Agenda Report
Fullerton Transportation and
Circulation Commission
MEETING DATE: APRIL 3, 2023
TO: TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION COMMISSION
SUBMITTED BY: PUBLIC WORKS/ TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION PREPARED BY: DAVID ROSEMAN, CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO
SIGNALIZE THE INTERSECTION OF HARBOR
BOULEVARD AND LA ENTRADA PLACE
SUMMARY
Consideration of a staff recommendation to install a new traffic signal at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and La Entrada Place.
RECOMMENDATION
It is requested that the Commission take the following actions:
1. Concur with the City Traffic Engineer’s findings that signalization is the most appropriate traffic control measure for the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and La Entrada Place.
2. Recommend to City Council that a traffic signal be approved, funded, and installed at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and La Entrada Place, as shown in Exhibit “A” (Attachment 1).
DISCUSSION
Harbor Boulevard is an 84-foot wide north/ south major arterial street with two through lanes, a left- turn lane, an acceleration lane, and Class II bike lane in each direction.
Approximately 40,000 vehicles travel on Harbor Boulevard through the intersection with La Entrada Place each weekday. Harbor Boulevard is posted with a 50mph speed limit in the vicinity of La Entrada Place.
Consideration of a Traffic Signal – Harbor & La Entrada April 3, 2023 - Page 2
La Entrada Place is a 24-foot wide east/ west collector street with one lane of traffic in each direction. La Entrada Place serves as the only street providing resident access to and from the Sunny Ranch and San Juan housing tracts, see Exhibit “ B” (Attachment 2). The total daily traffic volume entering/ exiting Harbor Boulevard from La Entrada Place is approximately 1,000 vehicles. The prima facie speed limit on La Entrada Place is 25 miles per hour.
Residents of the Sunny Ranch and San Juan neighborhoods have requested a traffic signal at Harbor Boulevard and La Entrada Place for years. Residents have expressed safety concerns related to the speed of traffic on Harbor Boulevard, lack of gaps in Harbor Boulevard traffic during peak traffic flows, poor lighting, poor visibility of conflicting traffic, and difficulty making left turns into and out of the neighborhoods. As a result of the resident’s requests, City traffic engineers have conducted studies, implemented striping and signage improvements, installed speed feedback signs, trimmed landscaping, and monitored operations and crash statistics at the intersection.
Despite all these efforts, traffic flow characteristics on Harbor Boulevard remain unaffected and the resident’s safety concerns have not been alleviated.
The California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices ( CAMUTCD) provides traffic engineers with guidance in determining when an intersection should be considered for signalization. The CAMUTCD outlines an engineering study process in which physical conditions, traffic flow, pedestrian activity, and crash performance are evaluated against established criteria or warrants ( see Attachment 3). The warrant study process doesn’t result in an absolute yes or no answer to the question of signalization, rather engineers are encouraged to look beyond the numbers of the warrants and to exercise engineering judgement when evaluating unique characteristics of an intersection and its traffic operations. Therefore, the warrants are more of a guide for engineers and officials in the decision-making process.
In February, City traffic engineers conducted the CAMUTCD warrant studies for the Harbor Boulevard and La Entrada Place intersection. It was determined three of the nine warrants related to school zones, major intersections, and railroads were not applicable and discarded. A variety of traffic, physical, and crash data was gathered to complete the remaining six warrant studies. As anticipated, the pedestrian warrant was not satisfied due to low pedestrian activity at the intersection. Therefore, the focus of the study effort shifted to the three warrants related to traffic flow and the one warrant related to crash experience.
The crash experience warrant isn’t without controversy in the court of public opinion. To satisfy the warrant, an intersection would have to experience five or more reported crashes within a twelve- month period susceptible to correction by a traffic signal. This limit of five crashes per year is generally not well received by a public that feels that government should do everything possible to prevent serious crashes. The crash experience warrant also requires a certain minimum level of traffic flow through the intersection and that all other safety and enforcement alternatives be attempted first without success. In the case of the Harbor Boulevard and La Entrada Place intersection, Consideration of a Traffic Signal – Harbor & La Entrada April 3, 2023 - Page 3
there is sufficient traffic volume and the City has taken all reasonable steps to improve safety; however, the number of crashes per year does not rise to the level that satisfies the warrant. However, it is important to note that all reported crashes at the intersection in the last five years have resulted in injuries and over 60% of those crashes would have been prevented had a traffic signal been in place. In 2021, the latest year verified crash information is available, there were a total of four crashes, all resulting in injury, and two of the four could have been prevented had a traffic signal been in place.
There are three traffic volume related warrants setting criterion for intersection traffic volume levels over eight hours, four hours, and the peak hour. The intersection of Harbor Boulevard and La Entrada Place did not meet the peak hour warrant; however, it did meet the four- hour warrant, and was just shy of meeting the interruption of continuous traffic warrant for eight hours by a mere three vehicles over a two- hour period. If the study had been conducted on another day or another time of the year it is very possible that the eight- hour warrant would have been technically met as well.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the intersection meets two of the three volume related warrants.
The last warrant study is related to the signal system operation. The warrant study considers the spacing of traffic signals and if signalizing the intersection would improve the platooning of vehicles and progressive operation of the roadway. Essentially, determining if the intersection is a good place for a traffic signal based on signal timing parameters. In this case, the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and La Entrada Place being about 1,000 feet from the signalized intersection to the north and 4,000 feet of the signalized intersection to the south it meets the signal system operation criteria and satisfies the warrant.
In addition to the warrant studies, it is important to note that there are bus stops on both sides of Harbor Boulevard at La Entrada Place. If a resident was to get on a bus at one stop, they would most likely be returned by bus to the stop on the other side of the street and thus be forced to cross the street to get back home. Isolated bus stops on major arterials without crosswalks and/ or traffic signals can pose a risk both to the pedestrian and a liability to the bus operator and the City. Signalizing an intersection with isolated bus stops can mitigate City liability, significantly enhance pedestrian safety, and encourage bus ridership.
Another consideration is intersection lighting. Currently, the intersection has no dedicated streetlights, and it is relativity dark at night. There are streetlights affixed to the power poles on the east side of Harbor Boulevard; however one is located 50 feet south of the intersection and the other 85 feet north of the intersection. Should the intersection be signalized the intersection will be equipped with dedicated safety lights lighting up not only the vehicle conflict areas within the intersection but providing lighting for the crosswalks and bus stops.
Consideration of a Traffic Signal – Harbor & La Entrada April 3, 2023 - Page 4
In conclusion, it is the recommendation of the City Traffic Engineer that the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and La Entrada Place be signalized. This recommendation is based on the conduct of a signal warrant study in which three warrants were found to be satisfied. Additionally, the City Traffic Engineer is of the opinion that the installation of a traffic signal will prevent future severe injury crashes, enhance pedestrian safety, and improve accessibility of transit for residents in the area.
The installation of a traffic signal is a major engineering design and construction effort that is likely to take two to three years to comp lete and cost upwards of $ 350, 000.
Therefore, should the Commission and the City Council concur with the installation of a traffic signal, a new Capital Improvement Project would need to be established and funding allocated to begin the design process.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Exhibit “A” Vicinity Map 1 of 2
Attachment 2 - Exhibit “B” Vicinity Map 2 of 2
Attachment 3 - CAMUTCD TS Warrants
HARBOR BOULEVARD & LA ENTRADA PLACE
Vicinity Map ( 1 of 2) Exhibit “ A” ( Aachment 1)
HARBOR BOULEVARD & LA ENTRADA PLACE
Vicinity Map
LEGEND
Exis ng Trac SignalHarbor
La EntradaExhibit “
B” ( Aachment2) Sunny
Ranch Tract San
JuanTract
Revision6 (March30, 2021)
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page830
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
CHAPTER 4C. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES
Section4C.01 Studiesand Factorsfor Justifying Traffic Control Signals Standard:
01An engineeringstudy of traffic conditions, pedestriancharacteristics, and physical characteristicsof the location shall be performed to determinewhether installation of a traffic control signalis justified at a particularlocation.
01aOnStatehighways, theengineeringstudyshallincludeconsiderationofaroundabout (yieldcontrol). Ifa roundaboutisdeterminedtoprovideaviableandpracticalsolution, it shallbestudiedinlieuof, orinadditiontoa trafficcontrolsignal.
Guidance:
01bOnlocalstreetsandhighways, theengineeringstudyshouldincludeconsiderationofa roundabout (yieldcontrol). If a roundaboutisdeterminedtoprovideaviableandpracticalsolution, itshouldbestudiedinlieuof, orinadditiontoatraffic controlsignal.
Support:
01cRefertoCaltrans’ website (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/liaisons/ice.html) formoreinformationontheTraffic OperationsPolicyDirective13-02, IntersectionControlEvaluation (ICE), andotherresourcesfortheevaluationofintersection trafficcontrolstrategies.
02The investigationof the needfor a traffic control signalshall include an analysisof factors related to theexistingoperationandsafetyat thestudylocationandthepotentialto improvetheseconditions, and the applicable factors containedin the following traffic signalwarrants:
Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 2, Four-Hour VehicularVolume
Warrant 3, PeakHour
Warrant 4, PedestrianVolume
Warrant 5, SchoolCrossing
Warrant 6, CoordinatedSignalSystem
Warrant 7, Crash Experience
Warrant 8, RoadwayNetwork
Warrant 9, IntersectionNeara GradeCrossing
03The satisfactionof a traffic signalwarrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.
Support:
04Sections8C.09and8C.10containinformationregardingtheuseof traffic controlsignalsinsteadof gates and/ or flashing-light signalsathighway-rail gradecrossingsandhighway-light rail transitgradecrossings, respectively.
Guidance:
05A traffic control signalshouldnotbeinstalledunlessoneor moreof thefactorsdescribedin thisChapterare met.
06A traffic control signalshouldnotbeinstalledunlessan engineeringstudyindicatesthat installinga traffic control signalwill improvetheoverallsafetyand/or operationof theintersection. 07A traffic control signalshouldnotbeinstalledif it will seriouslydisruptprogressivetraffic flow. 08Thestudyshouldconsidertheeffectsof theright-turn vehiclesfromtheminor-streetapproaches.
Engineeringjudgmentshouldbeusedto determinewhat, if any, portionof theright-turn traffic is subtracted fromtheminor-streettraffic countwhenevaluatingthecountagainstthesignalwarrantslistedin Paragraph2. 09Engineeringjudgmentshouldalsobeusedin applyingvarioustraffic signalwarrantsto caseswhere approachesconsistof onelaneplusoneleft-turn or right-turn lane. Thesite-specifictraffic characteristics shoulddictatewhetheranapproachis consideredasonelaneor twolanes. For example, for anapproachwith onelanefor throughandright-turning traffic plusa left-turn lane, if engineeringjudgmentindicatesthat it shouldbeconsidereda one-laneapproachbecausethetraffic usingtheleft-turn laneis minor, thetotal traffic volumeapproachingtheintersectionshouldbeappliedagainstthesignalwarrantsasa one-laneapproach. The CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page831
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
approachshouldbeconsideredtwo lanesif approximatelyhalf of thetraffic on theapproachturnsleft andthe left-turn laneis of sufficientlengthto accommodateall left-turn vehicles. 10Similar engineeringjudgmentandrationaleshouldbeappliedto a streetapproachwith onethrough/left-turn laneplusa right-turn lane. In this case, thedegreeof conflictof minor-streetright-turn traffic with traffic onthe major streetshouldbeconsidered. Thus, right-turn traffic shouldnotbeincludedin theminor-streetvolumeif the movemententersthemajor streetwith minimalconflict. Theapproachshouldbeevaluatedasa one-lane approachwith onlythetraffic volumein thethrough/left-turn laneconsidered. 11At a locationthat is underdevelopmentor constructionandwhereit is notpossibleto obtaina traffic count that wouldrepresentfuturetraffic conditions, hourlyvolumesshouldbeestimatedaspart of anengineeringstudy for comparisonwith traffic signalwarrants. Exceptfor locationswheretheengineeringstudyusesthe satisfactionof Warrant8 to justify a signal, a traffic control signalinstalledunderprojectedconditionsshould havean engineeringstudydonewithin 1 yearof puttingthesignalinto stop-and-gooperationto determineif the signalis justified. If notjustified, thesignalshouldbetakenoutof stop-and-gooperationor removed. 12For signalwarrantanalysis, a locationwith a widemedian, evenif themedianwidth is greaterthan30feet, shouldbeconsideredasoneintersection.
Option:
13At anintersectionwith a high volumeof left-turntraffic from themajorstreet, thesignalwarrantanalysis maybeperformedin a mannerthatconsidersthehigherof themajor-streetleft-turn volumesasthe “minor- street” volumeandthecorrespondingsingledirectionof opposingtraffic onthemajorstreetasthe “major-street” volumevolumeofthemajor-streetleft-turnvolumesplusthehighervolumeminor-streetapproachasthe “minorstreet” volumeandbothapproachesofthemajorstreetminusthehigherofthemajor-streetleft-turnvolumeas “majorstreet” volume.
14Forsignalwarrantsrequiringconditionsto bepresentfor a certainnumberof hoursin orderto besatisfied, anyfour sequential15-minuteperiodsmaybeconsideredas1 hourif theseparate1-hourperiodsusedin the warrantanalysisdo notoverlapeachotherandboththemajor-streetvolumeandtheminor-streetvolumearefor thesamespecificone-hourperiods.
15Forsignalwarrantanalysis, bicyclistsmaybecountedaseithervehiclesor pedestrians.
Support:
16Whenperformingasignalwarrantanalysis, bicyclistsriding in thestreetwith othervehiculartraffic are usuallycountedasvehiclesandbicyclistswho areclearlyusingpedestrianfacilities areusuallycountedas pedestrians.
Option:
17Engineeringstudydatamayincludethefollowing:
A. Thenumberof vehiclesenteringtheintersectionin eachhourfrom eachapproachduring12hoursof an averageday. It is desirablethatthehoursselectedcontainthegreatestpercentageof the24-hourtraffic volume.
B. Vehicularvolumesfor eachtraffic movementfrom eachapproach, classifiedby vehicletype (heavytrucks, passengercarsandlight trucks, public-transitvehicles, and, in somelocations, bicycles), duringeach15- minuteperiodof the2 hoursin themorningand2 hoursin theafternoonduringwhich total traffic entering theintersectionis greatest.
C. Pedestrianvolumecountson eachcrosswalkduringthesameperiodsasthevehicularcountsin ItemB and duringhoursof highestpedestrianvolume. Whereyoung, elderly, and/or personswith physicalor visual disabilitiesneedspecialconsideration, thepedestriansandtheir crossingtimesmaybeclassifiedby general observation.
D. Informationaboutnearbyfacilitiesandactivity centersthatservetheyoung, elderly, and/or personswith disabilities, includingrequestsfrom personswith disabilitiesfor accessiblecrossingimprovementsat the locationunderstudy. Thesepersonsmight notbeadequatelyreflectedin thepedestrianvolumecountif the absenceof asignalrestrainstheir mobility.
E. Thepostedor statutoryspeedlimit or the85th-percentilespeedon theuncontrolledapproachesto the location.
F. A conditiondiagramshowingdetailsof thephysicallayout, includingsuchfeaturesasintersection geometrics, channelization, grades, sight-distancerestrictions, transitstopsandroutes, parkingconditions, CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page832
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
pavementmarkings, roadwaylighting, driveways, nearbyrailroadcrossings, distanceto nearesttraffic controlsignals, utility polesandfixtures, andadjacentlanduse.
G. A collisiondiagramshowingcrashexperienceby type, location, directionof movement, severity, weather, time of day, date, anddayof weekfor atleast1 year.
18Thefollowing data, whicharedesirablefor a morepreciseunderstandingof theoperationof theintersection, maybeobtainedduringtheperiodsdescribedin Item B of Paragraph17:
A. Vehicle-hoursof stoppedtime delaydeterminedseparatelyfor eachapproach.
B. Thenumberanddistributionof acceptablegapsin vehiculartraffic onthemajorstreetfor entrancefrom the minor street.
C. Thepostedor statutoryspeedlimit or the85th-percentilespeedoncontrolledapproachesat a pointnearto theintersectionbutunaffectedby thecontrol.
D. Pedestriandelaytime for atleasttwo 30-minutepeakpedestriandelayperiodsof anaverageweekdayor like periodsof a Saturdayor Sunday.
E. Queuelengthonstop-controlledapproaches.
Standard:
19Delay, congestion, approachconditions, driverconfusion, futurelanduseorotherevidenceoftheneedforright ofwayassignmentbeyondthatwhichcouldbeprovidedbystopsignshallbedemonstrated.
Support:
20Figure4C–101(CA) and4C-103(CA) areexamplesofwarrantsheets.
Guidance:
21Figure4C-103(CA) shouldbeusedonlyfornewintersectionsorotherlocationswhereit isnotreasonabletocountactual trafficvolumes.
Section4C.02 Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Support:
01TheMinimum VehicularVolume, ConditionA, is intendedfor applicationatlocationswherea largevolume of intersectingtraffic is theprincipalreasonto considerinstallinga traffic controlsignal. 02TheInterruptionof ContinuousTraffic, ConditionB, is intendedfor applicationat locationswhereCondition A is not satisfiedandwherethetraffic volumeon a majorstreetis soheavythattraffic on aminor intersecting streetsuffersexcessivedelayor conflict in enteringor crossingthemajorstreet. 03It is intendedthatWarrant1 betreatedasa singlewarrant. If ConditionA is satisfied, thenWarrant1 is satisfiedandanalysesof ConditionB andthecombinationof ConditionsA andB arenot needed. Similarly, if ConditionB is satisfied, thenWarrant1 is satisfiedandananalysisof thecombinationof ConditionsA andB is notneeded.
Standard:
04The needfor a traffic control signalshall beconsideredif an engineeringstudy finds that oneof the following conditionsexistfor eachof any 8 hours of an averageday:
A. Thevehiclesperhourgivenin bothof the100percentcolumnsof ConditionA in Table4C-1 existon the major-streetand the higher-volumeminor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or B. The vehiclesper hour given in both of the 100percentcolumnsof Condition B in Table 4C-1 existon themajor-streetandthehigher-volumeminor-streetapproaches, respectively, to theintersection.
In applyingeachconditionthemajor-streetandminor-streetvolumesshallbefor thesame8hours. Onthe minor street, the higher volumeshall not berequired to beon the sameapproach during eachof these8 hours.
Option:
05If thepostedor statutoryspeedlimit or the85th-percentilespeedonthemajorstreetexceeds40 mph, or if the intersectionlieswithin thebuilt-upareaof anisolatedcommunityhavinga populationof lessthan10,000, the traffic volumesin the70percentcolumnsin Table4C-1 maybeusedin placeof the100percentcolumns.
Guidance:
06Thecombinationof ConditionsA andB is intendedfor applicationat locationswhereConditionA is not satisfiedandConditionB is notsatisfiedandshouldbeappliedonlyafteranadequatetrial of otheralternatives that couldcauselessdelayandinconvenienceto traffic hasfailed to solvethetraffic problems.
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page833
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
Standard:
07Theneedfor atraffic controlsignalshallbeconsideredif anengineeringstudyfindsthatbothof the following conditionsexistfor eachof any 8 hours of an averageday:
A. The vehiclesper hour given in both of the 80 percentcolumnsof Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-streetand the higher-volumeminor-streetapproaches, respectively, to the intersection; and B. Thevehiclesperhourgivenin bothof the80percentcolumnsof ConditionB in Table4C-1existon the major-streetand the higher-volumeminor-streetapproaches, respectively, to the intersection.
Thesemajor-streetand minor-streetvolumesshall befor the same8 hours for eachcondition; however, the8hourssatisfiedin ConditionA shallnotberequiredto bethesame8 hourssatisfiedin ConditionB.
Ontheminorstreet, thehighervolumeshallnotberequiredto beonthesameapproachduringeachof the 8 hours.
Option:
08If thepostedor statutoryspeedlimit or the85th-percentilespeedonthemajorstreetexceeds40 mph, or if the intersectionlieswithin thebuilt-upareaof anisolatedcommunityhavinga populationof lessthan10,000, the traffic volumesin the56percentcolumnsin Table4C-1 maybeusedin placeof the80percentcolumns.
Section4C.03 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Support:
01TheFour-HourVehicularVolumesignalwarrantconditionsareintendedto beappliedwherethevolumeof intersectingtraffic is theprincipalreasonto considerinstallingatraffic controlsignal.
Standard:
02The needfor a traffic control signalshall beconsideredif an engineeringstudy finds that, for eachof any 4 hours of an averageday, the plotted points representingthe vehiclesper hour on the major street total of both approaches) and the correspondingvehiclesper hour on the higher-volumeminor-street approach (onedirectiononly) all fall abovetheapplicablecurvein Figure4C-1for theexisting combination of approachlanes. On the minor street, the higher volumeshall not berequired to beon the sameapproach during eachof these4 hours.
Option:
03If thepostedor statutoryspeedlimit or the85th-percentilespeedonthemajorstreetexceeds40 mph, or if the intersectionlieswithin thebuilt-upareaof anisolatedcommunityhavinga populationof lessthan10,000, Figure 4C-2 maybeusedin placeof Figure4C-1.
Section4C.04 Warrant 3, PeakHour
Support:
01ThePeakHour signalwarrantis intendedfor useata locationwheretraffic conditionsaresuchthatfor a minimumof 1 hourof anaverageday, theminor-streettraffic suffersunduedelay whenenteringor crossingthe majorstreet.
Standard:
02This signalwarrant shall beapplied only in unusual cases, suchasoffice complexes, manufacturing plants, industrialcomplexes, or high-occupancyvehiclefacilitiesthatattractor dischargelargenumbersof vehiclesover a short time.
03The needfor a traffic control signalshall beconsideredif an engineeringstudy finds that the criteria in either of the following two categoriesare met:
A. If all threeof thefollowingconditionsexistfor thesame1hour (anyfour consecutive15-minute periods) of an averageday:
1. The total stoppedtime delay experiencedby the traffic on oneminor-street approach (onedirection only) controlledby aSTOPsignequalsor exceeds: 4vehicle-hoursfor aone-laneapproachor 5 vehicle-hoursfor atwo-laneapproach; and
2. The volumeon the sameminor-streetapproach (onedirection only) equalsor exceeds100vehicles perhourfor onemovinglaneof traffic or 150vehiclesperhourfor twomovinglanes; and CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page834
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
3. The total entering volumeservicedduring the hour equalsor exceeds650vehiclesper hour for intersectionswith threeapproachesor 800vehiclesperhourfor intersectionswith four or more approaches.
B. The plotted point representingthe vehiclesper hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the correspondingvehiclesper hour on the higher-volumeminor-street approach (onedirection only) for 1hour (anyfour consecutive15-minuteperiods) of anaveragedayfallsabovetheapplicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existingcombination of approachlanes.
Option:
04If thepostedor statutoryspeedlimit or the85th-percentilespeedonthemajorstreetexceeds40 mph, or if the intersectionlieswithin thebuilt-upareaof anisolatedcommunityhavinga populationof lessthan10,000, Figure 4C-4 maybeusedin placeof Figure4C-3 to evaluatethecriteriain thesecondcategoryof theStandard. 05If this warrantis theonly warrantmetandatraffic controlsignalis justified by anengineeringstudy, the traffic controlsignalmaybeoperatedin theflashingmodeduringthehoursthatthevolumecriteriaof this warrantarenotmet.
Guidance:
06If thiswarrant is theonlywarrantmetanda traffic control signalis justifiedbyanengineeringstudy, the traffic control signalshouldbetraffic-actuated.
Section4C.05 Warrant 4, PedestrianVolume
Support:
01ThePedestrianVolumesignalwarrantis intendedfor applicationwherethetraffic volumeona majorstreet is soheavythatpedestriansexperienceexcessivedelayin crossingthemajorstreet.
Standard:
02The needfor a traffic control signalat an intersectionor midblock crossingshall beconsideredif an engineeringstudyfindsthat oneof thefollowingcriteria ismet:
A. For eachof any 4 hours of an averageday, the plotted points representingthe vehiclesper hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the correspondingpedestriansper hour crossingthe majorstreet (totalof all crossings) all fall abovethecurvein Figure4C-5; or B. For 1hour (anyfour consecutive15-minuteperiods) of anaverageday, theplottedpointrepresenting the vehiclesper hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the correspondingpedestrians perhourcrossingthemajor street (totalof all crossings) fallsabovethecurvein Figure4C-7.
Option:
03If thepostedor statutoryspeedlimit or the85th-percentilespeedonthemajorstreetexceeds35 mph, or if the intersectionlieswithin thebuilt-upareaof anisolatedcommunityhavinga populationof lessthan10,000, Figure 4C-6 maybeusedin placeof Figure4C-5 to evaluateCriterionA in Paragraph2, andFigure4C-8 maybeused in placeof Figure4C-7 to evaluateCriterionB in Paragraph2.
Standard:
04ThePedestrianVolumesignalwarrantshallnotbeappliedat locationswherethedistanceto the nearesttraffic control signalor STOPsign controlling the street that pedestriansdesireto crossis lessthan 300feet, unlessthe proposedtraffic control signalwill not restrict the progressivemovementof traffic. 05If this warrant is met and a traffic control signalis justified by an engineeringstudy, the traffic control signalshallbeequippedwith pedestriansignalheadscomplyingwith theprovisionssetforth in Chapter 4E.
Guidance:
06If thiswarrantis metanda traffic control signalis justifiedby anengineeringstudy, then:
A. If it is installedat an intersectionor major drivewaylocation, thetraffic control signalshouldalsocontrol theminor-streetor drivewaytraffic, shouldbetraffic-actuated, andshouldincludepedestriandetection.
B. If it is installedat a non-intersectioncrossing, thetraffic control signalshouldbeinstalledat least100feet fromsidestreetsor drivewaysthat are controlledbySTOPor YIELDsigns, andshouldbepedestrian- actuated. If thetraffic control signalis installedat a non-intersectioncrossing, at leastoneof thesignal facesshouldbeoverthetraveledwayfor eachapproach, parkingandothersightobstructionsshouldbe prohibitedfor at least100feetin advanceof andat least20 feetbeyondthecrosswalkor site CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page835
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
accommodationsshouldbemadethroughcurbextensionsor othertechniquesto provideadequatesight distance, andtheinstallationshouldincludesuitablestandardsignsandpavementmarkings.
C. Furthermore, if it is installedwithin a signalsystem, thetraffic control signalshouldbecoordinated.
Option:
07Thecriterionfor thepedestrianvolumecrossingthemajorstreetmaybereducedasmuchas50 percentif the 15th-percentilecrossingspeedof pedestriansis lessthan3.5feetpersecond. 08A traffic controlsignalmaynot beneededatthestudylocationif adjacentcoordinatedtraffic controlsignals consistentlyprovidegapsof adequatelengthfor pedestriansto crossthestreet.
Section4C.06 Warrant 5, SchoolCrossing
Support:
01TheSchoolCrossingsignalwarrantis intendedfor applicationwherethefactthatschoolchildrencrossthe majorstreetis theprincipalreasonto considerinstallinga traffic controlsignal. Forthepurposesof thiswarrant, theword “schoolchildren” includeselementarythroughhigh schoolstudents.
Standard:
02The needfor a traffic control signalshall beconsideredwhenan engineeringstudy of the frequency and adequacyof gapsin the vehicular traffic streamasrelated to the number and sizeof groupsof schoolchildrenat anestablishedschoolcrossingacrossthemajorstreetshowsthatthenumberof adequate gapsin the traffic stream during the period whenthe schoolchildrenare using the crossingis lessthan the number of minutes in the sameperiod (seeSection7A.03) and there are a minimum of 20 schoolchildren duringthehighestcrossinghour.
03Beforea decisionis madeto install a traffic control signal, considerationshall be givento the implementation of other remedial measures, suchaswarning signsand flashers, schoolspeedzones, school crossingguards, or a grade-separatedcrossing.
04TheSchoolCrossingsignalwarrantshallnotbeappliedat locationswherethedistanceto thenearest traffic control signalalong the major street is lessthan 300feet, unlessthe proposedtraffic control signal will not restrict the progressivemovementof traffic.
Guidance:
05If thiswarrant is metanda traffic control signalis justifiedbyan engineeringstudy, then:
A. If it is installedat an intersectionor major drivewaylocation, thetraffic control signalshouldalsocontrol theminor-streetor drivewaytraffic, shouldbetraffic-actuated, andshouldincludepedestriandetection.
B. If it is installedat a non-intersectioncrossing, thetraffic control signalshouldbeinstalledat least100feet fromsidestreetsor drivewaysthat are controlledbySTOPor YIELDsigns, andshouldbepedestrian- actuated. If thetraffic control signalis installedat a non-intersectioncrossing, at leastoneof thesignal facesshouldbeoverthetraveledwayfor eachapproach, parkingandothersightobstructionsshouldbe prohibitedfor at least100feetin advanceof andat least20 feetbeyondthecrosswalkor site accommodationsshouldbemadethroughcurbextensionsor othertechniquesto provideadequatesight distance, andtheinstallationshouldincludesuitablestandardsignsandpavementmarkings.
C. Furthermore, if it is installedwithin a signalsystem, thetraffic control signalshouldbecoordinated.
Section4C.07 Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
Support:
01Progressivemovementin a coordinatedsignalsystemsometimesnecessitatesinstallingtraffic controlsignals atintersectionswheretheywouldnototherwisebeneededin orderto maintainproperplatooningof vehicles.
Standard:
02The needfor a traffic control signalshall beconsideredif an engineeringstudy finds that oneof the followingcriteria ismet:
A. On a one-way streetor a streetthat hastraffic predominantly in onedirection, the adjacent traffic control signalsare sofar apart that they do not provide the necessarydegreeof vehicular platooning.
B. Onatwo-waystreet, adjacenttraffic controlsignalsdonotprovidethenecessarydegreeof platooning andtheproposedandadjacenttraffic controlsignalswill collectivelyprovidea progressiveoperation.
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page836
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
Guidance:
03TheCoordinatedSignalSystemsignalwarrantshouldnotbeappliedwheretheresultantspacingof traffic control signalswouldbelessthan1,000feet.
Section4C.08 Warrant 7, Crash Experience
Support:
01TheCrashExperiencesignalwarrantconditionsareintendedfor applicationwheretheseverityandfrequency of crashesaretheprincipalreasonsto considerinstallinga traffic controlsignal.
Standard:
02The needfor a traffic control signalshall beconsideredif an engineeringstudy finds that all of the followingcriteria aremet:
A. Adequatetrial of alternativeswith satisfactoryobservanceand enforcementhasfailed to reducethe crashfrequency; and
B. Five or more reported crashes, of typessusceptibleto correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12-month period, eachcrashinvolving personalinjury or property damage apparently exceedingthe applicable requirementsfor a reportable crash; and C. For eachof any 8 hours of an averageday, the vehiclesper hour (vph) given in both of the 80percent columnsof ConditionA in Table4C-1 (seeSection4C.02), or thevphin bothof the80percent columnsof ConditionB in Table4C-1existsonthemajor-streetandthehigher-volumeminor-street approach, respectively, to the intersection, or the volumeof pedestriantraffic is not lessthan 80 percentof therequirementsspecifiedin thePedestrianVolumewarrant. Thesemajor-streetand minor-streetvolumesshallbefor thesame8hours. Ontheminor street, thehighervolumeshallnot berequired to beon the sameapproachduring eachof the 8 hours.
Option:
03If thepostedor statutoryspeedlimit or the85th-percentilespeedonthemajorstreetexceeds40 mph, or if the intersectionlieswithin thebuilt-upareaof anisolatedcommunityhavinga populationof lessthan10,000, the traffic volumesin the56percentcolumnsin Table4C-1 maybeusedin placeof the80 percentcolumns.
Section4C.09 Warrant 8, RoadwayNetwork
Support:
01Installingatraffic controlsignalat someintersectionsmightbejustifiedto encourageconcentrationand organizationof traffic flow on aroadwaynetwork.
Standard:
02The needfor a traffic control signalshall beconsideredif an engineeringstudy finds that the common intersection of two or more major routes meetsoneor both of the following criteria:
A. The intersection hasa total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least1,000 vehiclesperhourduringthepeakhourof a typicalweekdayandhas5-yearprojectedtraffic volumes, basedon anengineeringstudy, that meetoneor more of Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an average weekday; or
B. Theintersectionhasatotalexistingor immediatelyprojectedenteringvolumeof at least1,000 vehiclesperhourfor eachof any5 hoursof anon-normalbusinessday (Saturdayor Sunday). 03A major route asusedin this signalwarrant shall haveat leastoneof the following characteristics:
A. It is part of the streetor highway systemthat servesasthe principal roadway network for through traffic flow.
B. It includesrural or suburban highwaysoutside, entering, or traversing a city.
C. It appearsasa major route on anofficial plan, suchasa major street plan in an urban areatraffic andtransportationstudy.
Section4C.10 Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing Support:
01TheIntersectionNeara GradeCrossingsignalwarrantis intendedfor useata locationwherenoneof the conditionsdescribedin theothereighttraffic signalwarrantsaremet, buttheproximity to theintersectionof a CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page837
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
gradecrossingonanintersectionapproachcontrolledby a STOPor YIELD signis theprincipalreasonto considerinstallinga traffic controlsignal.
Guidance:
02Thissignalwarrantshouldbeappliedonlyafteradequateconsiderationhasbeengivento otheralternatives or aftera trial of analternativehasfailed to alleviatethesafetyconcernsassociatedwith thegradecrossing.
Amongthealternativesthat shouldbeconsideredor tried are:
A. Providingadditionalpavementthat wouldenablevehiclesto clear thetrackor that wouldprovidespacefor anevasivemaneuver, or
B. Reassigningthestopcontrolsat theintersectionto maketheapproachacrossthetrack a non-stopping approach.
Standard:
03The needfor a traffic control signalshall beconsideredif an engineeringstudy finds that both of the followingcriteria aremet:
A. A gradecrossingexistson an approachcontrolled by a STOPor YIELD sign and the centerof the track nearestto the intersectionis within 140feetof the stop line or yield line on the approach; and B. Duringthehighesttraffic volumehourduringwhichrail traffic usesthecrossing, theplottedpoint representingthevehiclesperhouronthemajorstreet (totalof bothapproaches) andthe correspondingvehiclesper hour on the minor-street approachthat crossesthe track (onedirection only, approachingtheintersection) fallsabovetheapplicablecurvein Figure4C-9or 4C-10for the existingcombinationof approachlanesoverthetrack andthedistanceD, whichistheclearstorage distanceasdefinedin Section1A.13.
Guidance:
04Thefollowing considerationsapplywhenplottingthetraffic volumedataonFigure4C-9 or 4C-10:
A. Figure 4C-9 shouldbeusedif thereis only onelaneapproachingtheintersectionat thetrackcrossing locationandFigure4C-10 shouldbeusedif therearetwo or morelanesapproachingtheintersectionat the trackcrossinglocation.
B. AfterdeterminingtheactualdistanceD, thecurvefor thedistanceD that is nearestto theactualdistanceD shouldbeused. For example, if theactualdistanceD is 95feet, theplottedpointshouldbecomparedto the curvefor D = 90feet.
C. If therail traffic arrival timesareunknown, thehighesttraffic volumehour of thedayshouldbeused.
Option:
05Theminor-streetapproachvolumemaybemultiplied by upto threeadjustmentfactorsasprovidedin Paragraphs6 through8.
06Becausethecurvesarebasedonanaverageof four occurrencesof rail traffic perday, thevehiclesperhour on theminor-streetapproachmaybemultiplied by theadjustmentfactorshownin Table4C-2 for theappropriate numberof occurrencesof rail traffic perday.
07Becausethecurvesarebasedontypicalvehicleoccupancy, if atleast2% of thevehiclescrossingthetrack arebusescarryingat least20people, thevehiclesperhourontheminor-streetapproachmaybemultiplied by the adjustmentfactorshownin Table4C-3 for theappropriatepercentageof high-occupancybuses. 08Becausethecurvesarebasedontractor-trailer truckscomprising10% of thevehiclescrossingthetrack, the vehiclesperhouron theminor-streetapproachmaybemultiplied by theadjustmentfactorshownin Table4C-4 for theappropriatedistanceandpercentageof tractor-trailer trucks.
Standard:
09If this warrant is met and a traffic control signalat the intersection is justified by an engineeringstudy, then:
A. Thetraffic controlsignalshallhaveactuationontheminorstreet; B. Preemptioncontrolshallbeprovidedin accordancewith Sections4D.27, 8C.09, and8C.10; and C. The grade crossingshall haveflashing-light signals (seeChapter 8C).
Guidance:
10If thiswarrantis metanda traffic control signalat theintersectionis justifiedby anengineeringstudy, the gradecrossingshouldhaveautomaticgates (seeChapter8C).
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page838
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
Section4C.101(CA) CriterionforSchoolCrossingTrafficSignals 01Standard:
A. Thesignalshallbedesignedforfull-timeoperation.
B. PedestriansignalfacesoftheInternationalSymboltypeshallbeinstalledatallmarkedcrosswalksat signalizedintersectionsalongthe “SuggestedRoutetoSchool.” C. Ifanintersectionissignalizedunderthisguidelineforschoolpedestrians, theentireintersectionshallbe signalized.
D. Schoolareatrafficsignalsshallbetrafficactuatedtypewithpushbuttonsorotherdetectorsforpedestrians.
Option:
02Non-intersectionschoolpedestriancrosswalklocationsmaybesignalizedwhenjustified.
RevisedDecember9, 2015
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page839
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
74/52/54/52
74/52/54/52
89/62/65/62 w/ 20% factor
89/62/65/62 w/ 20% factor
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page840
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
74 74
89 w/ 20% factor
89 w/ 20% factor
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page841
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page842
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page843
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page844
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
7-8am
8-9am
9-10am
10-
11am
12-
1pm
2-3pm
3-4pm
4-5pm
7-8am
8-9am
9-10am
10-
11am
12-
1pm
2-3pm
3-4pm
4-5pm
HARBOR BOULEVARD
LA ENTRADA PLACE
Tuesday, February 7, 2023
DGL 2/23/2023
2/27/2023D. Roseman
53.8 25
X
X
X
X
27382481201619312112290028152862
424352525254
5274
2862 2815 2112 1931 2016 2481 2738 2900
74 52
424352525254
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
w/ 20% GrowthFactor8962 65 62 62 62 52 50
w/ 20% GrowthFactor8962 65 62 62 62 52 50
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page845
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
X
5274 54 52
7-8am
8-9am
9-10am
10-
11am
X
X
X
2862 2815 2112 1931
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
7-8am
2862
74 89 62 65 62 w/ 20% Growth Factor
Yes w/ 20% factor
No w/ 20% factor
89 w/ 20%factor
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page846
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
X
23 1 4
X
3 2 1 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
9-10am
5-6pm
4-5pm
7-8am
2284 3018 3148 3141
2284 3018 3148 3141
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page847
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
962 3,982 0 0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
2,102
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page848
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
X
NOT APPLICABLE
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page849
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
74 59 689
36 39 355
0 0
0 0
2 2
Harbor Bl. & La Entrada Pl.
Fullerton
Tuewsday, February 7, 2023
24-Hour
39,430
6:00am - 7:00am 3,018
4:00pm - 5:00pm 3,148
46 1,
324
71 18
842
54 7
12 1
18 142
1,
613
76 1,
042
3 2
1,
9 40
85 5
6 1 11
12 ORG
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page850
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
X
HARBOR BOULEVARD
LA ENTRADA PLACE
Tuesday, February 7, 2023
2/23/2023
2/27/2023
DGL
D. Roseman
53.8 25
X
X
X
XXX
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page851
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals
CaliforniaMUTCD 2014Edition Page852
FHWA’s MUTCD 2009Edition, includingRevisions1 & 2, asamendedfor usein California) Chapter4C – Traffic ControlSignalNeedsStudies November7, 2014 Part4 – HighwayTraffic Signals