CC SR 20240116 01 - Hawthorne at Eddinghill-Seamount Left TurnCITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 01/16/2024
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to approve installing left-turn signal arrows for
Hawthorne Boulevard at the intersection with Eddinghill Drive/Seamount Drive.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1)Approve the installation of left-turn signal arrows for Hawthorne Boulevard at the
intersection with Eddinghill Drive/Seamount Drive, yellow reflective backplates to
the signal heads on Hawthorne Boulevard, and speed limit signs on the
northbound and southbound approaches of Hawthorne Boulevard ; and
(2)Direct Staff to include the left-turn signal arrows in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25
Capital Improvement Program.
FISCAL IMPACT: At this time, a cost estimate for implementation of the recommended
left-turn signal arrows has not been developed. If directed to proceed
with the recommended left-turn signal arrows, a cost estimate will be
developed and included as part of the FY 2024-25 Capital
Improvement Program. VR
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Noel Casil, PE, TE, Senior Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Ramzi Awwad, Public Works Director
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A.GTS Memorandum: Hawthorne Boulevard at Eddinghill Drive Left Turn Phase
Analysis dated November 2023 (page A-1)
B.November 27, 2023 Traffic Safety Committee Staff Report (page B-1)
C.Draft November 27, 2023 Traffic Safety Committee meeting minutes (page C-1)
D.GTS Memorandum: Hawthorne Boulevard at Eddinghill Drive Left Turn Phase
Analysis dated March 2023 (page D-1)
E.March 21, 2023 Traffic Safety Committee Staff Report (page E-1)
F.March 21, 2023 Traffic Safety Committee meeting minutes (page F-1)
G.Community notification letter for January 16, 2024 City Council Meeting (page
G-1)
H.Public correspondence (page H-1)
1
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
BACKGROUND:
The Public Works Department received multiple requests in 2023 from area residents for
left-turn signal arrows at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and Eddinghill
Drive/Seamount Drive. Residents reported the following concerns:
• Recent rise in crashes and near misses involving northbound traffic on Hawthorne
Boulevard making left turns onto Eddinghill Drive conflicting with southbound traffic
traveling through the intersection.
• Insufficient sight distance for right-turns from Eddinghill Drive/Seamount Drive onto
Hawthorne Boulevard.
• Lack of a northbound right-turn lane from Hawthorne Boulevard onto Seamount
Drive.
To address these concerns, Staff retained General Technologies and Solutions (GTS), a
traffic engineering consultant, to prepare a traffic study analyzing the reported issues.
The study included site visits and discussions with area residents and consisted of a
review of existing conditions, collision data, sight distance, and other factors. GTS
prepared the analysis based on guidelines from the California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (CA MUTCD), which is the most prominent traffic engineering guidance
manual for left-turn signal arrows.
Results of the study were initially presented to the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) on
March 27, 2023 (Attachments D, E, and F). As a result of that presentation, Public Works
requested continued monitoring of the intersection and for the results of that monitoring
to be presented in a revised study from GTS. The revised study included the following
components:
• Existing geometric conditions
• Collision history
• Sight distance
• Near-miss data
• Other factors
The revised and updated study was presented to the TSC on November 27, 2023
(Attachments A, B, and C).
This report summarizes the traffic study and resulting Staff recommendations, which were
supported by the TSC, for the City Council’s consideration this evening.
DISCUSSION:
Existing Geometric Conditions
Hawthorne Boulevard is a north-south roadway classified as a principal arterial with two
lanes in both the northbound and southbound directions separated by a raised concrete
2
median. The roadway is bordered by bicycle lanes, curbs, and sidewalks on each side
and has a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour in the vicinity of the subject intersection.
The prevailing speed, or speed at which 85% of drivers travel, is 45 miles per hour north
of the subject intersection and 42 miles per hour south of the subject intersection. The
average daily traffic is 21,751 north of the subject intersection and 16,592 south of the
subject intersection.
There are dedicated left-turn lanes for both approaches of Hawthorne Boulevard,
however, there is no left-turn signal arrow. The left-turn lanes have an offset configuration
and do not face each other directly. Because of the left-turn lane configuration and the
existing median, it is possible that large vehicles in the opposing direction may block the
view of oncoming traffic for drivers intending to turn left.
At the intersection with Hawthorne Boulevard, the east -west cross streets are Eddinghill
Drive to the west, and Seamount Drive to the east . These cross streets are classified as
local roads, with one travel lane in each direction. These roads have steep grades and
curves within 200 feet of the intersection.
Collision Data
Initial traffic collision data was analyzed for the most recent three-year period for which
data was available at the time of the study (April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2023). There is a
lag in data availability because of the time needed by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Department (LASD) to process and finalize collision reports. Subsequent to completion
of the original traffic study and TSC meeting, additional new data from LASD became
available and was incorporated into the updated study (Attachment A), resulting in an
updated time frame of October 2020 to October 2023.
Table 1 summarizes updated collisions involving left turning vehicles at the intersection
of Hawthorne Boulevard and Eddinghill Drive/Seamount Drive.
Table 1- Summary of Left-Turn Collisions at Hawthorne Blvd and Eddinghill Dr/Seamount Dr
(October 2020 to October 2023)
Date Time Lighting Weather Injury Signal Phase Type Movement
10/13/23 17:00 Daylight Clear Yes Yellow Broadside SB LT vs NB Thru
09/09/23 17:10 Daylight Clear Yes Yellow Broadside NB LT vs SB Thru
06/03/23 11:39 Daylight Clear Yes Green Broadside NB LT vs SB Thru
11/29/22 14:05 Daylight Clear Yes Unknown Broadside EB LT vs SB Thru
10/29/22 19:09 Dark Clear No Unknown Sideswipe NB LT vs SB Thru
09/11/22 Unknown Daylight Clear Yes Unknown Broadside EB LT vs SB Thru
07/21/22 Unknown Daylight Clear Yes Unknown Broadside SB LT vs NB Thru
07/01/22 12:54 Daylight Clear Yes Green Broadside SB LT vs NB Thru
04/30/22 17:19 Daylight Clear Yes Yellow Broadside NB LT vs SB Thru
01/24/22 11:29 Daylight Clear Yes Green Broadside NB LT vs SB Thru
12/23/21 15:02 Daylight Raining No Unknown Rear-End EB LT vs SB Thru
08/25/21 14:45 Daylight Clear Yes Yellow Broadside NB LT vs SB Thru
03/23/21 10:58 Daylight Clear Yes Unknown Unknown WB LT vs SB Thru
3
Key findings of the collision analysis are as follows:
• A total of 13 collisions involving left turns occurred at the intersection within the
aforementioned period.
• Nine of those collisions involved a left turning driver on Hawthorne Boulevard
colliding with a through vehicle on Hawthorne Boulevard in the opposing
direction. These collisions, except for one, occurred during daylight, in clear
weather, with no form of driver impairment.
▪ Six of the left-turn collisions included a northbound driver on Hawthorne
Boulevard finding an insufficient gap in southbound traffic during the
green phase to turn left, turning during the yellow phase, then colliding
with a southbound vehicle.
▪ One of the left-turn collisions included a northbound driver on Hawthorne
Boulevard attempting to turn left, but with the view of oncoming traffic
blocked by a large vehicle, colliding with a southbound vehicle.
▪ One of the left-turn collisions included a southbound driver on
Hawthorne Boulevard attempting to turn left on yellow and outside of the
turning lane colliding with a northbound vehicle.
The CA MUTCD guidelines state that a left-turn signal arrow is recommended at a
signalized intersection when there have been five or more left-turn collisions for a
particular left-turn movement during a recent 12-month period. There have been two
instances of four collisions involving left turns on Hawthorne Boulevard during a recent
12-month period, which is less than the threshold of five collisions recommended by the
CA MUTCD.
It should be noted that Staff was provided photographs of a recent collision at the
intersection in December 2023. However, that collision has not been included in this
analysis pending receipt of the official report from LASD.
Sight Distance Analysis – Hawthorne Boulevard Left Turns
A sight distance analysis was conducted to determine if mitigation measures are
warranted for any turn movements at the intersection of Hawthorne Boulevard and
Eddinghill Drive/Seamount Drive. The Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) was used
as the applicable engineering guidance document.
The HDM provides the following guidance for sight distance at signalized intersections:
• The first vehicle stopped on one approach is visible to the driver of the first vehicle
stopped on each of the other approaches.
• Left-turning vehicles should have sufficient sight distance to select gaps in
oncoming traffic and complete left turns.
4
The first condition is satisfied because a stopped vehicle has an unobstructed view of
each of the other approaches.
For the second condition, the required sight distance for the prevailing speed of 45 miles
per hour is 360 feet per HDM. This condition is also satisfied because the available sight
distance is well above the recommended 360 feet in both the northbound and southbound
directions.
Sight Distance Analysis –Eddinghill Drive and Seamount Drive Right Turns on
Red
Public Works received a request to analyze the sight distance for right turns on red from
Eddinghill Drive and Seamount Drive. The sight distance for both of these approaches
was analyzed using the HDM as the applicable guidance document.
When analyzing sight distance, the accepted practice recognized by California courts is
that prudent drivers stop behind the stop line and then proceed forward to enhance their
view of oncoming traffic without going into the oncoming travel lane. When this practice
is applied, the available sight distance of 480 feet for right turns on red from Eddinghill
Drive and Seamount Drive exceeds the recommended sight distance as shown in Figures
1 and 2.
Based on the available sight distance, Staff does not recommend a right -turn-on-red
restriction.
Figure 1- Sight Distance for Right Turns on Red from Eddinghill Dr Onto Hawthorne Blvd
5
Figure 2- Sight Distance for Right Turns on Red from Seamount Dr Onto Hawthorne Blvd
Other Factors
The CA MUTCD guidelines recommend first considering alternative solutions before
implementing left-turn arrows at signalized intersections. The recommended options are
as follows:
• Prohibition of left turns (going around the block or utilizing adjacent unsignalized
intersections). However, this could lead to circuitous routes and increased vehicles
volumes on local roads.
• Geometric changes to eliminate the left turn, such as a grade separation or
interchange treatment. This option is not technically viable for this location.
• Left-turn arrows combined with allowable left turns without an arrow during certain
periods of the day to increase the green time available for other phases. This option
may help in cases where delays are present. However, the request at hand was
raised based on collisions, which this proposed solution does not address.
Per the CA MUTCD, when the above three options cannot be implemented, a left-turn
signal arrow is recommended if an intersection meets at least one of the following
conditions:
• Left-turn delay of one or more vehicles, which were waiting at the beginning of the
green interval and are remaining in the left-turn lane after at least 80% of the total
number of cycles for one hour. Excessive delays do not exist for this intersection.
6
• Volume of 50 or more left-turning vehicles per hour in one direction with a high
volume of conflicting through movements (where the number of left-turn vehicles
multiplied by the number of conflicting through vehicles is 100,000 or more).
Although there are 50 left-turning vehicles during the peak hour, the volume of
conflicting through movements multiplied by these left turns is approximately
50,000, which is well below the threshold of 100,000.
• Miscellaneous other factors, such as a large percentage of buses and trucks.
There are no applicable miscellaneous factors at this intersection.
The CA MUTCD also notes that in areas having a high percentage of older drivers, special
consideration may be given to the use of a left -turn arrow, when appropriate. The City’s
population over 65 years of age is approximately 26% per the U.S. Census Bureau, which
is above the national average of approximately 18%. The proximity of the intersection to
Hesse Community Park, which is frequented by the City’s seniors, may imply a significant
percentage of older drivers. However, only one of the parties involve d in the collision
analysis is above 65 years old.
Near-Miss Analysis
To enable measurement of the effectiveness of future safety improvements, active
monitoring of the intersection was undertaken in June 2023. Over 100 hours of daytime
traffic footage was gathered and analyzed. The analysis took place utilizing machine -
learning software, which allows for a precise analysis of traffic patterns and near misses
at the intersection. Near misses were measured within the 2-second, 1-second, and less-
than-1-second thresholds (representing the time difference between when a turning
vehicle and a through vehicle each pass a given point).
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA), a typical driver’s
reaction time from perception of an obstacle to applying the brakes is approximately 1.5
seconds on average, with a standard deviation of 0.4 seconds. At a prevailing speed of
45 miles per hour, a vehicle travels 66 feet per second. Gi ven this variation in reaction
times, a near-miss event where vehicles avoid a collision by 1 second leaves very little
additional room for error.
Based on the analysis in the GTS report (Attachment A), a near miss occurs at the
intersection approximately three times per hour during daytime hours. Approximately 64%
of these near misses are associated with left turns from Hawthorne Boulevard, while the
remaining 36% of near misses are associated with right turns on red from Eddinghill Drive
and Seamount Drive.
Because similar data at other intersections is not readily available for comparison, it is not
known whether this near-miss rate is the typical average near miss rate for any given
intersection, or whether it is a high rate. Therefore, this data will be us ed as the “before”
condition for an analysis of the effectiveness of any measures in the “after” condition.
7
Recommended Measures
The request for left-turn signal arrows for Hawthorne Boulevard at Eddinghill
Drive/Seamount Drive was analyzed based on guidance in the CA MUTCD.
The benefit of left-turn arrow signals was thoroughly considered against the drawback,
which is the potential for impeding traffic on Hawthorne Boulevard because the availability
of green signal time for the through movement will be reduced to dedicate some green
time to the left-turn arrows. Should installation of left-turn signal arrows be authorized, the
optimal amount of green time for each signal phase will be calculated based on turning
movement volumes. Additionally, field conditions will be monitore d, and adjustments
made if needed.
The existing conditions at the intersection do not meet any single threshold for left -turn
signal arrows. However, Staff recommends the installation of left turn signal arrows on
Hawthorne Boulevard at Eddinghill Drive/Seamount Drive due to the combination of the
following factors:
• The threshold of five collisions involving left turns of a particular movement during
a recent 12-month period is not met. However, there have been two 12-month
periods with four such collisions.
• The left-turn lane configuration on Hawthorne Boulevard allows for a large vehicle
in the opposing direction of a left turn to block the view of oncoming traffic.
• There is a high percentage of older drivers, warranting special consideration for a
left-turn signal arrow.
With the exception of the subject intersection and the intersection of Dupre Drive/Ryan
Park driveway, there are currently left-turn signal arrows at every intersection on
Hawthorne Boulevard between Palos Verdes Drive West and the City limits. Therefore, a
left-turn signal arrow at the subject intersection fits within the context of the Hawthorne
Boulevard corridor.
Additionally, Staff recommends the following measures be added to the signal changes:
1. Yellow reflective backplates on the traffic signal heads to enhance signal visibility
during foggy conditions.
2. Speed limit signs in the form of additional or relocated signs along the northbound
and southbound approaches to the intersection.
Based on the findings of the traffic study and TSC’s recommendation concurring with the
recommended measures, Staff recommends the City Council approve installation of left-
turn signal arrows for Hawthorne Boulevard at Eddinghill/Seamount intersection.
Next Steps
If approved by the City Council, installation of left-turn signal arrows at the subject
intersection would require the installation of additional signal hardware and equipment,
such as additional and/or larger signal poles, mast arms, signal heads, vehicle detectors,
equipment cabinets, and controllers.
8
Staff recommends the left-turn signal arrows and other signal improvements be included
as a project to be considered as part of the FY 2024 -25 Capital Improvement Program
(CIP).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Potential Right-Turn Lane
Public Works received a request to investigate the possibility of adding a right turn lane
for the northbound approach of Hawthorne Boulevard at the subject intersection. Right -
turn lanes are considered necessary when the number of vehicles turning right exceeds
300 per hour for any given hour. A count of turning vehicles was collected in December
2022 and showed the volume of northbound vehicles turning right from Hawthorne
Boulevard onto Seamount Drive was 6 vehicles during the highest hour, while the volume
of southbound vehicles turning right from Hawthorne Boulevard onto Eddinghill Drive was
120 during the highest hour.
While the volumes do not warrant a right-turn lane, the installation of right-turn lanes is
technically viable within the available space . However, it would result in the narrowing of
certain lanes. The installation of a right-turn lane could be considered at a future date in
conjunction with pavement treatments that would necessitate the reapplication of
pavement markings.
Measures Previously Implemented
Public Works installed "45 MPH” pavement markings at the northbound and southbound
approaches of the intersection in summer 2023.
Public Notification
To assure that residents are aware of the City Council’s discussion on left-turn signal
arrows for Hawthorne Boulevard at the intersection with Eddinghill Drive/Seamount Drive ,
Staff sent a letter (Attachment G) notifying all residents within 500 feet of the intersection
that this item will be discussed at tonight’s meeting.
Responses received to the notification letter are attached to this staff report (Attachment
H).
CONCLUSION:
Based on the findings of the traffic study and TSC’s recommendation concurring with
the recommended measures, Staff recommends the City Council approve the following
measures:
1. Installation of left-turn signal arrows for Hawthorne Boulevard at Eddinghill
Drive/Seamount Drive;
2. Yellow reflective backplates on the Hawthorne Boulevard traffic signal heads; and
3. Speed limit signs in the form of additional or relocated signs along the northbound
and southbound approaches of Hawthorne Boulevard.
9
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for
the City Council’s consideration:
1. Do not approve the installation of left turn arrow signals for Hawthorne
Boulevard at the intersection with Eddinghill Drive/Seamount Drive and
instead direct Staff to continue the monitoring of collisions.
2. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
10
1
t +1 213 267 2332 | f +1 213 318 0744
info@gentecsol.com | www.gentecsol.com
11900 W Olympic Blvd #450, Los Angeles, CA 90064
GTS | General Technologies and Solutions
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 22, 2023 GTS: 210601.28
To: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
From: GTS
Subject: DRAFT Hawthorne Blvd. at Eddinghill Dr. Left Turn Phase Analysis - Revised
1. Background
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes requested an
evaluation of the need for a protected left-turn
signal phase at the intersection of Hawthorne
Boulevard, Eddinghill Drive, and Seamount Drive.
Hawthorne Boulevard is a north-south arterial
street in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Northbound and southbound traffic have two
through lanes of travel in their respective
directions, separated by a raised concrete median.
The roadway is bordered by bicycle lanes, curbs,
and sidewalks on each side. The average daily
traffic (ADT) is 21,751 on the segment of
Hawthorne Boulevard north of the intersection and
16,592 on the segment south of the intersection
(Source: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Engineering &
Traffic Survey (E&TS), March 2021). The posted
speed limit on this section of Hawthorne Boulevard is 45 miles per hour. An aerial view of the intersection is shown
in Figure 1.
At the subject intersection, there are dedicated left turn lanes on Hawthorne Boulevard in both the northbound
and the southbound directions. The east-west cross street is named Eddinghill Drive to the west and Seamount
Drive to the east. Both Eddinghill Drive and Seamount Drive are two-lane local streets with one lane of travel for
each direction. Hawthorne Boulevard is straight with a slight downhill slope in the southbound direction as it
approaches the intersection, while Eddinghill and Seamount Drive have steeper grades and curves within 200 feet
of the intersection. A bus shelter exists on the southeast side of the intersection served by LA Metro Route 344
and LADOT commuter bus Route 448.
The traffic signals for drivers on Hawthorne Boulevard are mounted on mast arms, and the signals for drivers on
Eddinghill/Seamount Drive are mounted on posts. There is currently no protected left-turn signal phase for
vehicles on Hawthorne Boulevard in either the northbound or the southbound direction.
Residents of the area have expressed safety concerns with regard to left turns at the intersection and have
requested a protected left turn phase. In addition, safety concerns have been expressed with regard to right turns
Figure 1. Aerial Map of the Hawthorne/Eddinghill/
Seamount Intersection
A-1
2
on red at the minor street approaches to the intersection, and residents have expressed opinions both for and
against a right-turn-on-red restriction.
2. Collision Data
Collision data for the most recently available three-year period (4/1/2020 to 3/31/2023) were reviewed. Collisions
involving left turns during this period are listed in Table 1. Nine collisions involving left turns have occurred at the
subject intersection within this period. Of these, four collisions within a period of under 12 months (between
8/25/2021 and 7/21/2022) could be considered as involving a “particular left-turn movement” as per the MUTCD
(see Section 3). These four collisions each involved a left-turning driver on Hawthorne Boulevard failing to yield to
oncoming traffic and colliding with a through vehicle on Hawthorne Boulevard that was proceeding in the
opposing direction.
Two of the above collisions (on August 25, 2021 and April 30, 2022) followed a pattern with further similarities. In
both cases, a northbound driver on Hawthorne Boulevard waited during the green signal phase for oncoming
traffic to clear so that they could turn left onto Eddinghill Drive. As they waited, the light turned yellow without a
sufficient gap in oncoming traffic occurring; then, in each case, the driver turned left during the yellow signal phase
and collided with a southbound vehicle proceeding straight through the intersection.
In another collision (on January 24, 2022), a northbound driver on Hawthorne Boulevard was attempting to turn
left onto Eddinghill Drive, but her view of oncoming traffic was blocked by a vehicle described as a “large gardening
truck.” Lacking a full view of oncoming traffic, she turned left and collided with a southbound vehicle proceeding
straight through the intersection.
The fourth collision (7/21/2022) was between a southbound left-turning vehicle and a northbound through
vehicle.
The four collisions discussed above resulted in a total of seven injuries, three categorized as “complaint of pain”
and four as “other visible injury.” All three collisions took place during daylight, in clear weather, without any
form of driver impairment reported. below provides an overview of the collisions.
The remaining collisions listed in Table 1 involved other types of movements including left turns (e.g., eastbound
and westbound left turns) but did not involve the pattern whereby a left-turning driver on Hawthorne collides
with a thru driver in the opposite direction on Hawthorne.
In addition, near misses have been observed at the intersection, as discussed in Section 5.
A-2
3
Table 1. Summary of collisions involving left-turning drivers on Hawthorne Blvd. at Eddinghill / Seamount Dr.
(2020-2022)
Report Collision
Date
Collision
Time Lighting Weather Collision Type PCF Injury Degree Injuries Movement
Signal Phase
During
Collision
921-00960-1735-
471 3/23/2021 10:58 Daylight Clear Complaint of
Pain 3 WB LT vs
SB thru
921-02716-1735-
471 8/25/2021 14:45 Daylight Clear Broadside Auto R/W
Violation
Other Visible
Injury 1 NB LT vs SB
thru Yellow
921-04104-1735-
472 12/23/2021 15:02 Daylight Raining Rear-End Unknown Property
Damage Only 0 EB LT vs SB
thru
922-00260-1735-
471 1/24/2022 11:29 Daylight Clear Broadside Auto R/W
Violation
Other Visible
Injury 1 NB LT vs SB
thru Green
922-01444-1735-
471 4/30/2022 17:19 Daylight Clear Broadside Auto R/W
Violation
Complaint of
Pain 3 NB LT vs SB
thru Yellow
922-02409-1734-
471 7/21/2022 Daylight Clear Broadside Auto R/W
Violation
Other Visible
Injury 2 SB LT vs NB
thru
922-03089-1735-
471 9/11/2022 Daylight Clear Broadside Unknown Other Visible
Injury 0 EB LT vs SB
thru
922-03714-1735-
472 10/29/2022 19:09
Dark -
Street
Lights
Clear Sideswipe Auto R/W
Violation
Property
Damage Only 0 SB LT vs SB
thru
922-04041-1735-
471 11/29/2022 14:05 Daylight Clear Broadside Traffic Signals
and Signs Severe Injury 1 EB LT vs SB
thru
It should be noted based on our site observations that the signal pole along the receiving southbound approach
has a dent which could be the result of being hit by a vehicle as shown in Figure 2. This observation is presented
here for the sake of completeness.
3. MUTCD Guidance
Section 4D.19 of the CA MUTCD provides guidance on the left turn phasing noting that as “separate signal phases
for protected left turns will reduce the green time available for other phases, alternate means of handling left turn
conflicts should be considered first.” The same section lists the following most likely possibilities:
1. Prohibition of left turns (going around the block or utilizing adjacent unsignalized intersections). For the
subject intersection, this would lead to circuitous routes and increase the miles traveled within local streets.
2. Geometric changes to eliminate the left turn (grade separation or interchange treatments). These are not
considered a feasible alternative in this case.
3. Provide protected-permissive or permissive-protected left turn operation (the protected left turn interval may
be prohibited during certain periods of the day to increase the green time available for other phases). An
operational analysis was carried out for the subject intersection and a protected-permissive operation is not
required under prevailing traffic volumes. The level of service under the current operating scheme is “A” in
the AM and PM peak hours (operational analysis attached to this memo). Providing a permissive-protected
operation may help in cases where delays are present, however, the request at hand for protected left turn
movements was raised based on increased number of collisions which this possibility does not address.
A-3
4
Section 4D.19 also provides guidance that protected left turn phases should be
considered where the above three alternatives cannot be utilized and one or
more of the following conditions exist:
1. Collisions - Five or more left turn collisions for a particular left turn movement
during a recent 12-month period.
The history of collisions at the subject intersection includes three collisions
that might have been prevented by a protected left-turn signal phase. In the
two cases where the collision took place during the yellow phase (8/5/2021
and 4/30-/2022), a prote cted left-turn signal phase might have allowed the
left-turning drivers to complete their turn without waiting for oncoming
traffic. In the case where a larger vehicle in the opposite left turn lane
blocked the view (1/24/2022), a protected left-turn signal phase might have
allowed both the southbound larger vehicle and the northbound left-turning
driver to clear the intersection without sight lines becoming an issue.
2. Delay - Left-turn delay of one or more vehicles, which were waiting at the
beginning of the green interval and are still remaining in the left turn lane
after at least 80% of the total number of cycles for one hour.
An operational analysis was carried out for the subject intersection indicating
that excessive delays do not exist for the AM or PM peaks. The level of service for the left turns was calculated
as A during the peak hours.
3. Volume - For pretimed signal or a background-cycle-controlled actuated signal, a left turn volume of more
than two vehicles per approach per cycle for a peak hour; or for a traffic-actuated signal, 50 or more left
turning vehicles per hour in one direction with the product of the turning and conflicting through traffic during
the peak hour of 100,000 or more.
The intersection is a traffic-actuated signal with more than 50 left turning vehicles per hour for both the north-
and south-bound movements. However, the product of the turning and conflicting through traffic in both
cases is less than 50,000.
4. Miscellaneous. Other factors that might be considered include but are not limited to: impaired sight distance
due to horizontal or vertical curvature, or where there are a large percentage of buses and trucks.
While there is a bus stop on the southeast side of the intersection, the percentages of buses and trucks are
relatively low based on the frequencies of the buses and preliminary observations. Sight distance is addressed
in Section 5.
Furthermore, section 4D.17 of CA MUTCD notes “In areas having a high percentage of older drivers, special
consideration may be given to the use of protected only mode left-turn phasing, when appropriate.” The City’s
population over 65 years is about 26% per the US Census (compared to the national figure of 18%). The proximity
of the intersection to Hesse Community Park frequented by the City’s seniors may also imply a significant
percentage of older drivers. However, only one of the parties involved in the above noted collisions was over 65
years old.
Figure 2. Signal Pole at the
Southwest corner
A-4
5
4. Left Turn Phasing Analysis
The MUTCD conditions for consideration of a protected left turn phase were not met, as explained in detail in
Section 3; in particular, there were less than 5 left-turn collisions for a particular left-turn movement within a 12-
month period. However, the following issues and facts are present with regard to this intersection:
• Due to the current placement of the concrete medians, the left turn lanes do not face each other
directly (as shown in Figure 3). Because of this offset configuration, it is possible that large vehicles in
the opposing direction may block the view of oncoming traffic for drivers wanting to turn left. This has
occurred in one documented collision.
• The City’s population over 65 years is about 26% per the US Census (compared to the national figure of
18%). The proximity of the intersection to Hesse Community Park, frequented by the City’s seniors, may
also imply a significant percentage of older drivers.
Per the CA-MUTCD guidance described in Section 3, the City is not required to upgrade the signal to provide
protected left turn phases. However, given the recently emerging collision history, the geometry of the
intersection, and the demographics of the City with respect to age, a protected left turn phase is a proactive
safety measure that the City can consider.
Figure 3. Aerial view of the intersection
5. Sight Distance Analysis
At the time of this study, the City received a complaint from a resident who asked for left and right turn arrows
for the minor approach (Eddinghill and Seamount approaches) stating the lack of appropriate sight distance and
citing recent collisions. A sight distance assessment was carried out as part of the memorandum.
Sight distance requirements
The speed utilized along Hawthorne Blvd for calculating the intersection sight distance was 45 mph. According to
the city wide Engineering and Traffic Study (2022), the 85th-percentile speed on Hawthorne Boulevard north of
A-5
6
the study intersection is 45 mph, and south of the intersection it is 42 mph. For a conservative approach, the
higher of these speeds was used. Per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, 7th edition (2020), the sight distance
standard for a speed of 45 mph is 360 feet.
Sight distances for northbound and southbound left turns
As the intersection is signalized, the sight distance requirements are:
(i) for the first vehicle stopped on one approach to be visible to the driver of the first vehicle stopped on
each of the other approaches.
(ii) left-turning vehicles should have sufficient sight distance (over 360 feet) to select gaps in oncoming
traffic and complete left turns.
Both of the above conditions are satisfied at the intersection under consideration. The view straight along
Hawthorne Boulevard is well above 360 feet in both the northbound and southbound directions.
Right turns on red
In addition, as right turns on a red signal are permitted from any approach, the departure sight triangles to the
left were assessed from the minor approaches and illustrated in the following figures.
Sight distances for right turns on red – eastbound approach
For the Eddinghill (eastbound) approach, the sight distance triangle for a vehicle stopped behind the limit line is
not clear of obstructions (see Figure 3). However, prudent drivers desiring to do a right turn on red typically roll
forward to enhance their view of southbound traffic on Hawthorne. As vehicles roll forward, the sight distance
triangle clears all obstructions (see Figure 4). In this case, the clear sight distance is about 480 feet. It should be
noted that a bus at the southbound bus stop may temporarily create an obstruction, but the frequency of these
buses is relatively low.
Sight distances for right turns on red – westbound approach
For the Seamount (westbound) approach, similarly, the sight distance triangle for a vehicle stopped behind the
limit line is not clear of obstructions (see Figure 5). However, prudent drivers desiring to do a right turn on red
typically roll forward to enhance their view of southbound traffic on Hawthorne. As vehicles roll forward, the sight
distance triangle clears all obstructions (see Figure 6). In this case, similar to the opposite approach, the clear sight
distance is about 480 feet. It should be noted that a bus at the northbound bus stop may temporarily create an
obstruction, but the frequency of these buses is also relatively low.
As such, based on the sight distance triangles, prudent drivers from both the minor approaches (eastbound and
westbound) should be able to cautiously carry out right turns on red with minimal impact to major traffic. This is
also the case with slightly higher traffic speeds; at 50 mph the required sight distance is 430 feet, and this
requirement is still met. At 55 mph, the required sight distance is 500 feet, which is not met. However, vehicles
traveling above 55 mph represent a very small proportion of traffic on Hawthorne Boulevard (0.3% per a speed
study conducted in 2021).
Figure 4. Right Turning Vehicle Behind the Limit Line (Sight Distance is Obstructed)
A-6
7
Figure 5. Right Turning Vehicle Driver 14.5ft from the edge of travelled way (Sight Distance is un-obstructed)
Figure 6. Right Turning Vehicle Behind the Limit Line (Sight Distance is Obstructed)
A-7
8
Figure 7. Right Turning Vehicle Driver is 14.5 ft from the edge of travelled way (Sight Distance is un-obstructed)
A-8
9
6. Near-miss Analysis
In order to enable measurement of the effectiveness of future safety improvements that may be implemented,
the City requested documentation of “before” conditions at the intersection. To this end, active monitoring of
the intersection was undertaken in June 2023. 100 hours of daytime traffic footage was gathered from a vantage
point at the southeast corner of the intersection, at an elevation of 25 feet, which allowed for a view of all the
intersection’s approaches and departures. The footage was processed using machine-learning software, which
created vehicle tracks allowing for a precise analysis of traffic patterns and near misses at the intersection. Near
misses were measured within the 2-second, 1-second, and less than 1 second thresholds (representing the time
difference between when a turning vehicle and a through vehicle each pass a given point). The frequency of
near misses is summarized in Table 2.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA), a typical driver’s reaction time from
perception of an obstacle to applying the brakes is about 1.5 seconds on average, with a standard deviation of
0.4 seconds. Beyond this, additional distance is required to stop (about 140 feet at 45 mph). At 45 mph (the
posted speed limit and the 85th-percentile speed on this section of Hawthorne Boulevard per the 2021
Engineering and Traffic Survey), a vehicle travels at 66 feet per second. Given this variation in reaction times, a
near-miss event where vehicles avoid a collision by 1 second leaves very little additional room for error.
Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that a near miss occurs at the intersection approximately 3 times per
hour during daytime hours. About 64 percent of these near misses are associated with left turns from
Hawthorne Boulevard (16% are northbound left turns and 48% are southbound left turns), while the remaining
36 percent of near misses are associated with right turns on red (14% on the westbound approach at Seamount
Drive and 22% on the eastbound approach at Eddinghill Drive).
Table 2. Summary of near misses over the course of 100 daytime weekday hours (Monday through Friday, 7:30
AM – 5:00 PM), June 5 – 16, 2023
Movement
Valid turn
observations
Valid
Opposing
Thru
Vehicles
2-second
near misses
1-second
near misses
0-second
near misses
Near
misses per
1,000
turning
vehicles
Near
misses per
100
daytime
hours
NB LT vs SB thru 1,899 45,558 35 9 0 23 44
SB LT vs NB thru 2,910 47,703 108 26 0 46 134
WB RTOR vs NB thru 3,727 24,072 33 6 1 11 40
EB RTOR vs SB thru 2,671 23,957 36 24 0 22 60
The following figures show examples of near misses in video footage as identified by the software.
A-9
10
Figure 8. Near miss example - northbound left turn vs.
southbound through Figure 9. Near miss example - southbound left turn vs.
northbound through
Figure 10. Near miss example - eastbound right turn
on red vs. southbound through Figure 11. Near miss example - westbound right turn
on red vs. northbound through
A-10
11
7. Potential Right Turn Lanes
The City received a request to investigate the possibility of adding a right turn lane for the northbound approach
of the Hawthorne-Eddinghill intersection. As a rule, a right turn lane is considered necessary when the number
of vehicles turning right exceeds 300 per hour for any given hour. According to turning movement counts that
were carried out for this project in December 2022, in the AM peak hour (7:45 – 8:45), the volume of
northbound vehicles turning right from Hawthorne Boulevard onto Eddinghill Drive was 6 vehicles; the volume
of southbound vehicles turning right from Hawthorne onto Eddinghill was 109. In the PM peak hour (2:45 –
3:45), the volume of northbound vehicles turning right was 5 and the volume of southbound vehicles turning
right was 120.
However, the City could consider installing a right turn lane for the northbound and/or southbound approaches.
There is precedent for this; for example, there is an existing right turn lane on southbound Hawthorne Boulevard
for Vallon Drive, serving a small neighborhood of just over 100 single-family homes.
Both the northbound and the southbound approaches to the intersection have a similar existing cross-section
layout, with approximately 42 feet curb-to-curb width, a 12-foot no. 1 lane, a 10-foot no. 2 lane, and a 10-foot
bus pad. The existing cross-sections approaching the intersection are shown in Figure 11 (southbound) and
Figure 12 (northbound).
Figure 12. Existing conditions: Southbound approach to the intersection, looking south
Figure 13. Existing conditions: Northbound approach to the intersection, looking north
A-11
12
Sufficient space exists on the existing roadway to stripe right turn lanes. Some advantages of striping right turn
lanes are as follows:
• By separating through traffic from right-turning traffic, some collisions might be avoided (especially rear-
end collisions related to the difference in speed between right-turning vehicles and through vehicles).
The following are some factors that should be considered if right turn lanes are striped:
• There is an existing bus stop at the location of each potential right turn lane (northbound and
southbound). Conflicts between buses and right-turning vehicles could potentially occur.
• Adequate signage and striping for the continuation of the bicycle lanes would be needed. Examples of
combined bike lane/turn lane treatments are given by NACTO at this link:
https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/intersection-treatments/combined-bike-
laneturn-lane/
Keeping in mind the above considerations, the City could consider adding right turn lanes as part of a future
restriping/restoration project for Hawthorne Boulevard. Potential cross-sections with right turn lanes are shown
in Figure 13 and Figure 14.
Figure 14. Potential restriping: Southbound approach to the intersection, looking south
Figure 15. Potential restriping: Northbound approach to the intersection, looking north
A-12
13
8. Solutions Implemented
The City installed "45 MPH” pavement markings at the northbound and southbound approaches to the
intersection in summer 2023.
9. Conclusions
Per CA MUTCD guidance presented above, the City is not required to upgrade the signal to provide protected left
turn phases. However, given the recently emerging collision history and the geometry of the intersection, the City
could consider the following incremental approach:
1. Based on the higher proportion of seniors in the population and the offset of the medians in the intersection
mentioned above, a protected left-turn phase is recommended for the intersection.
2. Given the reported signal heads’ visibility during foggy conditions, the City should consider installing yellow
reflective backplates on the traffic signal heads at this intersection similar to what was recently installed at
Palos Verdes Drive East at Crest Road. Per FHWA guidance:
“Backplates added to a traffic signal head improve the visibility of the illuminated face of the signal by
introducing a controlled-contrast background. The improved visibility of a signal head with a backplate is
made even more conspicuous by framing it with a 1- to 3-inch yellow retroreflective border. Signal heads
that have backplates equipped with retroreflective borders are more visible and conspicuous in both
daytime and nighttime conditions.”
3. The City could also install additional (or relocate) speed limit signs along the northbound and southbound
approaches to the intersection. These should be placed at the locations where the 45 MPH pavement
markings have been installed.
4. Continue to closely monitor collision records at this location against the MUTCD threshold for a protected left
turn phase. The City may encourage residents to send reports/evidence (photos and videos) of collisions,
especially any that may not have been reported to the Sheriff.
5. As noted in Section 4, due to the current placement of the concrete medians, the left turn lanes do not face
each other directly. Because of this offset configuration, it is possible that large vehicles in the opposing
direction may block the view of oncoming traffic for drivers wanting to turn left. This has occurred in one
documented collision. The City may consider geometric modifications to the median to enhance alignment of
the left turn lanes. However, if a protected left turn phase is implemented, this realignment would not be
necessary.
6. The City could consider restriping to add right turn lanes as part of a future restriping/restoration project, as
discussed in the “Potential Right Turn Lanes” section.
A-13
14
Figure 16. AM Peak Hour Volumes (December 6, 2022)
Figure 17. PM Peak Hour Volumes (December 6, 2022)
A-14
D ~n Lill:::J V
D ~D II ~ 11
PEAK HOUR
AM 745AM
AM l<y lQ, er
Total I
63
I 6,----,-1 -
1 647 1 116 1
~-11
n ~0 I Ba lJ LJ
PEAK HOUR
PM 2_45 PM
Hawthorne I 681
Draft TSC Minutes
November 27th, 2023
Page 1 of 4
DRAFT MINUTES
RANCHO PALOS VERDES TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
HYBRID MEETING
NOVEMBER 27, 2023
CALL TO ORDER:
Regular meeting of the Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Committee was called to
order by Chair Tye at 6:08 p.m. using the Zoom platform notice having been given with
affidavit thereto on file.
Traffic Safety Committee roll call was answered as follows:
PRESENT: Crossman, Guerin, Slaten, Tomblin, Chair Tye.
ABSENT: None
Also present were Noel Casil, Senior Engineer, Ramzi Awwad, Director of Public
Works, Rawad Hani, Traffic Consultant from General Technologies Solutions.
Online were Brian Cervantes and Jasmin Valles, Transtech.
The motion was approved on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Crossman, Guerin, Slaten, Tomblin and Chair Tye
NOES: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by James Guerin.
COMMITTEE CHAIR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Thanksgiving mentions. City’s Annual Christmas Party. Introduction of new Captain in
the Sheriff Department. Annual trunk or treat.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Member Crossman made motion to approve, seconded by Chair Tye, to approve the
agenda as presented.
AYES: Crossman, Guerin, Slaten, Tomblin, Chair Tye
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
None
C-1
Draft TSC Minutes
November 27th, 2023
Page 2 of 4
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR’S REPORT:
Public Works Director Awwad introduced Noel Casil as new Public Works Senior
Engineer.
Workload and backload that has been building as the number of traffic requests has
increased in recent years. Staff is working on an updated of the Traffic Calming Manual
including a process for prioritizing requests.
Update on Avenida Classica traffic calming: City Council approved the installation traffic
circles. Staff are working on a proposal to design the traffic circles.
Member Tomblin: Residents from the apartment mentioned that trucks block the view of
incoming traffic and residents want an analysis of parking and more red curb. Member
Tomblin requested that Director Awwad add this to a future report.
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS:
No Sheriff staff present.
Chair Tye: Previously, TSC members used to get a report of collisions from the Sheriff.
The TSC will try to make a connection with new captain to continue providing collision
reports to the City.
REGULAR BUSINESS
1. Approval of the Minutes. No changes made.
Member Tomblin made motion to approved, seconded by Chair Tye, to
approve the minutes of July 24, 2023.
AYES: Crossman, Guerin, Slaten, and Chair Tye
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
2. Hawthorne Blvd at Eddinghill Dr/Seamount Dr
Director Awwad presented an updated traffic study prepared by a traffic
consultant, GTS. Awwad presented a set of recommendations to replace the
previous ones approved by the TSC. Awwad concluded with the staff
recommendation of installing left turn signal arrow for northbound and
C-2
Draft TSC Minutes
November 27th, 2023
Page 3 of 4
southbound directions along Hawthorne Blvd, yellow reflective back plates,
and speed signs.
Discussion ensued between Awwad and committee members and Staff.
Chai Tye invited residents to provide their input.
Discussion ensued between residents, committee members, and engineering
staff.
A total of 6 residents spoke and were all in favor of staff recommendations
provided on the traffic study, Additionally, the committee received
correspondence with the opinions of absent resident. Resident was in favor of
staff recommendations.
Discussion ensued between committee members.
Chair Tye, seconded by Member Crossman, motioned to move forward with
all of staff recommendations in replacement of previous recommendations.
AYES: Crossman, Guerin, Slaten, Tomblin and Chair Tye
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
Guerin asked about the timeline for the next steps.
Chair Tye thanked residents for participating and encouraged them to
continue to provide input and attend future meetings with the Traffic Safety
Committee.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
None
COMMITTEE ORAL REPORTS:
City did research on signs on Avenida Classica, it was found that the signs were older
City signs.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Tye, seconded by Member Crossman, made motion to adjourn to January 22nd,
2023.
C-3
Draft TSC Minutes
November 27th, 2023
Page 4 of 4
AYES: Crossman, Guerin, Slaten, Tomblin and Chair Tye
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
C-4
1
t +1 213 267 2332 | f +1 213 318 0744
info@gentecsol.com | www.gentecsol.com
11900 W Olympic Blvd #450, Los Angeles, CA 90064
GTS | General Technologies and Solutions
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 21, 2023 GTS: 210601.28
To: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
From: GTS
Subject: DRAFT Hawthorne Blvd. at Eddinghill Dr. Left Turn Phase Analysis
Background
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes requested an
evaluation of the need for a protected left-turn
signal phase at the intersection of Hawthorne
Boulevard, Eddinghill Drive, and Seamount Drive.
Hawthorne Boulevard is a north-south arterial
street in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Northbound and southbound traffic have two
through lanes of travel in their respective
directions, separated by a raised concrete median.
The roadway is bordered by bicycle lanes, curbs,
and sidewalks on each side. The average daily
traffic (ADT) is 21,751 on the segment of
Hawthorne Boulevard north of the intersection and
16,592 on the segment south of the intersection
(Source: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Engineering &
Traffic Survey (E&TS), March 2021).
At the subject intersection, there are dedicated left turn lanes on Hawthorne Boulevard in both the northbound
and the southbound directions. The east-west cross street is named Eddinghill Drive to the west and Seamount
Drive to the east. Both Eddinghill Drive and Seamount Drive are two-lane local streets with one lane of travel for
each direction. Hawthorne Boulevard is straight with a slight downhill slope in the southbound direction as it
approaches the intersection, while Eddinghill and Seamount Drive have steeper grades and curves within 200 feet
of the intersection.
The traffic signals for drivers on Hawthorne Boulevard are mounted on mast arms, and the signals for drivers on
Eddinghill/Seamount Drive are mounted on posts. There is currently no protected left-turn signal phase for
vehicles on Hawthorne Boulevard in either the northbound or the southbound direction.
A bus shelter exists on the southeast side of the intersection served by LA Metro Route 344 and LADOT commuter
bus Route 448.
The posted speed limit on this section of Hawthorne Boulevard is 45 miles per hour.
Exhibit 1. Aerial Map of the
Hawthorne/Eddinghill/Seamount Intersection
D-1
2
Collision Data
Collision data for the most recently available three-year period (1/1/2020 to 12/31/2022) were reviewed. Seven
collisions have occurred at the subject intersection within this period. Of these, three collisions (within a 12-month
period) involved a northbound driver on Hawthorne Boulevard failing to yield to oncoming traffic when turning
left and colliding with a southbound vehicle passing through. All collisions occurred in the most recent 18 months
of the analysis period.
Two of the above crashes (on August 25, 2021 and April 30, 2022) followed a pattern with further similarities. In
both cases, a northbound driver on Hawthorne Boulevard waited during the green signal phase for oncoming
traffic to clear so that they could turn left onto Eddinghill Drive. As they waited, the light turned yellow without a
sufficient gap in oncoming traffic occurring; then, in each case, the driver turned left during the yellow signal phase
and collided with a southbound vehicle proceeding straight through the intersection.
In the remaining crash (on January 24, 2022), a northbound driver on Hawthorne Boulevard was attempting to
turn left onto Eddinghill Drive, but her view of oncoming traffic was blocked by a vehicle described as a “large
gardening truck.” Lacking a full view of oncoming traffic, she turned left and collided with a southbound vehicle
proceeding straight through the intersection.
The three collisions discussed above resulted in a total of five injuries, three categorized as “complaint of pain”
and two as “other visible injury.” All three collisions took place during daylight, in clear weather, without any form
of driver impairment reported. Exhibit 2 below provides an overview of the three collisions.
The remaining two collisions involved a rear-end on a rainy day (December 23, 2021) and a red-light-running
broadside collision (March 23, 2021).
Exhibit 2. Summary of collisions involving left-turning drivers on Hawthorne Blvd. at Eddinghill / Seamount Dr.
(2020-2022)
Report
Collision
Date Collision Time Lighting Weather Collision Type PCF Injury Degree Injuries Movement
Signal Phase
During
Collision
922-01444-1735-
471 4/30/2022 17:19 Daylight Clear Broadside
Auto R/W
Violation
Complaint of
Pain 3
NB LT vs SB
thru Yellow
922-00260-1735-
471 1/24/2022 11:29 Daylight Clear Broadside
Auto R/W
Violation
Other Visible
Injury 1
NB LT vs SB
thru Green
921-04104-1735-
472 12/23/2021 15:02 Daylight Raining Rear-End Unknown
Property
Damage Only 0
EB LT vs SB
thru
921-02716-1735-
471 8/25/2021 14:45 Daylight Clear Broadside
Auto R/W
Violation
Other Visible
Injury 1
NB LT vs SB
thru Yellow
921-00960-1735-
471 3/23/2021 10:58 Daylight Clear
Complaint of
Pain 3
WB LT vs
SB thru
922-02409-1734-
471 7/21/2022 Daylight Clear Broadside
Auto R/W
Violation
Other Visible
Injury 2
SB LT vs NB
thru
922-03089-1735-
471 9/11/2022 Daylight Clear Broadside Unknown
Other Visible
Injury 0
EB LT vs SB
thru
It should be noted based on our site observations that the signal pole along the receiving southbound approach
has a dent which could be the result of being hit by a vehicle as shown in the adjacent exhibit. This observation is
presented here just the sake of completeness.
D-2
3
Analysis
Section 4D.19 of the CA MUTCD provides guidance on the left turn phasing noting that as “separate signal phases
for protected left turns will reduce the green time available for other phases, alternate means of handling left turn
conflicts should be considered first.” The same section lists the following most likely possibilities:
1. Prohibition of left turns (going around the block or utilizing adjacent unsignalized intersections). For the
subject intersection, this would lead to circuitous routes and increase the miles traveled within local streets.
2. Geometric changes to eliminate the left turn (grade separation or interchange treatments). These are not
considered a feasible alternative in this case.
3. Provide protected-permissive or permissive-protected left turn operation (the protected left turn interval may
be prohibited during certain periods of the day to increase the green time available for other phases). An
operational analysis was carried out for the subject intersection and a protected-permissive operation is not
required under prevailing traffic volumes. The level of service under the current operating scheme is “A” in
the AM and PM peak hours (operational analysis attached to this memo). Providing a permissive-protected
operation may help in cases where delays are present, however, the request at hand for protected left turn
movements was raised based on increased number of collisions which this possibility does not address.
Section 4D.19 also provides guidance that protected left turn phases should be considered where the above three
alternatives cannot be utilized and one or more of the following conditions exist:
1. Collisions - Five or more left turn collisions for a particular left turn movement during a recent 12-month
period.
The history of collisions at the subject intersection includes three collisions that might have been prevented
by a protected left-turn signal phase. In the two cases where the collision took place during the yellow phase
(8/5/2021 and 4/30-/2022), a protected left-turn signal phase might have allowed the left-turning drivers to
complete their turn without waiting for oncoming traffic. In the case where a larger vehicle in the opposite
left turn lane blocked the view (1/24/2022), a protected left-turn signal phase might have allowed both the
southbound larger vehicle and the northbound left-turning driver to clear the intersection without sight lines
becoming an issue.
2. Delay - Left-turn delay of one or more vehicles, which were waiting at the
beginning of the green interval and are still remaining in the left turn lane
after at least 80% of the total number of cycles for one hour.
An operational analysis was carried out for the subject intersection indicating
that excessive delays do not exist for the AM or PM peaks. The level of service
for the left turns was calculated as A during the peak hours.
3. Volume - For pretimed signal or a background-cycle-controlled actuated
signal, a left turn volume of more than two vehicles per approach per cycle
for a peak hour; or for a traffic-actuated signal, 50 or more left turning
vehicles per hour in one direction with the product of the turning and
conflicting through traffic during the peak hour of 100,000 or more.
The intersection is a traffic-actuated signal with more than 50 left turning
vehicles per hour for both the north- and south-bound movements.
However, the product of the turning and conflicting through traffic in both
cases is less than 50,000.
4. Miscellaneous. Other factors that might be considered include but are not
limited to: impaired sight distance due to horizontal or vertical curvature, or
where there are a large percentage of buses and trucks.
Exhibit 3. Signal Pole at the
Southwest corner
D-3
4
While there is a bus stop on the southeast side of the intersection, the percentages of buses and trucks are
relatively low based on the frequencies of the buses and preliminary observations. Sight distance is addressed
in the following section.
Furthermore, section 4D.17 of CA MUTCD notes “In areas having a high percentage of older drivers, special
consideration may be given to the use of protected only mode left-turn phasing, when appropriate.” The City’s
population over 65 years is about 26% per the US Census. The proximity of the intersection to Hesse Community
Park frequented by the City’s seniors may also imply a significant percentage of older drivers. However, only one
of the parties involved in the above noted 3 collisions is above 65 years old.
Sight Distance Analysis
At the time of this study, the City received a complaint from a resident who asked for left and right turn arrows
for the minor approach (Eddinghill and Seamount approaches) stating the lack of appropriate sight distance and
sighting recent collisions. A sight distance assessment was carried out as part of the memorandum.
As the intersection is signalized, the sight distance requirements are:
(i) for the first vehicle stopped on one approach to be visible to the driver of the first vehicle stopped on
each of the other approaches.
(ii) left-turning vehicles should have sufficient sight distance to select gaps in oncoming traffic and
complete left turns.
Both of the above conditions are satisfied at the intersection under consideration.
In addition, as right turns on a red signal are permitted from any approach, the departure sight triangles to the
left were assessed from the minor approaches and illustrated in the following exhibits. The speed utilized along
Hawthorne Blvd for calculating the intersection sight distance of 480 feet was 50mph (posted speed of 45mph +
5mph).
For the Eddinghill (eastbound) approach, the sight distance triangle for a vehicle stopped behind the limit line is
not clear of obstructions (Exhibit 4A). However, prudent drivers desiring to do a right turn on red typically roll
forward to enhance their view of southbound traffic on Hawthorne. As vehicles roll forward, the site distance
triangle appears to clear all obstructions (Exhibit 4B). It should be noted that a bus at the southbound bus stop
may temporarily create an obstruction but the frequency of these buses is relatively low.
For the Seamount (westbound) approach, similarly, the sight distance triangle for a vehicle stopped behind the
limit line is not clear of obstructions (Exhibit 5A). However, prudent drivers desiring to do a right turn on red
typically roll forward to enhance their view of southbound traffic on Hawthorne. As vehicles roll forward, the site
distance triangle appears to clear all obstructions (Exhibit 5B). It should be noted that a bus at the northbound
bus stop may temporarily create an obstruction but the frequency of these buses is also relatively low.
As such, based on the sight distance triangles, prudent drivers from the minor approaches should be able to
cautiously carry out the right turns on red signal with minimal impact to major traffic (assuming traffic speeds not
exceeding 50 mph).
However, given recent resident complaints of near misses as well as on-site observations where traffic on
Hawthorne appeared to be going over the posted speed limits, the City should consider installing no right turn on
red signs for both Seamount as well as Eddinghill approaches. The signs can be mounted on the existing Type 1A
D-4
5
poles on the far side of the Eddinghill and Seamount signal approaches (northwest and southeast poles). The signal
timing should be adjusted to remove delays on the right turn detectors of Eddinghill and Seamount. Attached is
the revised timing sheet which also adjusts the walking times and maximum times for the minor approach.
Conclusion
Per CA MUTCD guidance presented above, the City is
not required to upgrade the signal to provide protected
left turn phases. However, given the recently emerging
collision history and the geometry of the intersection,
the City could consider the following incremental
approach:
1. Actively monitor the operations of the northbound
and southbound left turn movements along
Hawthorne Blvd at the subject intersection. This
could take place over a period of about 2 to 4 weeks
and would help identify near-misses and/or other
considerations that can inform this analysis.
2. Given the reported signal heads’ visibility during
foggy conditions, the City should consider installing
yellow reflective backplates on the traffic signal
heads at this intersection similar to what was
recently installed at Palos Verdes Drive East at Crest
Road. Per FHWA guidance:
“Backplates added to a traffic signal head improve the visibility of the illuminated face of the
signal by introducing a controlled-contrast background. The improved visibility of a signal
head with a backplate is made even more conspicuous by framing it with a 1- to 3-inch yellow
retroreflective border. Signal heads that have backplates equipped with retroreflective
borders are more visible and conspicuous in both daytime and nighttime conditions.”
3. The City could install “45 MPH” pavement markings at the northbound and southbound approaches to the
intersection. These markings can be used to supplement speed limit signs per the CA-MUTCD, §3B.20(15b).
The City could also install additional (or relocate) speed limit signs along the northbound and southbound
approaches to the intersection.
4. Continue to closely monitor collision records at this location against the MUTCD threshold for a protected left
turn phase. The City may encourage residents to send reports/evidence (photos and videos) of collisions,
especially any that may not have been reported to the Sheriff.
It should be noted that due to the current placement of the concrete medians, the left turn lanes do not face
each other directly (as shown on the right). Because of this offset configuration, it is possible that large vehicles
in the opposing direction may block the view of oncoming traffic for drivers wanting to turn left. This has
occurred in one documented collision. The City may consider geometric modifications to the median to enhance
alignment of the left turn lanes.
D-5
6
Exhibit 4A. Right Turning Vehicle Behind the Limit Line (Sight Distance is Obstructed)
Exhibit 4B. Right Turning Vehicle Driver 14.5ft from the edge of travelled way (Sight Distance is un-obstructed)
D-6
7
Exhibit 5A. Right Turning Vehicle Behind the Limit Line (Sight Distance is Obstructed)
Exhibit 5B. Right Turning Vehicle Driver is 14.5 ft from the edge of travelled way (Sight Distance is un-obstructed)
D-7
8
Exhibit 6A. AM Peak Hour Volumes (December 6, 2022)
Exhibit 6B. PM Peak Hour Volumes (December 6, 2022)
D-8
D Lfil_J
[___fil__J D
PEAK HOUR
AM ?:45 AM
AM-· er> T~~ ! 6
Hawt I 6
716
Hawthorne
I TOTAL
cs PM
u ~I 7:1=1-{r II
5El lJ
PM 2 :45 PM
,. 1i 1~ ~
Total I 60 O I O I I 616 I 5
Hawthorne
LJ
MINUTES
RANCHO PALOS VERDES TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 22, 2023
CALL TO ORDER:
Regular meeting of the Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Committee was called to
order by Chair Tye at 6: 10 p.m. using the Zoom platform notice having been given with
affidavit thereto on file.
Traffic Safety Committee roll call was answered as follows:
PRESENT: Crossman, Guerin, Slaten, Chair Tye
ABSENT: Tomblin
Also present were Lincoln Lo, Deputy Director of Public Works, and Cheri Bailiff, Permit
Technician.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mark Crossman.
COMMITTEE CHAIR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Chair Tye commented the deadline to notify Teresa Takaoka for Committee Chair
appointments is 12:00 p.m., May 23, 2023.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA:
Member Slaten moved, seconded by Member Crossman, to approve the agenda as
presented.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Crossman, Guerin, Slaten, Chair Tye
None
Tomblin
PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Deputy Director Lo discussed Late Correspondence from Fred Weiner regarding a "No
Right Turn" at Hawthorne Boulevard and Eddinghill Drive/Seamount Drive.
Deputy Director Lo updated committee members regarding Hawthorne Boulevard and
Shorewood Road Traffic Study.
Chair Tye and Deputy Director Lo discussed a recent State Supreme Court decision
regarding a traffic collision at Hawthorne Boulevard and Vallon Drive.
TSC Minutes
May 22, 2023
Page 1 of 4
F-1
.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPUTY DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Deputy Director Lo reported additional support is being received with processing traffic
analysis studies. He also discussed public outreach for speeding along various areas
within the City.
Discu ssion ensued between TSC members and Staff.
SHERIFF'S DEP ARTMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS:
None
Chair Tye discussed a report given by Lt. Mike White of Los Angeles Sheriffs
Department, Lomita Station, during the previous Mayor's Breakfast.
REGULAR BUSINESS
1.Approval of the Minutes
Member Crossman moved, seconded by Member Slaten, to approve the
minutes of March 27, 2023.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ASBSENT:
Crossman, Guerin, Slaten, and Chair Tye
None
None
Tomblin
2.Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East
Rawad Hani of General Technology Solutions discussed the findings and
recommendations of the traffic study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes
Drive East.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Hani, committee members and Staff.
The following member of the public addressed the Traffic Safety Committee:
Peter Haidos, Bea Jamshidian, Alexia ltzigsohn, and Ross Doolin.
Discussion ensued between committee members, Staff and public speakers.
Discussion continued between Mr. Hani, committee members and Staff.
Chair Tye, seconded by Member Crossman, motioned to move forward with
Staffs recommendations as outlined with exception to items 4 (Consolidate
TSC Minutes
May 22, 2023
Page 2 of 4
F-2
.
the Miraleste DriveNia Colinita Intersection), 7 (Warranted Traffic Control
Signals at Intersections), and 8 (Further Study of Roundabouts). along with
the addition of investigating the implementation of Botts' Dots and speed
strips and incorporate it into the traffic study to go before City Council.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Crossman, Guerin, Slaten, and Chair Tye
None
Tomblin
Discussion continued between committee members and public speakers.
3.Consideration and possible action to provide feedback on the Biannual
Advisory Board Update to the City Council.
Deputy Director Lo presented the Staff report.
Member Slater moved, seconded to Chair Tye, to approve the list of
accomplishments for Quarter 3 and Quarter 4 of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 that
will be presented to City Council of July 18, 2023.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Crossman, Guerin, Slaten, and Chair Tye
None
Tomblin
4.Traffic Safety Committee Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2023-24.
Deputy Director Lo introduced the Staff report.
Discussion ensued between committee and Staff members.
Deputy Director Lo proposed to additions to the current list.
Chair Tye moved, seconded by Member Guerin, to approve pending list for
the FY2023-24 TSC Work Plan Traffic with the addition of public outreach
programs and updated status reports.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Crossman, Guerin, Slaten, and Chair Tye
None
Tomblin
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
None
COMMITTEE ORAL REPORTS:
TSC Minutes
May 22, 2023
Page 3 of 4
F-3
Members discussed TSC participation at Whale of a Day. TSC participation at the July
4th Celebration was discussed.
ADJOURNMENT
Member Slaten, seconded by Member Crossman, to adjourn to July 24, 2023, at 6:00
p.m.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Attest:
Crossman, Guerin, Slaten, and Chair Tye
None
Tomblin
TSC Minutes
May 22, 2023
Page 4 of 4
F-4
30940HAWTHORNEBLVD./RANCHOPALOSVERDES,CA90275Ͳ5391/(310)544Ͳ5252/FAX(310)544Ͳ5292/WWW.RPVCA.GOV
January 2, 2024
Dear Resident,
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes invites you to attend a Rancho Palos Verdes City
Council Meeting to discuss traffic recommendations for the intersection of Hawthorne
Boulevard and Eddinghill Drive/Seamount Drive.
The City Council will be asked to consider the following recommendations:
1. Installation of left turn arrow signals for the northbound and southbound
approaches of Hawthorne Boulevard at Eddinghill Drive/Seamount Drive.
2. Installation of additional signs and pavement markings in the intersection area.
You are invited to provide public input on Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 7:00 p.m.
In-person at:
Fred Hesse Community Park, McTaggart Hall
29301 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
or
Virtually via Zoom
If you wish to attend virtually, please complete the Public Participation Form at
https://www.rpvca.gov/participate.
The City Council agenda will be available on the City website by January 9 and can be
found at https://www.rpvca.gov/772/City-Meeting-Video-and-Agendas.
If you have questions, please contact Public Works at 310-544-5252 or
publicworks@rpvca.gov. We encourage you to attend the meeting to voice your opinion.
Sincerely,
Ramzi Awwad
G-1
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Daniel Elroi
28528 Leacrest Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
January 6, 2024
To: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Re: Improvements to the intersection of Hawthorne Blvd and Seamount Drive
I have lived on Leacrest Dr for about 8 years now. Hawthorne and Seamount/Eddinghill is a very
dangerous intersection because when waiting to turn left to Seamount from SB Hawthorne or left to
Eddinghill from NB Hawthorne, it is impossible to see oncoming traffic when there is a car waiting
to turn from the opposite direction. This leads to many accidents. This is made worse by the fact
that this straight stretch of Hawthorne has become a practical drag strip, with the hill’s mega-cars
often speeding at 60, 70, even 80 MPH and faster.
I support:
1. Installing left-turn traffic light arrows on Hawthorne to reduce the number of accidents at
our intersection.
2. Adjusting the traffic light controls to auto-cycle to red on Hawthorne, even without cross-
traffic triggering the lights, as a traffic calming measure (not as frequent as the infamous
and annoying Anchovy light on 25th in San Pedro, but more frequent than now).
3. Moving the bus stop on NB Hawthorne to the north side of the intersection, because it is
very difficult to see oncoming NB traffic from WB Seamount without edging out into
Hawthorne lanes. Yes, it is uncommon to put a bus stop after an intersection, but not
unheard of, like NB Hawthorne at Crest.
I am relieved that this is coming up for consideration and hope that you will do the right thing for our
safety.
Thank you,
Daniel Elroi
H-1
1
Ramzi Awwad
Subject:FW: Traffic Light at Hawthorne and Eddinghill/Seamount
From: Audrey & Daniel Elroi <family.elroi@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 2:02 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Traffic Light at Hawthorne and Eddinghill/Seamount
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe!!!.
Dear RPV city Council,
As a resident of the Seamount neighborhood I am writing to voice my complete support for a turn arrow light at the
intersection of Hawthorne and Seamount. I am currently very concerned about the safety of making an unprotected left
turn daily when returning home. I used to drive an SUV and could sometimes see cars coming even if there was
someone turning left onto Eddinghill. Now I drive a subcompact and I just have to wait for the light to change and then
some to make sure it is safe to turn. There are a couple of issues with this stretch of Hawthorne. One is that it is flat and
wide with no other light between Crest, 1 mile south, and Grand Via Altimura around the corner to the north. This
encourages speeding. The other is the design of the intersection that blocks visibility of oncoming traffic if cars are
turning left onto Seamount and Eddinghill at the same time. I hope that by adding a light and shortening the time the
light is green that those measures will also slow traffic.
Thank you for looking into this issue and considering a solution. I hope you move to support adding a left turn arrow to
Eddinghill/Seamount.
Audrey Stempel
28528 Leacrest Dr
RPV, CA 90275
303‐906‐3033
H-2
January 5, 2023
Kim & Lindsey Levine
6441 Seabryn Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
kmblevine@aol.com
To the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,
My husband and I are hopeful that something is finally going to be done about the intersec�on at
Seamount Drive / Eddinghill Drive and Hawthorne Boulevard. We have lived on Seabryn Dr. since 2003
and have witnessed many accidents and near misses.
The design of that intersec�on is inherently dangerous and defec�ve. The center median of Hawthorne
Blvd. forces each car that is le� turning from Hawthorne to either Seamount (southbound) or Eddinghill
(northbound) to be offset to the right of the vehicle they are facing because there is a concrete median
preven�ng beter sightlines.
When two vehicles (green and yellow in
the illustra�on) are each trying to turn le�
(from northbound and southbound
Hawthorne Blvd), each blocks the other ’s
view un�l other vehicles (red) are almost
through the intersec�on. Given the high
rate of speed these cars travel and
frequency with which cars run the red
light, the person turning le� must creep
into the intersec�on, o�en at an angle to
try to see past the other vehicle in the
directly opposing le� turn lane with litle
improvement in their ability to see.
This situa�on is exacerbated by having a
small sedan (which I drive) facing a larger
and taller SUV. When I drove an SUV, it was
less of a problem. When I switched to a
more efficient smaller vehicle, I became
acutely aware of the inherent danger of this intersec�on.
Last year, my son was driving my car with me as his passenger. He sat in the le� turn lane on Hawthorne
Blvd (southbound in the posi�on of the green car wai�ng to turn onto Seamount Dr) facing another
vehicle wai�ng to turn le� onto Eddinghill Dr. However, this �me, the driver behind us who was also
wai�ng to turn le� onto Seamount Dr. was not pa�ent. When the light turned yellow, this other driver
immediately laid on the horn for many seconds, con�nuing to honk and aggressively sit on our bumper
even when the light turned red. As my son cau�ously crept forward, a speeding car going northbound on
Hawthorne Blvd. ran the red light at about 60 miles per hour a�er which we finally completed our le�
turn onto Seamount Drive. The driver behind us was not sa�sfied that he almost got us killed (which
N
SeamountEddinghill
Hawthorne
Blvd
H-3
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
would have happened had my son turned when he “suggested”). He followed us through the
intersec�on and con�nued to follow us aggressively, trying to follow us home. This intersec�on causes
road rage.
In addi�on to the sightlines, in the heavy fog this intersec�on frequently surprises drivers. On at least 8
occasions over the twenty years I have lived here, I have been si�ng at Seamount Drive (where the blue
car is in the diagram) wai�ng to enter the intersec�on on a green light when a car has sailed through the
intersec�on, unaware that they are even running a red light on Hawthorne Blvd un�l it is too late.
Because I am cau�ous, I have waited many �mes to watch a driver run the red light in the fog. More than
one driver has looked at me and shrugged as they ran the light in the fog. Some look apologe�c. Others
are clueless that they have even done something dangerous. On one occasion, as I was instruc�ng my
then 16 year old son to be careful in the fog present at this intersec�on that day, he pulled from
Seamount onto Hawthorne Blvd headed southbound when a driver ran the red light right behind our car.
Another near miss.
I support anything to make this intersec�on safer. My preference is to improve the sightlines by
demolishing the center median and allowing vehicles to sit as far le� as possible in the turn lane. Barring
this, I would support a protected le� turn for both northbound and southbound le� turns from
Hawthorne Blvd. to Eddinghill / Seamount respec�vely. I would also support making the turn lane longer
by demolishing the median strip as well. Finally, due to the heavy fog and frequency that I have
witnessed drivers running the red light in the fog, placement of a sign with flashing lights that indicates
an intersec�on is coming prior to northbound Hawthorne Blvd. traffic reaching the intersec�on would
also be appropriate. This last sign is important to have enough warning as well as a flashing amber light
that would be highly visible in the fog.
Sincerely,
Kim Levine
H-4