HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix I-3 - Betsy Brown Warrant AnalysisEnvironmental, Planning, and Engineering Consultants
34 South Broadway
Suite 401
White Plains, NY 10601
tel: 914 949-7336
fax: 914 949-7559
www.akrf.com
New York City ● Hudson Valley Region ● Capital District ● Long Island ● Baltimore / Washington Area ● New Jersey ● Philadelphia
Memorandum
To: Eric Zamft, Village of Port Chester
From: Elaine Du and Michael Beattie, PE, PTOE
Date: October 8, 2018
Re: 1 Betsy Brown Road – Traffic Review Update
cc: Daniel Messplay and Adam Pisarkiewicz; Village of Port Chester
Anthony Russo; AKRF
This memorandum summarizes AKRF’s traffic review for the proposed subdivision of the 1 Betsy Brown
Road property into two individual lots (the “Proposed Project”). The memorandum has been updated for
traffic counts collected in September 2018 during a typical midweek school day.
SITE PLAN
The Proposed Project would reuse two existing curb cuts along Betsy Brown Road and sidewalks are
present along the property frontage. During field visits vegetation located on the property was observed to
be encroaching onto the sidewalk, potentially obstructing vehicle sight distances. In addition, the sidewalks
along Betsy Brown Road were observed to be in poor condition.
TRIP GENERATION
The Proposed Project’s expected vehicle trip generation was estimated by applying the trip generation
equations presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th
Edition to the number of single family houses. Table 1 presents the estimated trip generation from the
proposed two single family houses and, for comparison, from one single family house.
Table 1
Single Family Home Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use ITE Land Use
Code
# of Dwelling
Units
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Houses 2101 2 0 2 2 2 1 3
1 0 1 1 1 1 2
Notes:
1. AM Peak Hour: T= 0.74(x) (25% enter, 75% exit);
PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.96 *Ln(x)+0.20 (63% enter, 37% exit)
Source: Trip Generation Manual (10thEdition), ITE, 2018)
2 October 8, 2018
The level of project-generated traffic from two single family houses is minimal and would be expected to
generate one more vehicle trips during both the AM and PM peak hours compared to one single family
house.
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Field observations were conducted in September and October 2018 while school was in session at the
nearby King Street School during typical school arrival and dismissal times. Observations included general
traffic and queueing conditions, pedestrian crossing activity, and other information relevant to conducting
a traffic analysis and signal warrant analysis.
During the school arrival and dismissal periods, a school crossing guard was present and stopped vehicles
at all approaches to allow pedestrians, including school children, to cross King Street. Minimal gaps in the
traffic stream on King Street were observed during this time, reinforcing the need for the school crossing
guard to ensure that pedestrians can cross the street safely. Additionally, during the school dismissal period,
vehicles were observed to park along Betsy Brown Road approaching King Street on both the north and
south sides of the road. Based on observations and conversations with the school crossing guard, some
parents choose to park on Betsy Brown Road and walk to the school to pick up their children rather than
wait in queues in front of the school on Upland Street.
Vehicle queueing was observed along Betsy Brown Road during both the school arrival and dismissal times,
with five to10 vehicles queued due to few gaps in the traffic along King Street. Additionally, when the
school crossing guard stopped vehicles at all approaches to allow pedestrians to cross, vehicle queues
formed along King Street, with approximately 10 to 15 vehicles at the northbound approach and five to10
vehicles at the southbound approach.
INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Vehicle turning movement counts (TMC) were collected on a typical midweek day while school was in
session in September 2018 at the Betsy Brown Road/King Street intersection during the school arrival/AM
peak period (7:00 – 9:00 AM) and school dismissal/PM peak period (2:00 – 6:00 PM). Automatic Traffic
Recorder (ATR) counts were conducted for one full week during the month of September 2018 on King
Street and Betsy Brown Road and were collected during the same week as the TMC data collection.
The Betsy Brown Road/King Street intersection is a side-street stop-controlled intersection. Intersection
operations were analyzed for the Existing and With Project conditions. Table 2 presents the Existing
conditions and Proposed Project conditions traffic operations at the Betsy Brown Road/King Street
intersection.
Table 2
Betsy Brown Road/King Street
Peak Hour Intersection Analysis
Approach
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
2018 Existing With Project 2018 Existing With Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L/R 92.8 F 97.1 F 57.8 F 59.1 F
NB L/T 1.6 A 1.6 A 1.4 A 1.4 A
SBT/R 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A
As shown in Table 2, the Betsy Brown Road/King Street intersection operates at LOS F during the AM
peak hour and the PM peak hour. Traffic at the Betsy Brown Road eastbound approach is stop-controlled
and must wait for gaps in traffic along King Street to proceed. Due to the heavy volume along King Street,
the Betsy Brown Road eastbound approach operates with a delay of 92.8 seconds per vehicle in the AM
peak hour and 57.8 seconds in the PM peak hour. The proposed project increases delay by 4.3 seconds in
the AM peak hour and 1.3 seconds in the PM peak hour. Traffic signalization can be considered as a
3 October 8, 2018
potential measure at the Betsy Brown Road/King Street intersection to mitigate the impact and improve the
baseline traffic conditions.
CRASH DATA
Crash data for the study area intersections were obtained from NYSDOT for the time period between April
1, 2015 and March 31, 2018. The data obtained quantify the total number of reportable crashes (involving
fatality, injury, or more than $1,000 in property damage), fatalities, and injuries during the study period, as
well as a yearly breakdown of vehicular crashes with pedestrians and bicycles at each location.
During the April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2018 three-year period, a total of four reportable and non-reportable
crashes, zero fatalities, four injuries, and zero pedestrian/bicyclist-related crashes occurred at the study area
intersections. A rolling total of crash data identifies no high crash locations in the 2015 to 2018 period.
Table 3 depicts total crash characteristics by intersection during the study period, as well as a breakdown
of pedestrian and bicycle crashes by year and location.
Table 3
Crash Summary
Intersection Study Period Crashes by Year
North-South
Roadway
East-West
Roadway
All Crashes by Year
A l l C r a s h e s
H i g h e s t 1 2 -
M o n t h R o l l i n g
T o t a l
F a t a l i t i e s
T o t a l
I n j u r i e s
Pedestrian Bicycle
P e d + B i k e
1 2
c o n s e c u t i v e
m o n t h
m a x i m u m
2015 2016 2017 2018 2 0 1 5
2 0 1 6
2 0 1 7
2 0 1 8
2 0 1 5
2 0 1 6
2 0 1 7
2 0 1 8
King Street Betsy Brown Road 0 3 0 1 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source:NYSDOT April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2018 crash data.
Note: Bold intersections are high crash locations.
BETSY BROWN ROAD/KING STREET SIGNAL WARRANT
A traffic warrant analysis was conducted to determine if traffic signalization is justified at an intersection
based on traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes, and other characteristics. The analysis indicated that, based
on the updated September 2018 traffic and pedestrian volumes, a traffic signal is warranted at the Betsy
Brown Road/King Street intersection due to the heavy major street volume causing excessive delay on the
minor street in addition to school crossings during the afternoon school dismissal period.
It is important to note that meeting a signal warrant satisfies the minimum criteria necessary to consider the
installation of a traffic signal at a specific intersection. The warrants do not define the need for a traffic
signal but merely indicate that further engineering studies are needed to determine if the installation of the
traffic signal is justified.
City/Town: Analysis Performed By:
County: Date Analysis Performed:
Division: Project Number if Applicable:
Data Date: Weather Conditions:
Major Route: Appr. Lanes:1 Critical Approach Speed (mph):
Minor Route: Appr. Lanes:1
Volume Level Criteria
1. Is the critical speed of major street traffic > 70 km/h (40 mph) ?Yes X No
2. Is the intersection in a built-up area or isolated community of <10,000 population?Yes X No
If Question 1 or 2 above is answered "Yes", then use "70%" volume level 70%X 100%
WARRANT 1 - EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME
Warrant 1 is satisfied if Condition A or Condition B is "100%" satisfied.Satisfied:X Yes X No
Adequate trial(s) of other remedial measures tried:X Yes X No
X Yes X No
X Yes X No
100% Satisfied:
(Used if neither Condition A or B is satisfied) 80% Satisfied:
Eight Highest Hours
40567
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
ED
10/3/2018Westchester County
Village of Port Chester
9/27/2018 Good
Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume & Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
King Street
Betsy Brown Road
30
List Remedial Measures Tried (Required for 80% Combination of A & B)
Warrant is also satisfied if both Condition A and Condition B are "80%" satisfied, given
adequate trials of other remedial measures have been tried.
(volumes in veh/hr)Minimum Requirements
7 A M
8 A M
1 2 P M
2 P M
3 P M
4 P M
5 P M
6 P MApproach Lanes 1 2 or more
Volume Level 100%70%100%70%
957 1,257 1,272 1,359 1,130on Major Street
Highest Approach 60 42 80 56 138 189 124 142 142 160 161 96on Minor StreetW
-
1
B
80
%
Both Approaches 600 420 720 504 1,021 1,306 946
Approach Lanes 1 2 or more
Volume Level 100%70%100%70%
(volumes in veh/hr)Minimum Requirements
957 1,257 1,272 1,359 1,130on Major Street
Highest Approach 120 84 160 112 138 189 124 142 142 160 161 96on Minor StreetW
-
1
A
80
%
Both Approaches 400 280 480 336 1,021 1,306 946
Approach Lanes 1 2 or more
Volume Level 100%70%100%70%
(volumes in veh/hr)Minimum Requirements
957 1,257 1,272 1,359 1,130on Major Street
Highest Approach 75 53 100 70 138 189 124 142 142 160 161 96on Minor Street
1 2 or more
100%70%100%70%
Approach Lanes
Volume Level
Both Approaches
Minimum Requirements(volumes in veh/hr)
W
-
1
B
10
0
%
750 525 900 630 1,021 1,306 946
96on Minor Street
Highest Approach 138W
-
1
A
10
0
%
500 350 600 420
150 105 200 140
1,130on Major Street
189 124 142 142 160 161
957 1,257 1,272 1,359
Both Approaches 1,021 1,306 946
Based on MUTCD 2009
Page 1 of 7
NOTE: The satisfaction of a warrant or warrants shall not in
itself require the installation of a traffic control signal rev. 05/2011
WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Satisfied:X Yes No
If all four points lie above the appropriate line, then this warrant is satisfied.
* Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor route approach with two or more lanes and
80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume threshold for a minor route approach with one lane.
* Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor route approach with two or more lanes and
60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume threshold for a minor route approach with one lane.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
(Volumes in veh/hr)
SUM of Both Approaches on Major Street
Highest Minor Street Approach
4 P M
5 P M
1,275
8 A M
3 P M
134 156
1,183
134
1,116
183
1,320
FIGURE W-2: Criteria for "100%" Volume Level
FIGURE W-2: Criteria for "70%" Volume Level
(Community less-than 10,000 population or speeds greater-than 70 km/hr [40 mph] on Major Street)
Four Highest Hours
0
100
200
300
400
500
MI
N
O
R
R
O
U
T
E
HI
G
H
V
O
L
U
M
E
N
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H
[
V
P
H
]
MAJOR ROUTE - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES [VPH]
100% Volume Level
115vph lower
threshold
80vph lower
threshold
Active Curve
2+ Major & 2+
Minor
2+ Major & 1 Minor
1 Major & 2+ Minor
1 Major & 1 Minor
0
100
200
300
400
MI
N
O
R
R
O
U
T
E
HI
G
H
V
O
L
U
M
E
N
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H
[
V
P
H
]
MAJOR ROUTE - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES [VPH]
70% Volumne
Level80vph lower
threshold60vph lower
threshold
Active Curve
2+ Major & 2+
Minor2+ Major & 1
Minor1 Major & 2+
Minor
1 Major & 1
Minor
Based on MUTCD 2009
Page 2 of 7
NOTE: The satisfaction of a warrant or warrants shall not in
itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.rev. 05/2011
WARRANT 3 - PEAK HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Applicable:X Yes No
This signal warrant sahll be applied only in unsual cases, such as office Satisfied:X Yes No
complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-ocupancy vehicle
facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time period.
Unusual case(s) justifying this Warrant:
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor route approach with two or more lanes and
100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume threshold for a minor route approach with one lane.
* Note:100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor route approach with two or more lanes and
75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume threshold for a minor route approach with one lane.
X
X X X
Route Route
7 AM 1,386 133
Approaches Lanes: 1 2
Delay Criteria: Volume Criteria
No. of Approaches
Volume Criteria 100 150
NO YesFullfilled?
Approaches Lanes 1 2
Fullfilled?
Volume :135 1,519Volume :
NO
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
Warrant 3 is applicable due to the King Street Elementary School located
adjacent to the intersection, where school arrival and dismissal induce a
large number of vehicles during these times.
3. Total Entering Volume (veh/hr)
Number of Approaches
2. Volume on Minor Approach (veh/hr)
1. Delay on Minor Approach (vehicle-
hours)
DE
L
A
Y
CR
I
T
E
R
I
A
FIGURE W-3: Criteria for "100%" Volume Level
Peak Hour Data
Peak Major Minor
Hour
Yes
4 or more
Signalization shall be considered if a point lies above the appropriate line or the Delay criteria is met.
Fullfilled? Yes NO
FIGURE W-3: Criteria for "70%" Volume Level
(Community less-than 10,000 population or speeds greater-than 70 km/hr [40 mph] on Major Street)
4.0 5.0
Delay: 3.4
3
43
650 800
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
MI
N
O
R
R
O
U
T
E
-
H
I
G
H
E
R
VO
L
U
M
E
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H
[
V
P
H
]
MAJOR ROUTE - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES [VPH]
100% Volume Level
150vph lower
threshold
100vph lower
threshold
Active Curve
2+ Major & 2+
Minor
2+ Major & 1 Minor
1 Major & 2+ Minor
1 Major & 1 Minor
0
100
200
300
400
500
MI
N
O
R
R
O
U
T
E
-
H
I
G
H
E
R
VO
L
U
M
E
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H
[
V
P
H
]
MAJOR ROUTE - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES [VPH]
70% Volume Level
100vph lower
threshold
75vph lower
threshold
Active Curve
2+ Major & 2+
Minor
2+ Major & 1 Minor
1 Major & 2+ Minor
1 Major & 1 Minor
Based on MUTCD 2009
Page 3 of 7
NOTE: The satisfaction of a warrant or warrants shall not in
itself require the installation of a traffic control signal rev. 05/2011
WARRANT 4 - PEDESTRIAN VOLUME Satisfied: Yes X No
X
X
* Note: 107 pph applies as the lower threshold volume for the 100% Volume Level.
75 pph applies as the lower threshold volume for the 70% Volume Level.
* Note: 133 pph applies as the lower threshold volume for the 100% Volume Level.
93 pph applies as the lower threshold volume for the 70% Volume Level.
Pedestrian Signal Location Criteria Fulfilled?
Yes No
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
X
The nearest traffic control device (signal or STOP sign) controlling traffic
on the major route is more than 90m (300 ft) away: Yes No
If no above, will this proposed signal restrict the progrssive movement of traffic?Yes No
Four Greatest Hours
4 PM 5 PM 3 PM 8 AM
FIGURE W-4b: Criteria for 100% Volume Level, Peak Hour Volume
Peak Hour
7 AM
1,386
7
FIGURE W-4a: Criteria for 100% Volume Level, Four-Hour Volumes
Pedestrians crossing the Major Route 17 1 50 6
SUM of Both Approaches on Major Route 1,275 1,183 1,116 1,320
Vehicle volumes in veh/hr and Pedestrian
volumnes in ped/hr
0
100
200
300
400
500
TO
T
A
L
O
F
A
L
L
P
E
D
S
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
M
A
J
O
R
RO
U
T
E
-
P
E
D
S
P
E
R
H
O
U
R
(
P
P
H
)
MAJOR ROUTE, TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
100% Curve
70% Curve
107pph lower
threshold
75pph lower
threshold
100% Volume
Level
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
TO
T
A
L
O
F
A
L
L
P
E
D
S
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
M
A
J
O
R
RO
U
T
E
-
P
D
E
S
P
E
R
H
O
U
R
(
P
P
H
)
MAJOR ROUTE, TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
100% Curve
70% Curve
133pph lower
threshold
93pph lower
threshold
100% Volume Level
Based on MUTCD 2009
Page 4 of 7
NOTE: The Satisfaction of a warrant or warrants shall not in
itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.rev. 05/2011
WARRANT 5 - SCHOOL CROSSING Satisfied:X Yes No
1.
2.
x
x
WARRANT 6 - COORDINATED SIGNAL SYSTEM Satisfied: Yes X No
a.
b.
This warrant is intended for application where the fact that schoolchildren crossing the major route is the principal reason to
consider installing a traffic control signal. For the purposes of this warrant, the word "schoolchildren" includes elementary
through high school students. This warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria below are fulfilled after remedial measures
have been considered.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
Any remedial measures implemented in or around the intersection to improve the safety of the students as noted in Section
4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing in the MUTCD:
Fulfilled?
Yes No
Criteria
School crossing guard is present at the intersection during school arrival and dismissal times.
Pedestrian crossing signs and crosswalks are also present.
X
Num. of
Students
Highest Crossing Hour
Period
57 15:00 16:00-
X
On a two-way street, do adjacent traffic control signals not provide the necessary degree of
platooning and will the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals collectively provide a progressive
operation?
On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction, are the adjacent traffic
control signals so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehiclular platooning?
10
AM
If the signal is within 90m (300 ft) of an existing signalize intersection, will it restrict
progressive movement of traffic?
PM
15
X
Criteria Fulfilled?
Yes No
2.
The inclusion of this proposed signal, into the coordinated system, does not result in a signal spacing of
less than 305m (1,000 ft)?
3.
X
Enter the number of schoolchildren crossing the major route along with
the hour this occurs. The hour can be any 60 minute interval (ex 2:15
PM - 3:15 PM enter 2:15 - 3:15). Requires a minimum of 20
schoolchildren durning the any hour.
Period
Minutes Gaps
X
Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates the installtion of traffic control signals at
intersections that would not otherwise be considered in order to maintain proper paltooning of vehicles. This warrant is
satisfied if the below criteria is satified as follows: criteria 1 is satisfied and either criteria 2 or 3 is satisfied.
X
15
7
For both the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) periods of operation, enter
the number of adequate gaps observed for each period and the number of
minutes each period lasted. Requires one period to operate with fewer
gaps than the number of minutes in the period.
1.
Is the nearest traffic signal along the major route more than 90m (300 ft) from this
crossing?No
No
Yes
Yes
Based on MUTCD 2009
Page 5 of 7
NOTE: The satisfaction of a warrant or warrants shall not in
itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.rev. 05/2011
City/Town:Analysis Performed By:
County:Date Analysis Performed:
Division:Project Number if Applicable:
Data Date:Weather Conditions:
Major Route:Appr. Lanes:1 Critical Approach Speed (mph):
Minor Route:Appr. Lanes:1
X Yes No
1A - Minimum Vehicular Volume:Yes X No Yes X No
1B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic:X Yes No X Yes No
X Yes No
X Yes No
Yes X No
X Yes No
Yes X No
Yes X No
Yes X No
Yes X No
1 2 3 5
Warrants 2 and 3 are calculated based on TMC data
Warrant 3 delay is calculated based on Synchro 10 results - 92.8 s delay on minor street
CONCLUSIONS Warrants Satisfied:
Remarks: Warrant 1 is calculated based on ATR data for entering volumes only
Warrant #1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
SATISFIED
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY
Village of Port Chester EDWestchester County 10/3/2018
405679/27/2018 Good
King Street 30
Betsy Brown Road
100% Satisfied80% Satisfied
Warrant #2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant #3: Peak Hour
Warrant #4: Pedestrian Volume
Any Remedial Measures Tried and their Outcome.
The Unusual Case(s) that Justifies the use of this Warrant.
Warrant 3 is applicable due to the King Street Elementary School located adjacent to the
intersection, where school arrival and dismissal induce a large number of vehicles during
these times.
Warrant #5: School Crossing
Warrant #6: Coordinated Signal System
Warrant #7: Crash Experience
Warrant #8: Roadway Network
Warrant #9: Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
Any Remedial Measures Implemented to improve the Safety of the Students.
School crossing guard is present at the intersection during school arrival and dismissal
times.
Pedestrian crossing signs and crosswalks are also present.
Other Alternatives that have failed to reduce crashes.
Based on MUTCD 2009
Summary Page
NOTE: The satisfaction of a warrant or warrants shall not in
itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.rev. 05/2011