HomeMy WebLinkAboutRAMSGATE DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL ANALYSIS 41 Corporate Park,Suite 300 Irvine,CA 92606 949.660.1994 main 949.660.1911 fax www.urbanxroads.com
(?�
URBAN
CROSSROADS
February 22, 2006
Mr. Chris Holmquist
CENTEX HOMES
1265 Corona Pointe Court
Corona, CA 92879
Subject: Ramsgate Development Traffic Additional Signal Warrant Analysis
Dear Mr. Holmquist:
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this letter documenting additional
analysis that has been conducted regarding the the level of development that will be
required to warrant the two traffic signals for the Ramsgate intersections of State
Route (SR-)74 / Ardenwood Street and SR-74 / Trellis Lane in the City of Lake
Elsinore. At the request of City staff, additional traffic signal warrants beyond the
planning level warrant that can be evaluated have been considered. A gap study has
also been conducted in the vicinity of the intersection of SR-74 at Trellis Avenue to
evaluated the available capacity for minor street movements desiring to access SR-
74.
ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
City staff has requested that additional warrants be considered, above and beyond
the daily planning level signal warrant that was addressed in our previous letter dated
February 13, 2006. The 2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),
along with the California Supplement to the 2003 MUTCD provide for various other
warrants that are generally based on actual traffic count data. These warrants are
based on measuring traffic during various time periods over the course of a typical
Mr. Chris Holmquist
CENTEX HOMES
February 22, 2006
Page 2
day. Time periods that are addressed by the MUTCD warrants include 8 hour periods, 4
hour periods, and 1 hour periods. It is only possible to address the 1 hour (peak hour)
warrants in this analysis, as projections of residential traffic consistent with the proposed
development is only available for peak hour or daily time periods. The analysis addresses
the AM peak hour, as this is the time frame during which the highest exiting volume of
traffic can be expected from the proposed residential development.
Table 1 summarizes the assumptions and result of the peak hour warrant analysis.
Attachment A includes the relevant MUTCD excerpts pertaining to the peak hour traffic
signal warrant, while Attachment B includes the most current traffic count data. The traffic
count data demonstrates that the traffic volume on SR-74 is sufficiently high (1,641 total
approach vehicles in the AM peak hour) to require that the minor street approach traffic
only need satisfy the minimum threshold of 75 vehicle per hour.
As shown on Table 1, the trip distribution for project traffic, consistent with the original
traffic study report, is expected to be oriented 70% to and from the southwest and 30% to
and from the northeast. It has,been assumed that the drivers will generally split equally
between the available access points. Thus, the 70% of the outbound traffic attempting to
make left turns onto SR-74 westbound will be split evenly between Ardenwood Street and
Trellis Lane (since no left turns are allowed at Rosetta Canyon Drive), while the 30% of the
outbound traffic making right turns will be split between all three possible access points.
The standard outbound AM peak hour trip rate of 0.56 vehicles per hour has been split
between the various access points per the previously presented trip distribution
assumptions. The resulting number of dwelling units required to satisfy the peak hour
signal warrant has then been calculated. As shown on Table 1, the number of dwelling
units required to satisfy the peak hour traffic signal warrants for Ardenwood Street and
Trellis Lane is estimated to be 297 single family dwelling units.
Mr. Chris Holmquist
CENTEX HOMES
February 22, 2006
Page 3
GAP STUDY
A gap study has also been conducted to evaluate the available capacity for vehicles to turn
onto SR-74. The study has been conducted using techniques described in the ITE
publication Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies (Institute of Transportation
Engineers, 1994). It has been assumed that vehicles would cross the eastbound traffic
flow to the center median area and would then proceed to merge with westbound traffic
when an appropriate gap in traffic occurs (referred to as two stage gap acceptance in the
2000 Highway Capacity Manual). The presence of upstream traffic signals tends to create
"platoons" of vehicles, providing more gaps in traffic and opportunities for minor street
turns than the random distribution of arrivals that is assumed in the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) unsignalized intersection analysis procedures.
The gap study data collection sheets are included as Attachment C to this letter. Data was
collected only during the peak hour of traffic occurring between 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM.
Eastbound data was collected for the 30 minute period from 7:00 AM to 7:30 AM, while
westbound data was collected for the 30 minute period from 7:30 AM to 8:00 AM.
Collecting data outside the actual peak hour would overstate the availability of gaps.
Table 2 summarizes the results of the eastbound gap study, while Table 3 summarizes the
results of the westbound gap study. The study has been conducted during the AM peak
hour, as this is the time frame when the highest volume of outbound traffic is expected
from the proposed residential development. The 2000 HCM indicates that the largest gap
is required to serve minor street left turns, with a base critical gap of 7.5 seconds and a
follow up gap requirement of 3.5 seconds. The base critical gap is the gap required for the
first vehicle in the queue of minor street left turning vehicles to complete a left turn
movement, while the follow up gap is the amount of additional time required for each of
one or more subsequent vehicles to complete a turning maneuver.
Mr. Chris Holmquist
CENTEX HOMES
February 22, 2006
Page 4
The gap study therefore considered gaps of 7 seconds or longer. The study was
conducted using 2 second intervals (e.g., 7 seconds, 9 seconds, 11 seconds, etc.),
consistent with the recommended procedure, to identify the number of gaps of varying
lengths and the resulting capacity for left turns onto SR-74. Table 2 and Table 3 present
the number of gaps of each length, the capacity for minor street left turns associated with
each length gap, and the total capacity available for minor street left turns.
Table 2 indicates that a total of 70 gaps of sufficient length to allow one or more minor
streets were observed in the eastbound flow of traffic. The total capacity for minor street
left turns during the 30 minute observation period was 234 vehicles. Expanding this value
to a full hour indicates a total capacity of 468 vehicles per hour.
Table 3 summarizes the gap study results for westbound traffic on SR-74. A total of 56
total gaps of 7 seconds or longer were observed in westbound traffic. There were relatively
fewer long gaps in westbound traffic (compared to the eastbound data presented
previously). As a result, the total capacity for minor street left turns during the 30 minute
observation period was 108 vehicles. Expanding this value to a full hour indicates a total
capacity of 216 vehicles per hour. This would be the controlling factor for each of the
individual intersections where outbound left turns are allowed.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of the gap study indicate that the CALTRANS traffic signal warrants represent
a more conservative approach (compared to the gap study) to determining when the
proposed traffic signals should be activated. It is recommended that actual traffic count
data be collected periodically for each of the project access points as occupancy occurs to
ensure that the traffic signals are activated in accordance with CALTRANS requirements.
Mr. Chris Holmquist
CENTEX HOMES
February 22, 2006
Page 5
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this evaluation for your use. If you have any
questions regarding this letter report, please give me a call at (949) 660-1994 x 210.
Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
Carleton Waters, P.E.
Principal NO.w916 m
CW:rd
JN:02686-13
Attachments
TABLE 1
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION
Outbound Traffic Distribution
Rosetta
Canyon Ardenwood Trellis
To Southwest 0% 35% 35% 70%
To Northeast 10% 10% 10% 30%
TOTAL 10% 45% 45% 100%
Outbound Trip Rate 0.056 0.252 0.252 0.56
Threshold 75 75 75
9 Of Homes 1339 297 297 297
Major Street Approach Volume:
EB W B TOTAL
667 974 1641
TABLE 2
GAP STUDY
EASTBOUND RESULTS
Capacity I Total
Seconds Frequency Time Gap Capacity
7 9 63 1 9
9 19 171 1 19
11 5 55 2 10
13 2 26 2 4
15 8 120 3 24
17 6 102 3 18
19 1 19 4 4
21 3 63 4 12
23 3 69 5 15
25 1 25 6 6
27 1 27 6 6
29 1 29 7 7
31 2 62 7 14
33 0 0 8 0
35 3 105 8 24
37 2 74 9 18
39 1 39 10 10
41 1 41 10 10
43 1 43 11 11
45 0 11 0
47 0 12 0
49 0 12 0
51 1 51 13 13
TOTAL 70 1,184 234
POSSIBLE 1,800
REMAINDER(<7 Sec) 616
HOURLY TOTAL(DOUBLE 30 MINUTE SAMPLE) 468
TABLE 3
GAP STUDY
WESTBOUND RESULTS
u M U ative
Seconds Frequency Time Capacity Capacity
7 9 63 1 9
9 19 171 1 19
11 7 77 2 14
13 8 104 2 16
15 4 60 3 12
17 4 68 3 12
19 0 0 4 0
21 2 42 4 8
23 2 46 5 10
25 0 0 6 0
27 0 0 6 0
29 0 0 7 0
31 0 0 7 0
33 0 0 8 0
35 1 35 8 8
37 0 0 9 0
39 0 0 10 0
41 0 0 10 0
43 0 0 11 0
45 0 0 11 0
47 0 0 12 0
49 0 0 12 0
51 0 0 13 0
TOTAL 56 666 108
POSSIBLE 1,800
REMAINDER(<7 Sec) 1,134
HOURLY TOTAL(DOUBLE 30 MINUTE SAMPLE) 21611
ATTACHMENT A
MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
CALIFORNIA SUPPLEMENT
EXCERPTS
2003 Edition Page 4C-7
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
= 600 -
0-
> _
500 — 2 OR MORE=LANES&2 OR MORE LANES
W a 400 / 2 pR MORE LANES I&1 LANE
U)w 300 1 LANE&1 LANE
Q�
O _
O 200 *150
w 100 - '100
z
0
400 500 600 700 600 goo 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES—
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note:150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a rninor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour(70% Factor)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)
X: ----------------F,----------------F,----------
a.
v 400 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES —
w 0 2 OR MORE LANES& 1 LANE
cc rL 300 I I
Q /1 LANE&1 LANE
Cr
w
z 2 200
_J
O *100
w 1 I �+
*75
300 400 500 600 700 800 goo 1000 1100 1200 1300 �
MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES—
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor.stree approach with one lane.
s«r.4C.06
ATTACHMENT B
TRAFFIC COUNT DATA
COUNTS UNLIMITED INC.
25424 JACLYN AVENUE
MORENO VALLEY CA.92557
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 951-247-6716 File Name :LETR74AM
N/S:TRELLIS LANE Site Code :5100698
Elft SR-74 Start Date :1/10/2006
WEATHER:SUNNY Page No :2
Peak Hour Data
~ North
n 2 �
e m c Peak Hour �
� wid
r+
20z 5
Out In Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM-Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Egch A Broach Begins at.
07:00 AM 07:30 AM 07:00 AM
+0 mins. 0 222 222 9 3 12 176 2 178
+15 mins. 2 232 234 10 1 11 190 1 191
+30 mins, 1 267 268 6 0 6 146 3 149
+45 mins. 3 247 250 4 1 5 146 3 149
Total Volume 6 968 974 29 5 34 658 9 667
%_App—Total 0.6 99.4 85.3 14.7 98.7 1.3
PHF 500 .906 A09 .725 .417 .708 .866 .750 .873
A f g
COUNTS UNLIMITED INC. V
25424 JACLYN AVENUE
MORENO VALLEY CA.92557
CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 951-247-6716 File Name LER174AM
N/S:RIVERSIDE STREET Site Code :5100697
ENV:SR-74 Start Date 1/11/2006
WEATHER:SUNNY Page No : 1
Grou s Printed-TOTAL VOLUME
SR-74 RIVERSIDE STREET SR-74
WestbQun Nort bo nd E a stboun
T Start Time Left Thru .Total Left Ri ht A .Total Thru Ri ht App.Total Int.Total
07:00 AM 0 212 212 0 1 1 177 0 177 390
07:15 AM 0 223 223 0 2 2 189 0 189 414
07:30 AM 0 267 267 0 1 1 142 1 143 411
07:45 AM _ 0 277 277 0 0 01 135 3 138 415
Total 0 979 979 0 4 41 643 4 6471 1630
08:00 AM 0 201 201 0 2 2 156 8 164 367
08:15 AM 0 168 168 0 1 1 104 1 105 274
08:30 AM 0 172 172 5 1 6 117 1 118 296
00:45 AM 0 156 _ 156 1 3 4 107 _4 111111 271
Total 0 697 J697 �6 7 13 484 14 498 1208
Grand Total I 0 1676 1676 6 11 171 1127 18 1145 21138
Apprch% 0 100 35.3 64.7 98.4 1.6
Total% 0 59.1 59.1 0.2 D.4 0.6 39.7 0.6 40.3
SR-74 RIVERSIDE STREET SR-74
Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time I Left I Thru I App.Total I Left I Right I Aoo.Total I Thru I Right I ADD.Total I Int foTAD
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM-Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM
07:00 AM 0 212 212 0 1 1 177 0 177 390
07:15 AM 0 223 223 0 2 2 189 0 189 414
07:30 AM 0 267 267 0 1 1 142 1 143 411
07:45 AM 0 277 277 0 0 0 135 3 138 415
Total Volume 0 979 979 0 4 4 643 4 647 1630
°(P,pg.Total 0 100 0 100 99.4 0.6
PHF .000 t3B4 .333 856, .982
ATTACHMENT C
GAP STUDY DATA COLLECTION FIELD SHEETS
GAP STUDY FIELD SHEET
Location!Movement FI W Y A 7 iZG(-(-1 5 EA SIP50S2 JJ:
Date 0 Z 12. O!a
1 Time 7 da A..e — L_ 30 Anil
Weather L
Data By C
Gap(Seoonds)
7 - 111 l
13
15
17
_ 19
21
— 23
25
27
29
31 �+
33 a
35
37 �� Z
39
41
51
GAP STUDY FIELD SHEET
Location/Movement H W y 'a 4 4 Twe i-o s w gsT 13ou j b
Date Z 2.2..
Time 7:30 A A 0 U A s A
Weather C LFAjZ
Data By C-1 t4
Gap(Seconds)
7 t-l--H-- II11 7
9 - +iice 1
13
15 �}-
17
19 ()
21 � � 2
23 Z•
25 U
27 0
29 (�
31 0
33 d
35
37
39
41 Q
41 Corporate Park,Suite 300 Irvine,CA 92606 949.660.1994 main 949.660.1911 fax www.urbanxroads.com
0
URBAN
CROSSROADS
February 13, 2006
Mr. Chris Holmquist
CENTEX HOMES
1265 Corona Pointe Court
Corona, CA 92879
Subject: Ramsgate Development Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Dear Mr. Holmquist:
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this letter documenting the level of
development that will be required to warrant the two traffic signals for the Ramsgate
intersections of State Route (SR-)74 / Ardenwood Street and SR-74 / Trellis Lane in
the City of Lake Elsinore.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
It is our understanding that the City of Lake Elsinore has conditioned the Ramsgate
project to construct traffic signals at the various intersections providing access in
conjunction with development. Drivers are currently making illegal left turns at the
intersection of Rosetta Canyon Drive at SR-74, resulting in concerns on the part of
City staff. Left turns can be made legally at the intersections of Ardenwood Street at
SR-74 and Trellis Lane at SR-74. It is our understanding that these traffic signals are
currently under design for approval by the City. The remainder of this letter evaluates
the level of development that could occur prior to traffic signals actually being
warranted at these two intersections.
Mr. Chris Holmquist
CENTEX HOMES
February 13, 2006
Page 2
ANALYSIS
The traffic signals must be approved by the California Department of Transportation, as
well as the City of Lake Elsinore, as the signals provide access to SR-74. Chapter 4 of the
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) California Supplement addresses the
studies and factors for justifying traffic control signals (Chapter 4C). Attachment "A" to this
letter includes relevant excerpts from the MUTCD California Supplement. Future land use
is one of the factors mentioned that may justify the need for a traffic signal.
The MUTCD California Supplement sets forth explicit "warrants" or tests that must be met
to justify a traffic signal. The majority of the traffic signal warrants address actual traffic
volumes that can be counted at intersections that exist today. Only the warrants identified
on Table 4C-101 address traffic from future development "where it is not reasonable to
count actual traffic volumes." This table is included in Attachment "A" for ease of reference.
It is reasonable to assume that the traffic volumes on SR-74 meet the requirements for the
major street approaches shown on Table 4C-101, and that the design speed (85tn
percentile observed speed) exceeds 40 miles per hour on this section of SR-74. Therefore,
the lower "Rural" volumes can be used for purposes of determining when a traffic signal
would be warranted.
Based on these assumptions, the minimum approach volume on the minor street must be
projected to exceed 850 vehicles per day (VPD) to warrant a traffic signal. Under the
current situation, traffic can be expected to distribute equally between the two available
access points as drivers can be expected to minimize the amount of delay they experience
in existing the proposed development. Therefore, a total approach volume of 1,700 VPD
will trigger the requirement for installation of traffic signals at the two access points.
Mr. Chris Holmquist
CENTEX HOMES
February 13, 2006
Page 3
The only remaining step in the analysis is to determine the number of dwelling units that
can be expected to generate an approach volume of 1,700 VPD. Consistent with the traffic
analysis previously completed for the project based upon the informational report Trip
Generation, 71h edition (Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 2003), a daily trip rate
of 9.57 trips per day is anticipated, with 50% of the traffic entering and 50% exiting the
project site. Based upon this data, an outbound (approach) volume of 1,700 VPD would be
reached upon occupancy of 355 dwelling units. If all three intersections were being
utilized, the number of occupied dwelling units could be increased as much as 50% prior to
traffic signals being warranted.
CLOSING
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this evaluation for your use. If you have any
questions regarding this letter report, please give me a call at (949) 660-1994 x 210.
Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
99,OFESS/0Z,
Pi�0 ���
Carleton Waters, P.E. No,U916 m ;
Principal 17! 1 '7p
CW:rd
JN:02686-11 �" O,� CF*�f'
Attachments
TABLE 1
ALLOWABLE DWELLING UNIT CALCULATIONS
Trip rate per DU 9.57
Outbound Trip Rate 4.785
Outbound Target 1,700
DUs allowable 355.2769
U.�Uc jobs\_02600�02686 k Excel\[Warrant Analysis Supporting Calculations.xls]T 1
ATTACHMENT A
MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
CALIFORNIA SUPPLEMENT
EXCERPTS
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 4C-1
CHAPTER 4C.TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES
Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals
The following is added to this section:
Standard:
Delay,congestion,approach conditions,driver confusion,future land use or other evidence of the
need for right of way assignment beyond that which could be provided by stop sign shall be
demonstrated.
Support:
Figure 4C-101 and Table 4C-101 are examples of warrant sheets.
Guidance:
Table 4C-101 should be used only for new intersections or other locations where it is not reasonable to
count actual traffic volumes.
Section 4C.02 Warrant 1,Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
In the first Option, the text "70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph"is deleted and replaced by "64 km/h or exceeds 40
mph".
Delete the last Option that begins "If the posted or..." The 56%column in Table 4C-1 shall not apply in
California.
Table 4C-1 Warrant 1,Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Delete the 56%column and related note(d).
Section 4C.03 Warrant 2,Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
In the Option the text "70 km1h or exceeds 40 mph"is deleted and replaced by "64 km1h or exceeds 40
mph".
Section 4C.04 Warrant 3,Peak Hour
In the Option the text "70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph"is deleted and replaced by "64 km1h or exceeds 40
mph'.
Section 4C.06 Warrant 5,School Crossing
The following is added to this section:
Option:
Flashing beacons at school crosswalks may be installed on State highways in accordance with CVC
Sections 21372 and 21373.
The following alternative criterion may be used for determining if a school crossing traffic signal is
justified under this warrant:
1. When other warrants in this Chapter are met AND
2. No other controlled crossing is located within 180 m(600 ft)AND;
3. Urban Areas-500 vehicles and 100 school pedestrians for each of any two hours(not necessarily
consecutive)daily while students are crossing to or from school;or 500 vehicles for each of any two
hours daily while students are crossing to or from school and a total of 500 school pedestrians during
the entire day. OR
4. Rural Areas-350 vehicles and 70 school pedestrians for each of any two hours(not necessarily
consecutive)daily while students are crossing to or from school;or 350 vehicles for each of any two
hours(not necessarily consecutive)daily while students are crossing to or from school and minimum
total of 350 school pedestrians during the entire day.
May 20,2004
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 4C-8
Table 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet
(Average Traffic Estimate Form)
(Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic-See Note)
URBAN...... ... . ...... RURAL............................ Minimum Requirements
EADT
1A-Minimum Vehicular Traffic
Vehicles Per Day Vehicles Per Day
Satisfied Not Satisfied on Major Street on Higher-Volume
Minor Street Approach
(Total of Both Approaches) (One Direction Only)
Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach
Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural
1..................................... 1..................................... 8,000 5,600 2,400 11680
2 or More....................... 1......................................... 9,600 6,720 2,400 1,680
2 or More........................ 2 or More........................ 9,600 6.720 3,200 2,240
1..................................... 2 or More........................ 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240
1B-Interruption of Contlnuos Traffic Vehicles Per Day
Vehicles Per Day on Higher-Volume
on Major Street Satisfied Not Satisfied (Total of Both Approaches) Minor Street Approach(One Direction Only)
Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach
Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural
1 .. .. ... .. ....................... 1..................................... 12,000 8,400 1,200 850
2 or More....................... 1......................................... 14,400 10,080 1,200 850
2 or More........................ 2 or More........................ 14,400 10,080 1.600 1,120
1.. .................................. 2 or More........................ 12,000 8,400 1,600 1,120
1A&B-Combinations
Satisfied Not Satisfied
2 Warrants 2 Warrants
No one warrant satisried,but following warrants
fulfilled 80%or more...........
Note:To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where it Is not reasonable to count
actual traffic volumes.
May 20,2004