My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2010-10-11
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
AgdaPkt 2010-10-11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2015 1:07:15 PM
Creation date
10/7/2010 3:42:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Redevelopment Agency
Date
10/11/2010
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
245
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
6.3A <br /> Page 6 <br /> 3. When the highest 8-hour approach volume (total of both approaches) on the minor <br /> street is greater than 30%of the total volume on all approaches for the same 8 hours, <br /> and the total 8-hour approach volume for all approaches averages at least 250 <br /> vehicles per hour, and no other stop sign or traffic signal on the major street is <br /> located within 800 feet; <br /> 4. When 3 or more accidents of types correctable by all-way stop control have <br /> occurred at the intersection within a recent 12-month period; for intersections <br /> within 800 feet of a school (K-12),the threshold is 2 or more accidents; <br /> 5. When land uses within 800 feet of the intersection generate 40 or more pedestrians <br /> crossing the major street during one hour on a typical weekday, and no preferable <br /> crossing point(as determined by the Traffic Engineer) is located within 800 feet; <br /> 6. Sight-distance on vehicular or pedestrian crossing approaches is less than 150 feet; <br /> Other non-engineering criteria as adopted by the City Council on a case-by-case <br /> 7. g g P <br /> basis; for example, a nearby school, playground, park, senior center,public facility, <br /> or other land use generating pedestrian or bicycle activity that merits additional <br /> protection from vehicle traffic; <br /> And <br /> B. An engineering study performed to evaluate conformance to these warrants has <br /> determined no alternative measures are more appropriate to address the identified traffic <br /> concerns, and that installation of all-way stops is compatible with the overall traffic <br /> considerations for the area. <br /> For two-way stops(and one-way stops on streets terminating at an intersection)the warrants in <br /> the Traffic Manual apply on residential streets. <br /> Advantages/Other Considerations: Readily understood. Can be installed quickly and <br /> inexpensively. Ineffective as speed control device except within 200 feet of intersection(where <br /> it also has the undesired effect of increasing traffic noise). May have some effect on midblock <br /> speeds of the very fastest drivers, while not affecting midblock speeds of the vast majority of <br /> drivers. Ineffective as a traffic diversion device except where travel time using the short-cut <br /> route through the neighborhood offers only a small advantage over the travel time using the <br /> more appropriate route. <br /> Alternate Devices: For right of way control: yield sign,traffic signal,occasionally circles. For <br /> speed control: traffic circle, undulations, enforcement preferable. Diverters, semi-diverters, <br /> cul-de-sacs, median barriers, turn prohibitions and channelizations are preferable as diversion <br /> devices. <br /> Cost(Typical): $500 per intersection for 2-way STOP; $1000 per intersection for 4-way. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.