Loading...
CC SR 20240116 02 - Miraleste Traffic Calming CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 01/16/2024 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business AGENDA TITLE: Consideration and possible action to implement traffic calming measures for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Approve the following short-term traffic calming measures for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East: A. Redesigned street cross-sections with narrower lanes as detailed in the General Technologies and Solutions traffic study; B. High-visibility crosswalks at six locations as described within the General Technologies and Solutions traffic study; C. Rapid flashing beacon on Palos Verdes Drive East directly south of Marion Drive; D. Advisory traffic signs as determined by the Public Works Director; and E. Continued traffic law enforcement; and (2) Direct Staff to assess the effectiveness of the short-term traffic calming measures after implementation and, if warranted, to return to the City Council to consider additional long-term traffic calming measures. FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Year 2023-24 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes an appropriation of up to $604,712 for Citywide traffic calming measures, which would be used to fund the proposed short- term traffic calming measures. Cost estimates for implementation are in the process of being developed, and in the interest of expedited implementation, the proposed traffic calming measures are being presented for consideration while the estimates are being finalized. If costs exceed the current budget, Staff will seek Council’s consideration of a budget appropriation. Amount Budgeted: $604,712 Additional Appropriation: $0 Account Number(s): 220-400-8846-XXXX ($385,000) (Measure R Fund – various accounts) 330-400-8846-XXXX ($219,712) (CIP Fund – various accounts) VR ORIGINATED BY: Noel Casil, PE, TE, Senior Engineer 1 RANCHO PALOS VERDES REVIEWED BY: Ramzi Awwad, Public Works Director APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. General Technologies and Solutions Report: Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East (page A-1) B. Updated Traffic Collision Data (page B-1) C. Community notification letter for January 16, 2024 City Council meeting (page C-1) D. May 5, 2023 Traffic Safety Committee meeting agenda E. Minutes for May 5, 2023 Traffic Safety Committee meeting (page E-1) BACKGROUND: Since fall 2021, the Public Works Department has received multiple requests from area residents to investigate traffic conditions on Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East, inclusive of surrounding roadways. Residents reported the following key concerns: • Speeding • Tailgating • Increased collisions • Increased traffic volumes (due to navigation apps) • Pedestrian and bicycle safety • Miraleste Intermediate School issues (congestion and pedestrian/bicycle safety) To address these concerns, Staff retained General Technologies and Solutions (GTS), a traffic engineering consultant, to conduct a traffic study of the area evaluating resident concerns and developing recommendations to address issues identified from the traffic study. On January 11, 2023, GTS submitted a preliminary report containing proposed measures for alleviating traffic issues that were the impetus for the traffic study. The study was built upon earlier feedback from the community and from the initial stakeholder meetings and various email follow-ups and correspondences. On March 27, 2023, GTS and Staff conducted a community meeting to gather resident input on the proposed measures. GTS revised the traffic study based on community input and then Staff and GTS presented the traffic study to the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) on May 22, 2023 (Attachments A, D, and E). The TSC heard public speakers, discussed the recommended measures, and made a recommendation to the City Council (which will be discussed later in this staff report). 2 The recommended traffic calming measures are outlined below and presented for the City Council’s consideration this evening. DISCUSSION: Existing Roadway Conditions Roadway Geometry and Development Patterns The study area, shown in Figure 1 on the next page, includes the segment of Miraleste Drive from the eastern City limits to Palos Verdes Drive East, and the segment of Palos Verdes Drive East from Via Subida to Marion Drive. The study area encompasses the presumed Western Avenue bypass route between San Pedro and areas to the north. The land uses adjacent to Miraleste Drive are single-family residential, except for a small commercial area (Miraleste Plaza) at the intersection with Palos Verdes Drive East. Near Via Colinita, Miraleste Drive also abuts a portion of land that is categorized as “Recreational Passive” in the General Plan, with nearby access to the Colinita Trail and other trails. The land use alongside Palos Verdes Drive East within the study area is primarily single- family residential and institutional, with approximately 2,000 feet of road frontage abutting the campus of Miraleste Intermediate School. Some portions of the road are adjacent to land categorized as “Open Space Hillside” and “Recreational Passive,” with access to hiking trails. Figure 1- Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East Traffic Study Area 3 Rolling Hlfls Legend Presumed Cut-t hroug h Route Study Area D Rancho Palos Verdes City Boundary ] J,~ Los Angeles 0.25 0.5 0.75 lmi Miraleste Drive is the main connector between Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive East. As such, it provides an important link between the San Pedro area and various neighborhoods on the east side of Rancho Palos Verdes. Miraleste Drive is also a direct continuation of West 9th Street, which leads through central San Pedro. Palos Verdes Drive East is the main north -south arterial on the east side of the City, connecting coastal areas to the south with inland areas to the north. Both Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East also provide direct connectivity to many smaller neighborhoods and individual residential streets. Lane configurations, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities vary by segment and are detailed in the GTS Traffic Study (Attachment A). Traffic Volumes 24-hour traffic volumes were collected in September 2019 as part of the City’s Engineering and Traffic Survey. The resulting vehicles per day are summarized below: • Miraleste Drive from City limits to Via Colinita = 10,572 vehicles per day • Miraleste Drive north/westbound from Via Colinita to Palos Verdes Drive East = 6,747 vehicles per day • Miraleste Drive south/eastbound from Palos Verdes Drive East to Via Colinita = 6,479 vehicles per day • Palos Verdes Drive East south of Miraleste Drive = 6,952 vehicles per day • Palos Verdes Drive East north of Miraleste Drive = 10,674 vehicles per day Prevailing Speeds The existing speed limit on Miraleste Drive is 35 miles per hour. On Palos Verdes Drive East, within the study area, the speed limit is 35 mph south of Miraleste Drive and 30 mph north of Miraleste Drive. The prevailing speed, or speed at which 85% of drivers travel, was measured in March 2021. The prevailing speed varies by segment and is summarized below: • Miraleste Drive from City limits to Via Colinita = 40 mph • Miraleste Drive north/westbound from Via Colinita to Palos Verdes Drive East = 37 mph • Miraleste Drive south/eastbound from Palos Verdes Drive East to Via Colinita = 39 mph • Palos Verdes Drive East south of Miraleste Drive = 35 mph • Palos Verdes Drive East north of Miraleste Drive = 30 mph Traffic Collision History The traffic study included an analysis of all collisions reported in the study area during a three-year period (January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021), which was the most recently available data at the time the traffic study was prepared. Since the time the traffic study was prepared, presented to the TSC, and recommendations were developed for City 4 Council approval, additional data became available. The collision analysis was updated to capture a more recent three-year period (July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2023, Attachment B). Tables 1 and 2 show the more recent three-year intersection and roadway segment collision rates in the study area. The patterns for the earlier data and more recent data were consistent. The overall collision rates in the study area are higher than the statewide rates for similar roadways. Table 1. Collision Rates for Intersections in Miraleste Traffic Study Area Intersection Estimated Daily Entering Vehicles Collisions (7/1/2020 to 6/30/2023) Injury Collisions (7/1/2020 to 6/30/2023) Collision Rate Per Million Entering Vehicles Injury Collision Rate Per Million Entering Vehicles Statewide Collision Rate for Similar Intersections Statewide Injury Collision Rate for Similar Intersections Miraleste Dr @ Palos Verdes Dr E 15,292 3 1 0.18 0.06 0.14 0.06 Miraleste Dr @ Via Colinita 12,033 6 2 0.46 0.15 0.14 0.06 Miraleste Dr @ W 1st St 10,572 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.06 Palos Verdes Dr E @ Colt Rd 10,674 3 2 0.26 0.17 0.14 0.06 Table 2. Collision rates for road segments in the study area Road Segment Average Daily Traffic (2019) Length (Miles) Collisions (7/1/2020 to 6/30/2023) Injury Collisions (7/1/2020 to 6/30/2023) Collision rate per million vehicle miles traveled Injury Collision rate per million vehicle miles traveled Collision rate for similar roads in Caltrans District 7 Injury + Fatality rate for similar roads in Caltrans District 7 Miraleste Dr from Palos Verdes Drive E to Via Colinita 13,226 0.62 16 5 1.78 0.56 0.98 0.44 Miraleste Dr from Via Colinita to City limits 10,572 0.22 6 2 2.36 0.79 0.98 0.44 Palos Verdes Drive E from Via Subida to Miraleste Dr 6,952 0.74 6 3 1.07 0.53 0.98 0.44 Palos Verdes Drive E from Miraleste Dr to Marion Dr 10,674 0.57 10 4 1.50 0.60 0.98 0.44 5 Proposed Traffic Calming Measures Considered The GTS traffic study recommended implementing the following short-term and long- term traffic calming measures: Redesigned Street Cross-Sections with Narrower Lanes (Short-Term) Narrower traffic lanes have been shown to reduce speeds and collision rates in many scenarios. The existing traffic lanes are mostly 12 feet in width, but vary from 11 feet to 14 feet, depending on the segment. The existing lane widths are detailed in pages 76 to 87 of the GTS traffic study (Attachment A). The GTS study proposes narrowing the traffic lanes to 10 feet in width for the study area. Narrowing the traffic lanes will result in pavement available for other uses. This surplus pavement is proposed to be used to create bicycle lanes on Miraleste Drive and on Palos Verdes Drive East from Miraleste Drive north to Marion Drive. This would allow for separating bicyclists from vehicles, which would be in addition to the traffic calming effect of narrower traffic lanes. Additionally, existing surplus roadway width is proposed for buffer areas, wider parking lanes, and/or wider shoulders. The specific proposed cross- section depends on the existing conditions of the segment and is detailed in pages 76 to 87 of the GTS traffic study. Curb Extensions (Long-Term) Curb extensions, also known as “bulb-outs,” have been shown to result in lower vehicle speeds and improvements to pedestrian safety. Curb extensions are proposed at certain intersections on Miraleste Drive. Reduced Curb Radii (Long-Term) Studies show that larger turning radii at intersections are associated with higher vehicular speeds. Re-designed intersections with lower turning radii are proposed at the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East, as well as Miraleste Drive at Via Colinita. Consolidated Intersection (Long-Term) The GTS study proposes a complete re-design of the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Via Colinita by combining the two separate intersections 100 feet from each other into one intersection. This would reduce the total number of stop signs and avoid the need for vehicles to occupy space within the median area. High-visibility crosswalks (Short-Term) The GTS study proposes high visibility crosswalks at six locations in the study area as follows: • Miraleste Drive at Via Vico • Miraleste Drive at Nancy Road • Miraleste Drive at Lorraine Road • Miraleste Drive at Via Siena • Miraleste Drive at Via Colinita 6 • Miraleste Drive at West 1st Street Rapid Flashing Beacons (Short-Term) A rapid flashing beacon is recommended at the crosswalk on Palos Verdes Drive East directly south of Marion Drive to increase the visibility of this crosswalk and improve driver yielding behavior. Additionally, the City of Los Angeles had earlier reached out to the City regarding a proposal to potentially install a new rapid flashing beacon at the shared intersection of Miraleste Drive and Chandeleur Drive. Staff will continue to work with the City of Los Angeles regarding this proposal. Traffic Signals (Short-Term) Traffic signals can be a valuable device for controlling vehicular and pedestrian traffic. They can provide for the orderly movement of traffic, increase capacity, reduce the frequency and severity of certain types of crashes, and provide minor -street traffic with breaks in major-street traffic. However, traffic signals at locations where they are not justified can lead to excessive delay, disobedience of signal indications, increased cut - through traffic, and increased collisions of certain types (especially rear-end). The traffic signal analysis was conducted based on California traffic engineering standards, which include minimum conditions, or warrants, under which installing traffic control signals might be justified. A traffic signal analysis was conducted at the following intersections: • Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East • Miraleste Drive at Via Colinita • Palos Verdes Drive at Via Canada The analysis found that a traffic signal is warranted at each of the intersections analyzed. Roundabouts (Long-Term) The possibility of converting the intersection s of Miraleste Drive and Via Colinita as well as Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East to roundabout s was investigated. There appears to be sufficient space for a single-lane roundabout and the traffic volumes appear to be within the capacity limits of a single-lane roundabout at both of these intersections. However, a complete feasibility study would be needed to determine the viability of roundabouts at either of these intersections. Advisory Signs (Short-Term) The GTS study recommends installing additional “Winding Road” signs at specific locations. 7 Enforcement (Short-Term and Long-Term) The GTS study recommends Staff continue working with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department on continued enforcement of traffic laws in the area. Other Measures Other measures such as reclassification of the roadways, installation of stop signs, speed humps, and the restriction of through traffic were considered but not recommended because they were not viable for the roadway conditions or unlikely to achieve a meaningful benefit. Traffic Safety Committee On May 22, 2023, Staff presented the GTS traffic study recommendations to TSC at a public meeting. After considering the information presented that evening, along with public testimony, the TSC moved, on a unanimous vote of four in favor (Member David Tomblin was absent), to recommend the City Council move forward with the following traffic calming measures along with investigating the implementations of Botts’ Dots and speed strips: 1. Redesigned street cross-sections with narrower lanes (short-term) 2. Curb extensions (long-term) 3. Reduced curb radii (long-term) 4. High-visibility crosswalks (short-term) 5. Rapid flashing beacon (short-term) 6. Advisory signs (short-term) 7. Enforcement (short-term and long-term) Staff Recommendation Based on specific community context, input from the public, and the TSC recommendations, Staff recommends a subset of the proposed traffic calming measures from the GTS traffic study be considered by the City Council for implementation: 1. Redesigned street cross-sections with narrower lanes 2. High-visibility crosswalks 3. Rapid flashing beacon 4. Advisory signs 5. Continued enforcement Staff also recommends the City Council direct Staff to return to seek approval for the following additional long-term traffic calming measures, should they be needed in addition to the short-term traffic calming measures: 1. Curb extensions 2. Reduced curb radii Staff does not recommend installation of the traffic signals, roundabouts, or a consolidated intersection on the basis that an incremental approach should be applied whereby the short-term measures and selected long-term measures are first installed to 8 determine if they sufficiently mitigate the traffic concerns before traffic signals, a roundabout, or a consolidated intersection are to be considered. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Next Steps Staff recommends proceeding with the recommended traffic calming measures using funds from the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Cost estimates are in the process of being developed for this work, and should additional funding be needed, Staff will return to the City Council to request an additional appropriation. Public Notification To assure residents are aware of the City Council’s discussion on traffic calming measures for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East, Staff sent a letter (Attachment C) notifying all residents within 500 feet of the subject roadways that this item will be discussed at tonight’s meeting. Public Comments Staff has not yet received any public comments following distribution of the public notification. However, all future comments received will be provided as late correspondence. CONCLUSION: Based on the GTS traffic study, community input, and TSC recommendations, Staff recommends the City Council approve the following short-term traffic calming measures: 1. Redesigned street cross-sections with narrower lanes 2. High-visibility crosswalks 3. Rapid flashing beacon 4. Advisory signs 5. Continued enforcement Staff also recommends the City Council direct Staff to return to seek approval for the following additional long-term traffic calming measures, should they be warranted in addition to the short-term traffic calming measures. 1. Curb extensions 2. Reduced curb radii ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council’s consideration: 9 1. Direct Staff not to implement any traffic calming measures on Miraleste Drive or Palos Verdes Drive East and continue studying the location. 2. Direct Staff to implement only certain traffic calming measures on Miraleste Drive or Palos Verdes Drive East. 3. Direct Staff to create a separate project to implement one or more traffic calming measures without consideration for pavement maintenance project. 4. Take other action, as deemed appropriate. 10 TRAFFIC STUDY FOR MIRALESTE DRIVE AND PALOS VERDES DRIVE EAST IN RANCHO PALOS VERDES Final Report January 11, 2023 GTS 210601.24 A-1 1.Background & Introduction ...............................................................................................................4 1.1.Study Area ..............................................................................................................................4 1.2.Study Process ........................................................................................................................4 2.Existing Conditions and Context.......................................................................................................6 2.1.Road Classification .................................................................................................................6 2.2.Context Within Regional Road Network .................................................................................9 2.3.Existing Road Design ............................................................................................................11 2.4.Parking ..................................................................................................................................29 2.5.Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ...........................................................................................29 2.6.Transit Facilities.....................................................................................................................32 2.7.Existing Speed Limits ............................................................................................................34 2.8.Existing Traffic Calming Guidelines .......................................................................................34 2.9.Surrounding Land Uses .........................................................................................................35 2.10.Future Development ............................................................................................................37 3.Traffic Issues ...................................................................................................................................38 3.1.Speeding ...............................................................................................................................38 3.2.Tailgating ...............................................................................................................................38 3.3.Increased Collisions ..............................................................................................................38 3.4.Increased Traffic Volumes .....................................................................................................38 3.5.Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety ...............................................................................................41 3.6.Traffic Issues Related to Miraleste Intermediate School .......................................................42 3.7.Initial Interventions.................................................................................................................48 4.Traffic Analysis ................................................................................................................................50 4.1.Warrant Analysis ...................................................................................................................50 4.2.Traffic Volumes and Turning Movements ..............................................................................50 5.Collision Analysis.............................................................................................................................55 5.1.Overview................................................................................................................................55 5.2.Collision rates ........................................................................................................................58 5.3.Collision Diagrams.................................................................................................................59 6.Solutions Investigated .....................................................................................................................69 6.1.Reclassification from arterial .................................................................................................69 6.2.Working with Navigation App Providers to Reduce Cut-through Traffic ................................69 6.3“NoThru Traffic” Signs ............................................................................................................69 6.4.Western Avenue Signals .......................................................................................................70 6.5.Additional Traffic Signals .......................................................................................................70 6.6.Additional STOP signs...........................................................................................................70 6.7.Roundabouts .........................................................................................................................70 CONTENTS A-2 6.8.Speed Limit Reduction ..........................................................................................................73 6.9.Speed Humps and Speed Tables..........................................................................................73 6.10.Solutions for Pedestrian and Bicycle Access ......................................................................74 6.11.Narrower Lanes ................................................................................................................... 75 6.12.Enforcement ........................................................................................................................75 7.Recommendations...........................................................................................................................75 7.1.Redesign Street Cross-sections with Narrower Lanes ..........................................................75 7.2.Curb Extensions ....................................................................................................................88 7.3.Reduced Curb Radii and Pedestrian Refuge ........................................................................88 7.4.Consolidate the Miraleste Drive/Via Colinita Intersection ......................................................90 7.5.High-visibility Crosswalks ......................................................................................................91 7.6.Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) ........................................................................91 7.7.Warranted Traffic Control Signals at Intersections ................................................................91 7.8.Further Study of Roundabouts ..............................................................................................91 7.9.Advisory Signage on Via Colinita ..........................................................................................91 7.10.Enforcement ........................................................................................................................91 References .........................................................................................................................................92 Appendix A: Warrant Analysis ............................................................................................................95 Intersection 1: Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East .........................................................99 Intersection 2: Miraleste Drive at Via Colinita .............................................................................110 Intersection 3: Palos Verdes Drive East at Via Canada .............................................................121 Appendix B: Traffic Volume Data ......................................................................................................132 A-3 4 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 1.Background & Introduction GTS was retained by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to conduct a traffic study of Miraleste Drive from the City limits to Palos Verdes Drive East, and Palos Verdes Drive East from Marion Drive to Via Subida. Residents of the study area have reported the following concerns: • Increased traffic volumes • Increased traffic noise • Increased incidents of speeding • More frequent collisions • Difficulty exiting driveways due to traffic volumes • Safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists The suspected primary cause of the above traffic issues is cut-through traffic from drivers avoiding congestion on Western Avenue. This is believed to be driven by real-time navigation apps that aim at providing the quickest route possible. The purpose of this study is to analyze traffic conditions and propose recommendations to alleviate the issues listed above. The recommendations primarily relate to engineering, with a focus on traffic calming measures. The study begins with a review of existing conditions, including the infrastructure of the study area and the broader context within the transportation system and surrounding land uses. This is followed by discussion of traffic issues and analysis of traffic volume data and collision data. Subsequently, there is a review and discussion of the possible solutions that were proposed and investigated. Finally, this study presents a set of recommendations that are expected to reduce speed, calm traffic, improve safety, and mitigate the issues that have been identified. 1.1.Study Area The residents’ concerns relate primarily to Miraleste Drive (from the City limits to Palos Verdes Drive East). However, due to the assumption that cut-through traffic is causing the issues raised, the study area is expanded beyond Miraleste Drive to also include Palos Verdes Drive East from Marion Drive to Via Subida. The purpose of the expanded study area is to gain a clearer picture of the overall traffic patterns. The study area and presumed cut-through route are shown in Figure 1. 1.2.Study Process Initially, an analysis of collisions and collision rates was performed. A stakeholder meeting was held on July 28th, 2022 and was attended by stakeholders who own property on Miraleste Drive, City public works staff, and GTS. 24-hour Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and turning movement counts for the 8 highest-volume hours of traffic were conducted in September 2022. A comprehensive analysis of traffic data and collision data was performed, helping to inform the recommendations in this study. Throughout the process, communication was maintained with stakeholders to gain a comprehensive understanding of the traffic issues in the study area and to keep informed of the latest developments. A-4GTSI 5 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 1. Map showing the study area and presumed cut-through route A-5 Rolling llills Leg ,end Presumed Cut-through Route Study Area r~·-J Ra nicho Pa ll OS Verdes Ci'ty Bo ll.md a,ry GTSI ,. ;S: I: 1- \ ] (-~ 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 mi 6 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 2.Existing Conditions and Context 2.1.Road Classification Roads are classified, based on their function, into the standard categories of Interstate, Other Freeway/ Expressway, Other Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Major Collector, Minor Collector, and Local. There are two references for the functional classification of the roads that are the subject of this study: 1. According to the current Caltrans functional classification, the study area roads are classified as Minor Arterials, except for a short section of Miraleste Drive (250 feet, from 1st Street to the City limits) that is classified as a Principal Arterial. Caltrans uses the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) definition for the functional classifications of roadways. The functional classifications in the study area are defined as follows: “Minor Arterials provide service for trips of moderate length, serve geographic areas that are smaller than their higher Arterial counterparts and offer connectivity to the higher Arterial system. In an urban context, they interconnect and augment the higher Arterial system, provide intra-community continuity and may carry local bus routes.” The following are the characteristics of urban minor arterials, according to the FHWA: • Interconnect and augment the higher-level Arterials • Serve trips of moderate length at a somewhat lower level of travel mobility than Principal Arterials • Distribute traffic to smaller geographic areas than those served by higher-level Arterials • Provide more land access than Principal Arterials without penetrating identifiable neighborhoods • Provide urban connections for Rural Collectors 2. The Circulation Element of the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (updated 2018) establishes the character of the existing street system based on the function and connectivity of the roads. In this Circulation Element, Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East are both listed as arterials. They are also marked as “Major Roads” in the Street System map. Arterials are defined as follows: “The arterial street is the major street within the Peninsula hierarchy. It is the main channel for the movement of vehicles and is not intended to be a residential street; however, some older arterials do provide direct access to residential units. … An arterial carries traffic through the community and collects traffic from collector roads, provides connections with other arterials, and may eventually link up with major highways.” The General Plan classification is shown in Figure 2. The Caltrans functional classification is shown in Figure 3. A-6GTSI 7 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 2. Rancho Palos Verdes street system, according to the City’s General Plan A-7 ~ ;::i I""! { .._._ "'\ .... f'li l .... \ 0 I <" "-\_ ... -::,. -Vl<;fnbl GTSI Co,11...:lo r Road ~ IM,aJo r ilDO d $ a !!lo:-.r-131' .. 5 CllyOIIR-l'llo'I- 8 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 3. Functional classification of Miraleste Drive and surrounding roads, according to Caltrans A-8 Legend . ·t B-ou idary r···] RIPV Cl Y ,_ . -. c1ass1f11caton iu n ction alll . .· II Arter a I Othe Prl 1111c pa • I Minor Art.ena Major Goll ,ector Local GTSI ·- r--,,.,..,,,MG;J~·~ ~~~=:::;~~ 9 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 2.2.Context Within Regional Road Network Miraleste Drive is the main connector between Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive East. As such, it provides an important link between the San Pedro area and various neighborhoods on the east side of Rancho Palos Verdes. In particular, Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East provide an alternative to Western Avenue for people traveling between points to the south (for example, San Pedro and coastal areas of Rancho Palos Verdes) and points further north (Lomita and beyond). Miraleste Drive is also a direct continuation of West 9th Street, which leads through central San Pedro. Palos Verdes Drive East is the main north-south arterial on the east side of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, connecting coastal areas to the south with inland areas to the north. Both Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East also provide direct connectivity to many smaller neighborhoods and individual residential streets. From Western Avenue, between Palos Verdes Drive North and West 25th Street (a 4.3-mile road segment), Miraleste Drive is the only road connecting to Palos Verdes Drive East and the adjacent neighborhoods. The lack of connectivity is caused partly by the design of the existing road network and partly by natural barriers such as canyons. This connectivity gap is illustrated in Figure 4, where the brown line represents a gap with no public crossings available to vehicular traffic. Due to this gap, Miraleste Drive serves as one of relatively few principal connectors between the east side of Rancho Palos Verdes and the other areas of the City, as well as other nearby communities. A-9clPGTSI 10 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 4. Connectivity gaps A-10 Rolling Hills Esta,tes Rolli ng Hills ,Rancho P,alos Verdes ,(\ ~ \ :;--q t I GTSI W 1st SI 0.25 j ,eg,en ~--- Study Area w -Conneotivlity Gaps (no pub'lic '' <61;, s vehicular rout-es available to cross these Iii nes) 0.5 mi : ...... ) Rancho Palos 'Verdes Qty Bo1..1nda1iy 11 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 2.3.Existing Road Design The following figures show typical existing cross-sections of the roads in the study area. The locations of the cross-sections are shown in Figure 5. The cross-sections themselves, with accompanying photographs, are shown in figures 6 through 39. A-11clPGTSI 12 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 5. Road segments for which typical cross-sections are shown A-12 A ~I 15 14 RPV City Boundary Cross sections 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 '9 10 -11 12 13 '14 15 GTSI Rancho Palos Verdes tl2 <;( I}; 2 i;; w z V; J,.. _/Alie ~ z Trudie Dt W Mac rthur St W Summcrland St Los Angeles W ,,1,,S\ 13 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 1. Miraleste Drive from City Limits to West 1st Street Miraleste Drive from the City limits to West 1st Street has 13-foot through lanes in each direction. The center turn lane is 12 feet wide at the south end of this section (at the City limits), then increases to 22 feet wide at the north end of this section (near West 1st Street). There is an 8-foot shoulder and a 5-foot sidewalk on the southbound (west) side, and a 12-foot parking lane on the northbound (east) side. The curb-to-curb width ranges from 58 feet to 68 feet as the center turn lane width increases. The cross- section below shows the center lane’s narrowest point (at the City limits). Figure 6. Section 1, looking north Figure 7. Section 1, looking north Center turn lane width varies from 12 to 22 feet A-13GTSI 14 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 2. Miraleste Drive from West 1st Street to Kingsridge Drive Miraleste Drive from West 1st Street to Kingsridge Drive is a divided road segment with a 14-foot southbound through lane, a 12-foot northbound through lane, and 10-foot left turn lanes on each side of a 5-foot raised concrete median. There is an 11-foot parking lane on the southbound (west) side, and a shoulder of variable width (between 8 and 13 feet) on the northbound (east) side. The width from side to side is variable due to the varying width of the shoulder on the west side of the road; the average width is about 73 feet. Figure 8. Section 2, looking north Figure 9. Section 2, looking north A-14GTSI 15 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 3. Miraleste Drive from Kingsridge Drive to 250’ south of Via Colinita Miraleste Drive from Kingsridge Drive to 250 feet south of Via Colinita has 12-foot through lanes in each direction. The two-way left turn lane is 24 feet wide near the south end of the segment and narrows to 11 feet at the north end of the segment. The shoulder on the east side is approximately 8 feet wide. The width of the shoulder on the west side is variable, ranging from 7 to 14 feet. On-street parking is allowed on the shoulders on both sides. The minimum curb-to-curb width is 50 feet. Figure 10. Section 3, looking north Figure 11. Section 3, looking north Parking lane width varies from 7 to 14 feet Center turn lane width varies from 11 to 24 feet A-15GTSI 16 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 4. Miraleste Drive south of Via Colinita (at intersection) Directly south of the intersection with Via Colinita, Miraleste Drive has a triangular landscaped median that widens from zero to 50 feet as one approaches the intersection. The through lanes are 12 feet wide. On the southbound (west) side, there is a 12-foot shoulder adjacent to the median, and an 8-foot shoulder on the other side, adjacent to a section of Harter Park. On the northbound (east) side, there is a 14-foot right turn lane for vehicles turning onto Via Colinita, and a shoulder varying in width between 2 and 16 feet. Parking on the shoulders is prohibited on both sides. Figure 12. Section 4, looking north Figure 13. Section 4, looking north Median width varies from 0 to 50 feet Shoulder width varies from 2 to 16 feet A-16GTSI 17 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 5. Miraleste Drive north of Via Colinita (at intersection) Directly north of the intersection with Via Colinita, Miraleste Drive is a divided boulevard with a landscaped median approximately 70 feet wide. On the northbound (east) side, there is a 14-foot through lane and a 12-foot “slip lane” for vehicles turning right onto Miraleste Drive from Via Colinita. There is a sidewalk on this side of the intersection that varies between 4 and 8 feet wide, but the sidewalk only extends along the frontage of Miraleste Park and does not continue north of there. On the southbound (west) side, there is a 13-foot through lane, a 10-foot left turn lane, and a 5-foot shoulder. There are also narrow striped shoulders adjacent to the median (3 feet on the southbound side and 5 feet on the northbound side). The width from curb to curb is approximately 132 feet. Figure 14. Section 5, looking north Figure 15. Section 5, looking north A-17GTSI 18 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 6. Miraleste Drive from 200’ north of Via Colinita to Via Bramante Between Via Colinita and Via Bramante, Miraleste Drive is a divided boulevard with a forested median approximately 70 feet wide. On the south/eastbound side of the road, there is a 13-foot through lane, an 11-foot parking lane, and a shoulder adjacent to the median varying in width from 3 to 6 feet. As one approaches Via Colinita, the parking lane narrows and the shoulder widens to accommodate the left turn lane at the intersection. On the north/westbound side of the road, there is an 11-foot through lane, a parking lane that varies between 10 and 12 feet, and a shoulder adjacent to the median varying from 2 to 5 feet. Figure 16. Section 6, looking west (shows the minimum width of each component) Figure 17. Section 6, south/eastbound side, looking east Figure 18. Section 6, north/westbound side, looking west A-18GTSI 19 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 7. Miraleste Drive from Via Bramante to 100’ east of Palos Verdes Drive East From Via Bramante to approximately 100 feet east of Palos Verdes Drive East, the forested median is approximately 65 feet wide. The median gets narrower approaching the Palos Verdes Drive East intersection. The north (westbound) side of Miraleste Drive has an 11-foot through lane, a 10-foot parking lane, and a shoulder adjacent to the median between 2 and 4 feet wide. On the south (eastbound) side of this segment, there is a 14-foot through lane and a 24-foot merging lane that narrows as one travels east. There is also a sidewalk of variable width alongside the businesses of Miraleste Plaza. Figure 19. Section 7, looking west Figure 20. Section 7, eastbound side, looking east Figure 21. Section 7, westbound side, looking west A-19GTSI 20 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 8. Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East At the intersection with Palos Verdes Drive East, Miraleste Drive has two lanes on each side of the median. The median narrows from 65 feet to approximately 8 feet at the crosswalk. On the north (westbound) side, there is a 14-foot right turn lane and a 12-foot left turn lane, separated from each other by a triangular buffer zone that widens to 35 feet at the crosswalk. On the south (eastbound) side, the through lane for vehicles turning left off Palos Verdes Drive East is 14 feet wide at a minimum, and the merging lane (for vehicles turning right off Palos Verdes Drive East) is between 20 and 26 feet wide. The two lanes are separated by a triangular buffer that is 20 feet wide at the crosswalk. The curb radii are wide (between 50 and 100 feet) except for the right turn from Palos Verdes Drive East onto Miraleste Drive, where the curb radius is approximately 25 feet. The cross-section shows the measurements roughly 100 feet east of the crosswalk. Figure 22. Section 8, looking west, 100 feet east of Palos Verdes Drive East Figure 23. Section 8, north side of intersection, looking west A-20GTSI 21 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 24. Section 8, south side of intersection, looking east Figure 25. Aerial view of the intersection A-21GTSI 22 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 9. Palos Verdes Drive East from Via Subida to Miraleste Plaza (rear entrance) From Via Subida to the rear entrance to Miraleste Plaza, Palos Verdes Drive East has 11-foot through lanes and a 5-foot sidewalk on the east side of the road, separated by a 2-foot buffer. There is a shoulder on the west side of the road of varying width, up to 5 feet. Figure 26. Section 9, looking north Figure 27. Section 9, looking north Shoulder width varies from 0 to 5 feet A-22GTSI 23 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 10. Palos Verdes Drive East from Miraleste Plaza rear entrance to main entrance On this section of Palos Verdes Drive East, there are 12-foot through lanes, a striped 5-foot median, a 5-foot shoulder on the southbound (west) side, a 12-foot right turn lane on the northbound (east) side, and a sidewalk 8 feet wide on the northbound (east) side. Figure 28. Section 10, looking north Figure 29. Section 10, looking north A-23GTSI 24 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 11. Palos Verdes Drive East at Miraleste Drive (at intersection) In the immediate vicinity of the intersection with Miraleste Drive, Palos Verdes Drive East has 12-foot through lanes and a 10-foot left turn lane for southbound traffic turning onto Miraleste Drive. Directly south of the intersection, the left turn lane is replaced by a striped median. The shoulder on the west side of the road is 5 feet wide. There is a yellow ladder crosswalk crossing Miraleste Drive at the intersection. Figure 30. Section 11, looking north Figure 31. Section 11, looking south A-24GTSI 25 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 12. Palos Verdes Drive East from Miraleste Drive to Crownview Drive This section of Palos Verdes Drive East has 12-foot through lanes, 5-foot shoulders, and a 5-foot sidewalk on the northbound (east) side of the roadway. Figure 32. Section 12, looking north Figure 33. Section 12, looking south A-25GTSI 26 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 13. Palos Verdes Drive East from Crownview Drive to Via Canada This section of Palos Verdes Drive East has 12-foot through lanes, a 13-foot right turn lane in the southbound direction for vehicles turning onto Crownview Drive, and a 10-foot left turn lane in the northbound direction for vehicles entering Miraleste Intermediate School. On the northbound (east) side, there is a 4-foot shoulder and a 5-foot sidewalk. On the southbound (west) side, there is a 6-foot sidewalk. Figure 34. Section 13, looking north Figure 35. Section 13, looking south A-26GTSI 27 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 14. Palos Verdes Drive East from Via Canada to Colt Road On this section of Palos Verdes Drive East, there are 12-foot through lanes, an 11-foot striped median that occasionally becomes a left turn lane, 4.5-foot shoulders, and a 5-foot sidewalk on the east side. The sidewalk on the west side is between 5 and 8 feet wide. Directly north of Via Canada, there is a combined right turn lane and bus pullout on the southbound (west) side. Figure 36. Section 14, looking north Figure 37. Section 14, looking south A-27GTSI 28 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 15. Palos Verdes Drive East from Colt Road to Marion Drive This section of Palos Verdes Drive East has 12-foot through lanes and an 11-foot striped median. On the northbound (east) side, there is a 4-foot shoulder and a 4-foot sidewalk behind a guardrail. On the southbound (west) side, there is a shoulder of varying width, widening from zero to 14 feet to provide a bus pullout, and a 12-foot sidewalk. Figure 38. Section 15, looking north Figure 39. Section 15, looking south Shoulder width varies from 0 to 14 feet A-28GTSI 29 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 2.4.Parking The residences throughout the study area have driveways and garages for off-street parking, and the non-residential land uses also have off-street parking. During site visits, it was observed that the shoulder on Miraleste Drive is used for on-street parking, deliveries, maintenance, and garbage collection. Palos Verdes Drive East has no formal on-street parking. However, during site visits vehicles were observed parked in a few spaces by the side of the road where the shoulder is slightly wider. On Via Colinita, west of Miraleste Drive, vehicles were also observed parked on the street. Due to the street width (one 12-foot lane for each direction of traffic) and curves in the road, there is generally not room for two-way traffic to pass when vehicles are parked on the street. East of Miraleste Drive, Via Colinita has sufficient space for on-street parking on both sides. 2.5.Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Miraleste Drive has no sidewalk on the east/southbound side, except for short portions at each end (around the intersection with Palos Verdes Drive East and near the City limits). A narrow intermittent sidewalk is present along the north/westbound side. A hiking path goes along the median, and hikers can connect from there to other trails in nearby Canada Park, Harter Park, and Frascati Canyon Park. Pedestrians must cross the travel lanes of Miraleste Drive to access this trail. Miraleste Drive has no bicycle lanes, although the shoulder provides a wide space for cycling in places where there are no parked or stopped vehicles. South of the City limits, there are bicycle lanes on the portion of Miraleste Drive that is within the City of Los Angeles. These lanes connect to the bicycle network of the San Pedro area. Palos Verdes Drive East has a narrow sidewalk on the east side, which is continuous throughout the study area except for a gap in the vicinity of Via Frascati. Signs force the sidewalk to meander at some points (see Figure 41). From Crownview Drive to Marion Drive, there is a wider sidewalk on the west side of the street. Palos Verdes Drive East also has narrow striped shoulders on both sides, with some interruptions. The width varies between zero and five feet. The shoulders are not sufficient to provide space for bicyclists. The Los Angeles County Bicycle Plan does not propose any new bicycle facilities for the study area. The Rancho Palos Verdes Conceptual Bikeways Plan (1996) proposed a bikeway on Miraleste Drive from West 1st Street to Palos Verdes Drive East. As of 2022, the City’s consolidated Trails Network Plan is in the process of being updated. As shown in Figure 40, there are existing bicycle lanes on Palos Verdes Drive East, connecting from the northern city limits of Rancho Palos Verdes to Palos Verdes Drive North (which also has bicycle lanes). South of the Rancho Palos Verdes city limits, Miraleste Drive has bicycle lanes continuing onto 9th Street in San Pedro. Therefore, bicycle lanes through the area highlighted on the map would close an existing bicycle network gap. A-29clPGTSI 30 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 40. Excerpt from the Los Angeles County Bicycle Master Plan, showing the existing connectivity gap through the study area A-30 ROLLING tllLLS / B1icycle Network -■aa■ C ss II -B 91 P h C Ill • • , lane C Ill-Bi Rou ... Bkyd Bou · ard Bi ewa · PIQPO$-E!d by Other Junschctioos • Im S:alioo Molrol.ink Station ■ un ·noorixiratoo Coomy P . . I Ide lificalioo in~e3-33 GTSI ROLLING HILLS F.!IIATF!t L A CHO P.UOS FRnFS ~. ~ ~ 'ii • • • • 9 • • ■ lAHAMBlA • • • .. • • • ■ • 31 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 41. Sidewalk on the east side of Palos Verdes Drive East, north of Miraleste Drive A-31GTSI 32 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 2.6.Transit Facilities The study area is served by five fixed-route bus lines provided by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (PVPTA), operating on weekdays only. All the bus lines provide service during the morning and afternoon school arrival and departure periods; three lines also provide some service extending into the evening commute period, until roughly 6:00 PM. The bus lines (shown on the map in Figure 42) are as follows: • The Green Route runs approximately every hour, mornings and afternoons. • The Green Eastview Route runs in a loop beginning and ending at Miraleste Intermediate School, 3 times during the morning commuting period and 3 times the afternoon after school. • Route 225 provides service throughout the workday, approximately every hour. • The Gold Route runs twice in the morning and 3 times in the afternoon, with the north end of the line terminating at Miraleste Intermediate School. • The Orange Route runs twice in the morning and 3 times in the afternoon, with the route including Miraleste Drive. There are marked bus stops at the following locations: • Miraleste Drive at West 1st Avenue • Miraleste Drive at Via Colinita • Miraleste Plaza • Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East (with a bus shelter on the north side of the road) • Palos Verdes Drive East at Via Canada (with a bus shelter on the east side of the road) • Miraleste Intermediate School (on campus, at the school’s front entrance) • Palos Verdes Drive East at Marion Drive / Miraleste Library (with a bus shelter on the east side of the road) A-32clPGTSI 33 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 42 . Transit routes in and near the study area (source: PVPTA) A-33 PVI Sch P'I/Mlg Sc GTSI acificOcean ig s om g H"lls Tonahce un lolpal Airport mounl -BlooROl!w GJclRou -G f:b_Jlj), -=-: Gr Eash,""" -5avw:Flc,J; 1 99 1--, ndah p A mn.,I ~ Par 34 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 2.7. Existing Speed Limits The existing speed limit on Miraleste Drive is 35 miles per hour. On Palos Verdes Drive East, within the study area, the speed limit is 35 mph south of Miraleste Drive and 30 mph north of Miraleste Drive. The Engineering and Traffic Survey completed in March 2021 did not recommend changing these speed limits. This topic is discussed further in Section 6.8. 2.8.Existing Traffic Calming Guidelines The City’s traffic calming guidelines have not been updated recently. The City intends to update the manual in the near future. At the time of writing, the current guidelines are in the document “Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program: A community leadership guide” (2008). Per these guidelines, traffic calming measures are divided into the following categories: • Preliminary (can be implemented without a petition process) »Traffic Education Package »Lawn Signs »Targeted Sheriff Enforcement »Radar Trailer Placement • Level 1 (may be implemented after an engineering study) »Truck Restrictions »Speed Limit Signs »Speed Limit Pavement Markings »No Outlet Signs • Level 2 (requires a petition signed by 60% of property owners) »Entrance Treatments »Curb Extensions/Chokers »Bulb-Outs »Medians/Center Islands »Traffic Circles »Radar Feedback Signs »Visual Roadway Narrowing »Speed Humps/Tables A-34clPGTSI 35 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 2.9. Surrounding Land Uses The land uses adjacent to Miraleste Drive are single-family residential, except for a small commercial area (Miraleste Plaza) at the intersection with Palos Verdes Drive East. Near Via Colinita, Miraleste Drive also abuts a portion of land that is categorized as “Recreational Passive” in the General Plan, with nearby access to the Colinita Trail and other trails leading through Harter Park and Frascati Canyon Park. The land uses alongside Palos Verdes Drive East, within the study area, are primarily single-family residential and institutional, with approximately 2,000 feet of road frontage abutting the campus of Miraleste Intermediate School. Some portions of the road are adjacent to land categorized as “Open Space Hillside” and “Recreational Passive,” with access to hiking trails in Canada Park, Harter Park, and Frascati Canyon Park. These hiking trails form a connected system throughout the study area. Frog Pond Park, a small neighborhood park, is near the intersection with Via Colinita. There is also an area of utility infrastructure directly south of Miraleste Intermediate School, with water tanks and an electrical substation. A portion of the study area alongside Palos Verdes Drive East is within the Equestrian Overlay district. This district allows for the keeping of horses and other large domestic animals. Beyond the Rancho Palos Verdes city limits, the presumed cut-through route along Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East forms part of a network that connects to major commercial areas in communities including San Pedro to the south and Lomita and Torrance to the north. The land uses on the east side of Rancho Palos Verdes, including the study area, per the City’s General Plan, are shown in Figure 43. A-35clPGTSI 36 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 43. Land use in eastern Rancho Palos Verdes, per the City’s General Plan A-36GTSI ,~I~ Ql,J Tn lANI OVERLAY 0\/,ERI.AY OISTlllCil"S· :,:::.fi ATUMLD:ESIGt-l , OC-1 L_-_!$0C10 Ci,J LTIJRA!., OC.:2 };~;; IPI BAN 0 -SIGN, OC-3 , , , , ATURAI.& URBAN D:ESIG , OC-1 ,• •• ·&OC--3 D I\LJ OMOTII • OC..t i::.'.: M.IM Vl{\TA . 1'.>l>S LAN O USE -OP,l:H SP:l!.Gl: Pm:SE:RV1m,'.)N -OP~ $f-'A H I i.$1(JE -OP SP.A iAZAAO ll:2J RIES IOEN-TI AL 1-2/ OPEN SiPACE L7 RES IO'ENITU1L '-"1 OLIJS M;RE R'll:$10 NTIA ""' 1 i'lUIACR $10cNTIA 1,2 OU/ACRE -RIES lo:EN"rlAI. :2 -4 OU /ACRiE -Rl:SIDl:NrrlAL 4-G OUJACRl: -RES IOENTI AL 6-U 0WACRE -R'll:S IO NTIAL 12 -~ OUtACR -aiMETERY -GOMMl:RCIAlRfCREATt.'.l NAl -GO MM RCIAt. RE Al. -COMM RCIAl (JFF' CJ INF RASTRUCTURE FACILITY -INSilTUT IONAL EOOCATIONAL -I NSiliUl'IONAt. PUB LIC I N$TITUT l0 NA R klG IOIJ$ RECRE ATIONAi. ACTIVS -RfCRl:AT IONAL PASSIVE 37 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 2.10.Future Development Population growth for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is predicted to be modest in the next two decades. The Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (2018 update) predicts that the City’s population will reach 43,570 in 2030, an increase of 2.8% from the 2020 population (42,207). Forecasts by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) estimate that the City’s population in 2045 will be 43,000 (a 2.1% increase). However, forecasts by SCAG predict that the Los Angeles metro area’s population will grow substantially in the coming decades. The City of Los Angeles—which includes the neighboring community of San Pedro—is projected to grow in population by 21% between 2016 and 2045. Modest growth (under 5%) is expected in the nearby cities of Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates. However, the larger nearby cities of Carson and Torrance are expected to gain a combined total of over 17,000 people by 2045. This indicates that although the population of the study area will most likely remain stable, growth can be expected in surrounding areas, accompanied by increasing transportation demand. For the study area, this means that any decrease in overall travel demand is unlikely. The former Marymount California University campus, located less than 1 mile south of the study area on Palos Verdes Drive East, is expected to reopen as a UCLA branch campus beginning in 2023. This is predicted to bring approximately 1,000 students, bringing additional traffic to the area. A-37clPGTSI 38 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 3.Traffic Issues This section describes the main traffic issues that have been identified by residents, and discusses the associated data and information for each issue. 3.1.Speeding Residents of the study area have reported high-speed traffic as a concern. Per the Engineering and Traffic Survey completed in March 2021, the 85th percentile speeds in the study area are as follows: • 40 mph on the undivided portion of Miraleste Drive (from the City limits to Via Colinita); speed limit is 35 • 37 mph on the north/westbound side of the divided portion of Miraleste Drive (Via Colinita to Palos Verdes Drive East); speed limit is 35 • 39 mph on the south/eastbound side of the divided portion of Miraleste Drive (Palos Verdes Drive East to Via Colinita); speed limit is 35 • 36 mph on Palos Verdes Drive East south of Miraleste Drive; speed limit is 35 • 35 mph on Palos Verdes Drive East north of Miraleste Drive; speed limit is 30 Of the 29 collisions that occurred in the study area during the timeframe examined, “unsafe speed” was listed as the primary contributing factor for 2 collisions. 3.2.Tailgating Residents have reported vehicles following too closely as a concern. Of the 29 collisions that occurred in the study area during the timeframe examined, 6 were rear-end collisions (21%), which are often associated with following too closely. “Following too closely” was listed as the primary contributing factor for 2 collisions. 3.3.Increased Collisions Residents have reported concerns regarding a recent increase in collisions in the study area. During the 3-year period analyzed (1/1/2019 to 12/31/2021), there were 10 collisions in 2019, 11 collisions in 2020, and 8 collisions in 2021. It should be noted that overall collision rates in the study area are higher than the statewide rates for similar roadways. This is discussed in Section 5.2. 3.4.Increased Traffic Volumes Residents have reported that traffic volumes have increased. Traffic count data from 2010 and 2019 are available, in addition to the data collected for the present study in 2022. The data show, among other things, a 74% increase in traffic on Miraleste Drive south of Via Colinita from 2010 to 2019. However, the data also show an 18% decrease in traffic on Miraleste Drive east of Palos Verdes Drive East from 2010 to 2019. The ADT from the available data from 2010, 2019, and 2022 are shown in Figure 44. Some of the decrease in traffic volumes may result from the recent closure of Marymount California University’s Rancho Palos Verdes campus. A-38GTSI 39 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes In relation to any perceived or real increase in traffic volumes, it should be considered that real-time navigation apps were first launched around 2009 and their use has been widespread since the early 2010s. These apps provide users with real-time updates informed by community-driven feedback from connected devices and other users. Because Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East offer a route with no traffic lights and relatively few stop signs, it is possible that the algorithms for various apps are sending a significant number of users along the presumed cut-through route. It would be reasonable to assume an association between the perceived increased traffic in the study area and the growth in the popularity of real-time navigation apps in recent years. Stakeholders have also reported that congestion on Western Avenue (which is under Caltrans jurisdiction) has increased due to adjustments in signal timing associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The increased congestion on Western Avenue is believed to result in more drivers (and navigation apps) selecting the study area as an alternate route. In addition to the principal cut-through route, stakeholders have also reported increased traffic on Via Colinita west of Miraleste Drive, potentially also due to cut-through traffic. Figure 45 illustrates a hypothetical trip routed on Google Maps. This shows how online mapping services can suggest the study area as a route that is competitive with Western Avenue in terms of time. The departure time for the trip was set at 3:30 PM on a Monday and shows Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East as a possibly faster alternative route, using Google’s data for typical traffic. Figure 44. Average Daily Traffic on road segments in the study area, 2010 and 2019 A-39 118,0CJO 116,000 114,000 112,000 110,000 8,000 6,000 <l ,UOO 2,000 GTSI 16,088 13,226 111 ,498 12 ,004 10,S 2 10 ,464 10 ,674 ii Ii I 40 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 45. Hypothetical trip at 3:30 PM on a Monday (Google Maps) A-40 H ILLSIDE oiling HIiis B . Coun t ry Club y .- rve \'/ 25th St GTSI ~~~ H AR B OR Pl E Tr d Jo' n--Ou t \'I Summeriand I', B 'WNLst (,/) .., m 0 3 CE RAL " 'A'llhst SAN PEDRO f SA P E D O Av rill P r W 13th St ' ' SeacS ide IBIS O G o g le W 26t h SI (,/) "D CJ 0 5-i " t 41 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 3.5.Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Stakeholders have expressed concerns about safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, especially children and seniors, throughout the study area, especially along Palos Verdes Drive East in the vicinity of Miraleste Intermediate School. Safety concerns have particularly been noted at the crosswalk on Palos Verdes Drive East, directly south of Marion Drive. This crosswalk leads to an access road that provides pedestrian access to Miraleste Intermediate School and Miraleste Library. Visibility is limited at this crosswalk due to the sharp curve on Palos Verdes Drive East. In addition, there is a considerable amount of “sign clutter” in this area (see Figure 46). Speeding, illegal passing, and failure to yield to pedestrians have been reported in this area. One collision involving a bicyclist occurred on Palos Verdes Drive East in 2021. Figure 46. “Sign clutter,” potentially giving drivers too much input to process at once, on Palos Verdes Drive East near the school A-41GTSI 42 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Large numbers of students are reported to utilize Palos Verdes Drive East to walk from Miraleste Intermediate School to Miraleste Plaza on a daily basis. During site visits, bicyclists were also observed on Palos Verdes Drive East (see Figure 47). 3.6.Traffic Issues Related to Miraleste Intermediate School Miraleste Intermediate School is a public school serving grades 6 through 8 as part of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District. As of the 2020-2021 school year, the school served 786 students. The school is accessed via the main entrance/exit, at Via Canada, from Palos Verdes Drive East. An aerial view of the school and surrounding area is shown in Figure 48. There is also a rear service entrance directly south of Marion Drive, which provides vehicular and pedestrian access to the back of the school, as well as pedestrian-only access to Miraleste Library. Figure 47. Bicycle traffic on Palos Verdes Drive East A-42GTSI 43 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 48. Aerial view of Miraleste Intermediate School Miraleste Library Miraleste Intermediate School Miraleste Plaza A-43GTSI 44 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Some students use the Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit buses to get to and from school (there are safety issues at the crosswalk near the bus shelter, as described in Section 3.5). A significant number of students are dropped off or picked up some distance from the school (including on Miraleste Drive), and therefore walk along the streets in the study area. During a site visit, the crossing guard noted that a significant number of students (sometime up to over 100) walk from the school to Miraleste Plaza after school. In addition, other pedestrians use the sidewalks on Palos Verdes Drive East in this area for transportation, exercise, and leisure walking. Site visits have shown that there are higher volumes of vehicular traffic overall in the morning compared to the afternoon, and higher volumes of pedestrian traffic in the afternoons. These observations are confirmed by traffic count data. Some students are dropped off at the school as early as 7:10 AM (the school day begins at 8:15 AM). Currently there is one flagger posted at the school entrance during drop-off and pick-up times, supported by two crossing guards (see Figure 50), and another flagger at the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East, supported by one crossing guard (see Figure 51). The following traffic issues directly associated with the school were observed during the site visit: • The lights on the 25 MPH speed limit beacon signs were observed not flashing. • Tree branches cover some signs and need to be trimmed. • Some students are still being dropped off at Miraleste Library, despite the presence of signs there prohibiting student pick-up and drop-off. • Congestion has been observed associated with school pick-up and drop-off on Palos Verdes Drive East (see Figure 52) and also on Miraleste Drive (see Figure 53), with the bottleneck sometimes reaching all the way from Palos Verdes Drive East to Via Colinita. • “Sign clutter” on Palos Verdes Drive East and on the south/eastbound side of Miraleste Drive may exacerbate safety issues because drivers are confronted with too many signs to process while driving. The Palos Verdes Peninsula-wide Safe Routes to School Plan noted some of the same issues, including high vehicle speeds on Palos Verdes Drive East and traffic congestion. The Safe Routes to School plan also noted that pedestrian visibility can be impaired by existing trees and utility poles and noted similar safety concerns with the crosswalk on Palos Verdes Drive East to those that were communicated by stakeholders (see Section 3.5). Figure 49 shows typical traffic congestion on a school day at 3:00 PM, according to Google Traffic Data. A-44clPGTSI 45 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 49. Typical traffic in the study area at 3:00 PM on Tuesdays, according to data provided by Google Maps A-45 In eim Sou he Ed is( crcwn"liewQ.. GTSI r.: on Ty pical tra 1c ,., Fast ____ sJow ' ' ' ~e:~1b•ary ' , >--' ' ' S lsd {1 9 ' I f <$' # ., ' • I ' I ' I I I I I s by SKAPA I • ' I ' I L -------· , 11 ------•· ~~~~ .. I ~ r.-111a~ ~ay ~ 46 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 50. School traffic control with flagger and two crossing guards at the school entrance on Palos Verdes Drive East Figure 51. School traffic control with flagger and crossing guard at the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East; transit vehicle also visible A-46GTSI 47 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 52. School-related traffic congestion on Palos Verdes Drive East Figure 53. School-related traffic congestion on Miraleste Drive A-47GTSI 48 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 3.7.Initial Interventions In summer 2022, several initial interventions were deployed by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to improve safety on Miraleste Drive. The items implemented were the following: 1. An upgraded “Speed Limit 35 Radar Enforced” sign on the eastbound side near Miraleste Plaza 2. A 25 MPH curve advisory sign on the eastbound side at Via Vico 3. Reflectors alongside the median on the eastbound side near Via Vico 4. A mobile speed feedback sign on the eastbound side at Via Siena 5. An additional “Speed Limit 35” sign on the eastbound side at Via Siena 6. A larger “Speed Limit 35” sign on the westbound side, north of Via Colinita 7. Vegetation trimming on the westbound side, north of Via Colinita 8. A “One Way” sign and a “No Left Turn” sign (on the same signpost) on the westbound side at Lorraine Road 9. A “One Way” sign and a “No Left Turn” sign (on the same signpost) on the westbound side at Nancy Road 10.An additional “Speed Limit 35” sign on the westbound side, west of Nancy Road The locations on these interventions are shown in Figure 54. The recommendations in Section 7 of this study are intended to build upon those interventions to further improve safety in the study area. A-48clPGTSI 49 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 54. Traffic calming interventions on Miraleste Drive implemented in summer 2022 A-49 Via Canada 0 =--------8 Leg·end Traffic 1Calming !Interventions (Slll:mme r 202.2) Upg1racled l "'35 MPH ~ Radar E11foroed " sig n 25 MPH ,curve ad111isosy sign Refteotors i n the median Mobile '"35 IM PH~ speed feedl ba ck sign A.d'ditional 35 MIPIH speed lillil sign Large 35, MPHI speed limirt sign Vegetation Trimmed ~one Way"' and "N o left T'urnN signs "One Waf' and "No Lett Turn N signs 10· Ad'dilion al 3S MIPIH speed llril sign [:] RPV C ity Bou mtaiy GTSI s ~ 0 250 -9 2 3 8 4 5 500 ft 50 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 4.Traffic Analysis 4.1.Warrant Analysis A warrant analysis was performed to assess whether traffic signals are warranted at the following three intersections in the study area: 1. Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East 2. Miraleste Drive at Via Colinita 3. Palos Verdes Drive at Via Canada (Miraleste Intermediate School entrance) The analysis found that one traffic control signal warrant was met for each of the intersections analyzed (Warrant 1, Condition A, 80% for Intersection 1; Warrant 1, Condition B, 80% for Intersection 2; and Warrant 3, Part B for Intersection 3). The results of the warrant analysis are shown in Appendix A 4.2.Traffic Volumes and Turning Movements 24-hour traffic volumes and turning movement counts for the 8 hours of highest traffic volume were collected in September and October 2022 at the following three intersections: 1. Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East 2. Miraleste Drive at Via Colinita 3 Palos Verdes Drive at Via Canada Diagrams showing the turning movements for the morning and afternoon peak hours are shown in Figure 55 (vehicular), Figure 56 (pedestrian), and Figure 57 (bicycle). For each intersection, the morning and afternoon peak hours were identified: • For Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East, the morning peak hour begins at 7:45 AM and the afternoon peak hour begins at 2:45 PM. • For Miraleste Drive at Via Colinita, the morning peak hour begins at 8:00 AM and the afternoon peak hour begins at 2:45 PM. • For Palos Verdes Drive East at Via Canada, the morning peak hour begins at 7:30 AM and the afternoon peak hour begins at 3:00 PM. Analysis of turning movement volumes at intersections 1 and 2 suggests that a large proportion of traffic is following the presumed cut-through route on Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East. The analysis can be summarized by the following points: In the northbound direction: • On Miraleste Drive approaching Via Colinita from the south, 84% of morning peak hour vehicles entering the intersection are going straight through, with only 16% turning. The figure is similar (83%) for the afternoon peak hour. • In the morning peak hour, 73% of vehicles entering this intersection from Via Colinita in the westbound direction turn north, while 27% proceed straight or turn south. This suggests that a substantial number of vehicles on Via Colinita coming from the east (potentially from Western Avenue) may also be accessing the northbound cut-through route. • On Miraleste Drive approaching Palos Verdes Drive East, 84% of morning peak hour vehicles entering the intersection turn right (northbound), while only 16% turn left. In the afternoon peak hour, 76% of vehicles turn right. A-50GTSI 51 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes • In the morning peak hour, the number of vehicles departing the Miraleste/Via Colinita intersection in the northbound direction (526) is close to the number of vehicles turning right (northbound) from Miraleste onto Palos Verdes Drive East (544). These numbers suggest that much of the overall traffic flow may be passing through on the presumed cut-through route in the northbound direction. In the southbound direction: • On Palos Verdes Drive East approaching Miraleste Drive from the north, 58% of vehicles in the morning peak hour turn left onto Miraleste Drive. 70% of vehicles make this same turn during the afternoon peak hour. • On Miraleste Drive approaching Via Colinita from the north, 70% of vehicles during the morning peak hour proceed straight (towards Western Avenue). The remaining 30% turn left onto Via Colinita (towards Western Avenue). The afternoon peak hour figures are 67% and 33%, respectively. • In the morning peak hour, the number of vehicles that turn left from Palos Verdes Drive East onto Miraleste Drive (310) is close to the number of vehicles that proceed straight through the intersection of Miraleste Drive with Via Colinita southbound (331). The corresponding figures in the afternoon peak hours are also close (444 and 455 vehicles, respectively). These numbers suggest that much of the overall traffic flow may be passing through on the presumed cut-through route in the southbound direction. In addition to the presumed cut-through route illustrated in Figure 1, the relatively high volumes of traffic on Via Colinita approaching the intersection with Miraleste Drive in the westbound direction suggest that this route may also be used by cut-through traffic avoiding Western Avenue. This section of Via Colinita (east of Miraleste Drive) is primarily connected to Western Avenue by Summerland Street (shared between the jurisdictions of the Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Los Angeles) and West Santa Cruz Street (within the City of Los Angeles). A-51clPGTSI 52 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 55. Vehicular turning movement volumes Figure 55. Existing Vehicular Turning Movement Volumes Miraleste Traffic Study X Study Intersection AM Peak Hour Volume Miraleste Dr 270138 107 544 310 227 1 Palos Verdes Dr E 5 4 8 29 48 435 130 1433312 Miraleste DrVia Colinita2 Miraleste Dr 113 100 325 444188 3 8 13 5 58 468 167 2234452 Miraleste DrVia Colinita12Palos Verdes Dr E PM Peak Hour Volume 391 301202 170 225 329 24 277 7 6262118 Palos Verdes Dr EVia Canada3 71 3 65 21 301 17 1245734 3 557 359 Palos Verdes Dr EVia Canada A-52 \ !, 0 .. ~. l q, ~, 10 ·<t _¥' / \ '9- l l. ;J)Lt ;-J j l ►t @~ G'~ l \ ---◄-' ) If ' --\ '111f '1) If (), ·4,~ !,mDt ~ J D @ I ~ .. ~ ,, ,0 " 10 ' ' 4~ .. z l l. ;J)Lt ,J)L t <r.~ ~· l ('' \ .-, l 1-(JJ'"co~ ---◄- )rJ ' -► --•◄1 1 rJ ◄1 )If iJ .:i ~ i d' I r,,,~ it .... , 0 2SO 500 750 i.00:~ ~ 0 8 GTS I 53 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 56. Pedestrian volumes Figure 56. Existing Pedestrian Volumes Miraleste Traffic Study X Study Intersection AM Peak Hour Volume Miraleste Dr1Palos Verdes Dr E 11 Miraleste DrVia Colinita2 3 8 1 Miraleste Dr Miraleste DrVia Colinita12Palos Verdes Dr E PM Peak Hour Volume 87 4 6 4 7 Palos Verdes Dr EVia Canada3 1 12 8 3 5 103 117 Palos Verdes Dr EVia Canada A-53 \ !, 0 .. ~. l 10 q, ~, 10 ·<t _¥' / \ '9- ◄-► ◄-► @~ G'~ \ ' \ (), ·4,~ !,mDt ~ J D @ I .. ~ ~ ,, 0 ,0 " 10 10 ' ' 4~ .. z ◄-► ◄-► t <r.~ ~· ('' \ (JJ'"co~ 1- iJ .:i ~ i d' ◄--► I r,,,~ it .... , 0 2SO 500 750 i.00:~ ~ 0 8 GTS I 54 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 57. Bicycle volumes AM Peak Hour Volume Figure 57. Existing Bicycle Volumes Miraleste Traffic Study 6 Miraleste Dr1Palos Verdes Dr E 5 Miraleste DrVia Colinita2 1 1 Miraleste Dr Miraleste DrVia Colinita12Palos Verdes Dr E PM Peak Hour Volume 4 1 1 7 2 2 3 5 X Study Intersection Palos Verdes Dr EVia Canada3 1 3 3 7 10 Palos Verdes Dr EVia Canada A-54 0 0 8 GTS I 55 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 5.Collision Analysis 5.1.Overview This analysis includes all collisions reported in the study area during a 3-year time period (January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021). During this time period, there were 29 collisions in the study area. 17 were on Miraleste Drive, 8 were on Palos Verdes Drive East, and 4 were at the intersection between those two roads. The following observations can be made about the conditions, timing, and types of collisions: • 6 collisions occurred in the dark, while the remaining 23 occurred in the daylight. • 2 collisions occurred in rainy weather, while 26 were in clear weather and 1 was in cloudy weather. • There were 12 broadside collisions, 6 collisions with objects, 6 rear-end collisions, 4 sideswipe collisions, and 1 of an unspecified type. 4 out of the 5 collisions at the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Via Colinita were broadside collisions. • The most common primary contributing factors (PCFs) were “Auto R/W Violation” (which typically refers to failing to yield at a traffic control location such as a stop sign) and “Improper Turning” (9 collisions each). Other PCFs were “Unsafe Speed” (2 collisions), “Following Too Closely” (2 collisions), and the following with 1 collision each: “Failed to maintain direct course”, “Traffic Signals and Signs”, “Unsafe Passing”, “Unsafe Lane Change”, and “Unsafe Starting or Backing”. Two collisions had no PCF listed. • 16 collisions resulted in property damage only; 13 resulted in injury. There were no severe injuries or fatalities. • 8 collisions occurred on weekends while 21 occurred during the week. • 20 collisions were between moving motor vehicles, while 5 involved fixed objects, 3 involved parked vehicles, and 1 involved a bicyclist. There were no collisions involving pedestrians. • Regarding year-to-year patterns, 10 collisions occurred in 2019, 11 in 2020, and 8 in 2021. The following observations can be made regarding the geographic distribution of collisions: • Collisions are clustered at the major intersections in the study area (Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East, Miraleste Drive at Via Colinita, Miraleste Drive at West 1st Street, and Palos Verdes Drive East at Colt Road). • There is a small cluster of broadside collisions (4 out of 5 collisions total) at the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Via Colinita. • There is a cluster of 4 collisions with parked cars or fixed objects around the area where Miraleste Drive curves most sharply. These is also a small cluster of 3 moving-vehicle collisions slightly downhill (south) from this point on the south/eastbound side of Miraleste Drive. • One bicyclist was struck on Palos Verdes Drive East at Via Frascati. This section of the roadway does not have sufficient space available to include bicycle lanes within the existing pavement width. The locations of collisions are mapped on the following pages. Figure 58 shows the collisions symbolized by the type of involvement and severity. Figure 59 shows the collision types. The recommendations presented in Section 7 are intended to address the collision patterns that have been observed through a combination of intersection improvements, streetscape design, and related measures. It is expected that these improvements will work together to reduce speeds and collisions. A-55GTSI 56 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 58. Collisions in the study area, 1/1/2019 – 12/31/2021, with severity and collision involvement indicated A-56 \ Legend Collision !involvement ,ab Bicyde r Fiixed Object ~, Other Motor Veh ide P Parked Motor Vehide· Collision Severity Injury Property Damage Only Sb.Id¥ Area r:~-:-J RPV Qty Boundary GTSI Doradoo,. w General St -~ ~ F I I ! 0 I; 500 1,000 ft ~---===::::J '-,, 57 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 59. Collisions in the study area, 1/1/2019 – 12/31/2021, with severity and collision type indicated A-57 \ ) I I I r { \ \ ~ Legen d Collision Type s Broadside H Hi , Object R Rear End s Sidlesw i1pe o Other Collision 5evelriirty Injury Rroperty IDamag:e Only Stud¥ Area [~J RPV Oty Boundary ~ GTSI ' I DoradotJ,. z #Jmu r st ,2 ~ w General St ,j .. s~oo=. ==1:J,oooft " 58 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 5.2.Collision rates Collision rates for the road segments and principal intersections in the study area were calculated according to methodology provided by the Federal Highway Administration, as follows: Intersection collision rates are calculated with the following equation: Where: R = Collision rate for the intersection expressed as accidents per million entering vehicles (MEV). C = Total number of intersection collisions in the study period. N = Number of years of data (in this case, 3 years). V = Traffic volumes entering the intersection daily. Road segment collision rates are calculated with the following equation: Where: R = Collision rate for the road segment expressed as collisions per million vehicle-miles of travel (VMT). C = Total number of collisions in the study period. N = Number of years of data (in this case, 3 years). V = Number of vehicles per day (both directions). L = Length of the roadway segment in miles. The collision rates for the intersections in the study area are summarized in Table 1 (intersections) and Table 2 (road segments). Miraleste Drive has higher collision and injury rates when compared to similar intersections statewide and when compared to similar road segments in Caltrans District 7 (which includes Los Angeles and Ventura Counties). A-58 1.,000,000 X ,C R= R= GTSI 365, x N x V 1,.000,1000 X C .365 x N x V x L 59 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Table 1. Collision rates for intersections in the study area Table 2. Collision rates for road segments in the study area Intersection Estimated Daily Entering Vehicles Collisions (1/1/2019 to 12/31/2021) Injury Collisions (1/1/2019 to 12/31/2021) Collision Rate Per Million Entering Vehicles Injury Collision Rate Per Million Entering Vehicles Statewide Collision Rate for Similar Intersections Statewide Injury Collision Rate for Similar Intersections Miraleste Dr @ Palos Verdes Dr E 15,292 4 1 0.24 0.06 0.14 0.06 Miraleste Dr @ Via Colinita 12,033 5 2 0.38 0.15 0.14 0.06 Miraleste Dr @ W 1st St 10,572 4 1 0.35 0.09 0.14 0.06 Palos Verdes Dr E @ Colt Rd 10,674 3 2 0.26 0.17 0.14 0.06 Road Segment Average Daily Traffic (2019) Length (Miles) Collisions (1/1/2019 to 12/31/2021) Injury Collisions (1/1/2019 to 12/31/2021) Collision rate per million vehicle miles traveled Injury Collision rate per million vehicle miles traveled Collision rate for similar roads in Caltrans District 7 Injury + Fatality rate for similar roads in Caltrans District 7 Miraleste Drive from Palos Verdes Drive East to Via Colinita 13,226 0.62 17 7 1.89 0.78 1.74 0.71 Miraleste Drive from Via Colinita to the City limits 10,572 0.22 9 3 3.53 1.18 1.74 0.71 Palos Verdes Drive East from Via Subida to Miraleste Drive 6,952 0.74 7 3 1.24 0.53 1.74 0.71 Palos Verdes Drive East from Miraleste Drive to Marion Drive 10,674 0.57 9 4 1.35 0.60 1.74 0.71 5.3.Collision Diagrams Collison diagrams for the individual intersections are shown on the following pages. A-59GTSI 60 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 3 - YEAR COLLISION DATA Milareste Drive Crash Diagrams 1/1/19-12/31/2021 Figure 60 SEE LINEBREAK SHEET 2 Figure 60. Collision Diagram 1 A-60 GTS = ---->-->--= 0 FI XED OBJECT PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY COLLISION @ SIGN ALIZEDINTERSECTlON (§ GTSI SUNN YSIDE RIDGE RD TYPE S OF COi I ISIONS ------T ff C "'"'"°' ~~SIDESl\o1PEPARKEDVEHICLE • = COLLISION TYPE UN KNOWN 61 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 3 - YEAR COLLISION DATA Milareste Drive Crash Diagrams 1/1/19-12/31/2021 Figure 61 SE E SH E E T 1 BR E A K SEE SHEET 3 LI N E BREAK LINE Figure 61. Collision Diagram 2 A-61 GTS SYMBOLS --->- >-= 0 FI XED 0B.£CT PROPERTY DAMAGE 0NLYCQLISI0N @ SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 8 GTSI TYPE S OF COi l lSIQNS -- """"'.~ /fT c -e,c,csoc ;~SID[SV,,,PEPARKEDVEHICLE ' = COLLISION TYPE UN KNOWN 62 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 3 - YEAR COLLISION DATA Milareste Drive Crash Diagrams 1/1/19-12/31/2021 Figure 62 SEE SHEET 2 LOWER LEFT SEE UPPER RIGHT SEE LOWER LEFT SEE SHEET 4BREAKLINEBREAKLINE BREAK LINE BREAK LINE Figure 62. Collision Diagram 3 A-62 GTS Sl'Mfilll.S ~ MOVING V!:HICLE ~BAC KING VE HICLE >E--PEDESTRIAN >-- C:::J PARKED VEHICLE 0 FIXED OBJECT FATAL COLLISION INJJRY COLLISION PROPERTYDAf.AAGE ONLY COLLISION @ SIGNALIZEDINTERSECTlON § GTSI RD MUSTANG RD EASTFIELD DR TYPE S OF COi I 1$10NS .... ~ /fT C "'°'"'°' ~~ SIDE S1"1PE PARKED VEHICLE • -COLLISION TYPE UNKNOWN 63 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 3 - YEAR COLLISION DATA Milareste Drive Crash Diagrams 1/1/19-12/31/2021 Figure 63 SEE SHEET 3 LOWER RIGHT SEE SHEET 5 BREAK LINE BREAK LINE BR E A K Figure 63. Collision Diagram 4 A-63 GTS SCALE: 1"-40' SYMBOLS ~ M0v1NG \IEHICLE ~ BACKING VEHICLE >E--PEDESTRIAN >--BICYCLE = 0 FIXED OB..CCT IN..URYCOLLISION PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY COLLISION @ SIGNALIZEDINTERSECTlON § STOP SIGN GTSI TYPES OF COi l lSIQNS ---------- I 10/6/20 20:15 COLT RD COLT RD 64 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 3 - YEAR COLLISION DATA Milareste Drive Crash Diagrams 1/1/19-12/31/2021 Figure 64 SEE SHEET 4 LOWER RIGHT SE E SE E LO W E R L E F T BR E A K LI N E BR E A K LI N E SE E SH E E T 6 SEE SHEET 9BREAKLINE BREAK LINE UP P E R R I G H T BR E A K LI N E Figure 64. Collision Diagram 5 A-64 GTS Sl'Mllill.S ---MOVING VEHICLE -BACKING VEHICLE --~ REAREND -HEADON x- ~ x- PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE = PARKED VEHICLE □ FIXED OBJECT FATAL COLLISION aco INJJR Y COLLISION @ ~~?~ci[u~ittGE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION s STOP SIGN T SIDESWIPE ff ""'""' t: sec,cs,cc /~ SIDESWIPE PARKED VEHICLE -----•• --CCOLLISION TYPE UNKNOWN GTSI ~5/IJ/208,00 917:45 65 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 3 - YEAR COLLISION DATA Milareste Drive Crash Diagrams 1/1/19-12/31/2021 Figure 65 SE E SH E E T 5 BR E A K LI N E BR E A K LI N E SE E SH E E T 7 Figure 65. Collision Diagram 6 A-65 GTS S'iMBill.S ~ MOVING V!:HICLE ~BAC KINGVEHICLE x---PEDESTRIAN >--BICYCLE = 0 FIXED OBJECT GTSI FATAL COLLISION INJJRYCOLLISION PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY COLLISION TYPES OF COi I 151QNS .... T SIDES\\o1PE ff ccc,rn" C """'"°' ~~SIDES\\o1PEPARKED\IEHICLE ' = COLLISION TYPE UN KNOWN 66 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 3 - YEAR COLLISION DATA Milareste Drive Crash Diagrams 1/1/19-12/31/2021 Figure 66 SE E SH E E T 6 BR E A K LI N E SEE UPPER RIGHT SEE LOWER LEFT BREAK LINE SEE SHEET 8 BREAK LINE BREAK LINE Figure 66. Collision Diagram 7 A-66 GTS SYMBOLS --MO\ilNG VE HICLE ->- BAC KING V!:HICLE PEDESTRIAN ~ >-BICYCLE = PARKED VEHICLE □ FI XED OBJECT FATAL COLLISION eco INJJRY COLLISION @ ~~~E~~Ll~i'oM/GE SIGNALIZEDINTERSECTlON (§ STOP SIGN ---HEAD ON ,,,,.~SIDESl'i1 PE ff '"''"" C "'°""°' ,,/"~SIDESl'<1PEPARKEDVEHICLE -COLLISION TYPE UNKNOWN GTSI 67 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 3 - YEAR COLLISION DATA Milareste Drive Crash Diagrams 1/1/19-12/31/2021 Figure 67 SEE SHEET 7 BREAK LINE SEE BREAK LOWER LEFT LINE SEE UPPER RIGHTBREAKLINE Figure 67. Collision Diagram 8 A-67 GTS SCALE: 1"-40 Sl'Mfilll.S ~ MOVING VEHICLE ~ BACKING VEHICLE x---PEDESTRIAN >- ~ PAR KED VEHICLE 0 FIXED OBJECT FATAL COLLISION INJJRYCOLLISION PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY COLLISION @ SIGNALIZEDINTERSECTlON s STOPSIGN GTSI TYPES OF COi l lSIQNS -------T ff C "'°'°"°' ,,,.~SIDESl'i1PEPARKEDVEHICLE • -COLLISION TYPE UNKNOWN PDO 5/; /19 8:10 Jy • 7' s 68 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 3 - YEAR COLLISION DATA Milareste Drive Crash Diagrams 1/1/19-12/31/2021 Figure 68 SE E SH E E T 5 BR E A K LI N E SE E UP P E R R I G H T BR E A K L I N E SE E LO W E R L E F T BR E A K LI N E Figure 68. Collision Diagram 9 A-68 GTS Sl'Mfilll.S ~ MOVING VEHICLE ~BAC KING VE HICLE >E--PEDESTRIAN >-- C:::J PARKED VEHICLE GTSI 0 FIXED OBJECT FATAL COLLISION INJJRY COLLISION PROPERTY DAf.AAGE ONLY COLLISION SIGNALIZEDINTERSECTlON TYPE S OF COi I 1$10NS ~~REAREND .. .. HEADON r Sl □ESWIPE fT ccc,we, C ,,,,,,m, ~ SIDESW1PEPARKEDVEHICLE / 69 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 6.Solutions Investigated This section discusses a range of solutions for the concerns in the study area that were suggested by residents or other stakeholders and were investigated to determine their feasibility and potential benefits. 6.1.Reclassification from arterial • In the City’s current Traffic Calming Guidelines, the use of traffic calming tools is restricted on collector roadways to the same extent as on arterial roadways. Also, regardless of functional classification, Miraleste Drive meets the criteria for a “residence district” per California Vehicle Code Section 515. Per the City’s Traffic Calming Guidelines, streets located in residence districts are eligible for Level 2 traffic calming measures. For these two reasons, reclassification of Miraleste Drive would not affect the range of traffic calming options that are available. • Regardless of functional classification, cut-through traffic can be expected to continue for as long as the Miraleste Drive–Palos Verdes Drive East route offers a shorter travel time than Western Avenue. Therefore, functional reclassification is expected to have little to no impact on the traffic situation on Miraleste Drive and is therefore not recommended. 6.2.Working with Navigation App Providers to Reduce Cut-through Traffic Stakeholders raised the possibility of working directly with real-time navigation app providers to reduce cut-through traffic in the study area. However, real-time navigation apps rely on algorithms that identify optimal routes, with data updated in real time, and they generally do not have a process for removing specific roads. In order to reduce volumes of app-driven cut-through traffic, some communities (for example, Pasadena; see Marshall 2016) have found that the most effective options are the following: • Increase the overall travel time of a given cut-through route (through a combination of measures that reduce speed, such as traffic calming and traffic signals) • Restrict turning movements • Close the route Due to the important role of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in providing connectivity and access to the community (including Los Angeles County Fire Department Station 83, located at the intersection of the two study roads), road closure and turning movement restriction are not considered viable solutions. Instead, the recommendations of this study focus on reducing speed, thereby reducing the competitive time advantage of the presumed cut-through route, in combination with a range of traffic calming measures that are also expected to improve safety. 6.3.“No Thru Traffic” Signs The possibility of posting signs stating “No Thru Traffic” or “Local Traffic Only” has been suggested for Miraleste Drive. There are two principal difficulties associated with this measure. Firstly, such regulations are challenging for local authorities to enforce, because vehicles passing through must be followed to determine their route identify them as through traffic. Secondly, Miraleste Drive is identified as a major road (arterial) within the Rancho Palos Verdes street network according to the City’s General Plan, and A-69GTSI 70 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes the restriction of through traffic would cause a significant reduction in overall connectivity, affecting not only cut-through drivers but also the residents of the City and nearby neighborhoods (see Section 2.2). Natural features such as canyons combine with the existing street layout to form barriers to connectivity between Western Avenue and Palos Verdes Drive East. Currently, on Western Avenue between Palos Verdes Drive North and West 25th Street (a 4.3-mile road segment), there is no way to get through to Palos Verdes Drive East or any of the neighborhoods directly adjacent to Palos Verdes Drive East without using Miraleste Drive. Therefore, closing Miraleste Drive to through traffic would cause a significant detriment to connectivity and could be expected to cause traffic congestion on other roads. 6.4.Western Avenue Signals Stakeholders noted that the current levels of traffic congestion on Western Avenue – which drivers are presumably avoiding using the study area’s cut-through route – may be caused, in part, by changes in signal timing resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. At the start of the pandemic, the City of Los Angeles reprogrammed many pedestrian signals to activate automatically, without the need for pedestrians to push a button, in order to reduce the potential surface-borne spread of the virus. In addition, to combat reckless driving, in April 2020 LADOT shifted traffic signal patterns to “Night Mode”, which reduces speeding by interrupting successive green lights along major corridors. However, in June 2021, LADOT announced that all traffic signals would revert to pre-pandemic timing patterns, with “Night Mode” only in effect from 7:00 PM to 6:00 AM. Automatic pedestrian recall has remained in place for areas with high pedestrian activity. The City is currently working with Caltrans on a project to streamline traffic movements on Western Avenue. 6.5.Additional Traffic Signals The possibility of installing additional traffic signals in the study area was raised by stakeholders. This study has found that such signals are warranted (see Section 4.2 and Appendix A). 6.6.Additional STOP signs The possibility of installing additional stop signs to reduce speeds in the study area was mentioned by stakeholders. However, per the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Section 2B.04), stop signs should not be used for speed control. Therefore, this study does not recommend stop signs for that purpose. 6.7.Roundabouts The possibility of converting the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Via Colinita to a roundabout was investigated. FHWA guidance indicates that an urban compact roundabout accommodating vehicles up to the size of single-unit trucks and buses should have an inscribed circle diameter (the distance across the circle inscribed by the outer curb) of 80 to 100 feet. For an urban single-lane roundabout, the recommended inscribed circle diameter is 100 to 130 feet. There is sufficient space for a roundabout 130 feet in diameter within the existing intersection, as illustrated in Figure 69. There is not sufficient space for a double-lane roundabout (150-180 feet in diameter). Per FHWA guidance, the circulating flow in a single-lane roundabout should not exceed 1,800 vehicles per hour. From the turning movement counts data that were collected for this study, it can be estimated that the maximum circulating flow for the Miraleste Drive / Via Colinita intersection would be 741 vehicles per hour. Therefore, a roundabout at this intersection is a possibility that could be investigated further. However, the southbound approach toward this intersection is on a downhill slope, which raises A-70clPGTSI 71 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes additional safety concerns. Similarly, a roundabout with a 130-foot inscribed circle diameter could fit within the existing right-of- way at the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East, as shown in Figure 70. A complete feasibility study would be needed to determine the viability of roundabouts at either of these intersections. A-71clPGTSI 72 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 69. Footprint of 100- and 130-foot diameter roundabouts at Miraleste Drive and Via Colinita Figure 70. Footprint of 100- and 130-foot diameter roundabouts at Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East A-72GTSI 73 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 6.8.Speed Limit Reduction Stakeholders suggested the possibility of reducing the speed limit to 30 miles per hour on Miraleste Drive and on the 35-mile-per-hour section of Palos Verdes Drive East. The road segments in the study area were discussed in the Engineering and Traffic Survey that was completed in March 2021. The following findings and recommendations were included in that report: •On Miraleste Drive from Palos Verdes Drive East to Via Colinita (both directions of the divided roadway), the measured 85th-percentile speed was sufficiently close to the posted speed limit that no change in the speed limit of 35 miles per hour was recommended. •On Miraleste Drive from Via Colinita to the City limit, the 85th-percentile speed was measured at 40 miles per hour. The report noted that this critical speed “would normally justify a 40-mph posted speed limit. However, due to horizontal and vertical curves, moderate bicycle traffic that may not be apparent to unfamiliar drivers, and to maintain uniformity between adjacent street segments, a lower speed limit is prudent” (Engineering and Traffic Survey, p. 16). Therefore, no change in the speed limit was recommended. •On Palos Verdes Drive East from Diamonte Lane to Miraleste Drive (which includes the southern portion of Palos Verdes Drive East that is in this study area), the measured 85th-percentile speed was sufficiently close to the posted speed limit that no change in the speed limit was recommended. •On Palos Verdes Drive East from Miraleste Drive to Bronco Drive (which includes the northern portion of Palos Verdes Drive East that is in this study area), the measured 85th-percentile speed was 35 miles per hour. Similarly to the section of Miraleste Drive mentioned above, the report stated that the critical speed “would normally justify a 35 mph posted speed limit. However, due to horizontal and vertical curves, various hidden driveways and side streets, uncontrolled crosswalks, and moderate pedestrian traffic that may not be apparent to unfamiliar drivers, and to maintain uniformity between adjacent street segments, a lower speed limit is prudent.” No change in the speed limit was recommended for this section. The above recommendations of the Engineering and Traffic Survey were approved by Resolution 2022- 16 of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on March 15, 2022. In order to remain consistent with the recommendations of the Engineering and Traffic Survey, this study does not recommend any reduction in speed limits. However, the City could conduct a new speed study after other traffic calming measures are implemented, in order to reevaluate the need for speed limit changes. 6.9.Speed Humps and Speed Tables The possibility of installing speed humps on Miraleste Drive was suggested by stakeholders. The following is a summary of the most relevant guidance on speed humps within the context of the roads in the study area. •The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) considers speed humps to be appropriate for “residential local streets and residential/neighborhood collectors.” They are “not typically used on major roads, bus routes, or primary emergency response routes.” •The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) lists speed humps as a traffic calming measure appropriate for local roads. FHWA guidance states that they are well suited for streets with speed limits below 35 mph. •The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) describes speed humps as “devices intended to slow traffic on low volume, low speed roads.” A-73clPGTSI 74 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Both Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East are classified as arterials by Caltrans and as major roads in the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan. They are also bus routes. As such, they do not match the ITE description of roads appropriate for speed hump installation. Similarly, considering existing average daily traffic levels, they do not match the description of “low-volume” roads considered appropriate for speed humps by NACTO. Speed tables (longer than speed humps and flat-topped, typically with a height of 3–3.5 inches and a length of 22 feet) are considered compatible with somewhat higher speeds and traffic volumes than speed humps. The guidance with regard to speed tables is summarized as follows: •TE considers speed tables appropriate for local and collector streets with speed limits of 30 mph or less and with 85th-percentile speeds below 45 mph. • NACTO considers speed tables appropriate on local and collector streets (but not arterials). The Rancho Palos Verdes Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program guide indicates that speed humps and speed tables should not be located on streets with ADT over 3,000 per day or on transit routes. Speed humps or speed tables could also be particularly problematic in the study area due to the presence of Los Angeles County Fire Department Station 83, located at the corner of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East. For consistency with prevailing guidance and City policies, and considering all the characteristics of the study area, this study does not recommend speed humps or speed tables on Miraleste Drive or Palos Verdes Drive East. 6.10.Solutions for Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Stakeholders noted that there is a lack of pedestrian and bicycle access in the study area. Concerns for pedestrian safety were also mentioned, especially for pedestrians walking on the sidewalk along Palos Verdes Drive East and crossing Palos Verdes Drive East at Marion Drive. Traffic counts have showed that significant numbers of pedestrians utilize the study area roads and crossings. Notably, on a typical weekday, 84 pedestrians crossed Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East during the peak hour beginning at 2:45 PM. Of these, 66 pedestrians (79%) crossed during the 15 minutes from 3:15 to 3:30. This suggests that the pedestrian traffic is related to Miraleste Intermediate School, where dismissal occurs at 3:00 Tuesday through Friday. Bicyclists have also been observed in the study area during site visits. This study presents suggested street cross-sections for the study area that include bicycle lanes and sidewalk barriers. A range of other pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements are also suggested, including redesigning intersections, improving crosswalk visibility, and narrowing vehicular lanes. Crosswalk improvements have been requested by some stakeholders. This study also includes recommendations for a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) and high-visibility crosswalks at several locations. There has been a recent proposal to remove the existing crosswalk on Miraleste Drive at Chandeleur Drive, which is in shared jurisdiction between Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Los Angeles. It should be noted that removing this crosswalk would not prohibit pedestrians from crossing at this location, although the removal may potentially reduce the City's liability. A-74clPGTSI 75 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 6.11.Narrower Lanes Because speeding has been a primary concern on Miraleste Drive, the solution of narrowing the vehicular lanes has been investigated. Many studies have shown that narrower lanes result in lower speeds (for example: Fitzpatrick et al. 2001, Ma et al. 2010, Semeida 2013), and lower collision rates (for example, Karim 2015, Manuel et al. 2013). This study includes recommendations for typical street cross-sections that include narrower lanes, utilizing the additional space for bicycle lanes and sidewalk safety improvements (see Section 7). 6.12.Enforcement Stakeholders suggested the possibility of placing decoy police vehicles along the presumed cut-through route in order to deter speeding. Studies (for example, Carrick 2001; Sallybanks 2001) have indicated that decoy vehicles can be effective for improving compliance with traffic laws. Depending on the resources available, this is something that the City can consider. 7.Recommendations This section presents recommendations for alleviating the traffic issues in the study area that were the impetus for this traffic study. The recommendations have been informed by the stakeholder input and analysis described in the previous sections. They are intended to complement and build upon the safety measures that have already been implemented (as described in Section 3.6) to further improve safety throughout the study area. 7.1.Redesign Street Cross-sections with Narrower Lanes (short-term) As was discussed Section 6, narrower lanes have been shown to reduce speeds and collision rates in many different scenarios. This section presents planning-level conceptual cross-section designs for the study area with lane widths of 10 feet. 10-foot lanes are the preferred width recommended by NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) design guidelines (NACTO guidelines are currently used by many jurisdictions in California). Current design standards and research recommend lane widths between 10 and 11 feet as optimal for speed reduction and improved safety on urban and suburban arterials and collectors (NACTO 2013, Petritsch 2009). The narrower vehicular lane widths in the proposed cross-sections allow for the addition of bicycle lanes on Miraleste Drive and on Palos Verdes Drive East north of the Miraleste Plaza entrance. The provision of bicycle lanes would close an existing gap in the bicycle network, as discussed in Section 2.5. Some components of the existing street cross-sections have some variation in width (for example, shoulders, parking lanes, and center turn lanes). The cross-sections below generally show the narrowest points of all components. At wider points, the excess space could be used to create bicycle lane buffers, wider parking lanes (especially where the “door zone” is a concern for the bicycle lane), or wider shoulders. In any case, it is recommended that the 10-foot lane width should be preserved in order to achieve the desired traffic calming effect and reduction in speed. Restriping could be combined with a planned slurry overlay project for part of the study area. It should also be noted that during streetscape redesign, signs could also be revised and consolidated to reduce “sign clutter” in some areas (especially Palos Verdes Drive East near the school). The locations of the cross-section segments are shown in Section 2.3, Figure 5. A-75clPGTSI 76 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 1. Miraleste Drive from City Limits to West 1st Street Figure 71. Section 1, existing, looking north Center turn lane width varies from 12 to 22 feet Figure 72. Section 1, suggested restriping (section shows center turn lane at minimum width), looking north Section 2. Miraleste Drive from West 1st Street to Kingsridge Drive Figure 73. Section 2, existing, looking north Figure 74. Section 2, suggested restriping, looking north Shoulder width varies from 8 to 11 feet A-76GTSI 77 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 3. Miraleste Drive from Kingsridge Drive to 250’ south of Via Colinita Figure 75. Section 3, existing, looking north Parking lane width varies from 7 to 14 feet Center turn lane width varies from 11 to 24 feet Figure 76. Section 3, suggested restriping, looking north A-77GTSI 78 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 4. Miraleste Drive south of Via Colinita (at intersection) Section 5. Miraleste Drive north of Via Colinita (at intersection) Figure 77. Section 4, existing, looking north Figure 78. Section 4, suggested restriping, looking north Median width varies from 0 to 50 feet Shoulder width varies from 2 to 16 feet Figure 79. Section 5, existing, looking north Figure 80. Section 5, suggested restriping, looking north A-78GTSI 79 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 6. Miraleste Drive from 200’ north of Via Colinita to Via Bramante Figure 81. Section 6, existing, looking west (Note: Sidewalk is intermittent) Figure 82. Section 6, suggested restriping, looking west: Areas with sidewalk Figure 83. Section 7, existing, looking west Figure 84. Section 7, suggested restriping, looking west Section 7. Miraleste Drive from Via Bramante to 100’ east of Palos Verdes Drive East Figure 82a. Section 6, suggested restriping, looking west: Areas with no sidewalk A-79GTSI 80 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 8. Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East Figure 85. Section 8, existing, looking west Figure 86. Section 8, suggested restriping, looking west (shows suggested median extension) A-80GTSI 81 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 9. Palos Verdes Drive East from Via Subida to Miraleste Plaza (rear entrance) Figure 87. Section 9, existing, looking north Figure 88. Section 9, suggested restriping, looking north Shoulder width varies from 0 to 5 feet A-81GTSI 82 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 10. Palos Verdes Drive East from Miraleste Plaza rear entrance to main entrance Figure 89. Section 10, existing, looking north Figure 90. Section 10, suggested restriping, looking north A-82GTSI 83 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 11. Palos Verdes Drive East at Miraleste Drive (at intersection) Figure 91. Section 11, existing, looking north. Note: the left turn lane is present at the intersection and directly north of it, with a length of about 120 feet. Further north, there is a striped median for approximately 130 feet, which gradually narrows in width. Figure 92. Section 11, suggested restriping, looking north A-83GTSI 84 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 12. Palos Verdes Drive East from Miraleste Drive to Crownview Drive Figure 93. Section 12, existing, looking north Figure 94. Section 12, suggested restriping, looking north A-84GTSI 85 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 13. Palos Verdes Drive East from Crownview Drive to Via Canada Figure 95. Section 13, existing, looking north Figure 96. Section 13, suggested restriping, looking north A-85GTSI 86 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 14. Palos Verdes Drive East from Via Canada to Colt Road Figure 97. Section 14, existing, looking north Figure 98. Section 14, suggested restriping, looking north. Note: The pedestrian safety barrier is suggested not for the entire section, but only if and as needed. A-86GTSI 87 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Section 15. Palos Verdes Drive East from Colt Road to Marion Drive Figure 99. Section 15, existing, looking north. The section with no shoulder is shown. Note. the existing guardrail on the right side is not present for the entire section; it runs from north of Colt Road to south of the bus pullout across from the Miraleste Intermediate School north/rear entrance. Figure 100. Section 15, suggested restriping, looking north Shoulder width varies from 0 to 14 feet A-87GTSI 88 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 7.2.Curb Extensions (long-term) Several studies (for example, Johnson 2005, Bella and Silverstri 2016) have shown that curb extensions result in lower vehicle speeds and improvements in pedestrian safety. This study recommends landscaped curb extensions at the intersections on Miraleste Drive where a parking lane or shoulder is present (Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). The curb extension would occupy the width of the shoulder or parking lane, with approximately equal length. An example cross-section with a curb extension is shown in Figure 101. It is expected that curb extensions will increase driver awareness on the curving section of Miraleste Drive where a notable number of fixed-object and parked-car collisions have occurred. •Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East •Miraleste Drive at Via Colinita The reduction in curb radii can be accomplished through a combination of striping and curb extensions. At the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East, this would also help to reduce the crossing distance at the striped crosswalk, which is currently approximately 150 feet. In combination with curb extensions, the landscaped median could be extended at this location to create a pedestrian refuge, something that was also recommended in the Palos Verdes Peninsula-wide Safe Routes to School Plan. A conceptual illustration of curb extensions and reduced curb radii for the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East is shown in Figure 102. The curb and median extensions could be in a future Capital Improvement Program, while the pavement markings could be implemented during the shorter term. Figure 101. Cross-section concept for the divided portion of Miraleste Drive at or near intersections, with curb extensions reaching to the edge of the parking lane 7.3.Reduced Curb Radii and Pedestrian Refuge (long-term) During site visits and subsequent analysis, it was observed that some intersections in the study area have large curb radii at one or more corners (up to 100 feet). Several studies have shown that larger turning radii are associated with higher vehicular speeds, while a reduction in the curb radius lowers speed and improves safety (for example: Wolfermann et al. 2011, Zangenehpour et al. 2017). The reduction of turning movement speed has potential to improve safety, especially considering the high volumes of turning traffic at the two major intersections in this study. It is recommended that the following intersections be considered for redesigning to reduce their curb radii to the minimum that would still safely accommodate buses and emergency vehicles. A-88GTSI 89 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Figure 102. Conceptual illustration of reduced curb radii at the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East A-89GTSI xpanc11N_:I 1111001an 90 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 7.4.Consolidate the Miraleste Drive/Via Colinita Intersection (long-term) The intersection of Miraleste Drive and Via Colinita could be consolidated to reduce the total number of stop signs and avoid the need for vehicles to occupy space within the median area. To accomplish this, the splitting of lanes would occur north of the intersection rather than south. Figure 103 shows a conceptual sketch of how the intersection could be consolidated, bringing the divided lanes of Miraleste Drive together north of the intersection, reducing curb radii, and increasing the amount of adjacent green space. This could be done in a phased approach, with pavement markings implemented more immediately and curb extensions included in a future Capital Improvement Program. Figure 103. Conceptual sketch showing potential consolidation of the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Via Colinita A-90GTSI 91 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes 7.5.High-visibility Crosswalks (short-term) To improve overall pedestrian safety in the study area, high-visibility crosswalks are recommended at the following locations: •Miraleste Drive at Via Vico •Miraleste Drive at Nancy Road •Miraleste Drive at Lorraine Road •Miraleste Drive at Via Siena •Miraleste Drive at Via Colinita •Miraleste Drive at West 1st Street The crosswalks will complement the initial traffic safety measures that were implemented in the summer of 2022 at or near most of the intersections listed above. In addition to improving pedestrian safety, these crosswalks would enhance connectivity to the trail that runs along the median on the divided portion of Miraleste Drive. 7.6.Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) (short-term) As we noted earlier, pedestrian safety concerns have been noted at the crosswalk on Palos Verdes Drive East directly south of Marion Drive. An RRFB could increase the visibility of this crosswalk and improve driver yielding behavior. The Palos Verdes Peninsula-wide Safe Routes to School Plan also recommended an RRFB for this crosswalk. 7.7.Warranted Traffic Control Signals at Intersections (short-term) Due to the intersections subject to warrant analysis in this study each meeting at least one warrant for traffic control signals, the City can install signals at these intersections. 7.8.Further Study of Roundabouts (long-term) As discussed in Section 6.7, roundabouts are a possibility that could be investigated further as an alternative to traffic control signals at the intersections of Miraleste Drive with Via Colinita and with Palos Verdes Drive East. A complete feasibility study would be necessary to determine whether a roundabout could be implemented at each intersection. 7.9.Advisory Signage on Via Colinita (short-term) Increased traffic has been reported on Via Colinita between Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East. This is a hilly street section with sharp curves. To encourage increased driver caution, Winding Road (W1-5) signs could be installed. 7.10.Enforcement (short-term and long-term) The City could work with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to enhance enforcement of traffic laws in the study area. A-91clPGTSI 92 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes References Bella, F., & Silvestri, M. (2016). Driver’s braking behavior approaching pedestrian crossings: a parametric duration model of the speed reduction times. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 50(4), 630-646. California Office of Traffic Safety. OTS Crash Rankings Results. https://www.ots.ca.gov/media-and- research/crash-rankings-results/ California, State of. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014 edition, Revision 6 (March 30, 2021). California, State of. Vehicle Code. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText. xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=1.&title=&part=&chapter=&article= Caltrans. “2019 Crash Data on California State Highways.” https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/ programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/annual-collision-data/2019_crash_ data_on_cshwy-web-a11y.pdf Caltrans. “California Road System - Functional Classification.” https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/ webappviewer/index.html?id=026e830c914c495797c969a3e5668538 Caltrans. “Flowchart to Change Functional Classification.” https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/ programs/research-innovation-system-information/documents/hpms/flowchart-to-change-functional- classification-2021-0312-a11y.pdf Carrick, Grady. “Decoy Patrols: Dummies Reducing Traffic Fatalities.” Law and Order 49.4 (2001):110- 111.https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/decoy-patrols-dummies-reducing-traffic fatalities Deller, J. “The influence of road design speed, posted speed limits and lane widths on speed selection: a literature synthesis.” Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF), 36th, 2013, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Federal Highway Administration. “Engineering Speed Management Countermeasures.” https://safety. fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_count/2014/reducing_speed.cfm Federal Highway Administration. “Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria and Procedures.” https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/highway_functional_classifications/ section03.cfm#Toc336872983 Federal Highway Administration. “Roadway Safety Information Analysis: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners.” https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa1210/s3.cfm Federal Highway Administration. “Speed Management Countermeasures.” https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa16077/fhwasa16077.pdf Federal Highway Administration. Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. Chapter 6: Geometric Design. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/00067/000676.pdf Fitzpatrick, K., Carlson, P., Brewer, M., & Wooldridge, M. (2001). Design factors that affect driver speed on suburban streets. Transportation Research Record, 1751(1), 18-25.https://www.researchgate. net/profile/Marcus-Brewer/publication/245559635_Design_Factors_That_Affect_Driver_Speed_on_ Suburban_Streets/links/53f5f07a0cf2fceacc6f7fe8/Design-Factors-That-Affect-Driver-Speed-on- Suburban-Streets.pdf A-92GTSI 93 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Godley, Stuart T., Thomas J. Triggs, and Brian N. Fildes. “Perceptual lane width, wide perceptual road centre markings and driving speeds.” Ergonomics 47.3 (2004): 237-256. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Speed Table/Raised Crosswalks. https://www.ite.org/ pub/?id=2c8edbfb%2D0c48%2Db1f3%2Dc506%2D9e8e72dd3992 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Traffic Calming Measures. https://www.ite.org/technical- resources/traffic-calming/traffic-calming-measures/ Johnson, R. S. (2005). Pedestrian safety impacts of curb extensions: A case study (No. FHWA-0R- DF-06-01). Oregon. Dept. of Transportation. Research Unit. Karim, Dewan Masud. “Narrower Lanes, Safer Streets.” Conference: Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers, Regina, June 2015. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d5a9/ a1a97e5f09dd52e2172235b8c5b4b33a95fb.pdf Lank, Barry. “You can thank coronavirus for no longer having to push a pedestrian button at some L.A. intersections.” The Eastsider, April 23, 2020. https://www.theeastsiderla.com/news/transportation_ and_traffic/you-can-thank-coronavirus-for-no-longer-having-to-push-a-pedestrian-button-at-some/ article_1f96c948-845e-11ea-a6c7-63f5935d9ac4.html Los Angeles County. “Bicycle Master Plan.” https://pw.lacounty.gov/tpp/bike/masterplan.cfm Los Angeles Department of Transportation. “LADOT Resumes Normal Traffic Signal Patterns.” Press release, June 14, 2021. https://ladot.lacity.org/sites/default/files/press-releases/press-release-ladot- resumes-normal-traffic-signal-patterns.pdf Los Angeles, City of. “Western Avenue Corridor Street Enhancement Strategy” (2015). https:// planning.lacity.org/odocument/c130c063-dc2f-4a4f-a4aa-5f49a357f9f7/Western_Avenue_Corridor_ Streetscape_Plan.pdf Ma, Yingying, Ying Zeng, and Xiaoguang Yang. “Impact of lane width on vehicle speed of urban arterials.” ICCTP 2010: Integrated Transportation Systems: Green, Intelligent, Reliable. 2010. 1844- 1852. Manuel, Aaron, Karim El-Basyouny, and Md Tazul Islam. “Investigating the safety effects of road width on urban collector roadways.” Safety science 62 (2014): 305-311. Marshall, Aarian. “There Are Better Ways to Kill Traffic Than Lying to Waze.” Wired (July 5, 2016). https://www.wired.com/2016/07/better-ways-kill-traffic-lying-waze/ Mecheri, Sami, Florence Rosey, and Régis Lobjois. “The effects of lane width, shoulder width, and road cross-sectional reallocation on drivers’ behavioral adaptations.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 104 (2017): 65-73. National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide (2013). https://nacto. org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ National Association of City Transportation Officials. Vertical Speed Control Elements”. https://nacto. org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/vertical-speed-control-elements/ Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority (PVPTA). http://www.palosverdes.com/pvtransit/ Petritsch, T., & PTOE, P. (2009). The influence of lane widths on safety and capacity: A summary of the latest findings. Sprinkle Consulting, Lutz, FL. https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/lane_widths_on_safety_ and_capacity_petritsch.pdf A-93GTSI 94 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes, City of. “Conceptual Bikeways Plan” (1996). https://www.rpvca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/2630/Conceptual-Bikeways-Plan-PDF?bidId= Rancho Palos Verdes, City of. “Engineering and Traffic Survey” (Dec.2021). Rancho Palos Verdes, City of. “General Plan Circulation Element Update: Traffic Impact Analysis” (2010). https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1644/June-14-2012-Draft-Traffic-Safety-Commission- PDF?bidId= Rancho Palos Verdes, City of. “General Plan.” https://www.rpvca.gov/356/General-Plan-Update Rancho Palos Verdes, City of. “Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.” https://www.rpvca.gov/ DocumentCenter/View/94/Traffic-Calming-Guidelines-PDF Rancho Palos Verdes, City of. “Palos Verdes Peninsula-wide Safe Routes to School Plan” (November 2020). https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/16736/Peninsula-Wide-Safe-Routes-to-School- Plan-2020-21- Rancho Palos Verdes, City of. “Trails Network Plan.” https://www.rpvca.gov/483/Trails-Network-Plan Rosey, Florence, et al. “Impact of narrower lane width: Comparison between fixed-base simulator and real data.” Transportation research record 2138.1 (2009): 112-119. Sallybanks, Joanna. “Assessing the Police Use of Decoy Vehicles.” Great Britain Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Police Research Series, Paper 137 (2001). https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual- library/abstracts/assessing-police-use-decoy-vehicles Semeida, A. M. (2013). Impact of highway geometry and posted speed on operating speed at multi- lane highways in Egypt. Journal of Advanced Research, 4(6), 515-523. https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S2090123212000732 Southern California Association of Governments. Current Context Demographics and Growth Forecast. Adopted September 3, 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_ demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579 Tian, Z., & Zhou, C. (2015). Right-Turn Traffic Volume Adjustments in Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis. Nevada DOT Research Report 123-13-803. https://www.dot.nv.gov/home/ showpublisheddocument/9097/636440093198970000 Wolfermann, A., Alhajyaseen, W. K., & Nakamura, H. (2011, September). Modeling speed profiles of turning vehicles at signalized intersections. In 3rd International Conference on Road Safety and Simulation RSS2011, Transportation Research Board TRB, Indianapolis (pp. 1-17). Zangenehpour, S., Chung, C., Saneinejad, S., & Eng, P. (2017). Impact of Curb Radius Reduction on Pedestrian Safety a Before-After Surrogate Safety Study in Toronto. In ITS World Congress, Detroit MI, USA. A-94GTSI 95 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Appendix A: Warrant Analysis The traffic signal warrants analysis was carried out as per the guidelines set in the State of California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) 2014 Edition Revision 6. The CA-MUTCD contains minimum guidelines regarding traffic volumes, collisions, speeds, pedestrian crossings, and other criteria in order to satisfy the requirements for the recommendation of a traffic signal. The traffic signal guidelines in Chapter 4C. Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies of the CA-MUTCD can be accessed at http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/camutcd/camutcd2014rev3.html. As stated in these CA-MUTCD guidelines, and noted below, signalization should be considered when the following standard is met: “An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location. The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of factors related to the existing operation and safety at the study location and the potential to improve these conditions, and the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants: Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3, Peak Hour Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Warrant 5, School Crossing Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System Warrant 7, Crash Experience Warrant 8, Roadway Network Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.” The CA-MUTCD also states that “Engineering judgment should also be used in applying various traffic signal warrants to cases where approaches consist of one lane plus one left-turn or right-turn lane. The site-specific traffic characteristics should dictate whether an approach is considered as one lane or two lanes. For example, for an approach with one lane for through and right-turning traffic plus a left-turn lane, if engineering judgment indicates that it should be considered a one-lane approach because the traffic using the left-turn lane is minor, the total traffic volume approaching the intersection should be applied against the signal warrants as a one-lane approach. The approach should be considered two lanes if approximately half of the traffic on the approach turns left and the left-turn lane is of sufficient length to accommodate all left-turn vehicles” (Section 4C.01.09). Furthermore: “Similar engineering judgment and rationale should be applied to a street approach with one through/left-turn lane plus a right-turn lane. In this case, the degree of conflict of minor-street right- turn traffic with traffic on the major street should be considered. Thus, right-turn traffic should not be included in the minor-street volume if the movement enters the major street with minimal conflict. The approach should be evaluated as a one-lane approach with only the traffic volume in the through/left- turn lane considered” (Section 4C.01.10). A-95GTSI 96 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes At the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East, during the 8 hours of highest traffic volumes, 43% of total traffic westbound on Miraleste Drive turns right onto Palos Verdes Drive East. 40% of total traffic southbound on Palos Verdes Drive East turns left onto Miraleste Drive. Since turning traffic represents close to half of the total traffic volume on both these approaches, these approaches are both considered two-lane approaches. A methodology for calculating right-turn traffic volume adjustments in traffic signal warrant analysis was established by Tian and Zhou (2015) in a research report sponsored by the Nevada Department of Transportation. This methodology calculates the adjusted right-turn volume as the following: Radj = R x [1 – (Fminor – Fmain)] where: Radj = adjusted right turn volume; R = original right turn volume; Fminor = minor street adjustment factor; Fmain = mainline congestion factor. The adjustment factors and congestion factors (Fminor and Fmain) from Tian and Zhou (2015) are shown in the two following tables. A-96clPGTSI 97 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Table 3. Right-turn adjustment factors (Tian and Zhou, 2015) Table 4. Congestion factors (Tian and Zhou, 2015) A-97 Minar Stmet Adjustment Factor tf....:ir) c-Lane Confioumtion Volume Condition ,_ li R. ·O.N •0,60 ·+· 1 0.7V~R O!.lSV 0.40 y R SO.J5V 0.201 L .. J.. R:>3T 0.60 3T R> T/3 0.4.0i 2 y R~Tl3 10.2G1 L4,.. •e~cf:l 0 ~":,r ~~" n ith n 3 -5001 ·ft. 0.75, long.(' e note for h ofter rig h t ..___.. ru t ) y T IR.> (T'f1L) 0.65 .ft.. L > fT"'R) U"Cose2 L -T -IR( 10 ehi) 0.40 4 IL== T > JR 0.20 ~ R ==T>Jl ,0.50 V alJ oth« ,oondUloos 0.30 T R l 0.75 ,5 L .. ff.R l? R > T/2 0.581 -:!:IR>· Tl -t 0.3G1 - y R Tl 4 ,0 .,15 Mainline Congestion Factor (fman) Mainline volume per Mainline volume per Jane (vehlhr/lane) fm .-n lane Cve l hrtl ane) fm ~n I 0 -399 I 0.0 110D -1199 I 0.40 400-4991 0 .1D5, 120D-1299 0 .45 500-599 0 .1 0 '1300-1399 0 .50 1600-6919 I 0 .151 1400-1499 0 .55 700-799 0 .20 1500i-1599 0 .60 800-899 0 .25, 16□□-1699 0 .65 900-999 I 0 .3U 17□□-1799 0 _70 I 1Ulm-1099 0 .35, 1800 -1899 0 .75 GTSI 98 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Intersection 1: At the westbound approach to the intersection of Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East, the lane configuration most closely resembles Case 2. During the 8 hours of highest traffic volume, the volume of right-turning traffic is 3.04 times the volume of left-turning traffic. Therefore, the condition “R > 3T” applies, and the adjustment factor (Fminor) is 0.60. With a mainline peak hour volume of 408 vehicles per hour per lane, the mainline congestion factor (Fmain) is 0.05. (The mainline volume per hour includes mainline right-turn volumes because no right- turn lane is present on Palos Verdes Drive East approaching Miraleste Drive.) Therefore, the adjusted right-turn volume for this approach is the existing right-turn volume multiplied by 0.4, calculated as follows: Radj = R x [1 – (0.6 – 0.05)] = R x 0.405 Intersection 2: At the westbound approach to the intersection of Via Colinita and Miraleste Drive, the lane configuration most closely resembles Case 1. During the 8 hours of highest traffic volume, the volume of right-turning traffic is 1,178 vehicles, while the total volume multiplied by 0.7 is 1,066 vehicles. Therefore, the condition “R > 0.7V” applies, and the adjustment factor (Fminor) is 0.60. With a peak hour mainline volume of 391 vehicles per hour per lane, the mainline congestion factor (Fmain) is zero. (The mainline volume per hour excludes mainline right-turn volumes because there is a right-turn lane on Miraleste Drive approaching this intersection northbound.) Therefore, the adjusted right-turn volume for this approach is the existing right-turn volume multiplied by 0.4, calculated as follows: Radj = R x [1 – (0.6 – 0)] = R x 0.4 Intersection 3: At the eastbound approach to the intersection of Via Canada (the Miraleste Intermediate School entrance/exit) and Palos Verdes Drive East, the lane configuration most closely resembles Case 3. The right-turn lane is approximately 600 feet in length. Therefore, the adjustment factor (Fminor) is 0.75. With a peak hour mainline volume of 268 vehicles per hour, the mainline congestion factor (Fmain) is zero. (The mainline volume per hour excludes mainline right-turn volumes because there is a right-turn lane on Palos Verdes Drive East approaching this intersection southbound.) Therefore, the adjusted right-turn volume for this approach is the existing right-turn volume multiplied by 0.25, calculated as follows: Radj = R x [1 – (0.75 – 0)] = R x 0.25 In order to justify and recommend the installation of traffic control signals, as shown above there are nine (9) CA-MUTCD Traffic Signal Warrants that should be analyzed. If any, or a combination, of these warrants is met then a traffic signal should be considered. Yet, as also stated in the CA-MUTCD: “The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.” The following pages present the analysis of each of the warrants. If the warrant criteria in these guidelines are not met, the installation of an un-warranted traffic signal is typically not recommended as it may place the City in a position of potential liability. A-98clPGTSI 99 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Intersection 1: Miraleste Drive at Palos Verdes Drive East Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Per the CA-MUTCD the Standard for the eight-hour vehicular volume: “The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street.” In order to evaluate traffic volume warrants, 24-hour Average Daily Traffic (ADT) machine counts were collected at the intersection on Thursday, September 15, 2022. Turning movements, pedestrians, and bicycles were also counted that same day during the 8 hours of highest volume, from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Table 5 below shows a summary of the results of the intersection’s ADT and highest hourly traffic count data. All traffic and pedestrian volume data collected for the study intersections are included in Appendix B. Table 5. 24-Hour Intersection Vehicle Counts All traffic count and speed data gathered were applied to the Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheets presented on the following page. As shown on the worksheet, Warrant 1 (Condition A, 80%) was met for Intersection 1. Street Direction ADT Volume Directional Split Highest Hourly Volume Miraleste East of Palos Verdes Dr East Eastbound 5,755 50 % 1,122 veh. (7:30 – 8:30 AM) Westbound 5,744 50 % A-99GTSI 100 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-100 Cal.Lfom.ta MUTCD 20J4. Editio n (FHWA's. D 2000 Editi.o ri . in,d ud'i ng Revis.iiJTIIS l & 2. as a:m£!1doo £or use i □ u llforn i;a) Figure 4C-161 ,CA). Traffic Sigrtat Wa ·rmnts 'Worli:sheet (Shoot 1· of 5) 10 1ST 00 R1i Major st PaJos V,er des lln r Minor st Miral1est e Dr M COUN T DA.T . . .· 15,2022 CALC B .· 101] 3/2022 CK----- Critical Appro,.ii;;h Spee,;;1 Critical Awmach Speed ------111f;l h -....::..:=------mph Spead 1 -ii or aitical :speed on majot :s re.e t raffle > 40 rn pli ....................... J~ }· RURAL (R) In bu u p area of isolala comrnu ity of < 10,0DO p,opu lation .................•..... D . [I!] URBAN (UJ WAIRRANT 1 -Eifght Hour Veh1ic I ,la ir· Vo ume SATISFIED YES ~ NO ID (Ccn1dllition A ,or Condition B oir combination of A and B must be satis,fl.ed) ll'IIIMlJM F!:E !000: SIHOW N u I R -1-00% SATIS F11E D YES, □ NO IKI 80% SA TISF1IIED YES NIO 0 Pag 84A APPRO\I\C LANES 7AM Ha r Both ~prnad'u:!B M,3° or Street ~ I ~oo (400> (280) 150 1 □5 (11ol (!!;I t 601 002 I 549 71 5 9.39 273 298 211 205 :266 '22.7 252 200 Cond irtion B -Enterruiption of Contim1cH1s Traffic Ml S 100% SATISFrillED YES □ NIO □ 80 % .SAT1Sf111ED YES,□ NIO □ Highest ,¾Jproacil Minor Si r ;;t {80 TS) u - Hour Com,bination of Co:nd itio:ns A & B SATISfllED YES-□ NIO 10 REQUIREM,ENli CONDIITTON FULFI L UED A. MINIIMI.JM VEI-IIC LAR VOLUME TWO CO DITIONS ,__ _______________ ____, SA ISF IED 8 □% AND , Ye5, 0 No □ B. lfHER RlJ PT IOO O F CONTINIJJOLJS TRAFAC AN I lfr!IAL OF 0TH T HAT COU Cl C/!ti!JSE ESS DELAY AN · I NCONV IC HAS li=A ILED Yes □ N o □ TO SOLVE TH E TRAFAC PROBLEMS Til e sallsfaclloo of a Uraffic sl -~ warmnl or wa1rra ts she ll not I('! Us e f require l he lnstal tlon of a lraffic oonlfo l sl -al . Chapter 4C -. rillffior Co □trol SiBn;al Needs :Saudies. Part .f -Highway T raffior Signals November l , 20 .14. GTSI 101 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Per the CA-MUTCD, “The Four-Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.” “The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor- street approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing combination of approach lanes. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 4 hours.” The analysis shown on the following pages illustrates that Warrant 2 was not met. Warrant 3, Peak Hour Per the CA-MUTCD, “The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street.” This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases of facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. “The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met: A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day: 1.The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach or 5 vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; and 2.The volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes; and 3.The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches. B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes.” The analysis shown on the following pages illustrates that Warrant 3 was not met. A-101clPGTSI 102 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-102 Caill"omla MUTC 2ll ]4 BcliUan (FH'WA's D 20 □9 Editio11, indu.cfin,g ReviSJOJilS l & 2. as amended for ll!se ia Ca1ifumia Figure 4 1C-101 (CA). Tiaffic Sigr1al Warrarus 'Workshe,u {Shee:f .2· ol -5) WAR~ANl 2 • Fcu r litOUli' Vehicul · · r Volume SATISFr ll EID"' YES □ NO [XI Record oorl y 'liehicular liOIUme:$ for an'.,' four ho rs Qf an average diB~- 2 Qr One More 2PM APF'ROACHI LA ES Hour Botti Ap p~o;ac hes -t.l'aj Of street I X 1715 x I 266 '227 2fi2 WARRAN 3, • Peak Hou I" ,1 Part A or Part B must b satisfiedll PARTA ( Ill [parts 1, 2, and J. below must !be satisfied for the• same one heur, for any four co1111s,e,01.1tive 15-mirillute pe riod:S ,} 1 . The, lolal lrinoed by lral'fie. on O Yes D No D SATISFIED YES □ ,Q □ SATISFIED YES, □ NO , 0 co 11 121d I})' a S OF' sl~n ,e uats or ex.c -Yes D No D app roach, or tlive v hicle -h1;1u r: 0'f a two-lane appr'OaCh; AMQ. 2. The \I0.1 ume on he :same, minOI' :sires . approach (one ctireciiOn o.n lyl e,quals Of e-.x.ceeds y S-D No □ 100 h for one v lng ne of lra or 150 vph ~ two motlng la es :Alli!, 3 . The 0t en · ing volume -s,.ervit<;!d during the nour eq\J~ or e)l)oee(le 800 "1Plrl ror inierseccioos · four or mo«:i a~raaclflss o r 650 'J · for in ,:etsacticns wi1fl Yes D No D a ~ roach ·s. PARTB SA nsF El)• YES D I NO Kl A!PPROACH lAJNES .2 OIi' Hloor 0 Mo.re 3PM I X 939 X '227 The pfcrtted point falls etia,..-e lhe applicable aur.•e i FiQUR! 4C-J. {URBAN AR EAS) Yes D !'lo ~ QB, Tt\e plotted po int falls atici.ve !he applicab le ou r l' . iJ"I IFlii;ju:r& 4C--4 (RURAL AREA.S} Yes D No □I Pag 5 The sa is a ion a a 11a signal warra t ,Cf warran s: ::Illa · in i s:el req uire the · sta ll ation of a ra 1c contro l sig al , Chapter 4C -. raffk Ccmtrol Sis,nal Needs Sucdies Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals GTSI November 7, 2014 103 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-103 500 400 MINOR STAEET 300 H GHER - vo UM · Figure 4C-11. Wa 1rranl 2, Four-Hou r Ve hicular'Volume 2 OR MORE: LANES &2 OR MORE LANES ~PPAOACH-200 r--+---+---+~i.:::--t-------"'l')o(,,.::::-+---=--..:::--t---+---+---1 VPH 300 MID 500 600 700 800 900 IOOO I I 00 1200 1300 14 00 MAJOR STREIET -TOTA OF BOTl-l APPROACH ES- VEHIC LE S l?EFI HOUR (VPiH) ote: 111 11l)h awl s as the lower threshold \IO I me for mmo.r-stre:el a;pproachi wilh two o r rnorl!I lanes andl 80 vph applies as t e lowe r ltlreshold VO!ull!e ro a rmrwr-1:lln!el approact, wilh one la11e . F1:gure 4C-3 . Warirant 3t Peak Houir MINOA 400 1----1:o...,.:c--+----f"'-....::--+-----t-="'-...::-+--1----1---1----+---+---+--+-----1 ST A T AELANE IGIIEl=l· VO LU E ooo 1----t--+----;-::,"""""=,1-~r-"""'-E:l--.,,,L:..+°""""'d--t-----:l~-::-l-----,----1!-:-::--+-----I APPROAC 'H - GTSI VP 200 i--------i---+-+-+-+---=""""'=-l------:::;f.-""-ii::::::--.....,=-..111i1;::;=-+-+-~ T"...._~-~!:ao.....;.--1 1!',D. oo~-l--1---1----1---+--+--~--l-..:+~=;:-4-.:=:i:=:....---1 1~ AJOl9 STREET -TOTAL O F BOTH APPROACHES- VE HICLES PEA HOUR (VFH) Note: 160 vp appl 5, as. Ille I wer thl'HhOld vo me lor a mlnor-streel approaeh w ith 'lv,o or more Ian. s nd 1 oo YiPh p,plies ,s t e IOw · r lilfl;IS h d vo'l ume lor a j Or-$1ir88t approach \\lilh Oll8 la 8. 104 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Per the CA-MUTCD, “The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street.” As such, “The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met: A. For each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-5; or B. For 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) falls above the curve in Figure 4C-7.” The analysis shown on the following pages illustrates that Warrant 4 was not met. Warrant 5, School Crossing Per the CA-MUTCD, “The School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that schoolchildren cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.” “The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when an engineering study of the frequency and adequacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size of groups of schoolchildren at an established school crossing across the major street shows that the number of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the schoolchildren are using the crossing is less than the number of minutes in the same period (see Section 7A.03) and there are a minimum of 20 schoolchildren during the highest crossing hour. Before a decision is made to install a traffic control signal, consideration shall be given to the implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards, or a grade-separated crossing. The School Crossing signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.” Although Intersection 1 has some pedestrian traffic that is believed to be school-related, there is not an established school crossing at the intersection. Therefore, Warrant 5 was not met. A-104clPGTSI 105 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-105 Califo rnia 1 CD 20! 4 Editio.n H 'A "s.M CD :WDD EdUla □, Locti:d'.IJl!!! Revisions. l & 2. ~ ilJlleoded farnse lnCal lfwnlla) WARRAN IT 4 • Pede:s.B an V',o lume, ,(IP arts 1 :and 2 M l!ISI Be Satisfied) Part 1 war ,A o 1:1 m us-1 b Hours - - A. 549, 687 I) 0 B. i;ier hour for Part2 0 0 figure, 4C-5 orr F i gure· 4C'"'6a SA TIS fl ED YES 0 1 NO [&)I figure 4C-7 orr F i gure, 4-C ,-8, SATIS.f ED YES O NO 1!11 SAT l5F ED YES 1]11 NO □I e 00 No D I .00, The proposed ffic sigr1 :II ,,.,ii not res.1 ri c1 pr~asive traffic D alor1g ·he map &ires!. Yes D No D 1 WARRANT 5 • .School Cross,i ng ,(Parts A 3 llll d IB M ust IBe S;Ui sfie d ) Part A SATISF IED YES □ NO I] SATISFIED YES □ NO □ Hou r Gaps < M. , te-s YES □ NO □ YE$ 0 NO 0 1 , Co n sid aret i □ n haa bee n giwn ta !la ss ra&iri::tive remad i · Yes □I No □I PartB SATISFI.ED YES ~ NO □ The distance to N'I han 30 0 fi .QB, he tpropos eo s-,;gn al 1101 re$1.nct the pro gressive mo1t1ement ol trofflc. l!:S Iii No D I No D I Page 846 TM iO n of 1J'affie SJQna l w rant ot warrtlJ'ltt; shall n~ i i l'Cquire IM instll l tioo o a .a ic con ml 8iQMI. CbapiieJ '4C -f nillk Comml S igna l Needs Stntll'les Pan 4 -HLg bway . raffic lgnals GTS I ovember 7, 2D M 106 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-106 TO;rAL OF AL PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STIRIEET- IPEDESTRIANS PE ' HOU · (P H) 500 400 300 200 100 1Figure 4,C-5. Warrant 4, Pedestir iain Fo,ur-Hou1r Volume """ ~ ~ ~"' '-- r-............ ~ I -1101• V V u :'. 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1,200 '1300 1400 700 €00 TOTAL OF All 500 PEDESTRIANS CROSSING 400 MAJOR STREET- 300 IPEDESTAIANS PER HOUR ( -PH zoo 100 MAJOR STIREE -TOTAL OF IBOTH APPAOACHES- VIEHICLES PER IHOUIA VPHI ) T ote: 07 pph applies as he lower ttnshofd vo um&, Figure 4C -7. Warrant 4, Pedest:riian P·eak Hou r '-. ' ' I "'---..... i'-,... ... -,.., ' r--....._ --...... """'--.... 133• 300 400 50□ 600• 700 BO -900 1 00(1 1100 1 0 1300 14 00 15oo lF.Qo 1700 1800 MAJIOR STRE ET-TO ALOF BOTH APPROAGHIES- VEHICL S PER HOUA (V PH ) ~ ,ole; 133 pph applies as lihe lower lhl'esiho ld volu e. GTSI 107 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System Per the CA-MUTCD, “Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles.” This Warrant is not applicable for the location at hand. Warrant 7, Crash Experience Per the CA-MUTCD, “The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal.” One of the necessary conditions for this warrant is that “Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12-month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash;” The crash data provided by the City do not show numbers or types of crashes meeting these criteria. As such, Warrant 7 is not met. Table 6. Crash Records from June 2017 to May 2022 for Palos Verdes Dr East and Miraleste Dr Intersection Warrant 8, Roadway Network Per the CA-MUTCD “Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network.” The above criterion is not applicable to the study intersections. Warrant 8 is not met. Collision Date Collision Time Collision Type Collision Severity 6/19/19 5:45 Broadside Property Damage Only 10/26/19 12:30 Sideswipe Property Damage Only 5/13/2020 8:00 Sideswipe Property Damage Only 11/30/2021 11:30 Broadside Other Visible Injury A-107GTSI 108 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-108 Califo rnia 1 "1'1CIJ 2CH 4 Editio:n (F H'lli.i'A "s. JI.I -CD ~□OD Ediuo □, tocl'lixlln:g Re-\•ts_loos. l & 2. as iU11ended for l l!Se I n CaUfomlla) Figure -4C..1 ,01 (CA ). Tratflc Signal Warrants Workshee ,, (Sh ee:t 4 at 5) WARR.A , T 6 -Coord.i marted Signal System ,(A!L Pairts M ll!sl Be Satisfieiil SATIS FIEID YES □I N,O Ci f S IGNA ~ 1000 ft On a o ne,-wey s e et ,:;i,ra st reet !hat haa tlliffic p.re d . ·, 1:1 n I:,' irr, 0111e di r ion, !he ~j(l<:e, lrarftc c;o l r ol sii;J11ali; a r1:: o fco1r aparl that t hey do n provide l hc n=-sarry degree of veh icular pl atooni . ~ ___ ~ _ ~ _ ~ _____ _ QB. On 3 lwQ wa~ s rt[!el ~;ice 1 i ,c c:ornn;il si g l!;i: dn not p wd e e ne ol;!Ssary d gree of pla.toon1 1\';( and 1h& proposed and adjacent Ira e Ci:in rol sign will coliec l l\l p rO\lid e a p,ogres51iv e cp er~tion . WARRA ,1 T 7 -er -h IExp er ie 111oe Wan nit ,(Ail. Pa1rts M 1.1st Be Satisfied!) S.A TISFIEJID YES D I NO l!I Yes □ D Number · h j.eil(Xt. BU608 · , nd irwo l\ii g injury Ye s O No[EI 5 OR MO:RiE 0 'IE C-ON,DITI ON 6ATI SFIE (10'-½ c.r d rn1a9e e l ceet f(;r $ ble i;:18$ WARM 'T 8 -Roadway Netw"o ri k 1(.Ail P' rts M list B-e SaUsfiecl) SATl:SFIE111:> 'ill'ES D I N,O !]I ,J F'ULF'I IJ.IE D 100 ven r Ou · Typ __ . Week.di}' Pe;;1 k l-l oo r _~~~-Ve hfHr a · d ss &-year projK:le-1 ·Ire c vol um es 11:'tat me el: one ot more or · art. .nt.s. 1 , , ar.tt 3 .Mi'l: ~n ~vet. ge we ay, ----------,0R------------- 1 Yes □ E ach of An:,-5 H .. of Sa . o,r Su n __ Voh!l-lr OH/!/AACTIE fil IS ;. OR ROUTE A ·v ,.10 1:i ROUTEB □ Page8.U Cbapl!:er -4C -. ramc Co.n11ol 5.tgnal Nl!ll!d.s Siud.1.e:s Prut 4 -HLgl:rway Trame S 1a:nals. overnber 1, ZO I •i GTS I 109 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing Per the CA-MUTCD “the center of the track nearest to the intersection is within 140 feet of the stop line or yield line”. There is no grade crossing near the study intersections. Therefore, Warrant 9 is not met A-109 Califamia 1 CD 2014 Edi ·on H A's.MUTCD ~009 . Illa □, Locl:u:dJ.Bg Re.., IIlflS. l & 2. as am.E!nded foru!!ie lnCalJfCllllti) WARRANT ·9 -lrn:ersecfion Near a Grade-Crossing 1~Both Parts .A . .ana B Mu t Be S-atrs:fiedl - SA1]SFIE!D1 YE.S O NO (!I A grad a crassng e:xisHi. o n a n ai pproo.cli m -· led lby s STOP Oi Y1 EL □ s ig and ~he ren of lhe . a rest bo lhe lnterseci lon Is wi~hin 140 'feet of the s f) lin e o -yield lin e on 1he app1oaoh . Tirao Cef!lter ~ o Limit ine ft P4BIB Th er,e . one m nor s. ree:t approach la 11 e, ai the r,1u:k •ltlJ0$9.lngr -Durin g the hi Ile~ o --nour _ ring w i rail tra Ic uses M , l'.lr(i~'!'iingi, 11ii --M [POi n ·_ ns ®o!ie Ute applicable CJJ f\' In Fi · r@ 4C-9 . Major S -et -Ta ,a l of bath approaches : __ V PH Mrno:r -StnlGt -Cross s llhe ltaick ( • dll'• C'tion c , approacliing h inb r& . Jon r. _ VPiH X A ( eT~les 4C -:2 , 3,. _ 4 tieiow t,o calc ula e AJ ·) = _ VP H :QI; There ar,e two o r m ore minorrs1lree1 a ppro:ao h l.a nes allhe trao k uossi n:g •· Ou ng 1h~ h t lraff.c vo=u hour ing · ra tra Ic uses m Ing, t'1 pfotted poi n all s ve l he ap _ca_ ourv-e in Fi gu re C-10 . Maje\ Sli"ool -Toi.a l of both approac h~ : --'V HI Mll'!Of · t • Croose · ~e l~ co dif,P.C'liOP 011ty, appro,a,thlllli!J h In ter Ion r __ VPH X AF (Ltse Tatile5 -c--2, :3 , -8, 4 be1ow to (:S]cu e A ) = __ VP H Yes □ ·[□ 'r1 □ ID The minors eet roa oh ·"OI mayb e mu · • by upto ·imeefo ·ng ,aijj usmentfactors . F) GTSI 1;1s described in Sedion C .1 . 1· Number of ail Tit . per Cl .i y ___________ _ djuS'lrnenl · ttto: ffMI t •· . 4 2_ s oo Miner S l'll3etAwroach __ Adjuiilmentfactw frcmta · · 4C-3 __ 2-~ age of 1-t igfl-O:; pancy ge of Tr.actor-Trailer 'Ti ueks o.t1 Minor Slree'LA.,-,, '"""''""._ __ AdjuS'ln-ien l f · · rrcm La 4C-4 __ f'ID1E: I -o dara is e....ailele · Page 848 110 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Intersection 2: Miraleste Drive at Via Colinita Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Per the CA-MUTCD the Standard for the eight-hour vehicular volume: “The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street.” In order to evaluate traffic volume warrants, 24-hour Average Daily Traffic (ADT) machine counts were collected at the intersection on Thursday, September 15, 2022. Turning movements, pedestrians, and bicycles were also counted that same day during the 8 hours of highest volume, from 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 1:00 PM to 8:00 PM. Table 7 below shows a brief summary of the results of the intersection’s approaches ADT and highest hourly traffic count data. All traffic and pedestrian volume data collected for these intersections are included in Appendix B. Table 7. 24-Hour Intersection 2 (Miraleste Dr-Via Colinita) Approach Vehicle Counts All traffic count and speed data gathered were applied to the Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheets presented on the following page. As shown on the worksheet, Warrant 1 (Condition B, 80%) was met for Intersection 2. Street Direction ADT Volume Directional Split Highest Hourly Volume Miraleste Dr North of Via Colinita Southbound 6,421 52.6 %1,201 veh. (7:15 – 8:15 AM) A-110GTSI 111 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-111 CaJ.Lrorn 3a MIUTCD 20] 4 Ed~uo 11 (FHWA's M D 20 □ Editi.oni, incl uding Revi~o:ns l & 2. as a:me:ooe.d for ll!5e ia C,a1jforni.a Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Si9na,1 rwa ,rf'ants Wo rltsheet (S,heet 1' of 5) IDISi 00 Rli PM Me r SI : _M_ir_a_l e_.s1_e_D_r ________ _ Miru;ir SI: _VLJj..,.a.....,C...,o...,, l .... i □.LIJit ... a..__ _______ _ cou -T AT Sept,ember 5,2022 CA.1..c__.a ... z .... o ...... __ DA IF 1 Q/1 312022 CK .-----DATE ____ _ Critical App roa c h Spee,;;l . __ 35-.• ---mph CritiC'-31 Appro,1J ch Speed 25 mph Spsed I -it oraiticall speiid o n rn Bjof slreet raftic. > 40 m pti ______________________ ,..10 } or . ~U RA L (R:) In bu t u p a rte a of isalala co mmu -ity of < 10,000 populatiO n ..........•............. D . IIXl URBA N (U) WA-RRANT 1 -E1i;ght Hour V~h icili1la r· VGlume SATIS IP.IED YES □ INO Ill! ('Ccn11d i tlo:n A. or Condition B or combi nati on of A and B must be satls,fl.ed) HO% SATIS flllED YES, □ NO IKI 80% SATIS flllED YES,□ NO □ Pag &14 our 420 (.l-36) 957 ,4 □ 100 (11 2) ,conditi on a -llnterr,u1ption of Continuous Traffic APPROACi-1 LliJNE:S Ml EMENTS {80 . ACKl:T [fill R U R ComibInation of Cortd iltiO ' S A ,& B, REQU IREM,ENli CONDITIO N HO% SA TIS FrlllED YES, □ NO □ 90 % SATIS fillE II) YES, 00 NO □ I-lour SATIS fllED YES, □ 110 I□ ./ FULFI L LIED A.. M INIIMI.IM VE f·-UC LA R VOLU M E TWO CONDITIONS ,__ ______________ __,!------I Yes D No D SATISF IE D 80% AN D, B . I TER RU PT I ON O F CONTIN OLJS T RAF FIC Th e salls:fa cllo of a traffic sl -aJ w1uren1 or w;a rr ts, sha ll not iri tsclf re quire l h,e Ins t on of a lraffic c--o 1101 s -. at Ch.apter 4C -. raffle Co ntrol Sii;:nal Needs Studies November 7, 2014 Pan ,t -Higbway Traffic Sig11a 1s GTS I 112 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Per the CA-MUTCD, “The Four-Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.” “The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor- street approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing combination of approach lanes. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 4 hours.” The analysis shown on the following pages illustrates that Warrant 2 was not met. Warrant 3, Peak Hour Per the CA-MUTCD “The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street.” This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases of facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. “The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met: A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day: 1.The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach or 5 vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; and 2.The volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes; and 3.The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches. B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes.” The analysis shown on the following pages illustrates that Warrant 3 was not met. A-112clPGTSI 113 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-113 CaHfom 3a MUTCD 2-0 4 Bdll\lo:n (FH\\W s 'I CD 20 □9 Ed iti mi, indurfin,g Revisions 1 & 2. :as a:rne:nded far ll!se i □ Califomi.a) Figure 4C-101 (CAJ . Traffic Signal Warra,Hs Wor:ksbeet (Shee.t .:2· o.f 5) WARRANT 2 -FOi.iii" I-IIOUli Veh'cu arVolume SATISF II EID" YES □ NO [I Record hoorl y ·vehic ular volumes for an!,' fou r ha rs of an average d.S!,'- 2 Qr One Mo«! :2 M X I 1820 X I I 29 •AJI plottt!(I poin s fa ll aloo'i'· l he app licab le CUl'V(l in Fig ure 4C-1 . URBANAAEAS) Ye s □ No IZl Yes D No □ I WARRAN 3, • P,eak Hou I' t Part A or Part B mus,t be satis,f edll PABit\ SATIS IFIE.D YES Ii[) N•O □ SAT ISF IIED YES , □ NO, 0 (All I pail'tS 1, 2, and 3, below mus1 be sati:sfied for the same one ho·ur, for an y four co111seoutive 5 minute periocllS) 2. The \!ol um.e on he :same mtnOt' :s res .app.roach (one di~cti on otil)') equal s or exceeds y :s, D No D 100 Vi h for ooe m.ov ln g lane ,oftra or 150 vph M two mo,..lng lane:s : A.t:m J . T he 01al en ing volume -s,ervi'l;ced di.iring the hour eq\Ja or e:w:oeed!i -800 vtPh for inie1sac ,icns · four or more a~raacn,as o r 650 ,,.pti for in ersectiooe with Yes D No D lhmEl a · roaches . .PA RT B SATIISF ED YES □ NO 00 A!PP ROAC LAJ .ES I-lour 1076 I x 1 3 The pl.ot:ted point falls eba,ve Iha applicable our.•e i · Fagure C-J . (U RBAN AR EAS ) Yes D !No IX! QB,T p!olu!id point falls above 1ne ap,plic:ab le wrv m IF(lur& 4C-4 . (RURAL A.REAS} Yes D No □ Pag &45 The sa i$fac im c .a a sign wan.ant ,or w.a rran s shai . · in i !ioel re,:iuire the · $U:illation of i !"die contro l sig a , Ch.apm -4C -Traffll!: Co□trol Signa1 Needs Suidies Part. '1 -Highway Traffic Signals GTSI November 7, 2014 114 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-114 F1ig1u re 4C-1 . Wairranl 2, IFo u1r-Hour Veh icuEa r Volume 500 400 MINOR STREET JOU H IGHER- V,OLUME APP IROACH • 200 Vl?H 100 ----- i LANES & 1 I.AN I I I 1 lANE & 1 LANE 1S' so· :mo 400 sao 600 ,oo aoo 900 100D 11 oo 12,00 1:ioo 1400 M IINO:FI STREET HIGHER - VOLUME APPROACH· VP'H GTSI MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPAOACHES- VE I IICLES PER HOU R (VPH) "Note · 115 11pln a pp lies as he lcv.ver thr,esiholcl volume tor a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and SO Y1Ph a~lies as the lower ttlre-shold volume, for a ml or-s -eet ppro-acti with on& lane-. figure 4C-3. Warrant 3. Peak H-o,u r 400 5(]0 ,500 700 800 900 M -OA STFIE T-TOTAL OF BOTH APPFIOAC HES- VEHIICLES PER t'iOU A (VPIH) 1600 1700 18,00 Note: 150 vph applies as the lov.sr threshold \i'Ol .m lor a minor-tl'8 I approach wl!h two or more lanes and 100 vph appl es as 1M iowe r d"lre-sl"to d volume for a minor-street approa.c with one la e, 115 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Per the CA-MUTCD, “The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street.” As such, “The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met: A. For each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-5; or B. For 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) falls above the curve in Figure 4C-7.” The analysis shown on the following pages illustrates that Warrant 4 was not met. Warrant 5, School Crossing Per the CA-MUTCD, “The School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that schoolchildren cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.” “The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when an engineering study of the frequency and adequacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size of groups of schoolchildren at an established school crossing across the major street shows that the number of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the schoolchildren are using the crossing is less than the number of minutes in the same period (see Section 7A.03) and there are a minimum of 20 schoolchildren during the highest crossing hour. Before a decision is made to install a traffic control signal, consideration shall be given to the implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards, or a grade-separated crossing. The School Crossing signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.” There are no schools in the neighborhood surrounding Intersection 2. Therefore, Warrant 5 was not met. A-115clPGTSI 116 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-116 Califo rnia 1lffCD 2014 Edition HWA "s.M , CD 2009 Turn □n, Loc! 00:l_ng RE!'•l5Jom l & 2. as ameooed for 1[SJ!!,1nC al 1fomta) F.igure 4C-101 i(CA). Ttaffic Signai Wa;tc11ot$ Wbrksheet(Sheet 3 of 5,1 , WARRAN IT ,4 • Pedeisb' an V,olume ,(Parts 1 :and .2 M ILIS1. Be Satisfied) A. 7 4 3PM B. 1076, i;ie r lloyr for ,6 I Part 2 820 107i6 938 6 2: I Figure, 4 C-5 0:11' Figure· 4C..S ,SATISf ED YES O NO [!] Figure 4 C-7 o,r· Figure· 4e..g, .S.ATISlr ED YES □ NO [m l SATl5FED YES ~I NO D I Ye!ii 01I No □ .00, The proposed · a.ffic :siw l\'il not rel:-rici r.rog ssive traffic flow alor1g he rn31p &1 rsal. Yes DI No D WARRANT 5 • School Crossiing (Parts A a11d 1B M111s,t IBe sa~isfied ) Pa1rtA G@P.liM l'I Y~ 11md Q'f Ch l]dfre(~l The diS'tanco to r o han 300 fi SATISFIED YES □ NO l]I SATISFIED YES □ NO □ Gaps ,i; M-1tes YES □I NO 0 •Ch d~ n > 200,r YES DI NO 0 Yes D I No □ .SAJISF-LED YES □ NO □ Y~s □I No □ Yi!!S D I No D Page 846 C ba~e.r 4C -. raffle Co ~rnl lgnal Needs ~100:1 Pillll. 4: -H~bway 1 ra tfk S 1g11als. ov-em'ber 7, 2DM GTS I 117 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-117 500 400 TOTAL OF AL L PEDESTFI I ANlS 300 GROSSING MAJOR 8 IR EET- PEDESTR I A.NS 200 PEA HOUR (fl PH } 1100 Figure 4C.s. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Four-Hour Volume l"-,..1',._ ----,------- I~ ' ..........._ ~ ~ --107• )( y y X 300 400 500 ·600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 700 600 T-OTAL O·F All 500 PED-ESTR IANS CROSS NG 400 MAJOR STREET· PE.DESTRIANS 300 PclR HOU R (PPH ) 200 100 MAJOR STR E T -TOTAi OF BOTH AIPP 1ROACH S- V E HIC E S PER HOUR (VPH) ~Note : 107 pp h applil es as lhe !rn•,er thres hold volume. Figure 4C-7. Warrant 4, Pedestriian Peak, Hour ' ~ ' ~-. -.... ' .... ... ' .........._ --.... ~ 133• )( 300 400 500 600 700 800 9 00 1000 1100 12 00 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREIET-TOTA L OF BOT H A P PROACHES- V EH IC L ES P E R HOUR (VPH) GTSI 118 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System Per the CA-MUTCD “Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles.” This Warrant is not applicable for the location at hand. Warrant 7, Crash Experience Per the CA-MUTCD “The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal.” One of the necessary conditions for this warrant is to have “Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12-month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash;” The crash data provided by the City do not show numbers or types of crashes meeting these criteria. As such, Warrant 7 is not met. Table 8. Crash Records from June 2017 to May 2022 for Miraleste Dr and Via Colinita Intersection Warrant 8, Roadway Network Per the CA-MUTCD “Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network.” The above criterion is not applicable to the study intersection. Warrant 8 is not met. Collision Date Collision Time Collision Type Collision Severity 1/12/19 1:30 Rear End Property Damage Only 12/19/20 12:18 Broadside Property Damage Only 6/13/2021 18:15 Broadside Complaint of Pain 6/19/2021 13:27 Broadside Property Damage Only 11/9/2021 8:25 Broadside Complaint of Pain A-118GTSI 119 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-119 Cali.fomfa. MUTCO 2014 ~dition (FH\l\l'A ·s M ITTCD 200!:i Illa □, Locfud'lrig Re.,.151005, l & 2. :lS iLlll:eooed lior use In Cal l for□La) Rgure ,4.e, .. 101 (CA }. TratfJ'c Sfgnal Warrants Worksheer (Shee :r 4 of .5)' W:ARRA , T 6 -Coord [malted S g nal System (All . P'a1M Mum Be Sati$tlecl) ~ 1000 ft SATISFIE1D YES □ N1O 00 Yes □ NoOI On a Qne--way 5, eet o r~ ::.t ree! 1~ h:;i.s lr{iffic predi:;mm1;1n I~ i111 QAe dir ion. In ,!ldjace, lraffic: GO lrd :si!;Jnals ar,e o far iil!J8fl t thi::y do nol 1mwidc:: lhi:: necessary degree of ~~u~.£!~oo_!li~~ === --=-= = -~-----~ = ==-----Ye~□ NoOI QB. ·On :1 r. Ivay s: r,eet, ad.J~ce ,-,c carnrnl sig111:,1 ls: d-0 l"ilOI prowde th e necessary dagree of platoo nh and 1ha tiro~ .and ad ja~nl ltaffie <:<!in rol . -n "Y III col~etrv provide a progreg51ive Qperalion. WAR RA r l 7 ~ Cr h Experie111oe Warr. nit 1(A~ I P'airts Must 8,e .Satisfied) SA TJ.SFIE1D 'ill'E.S □I N.O l!J Ye.,□ ,0 N1_1ml)er Qf Q!1 SIJSQepfillle M g1 inj1uy Yes. 0 No ,[! Of ,d 1;11 ma9e e ~c: let a 5 OR MORE __ Rl;___OU IREMENTS_, _ C~NDITIONS 0 CONIDI ION SATISFIE ijl)'½ O □OVeh r Warr.ant 1, con _ iOl'I A.- t.1immu , lar 'Volume ,OR D u · ai;;h of A n:,-5 YEIG-0 0 SATI-SFIEID ¥ES □ NrO 00 v F'LJ ILI.EO 1 Yes □ _ •□ Yes ,O Pa 847 Chapller -4C -Traflk Co.111101 S.1g11al Needs S11 l es Pan 4 -H Ls bw ay T ram c. 5.i s.nals. ovember 1. ZO M GTSI 120 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing Per the CA-MUTCD “the center of the track nearest to the intersection is within 140 feet of the stop line or yield line”. There is no grade crossing near the study intersections. Therefore, Warrant 9 is not met. A-120 Californ ia. /[ . 1 CO 201-4 Edition H A ·~ :M 'CD ~DOD '11 an, Loc ooJ.ng Rev~l:om l & 2. as~ fariise In Callfoml!a) GTS I WARRANl 9 -Intersection Near a Gra.de Cirossing 1~1Both Parts .A .anc:il B Must Be S-at i sfiedl SA1i1SFIEID1 YES O NO ml A grade cr•OS sng e.xists On a n 81 pp rmth ~ . led by a STOP 01 YI EL D 1:,ig : and t 1:1 rerr o lhe arest to 1he inte rse~loo is wit In 140 'feel or t e s!O p lin e or yield li ne on 11'1e al)pfoaoh . Ti ~o Cef!.!ter · e o Limit ine ft MBIB Th er, ii -one rn !flor s.tree approach la n e ai the rad: •CJO$S ln9 ~ Durin g the hig.he5- 'IJ'Sffi¢ ·. 0 • h.oo r a rin g '"' i ra i tra ,c: use1:, M 1'W$-'Sing, 1M · · tt;d 1poinl a111:, ~ ove 'ltl aWlica 'le CliJ 8 in Figu~e 4C-9. Major Sln!et -Ta ;a l of bath apprnach es: __ V PH M ~-Cross s N'!e Ira.ck ( e. dll'•. Ollon omy, ap p~l~ he inb rs.,ct:.ion l. _VA-IX A ( e:Table5-4C •2, 3,84~wt-o .. cuhne 1 )-_VP H 21. i he:re a r,e two or more m in o:r stireeil approach la nes at 1he trac,k C1ross i n9 •· Dunng 1he h t lrafftt ~, hoor Cfull ng vdlteh rad ~r.a ,e usil:s IM o n . the pkitted poi nl · all s 8bove lhe a.ppfica bl'e cur.-,e in f igu .. C• 10 M.1JO.t ' 11. -Tola I of tlotl'I appmaC h{l1; : __ v ~ tJ iror · . t • Cro:s.5, s. tltl ln.lCk 1a d -eod o,i Illy, app n;.taci,i • Jle· Inter Jon r __ VPiH X AF (IJ-se li )1;!!;: C-2 , 3, a 4 ~" tQ ~ l:;l,J l;I e AIF } = __ I/PH The min or e~ eet riMY be mu · ae:i describe<! in by up to tmee f ·ng adju S1me nt fu..Gm {AF ,. Number of _all T .a-per Oil y ___________ _ djuS'lmen l raela h'alrl ta · 4 2_ 2--~ age Of High .......... .LJlllL.Ld SES oo M'inOr Slres t Awroacfl __ Adjus1ment factoi frool'I ta e C-3 __ :).. P cenl ge of ii ado Tra,I T ud<s 011 Mi or St.re,e'l Aooll'OaCh. __ _ if.ljus1J'nent. 01E: I · o dera is e ... ailele li.nO-w1i , hen · a AF = 1 {oo a~ ·en ) Page 848 121 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Intersection 3: Palos Verdes Drive East at Via Canada Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Per the CA-MUTCD the Standard for the eight-hour vehicular volume: “The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street.” In order to evaluate traffic volume warrants, turning movements, pedestrians, and bicycles were counted during the 8 hours of highest volume, from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM to 6:00 PM. All traffic and pedestrian volume data collected for these intersections are included in Appendix B. All traffic count and speed data gathered were applied to the Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheets presented on the following page. Due to the upcoming reopening of the former Marymount California University campus as a branch of UCLA, some additional traffic on Palos Verdes Drive East is expected. This additional traffic was projected using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th edition, based on an expected 1,000 additional students. This results in 75 projected additional vehicles during the AM peak hour on Palos Verdes Drive East (58 vehicles southbound, 17 northbound) and an additional 75 vehicles during the PM peak hour (51 northbound, 24 southbound). As shown on the worksheet, Warrant 3 (Part B) is met for this intersection. A-121GTSI 122 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-122 California · lilITCO 2® 14 Erurion Page 344 (rn A "a:. Ml JT . D 2000 Ed111.on, tnd .lllltog Revts.loo.i I & 2, a:s. 1.endea t:oruse In Cal!il'o:r nb ) C-0 RTE ajor St; pa ro s ¼mfes Dr [E Minor SL Vi a Canad a 10/2512022 CO UNT DATE ________ _ C.A.LC BZO DATE 1 13/2022 C _____ DATE ____ _ ee d _ _.25_· '"', ___ mi:n 1 prc,ad'l ed 25, ph Sp ee d lim it or ailooa l 'Speed o n m o r street tr.a 1i:: > 410 m ph •....•......•.......... D } or Ir! . 11 up, area , o so1,1 ed eornmun 'I of -i: 10, -0 :1;1u1,1 on ..................... D RURAl!..(R I URBoi\N I UI Im WA RRANil' 1 • Eight Ho111r V, ,h icular Volume SAil'I SF IEO Vi S O NO IXI] (Cond .11oni A or 1Co1nd ltl o1111 B ,o v comblnatlon of A and B must be satisfi ed ) Cond t on A -MI nlmum Vehlcle • Volume AJlPROAC ILAN S Cond t l on B • lntarrupUon of Conrtl'nuollSi Traffic ENS ETS) Combinat io n of Co11dltlo1n, A&. B, IREQIJJ IREMENrr 100% SATISFllED VES D I INO IXll 80% SATISFIIED YES □ INO □ 25 u 10oak SATISFl ED YES □ INO □ 810:%. SATISFilED YES □ INO !El Hou 25 SATISF ED YES □I NO 001 f UllF ILLE D y s □ No Ye ;: D No Ii:: 00!'1 ill'I SI r C bap;er 4 -. raffle !ntto] ~ gnal.NeedsStudie;, IP ·, •t -HLghw!!! Traff c:S gm.ls. ""ovem.'her7 , 20 M GTS I 123 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Per the CA-MUTCD, “The Four-Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.” “The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor- street approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing combination of approach lanes. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 4 hours.” The analysis shown on the following pages illustrates that Warrant 2 was not met. Warrant 3, Peak Hour Per the CA-MUTCD “The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street.” This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases of facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time. “The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met: A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day: 1.The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach or 5 vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; and 2.The volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes; and 3.The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches. B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes.” The analysis shown on the following pages illustrates that Warrant 3 was met. A-123clPGTSI 124 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-124 Cabfo ml a .fl.JfCO 201 4 Eclitio:n (FH A·s.MLJT D 2 □00 MWon. toc!ludtng Re.ti.loo.i 1 & 2. ar. iended forns,e In CaJilf'i::lmla) WARIRA INT 2 • ,Four Hour Vchlicu ['<!Ir Volume ~eoo ra ll'IOur1y v ~ 1,;01umes or a ri v toor l'I C\ll"S 01 ;;in m,, 1'39e Clay Boih WARIRAINT 3 • ?,eak HQ'1,1r (Pa.rt A or Parili B must be satisfied~ PAJfllA 2 Of' O ne fJo re X X (Al l p rts 1, 2, , d 3 b ~ow must b salis ed ro th ·. aim one hour for ainy fi::m 1r coniii _ Cllitive, 15,-minuts, pariod ) SAT~FIEJIJ1 SA: ISFIED 1 Io n on l:;) ,· s □ No !XI No □ YES □ NO 00 I s D NO Im Yes O No D 2 The 110 . e o me san~e mt,fKlr ,b"eet pprooch {one-directio n on l~) equa l:;; Oi ~oeea:;; Yes 00 No □ 1 a ~ o one roo Ja ne of tra ,c or ·150 vph lo. Ni'O mo1t ng kines : 8tiQ. 3_ The otr,il em ing vobne eervice-d ri ng the ho r e,q1,1 als or e-xoeeda 000 \iph fOi" in1ers e tioo.s with four -or Ol0fe r,o ~ he or 6 0 \•ph for il.ef'Set" ns w11 Yes 11XJ Na D Lt -~ a pl'Oc!dlltti leABI B SATISlfllED YES fZI NOi □ Hour Yes ll!J No □ □ PrJge 845 signal. C bap:er 4C -.. :raffle ():mtro'I ~gnal eeds Stiud]e;. IP · ,\ -HL~ 1 1'11.ff e gnail!> ""ovem'ber7, 2□M GTSI 125 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-125 F"gu re 4-C -1. Warran rt 21 f ,our-Hour Vehicullar'Vo,l ume 500 MINOR STREET 300 I--..P,,-.=---+....;~!--=:,,&..+-.a..i,M"--h"-...;..;;;~;;;;;..;;..;.•=.;.;;;..-1---1---1 HIGHER· VOLUME APPROAC IH • 200 l--+--+-+=--.ir.::+-....;;=i~~+-.;;:::ii,,~:::---+--+---+----1 VPH MINOR STREET HIGHER - VOLUME APPROACH - VPH GTSI 300 X 500 600 700 8 00 900 000 1100 200 1300 1400 MAJOR STiFH:ET-TOTA L OF BOTH APPROACHES - VE -ICLES PER MOUA (VPH) "Not9: 1 ·15 vph .1pp !lS m; I !l klll,' I' inm_'!ltlOICI volLJrml O' a min.or-Simer app:rw.ch wilh two or more la nes olld 80 vph applies. as the tower 11UQ!l.h old wilumA for A mlnor.;.1r,i;.,;;it sipprMr,h with OM I no;,. Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3 , Peak Hour 7"' .... 111:t"-~-+--! 150• 100 l--1--l--l---1---1----1----1---1--:i:::::::::~-+-=;::=-..... ---1 100 · 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJ OR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (V PH ) *Note : 150 vph app lies as the lower threshold vol ume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold vol ume for a mi nor-s t reet approach wlth one lane. 126 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Per the CA-MUTCD, “The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street.” As such, “The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met: A. For each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-5; or B. For 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) falls above the curve in Figure 4C-7.” The analysis shown on the following pages illustrates that Warrant 4 was not met. Warrant 5, School Crossing Per the CA-MUTCD, “The School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that schoolchildren cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.” “The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when an engineering study of the frequency and adequacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size of groups of schoolchildren at an established school crossing across the major street shows that the number of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the schoolchildren are using the crossing is less than the number of minutes in the same period (see Section 7A.03) and there are a minimum of 20 schoolchildren during the highest crossing hour. Before a decision is made to install a traffic control signal, consideration shall be given to the implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards, or a grade-separated crossing. The School Crossing signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.” There are no schools in the neighborhood surrounding Intersection 2. Therefore, Warrant 5 was not met. A-126clPGTSI 127 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-127 C.ahlo mla if D 2014 E.diti(_m r~ A ·s. MUT '□ 2 □00 EdW.on, I.Jlc IA'ltng Revai!lt lS. 1 & 2. as:' 11.ended for l'i.f! In . l rm ru a) .Figurn 4-C-101 ,(CA}. Tmftir;: Sig.mil Wananls Worll:sht1e,t (Sheet 3 ,of 5} WARRANT i4 -Pedestrian Vo'lume 1(1Pa11s 1 aind 2 Must Be Satisfie<i ) A. Pa rt ·1] ,[P.art,s A o-r must be s.ati:sf,ied) Part2 ~. :he n 30 for -per hou r tor 2Fl '.I 0 3PM 2 SATISFIEID1 YES □ NIO 1 F 911A r e 4C..S, or Ftg 11.1re 4C .,6 SAlil SFIED YIES O NIO Im F gwt we 4C -7 er Frl,gure 4C 8 SA.TI SFIEID · Y1ES □ N'O lfil SATISFIED 1 Y1ES □ NIO □ ,grea er ,QB, The prapoe.e:1 affic :signal will nm re81rict progre-96-.NE rafftc floiA' slang 11ile m ejar at eet. Yes 0 WARRAN'f 5 • Scililool Cr,ossing1 1(Pal1s A and IB, Must El SaUs.tir dl Part A Ga,plM :S-ATISFIEID1 YES O NO ~ SATllSFIElD YES O N 0 □ur Gaps < Ml utes YES □ 0 □ ~ •Child~n > :20/h r YES □ AR-JD , Co ns.ldera 1 □n has bece n gl1Jen o le !311-reslnell lve rE!ffledlal m e,asure~. Part B SAllSFIEID YES [] NO □ he dis1a11ce, to th e neera-g ng the mej □r s1Jreet is greater h;;i n 30 . Pa 846 The sa.tisf8J i □n of e IJBfiic signal varran 01 werr not i n m.a lf requir,e 1he installs · n of a 1ra1f.c sign-. C b&,Plf!! -4C -raflk flltml 5ilg11al . ,eeds Srud ~ ::,Jovem.lbe r 7 , 2 □M f , ,1; -Hl.Lgltwa. T raflk:S!gna.l-. GTSI 128 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-128 5 0 400 TOTAlOFALL PEIDESTR IIANS 300 CROSSING MAJOR STREET- p ID STR IIANS 200 P ER HOUR (PPH) 100 !Fi gure 4C -5. Warrant 4 , Pedestriian F,our-Hour Volume I .._ "' ~ -."' ' ~ ............... 107' xx X 300 400 500 600 700 80 900 1 ODO 1 00 1 2D0 1300 1 400 700 600 TOTA L OF A L 500 P D STRIANS CIROSSING 400 MAJOA STAEET- IP EDE8TAIANS 300 PER HO UR (PPH) 200 100 MAJOR STR:E:ET-TOTAIL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HIDUR VPH) ~Not,e : 107 pph app ies as lhe lowt1r lhmslrlold volume. Figure 4c .. 1. Wa rrant 4., Pedest r ian1 Peak Hour I ~ I " ' "'--..... ' .... -. r........ '-. ---.......... ' 38 I 300 400 500 600 700 000 900 1 000 11 00 200 13il0 1400 1' 50 1600 1 700 1000 MA.JOA STREET -TOTAIL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEH ICLES PER HOUIR (VPH) ·Nole: 133 ppll applies as the lowe r th resho d volume . GTSI 129 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System Per the CA-MUTCD “Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles.” This Warrant is not applicable for the location at hand. Warrant 7, Crash Experience Per the CA-MUTCD “The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal.” One of the necessary conditions for this warrant is to have “Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12-month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash;” The crash data provided by the City do not show numbers or types of crashes meeting these criteria. As such, Warrant 7 is not met. Warrant 8, Roadway Network Per the CA-MUTCD “Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network.” The above criterion is not applicable to the study intersection. Warrant 8 is not met. A-129clPGTSI 130 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos VerdesA-130 Cali.fomfa. MUTCO 2014 ~dition (FH\l\l'A ·s M ITTCD 200!:i Illa □, Locfud'lrig Re.,.151005, l & 2. :lS iLlll:eooed lior use In Cal l for□La) Rgure ,4.e, .. 101 (CA }. TratfJ'c Sfgnal Warrants Worksheer (Shee :r 4 of .5)' W:ARRA , T 6 -Coord [malted S g nal System (All . P'a1M Mum Be Sati$tlecl) ~ 1000 ft SATISFIE1D YES □ N1O 00 Yes □ NoOI On a Qne--way 5, eet o r~ ::.t ree! 1~ h:;i.s lr{iffic predi:;mm1;1n I~ i111 QAe dir ion. In ,!ldjace, lraffic: GO lrd :si!;Jnals ar,e o far iil!J8fl t thi::y do nol 1mwidc:: lhi:: necessary degree of ~~u~.£!~oo_!li~~ === --=-= = -~-----~ = ==-----Ye~□ NoOI QB. ·On :1 r. Ivay s: r,eet, ad.J~ce ,-,c carnrnl sig111:,1 ls: d-0 l"ilOI prowde th e necessary dagree of platoo nh and 1ha tiro~ .and ad ja~nl ltaffie <:<!in rol . -n "Y III col~etrv provide a progreg51ive Qperalion. WAR RA r l 7 ~ Cr h Experie111oe Warr. nit 1(A~ I P'airts Must 8,e .Satisfied) SA TJ.SFIE1D 'ill'E.S □I N.O l!J Ye.,□ ,0 N1_1ml)er Qf Q!1 SIJSQepfillle M g1 inj1uy Yes. 0 No ,[! Of ,d 1;11 ma9e e ~c: let a 5 OR MORE __ Rl;___OU IREMENTS_, _ C~NDITIONS 0 CONIDI ION SATISFIE ijl)'½ O □OVeh r Warr.ant 1, con _ iOl'I A.- t.1immu , lar 'Volume ,OR D u · ai;;h of A n:,-5 YEIG-0 0 SATI-SFIEID ¥ES □ NrO 00 v F'LJ ILI.EO 1 Yes □ _ •□ Yes ,O Pa 847 Chapller -4C -Traflk Co.111101 S.1g11al Needs S11 l es Pan 4 -H Ls bw ay T ram c. 5.i s.nals. ovember 1. ZO M GTSI 131 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing Per the CA-MUTCD “the center of the track nearest to the intersection is within 140 feet of the stop line or yield line”. There is no grade crossing near the study intersections. Therefore, Warrant 9 is not met. A-131 California •1 CD 201-4 !!dition H A"s.:M CD ~009 II a □, Loc Ing Re'ii'l!!iloru. l & 2. asam~ fa.mse ln.CallfomLa} GTS I WARRANl 9 -Intersection Near a Grade C1ro:ss:ing 1IBoth Parts, A ,and! B Must Be S-at i&fiedl SA11ISFIEID1 YE.S D I NO ~I P:AIUA A grade c r•□S sa'ig E'JCiSts On 131 11 e pp roat;h CO , led by El STOP at YI ELD s ig : and ~ El rerr o the arest to 1he inter seC:ll lofl Is wit In 140 'feet or L e s!-O p lin e o yiet! li ne on the al}Proaoh . Ti o Cel!Jter we o Limit ine ft MBJB Ther, i . one 1111 r~or stree approach hme ai the raclil -~r~ln9 ~ During the hi e!io 'llti : w -hoor .· ring "" i . ra i tra ,c: uses her Clro&-'Sing, me . -t,ad tpOi n . lls ~ ove 'll1e aWlic:a le Clll 8 In Fll)UM 4C-9 . Major Street -Ta H.3 1 of bath approaches: __ V PH M ~-Cross s b'hc: ltd.Ck ( c: d , eti on Oidy. ap proaching he inticts .ion).. _ VPH X /iii ( e 7: _ le5-4C •:2 , 3, 4 tieiow t<O calc ul ale 1 ) -_ I/P H :Q1t i here ar,e two or m ore m inor streeii appro-ach Ia n~ at 1he 11rac k u:ossi ng •· D ng 1ht h t IC VOkl hGtJr llU'l ng Ch rad mr e lJSii:S lhe· 0 Ing, the plotted l)Oi nl la ll s ve lhe ap ica . . our-e in fi gu . . C• 10 MajOt . · t -To ~, af Mtl'I approach~ : __ VP I MirQr . • Crosffes tti e ITTJdi; 1a d' ie Ollon Illy, pp roachi • •Jie· ln~er Jon r __ V, iH X AF (IJ'5e li )!;!!;i C-2 , 3, a 4 be1i;rw tg !1,1;1 i'.;1,1 1;1 e AiF ) = __ I/PH The min ors~ eet roao ·','QI lilW be mu · • by up to tflree f~ng adj uS1mtent faGtC(S i"AF l;l!;l desaibe<! in ~rn 4 · .1 . !j.□ I□ 1 • Number of _a,1 per Cl .:i y ___________ _ :djuS'lmen l r.lC L · [t'OOl'I 'L 4 2_ nc::y· sss oo Miner Sltea t A(:ptoatn __ Adjus'lment facto frcn'I IE . 4C-3 __ ge of ii c:tor-Tra,ler T udr:s on Mi or StreetAat:JifOaci'i. ___ Adj uS'IJite nl 01E: I -o data is e ... .ailale . iiO\'iTi , "hen · a AF-= 1 {oo a(¥15 -en ) Page 848 132 Traffic Study for Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East in Rancho Palos Verdes Appendix B: Traffic Volume Data A-132GTSI B-1 MIRALESTE/PVDE STUDY AREA COLLISIONS, UPDATED 3-YEAR MAP, 7/1/2020 -6/30/2023 / ~ Legend Collision Involvement db Bicycle r Fixed Object 9iib Other Motor Vehicle P Parked Motor Vehicle Collision Severity e Property Damage Only e Complaint of Pain e Other Visible Injury Study Area i. ..... ..i RPV City Boundary / ) Ii 1 tudie Dr ~c,arthur St I ~ w General St C w z W Summerland St Cl) > <( g? Cl) <( 0 ""O .c 0 ""O 0 0 ~ 0 (.!) e z I- z W 1st St VillageWa 500 1,000 ft B-2 MIRALESTE/PVDE STUDY AREA COLLISIONS, UPDATED 3-YEAR MAP, 7/1/2020 -6/30/2023 C ...I '--c ·5 / c- Legend Collision Type B Broadside H Head-On 0 Hit Object R Rear-End s Sideswipe Other Collision Severity e Property Damage Only e Complaint of Pain e Other Visible Injury Study Area ! ........ ! RPV City Boundary / ) Ii ,-::: 1 tudie Dr ~c,arthur St I ~ w General St C w z W Summerland St Cl) > <( g? Cl) <( 0 -0 .c 0 -0 0 0 ~ 0 (.!) e z I- z W 1st St VillageWa 500 1,000 ft 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 calming recommendations for the Miraleste Neighborhood including Miraleste Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East. The City Council will be asked to consider the following recommendations: 1. Narrowing the width of vehicular travel lanes from the current width of 11 to 14 feet down to 10 feet to reduce vehicular speeds. This will also involve modifying shoulder and parking lane widths as well as installing bicycle lanes at certain locations. 2. Curb extensions and reduced pavement footprints at the intersections on Miraleste Drive to reduce vehicular speeds. 3. High visibility crosswalks at six locations on Miraleste Drive. 4. A rapid flashing beacon at the crosswalk on Palos Verdes Drive East directly south of Marion Drive. 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 C-1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 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 E-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 E-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 E-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 E-4