Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTRA_StaffMemo_Jan11TRAFFIC REVIEW ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEMS JANUARY 2011 NEW BUSINESS 1. A REQUEST FOR A FOUR-WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF SMITH AVENUE AND WISCONSIN STREET. (CURRENT CONDITION: SMITH AVENUE IS A THROUGH STREET.) This is a citizen request. At this location, Smith Avenue is classified as a collector street, whereas Wisconsin Street is a local street. The intersection is located east of the main entrances to Oshkosh North High School. The citizen making the request expressed concern over vehicles speeding on Smith Avenue, and it being difficult for Wisconsin Street traffic to safely enter the intersection at certain times of day, specifically the afternoon hours when students are dismissed. Converting the intersection to a four-way stop would create more gaps for Wisconsin Street traffic to enter and clear the intersection. There are two primary warrants for an all-way stop to be used to control traffic at an intersection. Under the safety warrant, there must be 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. Under the traffic volume warrant, the following conditions must all be true: Traffic exceeds 300 vehicles per hour for at least eight (8) hours for the major street approaches. Traffic exceeds 200 vehicles per hour for at least eight (8) hours on the minor street approaches. Traffic volumes are relatively equal in distribution. The number of reported crashes at the intersection of Smith Avenue and Wisconsin Street is shown in Table 1. As can be seen, the crash history at this intersection is not enough to satisfy the all-way stop warrant. Table 1: Number of Crashes at Smith Avenue and Wisconsin Street, 2002 to present  Traffic volume data were collected in September 2010; average weekday hourly traffic volumes are provided in Table 2. The citizen is correct that the intersection might operate better under an all-way stop during the afternoon school dismissal hour. However, traffic volumes during the rest of the day are not enough to satisfy this warrant. Therefore, installing the all-way stop could degrade the intersection’s operations at other times of day. Table 2: Hourly Traffic Volumes at Smith Avenue and Wisconsin Street, September 2010  I recommend denial of this request. 2. A REQUEST FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL TO BE INSTALLED AT THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND 24TH AVENUE. (CURRENT CONDITION: STOP SIGNS ON 24TH AVENUE.) This is a citizen request. The citizen made this request out of concern for the safety of pedestrians crossing Main Street at this location. At the citizen’s request, traffic counts were assessed during both summer months, when vehicle traffic volumes are typically higher, and non-summer months, when school is in session. Although the request was made due to pedestrian safety, the warrants at this location which were analyzed relate to vehicle traffic, since pedestrian traffic volumes are likely too low to satisfy the relevant warrants. Traffic counts from November 2010 were used, since these volumes were actually higher than those collected in the summer months. 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 3 summarizes traffic volumes at this intersection as collected in October 2010. Table 3: Hourly Traffic Volumes at Main Street and 24th Avenue, November 2010  Satisfying this warrant would require: a) eight hours each day of 600 vehicles per hour on Main Street and 200 vehicles per hour on one of the 24th Avenue approaches; b) eight hours each day of 900 vehicles per hour on Main Street and 100 vehicles per hour on one of the 24th Avenue approaches; or c) 80 percent of the volume necessary to meet condition a) and 80 percent of the volume necessary to meet condition b). Condition a) is met for four of eight hours, while condition b) is not met for any hours. Condition c) is met for only four hours for part a) and no hours for part b). In addition, since much of the traffic on eastbound 24th Avenue is turning right from a dedicated turn lane, most of this traffic should likely be removed from the analysis. Therefore, this warrant is not satisfied. 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. To satisfy this warrant, there must be four points above the curve shown in Figure 1. Since none of the points are above the curve, this warrant is not satisfied.  Figure 1: Evaluation of Warrant 2, Main Street and 24th Avenue, November 2010 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 reduce the crash frequency. Table 4 summarizes the crash history at this intersection from 2002 to date. Table 4: Number of Crashes at Main Street and 24th Avenue, 2002 to present  As can be seen, the crash experience warrant is not satisfied. Warrant 9: Intersection near a Grade Crossing. The purpose of this relatively new warrant is to look at special circumstances where an intersection is quite close to a railroad grade crossing. This relates primarily to vehicle storage: ensuring that there is adequate capacity between the intersection and the grade crossing to store any vehicles on the minor street who wish to cross the major street. There is a railroad crossing just east of this intersection. Based on the distance between the intersection and the grade crossing, the traffic volume on the east (westbound leg) approach would need to have a minimum of 25 vehicles per hour. The highest westbound hourly traffic volume in the November 2010 observation was 13 vehicles. Traffic volumes above 25 vehicles per hour were observed for two hours during the July 2010 observation period; however, the Main Street volumes were not enough during those hours to satisfy this warrant. In summary, a current analysis for this intersection shows that none of the signal warrants are satisfied. I recommend denial of this request. 3. A REQUEST FOR 2-HOUR PARKING ON THE EAST SIDE OF COMMERCE STREET FROM HIGH AVENUE TO PEARL AVENUE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:00 A.M. AND 6:00 P.M. DAILY, EXCEPT ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS. (CURRENT CONDITION: 1-HOUR PARKING.) This is a citizen request. Most downtown on-street parking is free for two hours. This street has had a shorter parking duration to discourage the use of spaces by employees from a certain business. The goal of this restriction was to preserve the availability of spaces for retail customers. This business recently relocated, and the building owner making this request wishes to improve the availability of parking for retail. Lengthening the duration of parking may reduce the frequency of vehicle turnover, which could reduce the likelihood of vehicle-vehicle crashes. Apart from this benefit, this proposal should have little impact on traffic, and would promote greater uniformity of parking rules in the downtown area. I recommend approval of this request. STAFF STATEMENTS 4. INSTALLATION OF NEW STATE-OWNED TRAFFIC SIGNALS ON STH 26 As a part of the US Highway 41 reconstruction project, new traffic signals have been installed on STH 26 at its intersections with the US Highway 41 frontage roads and with Planeview Drive. The cost of installing, operating and maintaining these signals will be borne by the State. These signals are expected to be active starting this month. 5. SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS IN 2009 MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES There has been some media attention drawn to requirements included in the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) with respect to street signs. The new manual prescribes compliance dates for many recently adopted requirements, including using mixed upper and lower case letters on street name signs, and replacing signs which do not provide a minimum level of retroreflectivity (i.e. the extent to which the sign is made bright and legible when it is illumined by headlights). There is some indication that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) may relax some of the compliance date requirements. This would make it easier for governing agencies to accommodate these requirements within existing fiscal resources. FHWA opened up a public comment period on this, and I submitted a letter to the FHWA on the City’s behalf, requesting that some of the compliance dates be extended. Regardless of the outcome of this review process, the City is moving toward compliance with these deadlines as we implement a sign management system to facilitate regular sign replacement schedules. The City is also in the process of converting street name signs toward the use of both upper and lower case lettering. 6. DISCUSSION OF CROSSWALK MARKING The department has received several phone calls about when crosswalks are or are not marked. The purpose of this agenda item is to frame the department’s practice with respect to crosswalk marking. A crosswalk is defined by Wisc. Statutes 340.01(10) as including either marked or unmarked crosswalks. A marked crosswalk is defined as “any portion of a highway clearly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs, lines or other markings on the surface.” The statutes also defined unmarked crosswalks as, in essence, the path that would follow the continuation of sidewalks through an intersection. Wisc. Statutes 346.23 and 346.24 establish that the pedestrian has the right-of-way when crossing in a crosswalk “in a manner which is consistent with the safe use of the crosswalk.” According to Wisc. Statutes 346.25, a pedestrian not using a crosswalk must yield to vehicular traffic. There is no statutory requirement to mark crosswalks. Section 3B.17 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) gives the following guidance about crosswalk marking: Crosswalk markings provide guidance for pedestrians who are crossing roadways by defining and delineating paths on approaches to and within signalized intersections, and on approaches to other intersections where traffic stops. In conjunction with signs and other measures, crosswalk markings help to alert road users of a designated pedestrian crossing point across roadways at locations that are not controlled by traffic control signals or STOP or YIELD signs. At non-intersection locations, crosswalk markings legally establish the crosswalk. … At locations controlled by traffic control signals or on approaches controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, crosswalk lines should be installed where engineering judgment indicates they are needed to direct pedestrians to the proper crossing path(s). The department regularly receives requests to mark crosswalks. Since marking crosswalks at intersections is not necessary to establish legal crosswalks, the department exercises some discretion as to locations where it may be appropriate to mark crosswalks. The first factor to be considered is whether the crosswalk connects two sections of ADA-accessible sidewalk. Some recent requests for crosswalk marking have involved crossing Hazel Street into Menominee Park. Since there is no sidewalk on Hazel Street and no curb cuts at these locations, these crosswalks are not being marked. Other factors that are considered are: vehicle traffic volumes, pedestrian traffic volumes, and proximity to schools. The decision to mark crosswalks away from intersections must meet a higher standard. The MUTCD recommends an engineering study be conducted when deciding whether to mark crosswalks at locations other than intersections, considering factors such as vehicle traffic volume, vehicle speeds, crossing distance, and distance from adjacent intersections. In addition, some research has shown that merely marking a mid-block pedestrian crossing without additional features, such as signage or traffic calming measures, may not improve pedestrian safety. This is especially important since motorists typically do not expect mid-block pedestrian crossings.