Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-371NOVEMBER 23, 2010 10 -371 ORDINANCE FIRST READING (CARRIED LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN ) PURPOSE: APPROVAL OF TRAFFIC REGULATIONS RELATED TO TRUCK ROUTES, LOADING ZONES, FOUR -WAY STOP INTERSECTIONS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS, ROUNDABOUTS, AND ON- STREET PARKING INITIATED BY: TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTIONS 27 -14, 27- 23(A -5), 27- 23(A -6), 27- 23(A -7) AND 27- 23(A -11) OF THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO DESIGNATED TRUCK ROUTES, LOADING ZONES, DESIGNATED FOUR -WAY STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS, DESIGNATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS, AND PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS; AND CREATING SECTION 27- 23(A -7.1) IN THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ROUNDABOUT CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS. The Common Council of the City of Oshkosh do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 27 -14 of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to truck routes designated is hereby amended as follows: Remove Therefrom Fernau Avenue — Snell Road to Vinland Road Remove Therefrom Snell Road — Highway 45 to County Trunk "A" Add Thereto Fernau Avenue — Highway 45 to Vinland Road Add Thereto Snell Road — Stearns Drive to County Trunk Highway A Add Thereto Stearns Drive — Snell Road to northern city limits Add Thereto: Walter Road — Fernau Avenue to Snell Road SECTION 2. That Section 27- 23(A -5) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to loading zones is hereby amended as follows: A -5 LOADING ZONES Remove Therefrom Commerce Street, west side, from 158 feet north of Ceape Avenue to 202 feet north of Ceape Avenue. NOVEMBER 23, 2010 10 -371 ORDINANCE FIRST READING CONT'D Remove Therefrom Jefferson Lot, the two most southerly spaces in the most westerly row. Remove Therefrom North Main Street /400 Block West Parking Lot, east row from 146 feet south of Church Avenue to 164 feet south of Church Avenue. Add Thereto Commerce Street, west side, from 50 feet north of Ceape Avenue to 72 feet north of Ceape Avenue. Add Thereto Main Street, west side, from 135 feet south of Pearl Avenue to 170 feet south of Pearl Avenue. SECTION 3. That Section 27- 23(A -6) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to designation of four way stop intersections is hereby amended as follows A-6 FOUR WAY STOP INTERSECTIONS DESIGNATED Remove Therefrom: Wisconsin Street and Union Avenue. Remove Therefrom 17 Avenue and Iowa Street. Add Thereto: Church Avenue and Wisconsin Street. SECTION 4. That Section 27- 23(A -7) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to designation of traffic signal controlled intersections is hereby amended as follows: A -7 TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS DESIGNATED Remove Therefrom Highway 21 and Westowne Avenue. Remove Therefrom: Jackson Street and Murdock Avenue. Remove Therefrom Koeller Road and Witzel Avenue. Remove Therefrom Witzel Avenue and Washburn Street. SECTION 5. That Section 27- 23(A -7.1) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to designation of roundabouts is hereby created as follows: NOVEMBER 23, 2010 10 -371 ORDINANCE FIRST READING CONT'D A -7.1 ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTIONS DESIGNATED The following intersections in the City of Oshkosh are hereby declared and designated as roundabouts. Traffic entering the roundabout is required to yield to traffic moving through the roundabout. Highway 45 and Fernau Avenue /Lake Butte des Morts Drive Jackson Street and Murdock Avenue Koeller Street and Witzel Avenue Washburn Street and Witzel Avenue SECTION 6. That Section 27- 23(A -8) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to designation of through streets is hereby amended as follows: A -8 THROUGH STREET DESIGNATED Remove Therefrom Grand Avenue at its intersection with Sterling Street. Remove Therefrom Grand Street at its intersection with East Lincoln Avenue. Remove Therefrom West 17 Avenue at its intersection with Georgia Street, Delaware Street and Nebraska Street. Add Thereto Grand Street at its intersection with East Lincoln Avenue and Sterling Avenue. Add Thereto West 17 Avenue at its intersection with Georgia Street, Delaware Street, Iowa Street and Nebraska Street. SECTION 7. That Section 27- 23(A -11) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to parking regulations on designated streets and alleys is hereby created as follows: A -11 PARKING REGULATIONS ON DESIGNATED STREETS AND ALLEYS LOGAN DRIVE Remove Therefrom No parking, east side, from 1,005 feet north to 1,055 feet north of its southern intersection with Jackson Street NOVEMBER 23, 2010 10 -371 ORDINANCE FIRST READING CONT'D MONROE STREET Remove Therefrom No parking, west side, from 70 feet north of Merritt Avenue to 84 feet north of Merritt Avenue Add Thereto No parking, west side, from Merritt Avenue to 84 feet north of Merritt Avenue, between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. SECTION 8. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, publication and placement of the appropriate signage. SECTION 9. Publication Notice. Please take notice that the City of Oshkosh enacted ordinance #10 -XXX (A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTIONS 27 -14, 27- 23(A -5), 27- 23(A -6), 27- 23(A -7), 23(A -8) AND 27- 23(A -11) OF THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO VARIOUS TRAFFIC REGULATIONS RELATED TO TRUCK ROUTES, LOADING ZONES, FOUR -WAY STOP INTERSECTIONS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS, THROUGH STREETS AND ON- STREET PARKING; AND CREATING SECTION 27- 23(A -7.1) PERTAINING TO ROUNDABOUTS) on December 14, 2010. The ordinance changes truck route designations on Fernau Avenue, Snell Road, Stearns Drive and Walter Road; changes loading zones on Commerce Street, Main Street and in two municipal parking lots; changes the intersection of Iowa Street and 17 Avenue to a two -way stop, designates some intersections as roundabouts following the completion of 2010 construction activity; and changes parking regulations on Logan Drive and Monroe Street. The full text of the ordinance may be obtained at the Office of the City Clerk, 21E Church Avenue and through the City's website at www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us Clerk's phone 920/236-5011. 0 OYHKOlH ON THE WATER MEMORANDUM TO: Mark A. Rohloff, City Manager FROM: Christopher Strong, Transportation Director DATE: November 17, 2010 RE: Explanation of Traffic Regulations Ordinance Changes SECTION 1: SECTION 27 -14 — TRUCK ROUTES A REQUEST TO CHANGE TRUCK ROUTE DESIGNATIONS ON FERNAU AVENUE, SNELL ROAD, STEARNS ROAD AND WALTER ROAD. This is a Transportation Department request. Recently completed construction activity near the interchange of USH 41 with USH 45 resulted in a new overpass over USH 41 (Snell Road) and the reconfiguration of several intersections. This requires an update of the City's designated truck routes in this area. Section 27 -14 of the Municipal Code designates specific roads in the City as truck routes. Under the ordinance, persons driving heavy traffic vehicles (generally those vehicles having a gross weight in excess of 15,000 pounds) must stay on these roads, unless they are obtaining orders for supplies or moving or delivering supplies or commodities to an address on a street not designated as a truck route. Table 1 summarizes the current code language for Fernau Avenue, Snell Road, Stearns Drive and Walter Road, along with recommended language based on the new street layout. Table 1: Recommended Changes to Truck Routes Street Name Current Code Limits Proposed Limits Fernau Avenue Snell Road to Vinland Road US Highway 45 to Vinland Road Snell Road Highway 45 to County Trunk "A" Stearns Drive to County Trunk "A" Stearns Drive Not included Snell Road to northern city limits Walter Road (Formerly named Snell Road) Fernau Avenue to Snell Road The primary functional difference with these proposed truck route changes is the extension of the Snell Road truck route designation over the new overpass. This designation continues up Stearns Drive to the northern city limits. A truck route designation seems reasonable given some of the commercial and industrial land uses in this area, and the pavement design of both roads is adequate to support a truck route designation. This would allow trucks to continue west on Snell Road from Jackson Street as a way of accessing northbound USH 45. Page 2 of 5 Explanation of Traffic Ordinance Changes New truck route designations are normally a concern if there are concerns about the integrity of the pavement or if there are a significant number of residential properties near the proposed route. Neither of these is true in this case. PASSED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (6 -0). SECTION 2: SECTION 27- 230 -5) — LOADING ZONES A REQUEST FOR A LOADING ZONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF MAIN STREET FROM 135 FEET SOUTH OF PEARL AVENUE TO 170 FEET SOUTH OF PEARL AVENUE. (CURRENT CONDITION: NO PARKING.) This is a Transportation Department request. Before Main Street was reconstructed, the area in question was a bay designated as on- street parking for night deposits at the bank. The signage was not supported by ordinance language, even though the area in question is in public right -of -way. The reconstructed Main Street preserved this parking bay as the night deposit area continues to be important for bank operations. This request would update the ordinance to allow parking that is consistent with its prior use. As we cannot designate an on- street parking area for a specific business, a loading zone designation should reasonably accommodate the needs of the bank. A REQUEST FOR A LOADING ZONE ON THE WEST SIDE OF COMMERCE STREET FROM 50 FEET NORTH OF CEAPE AVENUE TO 72 FEET NORTH OF CEAPE AVENUE. (CURRENT CONDITION: 30- MINUTE PARKING.) These are citizen requests. The existing loading zone on the west side of Commerce Street was established in the late 1990s based on a tenant that was scheduled to occupy the then -Park Plaza shopping center. With the turnover in tenants, this loading zone is no longer necessary in this location. Instead, there is a need for a loading zone at the southern end of the block to accommodate a different tenant. While most on- street parking in the downtown is for 2 hours, Commerce Street has had shorter parking durations for many years, and it does not seem to have caused any problems. I recommend having the existing loading zone changed to 30- minute parking, to make it consistent with the rest of that side of the block. PASSED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (6 -0). Page 3 of 5 Explanation of Traffic Ordinance Changes SECTION 3: SECTION 27- 23(A -6) — FOUR WAY STOP INTERSECTIONS A REQUEST TO MAKE 17 AVENUE A THROUGH STREET AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH IOWA STREET. (CURRENT CONDITION: 4 -WAY STOP.) This is a Transportation Department request. It has been the department's practice to recommend against installing unwarranted traffic control devices, as they can discourage compliance with warranted traffic control devices and can introduce unnecessary delay to all road users, including emergency responders. This practice means that we review locations where traffic control devices may currently be installed where they may not meet warrants. A four -way stop was established at the intersection of Iowa Street and 17 Avenue in 1991. The four -way stop was requested by citizens who were concerned about recent crashes and limited sight distance due to the business located at the southeast corner of the intersection. At that time, the volume of traffic entering the intersection was 2,100 vehicles per day. There had been seven crashes in 3 Y2 years. Although both traffic volume levels and crash frequency did not meet the warrants, the traffic control was approved. Recent traffic counts at this intersection show that traffic volumes are currently 1,500 vehicles per day, which is a nearly 30 percent drop from levels in 1991. There have also been no reported crashes at this intersection since 2002. Our current warrants for a four -way stop are as follows: 1. Five or more reported crashes in a 12 -month period that are susceptible to correction by an all -way stop installation. These crashes include right- and left -turn collisions as well as right -angle collisions. 2. Traffic volume warrant: a) Traffic exceeds 300 vehicles per hour for at least eight (8) hours for the major street approaches, and b) Traffic exceeds 200 vehicles per hour for at least eight (8) hours on the minor street approaches. c) Traffic volumes are relatively equal in distribution. Currently, the highest hourly volume on Iowa Street is about 90 vehicles (out of 830 daily vehicles), while the highest hourly volume on 17 Avenue is about 80 vehicles (out of 710 daily vehicles). Clearly, neither warrant is satisfied for this intersection. Based on the traffic volumes and crash history, yield signs would likely be appropriate here. However, because of the limited sight distance at the southeast corner, I think it would be better to use stop signs. Traffic volumes are relatively balanced between both directions. Arguments could be made for keeping stop signs on either street. For 17 Avenue, this is the only stop or yield sign between Ohio Street and Oregon Street; for Iowa Street, this is the only stop or yield sign between South Park Avenue and 20 Avenue. Because the sight distance limitation is in the southeast corner of the intersection, it would seem to make more sense to have Iowa Street traffic stop. PASSED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (6 -0). Page 4 of 5 Explanation of Traffic Ordinance Changes SECTION 4: SECTION 27- 230 -7) — TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS These ordinance changes are a result of street changes and roundabouts. SECTION 5: SECTION 27- 230 -7.1) — ROUNDABOUT INTERSECTIONS This is in conjunction with the construction of roundabouts. SECTION 6: SECTION 27- 230 -8) — THROUGH STREETS In reference to Grand Street, this is an ordinance correction. In reference to W. 17 Ave., see Section 3. SECTION 7: SECTION 27- 230 -11) — PARKING REGULATIONS A REQUEST TO ALLOW PARKING ON THE EAST SIDE OF LOGAN DRIVE FROM 1,005 FEET NORTH TO 1,055 FEET NORTH OF ITS SOUTHERN INTERSECTION WITH JACKSON STREET. (CURRENT CONDITION: NO PARKING.) This is a Transportation Department request. This no parking zone, along with a companion zone on the west side of Logan Drive, was established in November 2008 when Oshkosh Transit System Route 10 was having difficulty finding a clear area to stop on Logan Drive. The main issue at that time was with vehicles parking on the west side of the road; however, the no parking zone was established on both sides of the road since Route 10 stopped on both sides of the road, depending on whether it was an inbound or outbound trip. A recent reconfiguration of the route will mean that the bus will always stop on the west side of the road; therefore, the no parking zone on the east side of the road is no longer necessary from a transit perspective. I do not believe there is much, if any, parking activity on the east side of the road, so this proposal should have limited effect on parking availability and /or effective width of the street. PASSED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (6 -0). A REQUEST FOR NO PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE STREET FROM MERRITT AVENUE TO 70 FEET NORTH OF MERRITT AVENUE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 6 AM AND 6 PM, MONDAYS THROUGH SATURDAYS. (CURRENT CONDITION: UNRESTRICTED PARKING.) This is a Transportation Department request. In 2004, at the request of the Oshkosh Transit System, a no parking zone was created on the west side of Monroe Street from 70 feet to 84 feet. The purpose of this no parking zone was to facilitate loading and unloading of passengers across from Marian Manor, in order to provide the bus adequate space to safely pull in and out of traffic. While this helped address some issues, this still is often not enough space for the bus to pull out of traffic. In addition, when the bus parks at this location, passengers using mobility devices do not have a good paved landing from which they can access the bus. The proposal would extend the no parking zone to the corner. If approved, the transit system Page 5 of 5 Explanation of Traffic Ordinance Changes would move the bus stop sign to the corner as well. This would have several benefits for the bus system, including combining two vehicle stops to one, providing a better access route for passengers using mobility devices, and ensuring that the bus stays out of traffic. The bench would not be moved at this time. The transit system is going through a planning process right now, and it is possible that there may not be a bench at this location in the future. If the transit plan recommends keeping a stop in this area, then the bench would be moved closer to the sign at that time. When this was approved in 2004, the no parking zone was kept small so as to not reduce the parking availability on this side of the street. This proposal would reduce the number of on- street parking spaces, and so it may have an impact on adjacent properties. PASSED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (6 -0). ( 0 MEMORANDUM OlHKOlH ON THE WATER TO: Mark A. Rohloff, City Manager FROM: Christopher Strong, Transportation Director DATE: November 17, 2010 RE: Items Defeated by the Traffic Review Board at their November 9, 2010 Meeting A REQUEST FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL TO BE INSTALLED AT THE INTERSECTION OF WESTHAVEN DRIVE AND 9 TH AVENUE. (CURRENT CONDITION: STOP SIGNS ON WESTHAVEN DRIVE.) This is a Common Council request. At the October 2009 meeting, I shared with the Traffic Review Advisory Board that the City planned to install a temporary signal at the intersection of Westhaven Drive and 9th Avenue, during the duration of construction activities related to US Highway 41. The signal was activated earlier this year and was turned off in September. At the October 26, 2010 Common Council meeting, the intersection was discussed as a potential candidate for a permanent traffic signal. The Council directed the signal to be reactivated, and referred the question of a permanent signal to the Traffic Review Advisory Board for a recommendation. There are a number of issues that have been raised with this intersection, so I am providing a lot of background information to help Board members assess these issues. Origin of the 2010 Temporary Signal The City has been working with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation for several years in preparation for the US 41 reconstruction project, in part to help address the impacts of construction activity on our local street network. Last year, anticipating this year's reconstruction of the Witzel Avenue and 20 Avenue overpasses, the City contacted the East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission to model how the overpass closures might affect traffic on other roads in the City. This analysis projected that the intersection of Westhaven Drive and 9th Avenue would be significantly impacted by the construction project. The estimated traffic impacts are shown in Table 1. ITEMS DEFEATED 2 NOVEMBER 2010 Table 1: Projected Traffic Impact of US 41 Construction at Westhaven Dr. and 9th Ave. Approach to Intersection 2006 Daily Volume % Change due to Construction 2010 2011 2012 Northbound Westhaven Drive 1,700 9% -21% 31% Southbound Westhaven Drive 2,000 10% -49% 128% Westbound 9 th Avenue 6,500 51% -59% 94% Eastbound 9 th Avenue 4,600 85% -60% 54% 2010 - Assumes closure of both Witzel Avenue and 20th Avenue 2011 - Assumes closure of 9th Avenue 2012 - Assumes closure of STH 21 With these results, the City approached WISDOT about using project funds to support the cost of a temporary signal installation at this intersection. Under the typical municipal cost - sharing agreement, this would allow 90 percent of the costs to be borne by the state. City staff developed a cost estimate of $16,000 for installing a temporary intersection, based on using a combination of in -stock materials and material to be ordered. (City electricians installed the signal; the cost of using City equipment and staff was not included in this cost.) The state would be willing to apply the same dollars toward a permanent signal; however, they would have only matched 90 percent of the costs for the temporary signal. This meant that all of the additional dollars required to make the signal conform to standards for a permanent signal would have come from local funding. From the City's perspective, it did not make sense to consider investing additional money unless a signal was warranted at this location. Past Analyses of Signal Warrants The intersection of Westhaven Drive and 9 th Avenue has been considered as a candidate for a traffic signal for many years, with review by the Traffic Review Advisory Board annually from 2002 through 2005. In each analysis, the signal warrants were not satisfied for the intersection, and the Board recommended against signalizing the intersection. Since the intersection didn't satisfy signal warrants but there were citizen concerns about safety and delay at the intersection, City staff considered installing a roundabout at this location. To study the effectiveness of this alternative, the City engaged with a consulting firm (Strand) to conduct an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE). The ICE is a standard practice in Wisconsin by which several alternative methods of controlling an intersection are compared for their potential effects on safety and delay, and their associated costs. Strand completed their study in July 2009. Their study used traffic count data collected by the City to look at current conditions, and then applied traffic growth rates estimated from previous traffic counts to project conditions for the year 2030. To understand the findings of their report, it is necessary to define a couple of terms. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is adopted by the Federal and State government and provides standards and guidance related to signage, pavement marking, signals and similar devices which are used to direct and guide traffic. This manual includes a series of warrants for when traffic signals may be appropriate ITEMS DEFEATED NOVEMBER 2010 at a given location. (Specific warrants will be discussed later.) Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure that helps to assess the relative quality of traffic operations. The level of service is assigned on an A through F scale, with A signifying free flow conditions, and F signifying a breakdown in flow. Typically, the goal is to attain a level of service of D or better. To summarize, the main findings of the Strand study were as follows: 1. The existing and future traffic volumes at the intersection are not anticipated to satisfy any of the MUTCD [Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices] warrants for implementation of signals. 2. Traffic modeling of the existing geometry indicates that both approaches of Westhaven Drive operate at LOS [Level of Service] F during the peak hour periods in 2009 and 2030. However, because of the minimal amount of traffic on Westhaven Drive, signals are not warranted according to the MUTCD. 3. Modeling indicates implementation of signals provides LOS A operations with 2030 design year traffic volumes. Projected costs are as follows: • Signals Only: $190, 000 • Signals with Geometric Enhancements: $612, 000 4. Implementation of either a single -lane or dual -lane roundabout provides LOS A operations with 2030 design year traffic volumes. Projected costs are as follows: • Single -Lane Roundabout: $689, 000 • Dual -Lane Roundabout: $695, 000 Strand's findings may be summarized as follows. There are difficulties in peak hour traffic for Westhaven Drive at this intersection. Either a signal or a roundabout would both be effective in eliminating this peak hour delay problem. However, the short durations of peak hour congestion are not enough to justify, based on national and state standards, the installation of a signal at this location. The roundabout, because it would involve additional right -of -way acquisition, would have a higher construction cost. Because of the complexity of constructing a roundabout, it would make sense to defer construction until other construction work is going on in the vicinity. The findings of the Strand report, along with a recommendation for a temporary signal at this intersection, were presented to the Traffic Review Advisory Board in October 2009. Current Analysis of Signal Warrants Section 4C.01 of the MUTCD introduces the concept of signal warrants with the following language (emphasis added): 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: ITEMS DEFEATED 4 NOVEMBER 2010 • Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume • Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume • Warrant 3, Peak Hour • Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume • Warrant S, 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. A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the factors described in this Chapter are met. A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection. A traffic control signal should not be installed if it will seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. The study should consider the effects of the right -turn vehicles from the minor - street approaches. Engineering judgment should be used to determine what, if any, portion of the right -turn traffic is subtracted from the minor - street traffic count when evaluating the count against the signal warrants listed [earlier]. The basic philosophy between warrants is that traffic should be allowed to move unless there is a compelling reason to stop it. The warrants help to quantify when a reason is compelling enough to stop traffic with a signal. It was noted earlier that previous analyses from 2002 to 2009 found that the intersection of Westhaven Drive and 9 th Avenue has never satisfied a warrant for a traffic signal. The following is a current assessment of how the intersection performs on each of the nine warrants. Warrant 1: Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume. This warrant is based on having a sufficient traffic volume on both streets at a given intersection over a minimum of eight hours of the day. Table 2 summarizes traffic volumes at this intersection as collected in October 2010. Satisfying this warrant would require: a) eight hours each day of 600 vehicles per hour on 9 th Avenue and 200 vehicles per hour on one of the Westhaven Drive approaches; ITEMS DEFEATED 5 NOVEMBER 2010 b) eight hours each day of 900 vehicles per hour on 9 th Avenue and 100 vehicles per hour on one of the Westhaven Drive approaches; or c) 80 percent of the volume necessary to meet condition a) and 80 percent of the volume necessary to meet condition b). Neither condition a) nor b) is met for any hours. Condition c) is met for only 7 hours for part a) and only 4 hours for part b). Therefore, this warrant is not satisfied. Table 2: Hourly Traffic Volumes at Westhaven Drive and 9th Avenue, 2010 Warrant 2: 4 -Hour Vehicular Traffic Volume. This warrant is also based on large volumes of intersecting traffic, and looks at hourly traffic during any four hours of a given day. Compared to Warrant 1, this warrant looks at both directions of traffic on the minor street. To satisfy this warrant, there must be four points above the curve shown in Figure 1. Since only three points are above the curve, this warrant is not satisfied. 9th Avenue Westhaven Drive Time Eastbound Westbound Total Northbound Southbound Total 12:00 AM 17 37 53 4 9 13 1:00 AM 7 16 23 2 8 10 2:00 AM 7 23 29 2 3 5 3:00 AM 14 13 26 3 12 15 4:00 AM 34 21 55 4 18 22 5:00 AM 90 109 199 17 39 56 6:00 AM 234 170 404 58 66 123 7:00 AM 400 324 724 142 115 256 8:00 AM 246 310 556 91 114 205 9:00 AM 226 283 509 65 137 202 10:00 AM 245 311 556 78 146 224 11:00 AM 274 314 588 67 166 232 12:00 PM 254 375 629 77 158 235 1:00 PM 233 377 609 84 163 247 2:00 PM 284 425 709 79 185 264 3:00 PM 336 491 827 88 192 280 4:00 PM 350 532 882 90 187 277 5:00 PM 325 524 849 93 188 281 6:00 PM 245 399 644 93 139 232 7:00 PM 149 284 433 48 100 148 8:00 PM 98 228 326 33 85 118 9:00 PM 65 166 231 23 45 68 10:00 PM 47 112 159 18 32 51 11:00 PM 36 74 110 6 17 23 Total 4,214 5,914 10,128 1,263 2,322 3,585 Warrant 2: 4 -Hour Vehicular Traffic Volume. This warrant is also based on large volumes of intersecting traffic, and looks at hourly traffic during any four hours of a given day. Compared to Warrant 1, this warrant looks at both directions of traffic on the minor street. To satisfy this warrant, there must be four points above the curve shown in Figure 1. Since only three points are above the curve, this warrant is not satisfied. ITEMS DEFEATED 6 NOVEMBER 2010 4- CL 500 ,n 400 d w 300 w ■ a 200 U) a W < 100 O = z ° m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M LO (O rl- 00 0) O N M r r r r r MAJOR STREET -Total of Both Approaches (vph) — 2+ Lanes & 2+ Lanes ■ Data Points Figure 1: Evaluation of Warrant 2, Westhaven Drive and 9th Avenue, 2010 Warrant 3: Peak Hour. This 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. According to the MUTCD, "This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high- occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time." As such, this warrant is not applicable in this case. Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volumes. This warrant requires minimum pedestrian volumes during a peak hour or over a four -hour period, as well as a lack of gaps in traffic in which pedestrians may safely cross. The requirement is for there to be 190 pedestrians crossing in a single hour or 100 pedestrians in each of four hours during a day. Observations at this intersection indicate that pedestrian volumes come nowhere close to meeting this requirement. Warrant S: School Crossing. This warrant is a variant of the previous warrant and focuses on pedestrian crossings toward a school. As this intersection is not near a school, this warrant is not applicable. Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System. This warrant can be used to help traffic progression through signals by preserving platooning of vehicles. Given that the closest signal is '/z mile away, this warrant is not applicable. Warrant 7: Crash Experience. Traffic signals can be used to improve intersection safety. The following must be satisfied: • Five or more reported accidents of types susceptible to correction by a traffic signal within a twelve month period; • the volume of traffic is at least 80 percent of the required level for the minimum vehicular volumes from Warrant 1; and • adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to ITEMS DEFEATED 7 NOVEMBER 2010 reduce the crash frequency. Table 3 summarizes the crash history at this intersection from 2002 to date. Table 3: Number of Crashes at Westhaven Drive and 9th Avenue, 2002 to present Year # of Crashes 2002 7 2003 3 2004 7 2005 3 2006 4 2007 10 2008 6 2009 3 2010 (to date) 3 Crash records were reviewed from 2007 to the present to see whether there were patterns of crashes which could be alleviated through installation of a signal. The data are summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Crash Frequency and Type, Westhaven Drive and 9th Avenue, 2007 -2010 (to date) Crash Description 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Westhaven Traffic Violates Right -of -Way 3 4 1 2 10 SB Westhaven 1 2 0 2 5 NB Westhaven 2 2 1 0 5 9th Avenue Turned Left in Front of Opposing Traffic 4 1 2 1 8 EB Left 1 0 2 1 4 WB Left 3 1 0 0 4 NB Westhaven Vehicles Sideswipe 1 1 0 0 2 Rear -end Crashes 2 0 0 0 2 Total 10 6 3 - 7 - 3 - 7 22 The most frequent type of crash, where a vehicle leaving Westhaven Drive violated right -of -way and either struck or was hit by another vehicle, has occurred ten times between 2007 and the present, with a maximum annual occurrence of four crashes. In a well - designed signal, this type of crash should occur less frequently, but will not necessarily be eliminated. The second most frequent type of crash involves when a left - turning vehicle on 9 th Avenue turned in front of, and was struck by, oncoming traffic. This type of crash would still be prone to occur at this intersection even with a signal; in fact, one of these crashes occurred this year while the signal was in operation. Reducing this type of crash would require adding a left -turn phase signal, which would increase further delay for some 9 th Avenue traffic, and /or adding left -turn lanes, which would significantly increase the cost of the signal. The third most frequent type of crash involved northbound vehicles which decided to make a lane ITEMS DEFEATED 8 NOVEMBER 2010 change at the last minute, before entering the intersection. This occurs at both signalized and unsignalized intersections. The final crash type at this intersection, rear -end crashes, may occur more frequently at signalized intersections. Since the crash experience does not satisfy the first part of this warrant, the other parts of this warrant were not examined. Warrant 8: Roadway Network. A traffic signal may be installed to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. This warrant is not applicable for an isolated signal like this. Warrant 9: Intersection near a Grade Crossing. There is no railroad crossing near this intersection, so this warrant would not be applicable. In summary, a current analysis for this intersection shows that none of the signal warrants are satisfied. Consequences of an Unwarranted Signal A signal may be installed and operated even if doesn't satisfy the warrants, and it can offer benefits at certain times to certain road users. However, any such decision needs to be made in full consideration of the related issues that would result. With this location, here are some adverse consequences to keep in mind with installing a signal at this intersection. • The signal will not help traffic flow for the roughly 75 percent of traffic which goes through this intersection on 9th Avenue. It will not reduce delay and will, for many motorists, increase delay. • The signal will increase delay for Westhaven Drive traffic when there is no cross - traffic on 9th Avenue. • The signal will make little difference for the 60 to 75 percent of northbound traffic on Westhaven Drive which turns right. • The signal will increase delay for pedestrians who cross Westhaven Drive, unless they choose to disobey the law and cross against a signal. • The signal may increase the number of certain types of crashes, including lower severity year- end crashes as well as higher- severity crashes such as red -light running. Frequently Asked Questions Several topics were raised in the October 26 Council discussion of this intersection, for which I wanted to provide some additional data. Question 1. Is speeding a problem on 9th Avenue? Several citizens have suggested that speeding is a problem on 9th Avenue, and that the signal ITEMS DEFEATED 9 NOVEMBER 2010 helped to slow traffic down. Speed data were collected in October to see whether speeding was a problem after the signal was removed. The average speed for westbound traffic was 30.5 mph, and the 85 percentile speed was 35.1 mph. Speeds for eastbound traffic were slightly higher, with an average speed of 33.9 mph and an 85 percentile speed of 37.2 mph. It is likely that the average speeds are reduced somewhat because of vehicles slowing down to make turns. Nevertheless, it does not appear that speed limit compliance here is much different than at other locations in the City. Traffic signals can have mixed effects on vehicle speeds. When they are red, vehicles must stop. They may try to increase their speed after the stop in order to compensate for lost time. When they are amber or close to amber, vehicles may accelerate to try to clear the intersection before it turns red. Regardless of how signals affect vehicle speeds, the intent of a traffic signal is to encourage flow, not to restrict it. The use of traffic signals as a traffic calming device is both expensive and inappropriate. Question 2. Does traffic on Sundays affect the need for a signal at this intersection? Many citizens have commented that traffic on Westhaven Drive backs up a considerable length on Sundays, which they feel may warrant a signal at this intersection. The recent period of traffic data collection did include Sunday traffic. The following figures help to indicate what is happening on Sundays. Error! Reference source not found. shows the hourly traffic volume entering the intersection on an average weekday, compared to Sunday. As can be seen, the traffic on Sunday mornings is a little bit higher than a typical weekday, but is less than the intersection experiences in a typical afternoon rush hour. Error! Reference source not found. shows the same information, but exclusively for southbound traffic. This highlights the issue that many citizens raised: there is a significant volume in southbound traffic that is trying to go through the intersection Sunday mornings around the times of church worship services. At the same time, as shown in Figure 4, there is not much change in the 9th Avenue traffic. Therefore, it is likely more difficult on Sunday mornings for southbound Westhaven Drive traffic to cross or turn left onto 9th Avenue than on weekday mornings at the same time. The graphs for Figure 3 and Figure 4 used different y -axes; Error! Reference source not found. combines those two graphs as one to make it easier to see the relative volume of traffic involved. As can be seen, 9th Avenue continues to be the dominant traffic flow on Sundays, but there is a surge in southbound traffic that may face extended delays if they wish to cross or turn left onto 9th Avenue. This confirms what has been shared by many citizens. As noted earlier, traffic warrants are based on typical, daily or near daily traffic conditions, rather than exceptional circumstances. It is very unusual to operate a signal to address concerns that ITEMS DEFEATED 10 NOVEMBER 2010 occur for only a few hours of a week. This may occur with exceptionally large trip generators, such as stadiums. In cases like this, it would be more typical to have people manually directing traffic rather than relying on a signal. ITEMS DEFEATED 1,400 II NOVEMBER 2010 1,200 1,000 L 800 L CL N 600 0 o �o 400 rM Time Weekday Sunday Figure 2: Hourly Traffic Volume, All Approaches, Westhaven Drive and 9th Avenue, 2010 o ° o ° o ° ti o Dx- h ro- Weekday Sunday Figure 2: Hourly Traffic Volume, All Approaches, Westhaven Drive and 9th Avenue, 2010 ITEMS DEFEATED 12 NOVEMBER 2010 300 250 M L O L CL 150 U L N 0 o �o 100 50 Time o ° o ° o ° ti o Dx- h ro- Weekday Sunday Figure 3: Hourly Traffic Volume, Southbound Westhaven Drive Traffic Only, Westhaven Drive and 9th Avenue, 2010 ITEMS DEFEATED 13 NOVEMBER 2010 .1 r)r)r) 900 800 . ......... 700 .. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... . ........ .............. 600 ..... ...... ......... ............... ....... CL 500 400 300 200 100 0 Time Figure 4: Hourly Traffic Volume, 91h Avenue Traffic Only, Westhaven Drive and 9th Avenue, 2010 Weekday Sunday ITEMS DEFEATED 14 NOVEMBER 2010 1,000 900 800 700 L 0 600 a) CL 500 U m 400 CII 200 0 o° o° o° Time 9th Avenue, Weekday 9th Avenue, Sunday —* Westhaven SB, Weekday Westhaven SB, Sunday 118I811 Figure 5: Hourly Traffic Volume, Select Directions, Westhaven Drive and 9th Avenue, 2010 Question 3. How easy is it to convert the temporary signal to a permanent signal? To convert the intersection with its existing configuration to a signal would not require much additional money. While there is conduit under one leg of the intersection, it does not extend the length of the roadway and has insufficient diameter to carry the volume of cabling required. To meet current standards for reliability, conduit would need to be bored and placed under each of the approach legs. The existing signal poles are mounted using "screw -in" bases; a more lasting concrete base would need to be used on a permanent installation. The permanent signal should have signal heads to facilitate pedestrian traffic. Collectively, these changes would not require a lot of money or time. However, as the MUTCD stated earlier, "A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection." Leaving the signal with its current layout leaves several issues unaddressed. First, left- turning vehicles from 9th Avenue face a "negative offset" condition, where they have difficulty assessing whether there is a big enough gap to safely complete a turn. This configuration contributes to the second most frequent accident type occurring at this intersection. To remedy this, the intersection should be reconfigured so that dedicated left turn lanes face each other. Second, there is a pole on the median island on the southern leg of the intersection which obstructs the subdivision sign. The median pole location was used as a means of installing vehicle detection capabilities. The median island should likely be redesigned so as to preserve the visibility of the subdivision sign. These types of considerations should be folded into any discussion of a permanent signal at this location. Question 4. If a signal is not warranted here, what other options are available? A traffic signal is intended to address specific problems. The warrant analysis suggests that, whatever problems exist at the intersection, a traffic signal is not the answer. To assess the potential applicability of other options, it is necessary to clarify the problems that exist at this intersection. The intersection's primary problems appear to be as follows: • Southbound Westhaven Drive traffic has difficulty crossing or turning left onto 9th Avenue at specific times • Left - turning 9 Avenue traffic has difficulty judging when there are gaps in traffic in which they can safely complete their turn • Pedestrians have difficulty finding gaps long enough to safely cross the intersection The following are some potential options that could address some of these concerns at the intersection, without requiring construction of a signal. These may or may not be appropriate at this intersection. • Prohibit southbound left turns at the intersection • Reconstruct the intersection to create dedicated left turn lanes and /or medians, without installing a signal • Convert the intersection into a four -way stop ITEMS DEFEATED 16 NOVEMBER 2010 • Construct a roundabout Install a beacon system for pedestrian crossings, similar to what is on Congress Avenue at Summit Avenue. (These are not warranted unless certain pedestrian volume warrant thresholds are met.) Add roadside markers to assist Westhaven Drive drivers in judging gaps Alternatively, there may be ways of improving this intersection by looking at other intersections. These include: Explore modifications to the intersection at Westhaven Drive and Witzel Avenue could help to divert some of the southbound traffic away from the intersection of Westhaven Drive and 9 th Avenue Consider closing off some other intersections at 9 th Avenue. This would eliminate concerns about cut - through traffic, and would divert additional traffic to Westhaven Drive. This additional traffic could help satisfy a signal warrant at this intersection, and would likely reduce crash frequency in the corridor as a whole. Consider a "road diet" on 9 th Avenue from Washburn Street to Oakwood Road. This could allow the intersection to satisfy signal warrants. In addition, it would align the left turn lanes on 9 th Avenue which should improve safety, shorten effective pedestrian crossing distances, and add bicycle lanes on 9 th Avenue, all within existing right -of -way. Along these lines, it is worth noting that the southbound left movement at the intersection of Washburn Street and 9 th Avenue can back up during the afternoon rush hour. The construction of a roundabout at that intersection next year should reduce delays for this movement significantly. It may be that this will help to divert some traffic from Westhaven Drive, too. Question S. How much is traffic growing at the intersection? Some citizens have contended that there has been considerable growth in traffic volumes at this intersection over the last several years. Figure 6 shows what the City's traffic counts have shown for changes in traffic volumes at this intersection since 2002. As can be seen, there was some marked growth in 2002 through 2004 with the completion of a new bridge over Sawyer Creek. However, volumes on both streets have actually dropped since 2006. I do not expect this decline in traffic to be long -term. However, the contention that traffic volumes are significantly worse than a few years ago isn't supported by the data. ITEMS DEFEATED 17 NOVEMBER 2010 12,000 10,000 8,000 a R L G! Q w 6,000 v r w 4,000 2,000 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Date Figure 6: Growth in Traffic Volumes, Westhaven Drive at 9th Avenue DEFEATED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (1 -5) *9th Avenue ®Westhaven Drive A REQUEST TO INSTALL A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF MASON STREET AND 9 TH AVENUE. (CURRENT CONDITION: STOP SIGNS ON MASON STREET.) This is a citizen request. At this intersection, 9th Avenue is a minor arterial while Mason Street is a local street. There are no signals on 9th Avenue between Huntington Place and Knapp Street. The signal at Huntington Place is normally green for 9th Avenue, whereby the next closest street with a signal is Koeller Street. The citizen was concerned that the high volume on 9th Avenue makes it difficult to safely cross or enter 9th Avenue traffic. Traffic counts were conducted at this intersection in August 2009. Volumes on Mason Street are quite low; therefore, the most applicable warrant relates to "interruption of continuous traffic ". The idea with this warrant is that volumes on the major street are high enough that there are too few gaps for traffic on the cross - street to safely cross. To satisfy this warrant, it would be necessary to have eight hours per day in which the 9th Avenue volume was at least 900 vehicles per hour and the highest volume approach on Mason Street carried at least 75 vehicles per hour. ITEMS DEFEATED 18 NOVEMBER 2010 The following are the traffic counts for the highest volume hours during the August 2009 traffic count. (As a reference, vehicular traffic on 9 th Avenue is 14,500 vehicles per day, while it is about 700 vehicles per day on Mason Street.) Table 5: Hourly Traffic Volumes, Highest 8 Hours, Mason Street and 9th Avenue While 9 th Avenue carries enough traffic to satisfy part of the warrant, the Mason Street traffic is well below the levels necessary. On average, Mason Street traffic would need to more than double to satisfy this warrant. While there are other warrants related to traffic volumes, these would require even more traffic to be present on Mason Street, so these were not examined. There is also a signal warrant related to crash experience. The following conditions must be met to satisfy this warrant. Five or more reported accidents of types susceptible to correction by a traffic signal within a twelve month period. The volume of traffic is at least 80% of the required level for the minimum vehicular volumes for a traffic volume warrant. • Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency. There has been an average of three crashes per year at this intersection since 2004, with no more than four crashes occurring in a given year. The traffic on Mason Street is also well below 80 percent of what is required to satisfy a traffic volume warrant. Therefore, this intersection does not meet the crash experience warrant, either. Right- turning traffic from Mason Street should have a relatively easy time in finding a gap. Left - turning traffic from Mason Street could use Huntington Place (northbound traffic) or Knapp Street (southbound traffic) without much additional travel time. DEFEATED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (0 -6) 9th Avenue Mason Street Hour Eastbound Westbound Total Northbound Southbound Total 11:00 AM 479 487 965 32 16 48 12:00 PM 545 529 1,074 37 17 54 1:00 PM 525 532 1,057 23 15 38 2:00 PM 518 476 994 33 21 53 3:00 PM 530 550 1,080 39 12 50 4:00 PM 583 604 1,187 52 21 72 5:00 PM 589 541 1,129 31 18 49 6:00 PM 498 414 912 19 22 41 While 9 th Avenue carries enough traffic to satisfy part of the warrant, the Mason Street traffic is well below the levels necessary. On average, Mason Street traffic would need to more than double to satisfy this warrant. While there are other warrants related to traffic volumes, these would require even more traffic to be present on Mason Street, so these were not examined. There is also a signal warrant related to crash experience. The following conditions must be met to satisfy this warrant. Five or more reported accidents of types susceptible to correction by a traffic signal within a twelve month period. The volume of traffic is at least 80% of the required level for the minimum vehicular volumes for a traffic volume warrant. • Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash frequency. There has been an average of three crashes per year at this intersection since 2004, with no more than four crashes occurring in a given year. The traffic on Mason Street is also well below 80 percent of what is required to satisfy a traffic volume warrant. Therefore, this intersection does not meet the crash experience warrant, either. Right- turning traffic from Mason Street should have a relatively easy time in finding a gap. Left - turning traffic from Mason Street could use Huntington Place (northbound traffic) or Knapp Street (southbound traffic) without much additional travel time. DEFEATED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (0 -6) ITEMS DEFEATED 19 NOVEMBER 2010 A REQUEST FOR NO PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE OF MONROE STREET FROM MERRITT AVENUE TO 70 FEET NORTH OF MERRITT AVENUE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 6 AM AND 6 PM, MONDAYS THROUGH SATURDAYS. (CURRENT CONDITION: UNRESTRICTED PARKING.) This is a Transportation Department request. In 2004, at the request of the Oshkosh Transit System, a no parking zone was created on the west side of Monroe Street from 70 feet to 84 feet. The purpose of this no parking zone was to facilitate loading and unloading of passengers across from Marian Manor, in order to provide the bus adequate space to safely pull in and out of traffic. While this helped address some issues, this still is often not enough space for the bus to pull out of traffic. In addition, when the bus parks at this location, passengers using mobility devices do not have a good paved landing from which they can access the bus. The proposal would extend the no parking zone to the corner. If approved, the transit system would move the bus stop sign to the corner as well. This would have several benefits for the bus system, including combining two vehicle stops to one, providing a better access route for passengers using mobility devices, and ensuring that the bus stays out of traffic. The bench would not be moved at this time. The transit system is going through a planning process right now, and it is possible that there may not be a bench at this location in the future. If the transit plan recommends keeping a stop in this area, then the bench would be moved closer to the sign at that time. When this was approved in 2004, the no parking zone was kept small so as to not reduce the parking availability on this side of the street. This proposal would reduce the number of on- street parking spaces, and so it may have an impact on adjacent properties. DEFEATED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (0 -6) A REQUEST FOR STOP SIGNS ON EVANS STREET AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH MELVIN AVENUE. (CURRENT CONDITION: YIELD SIGNS.) This is a citizen request. This intersection is located a couple of blocks west of Webster Stanley Elementary School. The citizen is concerned that vehicles on Evans Street fail to heed the yield sign, and may hit children who are going to or from school. The warrants for a two -way stop sign are as follows: Three or more right angle accidents in a twelve -month period, or five or more right angle accidents in a 2 -year period. • 3,000 or more vehicles per day entering the intersection. ITEMS DEFEATED 20 NOVEMBER 2010 • A severe sight distance problem. The number of crashes at Evans Street and Melvin Avenue is shown in Table 6. As can be seen, there have been very few crashes at this intersection in recent years, so stop sign control would not be warranted based on crash history. Table 6: Number of Crashes, Evans Street and Melvin Avenue, 2002 -2009 Year 1 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 No. of Crashes 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Traffic count data collected in October 2010 showed volumes of 440 vehicles per day on Melvin Avenue and 230 vehicles per day on Evans Street at this intersection. While it is possible that traffic volumes were somewhat depressed due to construction activity, it is unlikely that the intersection would meet the required volume threshold. A review of sight distances at this intersection showed that while there are mature trees in several corners of the intersection, the trees are not dense enough to severely restrict visibility. DEFEATED BY TRAFFIC REVIEW BOARD (0 -6)