Loading...
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 All Crashes Highest 12-Month RollingTotalFatalitiesTotalInjuriesPedestrian Bicycle Ped + Bike12 consecutive monthmaximum2015 2016 2017 2018 20152016201720182015201620172018King 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 AM8 AM12 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PMApproach 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 - 1B 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 - 1A 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 - 1B 100%750 525 900 630 1,021 1,306 946 96on Minor Street Highest Approach 138W - 1A 100%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 PM5 PM1,275 8 AM3 PM134 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 MINOR ROUTEHIGH VOLUMEN APPROACH [VPH]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 MINOR ROUTEHIGH VOLUMEN APPROACH [VPH]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)DELAY CRITERIAFIGURE 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 MINOR ROUTE - HIGHERVOLUME APPROACH [VPH]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 MINOR ROUTE - HIGHERVOLUME APPROACH [VPH]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 TOTAL OF ALL PEDS CROSSING MAJORROUTE - PEDS PER HOUR (PPH) 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 TOTAL OF ALL PEDS CROSSING MAJORROUTE - PDES PER HOUR (PPH) 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