica ble curve in Figure 4C-4. (RURAL AREAS) Yes 0 No 0
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warra nt or w arra nts sha ll not in itself require the installa tion of a traffic control signal.
Attachment 1
Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 3 of S)
WARRANT 4 -Pedestrian Volume
(Parts 1 and 2 Must Be Satisfied)
Part 1 (Parts A or 8 must be satisfiedf of ~
Hours - -·> '\ <0 'V
A . Vehicles per hour for
any 4 hours 455 564 487 541
Pedestrians per hour for 13 10 6 7 any 4 hours
Hours--·> ~ '\ I I
B. Vehicles per hour for 455 any 1 hour
Pe destrians per hour for 13 any 1 hour
Part2
<:/.(:"
.,:"'
SATISFIED YES 0 NO IKJ
Figure 4C -5 or Figure 4C -6
SATISFIED YES 0 NO IE]
Figure 4C -7 or Figure 4C-8
SATISFIED YES 0 NO 18]
SATISFIED YES (&] NO 0
At:fQ , The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater 360' Yes 1&:1 No 0 than 300ft
QB, The proposed traffic signal will not restrict progressive traffic flow along the major street. Yes 0 No 0
WARRANT 5 • School Crossing
(Parts A and B Must Be Satisfied)
N/A--PartA
Gap/Minutes and# of Children
Part B
The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater
than 300ft
SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
YES 0 NO 0
YES 0 NO 0
Yes 0 No 0
SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
Yes ~ No 0
QB, The proposed signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Yes ~ No 0
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.
Attachment 1
Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 4 of 5)
WARRANT 6 -Coordinated Signal System
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES D NO [E)
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
~ 1000 ft N __ ft , S __ ft . E ..1§.[_ fl , W __ ft YesD No [8]
On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predom inantly in one direction, the adjacent
traffic control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of
vehicular platooning . YesD No 0 ~---------------------------------QB., On a two-way street , adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary
degree of platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively
provide a progressi ve operation .
WARRANT 7 -Crash Experience Warrant
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES 0 NO [!I
Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to
reduce the crash frequency. YesD No 0
REQUIREMENTS Number of crashes reported wi thin a 12 month period
susceptible to correction by a traffic signal , and involving injury
or damage exceeding the requirements for a reportable crash .
YesD No (!J
-------------------------------------------------50RMORE l in 2013
REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONS " Warrant 1, Condition A • 80% Minimum Vehicular Volume
ONE CONDITION QR, Warrant 1, Conditi on B • 80% YesD No[8]
SATISFIED 80% Interruption of Continu ous Traffic
QB, Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Condition
Ped Vol ~ 152 for any hour
QB, Ped Vol ~ 80 for any 4 hours
No
WARRANT 8 -Roadway Network
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES 0 NO [!I
MINIMUM VOLUME
REQUIREMENTS ENTERING VOLUMES ·ALL APPROACHES
During Typical Weekday Peak Hour 848 Veh/Hr
FULFILLED
1000 Veh/Hr
and has 5-year projected traffic volumes that meet one or more
of Warrants 1, 2 , and 3 during an average weekday. ~-----------------------1--YesD No l&l
OR
During Each of Any 5 Hrs . of a Sat. or Sun __ Veh!Hr
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES
Hwy. System Serving as Principal Network for Through Traffic
~------------------------Rural or
~S~b~b_!n _H~h~al. 9,_u~d~ 2.f._§~eti_n~ ~~a~~~!._ C.!_ty __
Appears as Major Route on an Official Plan
MAJOR
ROUTE A
Any Major Route Characteristics Met, Both Streets
MAJOR
ROUTE B
YesD No l&l
The satisfaction of a traffic signal war rant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.
Attac hm ent 1
Figure 4C·101 (CA). Traffic Signal Wa"ants Worlcsheet (Sheet 5 of 5)
N/A-WARRANT 9 -Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
(Both Parts A and B Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES D NOD
PART A
A grade crossing exists on an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign and the
center of the track nearest to the intersection is within of the stop line or yield
line on the approach. Track Center Line to Limit Une
PARTB
There is one minor street approach Jane at the track
traffic volume hour during which rail traffic uses the crossing , the
the applicable curve in Figure 4C-9.
Major Street -Total of both approaches :
Minor Street -Crosses the track (one
__ VPH X AF (Use Tables 4C-2, 3, & 4
QR, There are two or more minor street approach
During the highest traffic volume hour during which rail
the plotted point fall s above the applicable curve in Figure
Major Street-Total of both apJ>ro<IC.lu~s
Minor Street -Crosses the track
__ VPH X AF (Use Tables
VPH
only, approaching the intersection):
to ca lcua lte AF) = __ VPH
YesD NoD
YesD NoD
three following adjustment facto rs (AF)
1-Number of Rail Traffic per
2-Percentage of High-Occupancy
---------Adjustment factor from table 4C-2 __
Approach __ Adjustment factor from table 4C -3 __
___ Adjustment factor from table 4C-4 __
NOTE : If no data is availale or known , then use AF = 1 (no adjustment)