Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051498 PTS AgendaIn complianc~ with th~ Americans with Disabilities Act, ff you need special assistance to pa~cipat= in this metling, please contact the office of the City Clerk at (909) 6945444. Notification 48 hours prior to a mWdng will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to cosure accessibility to that meeting [:28 CFR35.102.35.104 ADA Ti~e IIl AGENDA TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION TO BE HELD AT CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California Thursday, May 14, 1998 - 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENTS COMMISSIONERS: Coe, Johnson, Markham, Perry, Telesio A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item i~t listed on the Agenxla, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Seerelary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and slate yo.r name and address. the Co~ssi,,. ,,~.~ ~,, ~,, i~.,. 'r.,..,.~ i~ ,..~ ,.L,~,~,~ ,,.~,,.,;."" r' ~,~x'- r ~ NOTICE TO THE pUBLIC All matters lisled under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one majority vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission request specific items be removed from the Consera Calendar for separate aefioa. COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of April 9. 1998 RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Minutes of April 9, 1998 COMMISSION BUSINESS 2. Traffic Sig/~al Warrant Analysis - Various Intersections RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file the results of the Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis for the intersections of Pala Road and Wolf Valley, Loma Linda Road and Muirfield Road. 3. Crosswalk Modifications - Rancho California Road at Ynez Road, Rancho California Road at Front Street RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend that the existing pedestrian crosswalks at the intersections of Raneho California Road at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road at Front Street be modified to improve the capacity at these intersections. 4. Traffic Engineer's Report 5. Police Chief's Report 6. Fire Chief's Report 7. Commission Report AD.IOLTRNME. NT The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday, June 11, 1998, at 6:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ITEM NO. I MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION APRIL 9, 1998 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission was called to order on Thursday, April 9, 1998, 6:00 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Telesio called the meeting to order. PRESENT: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Johnson, Markham, Perry, Telesio COMMISSIONERS: Coe Also present were of Public Works Senior Engineer Ali Moghadam, Police Sergeant Rodney Crisp, Assistant Engineer Hasib Baha, Administrative Secretary Anita Pyle, and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley. Commissioner Markham led the flag salute. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Telesio called for public comments on non-agenda items. Jim Caldwell, 30260 Cabrillo Avenue, asked the Commission to reduce the speed limit on Cabrillo Avenue to 25 MPH because of its narrow width, and restricted visibility at the intersection of E. Vallejo and Cabrillo Avenues. Commissioner Markham noted Cabrillo Avenue's speed limit was changed from 55 MPH to 35 MPH, which was according to the Vehicle Code, and Public Works had recently cleaned the culvert at Cabrillo Avenue and John Warner and is working to clean up silt in the area. COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of March 12.1998 It was moved by Commission Perry, seconded by Commissioner Markham to approve the Minutes of March 12, 1998. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Johnson, Markham, Perry, Telesio NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONER: Coe PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION APRIL 9.1998 COMMISSION BUSINESS 2. Request for Traffic Control Modifications - Los Ranchitos Community Commissioner Markham stepped down due to a conflict of interest, being a resident of Los Ranchitos and a member of the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association. Senior Engineer All Moghadam presented the staff report. Donald Barker, 275 Centennial Way, Suite 208, Tustin, representing Hartzog & Crabill, Inc., stated in his traffic study for the Rancho Community Church improvements, the number of students projected for the Church expansion would increase traffic by approximately 580 vehicle trips per day. Approximately 23% of the Church's parishioners who turn west onto Vallejo Avenue would be affected by a right-turn only driveway, trips would be lengthened and the number of intersections crossed would be increased if La Paz is made a one-way street. Stanley Heaton, 42102 Elgin Court, representing Temecula Engineering Consultants, supported denial of an "All-Way Stop Sign" at Ynez Road and Jedediah Smith Road, establishing one-way streets and installing "No Left Turn" signs at the exit from Rancho Community Church on Vallejo Avenue. Mr. Heaton stated the traffic problems experienced in Los Ranchitos will minimize when Hwy 79(S) improvements are completed. James Beckley, 45560 Classic Way, representing Rancho Community Church, supported denial of the no left-turn from the Church and establishment of one-way streets as they would cause a hardship to parents bringing children to the church daycare and school, and handicapped parishioners. He stated traffic improvements are included with the expansion of the campus, to lessen the inconvenience for Church members and the neighborhood. Doug Johnson, 30175 Cabrillo Avenue, supported staff's recommendation on all four (4) issues. Pauline Nelson, 30033 DePortola Road, supported an "All-Way Stop" at Ynez Road and Jedediah Smith Road and reducing the speed limit to 35 MPH on Ynez Road between Santiago Road and Margarita Road. She expressed her appreciation for the recent culvert cleaning. Rebecca Weersing, 41775 Yorba Avenue, supported staff's recommendations, but believes an "All-Way Stop" at Ynez Road/DePortola Road and Jedediah Smith Road is a good idea. Jim Caldwell, 30260 Cabrillo Avenue, suggested a "Left-Turn" lane on Ynez Road, at Vallejo Avenue. Diane Oakden, 39671 Cedarwood Drive, Murrieta, representing Sunshine Preschool and Rancho Community Christian School, supported staff's recommendations. PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION APRIL 9. 1998 Carole Corazza, 44220 La Paz Street, thanked the Commission for the "Stop Sign" at La Paz and asked if speeds in the area have changed since the installation of the "Stop Sign". Mr. Moghadam replied there has not been any significant change in mid-block speeds. Ms. Corazza asked if a facility, such as a library, at Santiago and Ynez Roads, would require that a traffic survey be taken. Mr. Moghadam answered when there is a significant change, a survey would be conducted to determine if stop signs or lower speed limits are justified. She supported the "Stop Sign" at Jedediah Smith and Ynez Roads. Jack Willjams, 41640 Yorba Avenue, expressed his appreciation for the La Paz uStop Sign" and supported staff's recommendations. James Dittman, 45330 Camino Monzon, representing Rancho Community Church, read a letter from Pastor Steve Struikman, who supported staff's recommendations. Mr. Dittman expressed his support of a "Stop Sign" at Ynez and Jedediah Smith Roads. Donald Coop, 41755 Rider Way, representing Rancho Community Church, expressed support for reducing the speed on Ynez Road and a "Stop Sign" at Ynez and Jedediah Smith Roads. Terry Gasson, 44501 Verde Drive, expressed her support of reducing the speed limit on Ynez Road and having an "All-Way Stop" at Ynez and Jedediah Smith Roads. She suggested 35 MPH might be a safer speed limit for Ynez Road and proposed the church's ingress/egress needs be studied because their increased traffic impacts the people living near the church. Curt Carlson, 30230 DePortola Road, supported a four-way "Stop Sign" at Ynez and Jedediah Smith Roads, and reducing the speed limit. Victor Jones, 30655 DePortola, representing Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association, stated the Association had received the issues discussed tonight from various Los Ranchitos homeowners and the Association had wanted to meet with City and Church staffs to discuss the concerns and possible solutions prior to bringing the matter to the Commission. He requested the matter be kept open. Mr. Moghadam stated the report was sent to the Homeowners Association and this is the proper forum for a discussion. Commissioner Johnson noted traffic on both intersecting streets must meet warrants and asked about the number of accidents at Ynez and Jedediah Smith Roads. Sgt. Crisp stated he did not have any statistics with him. Commissioner Johnson pointed out an accident of less than $500, with no injury, is reported to DMV only and the City is not notified. He is concerned about the increase of traffic in the area and supported a 4- way "Stop Sign" at Ynez Road and Jedediah Smith Road. Commissioner Perry stated he drives the route several times a day and has not personally observed a problem accessing Ynez Road from Jedediah Smith Road. He noted Ynez Road is considered an arterial street, not a residential street and the City of Temecula receives federal and state funding for transportation projects. He expressed support of staff's recommendations. PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION APRIL 9. 1999 Chairman Telesio stated warrants are guidelines only and the City Council has the option to designate a "Stop Sign" anywhere. He supported a "Stop Sign" at Ynez and Jedediah Smith Roads. Chairman Telesio remarked this is the correct forum for discussing the issues. He supported staff recommendations regarding the denial of a lower speed limit, the one-way streets and the no left-turn signs at Rancho Community Church. It was moved by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Chairman Telesio, to recommend the City Council approve the installation of an "All-Way Stop" at the intersection of Ynez Road and Jedediah Smith Road and to deny the requests to reduced the posted speed limit to 35 MPH on Ynez Road between Santiago Road and Margarita Road, to establish La Paz Street as "One-Way" toward Hwy 79(S) and Jedediah Smith Road as "One-Way" toward Ynez Road and DePortola Road and to install "No Left-Turn" signs at the exit from Rancho Community Church on Vallejo Avenue. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Johnson, Telesio NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Perry ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Markham ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Coe TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT Mr. Moghadam reported the Intelligent Traffic Management System's equipment is almost entirely connected and he will provide a tour for the Commissioners in the near future. Mr. Moghadam asked the Commissioners for their input regarding the draft street sign standards. Commissioner Markham stated there should not be any variability regarding glued/painted letters. Commissioner Johnson noted reflectivity life and level as well as the life of the sign should be necessary specifications. Mr. Moghadam announced a joint City Council and Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting to be held June 16, 1998. Commissioner Markham suggested meeting in the Conference Room around a table would be a more productive setting than Council Chambers. Commissioner Markham requested a current list of signals and their priority, those under design, and in the CIP. Mr. Moghadam stated staff is working on the list and the only signal being recommended for the next fiscal year is one at Margarita and Pauba Roads, which will have the highest priority. Commissioner Markham asked if Commissioner Perry's letter to Councilmember Ford regarding pre-application or design review by this Commission could be agendized for the joint meeting as there are concerns about this Commission's review delaying the approval process. PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION APRIL 9. 1998 Commissioner Johnson inquired about the time frame for the installation of the school flashing beacons. Mr. Moghadam answered bid solicitation approval is going before the City Council on April 28, 1998. Chairman Telesio asked about the Town Center situation. Mr. Moghadam stated since the cost of the improvements is more than $5,000, it will have to be budgeted in the next fiscal year. Commissioner Markham asked if the letter to the Town Center inquiring when they plan to proceed with on-site traffic improvements had been sent. Mr. Moghadam replied it had not. Commissioner Markham inquired about the status of the Via Las Colinas traffic signal. Mr. Moghadam stated it is in the first draft of design. Commissioner Perry asked that the Commissioners be notified if the June 16 joint meeting would be agendized. Commissioner Perry asked about the status of the Jefferson Avenue project. Mr. Moghadam answered the project is in the proposed budget for a design consultant and improvements. Commissioner Markham asked if the project was a Priority 1 in the next year's CIP and Mr. Moghadam answered the study is a number 1 Priority. Commissioner Perry questioned if the Overland Bridge was funded. Commissioner Markham mentioned the district had been transferred from the County to the City and the means for obtaining funding identified. There are major changes to Jefferson Avenue because part of the Overland Bridge construction effects the first six (6) driveways going north on Jefferson Avenue. Commissioner Markham asked if the Commission would have more input into the CIP than in the past. Mr. Moghadam stated he would make the CIP available to the Commission as soon as possible. Commissioner Markham stated the priority of a study of Los Ranchitos' overall circulation should be accelerated in the CIP as it is going to be a problem area until Hwy 79S is widened. POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT Chairman Telesio asked when accidents are reported. Sgt. Crisp explained a CSO usually investigates a non-injury accident, gives the involved parties the paperwork and a file number, and they have the option to file a report, and that information does not get transferred to the City; when the Police Department takes a report, it is sent to Sacramento and the City. Chairman Telesio inquired about traffic flow when a school bus is at the school curb loading children and the flashing red lights are on. Sgt Crisp will investigated the matter and report back to the Commission. Commissioner Perry questioned the increase in hazardous cites. Sgt. Crisp explained it was the result of restructuring of the Police Department's enforcement. PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION APRIL 9. 1998 Commissioner Perry noted he is receiving increasing complaints about parking violations in red and loading zones and fire lanes and asked staff to contact other cities to determine what is being done to curb these violations and any use of an enforcement group other than the Police Department. Sgt. Crisp mentioned some truckers rather pay the fine ($25) than look for another parking place. Mr. Moghadam will research the matter and report back to the Commission. FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT No Report given COMMISSION REPORT Commissioner Markham reported a meeting of the General Plan Update Committee had not yet been scheduled, but the consultant, Wilbur Smith and Associates, was on board. Chairman Telesio mentioned the need for a signal at Wolf Valley and Pala Road. Commissioner Markham reported a signal at the entrance of the Casino should be in soon; a neighborhood request for a signal at Muirfield and Pala Road was denied; a developer request for one (1) at Loma Linda and Pala Road is under consideration. Commissioner Perry suggested asking the Pechanga Tribe to participate in joint funding of a signal at Wolf Valley to expedite installation. Commissioner Markham stated the proper avenue would be to recommend the City Council request the City"s ad hoc committee (Mayor Roberts and Councilmember Ford) to make the request. Commissioner Perry suggested a memo be written from the Commission to the City Council recommending such a request. Commissioner Markham asked to have the analysis of warrants at Loma Linda and Pala Road and Wolf Valley and Pala Road agendized, if the previous survey concluded warrants were not met. It was moved by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Markham, to adjourn the meeting at 8:46 PM. The motion carried unanimously. The next regular meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday, May 14, 1998, at 6:00 P.M., Temecula City Hall Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman John H. Telesio Secretary ITEM NO. 2 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission ~'fi Ali Moghadam P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic May 14, 1998 Item 2 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis - Various Intersections RECOMMENDATION: That the Publie/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file the results of the Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis for the intersections of Pala Road with Wolf Valley Road, Loma Linda Road and Muirfield Road. BACKGROUND: At the April 9, 1998 meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, the Commission directed staff to conduct a Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis for the above referenced intersections. Staff has completed the warrant analysis for these intersections and the following is the result of the study. 1. Pala Road at Wolf Valley Road The existing conditions at this intersection satisfied four (4) of the eleven (11) warrants for installation of a traffic signal. These warrants are as follows: · Minimum vehicular volume Combination of warrants Four (4) hour volume Peak hour volume 2. Pala Road at Loma Linda Road The existing conditions at this intersection satisfied three (3) of the eleven (11) warrants for installation of a traffic signal. These warrants are as follows: · Interruption of continuous traffic · Four (4) hour volume · Peak hour volume 3. Pala Road at Muirfield Road Although staff was not directed by the Public/Traffic Safety Commission to analyze this intersection, due to local residents' request this intersection was included in the study. None of the eleven (11) warrants were satisfied for this intersection. r: \traffie\conunhsn\agenda\98\OS14hignalwar. ana/ajp It should be noted that satisfying any one (1) of the eleven (11) warrants indicates that a signal is warranted at any given intersection. However, this is not necessarily justification for installation of a traffic signal. Safety, delay, congestion, confusion and other evidence of need for right-of-way assignment must be demonstrated. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachmere: 1. Exhibit "A" - Location Map 2. Exhibit "B" - Warrant Analysis and Supporting Data EXHIBIT "A' LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT "B" WARRANT ANALYSIS AND SUPPORTING DATA Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-1 CHAPTER 9 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Signals, Basic Information and Warrants 9-01 9-01.1 Introduction A traffic signal is an electrically powered traffic control device, other than a barricade warning light or steady burning electric lamp, by which traffic is warned or directed to take some specific action. The following types and uses of traffic signals are discussed in this chapter: Traffic Control Signals, Pedestrian Crossing Signals, Ramp Metering Signals, Flashing Beacons, Lane-use Control Signals, Traffic Control at Movable Bridges, Priority Control of Traffic Signals, Traffic Signals for One-lane, Two-way Facilities and Traffic Signals for Construction Zones. Traffic control signals are valuable devices for the control of vehicle and pedestrian traffic. However, because they assign the right of way to the various traffic movements, traffic control signals exert a ,:ignificant influence on traffic flow. Traffic control signals, properly located and operated, should have one or more of the following advantages: 1. They provide for the orderly movement of traffic. Improper or unwarranted signal installations may cause: 1. Excessive delay. 2. Disobedience of the signal indications. 3. Circuitous travel of alternate routes. 4. Increased accident frequency. Experience shows that the number of fight-angle collisions may decrease after the installation of signals, but the number of rear-end collisions may increase. The installation of signals may increase overall delay and reduce intersection capacity. Consequently, it is of the utmost importance that the consideration of a signal installation and the selection of equipment be preceded by a thorough study of traffic and roadway conditions made by an engineer experienced and trained in this field. Equally important is the need for checking the efficiency of a traffic signal in operation. This determines the degree to which the type of installation and the timing program meet the requirements of traffic. 2. Where proper physical layouts and control measures are used, they increase the traffic handling capacity of the intersection. 3. They reduce the frequency of certain types of accidents, especially the fight angle type. 4. Under favorable conditions, they can be coordinated to provide for continuous or nearly continuous movement of traffic at a definite speed along a given route. 5. They pennit minor street traffic, vehicular or pedestrian, to enter or cross continuous traffic on the major street. 9-01.2 Traffic Signal Warrants The justification for the installation of a traffic signal at an intersection is based on the warrants stated in this Manual. and in the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The decision to install a signal should not be based solely upon the warrants, since the installation of traffic signals may increase certain types of collisions. Delay, congestion, approach conditions, driver confusion, future land use or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment beyond that which could be provided by stop signs must be demonstrated. See Section 4-03 of this Manual for stop sign warrants. 9-2 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual When the 851h pementile speed of traffic on the major street exceeds 40 miles per hour in either an urban or rural area, or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the location is considered rural. All other areas are considered urban. Figures 9-1, 9-2, 9-3 and 9-4 are examples of warrant sheets. Warrant Sheet 9-4 should be used only for new intersections or other locations where actual traffic volumes cannot be counted. The installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the waxrants listed below are met: A. Warrant I - Minimum Vehicle Volume. The Minimum Vehicular Volume warrant is intended for application where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for consideration of a signal installation. The warrant is satisfied when for each of any 8 hours of an average day the waffle volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher-volume minor street approach to the intersection. Number of Vehicles per Vehicles per lanes for hour on hour on moving major sffeet higher-volume traffic on (total of both minor-street each approach approaches) approach (one direction only) Major St. Minor St. Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 500 350 150 105 2 or more 1 600 420 150 105 2 or more 2 or more 600 420 200 140 1 2 or more 500 350 200 140 The major street and the minor street volumes are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours. Left turn movements from the major street may be included with minor street volumes if a separate signal phase is to be provided for the left turn movement. The left turn volume in the highest direction may be added to the minor street volume on the highest approach. The major street volume should be reduced by this amount. B. Warrant 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic. The Interruption of Continuous Traffic warrant applies to operating conditions where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or hazard in entering or crossing the major street. The warrant is satisfied when, for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher-volume minor street approach to the intersection, and the signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. Number of Vehicles per Vehicles per lanes for hour on hour on moving major street higher-volume traffic on (total of both minor-street each approach approaches) approach (one direction only) Major St. Minor St. Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 750 525 75 ' 53 2 or more 1 900 630 75 53 2 or more 2 or more 900 630 100 70 1 2 or more 750 525 100 70 The major street and the minor street volumes are for the same 8 hours. During those 8 hours the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours. Left turn movements from the major street may be included with minor street volumes if a separate signal phase is to be provided for the left turn movement. The left turn volume in the highest direction may be added to the minor sweet volume on the highest approach. The major street volume should be reduced by this amount. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-3 C. Warrant 3 Minimum Pedestrian Volume. A traffic signal may be wan'amed where the pedestrian volume crossing the major street at an intersection or mid-block location during an average day is: 100 or more for each of any four hours; or 190 or more during any one hour. The pedestrian volume crossing the major street ma.y be reduced as much as 50% of the values given above when the predominant pedestrian crossing speed is below 3.5 feet per second. In addition to a minimum pedestrian volume of that stated above, there shall be less than 60 gaps per hour in the traffic stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross during the same period when the pedestrian volume criterion is satisfied. Where there is a divided street having a mexlian of sufficient width for the pedestrian(s) to wait, the requirement applies separately to each direction of vehicular traffic. Where coordinated traffic signals on each side of the study location provide for platooned traffic which result in fewer than 60 gaps per hour of adequate length for the pedestrians to cross the street, a traffic signal may not be warranted. This warrant applies only to those locations where the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater than 300 feet and where a new traffic signal at the study location would not unduly restrict platooned flow of traffic. Curbside parking at non-intersection locations should be prohibited for 100 feet in advance of and 20 feet beyond the crosswalk. A signal installed under this warrant should be of the traffic-actuated type with push buttons for pedestrians crossing the main street. If such a signal is installed within a signal system, it shall be coordinated if the signal system is coordinated. Signals installed according to this warrant shall be equipped with pedestrian indications conforming to requirements set forth in other sections of this Manual. D. Warrant4 - School Areas. See Chapter 10 of this Manual. E. Warrant 5 - Progressive Movement. The Progressive Movement warrant is satisfied when: On a one-way stxeet or on a street which has predominantly unidirectional traffic, adjacent signals are so far apart that the necessary degree of platooning and speed control of vehicles would otherwise be lost; or On a two-way street, where adjacent signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and speed control · and the proposed and adjacent signals could consmute a progressive signal system. The installation of a signal according to this warrant should be based on the 851h percentile speed unless an engineering study indicates that another speed is more desirable. The installation of a signal according to this warrant should not be considered where the resultant signal spacing would be less than 1,000 feet. F. Warrant 6 - Accident Experience. The Accident Experience warrant is satisfied when: Five or more reported accidents of types susceptible to correction by traffic signal control 'have occurred within a 12-month period, each accident involving personal injury or property damage to an apparent extent of $500 or more; AND Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the accident frequency; AND 9-4 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 1-1991 3. There exists a volume of vehicular traffic not less than 80% of the requirements specified in the Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant or the Inten'uption of Continuous Traffic Warrant; AND 4. The signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. G. Warrant 7 - Systems Warrant. A traffic signal installation at some intersections may be warranted to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow networks. The systems warrant is applicable when the common intersection of two or more major routes has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles during the peak hour of a typical weekday, or each of any five hours of a Saturday and/or Sunday. A major route as used in the above warrant has one or more of the following characteristics: 1. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal network for through traffic flow; 2. It includes rural or suburban highways outside of, entering or traversing a city; or It appears as a major mute on an official plan such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study. H. Warrant 8 - Combination of Warrants. In exceptional cases, a signal may be justified where no single warrant is satisfied but where Warrants 1 and 2 are satisfied to the extent of 80 percent or more of the stated numerical values. L Warrant 9 - Four Hour Volume Warrant. The Four Hour Volume Warrant is satisfied, when for each of any four hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) all fall above the curve in Figure 9-6 for the existing combination of approach lanes. When the 851h pementile speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, or when the intersection lies within a built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the four hour volume requirement is satisfied when the plotted points referred to fall above the curve in Figure 9-7 for the existing combination of approach lanes. J. Warrant 10 - Peak Hour Delay Warrant. The Peak Hour Delay Warrant is intended for application where traffic conditions are such that for one hour of the day, minor street traffic suffers undue delay in entering or crossing the major street. The peak hour delay warrant is satisfied when the conditions given below exist for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average weekday. The peak hour delay warrant is met when: 1. The total delay experienced by traffic, on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign, equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND 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. K. Warrant 11 Peak Hour Volume Warrant. The Peak Hour Volume Warrant is intended for application where traffic conditions are such that for one hour of the day minor street traffic suffers undue delay in entering or crossing the major street. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-5 The peak hour volume warrant is satisfied when the plotted point, representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an avenge day, falls above the curve in Figure 9-8 for the existing combination of approach lanes. When the 85th percentlie speed of major street traffic exceeds 40 miles per hour, or when the intersection lies within a built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the peak hour volume warrant is satisfied when the plotted point, referred to above, falls above the curve in Figure 9-9 for the existing combination of approach lanes. 9-01.3 Guidelines for Left-Turn Phases Since separate signal phases for protected left turns will reduce the green time available for other phases, alternate means of handling left tam conflicts should be considered fh'st. The most likely possibilities are: Prohibition of left turns. This can be done only if there are convenient alternate means of making the movement. Typical alternate means are: A series of fight and/or left turns around a block to permit getting to the desired destination; or b. Making the left turn at an adjacent unsignalized intersection during gaps in the opposing through traffic. Geometric changes to eliminate the left tam. An effective change would be a complete separation or a complete or partial "clover leaf' at grade. Any of these, while eliminating left turns, requires additional cost and fight of way. Provide protected-permissive or permis- sive-protected left turn operation. The pro- tected left turn interval may be prohibited during certain periods of the day to allow only permissive intervals for left turn movement in order to increase the green time available for other phases. Refer to Section 9-03.8 for the requirements of pro- leered-permissive or permissive-protected left tum operation. Protected left turn phases should be considered where such alternatives cannot be utilized, and one or more of the following conditions exist: Accidents. Five or more left turn accidents for a particular left tam movement during a recent 12-month period. Delay. Left-turn delay of one or more vehicles which were waiting at the beginning of the green interval and are still remaining in the left tam lane after at least 80% of the total number of cycles for one hour. Volume. At new intersections where only estimated volumes are available, the fol- lowing criteria may be used. For a pre- timed signal or a background-cycle- controlled actuated signal, a left turn vol- ume of more than two vehicles per ap- proach per cycle for a peak hour;, or for a traffic-actuated signal, 50 or more left turning vehicles per hour in one direction with the product of the turning and con- flicting through traffic during the peak hour of 100,000 or more. Miscellaneous. Other factors that might be considered, include but are not limited to: consistency of signal phasing with that at adjacent intersections, impaired sight distance due to horizontal or vertical curvature, or where there is a large percentage of buses and trucks. 9-01.4 Removal of Existing SIgnals Changes in traffic patterns may result in a situation where a traffic signal is no longer justified. When this occurs, consideration should be given to removing the traffic signal and replacing it with appropriate alternative traffic control devices. 9-6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual Figure 9-1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC ~ DATE 01ST CO RTE PM CHK DATE Maior SIt /~:>/4L// /P--,C'~AZ:Z)' Critical Approactl Speed mpn ............. ~]: 2)> RURAL (R) In built up area of ~solafecl commumty of < 10,000 pop. - ........ [] URBAN (U) mph WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular volume 100% SATISFIED YES ,~ NO [] 80% SATISFIED YES ~ NO [] MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) u R_:,ulR * NO~: Heavier le~ turn movemenl from Maior Streel mclu~e~ when LT-phasing is proposed D WARRANT 2 - Inter~ption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES D NO ~ ~% SATISFIED YES ~ NO D MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (8~. SHOWN IN BRACK~S) ~NES ~ p Born A~r~s, 750 525 Malor S~t ~ (420) H~hes~ Appr~, ' 7 53 Ml~r S~l * (42) * NOTE: Heavier left turn movemere from Malor Street included when LT-phas~ng is proposea~ WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES [] NO 22~ REQUIREMENT FULFILLEl:) Pedestrian volume crossing the malor street is 100 or more for each of any four hours or is t 90 or more during any one Yes [] NO hour: and There are less tRao 60 gaps per hour ~n Ihe malor street traf- fic stream of adequate/englt~ for pecleslnans to cross: and Yes [] No The nearest traffic signal along Ihe malor street ~s greater '~ than 300 feet: and Yes Ho The new traffic s~gnal wdl not seriously d~srupl progressive traffic flow on the mator slreel Yes ~ NO The satisfaction of a warranl is not necessarfiy justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Traffic Manual 9-7 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9-2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANTS 4 * School Crossings Not Applicable .................................. ,.~ See School Crossings Warrant Sheel E3 WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ~ DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL > 00o A/A' ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING AND SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST ON 2-WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING AND SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONStTUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM YES R NO'~L FULFILLED YES ~'NO [] WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES Fl NO ~ REQUIREMENTS WARRANT ,./ ONE WARRANT ,/ WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ~'T,F,ED ........ ~'~' ................................................................................ 80% WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUFF PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEFFIBLE OF CORR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR $.500 DAMAGE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS ' 5 OR MORE FULFILLED YES,~NO [] I WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES FI NO,~ MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES REQUIREMENTS DURING TYRCAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR (.r)~'.~ VEH/HR V// > 800 VEH/HR OR DURrNG EACH OF ANY 5 RRS OF A SA'E AND/OR SUN. VEHIRR CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC ~'~ RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE DE ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY V/ ""' APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICAL PLAN ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTIC MET. BOTH STS. FULFILLED YES.3~NO E3 YES [] The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need lor right-of-way assignment must be shown. 9-8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Traffic Manual WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SAtiSFiED YES ~ NO [] REQUIREMENT 'I~NO WARRANTS SATISFIED 80% WARRANT ./ FULFILLED 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC I/ YES .,~ NO WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume Approach Lanes Both Approaches Major Street Highest Approaches - Minor Street SA'nSF~ED* YES J~ No [] One more ' ~ -7~-I. our * Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-7 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) SATISRED YES [] NO ~ 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND YES [] NO yes ,~ No [] 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 ~, NO [] WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume Approach Lanes Both Approaches Major Street Highest Approaches - Minor Slreet SATISFIED* YES :~ NO [] Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. 9-12 Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9-7 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 400 -r 300 ~=~ ~U~ -,0 ~ ~ 200 100 0 200 %.,~_------2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) "' ~ ,o.o~ MoRE LANES (MAJOR) ~ ~ LANE (M, NOR~ - LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) I LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) 300 400 500 600 700 800 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH 900 1000 * NOTE: 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES ANO 60 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 9-14 ,.,~, TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) Traffic Manual 50O > 400 300 200 <2_ ~oo l- 0 300 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJiR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINiR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) ~ ['\~ --\ ~ OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) I LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE MINOR) 500 600 700 800 900 1000 400 1100 1200.. 1300 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH , NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. f/$ignta Wmrrmnt Stud,/ Nuttt-Wey Stop Wmrrmnting Software 06127198 0:00 0 0 0 0 0 hO0 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 10 58 90 100 258 6:00 26 165 223 1&8 560 7:00 6/, 187 282 213 766 8=00 56 188 303 211 ?56 9:00 30 116 276 150 572 10:00 27 119 331 177 660 lhO0 12 115 387 2Z3 767 12:00 21 125 367 2~ 807 13:00 31 108 376 336 16:00 35 1~, 370 399 968 15:00 ~ 187 616 620 1065 16:00 26 172 399 381 976 17:00 31 165 658 282 916 18:oo 39 150 695 250 936 19:00 29 119 336 262 726 20:00 16 75 269 265 623 21:00 21 60 216 20/, 699 22:00 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 0 O 0 ' 0 SITE COOE: 00000000 STREET : Pats Road LIHITS : East of MoLl Vsttey Road : MestboundOnty CITY OF TEHECULA WESTISOdNP TIME NONDAY TUESDAY MEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY BEGIN 20 21 22 23 24 lZ:OOAM * * 117 0 * 1:00 * * 88 0 * 2:00 * * 81 0 * 3:00 * * 64 3 * 4:00 * * 80 0 * 5:00 * * 100 0 * 6:00 * 0 168 * * 7:00 * 81 213 * * 8:00 * 205 211 * * 9:00 * 168 150 * * 10:00 * 18~ 177 * * lhO0 * 252 ;33 * * 12:00 PH * 29/, 213 * * 1:00 * 3~36 2/~, * * 2:00 * 309 23 * * 3:00 * 420 11 * * 4:00 * ~81 7 * * 5:00 * 282 6 * * 6:00 * 250 4 * * 7:00 * 242 3 * * 8:00 * 265 2 * * 9:00 * 204 0 * * 10:00 * 224 2 * * 11:00 * 169 1 * * TOTALS * 4355 2198 3 * X AVG WKOAY * 133.0 67.1 0.1 * · AVG DAY * 133,0 67.1 0.1 * WEEKDAY AVEIL~GE 58 40 33 40 50 84 147 208 159 180 242 253 290 211 215 194 1~, 127 122 133 102 113 85 3274 SATURDAY 25 PAGE: SUNDAY 26 1 FILE: Patwotf2 DATE: 4/20/98 MEEK AVERAGE 58 44 40 33 40 50 84 147 208 159 180 242 253 290 211 215 194 1~. 127 122 133 102 113 85 3274 AN PEAK HR * 11:00 11:00 3:00 * VOLUME * 252 233 3 * lhO0 242 , , 11:00 242 PN PEAK HR * 3:00 1:00 * * 1:00 * * 1:00 VOLINE * 420 2~, * * 290 * * 290 SITE CCX)E: 00000000 CiTY OF TEHECULA PAGE: 1 STREET : Via Eduardo FILE: ViaEdua LINITS : South of Pata Road : Northbound Onty /~ 0/~ T H ~OUND DATE: 4/20/98 TINE MONDAY TUESDAY MEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY MEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY MEEK BEGIN 20 21 22 2~ 24 AVERAGE 25 26 AVERAGE 12:00AN * * 1 2 0 I * * 1 1:00 * * 2 2 0 1 * * 1 2:00 * * 2 0 0 0 * * 0 3:00 * * 1 2 0 1 * * 1 4:00 * * 8 4 0 4 * * 4 5:00 * * 10 13 0 7 * * 7 6:00 * 3 24 32 * 19 * * 19 7:00 * 21 64 37 * 40 * * 40 8:00 * 39 54 3 * 32 * * 32 9:00 * 14 30 0 * 14 * * 14 10:00 * 14 27 0 * 13 * * 13 11:00 * 16 12 0 * 9 * * 9 12:00 PN * 20 21 0 * 13 * * 13 1:00 * 18 31 0 * 16 * * 16 2:00 * 22 35 0 * 19 * * 19 3:00 * 29 44 0 * 24 * * 24 4:00 * 30 24 0 * 18 * * 18 5:00 * 19 31 0 * 16 * * 16 6:00 * 22 39 0 * 20 * * 20 7:00 * 16 29 0 * 15 * * 15 8:00 * 13 14 0 * 9 * * 9 9:00 * 12 21 0 * 11 * * 11 10:00 * 10 8 0 * 6 * * 6 11:00 * 6 0 0 * 2 * * 2 TOTALS * 324 532 95 0 310 * * 310 X AVG WKDAY * 104.5 171.6 30.6 0 X AVG DAY * 104.5 171,6 30,6 0 , , AN PEAK HR * 8:00 7:00 7:00 12:00 7:00 * * 7:00 VOLUNE * 39 64 37 0 40 * * 40 PN PEAK HR * 4:00 3:00 12:00 * 3:00 * * 3:00 VOLUME * 30 44 0 * 24 * * 24 SITE COOE: 00000000 CITY OF TENECULA PAGE: 1 STREET : Wolf Valley Road FILE: Wolfvail LIKITS : North of Pala Road : so. thbo d o. ly SOUTH ,DUr'4D DATE: 4/20/98 TINE HO~DAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ~EEIG)AY SATURDAY SUWDAY WEEK BEGIN 20 21 22 23 24 AVERAGE 25 26 AVERAGE 12:00AN * * 10 7 * 8 * * 8 hO0 * * 4 2 * 3 * * 3 2:00 * * 4 6 * 5 * * 5 3:00 * * 8 4 * 6 * * 6 4:00 * * 28 21 * 24 * * 24 5:00 * * 58 65 * &l * * 61 6:00 * 3 145 18 * 55 * * 55 r:O0 * 43 187 * * 115 * * 115 8:00 * 177 188 * * 182 * * 182 9:00 * 122 116 * * 119 * * 119 10:00 * 130 119 * * 124 * * 124 11:00 * 13~ 115 * * 124 * * 124 12:00 PK * 137 125 * * 131 * * 131 1:00 * 107 108 * * 107 * * 107 2:00 * 164 16~ * * 164 * * 164 3:00 * 239 187 * * 213 * * 213 4:00 * 187 172 * * 179 * * 179 5:00 * 174 145 * * 159 * * 159 6:00 * 170 150 * * 160 * * 160 7:00 * 131 119 * * 125 * * 125 8:00 * 97 75 * * 86 * * 86 9:00 * 66 60 * * 63 * * 63 10:00 * 55 41 * * ~8 * * 48 11:00 * 15 11 * * 13 * * 13 TOTALS * 2151 2~39 12] * 2274 * * 2274 % AVG WKDAY * 94.6 102.9 5.4 * % AVG DAY * 94.6 102.9 5.4 * AN PEAK HR * 8:00 8:00 5:00 * 8:00 * * 8:00 VOLUNE * 177 188 65 * 182 * * 182 PN PEAK HR * 3:00 3:00 * * 3:00 * * 3:00 VOLUME * 239 187 * * 213 * * 213 SITE COOE: 00000000 CiTY OF TEMECULA PAGE: 1 STREET : Pat8 Road FILE: Patewolf LIMITS : Uest of Moll Valley Road : Eastbound Onty E::~'~T ~ C) IJ N }*~ DATE: 4/20/98 TIME MONDAY TUESDAY kiEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY MEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY MEEK BEGIN 20 21 22 23 24 AVEP. AGE 25 26 AVERAGE 12:OOAN * * 59 78 * 68 * * 68 1:00 * * 53 50 * 51 * * 51 2:00 * * 30 42 * 36 * * 36 3:00 * * 26 35 * 30 * * 30 4:00 * * 54 31 * 42 * * 42 5:00 * * 90 75 * 82 * * 82 6:00 * 2 223 29 * 84 * * 84 7:00 * 178 282 * * 230 * * 230 8:00 * 307 303 * * 305 * * 305 9:00 * 292 276 * * 284 * * 284 10:00 * 364 337 * * 350 * * 350 11:00 * 409 387 * * 398 * * 398 12:00 PM * 385 367 * * 376 * * 376 1:00 * 316 374 * * ~5 * * 3~5 2:00 * 355 370 * * 362 * * 362 3:00 * 38~ 414 * * 398 * * 398 4:00 * 399 399 * * 399 * * 399 5:00 * 429 458 * * 6Z,3 * * 443 6:00 * 389 4~5 * * /~.2 * * 642 7:00 * 320 336 * * 328 * * 328 8:00 * 263 269 * * 266 * * 266 9:00 * 219 214 * * 216 * * 216 10:00 * 176 186 * * 181 * * 181 11:00 * 112 97 * * 104, * * 106 TOTALS * 5296 45099 340 * 5820 * * 5820 X AVGMK:DAY * 91,0 104.8 5.8 * X AVG DAY * 91,0 104.8 5.8 * AN PEAK HR * 11:00 11:00 12:00 * 11:00 * * 11:00 VOLUME * /,09 387 78 * 398 * * 398 PM PEAK HR * 5:00 6:00 * * 5:00 * * 5:00 VOLURE * 429 495 * * /,43 * * ~ 9-6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual DIST Figure 9-1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS cALC hVS.F PM CHK CO RTE MinOr St: L~r') ~'-4 A Critical speed 01 malor street traffic > 40 mpn .............. ~ ~ In budt up area of ~solated cammunsty of < 10,000 0QP. ' ........ ~ °ATE 4-s~d~ OATE C,'itical Approach Speed ~ ~ mpn Critical Approach Speed ~ mpn RURAL (R) URBAN (U) WARRANT I - Minimum Vehicular volume 100% SATISFIED YES [] NO .~ 80% SATISFIED YES [] NO :~ MINIMUM RE~QUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) u 4Xte u I R H' ~ ~ (280) ~ * NOTE: Heavier le~ turn movemenl lrom M~ior Street mctuded when LT-ph~sin~ is proposed ~ WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES ~ NO ~ ~/, SATISFIED YES ~ NO ~ MINIMUM R~QUIREMENT$ (~ SHOWN ~N ~RACKETS) U ~' U [ R p [ p p * NOTE: Heavier leR turn movemenl from Major Sireel included w~en LT-phasmg ~s proposed~ WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES [] NO .,~ REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrian volume Crossing the major street ~s 100 Or more for each of any four hours or sst 90 or more during any one Yes [] NO hour; and There are less than 60 gaps per hour ~n the major street traf- fic stream of adequate tength for pedestrians to cross; and Yes The nearest Iraf/ic signat along Ihe major street ~s greater than 300 1eet: and Yes ~ No [] The new traffic ssgnal wdl not seriously disrupt progressive Yes traffic Ilow on Ihe malor street The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way asmgnment must he shown. Traffic Manual 9-7 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9-2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANTS 4 * School Crossings Not Applicable .................................. /~,, See School Crossings Warrant Sheet [] WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED MINIMUM REQUeREMENTS ! OISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL 5:7bO. s g..,t tt.E A//r ., w g/h f,. ON ONE WAY ISOLATED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND AOdACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING AND SPEED CONTROL WOULD 8E LOST ON 2-WAY STREETS WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING AND SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM YES i'"1 FULFILLED YES WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED WARRANT REQUIREMENTS ONE WARRANT SATIFIED 80% YES r-] NO,~ ~ULFtLLED WARRANT I - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME OR WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUFT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY 5 OR MORE 7 SATISFIED WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant MINIMUM VOLUME REQUIREMENTS ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR )' 800 VEH/HR 0R DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS OF A SA]: AND/OR SUN. VEH/HR CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST. MINOR ST. HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFRCAL PLAN ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTIC MET, BOTH STS. YES:~NO I::] i ~ [] YES [:] NO ~ FULFILLED YES ~{(:NO a YES [] NO/~ The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. 9-8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Traffic Manual WARRANT 8 - ComPination of Warrants SATISFIED YES [] NO REQUIREMENT TVVO WARRANTS SATISFIED 80% WARRANT ,./ FULFILLED 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC ,/ YES [] NO ~ WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES :~ NO [] one * Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-7 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. Approach Lanes Both Approaches Major Street Highest Approaches - Minor Street WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) SATISRED YES [] NO .~ 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AN0 No [] The total entering volume sen/iced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches, NO [] WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume Approach Lanes SATISF,yes[] ~e m~e ~ Highesl Approaches - Minor Street ~ Refer to Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or F~gure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfie~. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-9 1,1991 Figure 9-4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note URBAN ............................... RURAL ............................... Minimum equ~rements ADT n ir i n n 1. Minimum Vehicular Satisfied Not Satisfied Vehicles per day maior Vebcms per day on ragnet- street ( o al of b h volume minor-street approach Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach ap0roac e Maior Street Minor Street Urh n Rural Urban Rural 8~ 5.600 2,400 1,680 9,600 6,720 2,400 1.680 6,720 3.200 2.240 5.600 3,200 2,240 2 or more ........................... 1 ......................................... 2 or more ........................... 2 or more ........................... 1 .........................................2 or more ......................../ 8,000 2. Interruption of Continuous Traffic Satisfied Not Satisfied Numbers oi lanes for moving traffic on each Vehicles per day on major Stree{ (total of both approaches) Vehicles per day on higher* volume minor-stree{ approach (one direction only) Major Street Minor 5 Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 .........................................1 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 2 or more ........................... I 14,400 10.080 1,200 850 2 or mere ........................... more ........................... 14,400 10,080 1,600 1,120 1 more ........................... 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120 3, Combination Satisfied Not Satisfied 2 Warrants 2 Warrants No one but following warrants furllied 800/0 or 2 NOTE: 1. He ier left turn movement from the major street may be included with minor street volume if a separate signal phase i to be provided for the left-turn movement. ///~ed only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where actual traffic volumes cannot be counted. 9-10 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual DIST Maior St: Minor Figure 9-5 SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS CALC DATE / CO RTE PM CHK DATE Critical Approach Speed /~ph Critical Approach Speed ph Critical speed of malor street trottic > 40 mpn ............. [] ~ ~} or RURA (R) In built up area of isolatec~ community of < 10,000 pop. - ........ [] FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS SATISFI/,~ YES [] NO [] (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) Minimum Reauffemen~s PART A U R Vehic!e Volume 2 hou~ 200 1 ~ach ot 40 4 ~ SChoOl Age Peaseman ED YES Q NO ~ Crossing Street 2 ~urs AND PART B ....... ~ Critical Approach Spe~ Exce~s 35 mph ~ SATISFIED YES Q NO ~ AND PART C Is nearest controlled crossingmore than ,6~0 feet away? . ,:o Scho0i Age Pe(~est an ~ahcohur°s/ 100 70 PART ~ AND SATISFIED YES [] NO [] SATISFIED YES [] NO [] Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SATISFIED YES [] NO [] 9-12 1-1991 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9-7 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) Traffic Manual 400 0 200 .~----2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) "' "" 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) '-~ OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) \\ I LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH , ,e NOTE: 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 60 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) Traffic Manual 500 > 4O0 w ,,,- 300 ~ i-~, ~e, uj 0 ~ 200 ~ 100 0 300 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE L~NES (MINOR) i-,, ~,~,,~ 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) "\ OR I LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 400 1 LA.E (MAJo.) .1 LANE ~M,.O.) --~ ' 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTHAPPROACHES- VPH 1200.. 1300 NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. f/Signal Warrant Study Multi-way st~ Warranting SoftNare 0/,/30/98 IOOX 70~C CONBZNATION START NB SB EB ~ HOUR gARRANT WARRANT ~NT TI~ TOT ~T IT ~T 0:00 0 0 0 0 0 1:00 0 0 0 0 0 2:00 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 0 0 0 0 0 5:00 0 0 0 0 0 6:00 316 105 110 100 6~I 7:00 357 191 139 105 792 8:00 328 373 112 120 933 9:00 269 3/,7 71 80 767 10:00 247 375 62 65 769 11:00 300 456 76 64 894 12:00 311 4?'9 68 68 926 13:00 361 496 80 39 956 16:00 395 525 67 65 1052 15:00 536 596 76 85 1293 16:00 428 652 76 63 1217 17:00 333 657 111 67 1168 18:00 296 356 80 91 823 19:00 271 309 86 65 7'31 20:00 228 207 53 19 507 21:00 0 0 0 0 0 22:00 0 0 0 0 0 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 f/Signal Warrant Study NuLti-Way Stop getranting Software 0~/30/98 fiejot Street: Pate Road Ntnor Street: Loma LiMa Date of AnaLysis: 0~/S0/98 Nme of AnaLyst: hsb Case Number: 1 Comments: Existing ALL-gay Stop Control 85thX Speed of Hajor Street: 53 gARRANT ANALYSTS SUNNARy: WARRANT 1 - Accident Experience NOT SATiSFiED - The accident uarrant of 5 or mere reportable accidents of a correctabLe type is not met with 0 accidenta over a 12 manth peried. WARRANT 2 - Minimum Traffic Vott~es SATISFIED - The IOOX vehicular Herrant of 500 entering vehicles for any 8 hours of the day is met utth 15 hours meeting the warrant. SATiSFiED - The 70X vehicular warrant of 350 entering vehicles for any 8 hours of the day is met with 15 hours meeting the warrant. VARRANT 3 - VehicuLar & Pedestrian Traffic from Ninor Road NOT SATISFIED - The combined totaL of 200 vehicles and pedestrians from the minor approach is not met with 1 hours meeting the warrant, SITE CODE: 00OOOOOO CITY OF TENECULA PAGE: 1 STREET : Loma Ljnda Road FILE: [omaLin2 LIN[TS : West of PEL8 Road TINE NONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY ~EEK BEGIN 27 28 29 30 1 AVERAGE Z 3 AVERAGE lZ:OOAM * 0 4 7 * 3 * * 3 1:00 * 0 /* 6 * 3 * * 3 Z:O0 * 0 3 3 * 2 * * 2 3:00 * 0 ? 8 * 5 * * 5 4:00 * 0 Z7 25 * 17 * * 17 5:00 * 0 7/* 85 * 53 * * 53 6:00 * 0 110 105 * 71 * * 71 7:00 * 59 139 26 * 8:00 * 108 112 * * 110 * * 110 9:00 2 62 71 * * 10:00 0 53 62 * * 38 , w 38 11:00 0 72 76 * * 12:00 PN 0 54 68 * * /*0 * * /*0 1:00 0 75 80 * * 51 * * 51 2:00 0 60 67 * * /*2 * * 42 3:00 0 92 76 * * 56 * * 56 4:00 0 84 7/* * * 52 * * 52 5:00 0 83 111 * * 64 * * 64 6:00 0 95 80 * * 58 * * 58 7:00 0 5/* 86 * * ~6 * * ~6 8:00 0 59 53 * * 37 * * 37 9:00 0 32 42 * * 24 * * 24 10:00 0 20 16 * * 12 * * 12 11:00 0 15 22 * * 12 * * 12 TOTALS 2 1077 1/,64 265 * 96~ * * 964. X AVG WlG)Ay O.Z 111.7 151.9 27.5 * X AVG DAY 0.2 111.7 151.9 27.5 * , , AN PEAK HR 9:00 8:00 7:00 6:00 * 8:00 * * 8:00 VOLUME 2 108 139 105 * 110 * * 110 PN PEAK HR 12:00 6:00 5:00 * * 5:00 * * 5:00 VOLUME 0 95 111 * * 64 * * 6/, SITE COOE: 00000000 CITY OF TENECULA PAGE: 1 STREET : Pate Road FILE: patomasb LINITS : North of Loma Linda : Southbound only ~'C)(J~r-~_/(~:)(~lJ[~ (~ DATE: 4/Z7/98 TINE NONDAY TUESDAY ~EDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY MEEIG)AY SATURDAY SUNDAY tjEEK BEGIN 27 28 29 30 1 AVERAGE Z 3 AVERAGE 12:00 AN * 0 42 37 * 26 * * 26 1:00 * 0 28 21 * 16 * * 16 2:00 3:00 * 0 13 13 * 8 * * 8 4:00 * 0 5:00 * 0 39 ~8 * 25 * * 25 6:00 * 0 105 99 * 68 * * 68 7:00 * 191 149 9 * 116 * * 116 8:00 * 373 181 * * 277 * * 277 9:00 * 347 167 * * 257 * * 257 10:00 0 375 189 * * 188 * * 188 11:00 0 45A 229 * * 227 * * 227 12:00 PH 0 479 240 * * 239 * * 239 1:00 0 496 435 * * 310 * * 310 2:00 0 525 320 * * 281 * * 281 3:00 0 596 255 * * 283 * * 283 4:00 0 652 304 * * 318 * * 318 5:00 0 657 339 * * 332 * * 332 6:00 0 356 308 * * 221 * * 221 7:00 0 309 246 * * 185 * * 185 8:00 0 207 183 * * 130 * * 130 9:00 0 148 168 * * 105 * * 105 10:00 0 126 102 * * 76 * * 76 11:00 0 76 65 * * 47 * * 47 TOTALS 0 6367 4151 255 * 3761 * * 3761 X AVG ~iCDAY 0 169.3 110.4 6.8 ~ AVG DAY 0 1&9.3 110.4 6.8 , · AN PEAK HR 10:00 11:00 11:00 6:00 * 8:00 * * 8:00 VOLUNE 0 45/, 229 99 * 277 * * 277 Plq PEAK HR 12:00 5:00 1:00 * * 5:00 * * 5:00 VOLLNE 0 657 ~.35 * * 332 * * 332 SITE CODE: 00000000 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE: 1 STREET : Pete Road FILE: paLateme LIMITS : South of Loem L~nda ......... :. ...................... .................................. TZNE MONDAY TUESDAY ~EDNESDAY TRUESDAY FRIDAY ~EEKDAy SATURDAy SUNDAY ~EEK BEGIN 27 28 29 30 1 AVERAGE 2 3 AVERAGE 12:00 AN * 0 116 7 * ~1 * * 4,1 1:00 * 0 101 3 * )A * * 3/+ Z: O0 * 0 66 1 * 22 * * 22 3:00 * 0 62 3 * Zl * * 21 4:00 * 0 110 4 * 38 * * 38 5:00 * 0 181 1~ * 65 * * 65 6:00 * 0 316 ~.5 * 120 * * 120 7:00 * ~,7 357 22 * 1/,2 * * 1~,2 8:00 * 312 328 * * 320 * * 320 9:00 0 253 269 * * 17~ * * 10:00 0 2~7 162 * * 1~ * * 1:36 11:00 0 300 5~ * * 118 * * 118 12:00 PIt 0 311 84 * * 131 * * 131 1:00 0 )/4,1 7~ * * 138 * * 2:00 0 395 105 * * 166 * * 166 3:00 0 536 101 * * 212 * * 212 4:00 0 428 9:~ * * 173 * * 17) 5:00 0 333 100 * * 1/Fr, * * 6:00 0 296 80 * * 125 * * 125 7:00 0 271 56 * * 109 * * 109 8:00 0 228 7 * * 78 * * 78 9:00 0 191 11 * * 67 * * 67 10:00 0 17~ 10 * * 61 * * 61 11:00 0 158 6 * * 54 * * 5A TOTALS 0 /821 2869 99 * 2689 * * 2689 % AVG WKDAY 0 179.3 106,0 3.7 * X AVG DAY 0 179.3 1045,0 3.7 * , , AN PEAK HR 9:00 8:00 7:00 6:00 * 8:00 * * 8:00 VOLUI4E 0 312 357 65 * 320 * * 320 P14 PEAK HR 12:00 3:00 2:00 * * 3:00 * * 3:00 VOLUI4E 0 536 105 * * 212 * * 212 SITE COOE: O0000OO0 CITY OF TENECULA PAGE: 1 STREET : Lome Linda Roed FILE: LomaLinl LINITS : East of PeIa Road : o. ly &TF OON D oatE: 4/27/98 TINE MONDAY TUESDAY ~EDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY ~EEKDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY ~jEEK BEGIN 27 28 29 30 1 AVERAGE 2 3 AVERAGE lZ:00 AM * 0 1 0 * 0 * * 0 1:00 * 0 0 0 * 0 * * 0 2:00 * 0 0 0 * 0 * * 0 3:00 * 0 3 0 * 1 * * 1 4:00 * 0 17 0 * 5 * * 5 5:00 * 0 57 0 * 19 * * 19 6:00 * 0 100 0 * 33 * * 33 7:00 * 10 105 22 * 45 * * 45 8:00 * 120 29 * * 74 * * 74 9:00 * 80 7 w , 43 * * 43 10:00 0 65 2 * * 22 * * 22 11:00 0 64 2 * * 22 * * 22 12:00 PN 0 68 1 * * Z~ * * Z~ 1:00 0 39 4 * * 14 * * 14 2:00 0 65 6 * * 25 * * 23 3:00 0 85 6 * * 30 * * 30 4:00 1 63 6 * * 23 * * 23 S:OO 0 67 27 * * 31 * * 31 6:00 0 91 6 * * 32 * * 32 7:00 0 65 1 * * 22 * * 22 8:00 0 19 0 * * 6 * * 6 9:00 0 19 2 * * 7 * * 7 10:00 0 12 0 * * 4 * * 4 11:00 0 14 0 * * 4 * * 4 TOTALS I ~ 382 22 * 483 * * ~3 X AVG I/KDAY 0.2 195.9 79.1 4.6 * X AVG DAY 0.2 195.9 79.1 4.6 * AM PEAK HR 10:00 8:00 7:00 7:00 * 8:00 * * 8:00 VOLUNE 0 120 105 22 * 74 * * 74 PM PEAK HR 4:00 6:00 5:00 * * 6:00 * * 6:00 VOI, UNE 1 91 27 * * 32 * * 32 9-6 Traffic Manual 1-1991 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9-1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS GIST CO RTE PM CHK OATE MaWor SI: 7')A.L,,4 ;~.DA]::]) Critical Approach Speed 5'=3 mph Minor SI: ,IvlIT/A21c/E-~...D DAPl VE"' Critical Approach Speed 2-~' mph Crrt~cal speed ol malor street traffic > 40 mph ............. o~r ~ RURAL (R) [] In built up area of isolated commumty of < 10,000 pop. - ........ [] URB,AN (U) WARRANT I - Minimum Vehicular volume 100% SATISFIED YES [] NO :]~ 80% SATISFIED YES [2] NO ,~ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) Both Apprc~s 515~ 350 6 4p/>~Hour Malor Slreet (280) HighesrApptch. 15 t05 Minor Sirera * (84) · NOTE: Heavier lelt turn movement from Maior Street included when LT-phasing is proposed WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES [] NO 80°/, SATISFIED YES [] NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80~o SHOWN IN BRACKETS) Malor S~eet 2 g4 4 l · NOTE; Heavier ~e~ ~urn movement from Mator Stree~ included when LT-p~asing ~s propcsed~ WARRANT 3 o Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES [] NO ,~ REQUIREMENT FULFJLLED Pedestrian volume crossing Ihe malor street ~s 100 or more for each ot any four hours or is 1 g0 or more dunng any one Yes [] No J~ hour; and There are less than 60 gaps per hour In the major slreet Irat- Yes [~ No ,.~ fic stream ot adequale ~encJIh tot pedestrians to cross: and The nearest [raffic signal along the ma(or sEree[ ~s greaEer ~ Ihan 300 feet: and Yes $'Jo [] The new traffic s~gnal wall not senousjy disrupt progressive I Yes :~ ,"lo [] traffic flow on the malor street The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion. confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Traffic Manual 9-7 1-1991 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9-2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANTS 4 - School Crossings Not Applicable .................................. ~ See School Crossings Warrant Shee[ [] WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES il NO ~:~ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ~ DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL >toooPt. N ,.s ,'t.E ,.w ,. ON ONE WAY ISO~TED STREETS OR STREETS WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY P~TOONING ANO SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST ON 2-WAY STRE~S WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECES~RY P~TOONING AND SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM FULFILLED WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES O NO O REQUIREMENTS ONE WARRANT SATIFIED 80% WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME OR WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC FULFILLED YES D NO O SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUFT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACCIDENT FREQUENCY ACC. WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR & INVOLVING INJURY OR $500 OAMAGE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 OR MORE rn n [] [] n [] WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES O NO~I~ REQUIREMENTS 0URING TY VEHIHR > 800 VEH/HR , · .............................................................................................. 0URING EACH OF ANY 5 RRS OF A SAT. AND/OR SUN. VEH/RR CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR S'[ MINOR S'E HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC V'/ ' RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF. ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY V/ "' APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFRCAL PLAN ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTIC MET, BOTH STS. FULFILLED YES.~NO E3 YES [] NO~,. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. 9--8 1-1991 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9-3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Traffic Manual WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants REQUIREMENT TWO WARRANTS SATISFIED 80% WARRANT 1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC SATISFIED YES [] NO ~' FULFILLED YES [] NO ,~ WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES [] NO Approach Lanes One more f'2- 3-~ :4-- ~'-~ Hour Both Approaches Major Street v'/' Highest Approaches - Minor Street , * Refer to Figure 9-6 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-7 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay (ALL PARTS MUST BE SATISFIED) SATISFIED YES [] NO/~ 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a onelane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND YES 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AN{:) YES [] Nol 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 NO [] WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume APproach Lanes Beth Approaches Major Street Highest Approacnes- Minor Street One SATISFIED 2 or YES [] NO Hour Refer ,o Figure 9-8 (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-9 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be showrl. Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9-4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS 9-9 (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic - See Note 2) URBAN ............................ RURAL ............................ 1. Minimum Vehicular Satisfied Not Satisfied Number of lanes for moving Iraffic on each approach Maior Sireel Minor Street 2 or more ........................... 1 ......................................... 2 or more .......................... 2 or more ........................... I .........................................2 or more .......................... 2. Interruption of Continuous Traffic Satisfied Not Satisfied Numbers of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Minimum Requirements EADT Vehicles per day on malor street (total of both aDDroaches) Urban Rural 8,000 5,600 9,600 6,720 9,600 6,720 8,000 5,600 Vehicles per day on major Street (total of both approaches) Vehicles per day on higher- volume m~nor-street approach (one direction only) Urban Rural 2,400 1,680 2,400 1,680 3,200 2,240 3,200 2,240 Major Street Minor Street Urban I .........................................1 .........................................12,000 2 or more ........................... I ........................................ 14.400 2 or more ........................... 2 or more ........................... 14,400 1 ........................................2 or more ........................... 12,000 Vehicles per day on higher- volume m~nor-street approach (one direction only) Rural Urban Rural 8,400 1,200 850 10,080 1,200 850 10,080 1,600 1,120 8,400 1,600 1,120 3. Combination Satisfied Not Satisfied No one warrant satisfied, but following warrants furllied 80% or more 2 2 Warrants 2 Warrants NOTE: t. Heavier lefl turn movement from the major street may be included with minor street volume if a separate signal phase is to be provided for the left-turn movement. 2. To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations wher~ actual traffic volumes cannot be counted. 9-10 Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9-5 SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS DIST Maior St: Minor St: Critical speed of In built up area of CALC DATE RTE PM CHK DATE Critical Approach Speed Critical Approach Speed streel traffic > 40 mph ............. [] ) or RUF ~mmunity of < 10,000 pop. - ........ [] (u) mpn mph FLASHING YELLOW (ALL PARTS SIGNALS SATISFII ED) YES [] NO [] Minimum Reqs PART A U R Each of Vehicle Volume 2 hours 200 140 ~Schoot Age Pedestrian Each of 40 40 . Crossrng Street 2 hours PART B AND Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 35 mph AND PART C Is nearest controlled crossing more than 60 ,? SATISFIED SATISFIED YES [] YES [] NO [] SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SI (ALL PARTS MUST BE SA'{ PART A Minim m R~u,:rnen~R Each o! t 00 70 ~ per day PART B Is nearest controlled croSSing more than 600 feet away? SATISFIED YES [] NO [] SATISFIED YES [] [] SATISFIED YES [] No [] 9-12 1-1991 ' TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9-7 FOUR HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) Traffic Manual 400 -r Q. ~-- 300 UJ0 rr'~,. rJlO,' t.r- <; 200 OLU 100 0 200 % F 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) ~" ~'--,~/~ "2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & I LANE (MINOR) ~'~ ,~,~1\~ ~\, OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) I I I 300 400 500 600 700 800 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH 900 1000 NOTE: 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 60 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 9-14 Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9-9 PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT (Rural Areas) 500 4O0 L) ~0 w ~,, 300 ~uj 0 ~ 200 0 O_ 100 -r 0 300 .~ 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) ' "" MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) ~, "~'~"--:.~:..~ ~ROR1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) / I LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) I 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH 1200. 1300 * NOTE: 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 75 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. CITY OF TEMECULA PALA ROAD/MURFIELD DRIVE THURS-SUNDAY/ENTERING VOLUME COUNT Begin Mon. 03/09 Tues. Wed. Time EBND WBND EBND WBND EBND '"'00 am O0 * * * * * 02:00 03:00 * * * * * 04:00 * * * * * 05:00 * * * 06:00 * * * * * 07:00 08:00 * * * 09:00 * * * * * I0:00 * * * * 11:00 * * * * * I2:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 ~tals COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC. 909.247.6716 EAST/WEST Thur. Fri. Sat. WBND EBND WBND EBND WEND EEND WEND * 6 0 5 0 9 1 * 4 1 0 1 6 0 * 1 1 0 1 I 1 * 4 0 5 0 3 I * 11 4 ? 4 3 1 * 22 16 12 17 0 3 * 57 33 60 31 25 8 * 63 13 72 12 45 6 * 48 19 69 18 62 12 * 36 I2 34 16 65 17 * 34 9 56 10 62 24 * 46 i0 32 18 52 15 * 38 18 32 23 62 28 * 35 I7 50 12 54 17 * 56 21 52 17 55 22 * 59 15 49 10 48 18 * 58 13 47 10 43 18 * 59 19 48 22 41 25 * 43 25 64 19 42 19 * 25 15 49 18 27 9 t I3 6 17 1i 29 13 * 16 4 25 4 16 ? * 10 3 24 5 i4 3 * 11 1 13 1 14 4 0 755 275 822 200 786 272 1030 1102 1058 Site Code: 15321009 Start Date: 03/09/98 File I.D.: TEPAMUEW Page : 1 Sun. Week AvE. EBND WBND EBND WBND 4 2 6 1 6 0 4 0 1 I 1 1 2 0 4 0 2 I 6 2 5 3 12 10 16 8 40 20 24 7 51 10 34 13 53 I6 49 16 46 15 44 14 49 I4 51 25 45 17 60 24 48 23 54 13 48 15 48 25 53 21 55 22 53 16 38 27 46 I7 48 16 49 20 44 15 48 20 22 7 31 12 19 6 20 9 15 4 18 5 7 4 14 4 6 0 11 2 654 253 756 270 907 1026 Avg, Day AM Peaks Volume PM Peaks Volume ADTs .Or .Or .0% .0% .0% .0% 99.8% I01.8% 108.7% 103.7% 103.9% 100.7% 86.5% 07:00 06:00 07:00 06:00 09:00 10:00 1i:00 63 33 72 31 65 24 51 03:00 06:00 06:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 59 25 64 23 62 28 60 93.7% 11:00 08:00 06:00 25 53 20 04:00 02:00 12:00 27 53 23 CITY OF TEMECULA PALA ROAD/MURFIELD DRIVE TRUHS-SUN/ENTEHING VULUME COUNT Begin Men. 03/09 Tues. Red. Time NBND SBND NBND SBND NBND ~o:00 am , , t , , :00 t t , t , 02:00 , , t , t 03:00 * * * * * 04:00 05:00 * * * * * 06:00 * + * * * 07:00 * + * * * 08:00 + * * * * 09:00 * * * * * 10:00 * * * * * lh00 * * * * 12:00 0h00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 lh00 ~tals 0 0 0 COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC. Site Code: 153205 909.247.6716 Start Date: 03/09/98 File I.D.: TEPAMUEV NORTH/SOUTH Page : 1 Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun. Week Avg. SBND RBND SBND NBND SBND NBND SBND NBND SBND NBND SBND + 159 92 165 91 272 178 334 185 232 136 t 103 63 104 66 224 132 216 124 162 96 + 94 39 113 66 105 97 193 97 146 75 * I09 37 110 39 126 70 156 63 125 52 * 171 51 173 64 152 63 143 39 160 54 * 350 112 352 106 166 94 I56 81 256 98 + 597 277 581 299 296 190 182 160 414 232 * 621 303 642 329 397 267 304 199 491 274 + 512 378 565 399 457 335 394 318 482 358 * 355 368 372 341 489 451 506 514 430 418 371 386 380 457 497 516 459 629 427 497 405 465 ]96 445 524 572 563 711 472 548 , , t , t 455 507 419 556 560 650 463 940 502 561 467 641 531 502 580 699 534 644 557 619 579 788 596 730 542 883 484 772 556 VB1 501 929 495 910 511 799 472 803 537 921 469 685 313 514 366 740 434 603 260 443 311 553 400 510 250 357 390 427 406 431 366 243 505 386 549 392 285 160 353 287 512 271 8842 9151 9474 10302 9779 10102 17993 19776 19881 515 705 487 604 497 677 482 605 523 673 542 650 610 673 586 702 703 647 571 771 278 600 446 810 478 564 489 743 371 452 371 577 325 357 324 466 248 264 324 370 236 228 414 312 198 157 337 219 8588 9117 9170 9667 17705 18837 Avg. Day AM Peaks Volume PM Peaks Volume .0% .0% .0% .0% ,0% 96.4% 94.6% 103.3% t06.5% 106.6% 104.5% 07:00 lh00 07:00 10:00 lh00 11:00 621 465 642 457 524 572 03:00 05:00 02:00 06:00 03:00 05:00 557 929 580 921 596 799 93.6% 94.3% lh00 lh00 07:00 lh00 563 711 491 548 04:00 12:00 03:00 05:00 703 705 586 810 ADTS ITEM NO. 3 AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission Ali Moghadam P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic May 14, 1998 Item 3 Crosswalk Modifications - Rancho California Road at Ynez Road, Raneho California Road at Front Street RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend that the existing pedestrian crosswalks at the intersections of Rancho California Road at Ynez Road, and Rancho California Road at Front Street be modified to improve the capacity at these intersections. BACKGROUND: The City has been and continues to implement various traffic improvement projects within the City boundaries including the major intersections. One (1) of these traffic improvement projects is the Intelligent Traffic Management System (ITMS). The scope of this project includes installation of communication devices between the traffic signals on major arterials and the City Hall. This project also includes coordination of the signal timing for a more efficient intersection operation. As a part of this project, the consultant also recommended several minor improvements, if implemented, could improve the capacity of several intersections and roadway segments. These recommendations include removal of the crosswalk from the west leg of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road, removal of the crosswalk from the east leg of the intersection of Rancho California Road and Front Street and modification of westbound Rancho California Road right-turn only lane at Ynez Road to allow through movement as well as right-turns from that lane. The removal and relocafion of the crosswalks on these intersections will improve the intersection capacity by eliminating the conflict between the pedestrians and the heavier vehicular left-turns. For example, during the a.m. peak hours, left-turn movement from northbound Ynez Road to Rancho California Road (towards the Interstate 15) is much heavier than left-turn from southbound Ynez Road. When a pedestrian crosses on the west leg of fixis intersection, the only allowable movement is the southbound Ynez Road left-turn. Since this left-turn movement during the a.m. peak hours is very light, approximately 30 seconds that is required for pedestrian crossing is expended ineffieientiy. Therefore, it is recommended that the crosswalk on the west leg be eliminated. It should be noted that crosswalk modifications at the intersection of Rancho California Road and Front Street require wheelchair ramp and other modifications and they may be included with the overall intersection improvements. FISCAL IMPACT: None Attachment: 1. Exhibit "A" - Proposed Crosswalk Modifications 2. Exhibit "B" - Consultant Recommendations r:\traf~c\comm~sn~agenda~98\0514\cro~swlk,rcr/ajp EXHIBIT "A' Proposed Crosswalk Modifications ARCO BLACKANGUS Rancho California proposed lane use Proposed Crosswalk Removal EMBASSY SUITES DUCKPOND EXHIBIT "A' Proposed Crosswalk Modifications Rancho California Proposed New ] ~ Crosswalk Proposed Crosswalk Removal CHEVRON Road UNION 76 EXHIBIT "B" CONSULTANT RECOMMENDATIONS ALBERT ROVER GASSOCIATES March 6, 1998 RECEPZED MAR 0 9 1998 C~TY 01: 'i tJ,~EUoLA ENGINEERING DEPARI'MENT Mr. Ali S. Moghadam, P.E. Associate Engineer - CIP/Traffic Department of Public Works City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive - P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Ynez & Rancho California Road Traffic Signal - Proposed Modifications to Improve Operational Efficiency Dear Ali: While developing the coordination timing for Rancho California Road, the intersection with Ynez was identified as a critical intersection operating near capacity and sometimes over capacity. Because of this limited capacity, the intersection requires a cycle length in excess of 155 seconds to satisfy both vehicular and pedestrian demand during the a.m. peak period. Unfortunately, the other signals along Rancho California Road, especially the freeway signals, cannot operate efficiently at such a high cycle length. The problem seems severe; however, after extensive analysis including collecting new traffic counts to confirm the demand, we have identified some cost-effective improvements that will allow this intersection to have more capacity and work effectively with the Rancho California Road signal coordination. These improvements can be implemented immediately prior to any planned widening of Ynez. As you am aware, we tried to use a "pedestrian override" feature to enable this signal to be coordinated within the system. However, the number of pedestrian calls for the north-south crosswalks was frequent enough to cause the operation to fail over 15 % of the time (7-8 calls per hour), resulting in long queues westbound which did not dissipate for several cycles. One solution to this situation would be to eliminate the north-south crosswalk on the west side of the intersection since the associated vehicle time needed is less than the pedestrian crossing time. This is key to improving the operation, and will minimize the need for "pedestrian override". With this configuration, the pedestrians will be TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING ENGINEERS 211 E. Imperial Hwy,, Suite 208, Fullerton, CA 92835 (714) 992-2990 FAX (714) 992-2883 Mr. All S. Moghadam, P.E. March 6, 1998 Page 3 If no physical improvements are made then the intersection can still be coordinated (at a low level of service) by operating it at a 160 second cycle, twice the length of the Rancho California Road system mininaum cycle length of 80 seconds. However, it should be noted that this proposed 160 second cycle, during the a.m. time period, could potentially result in large queues at the intersection. Either or both alternatives can be implemented within a matter of days. If additional details are required, we would be happy to further discuss these recommendations. Respectfully submitted, ALBERT GROVER & ASSOCIATES President & CEO cs/ynezltr.doc Mr. Ali S. Moghadam, P.E. March 6, 1998 Page 2 permitted to use the easterly crosswalk during both the northbound and southbound through movements. This solution will improve the a.m. LOS from "E/F", with an average delay of 53 seconds, to LOS "E" , with an average delay of 41 seconds. Although the City is proposing improvements on the south leg, which would add additional lanes, the intersection would still operate more efficiently with the removal of the crosswalk on the west side. This holds true since the northbound left turn volumes tend to be high requiring higher vehicle split times while the southbound thru volumes remain low requiring much less split times than the corresponding pedestrian crossing times. However, the crosswalk elimination by itself is not sufficient for good consistent operation, because the vehicle demand is very close to capacity and minor demand fluctuations could still result in congestion. The a.m. LOS can be further improved to a "D" . with an average delay of 31 seconds, if the westbound approach is restriped to allow 3 westbound thru lanes. This would eliminate the westbound right turn only lane, which has a relatively low demand of less than 300 vehicles per hour during the peak hours. Three westbound thru lanes along with the soon to be constructed improvements at the 1-15 freeway interchange should allow for efficient traffic flow on the Rancho California Road corridor. The capacity analysis for various scenarios was performed using the CAPSSI program. CAPSSI (Comprehensive Analysis Program for a Single Signalized Intersection) is an interactive simulation and analysis program that provides Level of Service (LOS) determination for individual signalized intersections based on procedures contained in the Highway Capacity Manual. The analysis results are summarized in the following table. The analysis worksheets are attached. Scenario A.M. Peak Hour M.D. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Average Average Average LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay (sec) (sec) (sec) Existing conditions E 53 D 32 D 33 Removing 'west' Crosswalk only E+ 41 C- 22 C- 24 Removing 'west' Crosswalk with three westbound thru lanes D 31 C- 21 C- 24 tom ~r,D 0 0 o c~ c~ ~O 0 (.) co ,.C .a © (J ,.~ © n~ c~ O >~ ,'r' 0 0 0 r~ 0 r~ m ~0r', ©D..1 0 OOD ~0 0 o~ © ooP ~o u rj rj "O"OU ~ 0 O-H © jJ '0 0 (]) D '0 © 0 0 0 O ..~ o m · .MM ~ .... MM moo~mmHo~U mN mM ..... E~ rn 'M mMM .M .M · m MM · · rnMM .... m MM DDco [ou] II ooP rj ~qO 4J D D ,~0 "~'~D ~:~:H ~H 0 D o ,C © © ol ¢) a~ E~ [.~ ~rj ,-I ~ ~0~ 0 C r.j~ 0 0 r.~ r~ N r~r.D II 00:::3 rd ~,--]0 U rj ~:>-, U H,--~r~ 0 ,'O,'~rj ~©,:D 0 rj ~J © U rJ © 0 0 © © 0 © H .n-.O r~F.4 0,'~ 0 ~:~ ~U ~JrJl~ O ~r~ ~Z ~0 ~-~ 0 N m N 0r! N .... OO (Dr"rJ 0 O~ -H ~ O~- N o ~. ©.,~. O-H "0 0 U N 0~ r~ © H ¢) H , ~,~ c~ O~ o D LO .. ~ Z ~ rj U ~ ~Z -H 0 O~ ~0 N c~ u o o c',,t o~ m ~ cn mt--r~ N 0 .u O-H ,~ ~O D r~ n, 0 0 0 r~ 121 0 ¢) laCl H ~r~ ~-~ 0,~ rj ~ 0 ¢)-H · . ~ Z © ~urY~ mo ~ t'-mr.8 ~r'.O 0 '0 l} 0~ OOco ~CO H 0 t~ U '0 © c~ r~ U >, 0 0 0 0 ~r~r", p, lr3 O~ 0 r,. Oco r-/ N o .. c~ ~. ~) rdOD rv0 H D 0 u) m '~ mo ~ O~OmHHHOm~ maom o'-,!~ ooD L) :> :> .~ L) rJ nn r~ rj O 0 "0 0 0 ,.~ I::Cl H rd r,.Dr~ O~ r,.~ Hr. Om ,~:>~ rJm 0 ~. 0 ~:~>~ u~op~ 0 -H rj -H 0 ~>~ cn .~× m © c~ N r6 ,.~ 0 0 © ~0 © © H r~ rd A LB ERT ROVER & G SSOCIATES December 23. 1997 REnEIVED DEC 2 9 1997 CIT'," ";:: i'E!'~ECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Mr. All Moghadam, P.E. Associate Engineer - CIP/Traf~c Department of Public Works City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive, P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Re: Rancho California Road and Front Street - Improvement of Operation Dear Ali: Pursuant to our conversation regarding new timing plans for Rancho Califomia Road, we have conducted additional analyses at certain critical intersections using the City provided new turning movement counts. Based on the analyses, it is concluded that the intersection of Rancho Califomia Road and Front Street would operate efficiently if additional lanes were provided for both the southbound through and westbound left turn approaches. An additional analyses was conducted to evaluate low-cost alternatives to improve intersection operation in the short-term. The low-cost alternative is to remove the east leg crosswalk and provide an overlap for the northbound right tum lane. The removal of the crosswalk will allow for a shorter phase time for the northbound traffic, thereby freeing time for other movements. The southbound left tum, which is a high volume left turn, will benefit the most with this operation. Another benefit of the addition of overlap phasing, working in conjunction with the proposed additional capacity at the freeway interchange, is that the northbound right turn movement is expected to clear every cycle. It should be noted that with the existing traffic volumes and the current signal operation, the intersection operates at a Level of Service of "D" with an average delay of 33 seconds, during the p.m. peak hour. With the recommended short-term improvements in-place, the intersection will operate at a Level of Service of "D+" and an average delay of 28 seconds during the p.m. peak hour. The analyses were conducted using the CAPSSI program. CAPSSI (Comprehensive Analysis Program for a Single Signalized Intersection) is an interactive simulation and analysis program that provides Level of Service determination for individual signalized intersections based on methodology provided in the Highway Capacity Manual. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING ENGINEERS 211 E, Imperial Hwy., Suite 208, Fullerton, CA 92835 (714) 992-2990 FAX (714) 992-2883 Mr. Ali Moghadam, P.E. December 23, 1997 Page 2 A brief description of CAPSSI and Level of Service as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual are included. The capacity analysis worksheets are also provided for your information. Please contact me if you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, ALBERT GROVER & ASSOCIATES C~P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer w4w6-TemFront.doc CAPSSI CAPSSI is an interactive simulation and analysis program that provides for signal thning development, capacity analysis and Level of Service (LOS) determination for individual intersections. CAPSSI is an acronym for "Comprehensive Analysis Erogram for a Single Signalized Intersection." The program is highly user friendly and is a powerful traffic signal planning, design and operations tool. The CAPSSI program determines the L~vel of Service based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. It gives LOS both in Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value as well as delay. The key features of CAPSSI am the following: User Friendly (Menu Oriented) Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection LOS (ICU or Delay) Emission and Energy Analysis Easy Interpretation of Output Data CAPSSI program can be used to obtain three different solutions using optimum cycle time, pre- determined cycle time and required cycle time. Also, a summary output can be obtained with all the solutions. The main INPUT data for CAPSSI are: Turning Movement Counts (Peak Hour) Phasing Sequence Saturation Flow Rate and Number of Lanes Minimum Green Times Required Solution (Choice) Using CAPSSI, it is possible to test various scenarios at the study intersection. That is, CAPSSI can be run several times at the study intersection to test the impact of various scenarios. This is useful for traffic impact analysis for both before and after conditions. Also, CAPSSI can be used in street/intersection improvements evaluation. CAPSSI is very useful for persons familiar with signal operations who can start using the program immediately. The OUTPUT features of CAPSSI are: The program has the capability to optimize the green splits at the intersection using HCM methodology. Calculates delay for each lane group and objectively evaluates the LOS per HCM. CAPSSI provides the percentage of vehicles stopping, calculates average queue length, and calculates fuel consumption and pollution emission per hour at the study intersection based on certain input dam. CAPSSI allows the user to optimize splits while satisfying all minimum green times, including pedeslrian crossing times. CAPSSI optimizes traffic signal settings and/or measuring the impact at a single signalized intersection. Delay Methodology For Capacity Analysis and Level of Service The basic delay methodology for capacity analysis is to collect field data on the actual traffic flow characteristics and then analyze that data to determine the Level of Service. This procedure is in accordance with the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)1 and considers a variety of prevailing conditions, including the amount and distribution of traffic movements, traffic composition, maximum possible flow rate (saturation flow), geometries and the intersection signal timing. Level of Service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. According to the HCM, "Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time." The delay is stated as the average stopped delay per vehicle for a peak one hour analysis period. The seconds of delay axe related to a letter grade for ease of communication. The Level of Service methodology incorporates a modification of the delay formula original!y developed by F.V. Webster and the critical lane method of Interim Materials on Highway Capacity (Transportation Research Circular No. 212). The relationship between delay and the Level of Service is as follows: Level of Service Veh. Delay (Seconds) A (minimal delay) 0.0 5.0 B (short delay) 5.1 15.0 C (average delay) 15.1 25.0 D (long delay) 25.1 40.0 E (very long delay) 40.1 60.0 F (extreme delay or jammed) 60.1 These Levels of Service are defined in the 1994 HCM as follows: Level of Service "A" - describes operations with very low delay, i.e., 5.0 seconds or less per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. Level of Service "B" - describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for Level of Service "A", causing higher levels of average delay. Level of Service "C" - describes operations with delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass thorough the intersection without stopping. i "Chapter 9, Signalized Intersections," Highway Capacity Manual, Special Repon 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1994. Level of Service "D" - describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. At Level "D", the influence of congestion becomes morn noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths or high volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. Many vehicles stop and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Level of Service "E" - describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Level of Service "F" - describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. Generally, Level of Service "D" is considered acceptable for limited duration peak periods in urban areas. Level of Service "E" is common during peak commute hours, especially at intersections at or near freeway ramps. The equation for calculating delay is very complex and is fully explained in the HCM. Due to the complexity, it will not be further discussed in this report; however, the most important variable in the equation will be briefly discussed. That variable is relative saturation CX") defined by the following simple equation: where, X -' (q * C)/(g * S) X = Relative Saturation q = Traffic Flow (vph) C = Cycle Length (see) g = Effective Green (see) S -- Saturation Flow (vph) Essentially, this equation defines the volume/capacity ratio adjusted for the amount of green time a given movement receives. The key to this relationship is that when "X" becomes larger than approximately 0.85, vehicle delay begins to increase "exponentially" (i.e. very rapidly). For reference purposes, Relative Saturation CX") is equivalent to Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). w4w/Sldapp-a.doc Z o Hm~3 O~ U r~ 0 r,. ~r~ E~ 0 0 ~8 0 r~ r~ 0 U 0 m .:~ oa~mO o omO .... OU P~r,'.u 0 OOD U :> :> ~0 rj U rj r~r', ,~:>0 '~'~U 4J,u~ 0 © © >~ ~a rj ...U 0 0 0 >~ r~ © 0 C) rJ O~ r,,~ r. aH H r~t'q ,m rJm ~,-q ~. O~ rj 0 H rj r,.) n~ .~IH ~0~ .~ n-' ~,~ 0 O r.Q O CI ,,v O r,.J 0 O (/~(f~ II 0 o o 4J t~ '0 .u © ~) 0 0 0 0 r~ m ITEM NO. 4 TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Activity Report March 1998 Submitted by: Joseph Kicak Prepared by: Scott Harvey Date: April 16, 1998 I. WORK UNDER CONSTRUCTION: 1.1-15/Winchester Road Interchange Modifications: All work has been completed except tbr plant establishment. Plant establishment work will continue for approximately one year. 2. 1-15/!~ancho California Road Interchange Modifications: The construction includes widening the south side of the bridge over the freeway, adding a new lane on the south side of Raneho California Road from Front Street to the west side of the bridge and from the east side of the bridge to Ynez Road, providing a new loop entrance ramp to northbound 1-15, and relocation of the existing northbound exit ramp. The soil settlement period for the bridge abutments has ended and the contractor will be driving bridge piles for the next two weeks. The retaining wall on the south side of Rancho California Road adjacent to Kentucky Fried Chicken will be under construction for the next two months. The contractor will be installing additional electrical conduits as part of the traffic signal reloeation during the next two weeks. Please note that traffic will be allowed through the work area during construction. The estimated time for construction and landscape maintenance is 16 and 12 months, respectively. 3. City Wide Intelligent Traffic Management System (ITMS): The installation of both field and office equipment has been completed and the consultants are currently in the process of testing and finalizing the system's operation. 4. ADA Improvement Project: This improvement project includes sidewalk access ramps, new playground equipment, and rubberized surfacing around existing play equipment for access by wheel chairs at Veterans Park, John Magee Park, and Calle Aragon Park as well as ADA improvements to Rancho Vista fields at the Rancho California Sports Park. Installation of the play structures is nearly complete. A completion date is anticipated to be in early May 1998. 5. Marg~rita Community Park - Phase h The project improvements include restrooms, parking areas, picnic areas, play equipment, tennis courts, a roller hockey rink, hallfields, lighting, picnic shelters, sidewalLs, landscaping with open turf areas as well as widening Margarita Road adjacent to the park to its ultimate width. Due to the rains, the grading is anticipated to begin on April 20. The project is estimated to be completed in October 1998. 6. Winchester Creek Park: The project consists of a 4.5 acre neighborhood park with various improvements including restrooms, basketball courts, volleyball courts, play equipment, polygon shelters with picnic tables, concrete walkways, and a parking lot. Due to the rains, the grading is anticipated to begin on April 20. The project is estimated to be completed in September 1998. 7. Cosmic Drive and Agena Street - Street Sidewalk Project #6: A preconstruclion meeting is scheduled for April 16. The project consists of the installation of sidewalks on the west side of Cosmic Drive between Rancho California Road and Agena Street and south side of Agena Street between Santa Cecilia Drive and Cosmic Drive. Construction is anticipated to begin in late April 1998 with an estimated completion date of June 1998. II. BID: 1. Traffic Silmal at Pauba Road and Fire Station 84 On March 17, the City Council awarded the project. A preconstruction meeting will be scheduled, as soon as purchase order is issued. The anticipated completion date is August 1998. 2. Traffic Signal at Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway On March 17, the City Council also awarded this project. A preconstruction meeting will be scheduled, as soon as purchase order is issued. An anticipated completion date is September 1998. 3. Traffic Signal at Pala Road and Rainbow Canyon Road On March 31, 1998, the City Council awarded a construction contract for this project. The contract documents have been executed and a purchase order has been requested. Once the purchase order is issued, a preconstruction meeting will be scheduled. 4. Traffic Sil~al at Margllrita Road and Santiago Road The plans and specifications tier inslallation of a traffic signal at this intersection have been completed and the project has been advertised for solicitation of bids. The bid opening is scheduled for April 16, 1998. The anticipated completion date is October 1998. 5. CRC Gymnasium Air Conditioning System: Since the opening of the Temecula Community Recreation Center gymnasium the facility has operated without an air conditioning or cooling system. This project will provide for the installation of an air conditioning and temperature control system for the CRC Gymnasium. The construction contract was awarded at the April 14 Council meeting. There will be a 9 week delivery time for the air conditioning units. The units will be installed and all work will be completed by late July 1998. III. WORK IN DESIGN: 1.1-15/Overland Drive Over Crossing Improvements: The roadway plans have been submitted and signed by Caltrans (District 8). The structural plans have already been approved and signed by Caltrans, Division of Structures. SCE is also working on the design for the relocation of the existing 115, 33, & 12 KVA overhead power lines. These lines are scheduled to be reloeated concurrendy with the construction of the proposed Overland Drive Over Crossing Improvements. The transmission and distribution sections of SCE have ~nalized their alignment. The City is in the process of acquiring right of way, utility easements and temporary construction easements necessary for the project. Construction is anticipated to begin in June 1998 with an estimated completion date of October 1999. 2. FY96-97 Pavement Management System: The consnilant is expected to submit a plan check to the City by the end of April. Staff expects to return the plan check within two weeks after the submittal date. This project will provide street rehabilitation of Jefferson Avenue from the northerly city limits to Rancho California Road. This project will also include the installation of street lighting along the entire length of the project, Construction is anticipated to begin in July 1998 with an estimated completion date of December 1998. 3. Pavement Management System Up-Date: The consultant has completed the public parking facilities' report and has submitted the P.M.S. Up-Date reports for City's review. This project will review and update the existing Pavement Management System computer program which will include new sweets which were added to the City 's maintained system, preparing a new 5-year street maintenance program. Submittal to City Council for review and approval is anticipated for May 1998. 4. Winchester Road & Ynez Road Street Widening: The consultant returned the construction plans for second check to Caltrans on April 2. The scope of work includes the street widening improvements on the south side of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and Margarita Road, and the improvements on the east side of Ynez Road between Winchester Road and Overland Drive. Construction is anticipated to begin in July 1998 with an estimated completion date of March 1999. R:\MOACTRPT\CIP%gB~APR.MAR seh 5. Overlnnd Drive Street Improvements & Marg,qrita Road Street Widening: The consultent reterned the construction plans for second check to the City and Riverside County Flood Control on April 3. The proposed improvements will be on Overland Drive between Ynez Road and Margarita Road and on Margarita Road from Overland Drive to Winchester Road. Construction is anticipated to begin in June 1998 with an estimated completion date of March 1999. 6. Flashing Beacons at Various Locations: The plans and specificafiom have been signed and staff will be requesting City Council 's authorization to solicit public construction bids at the April 28 meeting. This project consists of installing flashing beacons that warn of children in the immediate area at 8 different school sites throughout the City. Construction is anticipated te begin in June 1998 with an estimated completion date of September 1998. 7. Mar2arita Road Sidewalk (Rancho Vista to Paubal: The consultant is presenfiy revising the plans in response to staff's second plan check comments. The improvements will include the installation of concrete curbs, gutter, and sidewalk along the west side of Margarita Road between Rancho Vista Road and Pauba Road. The sidewalk will improve access to the Rancho California Sports Park. Also, as part of the design, additive alternate improvements will include ADA ramp access from Margarita Road te the adjacent ballfields along with an expanded parking area. The project is anticipated to bid in May. Construction is anticipated to begin in July 1998 with an estimated completion date of October 1998. 8. 1-15/Winchester Southbound Off-ramp Wideninl/: The consultant has submitted the first plan check to the City and Caltrans. The project will provide an additional turning lane from the southbound off-ramp onto Winchester Road. This project will also require a retaining wall between the southbound off-ramp and the southbound loop on-ramp due to the existing grades in the area of the ramp widening. The consultant is expecting the first plan check to be returned by Caltrans in late-March. Construction is anticipated to begin in September 1998 with an estimated completion date of March 1999. 9. Winchester Road Median Islands: The consultant submitted third plan check to the City April 8. This project includes installation of median islands with landscaping and irrigation along Winchester Road between Enterprise Circle West and Jefferson Avenue along with the installation of a traffic signal at Enterprise Circle West. Also, the existing median island at Jefferson Avenue will be modified to provide for a longer left turn pocket for east bound traffic. Construction is anticipated to begin in June 1998 with an estimated completion date of February 1999. R:~MOACTRpT\CIP%gB',APR.MAR seh 10. Pala Road Bridge: A Consultant is in the process of preparing the preliminary documentation required by Caltrans to receive HBRR Funds as well as performing utility research and design surveys. This project will include the realignment of Pala Road from Highway 79 South to Rainbow Canyon Road, which will require that a new bridge be constructed, two new traffic signals to be installed, the removal of two (2) traffic signals, the installation of sound walls, sidewalks, landscaping, irrigation, street lighting, bike lanes, signing, striping, channel improvements, and provisions for Wetland Mitigation. Construction is anticipated bo begin in October 1998 with an estimated completion date of December 1999. 11. Winchester Sidewalk: The City has returned the first plan check back to the consultant on March 3. The consultant expects to return the plans by the end of April. This project consists of the installation of sidewalks on the west side of Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Winchester Creek Avenue. Construction is anticipated to begin in July 1998 with an estimated completion date of November 1998. 12. Temecula Duck Pond Park: The Temecula Duck Pond Park Project will include both park and offsite street improvements. Park improvements will include a gazebo/bandstand, picnic facilities, a restroom, walkways, a parking lot, security lighting, monumentalion, landscaping and irrigation. The street improvements will consist of the widening of Ynez Road to full width between Rancho California Road and Tierra Vista Road and will include new sidewalks along with additional turn lanes, traffic signal modifications at Ynez Road and Rancho California Road, a new traffic signal at Ynez Road and Tierra Vista Road, and pavement re-striping to improve traffic circulation. Second plan check comments were returned to the consultant for revisions on April 7. Construction is anticipated to begin in July 1998 with an estimated completion date of December 1998. 13. Traffic Signals: Currently there are two new traffic signals under design. The two intersections include Solana Way at Margarita Road, and Rancho California Road at Via Los Coilass. Construction is anticipated to begin in October 1998 with an estimated completion date of February 1999. R:\MOACTRPT\CIP\gO',APR.MAR ~eh LAND DEVELOPMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT SPECIAL PROJECTS MARCH 1998 Submitted by: Joseph Kicak Prepared by: Ronald J. Parks Date: April 21, 1998 1. PW95-07 - Phase I Western Bypass Corridor: According to Riverside County representative for the Interstate 15/State Route 79 South (I-15/SR79S) interchange improvements including Front Street realignment and its intersection with Western Bypass Corridor, a pre-construction meeting was held and the Notice to Proceed was issued. 2. PW95-08 - First Street Extension: The design engineer was directed to phase the construction of the First Street Extension Project into two phases. First phase is to include the extension of First Street from Front Street to Pujol Street including the bridge over Murrieta Creek and the section from Pujol Street westerly to Western Bypass Corridor in the second phase. Pursuant to the direction, the design engineer submitted to the City a contract amendment to revise the plans to indicate the construction phasing accordingly. The contract amendment is being reviewed. Upon finalizing the design criteria with Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District on drainage issues, the design engineer will resume the project. 3. PW95-26 - 6th Street Parking PrOject: The contractor's bonding company has payed off most of the sub-contractors and suppliers and most of the stop notices from said parties have been released. Once all of the stop notices have been released and the Contractor submits the affidavit and maintenance bond, the notice of completion will be filed. PW96-05 - PrOject Study Report IPSR) And PrOject Report (PR) For Ultimate Interchange Improvements at Interstate 15/State Route 79 South 11-15/SR79S): The PSR analysis will resume once the update on the Circulation Element of the General Plan is finaled. 5. General Plan Circulation Element Update: The consultant has been selected. A committee comprised of Cities of Temecula and Murrieta representatives has been formed to provide direction for the update process. 6. The Regional Mall PrOject: The design of the perimeter infrastructure improvements are in progress. The consultants are in the process of revising the plans per the plan check comments. 7. PW97-05 - The Old Town Streetscape PrOject: The design of the project was finalized and the project was advertized for bid on April 15, 1998, The bid opening is scheduled for May 21, 1998. MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Joseph Kicak, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent April 1, 1998 Monthly Activity Report - March, 1998 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in- house personnel for the month of March, 1998: I. SIGNS A. Total signs replaced 34 B. Total signs installed 7 C. Total signs repaired 0 II. TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns 6 III. POTHOLES A. Total square feet of A.C. repairs B. Total Tons 8.087 49 IV. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned 150 RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement 59.975 VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations B. Total S.F. 13 1.398 VII. STENCILING A. 46 B. 2.9~0 New and repainted legends L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping R:\MAINTAIN\MOACTRPT\98\MARCH.RPT Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 47 service order requests ranging from weed abatemere, tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to $6 service order requests for the month of March. 1998. The Maimenance Crew has also put in 57 hours of overtime which includes standby time, special evems and response to street emergencies. The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of March. 1998 was $ 38.355.47 compared to $ 64,012.50 for the month of February, 1998.. Account No. 5402 Accoum No. 5401 Account No. 999-5402 $ 27,877.47 $ 10,478.00 $ -0- CO: Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Workst Ali Mogbadam, Senior Engineer - (CIP/Traffic) R:\MAtNTAIN%MOACTRPT\gB\MARCH ,RPT U U/ ~ 0 I- 0 ITEM NO. 5 POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT ~444 · Fax (909] 694~1999 FROM: DATE: RE: City Council Public/Traffic Safety Commission Ronald Bradley, City Manager April15,1998 POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT FOR March, 1998 The following report reflects Part One crimes, traffic enforcement and miscellaneous activity occuning during March of 1998. Part One crime statistics are displayed by district within the City, providing stable parameters for monitoring criminal activity, and aiding in planning police resource deployment. The Police Department issued 856 traffic citations last month, which compares with 411 issued in March of 1997. The number of injury accidents increased while the number of non-injury accidents decreased this month as compared to March of 1997. However, the total number of traffic accidents was down nearly fifty percent for the month. Temecula experienced no fatal traffic collisions in March. Arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol increased significantly from March of 1997. Robberies increased somewhat while felony assaults increased significantly compared to one year ago. Reported burglaries, grand thefts and auto thefts each increased just slightly compared to March 1997. Arrests made during the month decreased from the previous year's figure. The Police Department responded to forty-four "priority one" calls for service during the month of March, with an average response time of approximately 5.7 minutes. A total of 2,671 calls for police service were generated in the City of Temecula during the month. During the month of March, the Temecula Police Department's storefront served a total of 275 people. The number of citizens utilizing this facility continues to remain steady. Seventy-eight people were fingerprinted, ten people made police reports, twenty-seven people had citations signed off and four solicitor's permits were issued. POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY March, 1998 Crime Prevention Officer Lynn Fanene participated in two special projects this month including three tom of the station facility by scout troops and school students and the semi-annual McGruff Truck training with the school district. Officer Fanene also wrote an article titled "Door to Door Gypster" for the Valley Business Journal. The POP Team of Officers Jeff Kubel and Steve Mike completed one TAG (Temecula Against Graffiti) program focusing on problem sites however, no arrests were made. Voltmteers from the community continue to be an integral part of the Temecula Police Department's staff. Under the guidance of volunteer coordinator Ed Bekas, the Police Department's volunteer staff contributed 604 hours of service in March. Another valuable volunteer resoume available to the police department is provided by the reserve officer program and mounted posse. The police department utilizes reserve officers to assist with patrol, traffic enforcement, crime prevention and a variety of special functions. Reserve police officers worked a total of 194.5 hours during the month. The posse contributed a total of 64 hours during the month on various special functions. Temecula Police Department Monthly Statistics March 1998 Prepared: April 1998 Statistical Information Map of Districts ......................................................................... March 1998 Crime and Activity Totals ............................................. Pane 1 2 Graphs Part 1 Property Crimes ............................................................... Part 1 Persons Crimes .............................................................. Activity Breakdown by District ..................................................... Burglaries by District ................................................................. Burglary Comparison ................................................................ Arrest Statistics ........................................................................ Miscellaneous Activity ............................................................... Traffic Violations ....................................................................... Traffic Collisions ...................................................................... Narcotic Activity ....................................................................... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 City of Temeeula Reporting Distrim i CRIME A HOMICIDE 0 RAPE 0 ROBBERY 0 FELONY ASSAULT 0 TOTAL PERSONS I 01 BURGLARY 4 GRAND THEFT 2 AUTO THEFT 0 ARSON 0 TOTAL PROPERTY | 6I GRAND TOTAL 6 HAZARD CITES 47 NON-HAZARD CITES 10 PARKING CITES 7 TOTAL CITES I 64 I DIST. PEACE 9 SHOPLIFT 0 PETTY THEFT 11 VANDALISM 2 MISD. ASSAULT 3 ALARMS 11 PUBLIC INTOX. 0 DUI 2 B C D E F G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 21 21 ol 11 21 2l 0 0 0 6 5 2 3 0 3 1 2 1 I 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 ol 41 8i 91 31 6 2 4 9 11 5 36 19 8 64 102 67 1 0 3 7 14 7 1 1 3 9 43 13 381 201 141 801 1091 9 7 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 1 0 4 5 1 2 7 4 0 2 3 3 1 0 3 0 5 16 4 60 0 51 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 H I SUB-TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 9 21 11 12 4 0 21 3 0 15 I 0 6 0 0 0 81 01 42 10 I 54 26 14 383 4 2 48 17 4 98 471 2ol 529 ~ ~ 52 1 0 5 5 2 34 1 ~ 1 32 2 0 17 9 5 156 0 0 3 1 0 11 TIC INJURY 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 TIC NON-INJURY 24 FATAL TIC 0 TOTALT/C I 31 31 41 4J 31 81 31 31 21 33 RESID. BURGLARY 4 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 0 11 COMM. BURGLARY 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 10 OTHER BURGLARY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VEHICLEBURGLARY 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 MISD. ARRESTS FELONY ARRESTS TOTAL ARRESTS I sl 21 41 oi 71 s. sl s-ol sl ol 48 TOTALACTIV/TY I:tZZl 031 461 861 sosl 2461 1201 971 321 926 Page 2 Te mee u!la: i mle':- S a!l}isti;s! CRTHE 3 HOMICIDE 0 RAPE 0 ROBBERY 0 FELONY ASSAULT 3 TOTAL PERSONS I 31 BURGLARY 4 GRAND THEFT 3 AUTO THEFT 3 ARSON 0 TOTAL PROPERTY I 10l GRAND TOTAL 13 HAZARD CITES 37 NON-HAZARD CITES 6 PARKING CITES 33 TOTAL CZTES I 76 I DIST. PEACE 15 SHOPLIFT 0 PETTY THEFT 4 VANDALISM 3 MISD. ASSAULT 7 ALARMS 37 PUBLIC INTOX. 26 DUI 3 TOTAL TIC INJURY TIC NON-INJURY FATAL TIC TOTAL T/C RESID. BURGLARY COMM. BURGLARY OTHER BURGLARY VEHICLE BURGLARY Mbnth: of ;March ~998, K L M N 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 0 0 31 21 11 21 ol ol 6 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 11 ol 41 ol 31 13 3 I 6 0 3 43 16 25 4 6 32 5 1 1 1 0 2 17 17 4 13 1 4 651 341 301 181 71 381 31 5 0 4 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 7 1 2 9 2 1 3 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 20 13 8 12 2 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 1 3 0 1 I 2 1 1 1 I 11 21 21 1l 21 FELONY ARRESTS TOTAL ARRESTS I 4ol Q SUB-TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 11 zl 121 0 12 2 11 1 8 0 0 31 311 4 43 44 207 5 21 10 99 591 3271 14 81 2 2 0 18 2 21 1 17 10 109 0 30 2 21 TOTAL ACTIVITY 1 6 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 I 0 0 0 41 221 311 2991 11 91 ol 181 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 TOTAL 0 1 3 20 24 33 26 14 0 73 97 590 69 197 856 133 7 52 53 34 265 33 32 609 19 32 0 51 19 12 2 5 131 21 11 41 ol 21 31 6Sl 113 I zssl 1631 631 431 ssl 121 721 941 6871 1613 Page 3 c c 0 O~ 0 :~ v 0 I"-- · [] o z 0 0 0 0 E :Z 0 [] · 00 ~0 ~' rY) 0 0 0 U~ 0 ITEM NO. 6 FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT ITEM NO. 7 COMMISSION REPORTS