The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-298 ATT.docTO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Richard Wollangk, City Manager Mark Huddleston, Transportation Director July '16, 2002 Q/HKO/H ON THE WATER Item Defeated by the Traffic Review Board at their July 9, 2002 Meeting 1) REQUEST FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF MURDOCK AVENUE AND ELMWOOD AVENUENINLAND STREET. The Traffic Review Board laid over the request for a traffic signal at the intersection of Murdock Avenue and Elmwood AvenueNinland Street in order to obtain further information. The Board requested information related to the following items: A) Construction of barrier median B) Closure of Elmwood Avenue. C) Detailed accident data. D) Traffic volumes and warrants. A) CONSTRUCTION OF BARRIER MEDIAN The construction of a median on Murdock Avenue at or near it's intersection with Vinland Street and Elmwood Avenue would require additional right-of-way. The minimum width of a median is 4 feet and the terrace west of the intersection has a combined width of 2.5 feet. The terrace on the south side of Murdock Avenue to the east is 1.5 feet wide. The homes and the sidewalk are already close to the roadway and I don't believe widening the road is a viable option. The homes located on the south side of MurdockAvenue are 24 feet from the roadway. The business located on the northwest corner is 27 feet from the roadway. The existing terrace is a concern with residents and to completely eliminate the terrace would be very unpopular. B) CLOSURE OF ELMWOOD A VENUE The closure of Elmwood Avenue would certainly reduce the number of accidents occurring at this location. The traffic currently using Elmwood Avenue as a short-cut between Congress Avenue and Murdock Avenue would be forced to remain on Algoma Boulevard which is the major arterial. However, the closing of a street should have strong support from the property owners located on the street to be closed. The Transportation Department mailed 37 questionnaires in an effort to determine the feelings of the residents. The results are summarized below: CLOSURE OF ELMWOOD AVENUE ELMWOOD AVENUE BETWEEN CONGRESS AVENUE AND MURDOCK AVENUE RESIDENTIAL SURVEY JUNE 2002 TOTAL SURVEYS SENT ............................. 37 PROPERTY OWNERS IN FAVOR .................15 PROPERTY OWNERS OPPOSED ................ 10 NO RESPONSE ......................................... 12 (41%) (27%) (32%) The closure of a street is part of the City's neighborhood traffic management and calming program. The Transportation Department requires 60% of the impacted residents to support the closure of a street. If the 60% level is reached, a technical feasibility study would be conducted by the City. This review would include such items as conformance to state law, the City's Comprehensive Plan, the type of street involved, compliance with engineering standards, existing traffic conditions, projected traffic condition and the potential for traffic diversion to adequate streets. The Transportation Department has not received sufficient positive responses to conduct a technical feasibility study for this project. C) ACCIDENT WARRANT AND ANAL YSIS In today's litigious society, it is obvious that the presence, absence, or improper operation of a traffic signal is fertile ground for legal claims and actions. This makes it even more evident that some system for establishing the need for a signal installation at a particular location is necessary. Such a system has been established, using a common denominator known as signal warrants. It should be noted that the MUTCD states that: "The satisfaction of a warrant or warrants is not in itself justification for a signal ..... If these requirements are not met, a traffic signal should neither be put into operation nor continued in operation (if already installed)." The Transportation Engineering Handbook also provides the following guidance when installing a signal based on accidents. WARRANT-ACCIDENTEXPERIENCE This warrant must be used with caution, not because of lack of concern for traffic accidents, but because experience has indicated that the traffic signal does not always succeed as a safety device. Under certain conditions, a carefully designed traffic signal will materially reduce a right-angle accident collision pattern. This does not always happen, however, and often a rear-end collision accident pattern develops which far exceeds the original accident frequency. The accident experience warrant is satisfied when: 1. An adequate trial of less restrictive remedies with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the accident frequency and 2. Five or more reported accidents of types susceptible to correction by traffic signal control have occurred within a twelve-month period, each accident involving personal injury or property damage to an apparent extent of $100.00 or more. 3. There exists a volume of vehicular traffic not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified in the minimum vehicular volume warrant; the interruption of continuous traffic warrant; or the minimum pedestrian volume warrant and 4. The signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation uses the following method to determine if an intersection is potentially hazardous. The accident rates are based on traffic volumes and not just the number of accidents occurring at a given location. RULE OF THUMB FOR INTERSECTION ACCIDENTS 0TO 1.5 1.5 to 2.0 over 2.0 Normal Gray Area Investigation Warranted The accident rate for Murdock Avenue and Elmwood AvenueNinland Street is 1.6 accidents per 1,000,000 vehicles. This rate is slightly above the expected level for this type of intersection. The breakdown by type of accidents at Murdock Avenue and Elmwood AvenueNinland Street is shown below: MURDOCK AVENUE AND ELMWOOD AVENUENINLAND STREET 2001 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS Type of Accident Number of Accidents Left-Turn (westbound) 5 Right Angle 4 Left-Turn (eastbound) 2 Rear-End 1 Total 12 I have also prepared a comparison between the intersection of Murdock Avenue/Wisconsin Street and Murdock Avenue and Elmwood AvenueNinland Street. The traffic volumes at these intersections are comparable and demonstrate that the installation of a traffic signal doesn't necessarily reduce accidents. Intersection Murdock Avenue/Wisconsin Street Murdock Avenue/Elmwood AvenueNinland Street D) TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND WARRANTS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS JUNE 2002 ACCIDENTS 2001 2000 1999 1998 19 10 11 8 12 8 9 4 The traffic volume warrants for a traffic signal are shown below: WARRANT 1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME (HIGHEST 8 HOURS) Vehicles Per Hour On the Major Street (both approaches) Vehicle Per Hour On the Minor Street (one direction) 600 200 NUMBER OF HOURS EXCEEDING VOLUME REQUIREMENT Intersection Murdock Ave/Elmwood AveNinland St Major Street Minor Street 12 1 An intersection qualifies under this warrant if it exceeds the required traffic volumes for at least eight (8) hours on the major and minor streets. WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINOUS TRAFFIC (HIGHEST 8 HOURS) Vehicles Per Hour On the Major Street (both approaches) Vehicle Per Hour On the Minor Street (one direction) 900 100 NUMBER OF HOURS EXCEEDING VOLUME REQUIREMENT Intersection Murdock Ave/Elmwood AveNinland St Major Street Minor Street 6 11 An intersection qualifies under this warrant if it exceeds the required traffic volumes for at least eight (8) hours on the major and minor streets. In addition, the Board must consider the following questions before making a final determination to install a traffic signal. 1) The impact on the flow of traffic on the major arterial. 2) The availability of alternate routes with existing signals to access major arterials. 3) The amount of traffic making a right turn. 4) The accident rate at the intersection. The highest eight (8) hours of traffic for Murdock Avenue and Elmwood AvenueNinland Street is shown below: MURDOCK AVENUE AND ELMWOOD AVENUENINLAND STREET HIGHEST EIGHT (8) HOURS TIME Major Street both directions VEHICLES PER HOUR Minor Street one direction VEHICLES PER HOUR 4:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 1,114 201 3:00 p.m. 4:00 p.m. 1,021 172 2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 1,015 173 7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. 974 183 5:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. 962 147 12:00 noon - 1:00 p.m. 917 147 11:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon 861 134 1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. 828 125 It should be noted that this intersection is a state highway and will require Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WDOT) approval to install a traffic signal. In the past, WDOT has not allowed right turning vehicles on the minor street to be counted for purposes of meeting a warrant. SUMMARY My philosophy is to protect the free flowing movements on arterials by minimizing the number of traffic signals on major arterials. I have not observed any long term traffic delays on the minor street being considered for traffic signals. The accident rates are also within acceptable levels and don't indicate a safety hazard. It may be difficult to cross a major street during short-term peak periods, but in many cases alternative routes are available. ADDENDUM TO ITEM #1 The accident data for the intersection of MurdockAvenue and Elmwood AvenueNinland Street for the current year through June 15, 2002 is shown below: Type of Accident Date of Accident Left turn (east/west) Left turn (north/south) 1/27/2002 6/13/2002 DEFEATED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (0-7).