Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
7.1 Traffic Sig Warrant Op Study
G~~~ OF DU~~~ i9~ ~~ ,s2 ~~~~~~/ ~ ~ / c~,~~~~ STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File # ^[,~©-©© DATE: November 17, 2009 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager SUBJ Presentation of a Traffic Signal Warrant and Operations Study for the Intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive Prepared By: Jaimee Bourgeois, Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff has completed work on the City Council's High Priority Goal, "Study need for signalizing Brighton and Amador Valley Boulevard" (Goal V-B-4). Based on a thorough review of site conditions compared against industry standard published signal warrants, conditions suggest that the installation of a traffic signal is justified. As such, this item seeks City Council direction to establish a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 to design and construct a traffic signal at Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The design and installation of a traffic signal at Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive was added as a new project in the most recent June 2009 Eastern Dublin Traffic Impact Fee (EDTIF) Update. The cost for design and installation of the signal will be determined upon creation of the CIP. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council direct Staff to establish a new CIP starting in Fiscal Year 2010-2011 to design and construct a traffic signal at Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive. Submitted By Public Works Director Revi w By Assistant City Manager Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. l~' ~ DESCRIPTION: The City Council has a High Priority Goal (V-B-4) to "study need for signalizing Brighton and Amador Valley Blvd." (a location map is provided as Attachment 1). To address this goal, Staff hired Fehr & Peers, one of the City's on-call traffic consultants, to complete a signal warrant and operations analysis for the intersection. The Report's findings are documented in a technical memorandum entitled, "Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive Traffic Control Warrant Analysis" (Attachment 2). Studv Findings The traffic analysis utilized the following information as part of the overall assessment: existing roadway characteristics, including lane geometry, traffic control, and parking conditions; AM peak period (7:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m.), midday peak period (2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.) and evening peak period (4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.) turning movement counts of vehicles and pedestrians at Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive and Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive; hourly vehicular volumes over a 24-hour period for each of the three approaches to the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection; intersection collision history; and observations of existing vehicular operations, including vehicle congestion and pedestrian activity. The objectives of the study were to (1) determine what the existing levels of service are at the intersections of Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive and Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive; (2) determine whether signalization of Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive is justified and what level of service would result if implemented; (3) determine whether all-way stop control of Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive is justified and what level of service would result if implemented; (4) determine whether signalization of Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive would result in negative impacts to operations at Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive; or conversely, whether existing operations at Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive would negatively impact operations at Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive. Traffic counts were collected on Thursday, September 3, 2009; schools in the immediate area were in session. There are eight Signal Warrants published in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). The warrants examine existing conditions ranging from vehicular volumes during the peak hour, vehicular volumes during the peak eight hours, pedestrian volumes, collision history, and corridor operations. If one of the eight warrants is satisfied, then a signal could be justified. Similarly, there are eight guidance criteria for all-way stop control. Meeting one of the eight guidance criteria could justify the installation of all-way stop control. The study found that the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection operates at level of service (LOS) E during the morning and midday peak periods. LOS is a grading system from LOS A to LOS F with LOS A representing little to no delay and LOS F indicating excessive delay typically deemed unacceptable by motorists. The City of Dublin General Plan states that the City should strive for LOS D or better. Specifically, the Brighton Drive approach to the intersection operates at LOS F during the morning and midday peak periods. The Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection satisfies four of the eight signal warrants, so the installation of a traffic signal could be justified. If signalized, the intersection would operate at LOS B or better, vehicle back ups on Brighton Drive would improve, and vehicle back ups on Amador Valley Boulevard would not have an adverse impact on Page 2 of 4 adjacent intersections. Staff, therefore, recommends signalization of the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection. Because all-way stop control can be implemented as interim traffic control when a signal is planned but not yet installed, existing traffic conditions were also compared against the all-way stop-control installation guidance criteria. The Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection satisfies two of the eight all-way stop control guidance criteria, so the installation of stop signs on Amador Valley Boulevard could be justified; however, implementation of all-way stop control would result in LOS F operations and vehicle back ups would have an adverse effect on the Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive intersection and the Amador Valley Boulevard/Stagecoach Drive intersection; therefore, all-way stop control is not recommended by Staff as an interim measure. During the peak periods when observations took place, there were no vehicles parked on the west side of Brighton Drive immediately north of the intersection; therefore, the extra available width was used by right turning vehicles to go around left turning vehicles that were queued up on southbound Brighton Drive. As such, the consultant recommended designating a 100-foot no parking zone on the west side of Brighton Drive so that a permanent right-turn lane could be striped on the roadway. Staff has considered the consultant recommendation but recommends to City Council that this modification not be implemented. There currently is an 80-foot 15- minute parking zone at this location (between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.). The limited parking zone was approved in September 1995 by the City Council to accommodate pick-up and drop-off activity associated with A Creative Playschool, which was approved for a Conditional Use Permit by the City Council in July 1995. This pre-school is conditioned for up to 20 children and is located on the north side of Amador Valley Boulevard immediately west of Brighton Drive. While the student attendance is currently below the maximum, some parents do park on Brighton Drive for drop off and pick up. If attendance increases, the need for this limited parking zone will increase. Establishing a No Parking Zone and removing this temporary parking zone could result in pick-up and drop-off activities occurring further north in front of adjacent homes or potentially on the east side of Brighton Drive, requiring parents and small children to cross the street. Therefore, Staff does not recommend the implementation of a No Parking Zone on the west side of Brighton Drive. Without provision of a right-turn lane on Brighton Drive, the intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service. Proiect Schedule If directed by the City Council, Staff will establish a Capital Improvement Project with the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 budget. Design of the traffic signal and other associated improvements would take place during Fiscal Year 2010-2011, and construction would take place during Fiscal Year 2011-2012. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: Notification letters were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the intersection (Attachments 3 and 4). At the writing of this Report, two responses were received in writing (Attachments 6 and 7) and two responses were received verbally. All four commenters support the signal installation. One of the written letters also specifically communicates support for the 100-foot no parking zone on the west side of Brighton Drive. The two verbal comments were received from the owner of A Creative Playschool (Ms. Janet Zupetz) and the owner/resident of 6842 Brighton Drive (Mr. Donald Krekorian). While both owners communicated support for the Page 3 of 4 signal installation, both were also concerned about the implications of implementing the No Parking Zone in place of the 15-minute limited parking zone. Copies of this report were also sent to Dr. Stephen Hanke, DUSD Superintendent; Kim McNeely, DUSD Director of Facilities; Mr. and Mrs. Frazier, residents; Ms. Mengell, resident; Mr. Krekorian, resident; and Ms. Zupetz (A Creative Playschool owner). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Memorandum entitled "Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive Traffic Control Warrant Analysis" prepared by Fehr & Peers, dated October 13, 2009 3. Notification letter to property owners 4. List of property owners notified within 300-foot radius 5. Response letter from Mr. and Mrs. Frazier, 6778 Amador Valley Boulevard, dated November 1, 2009 6. Response email from Ms. Mengell, 6818 Doreen Court, dated November 2, 2009 Page 4 of 4 L~CATIDN MAP ~~ as F E H RATt& ~P E E RS PROJECT STUDY AREA october2oos FIGURE 1 Graphics\Dublin Sional Warrant\WCOS-2606 1 ~~r~,io~, ATTACHMENT Amador Valley Boulevard /Brighton Drive Traffic Control Warrant Analysis a~aa t=et~~ & I'~FRs TRANSPORTATION GONSUtTANTS MEMORANDUM Date: October 13, 2009 To: Jaimee Bourgeois, City of Dublin From: Kathrin Tellez Subject: Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive Traffic Control Warrant Analysis WC08-2606 Task Order 3 Fehr & Peers has completed a warrant analysis for installation of either all-way stop control or a traffic signal at the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection in Dublin, California. In addition, an operational analysis was performed of this intersection with the adjacent Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive intersection to determine if intersection operations at either of these intersections adversely impact the other intersection. Figure 1 identifies the study area. The evaluation results show that four of the eight signal warrants and two of the eight stop-control warrants are met at the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection. The traffic operations analysis (including vehicle simulation) showed that intersection control at the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection would affect the Amador Valley Boulevard intersections with Penn Drive and Stagecoach Drove if it were controlled by stop signs on all approaches; signalization would not impact the adjacent intersections. The remainder of this memorandum describes the existing conditions, signal warrant analysis, all- way stop control warrant analysis, and intersection operations assessment. EXISTING CONDITIONS Amador Valley Boulevard provides one travel lane per direction, with alert-turn pocket for traffic turning onto Brighton Drive. On-street parking is permitted and a bicycle lane is provided. Although there are residential uses with driveway access on this roadway, a landscaped median restricts direct property access to right-in/right-out only. Median breaks and left-turn access to other streets are provided. Brighton Drive forms a T-intersection with Amador Valley Boulevard and provides one travel lane per direction, with on-street parking permitted. Homes front Brighton Drive with full access permitted. Brighton Drive is currently stop-controlled at Amador Valley Boulevard, with a shared lane for left and right turning traffic. However, when there are no vehicles parked on the west side of Brighton Drive near the intersection, approximately 100 feet of roadway is available for use as a southbound right-turn lane. Figure 2 shows the existing lane configurations and traffic controls. There are no marked crosswalks at the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection. Marked crosswalks are located across Penn Drive at Amador Valley Boulevard and on the west leg of Amador Valley Boulevard at Penn Drive. A crossing guard is provided at the Amador Valley Boulevard/Burton Street intersection (approximately 400 west of the Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive intersection) in addition to marked crosswalks across two legs of this T-intersection to serve Frederickson Elementary School students. 100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 930-7100 Fax (925) www.feh rand peers.com ATTACHMENT 2. 3 ~ as Jaimee Bourgeois October 13, 2009 Page 2 of 9 There are several schools in the vicinity of the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection, which contribute to vehicular and pedestrian congestion at bell times for the schools. Data Collection The City of Dublin provided AM peak (7:00- 9:00 AM), midday peak (2:00- 4:00 PM), and PM peak (4:00- 6:00 PM) intersection turning movement counts of vehicles and pedestrians at the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive and Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive intersections. The counts were collected on Thursday, September 3, 2009 with area schools in normal session. Hourly vehicle counts over a 24-hour period at the three approaches to Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive were also provided for the same day. Intersection accident history for the last three years was also provided. The existing traffic volumes and pedestrian counts are shown on Figure 3. Field Observations A field visit was conducted on Tuesday, September 8, 2009 during the afternoon peak period around school dismissal time. General intersection operations and vehicle queuing were observed. On Brighton Drive at Amador Valley Boulevard, the maximum observed southbound queue was nine vehicles, which occurred just after 3:00 PM. Generally, pedestrian crossings of this intersection are limited to crossings of Brighton Drive, although some pedestrians were observed crossing Amador Valley Boulevard at Brighton Drive (where no marked crosswalk is provided) during the afternoon peak hour. The maximum left-turn queue from eastbound Amador Valley Boulevard to Brighton Drive was three vehicles. Also noteworthy during the field visit was that no vehicles were parked along the west side of Brighton Drive near the intersection; this provided vehicles turning right from Brighton Drive to Amador Valley Boulevard aright-turn lane. At the Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive intersection, no more than five vehicles were queued on any approach prior to 3:00 PM. Pedestrian crossings generally occur on the west leg of the intersection, and the all-way stop-control provides a controlled crossing. After 3:00 PM, vehicle queues on Amador Valley Boulevard increased to a maximum of eight vehicles in both directions. The vehicle queue from the school on southbound Penn Drive nearly reached Amador Valley Boulevard at 3:10 PM, with less than 200 feet between the back of the queue and Amador Valley Boulevard. After 3:10, the queue on Amador Valley Boulevard and the school entry began to dissipate and by 3:15 PM the queues were about 2 vehicles. At the same time, the northbound queue from vehicles leaving the school and turning to Amador Valley Boulevard was roughly 16 vehicles; this queue has dissipated by 3:25 PM. At no time during the afternoon peak hour was queuing from westbound Amador Valley Boulevard at the Penn Drive intersection observed to spill back near the Brighton Drive intersection. Intersection Operations The existing operations of the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive and Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive intersections were evaluated using the methods outlined in Attachment 1. As presented in Table 1, the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection currently operates at an overall unacceptable service level during two of the three peak periods evaluated, and the delay for the side-street movement exceeds its intended capacity. The Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive intersection currently operates at an acceptable service level during the peak periods analyzed. The City of Dublin defines acceptable intersection operations as Level of Service (LOS) D or better on a peak hour basis. ~I ~- as Jaimee Bourgeois October 13, 2009 Page 3 of 9 TABLE 1 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICES Intersection Control Peak Hour Delay(sec)'~`Z LOS'~`Z AM 50 (252) E (F) 1. Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive Side-Street Stop-Controlled Midday 37 (153) E (F) PM 4 (20) A (C) AM 10 B 2. Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive All-Way Stop-Control led Midday 16 C PM 8 A Notes: 1. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay (in seconds) and LOS for average intersecti on and worst movement delay are shown: intersection average (worst movement) 2. Intersections operating at unacceptable levels (LOS E or LOS F) are shown in bold. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2009. SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION The signal warrant evaluation was based on warrant criteria as defined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) section 4C, which provides eight warrant criteria. Meeting one or more of the warrants could justify signalization of the intersection. For the analysis results discussed below, Amador Valley Boulevard is considered the Major Street, and Brighton Drive is considered the Minor Street. Table 2 presents the signal warrant analysis summary followed by a brief discussion of each warrant. TABLE 2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Warrant Result Signal Warrant 1: 8-Hour Vehicular Volume (per Condition A, Minimum Vehicular Volume and per Condition B, Interruption of Continuous Traffic) Met Signal Warrant 2: 4-Hour Vehicular Volume Met Signal Warrant 3: Peak Hour (per Condition A, Delay and per Condition B, Volume) Met Signal Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume Not Met Signal Warrant 5: School Crossing Met Signal Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System Not Met Signal Warrant 7: Crash Experience Not Met Signal Warrant 8: Roadway Network (per Condition A, Weekday) Not Met Source: Fehr & Peers, 2009. 5 ~ as Jaimee Bourgeois October 13, 2009 Page 4 of 9 Warrant 1-Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume This warrant considers the installation of a traffic signal based on two conditions: Warrant 1A examines the total intersection volume, and Warrant 1 B examines the volume on the major street where it causes excessive delay or conflict to vehicles approaching the intersection from the minor street. Warrant 1 B also considers the 85 percentile speed along the major street, which may increase minor street delay if speeds exceed 40 miles per hour. If either condition is met, Warrant 1 is met. In some cases, Warrant 1 is also met if Warrants 1A and 16 both meet 80 percent of their stated criteria. The traffic volumes at the intersection are not sufficient to meet Warrant 1A; however, Warrant 1 B is satisfied. As a result, the intersection satisfies Warrant 1. Warrant 2 -Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 2 examines intersecting volumes for the major and minor street approaches to determine if a specified minimum is met for any four or more hours of an average day, above which the warrant is met. Based on analysis of vehicular volumes during the four hours with the greatest traffic demand, the intersection does meet the criteria for this warrant. Warrant 3 -Peak Hour Delay and Volume This warrant examines peak hour conditions at the intersection to determine if the minor street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street for a minimum of one hour of an average day. Warrant 3 is met if one of two conditions is met: Warrant 3A examines minor street approach volume, stopped time delay, and total intersection volume, and Warrant 36 examines the interaction of the major street volume and the higher volume minor street approach. Both warrants 3A and 36 were met during multiple hours. Therefore, installation of a traffic signal is warranted based on the peak hour volume and delay. Warrant 4 -Pedestrian Volume The pedestrian volume warrant is satisfied when there are more than 100 pedestrian crossings per hour for a total of four hours or more than 190 pedestrians in an hour. Data showed an average of only 14 pedestrian crossings per hour and a maximum of 28 pedestrian crossings in a one-hour period for the midday peak, which had the highest pedestrian volumes. Therefore, there are not sufficient pedestrian volumes at the intersection to justify a signal. Warrant 5 -School Crossing Warrant 5 is intended to justify the installation of a traffic signal due to school children crossing the major street. The number of gaps in the traffic stream and the number of students during the highest crossing hour determine whether this warrant is met, but prior to installing a traffic signal, other remedial measures shall be considered. The peak hour of pedestrian traffic at Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive occurs between 2:30 PM and 3:30 PM, when 28 pedestrian crossings were observed. Because school was in session and school release occurred during this time period, the majority of these pedestrians were likely students; this was confirmed by field observation. Volume counts during the same ~~a~. Jaimee Bourgeois October 13, 2009 Page 5 of 9 period at Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive, which has marked crosswalks at all approaches, showed 112 pedestrian crossings. While the majority of student pedestrians in the area may use other crossings, the number of student crossings at Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive could justify a traffic signal based on Warrant 5, though other measures should also be explored. Warrant 6 -Coordinated Signal System Warrant 6 considers the installation of a traffic signal to maintain proper platooning of vehicles in a coordinated system. The warrant is met if adjacent traffic signals do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning, and if the combination of adjacent and proposed traffic control signals will provide a progressive operation. This warrant is not applicable because the study intersection does not lie within a coordinated signal system. Warrant 7 -Crash Experience Warrant 7 considers the installation of a traffic signal based on the severity and frequency of crashes analyzed under three conditions - an adequate trial of alternatives to reduce the number of accidents has failed (Warrant 7A), five or more accidents that could be mitigated through the installation of a traffic signal occurred over a 12-month period (Warrant 76), and an examination of major and minor street pedestrian volumes (Warrant 7C). The accident history indicates that two accidents occurred at the intersection between 2006 and 2008, so Warrant 7A is not applicable and Warrant 76 is not met. The low pedestrian volumes at the intersection indicate that Warrant 7C is not met, so a traffic signal at the intersection is not justifiable based on this warrant. Warrant 8 -Roadway Network This warrant is intended to justify the installation of traffic signals that would encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network at a common intersection of two of more major routes, as defined by the MUTCD. Based on MUTCD criteria, Brighton Drive cannot be considered a major route; therefore, a traffic signal is not justifiable based on this warrant. ALL-WAY STOP WARRANT EVALUATION The all-way stop warrant evaluation was based on implementation criteria defined in CA MUTCD section 26.07. A summary of the results is presented below. Meeting one or more of the warrants could justify the installation of all-way stop-control at the intersection. Table 3 summarizes the results of the all-way stop warrant analysis and a discussion of each warrant follows. ~ ~ as Jaimee Bourgeois October 13, 2009 Page 6 of 9 TABLE 3 ALL-WAY STOP WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Warrant Result Guidance Criterion A: Signal Traffic Control justified Met Guidance Criterion B: Crash Problem Not Met Guidance Criterion C: Minimum Volumes Met Guidance Criterion D: Criteria B and C 80% satisfied Not Met Optional Criterion A: The Need to Control Left-turn Conflicts Not Met Optional Criterion B: The Need to Control Vehicular and Pedestrian Conflicts Not Met Optional Criterion C: Sight Distance Not Met Optional Criterion D: Intersection of Two Streets with Similar Design Not Met Source: Fehr ~ Peers, 2009. Guidance Criterion A: Signal Traffic Control Justified Under this criterion, all-way stop-control can be used as an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic until the installation of a traffic control signal. Based on the results of the signal warrant evaluation, which indicated that a traffic signal was justifiable, an all-way stop traffic control could be implemented as an interim traffic control measure at the intersection. Guidance Criterion B: Crash Problem All-way stop-control can be justified based on accident history if there are five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by an all-way stop installation. There have been two accidents in the last three years at this location. Therefore, the intersection does not satisfy Guidance Criterion B. Guidance Criterion C: Minimum Volumes This criterion considers the average vehicular volumes on the major street approaches for any 8 hours of an average day and/or the combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes (and delay) entering the intersection from the minor street for an 8 hour period. The volumes on the major street and the volume and delay on the minor street satisfy Criteria C. Therefore, all-way stop-control is justifiable at the intersection based on Guidance Criterion C. Guidance Criterion D: Guidance B and C are 80% Satisfied Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where criteria B and C are satisfied to 80% of the minimum values, application of all-way stop-control is justifiable. Only Guidance Criterion C meets the 80% threshold, so the intersection does not satisfy this criterion. g ~~- a~ Jaimee Bourgeois October 13, 2009 Page 7 of 9 Optional Criterion A: The Need to Control Left-Turn Conflicts Due to the conflicts presented by left-turn vehicles and the delay associated with these turns without control, all-way stop-control may be warranted if the number of left-turn conflicts is prominent enough to cause queuing and delays along the major road. The peak number of left- turns on Amador Valley Boulevard in any given hour during the study periods was 55 vehicles while the conflicting through movement (Amador Valley Boulevard westbound) had 452 vehicles. Field observations revealed minimal queuing among left-turning vehicles, and queue lengths were not observed to exceed the length of the left-turn storage lane. Since there are sufficient gaps in major street traffic to allow for left-turns, all-way stop-control is not justifiable based on this criterion. Optional Criterion B: The Need to Control Vehicular and Pedestrian Conflicts Count data showed that 28 pedestrians crossed at the intersection during the peak one-hour midday peak period (2:30 to 3:30). Based on these current pedestrian volumes, there does not appear to be a need to provide stop control on Amador Valley Boulevard in order to control vehicular and pedestrian conflicts. Therefore, Optional Criterion B was not met. Optional Criterion C: Sight Distance At side-street stop controlled intersections there are typically two types of sight distances that need to be considered: corner sight distance and stopping sight distance. Corner sight distance refers to how far a driver on the side street can see vehicles on the major street approaching the intersection, while stopping sight distance refers to the distance that a driver on the major street has to make a complete stop when an object on the road becomes visible (e.g. a vehicle exiting the side street). With respect to safety, the minimum sight distance that should be provided is the stopping sight distance. Based on the California MUTCD, all-way stop-control should be considered at locations where the driver on the side street, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to reasonably safely negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop. The Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) provides minimum corner and stopping sight distances that should be provided based on vehicle speeds on the major road to allow drivers on the side street to safely negotiate the intersection. The posted speed limit on Amador Valley Boulevard approaching the intersection is 30 miles per hour (mph). Based on Tables 201.1 and 405.1A in the HDM, there should be 200 feet of stopping sight distance and 330 feet of corner sight distance at this intersection. The stopping sight distance is nearly 500 feet approaching in both directions, meeting the HDM standard. Corner sight distance is restricted to approximately 250 feet due to the foliage at both northern corners of the intersection and the median tree line to the west of Brighton Drive, when vehicles stop at the limit line. However, after vehicles come to a full stop and move forward into the intersection, although out of on-coming traffic lanes, corner sight distance is sufficient. Optional Criterion D: Intersection of Two Residential Neighborhood Collector Streets with Similar Design Amador Valley Boulevard and Brighton Drive have different design and operating characteristics; Amador Valley Boulevard is an arterial and Brighton Drive is a residential collector. For this reason, the intersection does not satisfy this criterion. ~ ~- a~ Jaimee Bourgeois October 13, 2009 Page 8 of 9 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS WITH TRAFFIC CONTROL The Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection is closely spaced to the Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive intersection, which is currently all-way stop-controlled. New traffic control at the Brighton Drive intersection could adversely impact operations at the Penn Drive intersection, or operations of the Penn Drive intersection could adversely affect the operations of the Brighton Drive intersection. A traffic operational analysis was conducted to determine the level of impact between these two intersections. Fehr & Peers simulated traffic operations at the two intersections during the morning, afternoon, and evening peak periods using the Synchro 7.0 for existing conditions and with all-way stop- control at the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection. The Synchro 7.0/SimTraffic software package was used to evaluate conditions with signalization of the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection. In all analysis scenarios, the configuration of the Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive intersection remains unchanged from the existing all-way stop- control. The SimTrafFic micro-simulation model was calibrated to existing conditions. The intersection level of service results is shown in Table 4 and queuing results are shown in Table 5. The conclusions are: • With installation of all-way stop-control, the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection would degrade to LOS F during the AM peak hour, which exceeds the City's level of service standard. The vehicle queues during the AM peak hour would extend back beyond the adjacent signalized intersec#ion at Stagecoach Drive (located about 1,000 feet to the east). Afternoon intersection operations would be LOS D; however, vehicle queue spillback to Penn Drive would degrade the operation of that intersection to LOS E. • With installation of a traffic signal at the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection, the intersection would operate acceptably during the morning, afternoon, and evening peak hours. Vehicle queues on Brighton Drive would improve over the existing condition. The vehicle queues on Amador Valley Boulevard would not extend back to either Penn Drive or Stagecoach Drive. TABLE 4 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Peak Hour Existing Conditions With All-Way Stop- Control z With signalization Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS 1. Amador Valley AM 50 (252) E (F) 164 F 15 B Boulevard/ Midday 37 (153) E (F) 26 D 11 B Brighton Drive PM 4 (20) A (C) 9 A 9 A 2. Amador Valley AM 10 B 8 A 8 A Boulevard/ Penn Midday 16 C 44 E 18 B Drive PM 8 A 8 A 8 A Notes: 1. With all-way stop-control at the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive and Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive intersections. 2. With signalization at the Amador Valley Boulevard/ Brighton Drive intersection and all-way strop-control at the Amador Valley Boulevard/Penn Drive intersection. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2009. ~o ~- as Jaimee Bourgeois October 13, 2009 Page 9 of 9 TABLE 5 QUEUING SUMMARY AT AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD/BRIGHTON DRIVE INTERSECTION Movement Vehicle Existing Conditions With All-Way Stop- Control' s With signalization Storage AM AFT PM AM AFT PM AM AFT PM Eastbound left 125' 125' 75' S0' 75' 175' 75' 100' 75' 100' Eastbound through3 400' N/A N/A N/A 75' 425' 175' 75' 150' 125' Westbound3 1,000' N/A N/A N/A 2,000' 450' 150' 400' 275' 200' Southbound left3 225' 625' 675' 100' 75' 175' S0' 200' 150' 75' Southbound right 100' 150' 150' 50' 50' 100' 50' 75' 75' 75' Notes: 95th percentile queue in feet as calculated by Synchro 7.0. N/A indicates that vehicles do not stop. 1. With all-way stop-control at the Amador Valley Boulevard/ Brighton Drive intersection. 2. With signalization at the Amador Valley Boulevard/ Brighton Drive intersection. 3. Vehicle storage is equal to the distance to the upstream intersection. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2009. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the signal and stop-control warrant assessment at the Amador Valley Boulevard/ Brighton Drive intersection, peak hour warrants are satisfied for the installation of either a traffic signal or stop sign. Results of the operations analysis with traffic control indicate that installation of all-way stop-control would significantly degrade the intersection operations during the AM peak hour to LOS F and vehicle queue spillback would adversely affect the operation of adjacent intersections during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. Therefore, installation of all-way stop-control is not recommended as it would increase vehicle delay on the corridor. Installation of a traffic signal would decrease delay for vehicles turning from Brighton Drive to Amador Valley Boulevard, without degrading the operations for vehicles traveling on Amador Valley Boulevard. Additionally, potential vehicle queues associated with signal operations would not result in vehicle queue spillback to adjacent intersections on Amador Valley Boulevard. It is recommended that in conjunction with signalization of the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive intersection, parking on Brighton Drive at the southbound approach to Amador Valley Boulevard be prohibited for 100 feet to create designated left-turn and right-turn lanes. This completes our assessment of the Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive warrant analysis. Please call if you have any questions. Attachment 1 -Intersection Level of Service Analysis Methods Figure 1 Study Area Map Figure 2 Existing Lane Configuration and Traffic Controls Figure 3 Existing Intersection Volumes 1~ ~ ~~ ATTACHMENT 1 -INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS METHODS The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term "level of service" (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels of service are defined ranging from LOS A (i.e., best operating conditions) to LOS F (worst operating conditions). LOS E corresponds to operations "at capacity." When volumes exceed capacity, stop-and-go conditions result and operations are designated as LOS F. The City of Dublin strives to maintain LOS D. Different criteria and methods were used to assess operating conditions for the various types of facilities analyzed in this study, including signalized and unsignalized intersections, freeway segments, and freeway ramp merge/diverge areas. The LOS criteria and methods for each of these facilities are described in the following sections. Signalized Intersections Traffic conditions at signalized intersections were evaluated using the method from Chapter 16 of the Transportation Research Board's 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. This operations analysis method uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through an intersection. Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. Table A-1 summarizes the relationship between average delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections. TABLE A-1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA Level Average Control of Service Description Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle lengths. < 10.0 - B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. > 10.0 to 20.0 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20.0 to 35.0 Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable p progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are ' 35.0 to 55.0 noticeable. Operations with long delays indicating poor progression, long cycle E lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent > 55.0 to 80.0 occurrences. F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. ~ 80.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (transportation Research Board, 2000). i~~-~~. Unsignalized Intersections Traffic conditions at unsignalized intersections were evaluated using the method from Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each movement that must yield the right-of- way. For all-way stop-controlled intersections, the average control delay is calculated for the intersection as a whole. This incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping and moving up in the queue. At two-way or side street-controlled intersections, the control delay (and LOS) is calculated for each controlled movement, the left-turn movement from the major street, and the entire intersection. For controlled approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. The delays for the entire intersection and for the movement or approach with the highest delay are reported. Table A-2 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. TABLE A-2 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Little or no delays < 10.0 B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). 13 ~ as F E H RAT& ~P E E RS PROJECT STUDY AREA october2oos FIGURE 1 Graphics\Dublin Signal Warcant\WCOS-2606_1 Amador Valley Boulevard /Brighton Drive Traffic Control Warrant Analysis ~~I ~ as ~r FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION AND TRAFFIC CONTROL october2oos FIGURE 2 Graphics\Dublin Signal Warrant\WCOS-2606_2 Amador Valley Boulevard /Brighton Drive Traffic Control Warrant Analysis i5 ~ ~a FEHR ~ PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS EXISTING VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES october2oos FIGURE 3 Graphics\Dublin Signal Warrant\WC08-2606_3 Amador Valley Boulevard I Brighton Drive Traffic Control Warrant Analysis i~ ~ as CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 October 29, 2009 Website: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us Subject: City Council Consideration of the Installation of a Traffic Signal at Amador Valley Boulevard/Brighton Drive Dear Homeowner: The City of Dublin City Council adopted as a high priority Goal & Objective to study the need for signalizing the intersection of Amador Valley Boulevard and Brighton Drive. As such, staff has completed a study, the findings of which state that based on existing conditions the installation of a traffic signal is justified. As such, the City Council will be considering on November 17, 2009, the establishment of a Capital Improvement Project to design and construct a traffic signal at this intersection. City Council will also be considering the establishment of a No Parking Zone for 100 feet on the west side of Brighton Drive immediately north of Amador Valley Boulevard (please see the attached map for location). This will help to improve traffic flow by allowing for the establishment of two travel lanes approaching the intersection. Comments can be provided in writing in advance of the City Council meeting at the following address: Jaimee Bourgeois c/o City of Dublin Public Works Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Please feel free to also comment via email at Jaimee.bourgeoisCa~ci.dublin.ca.us. Please respond by November 6th if you would like your comments incorporated into the staff report. The meeting will be held on November 17, 2009, starting at 7:00 p.m. in the City of Dublin Council Chambers at 100 Civic Plaza. If you would like, a copy of the staff report can be provided to you in advance upon request. The staff report will also be available on the City of Dublin website at www.ci.dublin.ca.us. Sincerely, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • Jaimee Bourgeois, P.E. City Traffic Engineer G:ITRANSPORTATIONILocal TrefficlSignalslAVB Brighton Signal Warrant StudylLtr AVB_Bnghton_Signal Notice.doc Area Code (925) City Manager 833-6650 City Council 833-6650 Personnel 833-6605 Ec Finance 833-6640 Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 Parks & Community Services 83; Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 Building Inspection 833-6620 Fire Preventic Printed on Recycled Paper ATTACHMENT 3. ~~ ~ as O c n ~ O ~ _ Z ~. ~ ~ ~ ~, O U ~ ~ C L ~ ._ O ~ f6 O ~ (n .J co d. N . ~~dm~a~ 941-0195-002 941-0195-003 (6861 Brighton) 941-0195-004 Roger Alvarado Richard & Gail Breitwieser Arthur Amador, Sr. 6867 Brighton Drive P.O. Box 711 6855 Brighton Drive Dublin CA 94568 .Diablo CA 94528-0711 Dublin CA 94568 941-0195-004 941-0195-006 941-0195-028 (7195 Newcastle) Vjaceslaves/Stroganova Kasjanovs Gregory & Deborah Blake Pete & Ann Bagoje 7170 Newcastle Lane 7192 Newcastle Lane 35637 Mission Boulevard Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 Fremont CA 94536-1539 941-0195-029 941-0195-030 (7163 Newcastle) X41-0195-031 Richard & Patricia Russo Juan & Manichanh Sanchez Clifford & Nellie Jue 7179 Newcastle Lane 2724 Moet Lane 7147 Newcastle Lane Dublin CA 94568 San Ramon CA 94582-2880 Dublin CA 94568 941-0195-032 941-0195-033 941-0195-034 Leonard & Georgia Destefano Arthur & Lillian Bielski Mathilda F. Kiesel 6825 Amador Valley Blvd. 6813 Amador Valley Blvd. 6801 Amador Valley Blvd. Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 941-0195-035 941-0196-001 941-0196-002 Gary & Lorie Fritsch Ellen & Ernest Nagy Benny J. Lee 6789 Amador Valley Blvd. 6866 Brighton Drive 6860 Brighton Drive Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 941-0196-003 941-0196-004 941-0196-005 Randal & Phimhanam Zugnoni James & Betsy Key Donald Krekorian 6854 Brighton Drive 6848 Brighton Drive 6842 Brighton Drive Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 941-0196-006 (6837 avB) 941-0196-007 (6849 AvB) 941-0196-008 (6861 AvB) Robert & Janet Zupetz Alfredo & Virginia Deguzman Vincent & Diane Bartoni 5525 Old School Road 961 Iroquois Avenue 945 Spring Water Street Pleasanton CA 94588-9522 Livermore CA 94551-1809 Danville CA 94506-1219 941-0196-009 941-0196-010 941-0196-011 Bennie Olivas Tommy & Thelma Smith Joan R. Bennett 6873 Amador Valley Blvd. 6885 Amador Valley Blvd. 6897 Amador Valley Blvd. Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 941-0196-039 941-0196-040 941-0196-041 (6854 Doreen Ct) Erik L. Bertelson Emini & Thomas Bailey Robert & Marieluise Ruland 6890 Doreen Court 6872 Doreen Court 2220 Bunker Hill Drive Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 San Mateo CA 94402-3833 941-0196-042 (6836 Doreen Ct) 941-0196-043 941-0196-044 Elaine M. Cory Peter & Rebecca Mengell Carlos & Diana Ortega P.O. Box 242 6818 Doreen Court 6827 Doreen Court Los Banos CA 93635-0242 Dublin CA 94568 Dublin ('A 9as~Q ATTACHMENT - ~ ~ ~- ~~ 941-0196-045 941-0196-046 941-0196-047 Jon & Denise Campos Rebecca & Andrew Briggs Caroline M. Sullivan 6845 Doreen Court 6863 Doreen Court 6881 Doreen Court Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 Dublin C"A 94568 941-0196-049 (7140 Tamarack) 941-0 l 96-050 941-0 l 96-051 Esther Saling Margaret Johnson Scott & Diane Yarbrough 7606 Amador Valley Blvd. 12 7126 Tamarack Drive 7112 Tamarack Drive Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 941-0198-105 941-0198-109 941-0198-110 John & Julie Fead Kakapakkam & Hemamalini Jonathan & Genis Hamilton 7191 Prince Drive Dwaraknath 7221 Prince Drive Dublin CA 94568 7205 Prince Drive Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 941-0198-111 941-0198-112 941-0198-113 Jason & Vanessa Clark David & Karen Smith Erika & Victoria Boehm 7235 Prince Drive 7251 Prince Drive 7265 Prince Drive Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 941-0198-114 (7281 Prince Dr) 941-0198-115 941-0198-116 Teresa Kulka Matilde & Rodriguez Munoz Dick & Lara Leong 3945 Oakmore Road 6848 Amador Valley Blvd. 6836 Amador Valley Blvd. Oakland Ca 94602-1832 Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 941-0198-117 941-0198-118 (6824 AVB) 941-0198-119 Harvey L. Curtis Robert M. Miller Ven & Nga Nguyen 6830 Amador Valley Blvd. 24 Cherry Hills Court 6814 Amador Valley Blvd. Dublin CA 94568 Alamo CA 94507-2203 Dublin CA 94568 941-0198-120 941-0198-121 941-0198-122 Allan & Rosemarie Owens Larry A. Crowder Randolph E. Frazier 6802 Amador Valley Blvd. 6790 Amador Valley Blvd. 6778 Amador Valley Blvd. Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 941-0199-010 941-0199-011 941-0199-012 Timothy V. Barley Edith M. Granzen Leigh Warn 6908 Amador Valley Blvd. 6896 Amador Valley Blvd. 6884 Amador Valley Blvd. Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 941-0199-013 941-0199-014 941-0199-015 Todd & Dana Armstrong Danny & Cynthia Raymond Michele & Stephen Huff 6872 Amador Valley Blvd. 6860 Amador Valley Blvd. 7295 Prince Drive Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 941-0199-016 (7301 Prince Dr) 941-0199-017 941-0198-123 Judith R. Medley David & Mary Wright Robert O. Mota 6914 Post Road 6946 Post Road 6766 Amador Valley Blvd. Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 Dublin CA 94568 941-0195-036 (6777 AvB) Daniel & Ellen Fischer 6174 Lakeview Circle San Ramon CA 94582 ao ~ as a19-~ ~a November 1, 2009 Jaime Bourgeois, P.E. City of Dublin Traffic Engineer 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568 Re: AVB Traffic Signal Dear Ms. Bourgeois: This letter is to respond #o the proposed traffic signal on Amador Vaiiey Boulevard (AVB) at Brighton Drive (BD). Upon much consideration of the pros and cons of installing the traffic signal at Brighton, we conclude this location will benefit the most people, although some may consider themselves inconvenienced. We therefore support this action. We live on the south side of AVB, east of Brighton Drive and we recognize this will take away our ability to make a U-turn from westbound AVB to access our home. However, we are willing to make the necessary changes in our traffic habits if it will reduce and slow down the traffic on AVB. It is our opinion that AVB is currently used by individuals who live outside of the neighborhood as a shortcut around the 580/680 interchange. We are anxious to see the installation of a traffic signal and see this as a means of encouraging commuters to avoid driving through this residential neighborhood. Ano#her benefit of the proposed traffic signal will be to decrease the speed that people drive on AVB. We believe this has been sorely needed for a long time: i# is our estimate that some drivers routinely travel over 40 miles per hour on AVB. We support the proposed traffic signal installation on AVB at Brighton Drive. Sincerely, ~~ Randy azier, P.E. Alison Frazier, C.P.A. Randy & AliSOn brazier • 6778 Amador Valley Blvd • Dublin, CA 94568 ATTACHMENTS. Page 1 of 1 Jaimee Bourgeois From: Rebecca Mengel) [rmengell@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 12:46 PM To: Jaimee Bourgeois Subject: Traffic Signal Installation am responding to your letter of October 29, 2009 regarding the installation of a traffic signal at Brighton and Amador Valley Road. I strongly support adding this signal, and the accompanying 100 ft red zone to allowfor a right turn only lane. Installing this signal should be a very high priority, as the current situation is extremely dangerous for pedestrians, particularly the many children who must cross these streets to get home/to school. I have children at our elementary, middle and high schools, and as an actively involved parent I am absolutely mortified at how uncontrolled traffic and parking issues have turned our schools into horrible neighbors. I live on a court, so I am not directly affected, but I feel strongly that we as a community owe it to our neighbors who live close to these institutions to be much more active in devising solutions that support their quality of life. I would support permit only parking for 2 or 3 blocks in all directions around DHS, and much stronger enforcement of traffic regulations. Additionally, getting DHS pick-up/drop-off drivers out of our neighborhoods and back on to Village parkway is the only way to assure the safety of our children who walk to school, and should be an administrative priority regardless of the status of DHS parking lots. am glad you have made a start on this, and hope it signals an attempt to improve this situation. Due to work requirements, I am not able to attend meetings, but would love to know what's decided on this. Thank you, Rebecca Mengel) 11/2/2009 as n~- as ATTACHMENT