Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1987 1021 CC REG ITEM 08HCLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Mayor ELOISE BROWN Mayor Pro Tem THOMAS C. FERGUSON Councilmember JOHN GALLOWAY Councilmember JOHN PATRICK LANE Councilmember MAUREEN W. WALL City Clerk TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MOORPARK ITEM STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYLJ.KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer MEMORANDUM! The Honorable City Council Steven Kueny, City Manager October 16, 1987 Traffic Signal Warrant Study at the Intersection of Moorpark Avenue (S R 23) and High Street As authorized by the City Council on August 19, 1987, the City Manager has authorized the City Engineer to proceed with the conceptual design of the referenced traffic signal. The cost for this work is not to exceed $5,000, and is funded from the Traffic Safety Fund. The Council will still need to determine the funding service for the signal project. It is recommended that the funding matter be referred to the City Council's Public Works Committee (Councilmember Galloway and Mayor Harper) for a recommendation to the City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Direct the matter of the funding source for the High Street at Moorpark Avenue Traffic Signal to the Council's Public Works Committee for a report back to the City Council. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 MOORPARK CUNT HARPER, Ph.D. STEVEN KUENY Mayor City Manager ELOISE BROWN POPPK `"� CHERYL I KANE 1 Mayor Pro TernF° 92 City Attorney THOMAS C. FERGUSON ° PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Councilmember O Director of JOHN GALLOWAY z Community Development Councilmember 9a o R. DENNIS DELZEIT JOHN PATRICK LANE City Engineer Councilmember - JOHN V. GILLESPIE MAUREEN W. WALL Chief of Police City Clerk THOMAS P. GENOVESE City Treasurer TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM The Honorable City Council John F. Knipe, Assistant City Engineer October 12, 1987 Traffic Signal Warrant Study at the Intersection of Moorpark Avenue (SR 23) and High Street BACKGROUND INFORMATION As directed by the City Council at its August 19, 1987 meeting, the City Engineering Staff conducted the subject Traffic Signal Warrant Study. The result of this study indicate that a traffic Signal iS currently warranted at this intersection. Manual traffic counts were collected on Wednesday, September 16, 19 87 , and are attached in Exhibit "A". Traffic signal warrant worksheets are attached in Exhibit "B". The worksheets show that Warrant Nos. 1, 9 and 11 are 100 percent satisfied and Warrant No. 2 is 80 percent satisfied. We have discussed the signal warrant study with Caltrans' Traffic Operations Department and they have verbally agreed that a signal is warranted. They also stated that no difficulties were anticipated in the State funding 50 percent of the signal construction costs. As previously directed by the Council, the City Engineering staff will now prepare the conceptual design. It should be noted that, because the conceptual design must be prepared before the co-op agreement is executed, the work for the conceptual design will be at the City's expense. RECEIVED -- OCT 15 1987 rITY OF MOORPA'_ 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 Page -2- As discussed in a previous Council memo, it is proposed that the traffic signals on Moorpark Avenue (SR 23) at High Street and at Poindexter Avenue be constructed as one project. The total project cost is estimated to be $200,000 to $220,000 (excluding right-of-way acquisition), of which the High Street signal cost will comprise approximately half. Upon submittal to Caltrans of the conceptual design, the City must state its commitment to funding its 50 percent share of the construction costs and formally request Caltrans to prepare a draft cooperative agreement. RECOMMENDED ACTION This material is provided for information only and no action is required. JFK:PMD:ls cc: Steve Kueny, City Manager R. Dennis Delzeit, City Engineer Mark Wessel, Senior Engineer Patrick Dobbins, Project Engineer JN 30209 CMO541.COU MOORPARK CUNT HARPER, Ph.D. STEVEN KUENY Mayor City Manager ELOISE BROWN PPrPx ��o CHERYL J.KANE Mayor Pro Tern F ��i City Attorney THOMAS C.FERGUSON � PATRICK RICHARDS,A.I.C.P. Councilmember i �. Director of JOHN GALLOWAY �`�.. :� Community Development Councilmember a% R. DENNIS DELZEIT JOHN PATRICK LANE City Engineer Councilmember 4,r`O 'may JOHN V.GILLESPIE MAUREEN W.WALL Chief of Police City Clerk THOMAS P.GENOVESE City Treasurer MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Kueny, City Manager FROM: John F. Knipe, Assistant City Engineer DATE: October 8, 1987 SUBJECT: Traffic Project Priority List Caltrans has requested the City to determine the priority for each traffic project under Caltrans review or for which Caltrans will be participating in the funding. Below is a list of proposed priorities for all City projects on SR 118 and SR 23 . Project Proposed Priority 1. Moorpark Avenue (SR 23 ) & 5 Poindexter Avenue Traffic Signal 2 . Moorpark Avenue (SR 23 ) & 6 High Street Traffic. Signal 3 . Spring Road (SR 118) & 2 High Street Corner Widening • 4 . Los Angeles Avenue (SR 118) & 1 Spring Road Dual Eastbound Left 5. Los Angeles Avenue (SR 118) & 3 Spring Road Northbound & Southbound Left Turn Phasing 6 . Los Angeles Avenue (SR 118) & 7 Maureen Lane Traffic Signal • RECEIVED ... OCT 1 71987 CITY OF MOORPAP' 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529-6864 Page -2- Project Proposed Priority 7 . Moorpark Avenue (SR 23) & 4 Los Angeles Avenues (SR 118) Storm Drain Traffic Detour 8. Los Angeles Avenue (SR 118) To be submitted Widening, Maureen Lane to for second review Gisler Avenue Please review this list and return it with your comments. JFK:PMD:ls cc: Pat Richards, Director of Community Development R. Dennis Delzeit, City Engineer Mark Wessel, Senior Engineer Patrick Dobbins, Project Engineer JN 3400 JN 3482 CMO555.MEM r' M--�O--'ORPARK _ 1NT HARPER, Ph.D. STEVEN KUEVY Mayor City Manager ELCISE BROWN CHERYLJ. KANE Mayor Pro Tem City Attomey `MAS C. FERGUSON 1� PATRICK RICHARDS. A-LC.P C:.unciimember Cirec:or of IOHN GALLOWAY Community Cevemcment Couraimember +o / R. DENNIS CE = �HN PATRICK LANE J4,,,o C;ty Engineer Counciimember JOHN V. GILLESPIE IAURE-EN W. WALL MEMORANDUM Chief of Police C;ty Clerk THOMAS P. GF-NCVEEE Cary Treasurer TO: The Honorable City Council .C✓-� 1 ; FROM: R. Dennis Delzeit, City Engineer DATE: August 10, 1987 SUBJECT: Moorpark Avenue Traffic Signals BACKGROUND INFORMATION Attached is the Conceptual Signal Design for the intersection of Poindexter Avenue/First Street and Moorpark Avenue. The Conceptual Design has been forwarded to CalTrans Traffic Operations for their review and comment. During the design of the Poindexter Avenue signal it became apparent that the intersection of High Street and Moorpark Avenue.may warrant construction of a traffic signal. Since these two signals would be interconnected to each other and also coordinated with the existing railroad crossing operations, simultaneous construction of the two signals would be simpler and less expensive due to economy of scale. The following are other advantages to constructing both signals at the same time: 1. Only one CalTrans Encroachment Permit will be necessary, which will save CalTrans review time. 2. Only one CalTrans Cooperative Agreement will be necessary, which will save CalTrans processing time. 3. Economy of scale relating to: a. Coordination with CalTrans b. Design C. Construction Cost d. Construction Observation e Contract Admi_nis ra ion 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 52n-6864 Page -2- The disadvantage of combining these two signal projects would be to delay construction of the signal at- Poindexter Avenue by about four months, but we believe that the advantages outweigh this disadvantage. The total engineering costs associated with this combined project are as follows: Poindexter Warrant Study (Completed) $ 950 Poindexter Conceptual Design (Completed) $ 5,000 High Street Warrant Study $ 950 High Street Conceptual Design $ 5,000 * Cooperative Agreement Processing $ 1,000 * Final Design $10,000 * Construction Observation $ 7,000 * Contract Administration $ 9,000 TOTAL $38;900 * Combining both intersections These figures are preliminary but reflect a savings of approximately twenty-two percent in comparison to the engineering fees required if each project was pursued separately. Any costs incurred by the City prior to an executed Cooperative Agreement would not be subject to any reimbursement from CalTrans. RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive and file the intersection Moorpark Avenue prepare a traffic of High Street Conceptual Design RDD:PMD:j9 Encl. the attached Conceptual Signal Design for of Poindexter Avenue/First Street and (SR 23) and direct the City Engineer to signal warrant study for the intersection and Moorpark Avenue (SR 23) with the to follow if warranted. cc: Steve Kueny, City Manager John F. Knipe, Assistant City Engineer Pat Dobbins, Project Engineer JN 30145 BMO247.Mem bRP-PRK TURNING bbkJ C/ . : W 1 (-L DW N DCAT lorj : M(N- P, PA Al • A I Il r. r-� n n V", k MOVEMENT COUNTS ( : 3o — /;L 3 0 ' ®�vv®�©o®®m■am�m—�a offimmmommM°o• /= 1111DIE"I allommm!�©FjCi7l7l�© ��Jf r i ®�C1J�I�►J�l■ nm�lrrIIIIIo�MW&Ao 11900111111111131111 • �cc�rr.�o - c��r- o©����- om MOM= m IIIINIIII �I��n�®I�nas��®e■r�r� MIN malmill • ��o��an�o®��a moral W. AINS. m111107 1q. 111 .�C n�oc��am��i■�Im�l�a��ino�n mnmn 0, M 1110111110A r�cari�scs■1011ocai9 13 FtE LX> 065YA-nan15 H�pVy TTRU6 K I Rgld5 RACK T" FFIC UP TR/�FF)C EXHIBIT "A" )CAR PARK TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS kGblj G`f .00ATtOl.-I Jam: 30— 6:30 m ��sr�oo■or� , am N 1��,��' or�n�u�n - m - �� P. 0 MENOMINEE ol - mmmmmmcl m �a8 A l ' w���m ��m 1=1�1 m �aao 1 M�nr:__ n�o m�rwmlmI=Iw MEN m/I ran - - a��r�r���a�n - • c��n :.,r►�r��©�c��a�a�a�D � ©gin �omwa-m WINAM sn n i7QC� D - '7 m1 .! w � i clD t E LZ), C& S�AT1 Onl `;, A &EN 0 : L.O CAT(OP-J : TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS 6 : 30 - 7: 3 0 P/Yt h1mmmtyCl�t�7�A FAWs M�17i ME Mll OMMMMang ME ndp . Nonni on FtEL.D OPTS�ATIoNtj Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-5 12-1986 Figure 9-1 A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS {� CALC f" MD DATE �7 D% veQJ 115 (3•40 CHK N-DW DATE 9 �9 DIST CO RTE PM Major St: � '�3 — Critical Approach Speed �s mph Minor St: 55 V� s e� Critical Approach Speed _2— mph Critical speed of major street traffic240 mph ------------""--- ❑ OR RURAL (R) In built up area of isolated community of< 10,000 pop. --------- ❑ URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 — Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES \g NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) ) !M U R U R ' APPROACH 0 0 0 0 ,o a m ,o O � 0 ^m %�� �� m Hour m LANES 1 2 or more �U NjQ o �1 �� \ \ \ Q O � \ \ _ Both A . 500 8-3 7�8 7& 1 7 /' (O (0O 1 Street Major Street 40 280 (280) 480 (480) 336 (336) to Highest Apprch �5 n �g 2, r 29'7 Minor Strreet* 120 (84) (160) (112 * NOTE: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT -phasing is proposed ❑ WARRANT 2- Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO �( 80% SATISFIED YES TQ NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) u R u R Q ,�o , 'gym° of �a ° f � ^n° APPROACH 1 2 or more LANES ` 0Q� m\�' \rV�rf� Hour Both �79Mjorr Street 0 (420) (220) (504) Q+z D� U' / 1 597%P-(P// Appir 70 Highest reef* 60 53 100 56 4' 0 �� n' 7 3/- SH Minor Street' 60 (42) (80) (56) ,L(� U/ L- *NOTE: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT -phasing is proposed ❑ WARRANT 3 — Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO Hour IF MIDBLOCK SIGNAL PROPOSED ❑ MIN. REQUIREMENT DISTANCE TO NEAREST ESTABLISHED CRWLK FULFILLED 150 Feet N/E ft S/W ft Yes ❑ No ❑ The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown. TS-10A EXHIBIT "B" 9-6 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 12-19as Figure 9-1 B TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 4 - School Crossings Not Applicable ❑ See School Crossings Warrant Sheet WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement SATISFIED YES ❑ NO)k MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL FULFILLED > 1000 ft N _- , S 2�� It, E ft, W It YES NO ❑ ON ONE WAY ISOLATED ST. OR ST. WITH ONE WAY TRAFFIC SIGNIFICANCE AND ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THAT NECESSARY PLATOONING & SPEED CONTROL WOULD BE LOST ON 2-WAY ST. WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING & SPEED CONTROL PROPOSED SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM ❑ WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES ❑ NO 9 REQUIREMENT WARRANT ✓ FULFILLED ONE WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME ----------------------------------------------- ✓ - SATISFIED OR WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC --------------------------------------------------- 80% OR WARRANT - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME YES NO ❑ Jul ❑ SIGNAL WILL NOT SERIOUSLY DISRUPT PROGRESSIVE TRAFFIC FLOW ACC. FREQ. ❑ ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS RESTRICTIVE REMEDIES HAS FAILED TO REDUCE ACC WITHIN A 12 MON. PERIOD SUSCEPTIBLE OF CORR. & INVOLVING INJURY OR > S200 DAMAGE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS D ❑ 5 OR MORE* * NOTE. Left turn accidents can be included when LT -phasing is proposed WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant SATISFIED YES ❑ NO X MINIMUM VOLUME REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES- ALLAPPROACHES DURING TYPICA / <DAY PEAK HOUR 800 VEH/HR VEH/HR -------------------------------------------------- DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS OF A SATURDAY AND/OR SUNDAY VEH/HR CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR ST MINOR S' HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC - - ye-5 - &,q - CONNECTS AREAS OF PRINCIPLE TRAFFIC GENERATION 'ye' ------------------------------------- RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING, - OR TRAVERSING A CITY Xr5 - //Q - HAS SURFACE STREET FWY OR EXPWAY RAMP TERMINALS /VD - - 4149- _ APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STS. FULFILLED YESX NO ❑ The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown. TS-10 B Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-7 12.1986 Figure 9-1 C TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT 8 -Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES ❑ No ❑ N/� REQUIP.EMENT WARRANT ✓ FULFILLED TWO WARRANTS SATISFIED 80% 1 -MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME YES ❑ NO ❑ 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC 3 - MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume Approach Lanes SATISFIED* YES )4 NO ❑ 2 or�4 �0 T m� ono �° o mo One more A /� -1 X)3 eMo Hour Both Approaches , Major Street171f�l9Z- 0 -3 U 2JZ 7*0 Highest Approaches , Minor Street 170 1 75 412 33 3 *Refer to Fig. 9-2A (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-28 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 1 O— Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP NoT- sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and five vehicle -hours MG-A5L4L(�;70 for a two-lane approach; and YES ❑ NO ❑ 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equais or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; and YES ❑ NO ❑ 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for ~j intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES ❑ NO ❑ WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES NO ❑ 2 or m0 0 � Approach Lanes One more /�� ^ Hour Both Approaches , Major Street Highest Approaches , Minor Street H Q 4-7 *Refer to Fig. 9-2C (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-2D (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown. r Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Figure 9-1 E SCHOOL PROTECTION WARRANTS `I CALC L/rL� ,�� I DATE _ Y_ 13- CHK_�1�V..__ DATE DIST CO RTE P.M. ��.��,�� Major St: M/t %� C A v5-�''P "�-� Critical Approach Speed �— mph Minor St: P16A STRE-E-'T' Critical Approach Speed Z157_ mph Critical speed of approach traffic]? 40 mph --------------------------- oH RURAL (R) In built up area of isolated community of C 10,000 pop. ------------- ❑ URBAN (U) FLASHING YELLOW SCHOOL SIGNALS (All parts must be satisfied) Minimum Requirements U R PART A Vehicle Volume Each of 200 140 2 hours School Age Pedestrian Each of 40 40 Crossing Street 2 hours AND PART B Critical Approach Speed Exceeds 35 mph IP►I7 PART C Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? 9-9 12-1986 SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ SCHOOL AREA TRAFFIC SIGNALS SATISFIED YES ❑ NO (All parts must be satisfied) PART A Minimum Requirements U R v Vehicle Volume Each of 2 hours 50 35Q g7 , School Age Pedestrians Each of 2 hours _ 10 70 _ I Crossing Street - - or - - 500 350 er da SATISFIED YES ❑ NO X TiqC /N ,2 C v/v OF 1n00AP, 49.K. AVUAAV �SF 2-3) LOS A -P-5 PART B AVEDW C l g� /5 1300 FL;2--"T' '::-�OUTH Is nearest controlled crossing more than 600 feet away? SATISFIED YES NO ❑ 9-10 12-1986 I— Q Q LU LU N CC � � a m J Zr rn 0 � � m O LL TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING W Z Q J (I) r w z LU y Q Z LU w Q J T 7 J O G r cc w O ZQ N J w Co cc O �i cc LU 0- cc N O OC O N Traffic Manual z U O Q O p a- Q O W O 111 N � r E--- Co CL O Z o x r a O w LL W O Q 2 r J x O a Q C] O J 0 O m w w T O O i= O O LL, O O � O w w O W N < Q cc O w QIL CD CL Q 2 CL O O � L W F- 0 p Z O O cr) O O O O n LO 't Cl)C') n O HdA—HOdOUddd 3wmOA HOIH 133US HONIW A C 9-12 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 12-19M Z Q Q� 3N Q W � � Q Z O)O Q w LU cc cc 2 Q w a 101 mommilm MEN VA A VA"I wWJ ,ter NowiElm Emmomm 0 0 0 0 DO 0 0 0 0 0 �y0 0 0 LO Co CV HdA—HOVOHddV 3wmOA HUM 133d1S UONIW N 0 0 w = w Q � o T O CE O a > 0 0 Q o w O w 2 W ., o r P w U) CC ►_- O Er: 00 r = N z w ¢ O Ir , o o W = c� O w O = w Q ui z o C\j0 n a w 0 J W Z o O w a J O ¢ U) � > _ F- r 0 W 0 J a W = O ►- C7 Z — o ,r O M- w o Z Q 1 U 0 �10 0)w I W Cr O CA w = J cc CL O 0 Itm O Q < cc W �,..r 0 0 o a w CL O a.O Q O Cn z a o LO Q 0 LL �. 0 n tO w � O O 0 It z �c 9-14 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual is-,9ss Figure 9-3 DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNTSHEET 4 AM PEAK PM PEAK TOTAL N 8 Q O O mooi,1-pfq e-4-1 flVt�--v1, (sp z 3) AM PEAK PM PEAK TOTAL L -90 , 107 g /Z 9LLJ O 0 l- DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT ! / CO."�� RTE2.3 pM /3_40 �Agr- AYE; -,Y i(IGPN 5� INTERSECTION AFL CITY DAY DATE AM 70o 0i • oo PEAK PM 4!4 _ HOUR