HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-13 PacketTRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
UKIAH CIVIC CENTER
Conference Room No. 3
300 Seminary Avenue
Ukiah, California 95482
TUESDAY, June 13, 2017
3:00 P.M.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 9, 2017
3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS:
The Traffic Engineering Committee welcomes input from the audience. In order for everyone to be heard,
please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than 10 minutes per subject. The
Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on non -agenda items.
4. OLD BUSINESS:
None
5. NEW BUSINESS:
a. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Request for speed bumps on Marshall Street.
b. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding STOP sign request — Standley Street at Spring
Street.
c. Discussion and Possible Action Regard STOP sign request — Walnut Avenue at Bush
Street.
6. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS:
7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS:
8. ADJOURNMENT:
Please be advised that the City needs to be notified 72 hours in advance of a meeting if any specific
accommodations or interpreter services are needed in order for you to attend. The City complies with ADA
requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was
posted on the bulletin board at the main entrance of the City of Ukiah City Hall, located at 300 Seminary Avenue,
Ukiah, California, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting set forth on this agenda.
Dated this 9th day of June, 2017
Lory Limbird, Recording Secretary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING COMMITTEE MINUTES
May 9, 2017
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT
Tim Eriksen, TEC Chairman, Director of Public Works, City Engineer
John Lampi, Public Representative, TEC Vice Chairman
Carla Meyer, Mendocino Transit Authority
Ben Kageyama, representing the City Manager
Sean Kaeser, representing the Chief of Police
Kevin Thompson, representing the Planning Director
Darin Malugani, representing the Supervisor of Public Works
Neil Davis, Public Representative, Active Transportation
MEMBERS ABSENT
Keith Hewett, Public Representative
OTHERS PRESENT
Maureen Mulheren, Council Member
Lory Limbird, Public Works
Don Brown, Supervisor of Public Works
Craig Schlatter, Planning Director
CALL TO ORDER
The Traffic Engineering Committee meeting was called to order by Chairman Eriksen at 3:04
pm in Conference Room No. 3, Ukiah Civic Center, 300 Seminary Avenue, Ukiah, California.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — April 11, 2017
M/S: Thompson/Kaeser to approve April 11, 2017 minutes.
Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present.
3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
none
4. OLD BUSINESS
a. Discussion and Possible Action regarding reducing the length of a Yellow
Loading Zone for bicycle parking on West Standley Street near North State
Street.
Chairman Eriksen asked all present at this meeting to read the email from Cynthia
Ariosta of Saucy. Ms. Ariosta supports the placement of a bike rack in the loading
zone on W. Standley Street but she does not want this bike rack to be part of Saucy's
permit nor is she willing to pay for or insure it.
Member Kageyama stated the City of San Francisco has a process for businesses
requesting bike racks. San Francisco requires someone to take responsibility for
sweeping the street within 20 feet of the bike rack since the street sweeper does not
have access to this area. Is Ms. Ariosta willing to take on this responsibility?
3:16 pm Carla Meyer entered meeting.
MINUTES of the Traffic Engineering Committee
Page 1
May 9, 2017
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Motion/Second: Davis/Thompson to form a sub -committee which will include
Members Davis, Kageyama and Thompson to draft a policy on bike parking in
the right-of-way and bring this proposal back to the Traffic Engineering
Committee's next meeting. The decision on the West Standley Street bike
parking proposal will be deferred until the committee has time to review the
bike policy.
Motion carried by an all AYE voice vote of the members present.
5. NEW BUSINESS
None
6. COMMITTEE MEMBER REPORTS
7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
Citizen Mulheren asked to have traffic flow and pedestrian safety near Pomolita Middle
School put on agenda for next meeting. This includes the intersections of Walnut and Bush,
Grove and Bush, and Grove and Dora.
Member Davis extended a thank you to Ben Kageyama and the City for their support and
work on the Urban Greening Grant to extend the Rail Trail 1/3 mile to the north.
8. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.
Lory Limbird, Recording Secretary
MINUTES of the Traffic Engineering Committee
Page 2
May 9, 2017
CITY OF UKIAH
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 8, 2017
TO: Traffic Engineering Committee
FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Request for Speed Bumps
on Marshall Street
Agenda Item 5a.
REQUEST: Several Marshall Street residents submitted a petition, Attachment "A,"
requesting speed bumps along Marshall Street.
DISCUSSION: Marshall Street, between Gobbi Street and Main Street, (see photomap,
Attachment "B") is approximately 32 feet wide with parking on both sides of the street.
There are sidewalks on both sides of Marshall Street extending the length of the street.
There are frequently several parked cars on the street which have the effect of making the
street appear narrow to drivers, Marshall Street meets the California Vehicle Code
definition of a residence district and therefore has a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph.
Speed bumps are an additional obstacle to police, fire, and ambulance vehicles providing
service to the neighborhood. In addition, speed bumps are not conducive to bicycle traffic
on the street. Lastly, speed bumps can serve as a tripping obstacle to pedestrians.
RECOMMENDATION: Rather than installing bumps on Marshall Street as a speed control
measure, staff recommends Marshall Street for the Police Department's "Directed
Enforcement Program" which will provide additional emphasis on driving the speed limit.
This program involves posting the speed radar trailer followed by additional speed zone
enforcement. The speed radar trailer is an effective tool to provide direct feedback to
drivers of their speed compared to the speed limit.
cc: residents / property owners on Marshall Street between Gobbi St. and Main St.
file
May 2, 2017
From: Residents of Marshall Street, Ukiah MAY - 4 2017
To: City of Ukiah Traffic Engineering Committee
Re: Speed humps in Marshall Street CIN OF UKIMI
DEFF. OF PUBLIC WORKS
Affachment #
WdAhe undersigned residents of Marshall Street are requesting that the city of Ukiah
install speed humps in the street to reduce the speed of vehicles using our street as a short-cut
between Gobbi Street and Main Street. This has been going on for many years, but has gotten
much worse in the last 2 or 3 years. On the night of April 20, 2017, there was a serious crash
when a speeding vehicle lost control going around the curve. It slammed into the rear of a
parked car and then caromed against a -power pole, shearing the pole off at street level.
Fortunately the occupants of the speeding car suffered relatiely minor injuries, and no one else
was injured. There was, however, significant property damage both private and public.
We hope that this request will be acted on quickly, before a more serious incident occurs.
We have included a rough diagram suggesting placement of 3 speed humps.
From: ftsidents of MarshaH Sftd, Ukiah 1®f 2
From: Residents of uars�au s-rpet T -,yiiov
I\Jllt / )\Ij -� I MAY - 4 2017
View North - Marshall St.
Dacument Path S 1PubHc WarksMickBin, &ndn,MTEC1TEC Marshal, St - June 2017 msd
Date Saved 6/812017 3 26 06 PM
CITY OF UKIAH
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 8, 2017
TO: Traffic Engineering Committee
FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works AV
SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding STOP sign request — Standley
Street at Spring Street
Agenda Item 5b.
REQUEST: The Traffic Engineering Committee (TEC) received a request from Jane Rohrbough
of 707 W. Standley St. to post STOP signs on West Standley Street at its intersection with
Spring Street. Ms. Rohrbough's house is located at the southeast corner of W. Standley St. and
Spring St. A photomap of the intersection, Attachment "A", has been provided for reference. For
reference, excerpts on STOP signs from the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) 2014 Edition and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2009 Edition are provided as Attachment "B".
DISCUSSION: At the subject intersection there are existing STOP signs posted for northbound
and southbound traffic on Spring Street. Standley Street at this location has two lanes, one
eastbound and one westbound, with parking permitted only along the south side of the street.
During the period (January 1, 2013 December 31, 2016) there were two reported collisions at
this intersection. On May 17, 2012, the City's speed zone consultant recorded the ADT (average
daily traffic) for Standley Street at 952 vehicles. On May 11, 2012, the City's speed zone
consultant recorded the ADT (average daily traffic) for Spring Street at 347 vehicles. Both
Standley Street and Spring Street are posted for a 25 mph speed limit, consistent with the speed
zone surveys. Staff evaluated Standley Street for a multi -way STOP application in accordance
with the guidance criteria of the California MUTCD and the FHWA MUTCD (Attachment "B").
Standley Street does not satisfy the guidance criteria therefore STOP signs are not
recommended.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is submitting this report for review and discussion by the TEC.
Staff has provided the following option for consideration:
Deny the request for STOP signs on Standley Street at Spring Street.
Ca"iL@
cc: Jane Rohrbough
file
View North - N. Spring St.
Document Path S Uuubfic Works%Svicklin, AnakavATECITEC Standley and Spring June 2017 mad
Date Saved WBQGI 7 3 41 03 PM
Affachment #
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 129
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions I & 2, as amended for use in California)
Support:
17Caltrans will grant such permission only when an investigation indicates that the STOP (RI -1) sign will benefit traffic.
Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Al2plications
Guidance:
oi At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should first be given to using less
restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Sections 2B. 08 and 2B. 09).
02The use of STOP signs on the minor -street approaches should be considered if engineeringJudgment indicates
that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions:
A. The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or highway exceed 6, 000 vehicles per day;
B. A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe conflicting traffic on
the through street or highway: andlor
C. Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction by the installation of a
STOP sign have been reported within a 12 -month period, or that five or more such crashes have been
reported within a 2 -year period. Such crashes include right-angle collisions involving road users on the
minor -street approach failing to yield the fight -of -way to traffic on the through street or highway.
Support:
03The use of STOP signs at grade crossings is described in Sections 813.04 and 813.05.
Section 213.07 Multi- ay Stop Applications
Support:
oi Multi -way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist.
Safety concerns associated with multi -way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other
road users to stop. Multi -way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is
approximately equal.
02 The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 213.04 also apply to multi -way stop
applications.
Guidance:
03 The decision to install multi- way stop control should be based on an engineering study.
04 The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi -way STOP sign installation:
A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi -way stop is an interim measure that can be installed
quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal.
B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12 -month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi - way stop
installation. Such crashes include right -turn and left -turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.
C. Minimum volumes:
1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches)
averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and
2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street
approaches (total of both approaches) a verages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an
average delay to minor -street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour;
but
3. If the 85th -percentile approach speed of the major -street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular
volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items I and 2.
D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the
minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition.
Option:
05 Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include:
A. The need to control left -tum conflicts-,
B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes;
C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the
intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and
Chapter 2B — Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates Nor ember 7, 2014
Part 2 - Signs
California MLJTCD 2014 Edition Page 130
(F WA's MUTC D 2009 Edition, including Revisions I & 2, as amended for use in California)
#
characteristics where multi -way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics f'. tble
intersection.
Qection 211.08 YIELD Sign M1-2)
Standard:
oi The YIELD (RI -2) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall be a downward -pointing equilateral triangle with a wide
red border and the legend YIELD in red on a white background.
Support:
02 The YIELD sign assigns right-of-way to traffic on certain approaches to an intersection. Vehicles controlled by
a YIELD sign need to slow down to a speed that is reasonable for the existing condons or stop when necessary to
avoid interfering with conflicting traffic.
Section 2B.(09 YIELDSign A]2121ications
Option:
oi YIELD signs may be installed:
A. On the approaches to a through street or highway where conditions are such that a full stop is not always
required.
B. At the second crossroad of a divided highway, where the median width at the intersection is 30 feet or greater.
In this case, a STOP or YIELD sign may be installed at the entrance to the first roadway of a divided
highway, and a YIELD sign may be installed at the entrance to the second roadway.
C. For a channelized turn lane that is separated from the adjacent travel lanes by an island, even if the adjacent
lanes at the intersection are controlled by a highway traffic control signal or by a STOP sign.
D. At an intersection where a special problem exists and where engineering judgment indicates the problem to bL#,
susceptible to correction by the use of the YIELD sign.
E. Facing the entering roadway for a merge -type movement if engineering judgment indicates that control is
needed because acceleration geometry and/or if is not adequate for merging traffic operation.
Standard:
02 A YIELD (Rl-2) sign shall be used to assign right-of-way at the entrance to a roundabout. YIELD signs
at roundabouts shall be used to control the approach roadways and shall not be used to control the
circulatory roadway.
03 Other than for all of the approaches to a roundabout, YIELD signs shall not be placed on all of the
approaches to an intersection.
�kction 2B.10 STOP Sign or YIELD Sign Placement
Standard:
oi The STOP or YIELD sign shall be installed on the near side of the intersection on the right-hand side of
the approach to which it applies. When the STOP or YIELD sign is installed at this required location and
the sign bility is restricted, a Stop Aheadsign (see Section 2C.36) shall be installed in advance of the
STOP sign or a Yield Ahead sign (see Section 2C.36) shall be installed in advance of the YIELD sign.
02 The STOP or YIELD sign shall be located as close as practical to the intersection it regulates, while
optimizing its visibility to the road user it is intended to regulate.
YIELD signs shall not be erected upon the approaches to more than one of the intersecting streets. Refer to CVC
21356.
iii STOP signs and YIF1,D signs shall not be mounted on the same post.
04 No items other than inventory stickers, sign installation dates, and bar codes shall be affixed to the
fronts of STOP or YIELD signs, and the placement of these items shall be in the border of the sign.
05 No items other than official traffic control signs, inventory stickers, sign installation dates, anti -
vandalism stickers, and bar codes shall be mounted on the backs of STOP or YIELD signs.
06 No items other than retroreflective strips (see Section 2A.21) or official traffic control signs shall be
mounted on the fronts or backs of STOP or YIELD signs supports.
Chapter 2B Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates November 7, 2014
Part 2 Signs
Page 52 el V1 it a VVt Ap rfn
2009 Edition
Sesti i � )r VWi e,
Guidance: v T-r'p)
necessary At intersections where afidl stop is not ";;:� - i ;horrid first be given to using less
01 zec Y at al, litn'esconsi d=ra;iot'
restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Sections 2B.08 and 2B.09).
02 The use of STOP signs oil the ininor-street approaches should be considered if engineering judgment
indicates that a stop is always required because of one or inore of the following conditions:
A. The vehicular traffic volumes oil the through street or highway, exceed 6,000 vehicles per dai';
B. A restricted view e.rists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe twilflicting traffic
oil the through street or highway; andlor
C. Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction by the installation of
a STOP sign have been reported within a 12 -month period, or that five or inore such crashes have been
reported within a 2 -year period, Such crashes include right-angle collisions involving road livers on the
minor -street approach failing to Yield the right -of way to traffic oil the through street or highway,
Support:
03 The use of STOP signs at grade crossings is described in Sections 8B.04 and 813.05.
Section 2B.07 h1uJ1iAKay_51Qp_AVghcajLQm
Support:
01 Multi-wa} stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist.
Safety concerns associated with multi -way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting
other road users to stop. Multi -`say stop control is used where the %olume of traffic on the intersecting roads is
approximately equal.
02 The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 213.04 also apply to multi -way stop applications.
Guidance:
03 The decision to install inulti-wa ' v stop control should be based oil all engineering stud}.
04 The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi, wav STOP .sign orstalkition:
A. Where traffic control signals are justifier/, the inulti, wa ' y stop A (in interim ineasure that can be
installed quicki ' v to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic
control signal,
& Five or more reported crashes in a 12,nionth period that are susceptible to correction by a multi vvav Stop
installation. Such crashes include right -turn and left -turn collisions as well ai right angle collisions.
C. Mininnein voliones:
1. The vehicular volitine entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both
approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per horn for antic 8 hours of all at day; and
2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor
street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the serine It
hours, with all average delay
y to minor -street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle
during the highest hour: but
3. If the 85"' -percentile approach speed of the major -street traffic, e.rceeds 40 inph, the inininnun
vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items I and 2.
D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to H0 percent of"
the ininitnton values. Criterion C.3 is e.rcluded from this condition.
Option:
05 Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include;.
A. The need to control lel't-turn conflicts;
K The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian %olumes;
C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to nel2ofiate the
intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop-, and
D. An intersection of t`®o residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of'similar design and operating
characteristics %%here multi -way stop control %% ould improve traffic operational characteristics of
the intersection.
Seu 2B 05 w 2B.07 DeLenflier 2009
CITY OF UKIAH
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 8, 2017
TO: Traffic Engineering Committee
FROM: Rick Seanor, Deputy Director of Public Works AO
SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding STOP sign request — Walnut
Avenue at Bush Street
Agenda Item 5c.
REQUEST: The Traffic Engineering Committee (TEC) received a request from Council Member
Mulheren to post STOP signs on Walnut Avenue at its intersection with Bush Street. In addition
Council Member Mulheren requested consideration of the installation of crosswalks at this
intersection. A photomap of the intersection, Attachment "A", has been provided for reference. For
reference, excerpts on STOP signs from the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) 2014 Edition and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices 2009 Edition are provided as Attachment "B".
DISCUSSION: At the subject intersection there are existing STOP signs posted for northbound
and southbound traffic on Bush Street. Walnut Avenue at this location has two lanes, one
eastbound and one westbound, with no restrictions on parking. During the period (January 1, 2013 -
December 31, 2016) there were no reported collisions at this intersection. On April 29, 2012, the
City's speed zone consultant recorded the ADT (average daily traffic) for Walnut Avenue (between
Dora St. and Live Oak Ave.) at 1,413 vehicles. On May 17, 2012, the City's speed zone consultant
recorded the ADT (average daily traffic) for Bush Street (between Grove Ave. and the north City
limits) at 4,692 vehicles. Both Walnut Avenue and Bush Street meet the California Vehicle Code
definition of a residence district and therefore have a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. Staff
evaluated Walnut Avenue for a multi -way STOP application in accordance with the guidance criteria
of the California MUTCD and the FHWA MUTCD (Attachment "B"). Walnut Avenue does not satisfy
the guidance criteria therefore STOP signs are not recommended. The City's Safe Routes to
School Plan did not recommend any improvements at this intersection. Typically, the City does not
paint crosswalks at intersections in residential areas. Staff has not observed significant volumes of
pedestrians at this intersection and therefore does not recommend crosswalks at this intersection.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is submitting this report for review and discussion by the TEC. Staff
has provided the following option for consideration:
Deny the request for STOP signs on Walnut Avenue at Bush Street and deny the request for
crosswalks at the intersection.
enc
cc: Council Member Mulheren
file
View North - N. Bush St.
Document Path S lPublc Works\Strickln. MdrevATEC\TEC Walnut and Bush June 2017 mttd
Dete Saved 6152017 3 4759 PM
Affachment # %% F2
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 129
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions I & 2, as amended for use in California)
Support:
17 Caltrans will grant such permission only when an investigation indicates that the STOP (RI -1) sign will benefit traffic.
-Section 2B.06 STOP Min Applications
Guidance.
oi At intersections where a fullstop is not necessary at all times, consideration should first be given to using less
restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Sections 2B. 08 and 2B. 09).
02 The use of STOP signs on the minor -street approaches should be considered if engineeringjudgment indicates
that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions:
A. The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or high way exceed 6, 000 vehicles per day:
B. A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe conflicting traffic on
the through street or highway: andlor
C. Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction by the installation of a
STOP sign have been reported within a 12 -month period, or that five or more such crashes ha ve been
reported within a 2-yearperiod. Such crashes include right-angle collisions involving road users on the
minor -street approach failing to yield the right -of- way to traffic on the through street or highway.
Support:
oi The use of STOP signs at grade crossings is described in Sections 813.04 and 8B.05.
Section 2B.07 Multi -Way Stop Applications
Support:
oi Multi -way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist.
Safety concerns associated with multi -way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other
road users to stop. Multi -way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is
approximately equal.
02 The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 213.04 also apply to multi -way stop
applications.
Guidance:
of The decision to install multi -way stop control should be based on an engineering study.
04 The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi -way STOP sign installation:
A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi -way stop is an interim measure that can be installed
quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal
B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12 -month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi -way stop
installation. Such crashes include right -turn and left -turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.
C Allinimum volumes:
1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches)
averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day,- and
2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street
approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an
average delay to minor -street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour, -
but
3. If the 35tH percentile approach speed of the major -street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular
volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items I and 2.
D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the
minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition.
Option:
05 Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include:
A. The need to control left -turn, conflicts;
B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes;
C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the
intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and
Chapter 2B — RegWatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates Nov ember 7, 2.014
Part 2 Signs
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 130
(F WA's MUTC D 2009 Edition, including Re% isions I & 2, as amended for use in California)
characteristics where multi -way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the
[-ctersectio,-c.
Section 2B.08 YIELD Sign M1-2)
Standard:
oi The r'' 1; sign (see Figure 211-1) shall be a downward -pointing equilateral triangle with a wide
red border and the legend YIELD in red on a white background.
Support:
02 The YIELD sign assigns right-of-way to traffic on certain approaches to an intersection. Vehicles controlled by
a YIELD sign need to slow down to a speed that is reasonable for the existing conditions or stop when necessary to
avoid interfering with conflicting traffic.
Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications
Option:
oi YIELD signs may be installed:
A. On the approaches to a through street or highway where conditions are such that a full stop is not always
required.
B. At the second crossroad of a divided highway, where the median width at the intersection is 30 feet or greater.
In this case, a STOP or YIELD sign may be installed at the entrance to the first roadway of a divided
highway, and a YIELD sign may be installed at the entrance to the second roadway.
C. For a channelized turn lane that is separated from the adjacent travel lanes by an island, even if the adjacent
lanes at the intersection are controlled by a highway traffic control signal or by a STOP sign.
D. At an intersection where a special problem exists and where engineering judgment indicates the problem to be
susceptible to correction by the use of the YIELD sign.
E. Facing the entering roadway for a merge -type movement if engineering judgment indicates that control is
needed because acceleration geometry and/or sight distance is not adequate for merging traffic operation.
Standard:
02 A YIELD (Rl-2) sign shall be used to assign right-of-way at the entrance to a roundabout. YIELD signs
at roundabouts shall be used to control the approach roadways and shall not be used to control the
circulatory roadway.
o3 Other than for all of the approaches to a roundabout, YIELD signs shall not be placed on all of the
approaches to an intersection.
Section 2B.10 STOP Sign or YIELD gn Placement
Standard:
oi The STOP or YIELD sign shall be installed on the near side of the intersection on the right-hand side of
the approach to which it applies. When the STOP or YIELD sign is installed at this required location and
the sign visibility is restricted, a Stop Ahead sign (see Section 2C.36) shall be installed in advance of the
STOP sign or a Yield Ahead sign (see Section 2C.36) shall be installed in advance of the YIELD sign.
02 The STOP or YIELD sign shall be located as close as practical to the intersection it regulates, while
optimizing its visibility to the road user it is intended to regulate.
v4 YIELD signs shall not be erected on the approaches to more than one of the intersecting streets. Refer to CVC
21356.
oi STOP si(Yns and YIFLD signs shall not be mounted on the same post.
04 No items other than inventory stickers, sign installation dates, and bar codes shall be affixed to the
fronts of STOP or YIELD signs, and the placement of these items shall be in the border of the sign.
o5 No items other than official traffic control signs, inventory stickers, sign installation dates, anti -
vandalism stickers, and bar codes shall be mounted on the backs of STOP or YIELD signs.
06 No items other than retroreflective strips (see Section 2A.21) or official traffic control signs shall be
mounted on the fronts or backs of STOP or YIELD signs supports.
Chapter 2B Regulatory Signs, Barricades, and Gates November 7, 2014
Part 2 Signs
Page 52 2009 Edition
Section 2B.06 MEtoho I T;W
Lis
Guidance: (NI V TCj2)
t
01 At intersections where afull stop is not necessarV at a77-t-itues, ci�;;29eration should first be given to using less
restrictive measures such as YIELD signs (see Sections 2B.08 and 213.09).
02 The use of STOP signs on the ininor-street approaches .should be considered if engineeringjudginent
indicates that a stop is alwa * i's required because of one or inore of the following conditions:
A. The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or highwaY exceed 6,000 vehicles per day;
B. A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe conflicting traffic.
on the through street or highway.; and/or
C, Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction by the installation of
a STOP sign have been reported within a 12-inonth period, or that five or snore such crashes have been
reported within a 2- =year Such crashes include right-angle collisions involving road itsem on the
tninor-street approach failing to yield the right,of wall to traffic on the through street or highway.
Support:
03 The use of STOP signs at grade crossings is described in Sections 813.04 and 8B.05.
Section 2B.07 h1uR0YaX31Qp_AVUj&&wa
Support:
01 Multi -way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist.
Safety concerns associated with multi -way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting
other road users to stop. Multi -%%ay stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is
approximately equal.
02 The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.04 also apply to multi -way stop applications.
Guidance:
03 The decision to install inulti-wa ' v stop controlshould be based on an engineering vud ' i�,
04 The following criteria should be considered in the engineering studyfora inulti,wav STOP sign installation:
A, Where traffic, control signals are justfied, the tnulti-wa ' v stop is (in interim ineasiere that can be
installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic
control signal,
E. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-inonth period that (ire susceptible to correction by a initht-way stop
installation. Stich crashes include right -turn and left turn collisions as, well as right-angle collision's.
C. Mininnint volinnev:
1. The vehicular volinne entering the intersectionfroin the major street approaches (total of both
approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hoar for an ' v 8 hours of an average day; and
2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the ininor
street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour fear the saine 8
hours, with an average delay to int nor -street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle
during the highest hour: but
3. If the 85,h -percentile approach speed of the major -street traffic exceeds 40 inph, the ininitnuin
vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items I and 2.
D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80percent of
the ininitnuin values, Criterion C.3 is excludedfroin this condition.
Option:
05 Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include:
A. The need to control left -turn conflicts;
B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian iolumes;
C. Locations %%here a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the
intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and
DAn intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of'similar design and operating
characteristics where multi -way stop control "ould improve traffic operational characteristics of
the intersection.
"CLL 2B 06 uo 26 ,07 Dcvmhuir 2009