Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS02 - Traffic Signal Priority ProgramREVISED • August 9, 1999 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 2 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction in establishing a Traffic Signal Priority Program to guide expenditures for installing new signals and upgrading existing locations for the next two years. DISCUSSION: The 1999 -00 Fiscal year Budget allocates $325,000 of Gas Tax funds for the installation and upgrading of traffic signal facilities. The multi -year Capital Improvement Program proposes an additional $250,000 for such improvements in FY 2000 -01. • The City has received a number of requests over the past few years for the installation of new traffic signals. There is also an ongoing program to upgrade and replace older signal installations. To establish a program for both new signals and for upgrading older signals, a technical review was performed to establish a list of warranted new traffic signal locations and a survey was made of the existing signal ages, maintenance history and general condition. A number of the locations that ranked high on the technical rankings list have conditions that mitigate the need for immediate installation or impact the ability to install the signal this fiscal year. For instance, the presence of stop signs on all legs of the intersection control the traffic without a signal and unless significant traffic delays are being experienced the signal installation can be postponed. If the signal is partially in another jurisdiction and/or significant roadway reconstruction is needed, funding from other sources will be required and the signal program won't cover the installation. When adjoining neighborhoods either support or are opposed to installations, this will affect the implementation priority. When funding contributions of 25% or more are offered, projects are given a higher ranking. Exhibit 1 is the recommended Priority Program based upon adjustments for the additional considerations mentioned above. Exhibit 1 also includes the list of existing intersections, which need upgrades in the near future. Based upon the available funding and upgrade needs, it is recommended that $225,000 be used for two new signal installations and $100,000 be used for signal upgrades. It is also recommended that funding of $250,000 be considered for Fiscal Year 2000 -01, to provide an additional new signal and two more modifications. • SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY PROGRAM REVISED August 9.1999 Page 2 • If it is desired to install three new traffic signals this year the following options should be considered: u Option 1: Construct: Priority 1 San Miguel @ Port Ramsey $110,000 City Priority 3 San Miguel @ Port Sutton/ Yacht Coquette $ 90,000 City $ 30,000 HOA Design: Priority 2 Avocado Ave @ Farallon Drive $ 10,000 City Signal Upgrades $115,000 City $325,000 City $ 30,000 HOA This option may have some economic benefits because the two San Miguel locations are close together and the contractor will only need one staging area. Option 2: Construct: Priority 1 San Miguel @ Port Ramsey $110,000 City Priority 2 Avocado Ave @ Farallon Drive $110,000 City Signal Upgrades $105,000 City $325,000 City $ 10,000 HOA In both of the above options all three signals would be designed and the third signal could be constructed this fiscal year if other CIP projects come in underbudget and create a surplus. If not, the project would be ready for construction at the beginning of next fiscal year. Both of these options will have three new traffic signal installations completed in 18 to 20 months and two old signals upgraded in 10 to 12 months. Option 3 would be to construct the first three signals on the list, upgrade two signal locations and complete the funding shortfall by processing a $90,000 budget amendment to appropriate additional funds from the reserves. The work on all signals would be completed in 14 to 16 months. As a base for the recommended Priority Program technical evaluations were performed for 23 intersections where signals have been requested or where staff felt a traffic . signal might be needed to control traffic. Exhibit 2 is the technical ranking of these Clusers\pbw%shared\ council \ty99- 00\august -9 \traffic signal program.doc SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY PROGRAM REVISED August 9,1999 Page 3 • locations based upon traffic signal warrants, traffic counts and accident experience. The last page of Exhibit 2 shows the point system used to rank the intersections. I�L Letters were sent to 18 community associations last November advising them of the specific intersections in their area that were being considered for possible signalization. We asked if they supported or opposed a signal and whether or not they would consider participating financially in the installation. Four responses were received. Eastbluff Homeowners Community Association acknowledged our letter but did not indicate a position on any of the candidate locations. Friends of OASIS sent a letter of support for a signal on Marguerite Avenue @ Fifth Avenue. This location did not meet any of the warrants and is therefore not included on the recommended program. Newport Hills Community Association responded that they supported either a 4 -way STOP or a signal on San Miguel at Port Sutton /Yacht Coquette. The Broadmoor Sea View Community Association responded that they strongly support a signal at the San Miguel @ Port Sutton/Yacht Coquette intersection and furthermore they were willing to pay 25% of the cost of the signal at that location. Staff requests input from the City Council on a Traffic Signal Priority Program and which option to implement for the expenditure of budgeted funds. Respectfully submitted, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Don Webb, Director By: 6,,. t I ..L Richard Edmonston Transportation and Development Services Manager Attachments: Exhibit 1 — Traffic Signal Priority Program Exhibit 2 — Technical Traffic Signal Rankings f'\ users\ pbw\ sharecNcouncil \fy99- 00\august -9 \traffic signal program.doc RECOMMENDED TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY PROGRAM (Preliminary Engineer's Estimate) NEW SIGNALS 1. San Miguel Drive @ Port Ramsey ($110,000) 2. Avocado Avenue @ Farallon Drive ($110,000) 3. San Miguel Drive @ Port Sutton/Yacht Coquette ($120,000) 4. Bayside Drive @ Harbor Island Drive ($110,000)- (25% TIC share, no commitment) 5. Irvine Avenue @ Santa Isabel Avenue ($110,000) 6. San Miguel Drive @ Spyglass Hill Road/Eastgate Drive ($120,000) 7. Campus Drive @ Teller Avenue ($93,000) — co -op project with Irvine 8. San Miguel Drive @ Ford Road ($120,000) 9. Eastbluff Drive @ Vista del Sol/Bixia ($120,000) 10. Irvine Avenue @ Mariners Drivell8`h Street ($180,000) - ($60,000 Costa Mesa share) - -- requires street improvements on Irvine Avenue 11. Eastbluff Drive @ Vista del Oro /Cacao ($120,000) 12. Newport Center Drive @ Anacapa Drive ($110,000) 13. East Coast Highway @ Seaward Road ($60,000) — co -op project with Call rans SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS 1. San Joaquin Hills Road @ Big Canyon/Santa Rosa ($55,000) 2. San Joaquin Hills Road @ Big Canyon/Santa Cruz ($45,000) 3. MacArthur Boulevard @ Birch Street ($55,000) 4. San Joaquin Hills Road @ San Miguel Drive ($45,000) 5. San Joaquin Hills Road @ Marguerite Avenue ($20,000) Exhibit 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1999 TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECHNICAL RANKINGS INTERSECTION POINTS 1. Irvine Avenue @ Mariners Drive 52 2. San Miguel Drive @ Port Ramsey Place 48 3. Avocado Avenue @ Farallon Drive 46 4. San Miguel Drive @ Spyglass Hill Road/Eastgate Drive * 36 5. San Miguel Drive @ Ford Road ** 34 6. Campus Drive @ Teller Avenue 32 7. Eastbluff Drive @ Vista del Sol/Bixia * 30 8. Bayside Drive @ Harbor Island Drive 27 9. Irvine Avenue @ Santa Isabel Avenue 26 10. Eastbluff Drive @ Vista del Oro N /Cacao * 14 11. San Miguel Drive @ Port Sutton/Yacht Coquette 11 12. Newport Center Drive @ Anacapa Drive 10 13. East Coast Highway @ Seaward Road 9 The following intersections did not meet any warrants: 14. Irvine Avenue @ 15'h Street * 8 15. Balboa Boulevard @ 38'h Street * 8 16. Eastbluff Drive @ Alba Street 6 17. Irvine Avenue @ 16'h Street * 2 18. Balboa Boulevard @ 28'h Street 2 Exhibit 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1999 TRAFFIC SIGNAL TECHNICAL RANKINGS INTERSECTION 19. Eastbluff Drive @ Vista del Oro S ** 20. Marguerite Avenue @ 5`h Street * 21. Newport Center Drive @ Center Drive 22. Newport Center Drive @ San Nicolas Drive 23. Newport Center Drive @ Santa Maria Road * EXISTING 4 -WAY STOP CONTROL ** EXISTING 3 -WAY STOP CONTROL Revised 7 -29 -99 POINTS 0 0 0 0 0 A CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIORITY RANKING SYSTEM REVISED 1999 CRITERION POINTS 1. Satisfies Warrant 1 — Minimum Vehicular Volume 10 2. Satisfies Warrant 2 — Interruption of Continuous Traffic 10 3. Satisfies Warrant 6 — Accident Experience 10 4. Satisfies Warrant 8 — Combination of Warrants 10 5. Satisfies Warrant 9 — Four Hour Volume 7 6. Satisfies Warrant 10 —Peak Hour Delay 7 7. Satisfies Warrant 11 — Peak Hour Volume 7 8. Correctable Accident in previous 24 months 2 NOTES • Warrants are criteria adopted by the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans to help identify those locations where the cost of installing traffic signals may be justified by the improved access and reduction in right angle accidents they typically provide. A traffic signal should not be installed solely because one or more warrants are met. Signals may cause certain types of accidents and some locations function safely and with less delay with STOP signs. • Warrants 1, 2 and 8 are based upon traffic meeting the criterion for 8 hours during the day and are therefore weighted more heavily than Warrants 9, 10 and 11. • The reported accidents for calendar years 1997 and 1998 were used for this analysis. Correctable accidents are normally right - angle, bicycle and pedestrian accidents.