HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 BloomingtonWyTrffcStdy (2) CITY CLERK
File # ~--]~~~'l
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 7, 1998
SUBJECT:
Public Hearing: Bloomington Way Traffic Studies
Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
1)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Letter from Mrs. Catherine Nolan dated 5/29/97
Petition and phone messages regarding proposed edge line
and centerline striping of Bloomington Way south (uphill) of
Beckett Way.
Copy of notice sent to residents
Stop sign studies conducted by TJKM in 1995 (Bloomington
Way/Fenwick Way and Bloomington Way/Beckett Way
intersections)
Stop sign studies conducted by TJKM in 1998
Location Map of Bloomington Way Addresses
Map of Proposed Striping Improvement
RECOMMENDATION:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Open public hearing
Receive Staff'presentation and public comment
Question Staff and the public
Close public hearing and deliberate
Install minimal striping on Bloomington Way between
Fenwick Way and Beckett Way as shown on Map Exhibit 6
and continue to monitor traffic in this area.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Cost of the recommended striping is estimated at $650.00.
DESCRIPTION: In May of 1997, Mrs. Catherine Nolan of 11721 Bloomington Way
submitted a letter (Exhibit 1) to the Public Works Department requesting that stop signs be installed on
Bloomington Way at the intersections of (upper) Fenwick Way and Beckett Way. The reasons cited for
the request included speed control and sight distance issues. Stop sign studies had been performed by
TJ-KM,. the City's traffic engineering consultant, at both intersections in 1995. Neither intersection met
the warrants for all-way stop intersections at that time.
The reported accident history on this street is minimal, with five reported accidents in the past seven years.
Two of the accidents could be considered speed-related, as they involved drivers losing control and
COPIES TO: Mrs. Nolan; TJKM
ITEM NO.
g:\agenmisc\bloomgtn
striking parked cars. Two of the other three accidents also involved parked cars, resulting from the
driver's attention being diverted, in one case by sunlight and in the other case by an insect. The fifth
accident involved a dog which was hit when it ran into the street. The warrant for stop sign studies
requires five speed-related accidents within a one-year period.
The installation of unwarranted stop signs can produce several negative impacts. Because the incidence of
cross traffic is low, drivers will often come to "roiling stops" or may not obey the stop sign at all. In
addition, unwarranted stop signs contribute to traffic delays, noise, and air pollution. Stop signs are not an
effective means of speed control, as drivers tend to speed up between stop signs.
Staffnotified Mrs. Nolan that stop signs would not be recommended but offered to locate the Police
Services radar trailer in front of her house and conduct a speed survey. Mrs. Nolan indicated at the time
that she felt the speed survey should be done in the fail, as the traffic was worse when school was in
session.
The initial speed survey conducted in September indicated that the 85th percentile speed above Mrs.
Nolan's house was 30 mph. Mrs. Nolan felt that the survey should have been conducted directly in front
of her house. The survey was re-done as requested, with the result that the 85th percentile speed was 27
mph downhill and 30 mph uphill. These speeds are typical of a residential neighborhood.
The 85th percentile speed is defined as the speed at or below which 85% of drivers are traveling. This
figure is used as a benchmark by traffic engineers, as it is felt that most drivers will drive at a speed that is
safe for the roadway. The 85th percentile speed is a major criterion, along with roadway characteristics,
that is used in determining the speed limit for a street.
Mrs. Nolan was advised of the speed survey results. The City's Traffic Safety Committee discussed this
issue on several occasions and felt that the perceived speeding problem might be helped by the use of a
striping device that had been used on a few other City streets. The striping consists of a centerline and
edge lines which reduce the travel lane width to ten or eleven feet. This gives the illusion of a narrower
roadway and typically causes a motorist to drive more slowly. An additional benefit of the edge line
striping is that it provides a buffer between the travel lane and driveway approaches, making it easier for
residents to exit their driveways. This device has been used on West Vomac Road with positive comments
from neighbors. Mrs. Nolan indicated that she would be receptive to the striping.
W-hen the striping work order was scheduled and the preliminary "cat-tracking" painted on the street,
several residents called the Public Works Department and asked that the work be stopped. In response,
Staffmailed a letter to residents on the portion of Bloomington Way that was proposed to be striped, the
portion that is south (uphill) of Beckett Way. Staff'received a petition with 42 signatures, plus six
telephone calls, from residents who were not in favor of the striping. Three calls were received in favor of
the striping.
Mrs. Nolan was advised of the situation and requested that Stafflook at installing stop signs on
Bloomington Way at the "upper" Fenwick intersection. In addition, the petition received from the other
residents asks for stop signs on Bloomington Way at Beckett. TJKM has performed new studies; their
report, Exhibit 5, indicates that the warrants still have not been met. It does appear, however, that Mrs.
Nolan's house and driveway are located so that she may have a problem seeing oncoming traffic when
trying to back out. This situation is partly due to her landscaping, which could be modified, and partly due
to a curve in the road. It may be possible to provide minimal striping as shown on the diagram, Exhibit 7,
to discourage cars from "cutting the comer" coming downhill and thereby improve visibility.
Page 2
Since the response to general striping improvements has been overwhelmingly negative, Staff.has sent a
notice to the Bloomington Way residents advising them of the stop sign study results and the suggested
striping improvements. Staff.recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and
approve the minimal striping as shown on Exhibit 7.
Page 3
F:~m: (:~therine S. Nolan To: C:r:}' of Dublin public Works D~te: .6/'29/97 Time: 11:54:30 Page 2 of 3
Catherine S. Nolan
11721 Bloomington Way
Dublin, Ca. 94568
May 29, 1997
C!..ty of Dublin
Department of Public Works
Dublin Blvd.
Dublin, Ca. 94568
To Whom It May Concern:
The purpose of this letter is to request two stop signs on Bloomington Way. One stop sign
should be located at Bloomington Way and Fenwick Way (up the hill from Bloomington
Court) and the other stop sign should be located at Bloomington Way and Beckett Avenue.
The addition of these stop signs would signfficantly reduce the potential for accidents
caused excessive automobile speed and by the poor visibility of exits from local resident
driveways.
In the last few years, my neighborhood has seen a significant increase in the number of
cars that travel up and down the portion of Bloomington Way where I reside. Along with
the increase in traffic, I have observed a significant increase in automobile speed. While
the legal speed limit is 25 miles per hour, my observation is that few automobiles travel at
or below that speed. There are two primary reasons why the speed of automobile traffic
causes concern:
· There are several "blind spots" on Bloomington Way both above Fenwick Way and
between Fenv~ick Way. and Beckett Avenue. Residents on Bloomington Way are, in
many cases, unable to exit their driveways without being in danger of a collision with
automobiles traveling along Bloomington Way, both up and down the hill. When
automobiles exceed the 25 MPH speed limit, which is oven the case, the potential for
collision and bodily injury is increased.
· Several years ago, when traffic w~s slower and less heavy, a child riding his bicycle on
Bloomington Way (between Beckett Avenue and Fenwick Way) was hit by an
automobile. Our understanding is that the accident was a result of poor visibility due to
blind spots and due to the fact the sun was shining directly into the drivels eyes.
Currently, there are at least 14 children under the age of 10 living on Bloomington Way
from just above Fenwick Way to Beckett Avenue. There are still more very young
chiidre,~ living on Bloomington Court, which feeds into Bloomington way between
Fenwick Way and Beckett Avenue. Our concern now is that with additional children
living in the neighborhood, and with the increase in both the amount and the speed of
the local traffic, it is only a matter of time before a serious accident occurs.
These intersections have become dangerous! Every time a child crosses the
street, no ma~er how carefully, he or she risks his life! I believe that making both the
Bloomin~on Way/Fenwick Way interse~ion and the BLoomington Way/Beckett Avenue
intersection three-way-stops will significantly reduce the chance for collision..1 also believe
that the installation of those stop signs will bring traffic flow closer to the legal speed limit.
· ~'rom: CSatherine S. Nolan To: Cify of Dublin Public Works
Date: 5~9,'97 Time: 11:56:21
Page 3 of 3
I look forward to working with the City of Dublin to get these stop signs installed. Should
you need additional information, or if you have questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 510-6/-"7-5846 (work) or 510-828-6055 (home). I anxiously await the City of
Dublin's response to this request.
Sincerely,
January 6, 1998
Mr. Mehran Sepehri
Senior Cix41 En~neer
City of Dublin
100 Cixdc Plaza
Dublim CA~ 94568
RE: Halting stripping project on Bloomington Way
Dear Mr. Sepehri,
This is a follow-up to our telephone com,ersafion of Monday Januax3.' 5, 1998. Enclosed you will find the
signed petition as requested_ With this submission the signed residents of Bloomin~on Way request the
issue be placed on the City Council agenda (if required) so that our concerns can be voiced and the issue
be formally resolved- Please contact me at 510 551 - 5986 when a date has been set.
As sio~xatures were gathered, a few items of interest were noted:
1. Four residents with in a sin~e block DID NOT receive a letter from the ciB? dated December 22,
1997.
2. Ever~' home on Bloomington Way xx'as cam'assed, 39 residents opposed the stripping, 2 households
support file stripping and the remaining could not be contactexL
3. Two opponents of the stripping recently moved into file neiborhood and purposely purchased a home
on Bloomin~on Way (versus Southwick) because there was NO stripping.
Considering the number of residents who signed the petition opposing the stripping it is apparent that file
majori .ty of residents desire an alternative solution. An alternative discussed with the residents is
converting Beckett and Bloomin~on Way into a three way stop.
As neighbors we are all concerned ~4th drivers that exceed the speed lintit and are interested in finding a
mutually agreeable solution. We are exu-emely disappointed in the manner in which this issue has been
handled by the City of Dublin. It seems inappropriate for the ci~? to arbitrarily take action that impacts a
neig_hborhood x~4th out consulting 'a4th its residents. If we as residents had not acted qnickly and in
solidarity the stripping would have taken place against our interests. To ensure that this type of incident
doesn't take place in file future what actions ,~4_11 be taken by the city to ensure resident input is received?
Mr. Melaran, we appreciate your cooperation in this matter and look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Gl(~)'a ~bbott Wheeler
cc: .art lvlayberry
Ton3' Camaro
Dear Neighbor,
The City of Dublin has proposed stripping Bloomin~on Way in an
effort to reduce the incidences of speeding drivers. While we are all
concerned about the occasional speeding driver, your following
neighbors Al'POSE the stripping and ask for your support.
This petition will be presented to the City of Dublin with a formal
request to cease the stripping project and to evaluate an alternative
solution. One solution may be converting the intersection of Beckett and
Bloomin~on Way into a three way stop.
NAME
1. ?/',.4- .~) T/& ¢ / 7'
ADDRESS
Dear Neighbor,
The City of Dublin has proposed stripping Bloomin~on Way in an
effort to reduce the incidences of speeding drivers. While we are all
concerned about the occasional speeding driver, your following
nei~bors APPOSE the stripping and ask for your support.
This petition will be presented to the City of Dublin with a formal
request to cease the stripping project and to evaluate an alternative
solution. One solution may be converting the intersection of Beckett and
Bloomin~on Way into a three way stop.
NAME
1. "~~
ADDRESS
5/
~2
SUMMARY OF TELEPHONE MESSAGES RECEIVED REGARDING STRIPING ON
BLOOMINGTON WAY:
12/26/98 Mrs. Benoit,
12/30/98 Art Mayberry, Bloomington Way:
1/2/98 Marley Smith, 11492 Bloomington Way:
1/8/98 John Archer, 11362 Bloomington Way:
for value received.
1/12/98 Eric Parnell, 11397 Bloomington Way:
corner of Bloomington & Fenwick: Opposed to striping
Opposed to striping
Opposed to striping
Objects to striping; waste of money
Opposed to striping
12/26/98
1/2/98
1/6/98
James OIdani, 11738 Bloomington Way:
Olivia & Gary Cox, 11732 Bloomington Way:
Janet Songey, 11726 Bloomington Way:
In favor of striping
in favor of striping
In favor of striping
CI~/OF DIJBI-.II~
P. O. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 · City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin California 94568
March 26, 1998
Dear Bloomington Way Residents:
The purpose of this letter is to update you regarding the status of traffic studies on your street and to advise you that the
studies will be discussed at a City Council meeting on April 7th.
As you are aware, the CiD' has received requests to install stop signs and other traffic devices along Bloomington Way.
Stop sign studies were previously performed in 1995 and have been repeated in 1998 for the intersections of Bloomington
Way/Beckett Way and Bloomington Way/Fenwick Way (the uphill or southernmost intersection). These intersections do
not meet the criteria (or warrants) that have been adopted for the installation of all-way stop signs. These criteria include
traffic volume, accident history, visibility (or sight distance), and whether the intersection is on an adopted school route.
Studies have shown that the installation oftmwarranted stop signs can contribute to traffic delays, noise, and air pollution.
Speed studies performed near the upper or southernmost Fenwick intersection indicate an 85th percentile speed of 30 mph in
the uphill direction and 27 mph in the do~xa~ahill direction. These speeds are typical ora residential neighborhood. The 85th
percentile speed, or the speed at or below which 85% of the vehicles are traveling, is used as a benchmark in speed studies
since most drivers will travel at a speed which is safe and reasonable.
The City's traffic engineering staff previously proposed installation of a striping device that would create the appearance of
aarrower lanes. This device, which has been used on a few other streets in Dublin, was intended to cause drivers to slow
down. The striping would also provide a buffer between travel lane and driveways and would allow residents to more easily
exit their driveways. However, the residents were overwhelmingly opposed to the installation of this striping, and the work
order was cancelled. City Staff does feel, however, that a minimal amount of striping near the upper Fenwick intersection
could be beneficial to a few residents who are having a problem exiting their driveways. The proposed striping is shown on
the attached diagram.
Because of requests and a petition received from a number of residents, City Staffhas scheduled a public hearing before the
Dublin City Council, which will be held at the regular City Council meeting of April 7, 1998. The meeting will begin at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center, 100 Civic Plaza, in Dublin. The City encourages interested
parties to attend this meeting and comment on the issues being discussed. The purpose of the hearing is to review the study
results and the proposed minimal striping. Copies of the staff report may be obtained from the Public Works Department
beginning on Friday, April 2nd. If you cannot attend the hearing and wish to provide input, written comments received by
the City Clerk up until the time of the hearing will be included in the record.
If you have any questions regarding this issue, please feel free to call Saied Aminian, Engineering Technician, or me, at
833-6630.
Sincerely,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mehran Sepehri
Senior Civil Engineer
CC:
Lee Thompson, Saied Aminian, Ginger Russell, Rich Ambrose, City Councilmembers ~
Administration (510) 833-6650 · City Council (510) 833-6605 · Finance (510) 833-6640 · Building inspection (510) 833-6620
Code Enforcement (510) 833-6610 · Engineering (510) 833-6630 · Parks & Community Services (510) 833-6645
Economic Development (510) 833-6650 · Police (510) 833-6670 · Public Works (510) 833-6630 · Community Development (510) 833-661
TJF~ TI~NS?~TATION Fax:510-463-3690 Dec 11 '97 9:28 P. 02
i Transportation Gon~ul-~_.~s
April 13, 1995
Project No.: 157-001 Task 51
To:
Mr. Mehran Sepehrl
From: Christopher S. Kinzel
Subject: All-Way STOP Analysi-e for Bloomington Way
This is to present the results of TJKM's analysis related to the request for additional STOP sign
control along Bloomington Way. First, all of the accidents over the past three years a~ong or near
Bloomington Way are analyzed to determine if any accident patterns exist. Then, the intersections
of Bloomington Way and Fenwick Way, and Bloomington Way and Beckett Way are analyzed la
determine if there is a need for all-way STOP control at either of thee intersections. It rahoulfl be
noted that there are actually two points where Blooming'mn Way intersects with Fenwiek Way.
Tlzis study analyzed the Bloomington Way/Fenwizk Way intersection that is immediately m the
west of Bloomington Way and Bloomington Court.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) indicates that STOP signs should not
be us~ ~ speed-control devices. STOP signs are used to assign right-of-way at iraers~-~ions,
enhancing safety at locations where traffic volumes and/or safety requirements indicate a n~..ext for
inzrea~ control. The City of Dublin's warran~ recognize this fact, and are therefore based on
traffic volumes, accident experience, and visibility rest. fictions, The warrants are bas,.on res~av-.h
and ~ta compiled from numero~ locations and constitute an effective measure of uhe need for a
STOP sign (and should ~ tempered by engineering judgement). UnwarrantM STOP signs
incrzzse motorist delay (and inconvenience) and may result in habitual violations.
Review of Bloomington Way Accidents During 1992-I994
Them were a zotal of four reported accidents on or near Bloomin~on Way over the three-year
perkx:l 1992-1994. A description of each of these accidents is given below. No discernible paaem
is evident from these acgidcnts.
Date:
Location:
Description:
Cause:
3/I2/92
Bloomington Way. 53 feet west of Fenwick
Vehicle struck parked car from behind.
Driving under the influence.
Date:
Location:
Description:
Cause:
8/30,92
Waterford at Bloomington
Vehicle travelling on Waterford Court struck the STOP sign on Waterford.
Inattentive driver.
-3FM TRANSPORTATiOI~
Mr. Mchran Sepehri
Fax:510-463-3690
Page 2
Dec 11 9'29 P.O$
April 13, 1995
Date:
Location:
Description:
Cause:
Date:
Lomtion:
Description:
Cause:
~18/93
Bloomington Wsy, 120 feet north of Beckert
Vehicle struck dog in roadway
Unleashed dog - Officer did not feel that driver was violating speed limit.
6/30/93
BloomingWn Way, four lots west of Southwick Drive
Vehicle side-swiped parked car
Bee entered car ~d distracted driver.
Ali-Way Stop Analysis for Bloomington Way and Fenwick Way
Background
Regldential Area
(Warrant 4)
The three-legged intersection currently operates with STOl:' sign
control on the Fenwick Way approach and no controI on the
Bloomin~on Way approaches. The intersec'tion is located in a
residential area. Bloomington Way is 35 f~t wide and Fenwick
Way is 36 ~et wide. The need for all-way STOP ~ign insudlafion
was evaluated based on the City's warrant~ for all-way STOP sign
in.qtallation, as summarized in Tables, I-A, I-B, and I-C.
Satisfied: Existing conditions at the intemeefion satisfy the City's
residential area warrants (see Table I-B). Th~efore, the volume
and ac¢id~-ut criteria used for City warrants number 1 and 2 were
taken f:mm the residential ("reg") column of Table I-A and are
indicated in bold typo.
Traffic Volumes
(Warrant 1)
Traffic Accidents
(Warrant 2)
Sight Distance
(Warrant 3)
Not Satisfied: TJKM conducted 24-hour machine traffic volume
counts at the intersection. TB~ eight highest u'affic volume hours
at the intersection are summarized in Table IL The average hourly
traffic flow for the highest eight hours does not ex ~c.~d the volume
required to m~t this wan'ant (79 cxi~ng remus I80 required).
Also, traffic, volmnes on Fenv, Sck Way do not exceed the required
one-third of the total volume entering the intersection. Therefore,
this warrant is not satisfied.
Nat Satlsfied: Cky of Dublin ac:ident r,:.cords indicate that no
accidents were reported at the inters,.~-'tion for the thre, e years from
1992 through 1994. Three accidenkq within a single year are
requir'cd; therefore, this warrant is not met.
Not S~fisfied: The sight distance along Bloomington Way was
me-..sured for bo~h ~rections. The measured intersection sight
distance-towards the nor'aheast (towards Bloomington Court) is
greater than 300 feet using the methodology described in Caltrans'
Highw~ Design Manual. For the southwest direction, th-.. // ~
measured sight distance is also greater than 300 feet.
-.~i"d~ TRANSPORTATION
Fax:510-~63-$690
Page 3
Dec ~! '97 9:30 P. 04
April I3, 1995
Elementary School
Crossing
(Warrant 5)
Recommendations
To meet this warrant, the sight distance must be less than 150 feet
for at least one of the directions on the major street. Thus, tl-fis
warrant is not met.
Not Satisfied: As Table I-C indicates, neither part of Warrant 5
(Elementary School Crossing) is met. No school is located within
the vicinity of the intersecfiom
Based on the fact that none of the City of Dublin's all-way STOP
warrants are satisfied, TJKM reeommen&q that no additional STOl:'
sign control be installed at the intersection of Bloomington Way
and Fenwick Way.
Dec ii '97 9:30 P. 05
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Mehran Sepchri
Fax :SlO--o-,
April 13, 1995
Warrant
1
Table l-A:
MI-Way Stop Sign Warrant Analysis for
Bloomington Way and Fenwick Way
Measurement
Hourly volume entering intersection
over eight-hour period, vph
4-way
Minor Sa'eot proportion of eight-
hour entering volume .
2 Correctable accidents in 12-month
period
- 3 ' Visibility (in f~0 in both [ <150
directions on Major Street
Required
non-res res
350 210
30O 180
0.333
5 3
Measured Met?
79 No
0.246 No
0 No
NB > 300' No
SB > 300' No
Table I-B:
Warrant 4 - Residential Ar~
Both ~ m:idmatlal. ,..xi~ing 25 mph
Near ~t ~m 40 f~ of ~d~ay
S~ ex~ at l~t 6~ f~t away fr~
R~enfi~ A~a Wa~nt Met? s
Plat
part
II
Table I-C:
Wa~ant 5 .Elementary School Cr~sing
l~_~nm~ry ~d~ol ru~c p~m ~ ,,~ ....
~ No
part II ~ati~iecl? ~
Warrant 5 ~atbdled? (eJxhex Part I or Pa~t II ,,6~-M)
Mr. Mehr~m S~pehri
Fax.510-Jo~-~590
Page 5
Dec 11
'97 9:31 P. 06
April l3, 1995
Table Fl':
Highest Hourly Volumes at
Bloomington Way and Fe~wlck Way
Bloomington Fenwick
Hour Beginning Way Way __ Total
SB NB EB
7:00 A.M. 22 33 51 106
8:D0 22 17 31 70
2:00 P.M. 27 16 22 65
3:00 59 25 8 92
4:00 56 21 10 87
5:00 51 13 2 66
6:00 53 21 17 87
7:00 31 10 15 56
TOTAL 321 156 156 633
AVERAGE 40 20 20 79
Tnd'fic count. ,,,kin Mm-ch 20. 199.5.
Dec 11 '97 9:31 P.O?
-SKM Tp~qNSPORTRT!ON
Mr, Mehran S¢pehri
Fax:510-a63-3690
Page 6
April 13, 1995
Ali-Way Stop Analysis for Bloomington Way and Beckett V/ay
Background
Residential krea
(Warrant 4)
Traffic Volumes
(Warrant 1)
Traffic Accidents
(Warrant 2)
Sight Distance
(Warrant 3)
The three-legged inu:rsection currenfly operates with STOP sign
control on the Beckett Way approach and no control on the
Bloomington Way approacheS. The interr~ction is located in a
residential area, Bloomington Way is 35 feet wide and Beckett
Way is 36 feet wide. The need for all-way STOP sign control at
the intersection wa~ evaluated based on the City's warrants for all-
way STOP sign installation, ag summarized in Tables III-A, III-B,
and III-C.
Satisfied: Existing conditions at the intersection satisfy the City's
residential area wm'rant~ (see Table III-B). Therefore, the volume
and accident criteria used for City warrants number 1 and 2 were
taken from the residential ("res") column of Table III-A and are
indicated in bold type.
Not Satisfied: TJKM conducted 24-hour machine traffic volume
counts at the intersection. The traffic volumes for the highest eiglxt
hours at the intersection are summarized in Table IV. The average
hourly flow for the high~t eight hours does not exceed the volume
required to meet this warrant (89 existing versms the 180 required).
Traffic volumes on Beckett Way do exceed the required orra-tMrd
of the total volume entering the inters~tiom However, the
- requirements for both the total volume and the percentage from tl~
minor st~t must be met for this wmxant to be satisfied.
Therefore, this warrant is not satisfied.
Not Satisfied: City of Dublin accident records indicate that no
accidents were reported at ~he intersemion for the three years from
1992 through 1994. Three accidents within a single year are
required; therefore, th~s warrant is not met.
Not Satisfied: The intersection sight distance for Beckett Way
was me~umd for both directions. The intersection sight distance
towards the north (towards Waterford Court) was measured at 150
feat using the methodology described in Cain-arts' Highway Design
Manual. For the southbound direction th~ sight distan~ is greater
than 300 feet.
To m~t this warrant, ~e si~t distance must be less than 150 fen
for at least one of the directions on the major street. Thus, this
warrant is not met.
-~K~ TR~NSPORTRTION
Mr. Mehran Scpchfi
Fax:510-463-5690
Page 7
Dec 11 '97 9:32 P. 08
April 13, 1995
Elementary School
Cros~ng
(Warrant 5)
Recommendations
Not Satisfied: As Table III-C indicates, neither part of Warrant 5
(Elementary School Crossing) is met. No school is located within
th-., ~dcirfity of the intersection,
Based on the fact that none of the City of Dublin's all-way STOP
warrants are satisfiexl, TJKM recommends that no additional STOP
sign control be installed at the intersection of Bloomington Way
and Beckett Way.
T3KM TRanSPORTATION
Mr. M:hran S:pdvi
· /]"'7 '2
Fez. 5~0-~o-,~90
Pas: 8
Dsc
9:52 ?.09
April I3, 1995
Warrant
Table HI-A:
All-Way Stop Sign Warrant Analysis
for Bloomington Way and Beckett Way
Measurem eut
Hourly volum~ Chin-lng intersection
over eight-hour pmSod, vph
Minor S~,.et proportion of eight-
~our entering volume
Cor~ctabb azcidents in 12-month
period
Visibility (in fcc0 in both
directions on M~jor Street
Required
nO~l-r£$ r£$
4-way 350 210
Yway 300 t80
0.333
rloll-rc$ rcs
5 3
<150
Measured Met?
89 No
0.362 Yes
0 No
~ 180' No
SB >300' No
Table III-B:
Warrant 4 - Residential Area
Bo~h ~ v..~iSenfiaL existing 25 mph Ye~
N~r s~ ~ds 40 fcc~ of m.dway Yes
N6 c~s~g s~ sig,ffsign~ ~ ~e m~
~-W~ ~P is ~1¢ ~ ~'~ Yet
[ R~fl~ A~ Wa~nt Met7 Y~
Wal'r~nt
Table III-C:
Warrant 5 - Elementary School Crossing
Sm&m~s ~s major ~tmet
~ pl~?
All R~si~enfisl A~.s Win'rants mc. t7
Pm-t II zafldled?
Di~/Oaty F~io~r?
Ad~qt~U: in,~.r~:~ fight dizlanc~ vi~ibili~
mm within 600 f~?
In;mDmim of ~ll-w~' STOP
5 s~tl~l~? (dth~ Pm I ~r pst 1I ~,;~rtvxl)
TZ~ TRR,NSPORTRTION
Mr. Mehran Sepehri
Fax:510-453-3590
Page 9
'97
9:33
P. iO
April 13, 1995
Table IV:
Highes{ Hourly Volumes at
Bloomington Way and Beckett Way
Bloomington Beckett
Hour Beginning Way Way Total
SB Nil WB
7:00 A.M. 14 58 14 86
8:00 17 35 30 82
2:00 P.M. I4 29 31 74
3:00 24 23 52 99
4:00 16 34 51 101
5:00 15 27 56 98
6:00 27 31 44 I02
7:00 24 20 24 6g
TOTAL I 151 302 257 710
AVERAGE 19 38 32 89
Nora: Traffir mu mkm Mtrcla 211, 1995,
T3KH T.P, RNSPORTF~TION Fax : 510-465-$690 Hat 6 '98 t0:07 P. 02
Transportation Consultants
gMO
March 6, 1998
Project No.: 157-001 Task 51
Tol
~o~:
Mr. Mehran Sepehiri
Gordon Lutn ~
Subject: All-Way STOP Analysis for Bloomington Way
TINs memo is to present the results of TJKM's analysis related to the request for
all-way STOP sign control along Bloomington Way in the City of Dublin. The
intersections of Bloomington Way and Fenwlck Way, arid Bloomington Way and
Beckett Way are analyzed to determine if there is a need for all-way STOP control
at either of these intersections. It should be noted that there are actually two
points where Bloomington Way intersects with Fenwick Way. This study analyzed
the Bloomington Way/Fen~4ck Way intersection that is inunedlately to the west (or
uphill) of Bloomington Way/Bloomington Court.
The Manual on Urti_/brm Traffic Control Devices {MUTCD) indicates that STOP signs
should r~ot be used as speed-control devices, STOP signs are used to assigrdrig
right-of-way at intersections, enhancing safety at locations where traffic volumes
and/or safety requirements indicate a need for increased control. The City of
Dublin's warrar~ts recognize this fact, and are therefore based on traffic volumes,
accident experience, and xrisibili .ty restrictions. The warrants are based on
research and data compiled from numerous locations and constitute an effective
mca. sure of the need for a STOP sign [and should be tempered by engineering
judgement). Unwarranted STOP signs increase motorist delay [and inconvenience)
and may result in habit:ual xdolations.
All-Way STOP Analysis
Background
for Bloomington Way and Fenwick Way
The three-legged intersection currently operates ~,ith STOP
sign control on the Fenwick Way approach and no control
on the Bloomington Way approaches. The intersection is
located in a residential area. Bloomington Way is 35 feet
wide and Fenwick Way is 36 feet wide. The need for all-
way STOP slgn control at the intersection was evaluated
based on the Clty of Dubl/m's warrants for all-way STOP
sign installation, as summarized i~x Tables I-A, I-B, and I-C.
4234 Hacienda Drivc. Sui~ I01, Pleasant~n, Californi
T:KM TRRNSPORTRTION Fax:510-465-5690 6 '98 10:08 P.O$
,Mr. Mehran Sepehri
Page 2
March 6. 1998
Traffic Vol~arnes
(Warrant 1)
Traffic Accidents
(Warrs_~t 2)
Sight Distance
(Warrant al
Residential Area
(warrant 4)
Elementary
School Crossing
(Warrant 5)
Not Satisfied: TJKM conducted 24-hour machine traffic
volume counts at the Intersection; the eight highest traffic
volume hours are summarized in Table II. Compared to
the warrants (Table I-AL the average of the highest eight
hours falls short to satisfy the required volume (71 existing
versus the 180 required). Hence, the traffic volume
warrant is not satisfied for this Intersection.
Not Satisfied: TJKM investigated City of Dublin accident
records for the period between January 1, 1994 and
December 31, 1997. During this period, there were no
reported accidents at the Intersection. Five accidents
x~_thin a single year are required for this location; therefore,
this warrant is not met,
Not Satisfied: The sight distance along Bloomington Way
was measured for both directions. The intersection sight
distance for both directions along Bloomington Way were
measured to be greater than 150 feet using the
methodology described In Caltrans' Highway Design
Manual. To meet this warrant, the sight distance must be
less than 150 feet for at least one of the directions on the
major street, Thus, this warrant is not satisfied.
Satisfied: Existing conditions at the intersection satisfy the
City's residential area warrants (see Table I-B). Therefore,
the volume and accident criteria used for City Warrants No.
1 and No. 2 were taken from the residential ('Res.') column
of Table I-A and are indicated in bold type.
Not Satisfied: As Table I-C indicates, neither Part I nor
Part II of Warrant 5 (Elementary School Crossing) is met.
No school is located x~4thin the vicinity of the intersection.
TSt(14 TRflNSPBRT~TION Fax:5LO-465-5690 Bar 6 '98 10:08 P. 04
Mr. Mehran Sepehri
Page 3
March 6, 1998
Recouunendations
The intersection of Bloomington Way and Fen~ick Way
fails to satisfy all-way STOP sigrl warrants. Hence, the
installation of all-way STOP is not recommended at this
Intersection. All-way STOP signs are installed to assign the
right-of-way at intersections with heax~ier traffic volumes or
more accidents than what exist at Bloomington Way and
Fenwick Way. Installing unwan-anted STOP signs may be
counterproductive since motorists tend to roll tkrough
them.
Between February 10 and 11, 1998, counters were
installed on Bloomington Way to measure the speed of
vehicles approaching Fenwick Way from both directions.
The 85`}' percentile speed was 30 mph in the eastbound
(downhill) direction and 28 mph in the westbound (upktll)
direction. The 85~ perceniile speed is that speed at or
below which 85 percent of the recorded vehicles are
travellkJg. The 85t~ percentile speeds recorded on
Bloomington Way are reasonable for a residential street.
Studies have shown that STOP signs used for speed control
do not reduce speeds, except in the immediate vicinity of
the signs. Motorists tend to speed to make up for the lost
time caused by the STOP signs.
T2KM TR~qNSPORT~qTION Fax:510-'465-5690 Mar' 6 '98 10:09 P. 05
Mr. Mehran Sepehri
Page 4
March 6, 1998
Table I-A
All-Way Stop Sign Warrant Analysis
For
Bloomington Wa r/Fenwick Way
Warrant Measurement Required Measured Met?
1 Hourly volume entering non- Res.
intersection, averaged over highest res.
eight-hour period, (~'ph)
4-way 350 210
3~way 300 180 71 No
Mi~lor Street {vehicle plus 33% 3096 No
pedestrian) proportion of 8~hour
entedng volume
Warrant i Met? (both pros need to be satisfied) No
2 Correctable accidents in 12-monLh non- Res.
pm~od res
5 3 0 No
3 Visibility (in feet] in both < 150 EB > 150' No
directions on Major Street WB >150'
Table I-B
Warrant 4 - Residential Area
Both streets residential, with ezdsting 25 mph speed limits?
Neither street an adopted t_h2'ough street?
Neither street exceeds 40 feet. of roadway width?
No existing STOP sign/signal within 600 feet?
St.reets ex-tend at least 600 feet. away from the intersection?
Proposed All-Way STOP is compatible with area's circulation needs?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Residential Area Warrant Met? (all six criteria must be satisfied)
Yes
TJKM TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Mehra_n Sepehri
Fax: 510-.~63-3690 6 '98 10: 09 P. 06
Page ,5 March 6, 1998
Table I-C
Warrant 5 - Elementary School Crossing
Is crossing thc major street part of an official approved elementary No
school plan?
All Residential Area Wanants met? Yes
Is there less than 280 feet of sight distance on the major street? Yes
Part I Satisfied? (all three criteria must be satisfied) No
Are there more than 20 students crossing the major street when at No
least 300 vehicles are in direct conflict with pedestrians?
Is there less than adequate sight cllstance on the major street for 85'h No
percentile speed or speed limit, whichever is higher?.
No existing STOP sign/signal within 600 feet of the intersection? Yes
Is the All-Way STOP is compatible with area's circulation needs? Yes
part II satisfied? [all four criteria must be satisfied)
No
Warrant 5 satisfied? (either Part I or Part II must be satisfied)
No
Table Ii
Highest Hourly Volumes at Bloomington Way/Fenwick Way
Hour Beginning
7:00 A,M.
8:00
9:00 A,M.
2:00 P.M.
3;00 P.M.
4:00 P.M.
5:00 P,M,
6:00 P.M,
Total for 8 hours
Bloomington Way
EB WB
13 19
17 33
14 18
9 39
17 55
13 38
12 53
14 34
109 289
Fenwick Way
SB
32
18
19
22
29
18
16
15
Average per hour 14 36
Note: Traffic counts were taken Wednesday, Februa,w. 11, 1998.
Total
64
68
51
7O
101
69
81
63
169 I 567
TSKId TNRNSPGRTRTION Fax:510-d63-3690 l'~ar 6 '98 10:10 P. 07
Mr. Mehran Sepehri
Page 6
March 6, 1998
All-Way STOP Analysis
Background
for Bloomington Way and Beckett Way
The three-legged intersection currently operates with STOP
sig~ control on the Beckett Way approach and no control
on the Bloomington Way approaches. The intersection is
located in a residential area. Bloomington Way is 35 feet
wide and Beckett Way ts 36 feet wide. The need for all-way
STOP sign control at the ir, tersection was evaluated based
on the City of Dublin's warrants for ail-way STOP sign
installation, as summarized tn Tables I-A, I-B, and I-C.
Traffic Volumes
(warrant
Traffic Accidents
{Warrant 2)
Sight Distance
{Warr~r~t 3)
Residential Area
(Warrant 4)
Not Satisfied: TJKM conducted 24-hour machine traffic
volume counts at the intersection; the eight highest traffic
volume hours are summarized m Table II. Compared to
the warrants (Table I-A). the average of the highest eight
hours falls short to satisfy the required volume (87 existing
versus the 180 required). Hence, the traffic volume
warrant Is not satisfied for this intersection.
Not Satisfied: TJKM investigated City of Dublin accident
records for the period between January 1, 1994 and
December 31, 1997. During this period, there were no
reported accidents at the intersection. Five accidents
within a single year are required for this location; therefore,
this warrant is not met.
Not Satisfied: The sight distance along Bloomington Way
was measured for both directions. Tile Intersection sight
distance for both directions along Bloomington Way were
measured to be greater than 150 feet using the
methodology described in Caltrans' H/ghway Design
Manual. To meet this warrant, the sight distance must bc
less than 150 feet for at least one of the directions on the
major street. Thus. this warrant is not satisfied.
Satisfied: Existing conditions at the intersection satisfy the
City's rcsidentlal area warrants (see Table I-B). Therefore,
the volume and accident criteria used for City Warrants No.
I and No. 2 were taken from the residential ("Res,~) column
of Table I-A and are indicated in bold type.
T~KN TRglqSPORT~TION Fax:SlO-465-$690 6 '98 10:11 P. 08
Mr. Mehraz~ Sepehri
Page 7
March 6, 1998
Elementary
School Crossing
{Warrant 5)
Not Satisfied: As Table I-C indicates, neither Part I nor
Part II of Warrant 5 (Elementary School Crossing) is met.
No school is located within the vicinity of the intersection.
Recommendations
The intersection of Bloomington Way and Beckett Way fails
to satisfy all-way STOP sign warrants. Hence, the
installation of all-way STOP is not recommended at this
intersection. All-way STOP signs are installed to assign the
right-of-way at intersections with heavier traffic volumes or
more accidents than what exSst at Bloomington Way and
Beckett Way. Installing unwarranted STOP signs may be
cotmterproductlve slnce motorists tend to roll through
them.
Between February 4 and 5, 1998, counters were installed
on Bloomington Way to measure the speed of vehicles
approaching Fenwick Way from both directions. The 850,
percentile speed was 29 mph in the northbound (dowTlhitl)
direction and 32 mph in the southbound (uphill) direction.
The 85= percentile speed is that speed at or below which
85 percent of the recorded vehicles are travelling. Studies
have shown that STOP signs used for speed control do not
reduce speeds, except in the inm~ediate vicinity of the
signs. Motorists tend to speed to make up for the lost time
caused by the STOP signs.
T~KM TRANSPORTATION Fax:5~O-465-5690 Mar 6 '98 10:11 P. 09
Mr. Mehra_n Sepehr~
Page 8
March 6, 1998
Table I-A
All-Way Stop Sign Warrant Analysis
For
Bloomington Way/Beckett Way
Warrant Measurement Required Measured Met?
1 Hourly volume entering non- Res,
interoectlon, averaged over highest res.
eight-hour period. (vph)
4-way 350 210
3-way 300 180 87 No
Minor Street {vet~icle plus 33% 41% Yes
pedestrian) proportion of $-hmtr
entering volume
Warrant I Met? (bor2~ parts need to be satisfied) No
2 Correctable accidents in 12-month non- Res.
period res
5 3 0 No
3 Visibility {in ibet) in both <150 EB >150' No
directions on Major Street WB >150'
Table I-B
Warrant 4 - Residential Area
Both streets residential, with ex~stmg 25 mph speed limits?
Neither strect an adopted through street?
Neither street exceeds 40 feet of roadway width?
No existing STOP sign/signal ~xSthin 600 feet?
Streets ex'tend at. least 600 feet away from the intersection?
Proposed All-Way SWOP is compatible with area's circulation needs?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Residential Area Warrant Met? (all six criteria must be satisfied)
Y~s
T~Kbl TR~qNSPORTt~T!ON Fax:510-4613-3690 blat 6 '98 10:12 P. 10
Mr. Mehran Sepehri
Page 9
March 6, 1998
Table I-C
Warrant 5 - Elementary School Crossing
Part Is crossing the major street part of an official approved elementary No
I school plan?
All Residential Area Warrants met? Yes
Is there less than 280 feet of sight distance on the major,.,street? Yes
Part I Satisfied? (all three criteria must be satisfied) No
Pm Are there more than 20 students crossing the major street when at No
II least 300 vehicles are. in direct conflict with pedestrians?
Is there less than adequate sight distance on the major street for 85~ No
percentile speed or speed lt. mit, whichever is higher?.
No existing STOP sign/signal within 600 feet of the intersection? Yes
Is the All-Way STOP is compatible wlth area's circulation needs? Yes
Part II satisfied? (all four criteria must be satisfied) No
Warrant 5 satisfied? (either Part I or Part II must be satisfied) No
Table H
I-tighest Hourly Volumes at Bloomington Way/Beckett Way
HOur Beginning BlOomington Way Beckett Way Total
NB WB SB
8:00 A.M, 55 13 36 104
9:00 A.M. 50 13 18 81
2:00 P.M. 32 12 27 71
3:00 P.M. 29 23 55 107
4:00 P.M, 25 37 29 91
5:00 P.M. 22 20 47 89
6:00 P.M. 23 21 38 82
7:00 P.M. 28 10 35 73
Total for 8 hours 264 149 285 698
Average per hour 33 19 36 87
Note:
Tra_ffic counts were taken Thursday, February 5, 1998,
1.11
11479
11551
4GTON CT.
726
0
0
m
Z
',]526
F~NWICK
551
11690
~,LOOIVilNQTON CT.
866
11-726
11752
8669
738
44 o
8685
, Ce