Commerce City Council
January 16, 2024

Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 1 of 17

TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE WARRANTS ANALYSIS

FOR THE INTERSECTION OF

EASTERN AVENUE AND JILLSON STREET
IN THE

CITY OF COMMERCE, CA

INTRODUCTION
The City of Commerce requested Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. to complete a Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis for the intersection of Eastern Avenue and Jillson Street. This analysis was completed in order to verify if a traffic signal or multiway stop sign installation is justified and recommended based on meeting standard guidelines.

The location is a 4-way intersection with Eastern Avenue running in the north-south directions and Jillson Street intersecting in the east-west directions. The intersection is located along the minor arterial roadway of Eastern Avenue, south of the I-5 Freeway, and just north of Washington Boulevard (see Location Map below). The intersection lies in the central area of the City of Commerce, entirely within City jurisdiction. At the present time, the intersection has a 2-way Stop sign installation controlling the Jillson Street approaches, while Eastern Avenue is uncontrolled.

Intersection of
Eastern Avenue
&
Jillson Street N
NTS
Location Map
City of Commerce
Los Angeles County
Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis – Eastern Avenue at Jillson Street, in the City of Commerce, CA Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 2 of 17

BACKGROUND
Eastern Avenue is a north-south local collector roadway primarily with industrial and commercial properties on both sides of the street. At the intersection with Jillson Street, the roadway is approximately 84 feet wide curb-to-curb. The 2-lane roadway provides for one lane of traffic in each direction, which are separated by double-double-yellow centerline median striping, as well as a short, narrow median north of Jillson Street. There are also left-turn and right-turn lanes on each approach, as well as buffered bicycle lane striping on both sides of the roadway. The roadway does have curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements on both sides.

Eastern Avenue has a posted speed limit of 40 MPH. Near the intersection with Jillson Street, on-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the street via red curb and/or No Stopping Any Time signage. Currently, there are no STOP signs on Eastern Avenue (i.e., uncontrolled) at its intersection with Jillson Street.

See Exhibit 1 (next page) for photo images of Eastern Avenue.

Jillson Street is an east-west local roadway with primarily industrial properties on both sides of the street. At the 4-way intersection with Eastern Avenue, the roadway is approximately 40 feet wide. The 2-lane roadway provides for one lane of traffic in each direction, which are not separated by any striping. The roadway does have curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements on both sides. Jillson Street does not have a posted speed limit; however, the residential nature of this street results in a local ‘prima facie’ speed limit of 25 MPH and does not require posting.

On-street parking is primarily allowed on both sides, with certain segments prohibited via red curb and various signage. There is a STOP sign, a white ‘STOP’ pavement marking, and a limit line on each approach of Jillson Street at its intersection with Eastern Avenue.

See Exhibit 2 (following page) for photo images of Jillson Street.

Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis – Eastern Avenue at Jillson Street, in the City of Commerce, CA Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 3 of 17
EXHIBIT 1
EASTERN AVENUE (Looking Northbound) at JILLSON STREET
EASTERN AVENUE (Looking Southbound) at JILLSON STREET
Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis – Eastern Avenue at Jillson Street, in the City of Commerce, CA Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 4 of 17
EXHIBIT 2
JILLSON STREET (Looking Eastbound) at EASTERN AVENUE
JILLSON STREET (Looking Westbound) at EASTERN AVENUE
Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis – Eastern Avenue at Jillson Street, in the City of Commerce, CA Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 5 of 17

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS
As is common practice with many municipal agencies, the City of Commerce has an adopted practice for using State guidelines as reference standards in order to provide uniformity and consistency in terms of traffic control. Therefore, the prevailing source that addresses these topics was used for this analysis, which is the State of California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (California MUTCD). The California MUTCD contains minimum guidelines regarding traffic volumes, collisions, speeds, visibility, and other criteria in order to satisfy the requirements, in this case, for the recommendation and installation of a traffic signal or multiway stop. HCI will begin with a traffic signal analysis, followed by the multiway stop analysis. The traffic signal guidelines in Chapter 4C. Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies of the California MUTCD are included in Appendix A.

As stated in these California MUTCD guidelines, as well as noted below, signalization should be considered when the following Standard is met:
“An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether the installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location. The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants and other factors related to existing operation and safety at the study location:

Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume. Warrant 5, School Crossing.

Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume. Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System.

Warrant 3, Peak Hour. Warrant 7, Crash Experience.

Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume. Warrant 8, Roadway Network Warrant 9, Inters. Near a Grade Crossing
In other words, in order to justify and recommend the installation of traffic control signals, as shown above there are nine (9) California MUTCD Traffic Signal Warrants that should be analyzed. If any one, or a combination, of these warrants is met then a traffic signal should be considered. Yet, as also stated in the California MUTCD: “The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.” Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis – Eastern Avenue at Jillson Street, in the City of Commerce, CA Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 6 of 17
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS (continued)
Traffic volume data and collision history provide a good overall picture of intersection characteristics; hence, these are the conditions first reviewed by HCI in completing traffic signal warrant analyses. Accordingly, the following analysis has focused on volume and collision data to determine if a traffic signal is warranted at the intersection of Eastern Avenue and Jillson Street. However, all applicable traffic signal warrants and other factors such as restricted sight distance were included. It should be noted, if the warrant criteria in these guidelines are not met, the installation of an un-warranted traffic signal is typically not recommended.

Traffic Volumes
HCI collected Average Daily Traffic (ADT) vehicular approach counts to the intersection on Wednesday, August 23, 2023 in order to account for vehicles that typically use this 4-way intersection. The ADT bi-directional count for Eastern Avenue is 12,830 vehicles per day with the highest AM peak-hour bi-directional volume having 841 vehicles, and 1,044 vehicles in the PM peak-hour. The ADT directional approach count for Jillson Street is 1,874 vehicles with the highest AM peak-hour bi-directional volume having 165 vehicles, and 160 vehicles in the PM peak-hour. Table 1 (below) provides a breakdown of the approach volumes.

TABLE 1
24-HOUR INTERSECTION APPROACH VEHICLE COUNTS

AND HIGHEST HOURLY VOLUMES
Street Direction ADT Volume Directional Split Highest Hourly Volume Eastern Avenue
Northbound 5,331 42% 468 (4 – 5 PM)
Southbound 7,499 58% 589 (5 – 6 PM)
Jillson Street
Eastbound 916 49% 86 (12 – 1 PM)
Westbound 958 51% 85 (7 – 8 AM)
The traffic volume data collected for this intersection is included in Appendix B.

Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis – Eastern Avenue at Jillson Street, in the City of Commerce, CA Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 7 of 17
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS (continued)
HCI also collected 4-Hour Peak-Hour Turning Movement Counts for the intersection, including pedestrians and bicycles, on Wednesday, August 23, 2023, and incorporated in the Appendix. Eastern Avenue is considered the ‘through’ or ‘major’ street at this industrial/commercial 4-way intersection, since it carries higher volumes from both approaches, and drivers are not required to slow down, or even stop, before proceeding straight through the intersection. In comparison, Jillson Street is considered the ‘minor’ street as drivers on Jillson Street are required to stop at Eastern Avenue and look both ways before proceeding to make a left-turn, right-turn, or proceed straight.

It is typically expected that the traffic volumes on the minor street are significantly less than those on the major street. As can be seen from the table above, this is the case, as Jillson Street carries approximately 13% of the entire traffic entering the intersection (Eastern Avenue carries 87% of entering traffic).

A part of the California MUTCD guideline criteria also calls for a reduction in the required minimum volumes when the critical approach speed (or 85th-percentile speed) on the major street exceeds 40 MPH. If this is the case, the minimum vehicular volumes to be met for a multiway stop sign installation are reduced to 70%. As the posted speed limit is 40 MPH and generally the 85th percentile speed is higher than the posted speed limit, the 70% minimum volumes are considered applicable for this analysis. All traffic count and speed data gathered for this intersection were applied to the Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheets for the Traffic Volume Warrants #1, #2, and #3. The existing intersection traffic volume data did meet the minimum traffic volumes required for Warrants #1b, 2, and 3.

Consequently, the first three warrants are satisfied for signalization.

Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis – Eastern Avenue at Jillson Street, in the City of Commerce, CA Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 8 of 17
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS (continued)
Collision History
The guidelines for traffic signalization contained in the California MUTCD regarding collisions, or crashes, require a minimum of five (5) reported crashes occurring in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a traffic signal in order to satisfy this warrant. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn type collisions, as well as Broadside, Head-on, and Pedestrian- Vehicle collisions. Other types of collisions categorized as ‘Sideswipe’, ‘Rear-End’, and ‘Hit Object’ are generally not considered correctible, unless otherwise indicated. The latest available intersection collision history data was gathered by HCI from the State of California Highway Patrol (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System website (i-SWITRS), which is where local jurisdictions report their collisions. A 5-year traffic collision history summary report was prepared from this data (see Appendix C attached). Table 2 (below) provides the most recent collision summary occurring at or near this intersection.

TABLE 2

SWITRS COLLISION SUMMARY
Notes: Information above is derived per the latest 5-year intersection traffic collision database file gathered from CHP-SWITRS (i-SWITRS website).
1) Type of Coll. = Type of Collision (i.e., broadside, rear-end, etc.) 2) Correctible? = Yes / No
Intersection
2018 2019 2020-21 2022 – Sep. 2023
Date Type of Coll. /
Correctible? Date Type of Coll. /Correctible? Date Type of Coll. /Correctible? Date Type of Coll. /Correctible? Eastern
Avenue
at
Jillson
Street
02/23 Broadside / Yes 03/28 Sideswipe / No 03/05/20 Broadside / Yes 05/01/22 Head On / Yes 03/01 Sideswipe / No 06/11 Broadside / Yes 06/22/20 Broadside / Yes 03/29 Broadside / Yes 07/24 Broadside / Yes 09/21/20 - 01/10/23 Sideswipe / No 05/23 Broadside / Yes 08/07 Broadside / Yes 03/07/23 Sideswipe / No 07/23 Broadside / Yes 09/23 Rear-End / No 11/09/21 Broadside / Yes 03/22/23 Broadside / Yes 07/29 Not Suffic. Data 11/30/21 Hit-Object / No 04/21/23 Broadside / Yes 09/18 Broadside / Yes 05/18/23 Sideswipe / No
11/16 Broadside / Yes 06/29/23 Broadside / Yes
06/30/23 Broadside / Yes
Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis – Eastern Avenue at Jillson Street, in the City of Commerce, CA Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 9 of 17
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS (continued)
Collision History (continued)
As shown above, there have been six (6) correctible reported collisions, in one year (2018), at or near this intersection over the past (5) years of available collision data. Since the collision warrant requires a minimum of (5) reported collisions susceptible to correction by a traffic signal to occur within a 12-month period, the collision warrant is considered satisfied. It should be noted that a majority of the collisions involved an eastbound or westbound vehicle on Jillson Street colliding with a northbound or southbound vehicle on Eastern Street.

Visibility
Impaired visibility, or restricted sight distance, due to the geometry of the intersection and possible obstructions was carefully considered during our field-review of the surrounding industrial/commercial environment. The geometry of the intersection includes an angle that is slightly off of a 90° angle. In addition, Eastern Avenue has a consistent, very gradual incline in the northbound direction. Jillson Street is primarily flat as it intersects with Eastern Avenue. A driver’s sight distance was measured from the side-street approaches to the intersection, as eastbound and westbound traffic on Jillson Street is required to stop, and look both ways, before proceeding to make a left-turn, right-turn onto Eastern Avenue, or proceed straight. The measured distance was derived from the stopping sight distance guidelines found in the California MUTCD (see Appendix D). In this reference, a 40 MPH roadway speed recommends a minimum Stopping Sight Distance of 305 feet. However, the 85th percentile speeds typically exceed the posted speed limit. Therefore, a 45 MPH speed limit was used as a more conservative measure, which has a minimum sight distance of 360 feet. This distance was used looking towards approaching, uncontrolled traffic along Eastern Avenue. More specifically, this stopping sight distance was field-measured from a typical ‘stopped’ vehicle location on Jillson Street at the intersection looking towards the oncoming lanes of cross-traffic on Eastern Avenue. An orange cone was placed at this distance and a photograph was taken from a stopped driver’s perspective (i.e, approximately 3.5 feet in height).
(See sight distance photos in Exhibits 3 - 4 on the following pages).

Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis – Eastern Avenue at Jillson Street, in the City of Commerce, CA Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 10 of 17
EXHIBIT 3
East Side JILLSON STREET (Looking Northerly) @ EASTERN AVENUE 360 foot sight distance
360 foot sight distance
East Side JILLSON STREET (Looking Southerly) @ EASTERN AVENUE Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis – Eastern Avenue at Jillson Street, in the City of Commerce, CA Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 11 of 17
EXHIBIT 4
West Side JILLSON STREET (Looking Northerly) @ EASTERN AVENUE 360 foot sight distance
360 foot sight distance
West Side JILLSON STREET (Looking Southerly) @ EASTERN AVENUE Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis – Eastern Avenue at Jillson Street, in the City of Commerce, CA Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 12 of 17
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS (continued)
Visibility (continued)
As Exhibits 3 - 4 show, when looking from Jillson Street, a stopped driver does have a clear line of sight of at least 360 feet looking both ways onto Eastern Avenue.

Other Considerations
As noted in the California MUTCD, “The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.” An example of where it may not be appropriate to install a traffic signal is if the traffic signal is too close to another traffic signal such that it may result in additional congestion. In these cases, it would be appropriate to identify other measures and apply engineering judgment to determine the most appropriate measure to implement.

As a rule of thumb, the recommended minimum spacing between traffic signals is 600 feet, which greatly reduces the likelihood of vehicles queues backing up to the prior intersection and unintentionally blocking it, and thereby, create additional congestion. For this particular case, Jillson Street is located approximately 340 feet (as measured centerline to centerline) from Washington Boulevard, which is a six-lane Major Arterial highway. Due to the close proximity of Washington Boulevard to Jillson Street, there may be occasions where traffic on northbound Eastern Avenue may be stopped at a red light at Jillson Street and be backed up to Washington Boulevard and end up blocking the intersection. These concerns are most prominent during the weekday AM and PM peak periods.

An alternate measure to installing a traffic signal would be to restrict Jillson Street to a right-turn movement only. Correspondingly, the left-turn and through movements would be prohibited on Jillson Street. It is anticipated that this measure would improve safety at the intersection. With this measure, drivers on Jillson Street would only need to watch for traffic coming from one direction on Eastern Avenue instead of both directions. As noted above, a majority of the collision involved a vehicle on Jillson Street colliding with a vehicle on Eastern Avenue.

Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis – Eastern Avenue at Jillson Street, in the City of Commerce, CA Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 13 of 17
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ANALYSIS (continued)
Other Considerations (continued)
After making the right turn from Jillson Street onto Eastern Avenue, drivers can then make a U-turn at the next intersection at Washington Boulevard or Harbor Street. Alternately, drivers can decide to cross Eastern Avenue at Washington Boulevard, which parallels Jillson Street approximately 340 feet to the south.

All completed California MUTCD Traffic Signal Warrant Worksheets can be found in Appendix E. MULTIWAY STOP WARRANTS ANALYSIS
As mentioned above, the intersection data gathered for this intersection did satisfy the warrants for traffic signalization. However, to provide the City with the overall data, a multiway stop application is still considered in this section of the analysis. The California MUTCD Multiway Stop Applications Guidance criteria are described in the following four main parts:
1) As an interim measure where traffic control signals are justified; 2) Reported crashes – five or more in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction;
3) Traffic and pedestrian volumes, speeds, and delay; and 4) Where a combination of the above criteria are satisfied to 80 percent.

If any one, or a combination, of the above criteria is met, then a multiway stop application should be considered. If these criteria are not met, the installation of an unwarranted stop sign installation is typically not recommended.

The California MUTCD STOP Sign and Multiway Stop Applications guidelines are included in Appendix F.

Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis – Eastern Avenue at Jillson Street, in the City of Commerce, CA Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 14 of 17
MULTIWAY STOP WARRANTS ANALYSIS (continued)
The California MUTCD Multiway Stop Applications section contains similar guidelines, such as minimum collisions and traffic volumes necessary for the justification of a multiway stop control. The general guidelines given for a stop sign application begin with using engineering judgment for the installation of a stop sign(s) on a street entering a through-highway and/or where high speeds, restricted view, or crash records indicate a need for control by a stop sign.

Further guidance criteria found in the California MUTCD include the following important statements: “STOP signs should not be used for speed control… STOP signs should be installed in a manner that minimizes the numbers of vehicles having to stop… In most cases, the street carrying the lowest volume of traffic should be stopped… A STOP sign should not be installed on the major street unless justified by a traffic engineering study… Multiway stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal.” Interim Measure for a Traffic Signal
It has been shown in the above traffic signal analysis that a traffic control signal is warranted.

Collision History
As also shown in the above traffic signal analysis, there have been six (6) reported correctible collisions during one year (2018) at this particular intersection during the past five (5) years.

Therefore, the Reported Crashes criteria for a multiway stop installation is satisfied, as the five (5) minimum correctible reported crashes in a 12-month period were met for this intersection.

Traffic Volumes
The above traffic signal analysis showed that the traffic volumes on the minor street are considerably less than those on the major street. A part of the California MUTCD Guidance criteria also calls for a change in minimum volumes required for a multiway stop when the critical approach speed (or 85th-percentile speed) on the major street exceeds 40 MPH. As mentioned, since the 85th percentile speeds are generally higher than the posted speed, the minimum vehicular volumes to be met for a multiway stop installation are reduced to 70%, and also evaluated/shown on next page.

Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis – Eastern Avenue at Jillson Street, in the City of Commerce, CA Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 15 of 17
MULTIWAY STOP WARRANTS ANALYSIS (continued)
Traffic Volumes (continued)
It is important to note that the hourly vehicle traffic counts shown in Table 1 above are given for the highest hours of traffic, and serve as a good indicator to compare with the required traffic volumes in the California MUTCD multiway stop warrant. In this case, they indicate that they may satisfy the 70% minimum volume guidelines. The average hourly minimum volumes for a multiway stop application [300 vehicles per hour (or 210 using 70%) from both approaches on the major street) are to be satisfied for each of eight (8) hours of an average day. Tables 3 and 4 below show the California MUTCD minimum volume guidelines for a Multiway Stop Application (100% and 70%, respectively) in comparison with the highest hourly traffic count data. It should be noted that both Parts 1 and 2 of the minimum volume warrants below must be satisfied in order to fulfill either of these traffic volume warrants.

TABLE 3

MULTIWAY STOP SIGN WARRANT FOR MINIMUM TRAFFIC VOLUMES

EASTERN AVENUE AT JILLSON STREET
Part 1.

The vehicular volume entering the
intersection from the major street
approaches (total of both approaches)
averages at least 300 vehicles per hour
for any (8) hours of an average day,
and
Part 2.

The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and
bicycle volume entering the intersection from
the minor street approaches (total of both
approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour
for the same (8) hours, with an average delay to
minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30
seconds per vehicle during the highest hour,
but
Part 3.

If the 85th -percentile approach speed
of the major-street traffic exceeds 65
km/h or exceeds 40 mph, the
minimum vehicular volume warrants
are (70) percent of the above values.

Results: Results: Results:

Yes, average (857) vehicles per hour No, average (142) vehicles per hour Yes, 85th higher.

Meets 100% of required average
hourly traffic volume
Meets only 71% of required average
hourly traffic volumes Review 70% table below, also
TABLE 4
MULTIWAY STOP SIGN WARRANT FOR MINIMUM TRAFFIC VOLUMES (REDUCED TO 70%) Part 1.

The vehicular volume entering the
intersection from the major street
approaches (total of both approaches)
averages at least 210 vehicles per hour
for any (8) hours of an average day,
and
Part 2.

The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and
bicycle volume entering the intersection
from the minor street approaches (total of
both approaches) averages at least 140
units per hour for the same (8) hours,
with an average delay to minor-street
vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per
vehicle during the highest hour,
Results: Results:

Yes, average (857) vehicles per hour Yes, average (142) vehicles per hour Meets 100% of required average hourly traffic volume
Meets 100% of required average
hourly traffic volumes
Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis – Eastern Avenue at Jillson Street, in the City of Commerce, CA Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 16 of 17
MULTIWAY STOP WARRANTS ANALYSIS (continued)
Traffic Volumes (continued)
As shown above, when the applicable minimum volumes required are reduced to 70% due to speeds higher than 40 MPH, the average hourly intersection approach volumes do satisfy the required volumes (100% major street / 100% minor street). Since both parts must be met, the traffic volume warrant is considered satisfied for a multiway stop at the intersection of Eastern Avenue and Jillson Street. However, as noted in the California MUTCD, “Multiway stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal.” Based on a review of the traffic volumes, Jillson Street carries approximately 13% of the traffic; and Eastern Avenue carries approximately 87% of the traffic. Because of the large differential split in traffic volumes, the implementation of stop controls on Eastern Avenue would likely result in long queues on Eastern Avenue. For northbound Eastern Avenue, the queuing would begin at Jillson Street and extend back to and end up blocking Washington Boulevard. The implementation of a multiway stop would result in additional congestion on Eastern Avenue.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of this analysis, the intersection of Eastern Avenue and Jillson Street met warrants for a traffic signal as summarized below:
 The satisfaction of Traffic Signal Warrant #1b (Interruption of Continuous Traffic)  The satisfaction of Traffic Signal Warrant #2 (Four-Hour Vehicular Volume)  The satisfaction of Traffic Signal Warrant #3b (Peak Hour)  The satisfaction of Traffic Signal Warrant #7 (Crash Experience) Traffic Control Device Warrants Analysis – Eastern Avenue at Jillson Street, in the City of Commerce, CA Hartzog & Crabill, Inc. Page 17 of 17
RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
In addition, the intersection met warrants for a multiway stop. However, because of its close proximity to the traffic signal at Washington Boulevard, the implementation of a traffic signal or multiway stop would likely result in additional congestion on Eastern Avenue. Northbound vehicles would be stopped at Jillson Street and would queue up to and block Washington Boulevard.

An alternate measure to installing a traffic signal or a multiway stop would be to restrict Jillson Street to a right-turn movement only. Correspondingly, the left-turn and through movements would be prohibited on Jillson Street. It is anticipated that this measure would improve safety at the intersection because drivers on Jillson Street would only need to watch for traffic coming from one direction on Eastern Avenue instead of both directions. As noted in the analysis, a majority of the collision involved a vehicle on Jillson Street colliding with a vehicle on Eastern Avenue.

Based on the warrant analysis and engineering judgment, it is recommended to restrict on Jillson Street to right-turn movement only onto Eastern Avenue. After making the right turn, drivers can then make a U-turn at Washington Boulevard or Harbor Street. Alternately, drivers can decide to cross Eastern Avenue at Washington Boulevard, which parallels Jillson Street approximately 340 feet to the south.

APPENDIX A

CALIFORNIA MUTCD

TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES
GUIDELINES:

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 827
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
CHAPTER 4C. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES
Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals Standard:
01 An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location.
01a On State highways, the engineering study shall include consideration of a roundabout (yield control). If a roundabout is determined to provide a viable and practical solution, it shall be studied in lieu of, or in addition to a traffic control signal.

Guidance:
01b On local streets and highways, the engineering study should include consideration of a roundabout (yield control). If a roundabout is determined to provide a viable and practical solution, it should be studied in lieu of, or in addition to a traffic control signal.

Support:
01c Refer to Caltrans’ website (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/liaisons/ice.html) for more information on the Traffic Operations Policy Directive 13-02, Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE), and other resources for the evaluation of intersection traffic control strategies.
02 The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of factors related to the existing operation and safety at the study location and the potential to improve these conditions, and the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants:

Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
Warrant 5, School Crossing
Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
Warrant 7, Crash Experience
Warrant 8, Roadway Network
Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
03 The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.

Support:
04 Sections 8C.09 and 8C.10 contain information regarding the use of traffic control signals instead of gates and/ or flashing-light signals at highway-rail grade crossings and highway-light rail transit grade crossings, respectively.

Guidance:
05 A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the factors described in this Chapter are met.
06 A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection. 07 A traffic control signal should not be installed if it will seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. 08 The study should consider the effects of the right-turn vehicles from the minor-street approaches.

Engineering judgment should be used to determine what, if any, portion of the right-turn traffic is subtracted from the minor-street traffic count when evaluating the count against the signal warrants listed in Paragraph 2. 09 Engineering judgment should also be used in applying various traffic signal warrants to cases where approaches consist of one lane plus one left-turn or right-turn lane. The site-specific traffic characteristics should dictate whether an approach is considered as one lane or two lanes. For example, for an approach with one lane for through and right-turning traffic plus a left-turn lane, if engineering judgment indicates that it should be considered a one-lane approach because the traffic using the left-turn lane is minor, the total traffic volume approaching the intersection should be applied against the signal warrants as a one-lane approach. The California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 828
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
approach should be considered two lanes if approximately half of the traffic on the approach turns left and the left-turn lane is of sufficient length to accommodate all left-turn vehicles. 10 Similar engineering judgment and rationale should be applied to a street approach with one through/left-turn lane plus a right-turn lane. In this case, the degree of conflict of minor-street right-turn traffic with traffic on the major street should be considered. Thus, right-turn traffic should not be included in the minor-street volume if the movement enters the major street with minimal conflict. The approach should be evaluated as a one-lane approach with only the traffic volume in the through/left-turn lane considered. 11 At a location that is under development or construction and where it is not possible to obtain a traffic count that would represent future traffic conditions, hourly volumes should be estimated as part of an engineering study for comparison with traffic signal warrants. Except for locations where the engineering study uses the satisfaction of Warrant 8 to justify a signal, a traffic control signal installed under projected conditions should have an engineering study done within 1 year of putting the signal into stop-and-go operation to determine if the signal is justified. If not justified, the signal should be taken out of stop-and-go operation or removed. 12 For signal warrant analysis, a location with a wide median, even if the median width is greater than 30 feet, should be considered as one intersection.

Option:
13 At an intersection with a high volume of left-turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed in a manner that considers the higher of the major-street left-turn volumes as the “minorstreet” volume and the corresponding single direction of opposing traffic on the major street as the “major-street” volume volume of the major-street left-turn volumes plus the higher volume minor-street approach as the “minor street” volume and both approaches of the major street minus the higher of the major-street left-turn volume as “major street” volume.
14 For signal warrants requiring conditions to be present for a certain number of hours in order to be satisfied, any four sequential 15-minute periods may be considered as 1 hour if the separate 1-hour periods used in the warrant analysis do not overlap each other and both the major-street volume and the minor-street volume are for the same specific one-hour periods.
15 For signal warrant analysis, bicyclists may be counted as either vehicles or pedestrians.

Support:
16 When performing a signal warrant analysis, bicyclists riding in the street with other vehicular traffic are usually counted as vehicles and bicyclists who are clearly using pedestrian facilities are usually counted as pedestrians.

Option:
17 Engineering study data may include the following:

A. The number of vehicles entering the intersection in each hour from each approach during 12 hours of an average day. It is desirable that the hours selected contain the greatest percentage of the 24-hour traffic volume.

B. Vehicular volumes for each traffic movement from each approach, classified by vehicle type (heavy trucks, passenger cars and light trucks, public-transit vehicles, and, in some locations, bicycles), during each 15- minute period of the 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon during which total traffic entering the intersection is greatest.

C. Pedestrian volume counts on each crosswalk during the same periods as the vehicular counts in Item B and during hours of highest pedestrian volume. Where young, elderly, and/or persons with physical or visual disabilities need special consideration, the pedestrians and their crossing times may be classified by general observation.

D. Information about nearby facilities and activity centers that serve the young, elderly, and/or persons with disabilities, including requests from persons with disabilities for accessible crossing improvements at the location under study. These persons might not be adequately reflected in the pedestrian volume count if the absence of a signal restrains their mobility.

E. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the uncontrolled approaches to the location.

F. A condition diagram showing details of the physical layout, including such features as intersection geometrics, channelization, grades, sight-distance restrictions, transit stops and routes, parking conditions, California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 829
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
pavement markings, roadway lighting, driveways, nearby railroad crossings, distance to nearest traffic control signals, utility poles and fixtures, and adjacent land use.

G. A collision diagram showing crash experience by type, location, direction of movement, severity, weather, time of day, date, and day of week for at least 1 year. 18 The following data, which are desirable for a more precise understanding of the operation of the intersection, may be obtained during the periods described in Item B of Paragraph 17:

A. Vehicle-hours of stopped time delay determined separately for each approach.

B. The number and distribution of acceptable gaps in vehicular traffic on the major street for entrance from the minor street.

C. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on controlled approaches at a point near to the intersection but unaffected by the control.

D. Pedestrian delay time for at least two 30-minute peak pedestrian delay periods of an average weekday or like periods of a Saturday or Sunday.

E. Queue length on stop-controlled approaches.

Standard:
19 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 sign shall be demonstrated.

Support:
20 Figure 4C–101(CA) and 4C-103(CA) are examples of warrant sheets.

Guidance:
21 Figure 4C-103(CA) should be used only for new intersections or other locations where it is not reasonable to count actual traffic volumes.

Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Support:
01 The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. 02 The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. 03 It is intended that Warrant 1 be treated as a single warrant. If Condition A is satisfied, then Warrant 1 is satisfied and analyses of Condition B and the combination of Conditions A and B are not needed. Similarly, if Condition B is satisfied, then Warrant 1 is satisfied and an analysis of the combination of Conditions A and B is not needed.

Standard:
04 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day:

A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection.

In applying each condition the major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours.

Option:
05 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 100 percent columns.

Guidance:
06 The combination of Conditions A and B is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and Condition B is not satisfied and should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alternatives that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems.

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 830
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
Standard:
07 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day:

A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; and B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection.

These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however, the 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B.

On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours.

Option:
08 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 56 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 80 percent columns.

Section 4C.03 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Support:
01 The Four-Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.

Standard:
02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 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 applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing combination of approach lanes. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 4 hours.

Option:
03 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-2 may be used in place of Figure 4C-1.

Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak Hour
Support:
01 The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street.

Standard:
02 This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time.
03 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met:

A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day:

1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach or 5 vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; and

2. The volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes; and California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 831
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals

3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches.

B. 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 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes.

Option:
04 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-4 may be used in place of Figure 4C-3 to evaluate the criteria in the second category of the Standard. 05 If this warrant is the only warrant met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal may be operated in the flashing mode during the hours that the volume criteria of this warrant are not met.

Guidance:
06 If this warrant is the only warrant met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal should be traffic-actuated.

Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
Support:
01 The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street.

Standard:
02 The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met:

A. For each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-5; or B. For 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) falls above the curve in Figure 4C-7.

Option:
03 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 35 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-6 may be used in place of Figure 4C-5 to evaluate Criterion A in Paragraph 2, and Figure 4C-8 may be used in place of Figure 4C-7 to evaluate Criterion B in Paragraph 2.

Standard:
04 The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal or STOP sign controlling the street that pedestrians desire to cross is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. 05 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal shall be equipped with pedestrian signal heads complying with the provisions set forth in Chapter 4E.

Guidance:
06 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then:

A. If it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal should also control the minor-street or driveway traffic, should be traffic-actuated, and should include pedestrian detection.

B. If it is installed at a non-intersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and should be pedestrianactuated. If the traffic control signal is installed at a non-intersection crossing, at least one of the signal faces should be over the traveled way for each approach, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the crosswalk or site California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 832
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight distance, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings.

C. Furthermore, if it is installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated.

Option:
07 The criterion for the pedestrian volume crossing the major street may be reduced as much as 50 percent if the 15th-percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 3.5 feet per second. 08 A traffic control signal may not be needed at the study location if adjacent coordinated traffic control signals consistently provide gaps of adequate length for pedestrians to cross the street.

Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing
Support:
01 The School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that schoolchildren cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. For the purposes of this warrant, the word “schoolchildren” includes elementary through high school students.

Standard:
02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when an engineering study of the frequency and adequacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size of groups of schoolchildren at an established school crossing across the major street shows that the number of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the schoolchildren are using the crossing is less than the number of minutes in the same period (see Section 7A.03) and there are a minimum of 20 schoolchildren during the highest crossing hour.
03 Before a decision is made to install a traffic control signal, consideration shall be given to the implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards, or a grade-separated crossing.
04 The School Crossing signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.

Guidance:
05 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then:

A. If it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal should also control the minor-street or driveway traffic, should be traffic-actuated, and should include pedestrian detection.

B. If it is installed at a non-intersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and should be pedestrianactuated. If the traffic control signal is installed at a non-intersection crossing, at least one of the signal faces should be over the traveled way for each approach, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the crosswalk or site accommodations should be made through curb extensions or other techniques to provide adequate sight distance, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings.

C. Furthermore, if it is installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated.

Section 4C.07 Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
Support:
01 Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles.

Standard:
02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met:

A. On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction, the adjacent traffic control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning.

B. On a two-way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary degree of platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation.

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 833
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
Guidance:
03 The Coordinated Signal System signal warrant should not be applied where the resultant spacing of traffic control signals would be less than 1,000 feet.

Section 4C.08 Warrant 7, Crash Experience
Support:
01 The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal.

Standard:
02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that all of the following criteria are met:

A. Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency; and
B. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12-month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash; and C. For each of any 8 hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour (vph) given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 (see Section 4C.02), or the vph in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exists on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approach, respectively, to the intersection, or the volume of pedestrian traffic is not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified in the Pedestrian Volume warrant. These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours.

Option:
03 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 56 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 80 percent columns.

Section 4C.09 Warrant 8, Roadway Network
Support:
01 Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network.

Standard:
02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the common intersection of two or more major routes meets one or both of the following criteria:

A. The intersection has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour during the peak hour of a typical weekday and has 5-year projected traffic volumes, based on an engineering study, that meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an average weekday; or
B. The intersection has a total existing or immediately projected entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours of a non-normal business day (Saturday or Sunday). 03 A major route as used in this signal warrant shall have at least one of the following characteristics:

A. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for through traffic flow.

B. It includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing a city.

C. It appears as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study.

Section 4C.10 Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing Support:
01 The Intersection Near a Grade Crossing signal warrant is intended for use at a location where none of the conditions described in the other eight traffic signal warrants are met, but the proximity to the intersection of a California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 834
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
grade crossing on an intersection approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.

Guidance:
02 This signal warrant should be applied only after adequate consideration has been given to other alternatives or after a trial of an alternative has failed to alleviate the safety concerns associated with the grade crossing.

Among the alternatives that should be considered or tried are:

A. Providing additional pavement that would enable vehicles to clear the track or that would provide space for an evasive maneuver, or
B. Reassigning the stop controls at the intersection to make the approach across the track a non-stopping approach.

Standard:
03 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following criteria are met:

A. A grade crossing exists on an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign and the center of the track nearest to the intersection is within 140 feet of the stop line or yield line on the approach; and B. During the highest traffic volume hour during which rail traffic uses the crossing, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the minor-street approach that crosses the track (one direction only, approaching the intersection) falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-9 or 4C-10 for the existing combination of approach lanes over the track and the distance D, which is the clear storage distance as defined in Section 1A.13.

Guidance:
04 The following considerations apply when plotting the traffic volume data on Figure 4C-9 or 4C-10:

A. Figure 4C-9 should be used if there is only one lane approaching the intersection at the track crossing location and Figure 4C-10 should be used if there are two or more lanes approaching the intersection at the track crossing location.

B. After determining the actual distance D, the curve for the distance D that is nearest to the actual distance D should be used. For example, if the actual distance D is 95 feet, the plotted point should be compared to the curve for D = 90 feet.

C. If the rail traffic arrival times are unknown, the highest traffic volume hour of the day should be used.

Option:
05 The minor-street approach volume may be multiplied by up to three adjustment factors as provided in Paragraphs 6 through 8.
06 Because the curves are based on an average of four occurrences of rail traffic per day, the vehicles per hour on the minor-street approach may be multiplied by the adjustment factor shown in Table 4C-2 for the appropriate number of occurrences of rail traffic per day.
07 Because the curves are based on typical vehicle occupancy, if at least 2% of the vehicles crossing the track are buses carrying at least 20 people, the vehicles per hour on the minor-street approach may be multiplied by the adjustment factor shown in Table 4C-3 for the appropriate percentage of high-occupancy buses. 08 Because the curves are based on tractor-trailer trucks comprising 10% of the vehicles crossing the track, the vehicles per hour on the minor-street approach may be multiplied by the adjustment factor shown in Table 4C-4 for the appropriate distance and percentage of tractor-trailer trucks.

Standard:
09 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal at the intersection is justified by an engineering study, then:

A. The traffic control signal shall have actuation on the minor street; B. Preemption control shall be provided in accordance with Sections 4D.27, 8C.09, and 8C.10; and C. The grade crossing shall have flashing-light signals (see Chapter 8C).

Guidance:
10 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal at the intersection is justified by an engineering study, the grade crossing should have automatic gates (see Chapter 8C).

California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 835
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
Section 4C.101(CA) Criterion for School Crossing Traffic Signals 01 Standard:

A. The signal shall be designed for full-time operation.

B. Pedestrian signal faces of the International Symbol type shall be installed at all marked crosswalks at signalized intersections along the “Suggested Route to School.” C. If an intersection is signalized under this guideline for school pedestrians, the entire intersection shall be signalized.

D. School area traffic signals shall be traffic actuated type with push buttons or other detectors for pedestrians.

Option:
02 Non-intersection school pedestrian crosswalk locations may be signalized when justified.

Section 4C.102(CA) Bicycle Signal Warrant
Guidance:
01 A bicycle signal should be considered for use only when the volume and collision or volume and geometric warrants have been met:

1. Volume; When W = B x V and W > 50,000 and B > 50.

Where: W is the volume warrant. B is the number of bicycles at the peak hour entering the intersection. V is the number of vehicles at the peak hour entering the intersection. B and V shall use the same peak hour.

2. Collision; When 2 or more bicycle/vehicle collisions of types susceptible to correction by a bicycle signal have occurred over a 12-month period and the responsible public works official determines that a bicycle signal will reduce the number of collisions.

3. Geometric;
(a) Where a separate bicycle/ multi use path intersects a roadway. (b) At other locations to facilitate a bicycle movement that is not permitted for a motor vehicle.

APPENDIX B

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) COUNT DATA
&

PEAK-HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT DATA
Day: City: Commerce
Date: HIGHEST 8 HOURS PER SIDE-STREET PERSPECTIVE. Project #: CA23_020305_001

NB SB EB WB
5,331 7,499 916 958
AM Period NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
0:00 13 20 1 0 34 103 110 27 17 257
0:15 12 11 0 0 23 77 98 22 17 214
0:30 14 13 1 0 28 78 114 16 19 227
0:45 9 48 11 55 1 3 2 2 23 108 91 349 119 441 21 86 21 74 252 950 1:00 10 12 1 2 25 96 131 15 36 278
1:15 9 11 1 1 22 98 127 18 19 262
1:30 9 6 0 1 16 85 108 18 18 229
1:45 10 38 10 39 0 2 1 5 21 84 84 363 108 474 12 63 12 85 216 985 2:00 10 9 1 1 21 88 109 21 20 238
2:15 10 15 1 0 26 84 127 10 10 231
2:30 7 16 0 0 23 101 117 12 26 256
2:45 9 36 18 58 2 4 0 1 29 99 110 383 117 470 14 57 9 65 250 975 3:00 7 15 0 2 24 92 124 16 12 244
3:15 7 19 1 0 27 78 147 25 17 267
3:30 12 23 2 3 40 115 134 18 14 281
3:45 10 36 27 84 3 6 1 6 41 132 108 393 150 555 22 81 18 61 298 1090 4:00 12 19 1 0 32 120 142 18 11 291
4:15 12 18 0 1 31 90 145 11 8 254
4:30 18 30 0 4 52 140 138 20 16 314
4:45 20 62 41 108 5 6 4 9 70 185 118 468 139 564 12 61 17 52 286 1145 5:00 19 28 2 1 50 134 138 20 30 322
5:15 26 35 0 4 65 105 156 11 11 283
5:30 25 36 6 3 70 137 131 13 14 295
5:45 48 118 62 161 3 11 9 17 122 307 79 455 164 589 17 61 14 69 274 1174 6:00 34 53 6 8 101 63 121 12 15 211
6:15 42 60 9 10 121 78 151 10 15 254
6:30 43 76 8 9 136 60 134 13 10 217
6:45 60 179 106 295 11 34 17 44 194 552 53 254 115 521 7 42 9 49 184 866 7:00 69 99 18 12 198 41 93 11 13 158
7:15 75 101 19 14 209 51 77 5 9 142
7:30 82 121 13 22 238 48 68 4 5 125
7:45 103 329 174 495 30 80 37 85 344 989 43 183 44 282 9 29 7 34 103 528 8:00 75 128 18 25 246 49 47 6 6 108
8:15 89 109 19 10 227 39 39 6 9 93
8:30 76 164 19 17 276 49 59 4 10 122
8:45 66 306 134 535 21 77 14 66 235 984 35 172 53 198 5 21 9 34 102 425 9:00 64 109 7 14 194 58 38 6 13 115
9:15 83 97 14 7 201 56 27 2 7 92
9:30 58 89 7 15 169 54 42 1 4 101
9:45 61 266 112 407 7 35 14 50 194 758 20 188 48 155 7 16 1 25 76 384 10:00 58 99 10 11 178 16 28 1 5 50
10:15 69 86 20 13 188 26 31 1 1 59
10:30 63 94 13 15 185 27 35 1 3 66
10:45 60 250 96 375 17 60 14 53 187 738 28 97 34 128 2 5 0 9 64 239 11:00 62 110 12 11 195 30 25 0 3 58
11:15 58 88 16 15 177 18 21 2 1 42
11:30 82 131 19 8 240 13 14 4 1 32
11:45 82 284 103 432 22 69 23 57 230 842 13 74 18 78 1 7 1 6 33 165 TOTALS 1952 3044 387 395 5778 3379 4455 529 563 8926
SPLIT % 33.8% 52.7% 6.7% 6.8% 39.3% 37.9% 49.9% 5.9% 6.3% 60.7%

NB SB EB WB
5,331 7,499 916 958
AM Peak Hour 7:30 7:45 11:30 7:15 7:45 16:30 17:00 12:00 12:30 16:30 AM Pk Volume 349 575 90 98 1093 497 589 86 95 1205
Pk Hr Factor 0.847 0.826 0.833 0.662 0.794 0.888 0.898 0.796 0.660 0.936 7 - 9 Volume 635 1030 157 151 1973 923 1153 122 121 2319 7 - 9 Peak Hour 7:30 7:45 7:45 7:15 7:45 16:30 17:00 16:15 16:30 16:30 7 - 9 Pk Volume 349 575 86 98 1093 497 589 63 74 1205
Pk Hr Factor 0.847 0.826 0.717 0.662 0.794 0.888 0.898 0.788 0.617 0.936 VOLUME
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
13:15
13:30
13:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
16:15
16:30
14:00
14:15
14:30
08/23/2023
14:45
15:00

DAILY TOTALS
PM Period
16:45
17:00
17:15
Wednesday
17:30
17:45
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
Eastern Ave & Jillson St
21:30
21:45
22:00
Total
14,704
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15

DAILY TOTALS
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
TOTAL
23:45
TOTALS
Total
14,704

DAILY TOTALS
21:00
21:15
20:30
4 - 6 Peak Hour
4 - 6 Pk Volume
SPLIT %
TOTAL
Pk Hr Factor
PM Peak Hour
PM Pk Volume
Pk Hr Factor
4 - 6 Volume
20:45
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 23-020305-001 Day:

City: Commerce Date:

AM 24 443 101 1 AM
NOON 0000 NOON
PM 14 531 27 1 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1110 0 56 0 55
1 14 0 27
000 00 508
11 0 15 0 TEV 1091 0 1205 0 000
38 0 25 1 PHF 0.80 0.93
38 0 22 0 0111

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 19 456 20 PM
0 NONE
04:30 pm - 05:30 pm 528
Eastern Ave & Jillson St
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Eastern Ave Wednesday
SOUTHBOUND 08/23/2023

PEAK HOURS
4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
07:45 am - 08:45 am 342 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
72 0 171
Totals (AM) 558 Total Bikes (AM)
Jillson St

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Jillson St
87 0 47

CONTROL
2-Way Stop(EB/WB)

AM NOON PM
NOON 0000 NOON
AM 2 36 275 32 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 491

NORTHBOUND
Eastern Ave
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
0 0
1 2
0 1
00 000
0 3
0 1
2 0
2 00 510 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
010
070
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
1 0
250
010
56 14
22 5
25 15
1453127
1945620
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
55 27
38 8
38 11
24443101
3627532
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Eastern Ave & Jillson St
City: Commerce Project ID:

Control: 2-Way Stop(EB/WB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1110111001000100

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 7 62 1 0 8 87 5 0 0 9 9 0 1 4 7 0 200
7:15 AM 12 59 4 0 9 83 6 0 0 10 8 0 0 2 12 0 205
7:30 AM 10 63 9 0 23 97 3 0 1 5 7 0 0 4 18 0 240
7:45 AM 17 78 8 1 38 129 5 0 2 17 11 0 2 13 22 0 343
8:00 AM 6 57 12 0 29 90 6 1 4 7 7 0 0 7 18 0 244
8:15 AM 6 79 4 1 14 92 4 0 2 6 11 0 0 3 7 0 229
8:30 AM 7 61 8 0 20 132 9 0 3 8 9 0 6 4 8 0 275
8:45 AM 7 51 8 0 15 115 3 0 2 11 9 1 2 5 6 0 235

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 72 510 54 2 156 825 41 1 14 73 71 1 11 42 98 0 1971 APPROACH %'s : 11.29% 79.94% 8.46% 0.31% 15.25% 80.65% 4.01% 0.10% 8.81% 45.91% 44.65% 0.63% 7.28% 27.81% 64.90% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:45 AM 40 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 36 275 32 2 101 443 24 1 11 38 38 0 8 27 55 0 1091 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.529 0.870 0.667 0.500 0.664 0.839 0.667 0.250 0.688 0.559 0.864 0.000 0.333 0.519 0.625 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1110111001000100

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 2 107 10 1 19 119 2 0 3 9 8 0 1 1 9 0 291
4:15 PM 9 77 3 1 9 132 3 0 1 3 5 0 0 0 8 0 251
4:30 PM 5 124 9 0 4 131 6 1 7 2 10 0 4 2 10 0 315
4:45 PM 6 108 4 0 2 133 2 0 1 8 3 0 0 3 14 0 284
5:00 PM 5 125 4 0 10 127 3 0 5 9 7 0 1 6 23 0 325
5:15 PM 3 99 3 0 11 140 3 0 2 6 2 0 0 3 9 0 281
5:30 PM 4 127 5 0 5 125 2 0 2 6 5 0 1 1 12 0 295
5:45 PM 2 72 6 0 9 151 2 0 3 4 10 1 0 2 11 0 273

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 36 839 44 2 69 1058 23 1 24 47 50 1 7 18 96 0 2315 APPROACH %'s : 3.91% 91.10% 4.78% 0.22% 5.99% 91.92% 2.00% 0.09% 19.67% 38.52% 40.98% 0.82% 5.79% 14.88% 79.34% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:30 PM 291 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 19 456 20 0 27 531 14 1 15 25 22 0 5 14 56 0 1205 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.792 0.912 0.556 0.000 0.614 0.948 0.583 0.250 0.536 0.694 0.550 0.000 0.313 0.583 0.609 0.000 Data - Totals
Eastern Ave Eastern Ave Jillson St Jillson St

0.829 0.827 0.725 0.608

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
23-020305-001
08/23/2023
04:30 pm - 05:30 pm

0.927 0.897 0.930 0.738 0.625
07:45 am - 08:45 am

0.795
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Eastern Ave & Jillson St Project ID:

City: Commerce Date:

NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
7:00 AM 10000010 2
7:15 AM 00001010 2
7:30 AM 00001000 1
7:45 AM 20000000 2
8:00 AM 11001201 6
8:15 AM 10000010 2
8:30 AM 10000000 1
8:45 AM 00000000 0

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 6 1 0 0 3 2 3 1 16
APPROACH %'s : 85.71% 14.29% 60.00% 40.00% 75.00% 25.00% PEAK HR : 7:45 AM 39 -1 -1 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 5 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 11
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.625 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250
Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
4:00 PM 01000000 1
4:15 PM 00000001 1
4:30 PM 00000210 3
4:45 PM 00002000 2
5:00 PM 00001000 1
5:15 PM 00000010 1
5:30 PM 00001010 2
5:45 PM 00000001 1

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 1 0 0 4 2 3 2 12
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 66.67% 33.33% 60.00% 40.00% PEAK HR : 4:30 PM 288 -3 -3 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 07
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.375 0.250 0.500
Data - Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Eastern Ave Eastern Ave Jillson St Jillson St

0.250 0.500
07:45 am - 08:45 am

AM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG

PM NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG
23-020305-001
08/23/2023

0.583 0.625 0.500
04:30 pm - 05:30 pm

0.458 0.750
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Eastern Ave & Jillson St
City: Commerce Project ID:

Control: 2-Way Stop(EB/WB) Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1110111001000100

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 1000010000000000 2
7:15 AM 0000020000000000 2
7:30 AM 0100010000000000 2
7:45 AM 0000011000000000 2
8:00 AM 0000030001000000 4
8:15 AM 0100001000000000 2
8:30 AM 0000010000000000 1
8:45 AM 0100000000000000 1

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 1 3 0 0 0 9 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
APPROACH %'s : 25.00% 75.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 81.82% 18.18% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 7:45 AM 40 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 01000520010000009
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.417 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1110111001000100

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0000000000000000 0
4:15 PM 0000000000000000 0
4:30 PM 0100000000000000 1
4:45 PM 0200010000000000 3
5:00 PM 0400000000000000 4
5:15 PM 0000000000000000 0
5:30 PM 0100000020000000 3
5:45 PM 0100000000000000 1

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 4:30 PM 291 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 07000100000000008
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.438 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Data - Bikes
Eastern Ave Eastern Ave Jillson St Jillson St

0.250 0.583 0.250

AM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

PM NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
23-020305-001
08/23/2023
04:30 pm - 05:30 pm

0.500 0.438 0.250
07:45 am - 08:45 am

0.563

APPENDIX C

INTERSECTION COLLISION HISTORY

CITY OF COMMERCE
5-YEAR SWITRS COLLISION DATABASE

INTERSECTION OF EASTERN AVENUE AT JILLSON STREET
JAN. 1, 2018 - SEP. 31, 2023
CASE ID COLL. DATE
COLL.

TIME PRIMARY ROAD SECONDARY ROAD DIST. DIR. INTERS.

WEATH.
1 COLL.

SEVERITY
PRIM.

COLL.

FACT.

PCF
VIOL
CAT.

PCF
VIOL.

HIT
AND
RUN
TYPE
OF
COLL.

MOTOR

VEHICLE

INVOLVED
WITH
ROAD
SURF.
8608851 20180223 1806 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 0 Y A 0 D 0 N D C C 8603464 20180301 1830 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 50 S N A 0 A 8 22107 M B C A 8690279 20180329 2114 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 12 S N A 0 A 9 21800 N D C A 8676940 20180523 1841 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 17 S N A 0 A 9 21801 N D C A 8650126 20180723 950 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 0 Y A 0 A 9 21802 N D C A 8705711 20180729 1106 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 25 N N A 0 A 3 22350 N - C A 8746059 20180918 1300 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 0 Y A 0 A 9 21801 N D C A 8770759 20181116 715 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 0 Y A 0 A 0 21302 N D C A 8946440 20190328 918 JILLSON ST EASTERN AV 0 E N A 0 A 8 22107 N B E A 8927267 20190611 726 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 0 Y A 0 A 9 21804 N D C A 8927482 20190724 1653 JILLSON ST EASTERN AV 19 W N A 4 A 6 21755 N D C A 8957083 20190807 1200 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 0 Y A 0 A - N D C A 9052671 20190923 1530 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 40 N N A 4 A 3 22350 N C C A 9074291 20200305 1517 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 0 Y A 4 A 9 21801 N D C A 9140113 20200622 1458 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 0 Y A 0 A 9 21804 N D C - 9236393 20200921 2130 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 0 Y A 2 A 12 22450 N - C A 9401198 20211109 1627 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 15 N N A 0 D 0 N D C A 9400544 20211130 1900 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 0 Y A 0 A 8 22107 N E I A 9477332 20220501 211 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 40 N N A 0 - - N A - A 9553268 20230110 846 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 0 N B 0 A 8 22107 N B C B 9564443 20230307 1624 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 0 Y C 0 A 3 22350 M B D B 9564476 20230322 1100 EASTERN AV JILSON ST 0 Y C 0 A 3 22350 M D C B 9603239 20230421 930 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 0 Y A 0 A 21 22106 N D C A 9602863 20230629 1835 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 0 Y A 3 A 8 22107 N D C A 9597327 20230630 1713 EASTERN AV JILLSON ST 0 Y A 0 A 8 22107 N D C A 1 of 2

CITY OF COMMERCE
5-YEAR SWITRS COLLISION DATABASE

INTERSECTION OF EASTERN AVENUE AT JILLSON STREET
JAN. 1, 2018 - SEP. 31, 2023
CASE ID COLL. DATE
COLL.

TIME PRIMARY ROAD SECONDARY ROAD DIST. DIR. INTERS.

WEATH.
1 COLL.

SEVERITY
PRIM.

COLL.

FACT.

PCF
VIOL
CAT.

PCF
VIOL.

HIT
AND
RUN
TYPE
OF
COLL.

MOTOR

VEHICLE

INVOLVED
WITH
ROAD
SURF.

NOTES:

Weather 1 Collision Severity Primary Collision Factor PCF Violation Category Hit and Run Type of Collision A - Clear 1 - Fatal A - (Vehicle) Code Violation 01 - Driving or Bicycling Under Influence F - Felony A - Head-On B - Cloudy 2 - Injury (Severe) B - Other Improper Driving 02 - Impeding Traffic M - Misdemeanor B - Sideswipe C - Raining 3 - Injury (Other Visible) C - Other Than Driver 03 - Unsafe Speed N - Not Hit & Run C - Rear-End D - Snowing 4 - Injury (Complaint of Pain) D - Unknown 04 - Following Too Closely D - Broadside E - Fog 0 - PDO (Property Damage Only) E - Fell Asleep 05 - Wrong Side of Road E - Hit Object F - Other - - Not Stated 06 - Improper Passing F - Overturned G - Wind 07 - Unsafe Lane Change G - Vehicle/Pedestrian - - Not Stated 08 - Improper Turning H - Other
09 - Automobile ROW - - Not Stated
Motor Vehicle Involved With: 10 - Pedestrian ROW
A - Non-Collision 11 - Pedestrian Violation Road Surface B - Pedestrian 12 - Traffic Signals and Signs A - Dry
C - Other Motor Vehicle 13 - Hazardous Parking B - Wet
D - Motor Vehicle on Other Roadway 14 - Lights C - Snowy or Icy E - Parked Motor Vehicle 15 - Brakes D - Slippery
F - Train 16 - Other Equipment - - Not Stated
G - Bicycle 17 - Other Hazardous Violation
H - Animal 18 - Other Than Driver (or Ped)
I - Fixed Object 19 -
J - Other Object 20 -
- - Not Stated 21 - Unsafe Starting or Backing
22 - Other Improper Driving
23 - Pedestrian or "Other" Under the Influence
24 - Fell Asleep
00 - Unknown
- - Not Stated
2 of 2

APPENDIX D

CALIFORNIA MUTCD
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE AS A FUNCTION OF SPEED:

California MUTCD 2014 Edition
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California) Chapter 6C – Temporary Traffic Control Elements November 7, 2014 Part 6 – Temporary Traffic Control

____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX E

COMPLETED

CALIFORNIA MUTCD

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEETS

APPENDIX F

CALIFORNIA MUTCD
MULTIWAY STOP APPLICATION GUIDELINES:

California MUTCD 2012 Edition
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California) Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates January 13, 2012 Part 2 – Signs

Standard:
03 Except as provided in Paragraphs 4 and 5, the minimum sizes for regulatory signs facing traffic on multi-lane conventional roads shall be as shown in the Multi-lane column of Table 2B-1 and 2B-1(CA).

Option:
04 Where the posted speed limit is 35 mph or less on a multi-lane highway or street, other than for a STOP sign, the minimum size shown in the Single Lane column in Table 2B-1 and 2B-1(CA) may be used. 05 Where a regulatory sign, other than a STOP sign, is placed on the left-hand side of a multi-lane roadway in addition to the installation of the same regulatory sign on the right-hand side or the roadway, the size shown in the Single Lane column in Table 2B-1 and 2B-1(CA) may be used for both the sign on the right-hand side and the sign on the left-hand side of the roadway.

Standard:
06 A minimum size of 36 x 36 inches shall be used for STOP signs that face multi-lane approaches. 07 Where side roads intersect a multi-lane street or highway that has a speed limit of 45 mph or higher, the minimum size of the STOP signs facing the side road approaches, even if the side road only has one approach lane, shall be 36 x 36 inches.
08 Where side roads intersect a multi-lane street or highway that has a speed limit of 40 MPH or lower, the minimum size of the STOP signs facing the side road approaches shall be as shown in the Single Lane or Multi-lane columns of Table 2B-1 and 2B-1(CA) based on the number of approach lanes on the side street approach.

Guidance:
09 The minimum sizes for regulatory signs facing traffic on exit and entrance ramps should be as shown in the column of Table 2B-1 and 2B-1(CA) that corresponds to the mainline roadway classification (Expressway or Freeway). If a minimum size is not provided in the Freeway column, the minimum size in the Expressway column should be used. If a minimum size is not provided in the Freeway or Expressway Column, the size in the Oversized column should be used.

Section 2B.04 Right-of-Way at Intersections
Support:
01 State or local laws written in accordance with the “Uniform Vehicle Code” (see Section 1A.11) establish the right-of-way rule at intersections having no regulatory traffic control signs such that the driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection must yield the right-of-way to any vehicle or pedestrian already in the intersection.

When two vehicles approach an intersection from different streets or highways at approximately the same time, the right-of-way rule requires the driver of the vehicle on the left to yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right. The right-of-way can be modified at through streets or highways by placing YIELD (R1-2) signs (see Sections 2B.08 and 2B.09) or STOP (R1-1) signs (see Sections 2B.05 through 2B.07) on one or more approaches.

Guidance:
02 Engineering judgment should be used to establish intersection control. The following factors should be considered:

A. Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic volumes on all approaches; B. Number and angle of approaches;
C. Approach speeds;
D. Sight distance available on each approach; and
E. Reported crash experience.
03 YIELD or STOP signs should be used at an intersection if one or more of the following conditions exist:

A. An intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of-way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law; B. A street entering a designated through highway or street; and/or C. An unsignalized intersection in a signalized area.

California MUTCD 2012 Edition
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California) Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates January 13, 2012 Part 2 – Signs

04 In addition, the use of YIELD or STOP signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where one or more of the following conditions exist:

A. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all approaches averages more than 2,000 units per day;
B. The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right-of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary; and/or C. Crash records indicate that five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right-of-way at the intersection under the normal right-of-way rule have been reported within a 3-year period, or that three or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. 05 YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control.

Support:
06 Section 2B.07 contains provisions regarding the application of multi-way STOP control at an intersection.

Guidance:
07 Once the decision has been made to control an intersection, the decision regarding the appropriate roadway to control should be based on engineering judgment. In most cases, the roadway carrying the lowest volume of traffic should be controlled.
08 A YIELD or STOP sign should not be installed on the higher volume roadway unless justified by an engineering study.

Support:
09 The following are considerations that might influence the decision regarding the appropriate roadway upon which to install a YIELD or STOP sign where two roadways with relatively equal volumes and/or characteristics intersect:

A. Controlling the direction that conflicts the most with established pedestrian crossing activity or school walking routes;
B. Controlling the direction that has obscured vision, dips, or bumps that already require drivers to use lower operating speeds; and
C. Controlling the direction that has the best sight distance from a controlled position to observe conflicting traffic.

Standard:
10 Because the potential for conflicting commands could create driver confusion, YIELD or STOP signs shall not be used in conjunction with any traffic control signal operation, except in the following cases:

A. If the signal indication for an approach is a flashing red at all times; B. If a minor street or driveway is located within or adjacent to the area controlled by the traffic control signal, but does not require separate traffic signal control because an extremely low potential for conflict exists; or
C. If a channelized turn lane is separated from the adjacent travel lanes by an island and the channelized turn lane is not controlled by a traffic control signal. 10a STOP signs shall not be erected at any entrance to an intersection controlled by traffic signals. Refer to CVC 21355(a).
11 Except as provided in Section 2B.09, STOP signs and YIELD signs shall not be installed on different approaches to the same unsignalized intersection if those approaches conflict with or oppose each other. 12 Portable or part-time STOP or YIELD signs shall not be used except for emergency and temporary traffic control zone purposes.
13 A portable or part-time (folding) STOP sign that is manually placed into view and manually removed from view shall not be used during a power outage to control a signalized approach unless the maintaining agency establishes that the signal indication that will first be displayed to that approach upon restoration of power is a flashing red signal indication and that the portable STOP sign will be manually removed from view prior to stop-and-go operation of the traffic control signal.

Option:
14 A portable or part-time (folding) STOP sign that is electrically or mechanically operated such that it only displays the STOP message during a power outage and ceases to display the STOP message upon restoration of power may be used during a power outage to control a signalized approach.

California MUTCD 2012 Edition
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California) Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates January 13, 2012 Part 2 – Signs

Support:
15 Section 9B.03 contains provisions regarding the assignment of priority at a shared-use path/ roadway intersection.

Section 2B.05 STOP Sign (R1-1) and ALL WAY Plaque (R1-3P) Standard:
01 When it is determined that a full stop is always required on an approach to an intersection, a STOP (R1-1) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall be used.
02 The STOP sign shall be an octagon with a white legend and border on a red background. 03 Secondary legends shall not be used on STOP sign faces. 04 At intersections where all approaches are controlled by STOP signs (see Section 2B.07), an ALL WAY supplemental plaque (R1-3P) shall be mounted below each STOP sign. The ALL WAY plaque (see Figure 2B-1) shall have a white legend and border on a red background. 05 The ALL WAY plaque shall only be used if all intersection approaches are controlled by STOP signs. 06 Supplemental plaques with legends such as 2-WAY, 3-WAY, 4-WAY, or other numbers of ways shall not be used with STOP signs.

Support:
07 The use of the CROSS TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP (W4-4P) plaque (and other plaques with variations of this word message) is described in Section 2C.59.

Guidance:
08 Plaques with the appropriate alternative messages of TRAFFIC FROM LEFT (RIGHT) DOES NOT STOP (W4-4aP) or ONCOMING TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP (W4-4bP) should be used at intersections where STOP signs control all but one approach to the intersection, unless the only non-stopped approach is from a one-way street.

Option:
09 An EXCEPT RIGHT TURN (R1-10P) plaque (see Figure 2B-1) may be mounted below the STOP sign if an engineering study determines that a special combination of geometry and traffic volumes is present that makes it possible for right-turning traffic on the approach to be permitted to enter the intersection without stopping.

Support:
10 The design and application of Stop Beacons are described in Section 4L.05. 11 A STOP (R1-1) sign is not a “cure-all” and is not a substitute for other traffic control devices. Often, the need for a STOP (R1-1) sign can be eliminated if the sight distance is increased by removing obstructions.

Through Highways
Option:
12 STOP (R1-1) signs may be installed either at or near the entrance to a State highway, except at signalized intersections, or at any location so as to control traffic within an intersection. Refer to CVC 21352 and 21355. See Section 1A.11 for information regarding this publication.

Support:
13 When STOP (R1-1) signs or traffic control signals have been erected at all entrances, a highway constitutes a through highway. Refer to CVC 600.
14 Authority to place STOP (R1-1) signs facing State highway traffic is delegated to the Department of Transportation’s District Directors.

Option:
15 Local authorities may designate any highway under their jurisdiction as a through highway and install STOP (R1-1) signs in a like manner. Refer to CVC 21354.

Standard:
16 No local authority shall erect or maintain any STOP (R1-1) sign or other traffic control device requiring a stop, on any State highway, except by permission of the Department of Transportation. Refer to CVC 21353.

Support:
17 The Department of Transportation will grant such permission only when an investigation indicates that the STOP (R1-1) sign will benefit traffic.

California MUTCD 2012 Edition
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California) Chapter 2B – Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates January 13, 2012 Part 2 – Signs

Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Applications
Guidance:
01 At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should first be given to using less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Sections 2B.08 and 2B.09). 02 The use of STOP signs on the minor-street approaches should be considered if engineering judgment indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions:

A. The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or highway exceed 6,000 vehicles per day; B. A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe conflicting traffic on the through street or highway; and/or
C. Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction by the installation of a STOP sign have been reported within a 12-month period, or that five or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. Such crashes include right-angle collisions involving road users on the minor-street approach failing to yield the right-of-way to traffic on the through street or highway.

Support:
03 The use of STOP signs at grade crossings is described in Sections 8B.04 and 8B.05.

Section 2B.07 Multi-Way Stop Applications
Support:
01 Multi-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist.

Safety concerns associated with multi-way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multi-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal.
02 The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.04 also apply to multi-way stop applications.

Guidance:
03 The decision to install multi-way stop control should be based on an engineering study. 04 The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi-way STOP sign installation:

A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal.

B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.

C. Minimum volumes:

1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and

2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour; but

3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2.

D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition.

Option:
05 Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include:

A. The need to control left-turn conflicts;
B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection.