HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachments
TABLES 1 THROUGH 6
City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin 9th Avenue and Westhaven Drive Intersection Control Evaluation Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.® E-1 R:\MAD\Documents\Reports\Archive\2009\Oshkosh, City
of (WI)\45-09.1382.038.gss.apr\Report\Tables 1-3.docx\070209 Table 1 Existing 2009 Traffic Volumes by Approach with Seasonal Adjustment Factor Applied NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT
EBR WBL WBT WBR NB SB EB WB Total 7:00 -7:15 0 10 21 12 3 6 9 106 1 5 42 11 31 21 116 58 226 7:15 -7:30 0 18 37 16 3 5 17 127 0 5 63 15 55 24 144 83 306 7:30 -7:45 2 3 28 22 3 4 9 130
0 8 65 16 33 29 139 89 290 7:45 -8:00 0 5 28 13 1 8 11 91 1 5 92 19 33 22 103 116 274 2 36 114 63 10 23 46 454 2 23 262 61 152 96 502 346 1096 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 3.4% 0.0% 13.6% 4.8% 0.5%
0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 1.8% 0.7% 5.6% 0.9% 1.2% 1.4% 0.25 0.50 0.77 0.72 0.83 0.72 0.68 0.87 0.50 0.72 0.71 0.80 0.69 0.83 0.87 0.75 0.90 2009 AM Total S. Westhaven Drive S. Westhaven Drive
PHF % Trucks W. 9th Avenue W. 9th Avenue Directional Totals Time Total NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR EBR WBL WBT WBR NB SB EB WB Total 4:15 -4:30 0 2 12 17 14 9 7 73 3 29 96 26
14 40 83 151 288 4:30 -4:45 0 12 13 16 11 8 5 89 2 17 90 25 25 35 96 132 288 4:45 -5:00 0 7 10 21 7 4 7 74 0 16 95 12 17 32 81 123 253 5:00 -5:15 0 11 15 14 22 2 8 108 1 19 100 41 26
38 117 160 341 Total 0 32 50 68 54 23 27 344 6 81 381 104 82 145 377 566 1170 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.67 0.83 0.81 0.61 0.64
0.84 0.80 0.50 PHF 0.70 0.95 0.63 0.79 0.91 0.81 0.88 0.86 2009 PM Total S. Westhaven Drive S. Westhaven Drive W. 9th Avenue W. 9th Avenue Directional Totals Time % Trucks
City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin 9th Avenue and Westhaven Drive Intersection Control Evaluation Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.® E-2 R:\MAD\Documents\Reports\Archive\2009\Oshkosh, City
of (WI)\45-09.1382.038.gss.apr\Report\Tables 1-3.docx\070209 Table 2 Traffic Projection for Westhaven Drive/9th Avenue Intersection Using WisDOT Projections for Washburn Street/9th Avenue
Intersection 2000 2035 Yearly Proj. 2000 2035 Yearly Proj. 240 270 0.4% 380 685 2.3% 660 745 0.4% 490 640 0.9% 300 310 0.1% 430 520 0.6% 390 815 3.1% 900 1570 2.1% AM PM North Approach
West Approach Washburn Street Intersection South Approach East Approach 2009 2030 Yearly Proj. 2009 2030 Yearly Proj. 96 116 1.0% 145 215 2.3% 502 607 1.0% 377 456 1.0% 152 184 1.0%
82 99 1.0% 346 571 3.1% 566 816 2.1% North Approach Westhaven Drive Intersection AM PM West Approach South Approach East Approach
City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin 9th Avenue and Westhaven Drive Intersection Control Evaluation Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.® E-3 R:\MAD\Documents\Reports\Archive\2009\Oshkosh, City
of (WI)\45-09.1382.038.gss.apr\Report\Tables 1-3.docx\070209 Table 3 Projected Traffic Volumes By Approach for Design Year 2030* *Traffic projections for the design year do not incorporate
traffic impacts from construction of the West Side Arterial Project (currently in planning). NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NB SB EB WB Total 7:00 -7:15 0 12 25 15 4
7 11 128 1 8 69 18 37 26 140 95 298 7:15 -7:30 0 22 45 19 4 6 21 154 0 8 104 25 67 29 175 137 408 7:30 -7:45 2 4 34 27 4 5 11 157 0 13 107 26 40 36 168 146 390 7:45 -8:00 0 6 34 16 1
10 13 110 1 8 152 31 40 27 124 191 382 2 44 138 77 13 28 56 549 2 37 432 100 184 118 607 569 1478 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 3.4% 0.0% 13.6% 4.8% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 1.8% 0.7% 5.6% 0.9% 1.2% 1.4%
0.25 0.50 0.77 0.71 0.81 0.70 0.67 0.87 0.50 0.71 0.71 0.81 0.69 0.82 0.87 0.74 0.91 Directional Totals Time Total % Trucks PHF Total S. Westhaven Drive S. Westhaven Drive W. 9th Avenue
W. 9th Avenue 2030 AM NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NB SB EB WB Total 4:15 -4:30 0 2 15 25 21 13 8 88 4 42 138 37 17 59 100 217 393 4:30 -4:45 0 15 16 24 16 12 6 108
2 24 130 36 31 52 116 190 389 4:45 -5:00 0 8 12 31 10 6 8 90 0 23 137 17 20 47 98 177 342 5:00 -5:15 0 13 18 21 33 3 10 131 1 27 144 59 31 57 142 230 460 0 38 61 101 80 34 32 417 7 116
549 149 99 215 456 814 1584 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.63 0.85 0.81 0.61 0.65 0.80 0.80 0.44 0.69 0.95 0.63 0.80 0.91 0.80 0.88
0.86 Directional Totals Time Total % Trucks PHF W. 9th Avenue 2030 PM Total S. Westhaven Drive S. Westhaven Drive W. 9th Avenue
City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin 9th Avenue and Westhaven Drive Intersection Control Evaluation Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.® E-4 R:\MAD\Documents\Reports\Archive\2009\Oshkosh, City
of (WI)\45-09.1382.038.gss.apr\Report\Tables 4-6.docx\070209 Table 4 AM Traffic Operations
City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin 9th Avenue and Westhaven Drive Intersection Control Evaluation Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.® E-5 R:\MAD\Documents\Reports\Archive\2009\Oshkosh, City
of (WI)\45-09.1382.038.gss.apr\Report\Tables 4-6.docx\070209 Table 5 PM Traffic Operations
City of Oshkosh, Wisconsin 9th Avenue and Westhaven Drive Intersection Control Evaluation Prepared by Strand Associates, Inc.® E-6 R:\MAD\Documents\Reports\Archive\2009\Oshkosh, City
of (WI)\45-09.1382.038.gss.apr\Report\Tables 4-6.docx\070209 Table 6 Design Alternative Summary CY T SY SF SF LF EA LS AC 1 5,050 4,870 4,080 2,420 3,290 3,150 4 8 8 0 0 4,480 6,120
6,380 4,500 15,100 15,100 Total Cost R/W Acquisition Cost $ 608,000 $ 664,000 3,040 5,780 R/W Impact 0.07 0.41 0.41 $ 668,000 5,780 1,490 2,040 2,130 Construction Cost Enhanced Signals
Single Lane RAB Dual Lane RAB Street Lighting Traffic Signals Description CABC (Concrete Pavement) 9-inch Concrete Pavement 5-inch Concrete Sidewalk Median Islands 30-inchConcrete Curb
and Gutter Common Excavation Unit Design Alternatives Quantities $ 612,000 $ 6 89,000 $ 693,000 $ 4,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000
FIGURES 1 THROUGH 4
S:\MAD\1300--1399\1382\038\Micros\Preliminary Layout -Existing Conditions.dgn user: gregs 5/29/2009 3:18:58 PM FIGURE NO. 1 1382.038 0 50 100 150 200 9TH AVENUE AND WESTHAVEN DRIVE INTERSECTION
CONTROL EVALUATION CITY OF OSHKOSH WINNEBAGO COUNTY, WISCONSIN WESTHAVEN DRIVE HERITAGE TRAIL 9TH AVENUE ARCADIA AVENUE EXISTING CONDITIONS
S:\MAD\1300--1399\1382\038\Micros\Preliminary Layout -Single Lane RAB.dgn user: gregs 5/29/2009 3:16:42 PM FIGURE NO. 2 1382.038 0 50 100 150 200 9TH AVENUE AND WESTHAVEN DRIVE INTERSECTION
CONTROL EVALUATION CITY OF OSHKOSH WINNEBAGO COUNTY, WISCONSIN WESTHAVEN DRIVE HERITAGE TRAIL 9TH AVENUE ARCADIA AVENUE PRELIMINARY LAYOUT -SINGLE-LANE ROUNDABOUT
S:\MAD\1300--1399\1382\038\Micros\Preliminary Layout -Double Lane RAB.dgn user: gregs 5/29/2009 3:17:45 PM FIGURE NO. 3 1382.038 0 50 100 150 200 9TH AVENUE AND WESTHAVEN DRIVE INTERSECTION
CONTROL EVALUATION CITY OF OSHKOSH WINNEBAGO COUNTY, WISCONSIN WESTHAVEN DRIVE HERITAGE TRAIL 9TH AVENUE ARCADIA AVENUE PRELIMINARY LAYOUT -DUAL-LANE ROUNDABOUT
S:\MAD\1300--1399\1382\038\Micros\Preliminary Layout -Enhanced Signals.dgn user: gregs 5/29/2009 3:18:23 PM FIGURE NO. 4 1382.038 0 50 100 150 200 9TH AVENUE AND WESTHAVEN DRIVE INTERSECTION
CONTROL EVALUATION CITY OF OSHKOSH WINNEBAGO COUNTY, WISCONSIN WESTHAVEN DRIVE HERITAGE TRAIL 9TH AVENUE ARCADIA AVENUE PRELIMINARY LAYOUT -ENHANCED SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
ICE FORM
Intersection Control Evaluation Factors to Analyze (9th Avenue and Westhaven Drive) ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING
CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL (NO GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMETNS) ROUNDABOUT 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL,
ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL (GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS) ROUNDABOUT 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT (ONE
LANE) 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT (TWO-LANE) 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL SAFETY The existing
intersection had a crash rate for 2002 to 2008 of 1.10. The highest yearly crash rate was 2.03 in 2007 and the lowest was 0.61 in 2003, 2005, and 2006. The high crash rate in 2007 seems
to be an outlier as it is 0.6 crashes per MVE higher than the next highest year. Over the 7 years of data available there were 38 reportable crashes, with between 3 and 10 crashes per
year. The more detailed crash data available for the years of 2006 to 2008 show the majority of crashes at the intersection are angle crashes. 68 percent of the crashes during these
three years were angle crashes. Rear-end and sideswipe crashes made up the rest of the reportable crashes at 16 percent each. During the years of 2006 to 2008, 52 percent of the crashes
were injury crashes. There are no geometric improvements with this alternative. Typically installing traffic signals reduces the severity but increases the number of crashes. The number
of conflict points at a signalized intersection is 32 (8 diverge, 8 merge, and 16 crossing). The addition of left-turn bays would remove the left-turning vehicles from the through lanes
of traffic. This may reduce the occurrence of rear-end collisions that involve left-turning vehicles. Typically installing traffic signals reduces the severity but increases the number
of crashes. The number of conflict points at a signalized intersection is 32 (8 diverge, 8 merge, and 16 crossing). The roundabout may reduce the existing high percentage of angle and
injury crashes. The low speeds at which a roundabout operates will result in less severe accidents. The number of conflict points for a roundabout intersection is 8 (4 diverge, 4 merge,
and 0 crossing). The roundabout may reduce the existing high percentage of angle and injury crashes. The low speeds at which a roundabout operates will result in less severe accidents.
The number of conflict points for a roundabout intersection is 8 (4 diverge, 4 merge, and 0 crossing).
Intersection Control Evaluation Factors to Analyze (9th Avenue and Westhaven Drive) ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING
CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL (NO GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMETNS) ROUNDABOUT 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL,
ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL (GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS) ROUNDABOUT 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT (ONE
LANE) 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT (TWO-LANE) 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL OPERATIONAL
ANALYSIS The existing traffic control consists of a two-way stop-controlled intersection with the north and south approach being stop-controlled. 9th Avenue has a posted speed limit
of 30 mph and Westhaven Drive has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The peak-hour volumes are from 7 AM-8 AM and 4:15-5:15 PM. Maximum Stop-Controlled Delay (2009) • AM Peak–88 seconds
(LOS F) on the southbound approach • PM Peak–81 seconds (LOS F) on the southbound approach Maximum Queue Length (2009) • AM Peak–105 feet on the southbound approach • PM Peak–95 feet
on the southbound approach Maximum Stop-Controlled Delay (2030) • AM Peak–>180 seconds (LOS F) on the southbound approach • PM Peak–>180 seconds (LOS F) on the southbound approach Maximum
Queue Length (2030) • AM Peak–>400 feet on the southbound approach • PM Peak–>400 feet on the southbound approach This alternative adds traffic signals to the existing unsignalized intersection
geometry. There is no change to the number or arrangement of lanes with this alternative. It is not anticipated that this intersection will meet any MUTCD traffic signal warrants in
the 2030 analysis year with the current traffic projections. Average Control Delay (2030) • AM Peak–8 seconds (LOS A) • PM Peak–8 seconds (LOS A) Maximum Queue Length (2030) • AM Peak–90
feet on the eastbound approach • PM Peak–130 feet on the westbound approach This alternative converts the intersection to a traffic signal-controlled intersection with geometric improvements.
A median with leftturn bays is included to remove the leftturning vehicles from the through traffic lanes to improve operations and reduce queues. It is not anticipated that this intersection
will meet any MUTCD traffic signal warrants in the 2030 analysis year with the current traffic projections. Average Control Delay (2030) • AM Peak–8 seconds (LOS A) • PM Peak–8 seconds
(LOS A) Maximum Queue Length (2030) • AM Peak–70 feet on the westbound approach • PM Peak–90 feet on the westbound approach Operations modeling indicated that a singlelane roundabout
would provide acceptable operations at this location. Taking into account the current four-lane roadway width on 9th Avenue, we would propose to construct a dual-lane roundabout so that
this intersection maintains the lane consistency along the corridor. Average Control Delay Delay (2030) • AM Peak–6 seconds (LOS A) • PM Peak–8 seconds (LOS A) Maximum Queue Length •
AM Peak–35 feet on the westbound approach • PM Peak – 60 feet on the eastbound approach Operations modeling indicated that a singlelane roundabout would provide acceptable operations
at this location. Taking into account the current four-lane roadway width on 9th Avenue we would propose to construct a dual-lane roundabout so that this intersection maintains the lane
consistency along the corridor. Average Control Delay (2030) • AM Peak–3 seconds (LOS A) • PM Peak–3 seconds (LOS A) Maximum Queue Length • AM Peak–10 feet on the northbound and eastbound
approach • PM Peak–10 feet on the northbound, eastbound, and westbound approach
Intersection Control Evaluation Factors to Analyze (9th Avenue and Westhaven Drive) ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING
CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL (NO GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMETNS) ROUNDABOUT 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL,
ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL (GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS) ROUNDABOUT 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT (ONE
LANE) 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT (TWO-LANE) 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL CONSTRUCTION
COSTS Construction Cost = $0 Utilities Cost = $0 Total Cost = $0 Construction Cost = $190,000 Utilities Cost = Assumed $0 Total Cost = $190,000 Construction Cost = $608,000 Utilities
Cost = Assumed $0 Total Cost = $608,000 Construction Cost = $664,000 Utilities Cost = Assumed $0 Total Cost = $664,000 Construction Cost = $668,000 Utilities Cost = Assumed $0 Total
Cost = $668,000 RIGHT-OF-WAY R/W acreage = 0 Real Estate Cost = 0 R/W acreage = 0 Real Estate Cost = 0 (Existing crosssection enhancements were not considered for this evaluation) R/W
acreage = 0.07 Acres Real Estate Cost = $4,000 R/W acreage = 0.41 Acres Real Estate Cost = $25,000 R/W acreage = 0.41 Acres Real Estate Cost = $25,000 PRACTICAL FEASIBILITY This intersection
will function as a right-in, right-out, left-in only intersection during the peak hours in the future. The delays associated with turning left from the side street will cause drivers
to find other routes during the busiest times of the day. During off-peak times, drivers will use the left turn from the side street provided that they do not experience significant
delay. This intersection is not anticipated to satisfy any MUTCD traffic signal warrants by 2030 with the current traffic volume forecasts. 9th Avenue does have a significant volume
of traffic, but it appears that Westhaven Drive may not have enough traffic to satisfy the MUTCD traffic signal warrants. There are no major geometric changes required if this intersection
is converted to traffic signal control. The existing geometry would be able to operate well with the projected traffic and the existing intersection geometry. This intersection is not
anticipated to satisfy any MUTCD traffic signal warrants by 2030 with the current traffic volume forecasts. 9th Avenue does have a significant volume of traffic, but it appears that
Westhaven Drive may not have enough traffic to satisfy the MUTCD traffic signal warrants. This alternative adds a median with left-turn bays to remove the left-turning traffic from the
through lanes. The roundabout alternative would function acceptably with single-lane approaches on all four legs. The roundabout has increased impacts to the adjacent property. This
is caused by the increased intersection size required by the roundabout. Most of the impacts are on the north side of of 9th Avenue because the roundabout was shifted north to avoid
the homes on the south side of 9th Avenue. In the interest of corridor continuity, we analyzed the roundabout with dual-lane entries on the eastbound and westbound legs. The roundabout
has increased impacts to the adjacent property. This is caused by the increased intersection size required by the roundabout. Most of the impacts are on the north side of 9th Avenue
because the roundabout was shifted north to avoid the homes on the south side of 9th Avenue.
Intersection Control Evaluation Factors to Analyze (9th Avenue and Westhaven Drive) ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING
CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL (NO GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMETNS) ROUNDABOUT 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL,
ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL (GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS) ROUNDABOUT 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT (ONE
LANE) 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT (TWO-LANE) 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE COSTS • Electric cost to power system • Maintain signs and pavement markings • Maintain medians (landscaping maintenance) • Maintain street lighting • Knockdown replacement
(signs and poles) Opinion of probable energy costs: Street Lighting: 1-250 Watt HPS Fixtures, 106 kW/month = 106 kW/month Total = 106 kW/month Yearly Usage: 106 kW/month x 12 months
= 1,272 kW/year Yearly Cost @$0.10/kW: = $130/year • Signal light replacement • Electric cost to power system • Update and maintain signs and pavement markings • Maintain medians (landscaping
maintenance) • Update and maintain street lighting • Knockdown replacement (signs and poles) Opinion of probable energy costs: Street Lighting: 4–250 Watt HPS Fixtures, 106 kW/month
= 424 kW/month Total = 424 kW/month LED Signal & Cabinet: 400 kW/month Yearly Usage: 824 kW/month x 12 months = 9,888 kW/year Yearly Cost @$0.10/kW: = $990/year • Signal light replacement
• Electric cost to power system • Update and maintain signs and pavement markings • Maintain medians (landscaping maintenance) • Update and maintain street lighting • Knockdown replacement
(signs and poles) Opinion of probable energy costs: Street Lighting: 4–250 Watt HPS Fixtures, 106 kW/month = 424 kW/month Total = 424 kW/month LED Signal & Cabinet: 400 kW/month Yearly
Usage: 824 kW/month x 12 months = 9,888 kW/year Yearly Cost @$0.10/kW: = $990/year • Update and maintain signs and pavement markings • Maintain central island and medians (landscaping
maintenance) • Update and maintain street lighting • Electric cost to power lights • Knockdown replacement (signs) Opinion of probable energy costs: Street Lighting: 4–250 Watt HPS Fixtures,
106 kW/month = 424 kW/month 4–150 Watt HPS Fixtures, 61 kW/month = 244 kW/month Total = 668 kW/month Yearly Usage: 668 kW/month x 12 months = 8,016 kW/year Yearly Cost @$0.10/kW: = $800/year
• Update and maintain signs and pavement markings • Maintain central island and medians (landscaping maintenance) • Update and maintain street lighting • Electric cost to power lights
• Knockdown replacement (signs) Opinion of probable energy costs: Street Lighting: 4–250 Watt HPS Fixtures, 106 kW/month = 424 kW/month 4–150 Watt HPS Fixtures, 61 kW/month = 244 kW/month
Total = 668 kW/month Yearly Usage: 668 kW/month x 12 months = 8,016 kW/year Yearly Cost @$0.10/kW: = $800/year ENVIRONMENTAL None Anticipated None Anticipated None Anticipated None Anticipated
None Anticipated
Intersection Control Evaluation Factors to Analyze (9th Avenue and Westhaven Drive) ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING
CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL (NO GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMETNS) ROUNDABOUT 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL,
ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL (GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS) ROUNDABOUT 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT (ONE
LANE) 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL ALTERNATIVE CONTROL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, ANTICIPATING TRAFFIC SIGNAL ROUNDABOUT (TWO-LANE) 4-WAY STOP 2-WAY STOP EXISTING CONTROL PEDS/BIKES There
is existing sidewalk on both sides of 9th Avenue and Westhaven Drive. These sidewalks are connected by marked crosswalks on all approaches. There are no existing bike lanes on 9th Avenue
or Westhaven Drive. The traffic signal alternative would maintain the current layout of pedestrian facilities and not add bike lanes on either 9th Avenue or Westhaven Drive. There would
be no changes to the pedestrian crossing distances. Pedestrian crossings would be made easier with pedestrian phases accommodated in the traffic signal timings. This traffic signal alternative
adds medians that will function as pedestrian refuges. This will shorten the individual crossing distances compared to the existing conditions. The traffic signal alternative would not
add bike lanes on either 9th Avenue or Westhaven Drive. Pedestrian crossings would be made easier with pedestrian phases accommodated in the traffic signal timings. A roundabout provides
the opportunity for two-stage crossings of all approaches. This allows pedestrians to focus on one direction of approaching traffic at a time. The crossing distances will be shorter
than with the signalized alternatives. A roundabout provides the opportunity for two-stage crossings of all approaches. This allows pedestrians to focus on one direction of approaching
traffic at a time. The crossing distances will be shorter than with the signalized alternatives. RECOMMENDATION Viable alternative = Yes Note: Viability is based on intersection’s inability
to satisfy MUTCD signal warrants. Viable alternative = Yes Viable alternative = Yes Viable alternative = Yes Viable alternative = Yes