Loading...
Bridge Street at Old Ferry Road traffic study and countsT6rvu t y w._ Srennan, Executive Director 26 Central Street -Suite 34,West Springfield Massachusetts 01089 -2787 Tel.: (413) 781 -6045 Fax: (413) 732 -2593 COMMISSION May 13, 2004 Wayne Feiden Office of Planning and Development City of Northampton 210 Main Street, Room 11 Northampton, MA 01060 Dear MT.F..eiden: The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) has completed its work on the Local Technical Assistance (LTA) request for the City of Northampton at the intersection of Route 9 (Bridge Street) with Old Ferry Road. This request included PVPC staff to conduct daily traffic counts and a traffic signal warrant analysis at this intersection. The results of the traffic signal warrant analysis indicate that the intersection does not meet the requirements for the installation of a traffic signal as defined in the Manual, on Uniform.Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).' The following sections presentmore information on the results of the analysis .Data Collection'. Both'manual and automatic traffic, counts were performed in the study area during the month of October 2003." Manual turning movement counts were conducted by PVPC staff during the morning (7 -9 AM) and afternoon (4 -6 PM) peak hours. The 48 -hour automatic traffic recorder counts were performed on all three approaches to the intersection. The automatic traffic count volumes on Route 9 were, found to be signi.ficantly lower than the manual turning movement counts. 'We believe this is a. resnit of v°h .-JAe. queues along Route 9 that interfered with the counters. In order to compensate for this discrepancy, the PVPC performed a series'of manual turning movement counts to obtain the eight hours of data required to perform the traffic signal warrant analysis at this intersection. Additional turning movement,counts were performed from 11:00 AM - 4:00 PM at the intersection in order to obtain.accurate traffic counts for both approaches of Route 9. The Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway) develops, traffic volume_ adjustment factors to reflect monthly variations, as traffic volumes tend to fluctuate over the course of the year. These factors were examined to determine how traffic conditions during the different months compare to average month conditions. For example, based on the= lVla`ssHighway data, traffic volumes during the month of October were found to be slightly higher than the arinuaf average: • Therefore; all traffic; count,volumes, were, , adjusted to reflect average month conditions :' The average weekday daily traffic volume on Old Ferry Road is 890 vehicles The adjusted 'weekday morning and afternoon peak 9 www.pvpc.org MAY 17 2004 Dear MT.F..eiden: The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) has completed its work on the Local Technical Assistance (LTA) request for the City of Northampton at the intersection of Route 9 (Bridge Street) with Old Ferry Road. This request included PVPC staff to conduct daily traffic counts and a traffic signal warrant analysis at this intersection. The results of the traffic signal warrant analysis indicate that the intersection does not meet the requirements for the installation of a traffic signal as defined in the Manual, on Uniform.Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).' The following sections presentmore information on the results of the analysis .Data Collection'. Both'manual and automatic traffic, counts were performed in the study area during the month of October 2003." Manual turning movement counts were conducted by PVPC staff during the morning (7 -9 AM) and afternoon (4 -6 PM) peak hours. The 48 -hour automatic traffic recorder counts were performed on all three approaches to the intersection. The automatic traffic count volumes on Route 9 were, found to be signi.ficantly lower than the manual turning movement counts. 'We believe this is a. resnit of v°h .-JAe. queues along Route 9 that interfered with the counters. In order to compensate for this discrepancy, the PVPC performed a series'of manual turning movement counts to obtain the eight hours of data required to perform the traffic signal warrant analysis at this intersection. Additional turning movement,counts were performed from 11:00 AM - 4:00 PM at the intersection in order to obtain.accurate traffic counts for both approaches of Route 9. The Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway) develops, traffic volume_ adjustment factors to reflect monthly variations, as traffic volumes tend to fluctuate over the course of the year. These factors were examined to determine how traffic conditions during the different months compare to average month conditions. For example, based on the= lVla`ssHighway data, traffic volumes during the month of October were found to be slightly higher than the arinuaf average: • Therefore; all traffic; count,volumes, were, , adjusted to reflect average month conditions :' The average weekday daily traffic volume on Old Ferry Road is 890 vehicles The adjusted 'weekday morning and afternoon peak 9 hour traffic volumes for the intersection of Route 9 with Old Ferry Road are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 2003 Morning and Afternoon Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Route 9 Morning Peak Hour 407 17 1 17 13 Old Ferry Road Tr 475 10 Route 9 546 10 1 I� Route 9 L 15 -F Afternoon Peak Hour Ferry Road Crash Data 464 3 Route 9 The crash history of the intersection of Route 9 with Old Ferry Road was researched Using information provided by the Massachusetts Highway Department (MassHighway) and is summarized in Table 1. Based on the MassHighway data, the intersection experienced a low number of crashes over the past four years. Table 1 Crash History Summary Location Year Number of Crashes Route 9 at Old Ferry Road 1999 0 Delay* 2000 0 8.6 2001 0 A 2002 2 Source: MassHighway Capacity Analysis The intersection was examined with regard to capacity and delay characteristics to determine the existing Level of Service (LOS). LOS is an indicator of the operating conditions which occur on a roadway under different volumes of traffic and is defined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual by six levels, "A" to "F ". A number of operational factors can influence the LOS including geometry, travel speeds, delay, and the number of pedestrians crossing the street. Depending on the time of day and year, a roadway may operate at varying levels. Level of Service "A" represents the best operating conditions and is an indicator of ideal travel conditions with vehicles operating at or above posted speed limits with little or no delays. Conversely, LOS "F ", or failure, generally indicates forced flow conditions illustrated by long delays and vehicle queues. Level of Service "C" indicates a condition of stable now and is generally considered satisfactory in rural areas. Under LOS "D" conditions, delays are considerably longer than under LOS "C ", but are considered acceptable in urban areas. At LOS "E" the roadway begins to operate at unstable flow conditions as the facility is operating at or near its capacity. A summary of the existing LOS at the intersection of Route 9 with Old Ferry Road is shown in Table 2. Table 2 Level of Service Summary * measured in seconds per vehicle The basic assumption at an unsignalized intersection is that through moving traffic on the major street is not hindered by other movements. In reality, as minor street delays increase, vehicles are more likely to accept smaller gaps in the traffic stream causing through moving vehicles to reduce speed and suffer some delay. The left turn movement off the minor street approach is the most heavily opposed movement and typically suffers the greatest delay. Therefore this movement is used as a gage to determine the overall operations at an unsignalized intersection. The intersection is currently operating at acceptable Level of Service conditions during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. - -- -- ------ - -- . AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay* Level of Service Delay* Level of Service Route 9 Westbound left turns 8.6 A 8.4 A Old Ferry Road All Moves 17.6 C 16.8 C * measured in seconds per vehicle The basic assumption at an unsignalized intersection is that through moving traffic on the major street is not hindered by other movements. In reality, as minor street delays increase, vehicles are more likely to accept smaller gaps in the traffic stream causing through moving vehicles to reduce speed and suffer some delay. The left turn movement off the minor street approach is the most heavily opposed movement and typically suffers the greatest delay. Therefore this movement is used as a gage to determine the overall operations at an unsignalized intersection. The intersection is currently operating at acceptable Level of Service conditions during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. - -- -- ------ - -- . Traffic Signal Warrants Analysis The unsignalized intersection was checked to determine if the minimum warrants for the installation of a traffic signal are met. The 2003 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ( MUTCD) sets forth the criteria for eight warrants of which, the requirements of one or more should be fully satisfied before a signal is installed. In addition, the installation of a traffic signal must improve the safety and operation of the location under study. The intersection of Route 9 with Old Ferry Road has been evaluated using the MUTCD standards for an urban intersection. As shown in Table 3, no warrants are satisfied, as defined in the MUTCD. Warrant analysis worksheets are attached to this document. Table 3 Warrant Analvsis Summary Warrant Satisfaction of Warrant Criteria Warrant 1- Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Not Satisfied Warrant 2- Four -Hour Vehicular Volume Not Satisfied Warrant 3- Peak Hour Not Satisfied Warrant 4- Pedestrian Volume Not Satisfied Warrant 5- School Crossing Not Applicable Warrant 6- Coordinated Signal System Not Applicable Warrant 7- Crash experience Not Satisfied Warrant 8- Roadway Network Not Satisfied Warrant #1— Eight Hour Vehicle Volume is generally considered the most comprehensive warrant because it sets minimum traffic volume requirements for the major and minor street approaches of the intersection, that must be satisfied for a minimum of eight hours on an average weekday. The traffic volumes on Old Ferry Road do not meet the minimum requirements of this warrant. In addition, there is no evidence of an existing safety problem or severe congestion at this intersection that would be corrected through the installation of a traffic signal. 4 . _ __ 1 Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the results of this analysis, it is not recommended that a traffic signal be installed at the intersection of Route 9 with Old Ferry Road. The installation of a traffic signal where it is not warranted can actually increase vehicular delay and promote some types of crashes. It is our understanding that problems at this intersection can often be associated with special event traffic generated by the Three County Fairgrounds. The City of Northampton currently employs police officers to direct traffic at this location during special events to maintain safe traffic flow. The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission is pleased to have conducted this analysis as part of the Local Technical Assistance Program. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, , " x e-t-14) Gary'. oux Princi - Planner ola O CY) > "0 0) N, N O m Co a) a 0 ' L C\1 0 .2 0 0) 0 C) c W cO LL 000) 0 0 1 ?-, w E o 00 L- 0 a) C) .G U) C: — 'a m C c 0 C"a r- W a) C LO 4c !*v 0Q) 0 � C: (5 C\l U) (0 CL a) OD cf. 0 0 CD 0 m C: CY) �t -,t It m U) Cl) rl_ ola >1 cu N, '0 a 2) .2 0 W cO LL E > E o .G U) C: — 'a m C c 0 r- W a) C LO 4c !*v 0 - r- co Cl. (5 C\l U) (0 cc a) OD cf. a) 0 CD 0 m C: CY) �t -,t It o W Cl) rl_ Ix (I. co I- T" 0 0 Cc Moz 7, E ca m 9 N C-4 Cq (0 C) Ix 0 z z V L T1 U) 0 a) � CL E2 c L) a) :3 C� Q. S.E co i- o 0 =j -j 0 0 LL N, 4c N, 4c !*v 'No 3, 0 CD 0 m CD 0 �t -,t It o Cl) rl_ co I- T" V"i 7, x C) Zl CD LO O I I Ce) 0 co O CD -R 0410 LO 04 vj N 0.4 - U. r� c Z) qj c) I Cl) co Cl) N lo t "Kt CO 0) 0) D 0 Ce) C) N ( [O N NO , tW t co HW �m w �a cr) xv. .j CM O CO 'Z N" 00e CNN C\l NO jp CD C14 * ia.�iaitiaaaYia I *Ria IA W Fq�l M �b.$ � �� rr 0 LO 0 LYt� z > a' 1 N < l D E - I (1) a) E E 0 , r k i t #�.�' , $ � ' t � y f � k M f �.� �'�' ,�� t+� f �c� r � � ^ ��+ 1 4C "W JA "M pg, M y, g, �} I 77777 , t'M I Ic m g V �� ail �� sas E,. �,� & d � �aE � �'� rra` C) I g a Z -, t t tn 04 co ?R pqT' E Ey 0 g4p, v 4 IN C) N 04 Ce) cy) PC, N (N N (o Lb yM C fClJ ce) R) i,� -t lot ir., Al Ce, P pg C\l L" >1 Lo Ce) Ce) �c C) XNE "-j CY) Lo Cl) cy) "In 5` CO tM - (o I IR 4 V S C:) O 8) 23 ( C D D " 0 C), 0, c, ol 0 N C' "t lD co ' 0 C) 0 0 C) o �8: 66: 00 o C) N C lal. 0 C) 0 0 0 (b CD DO 0 CD 0 m CD 0 �t -,t It o Cl) rl_ co I- no) 3) C) e) CD LO O Ce) 0 co O CD -R q LO co 00 C) 0) 0) D 0 Ce) C) 0 CD It It O CO CD C14 5 ca D to 3 J 0 LO 0 z > a' 1 N < l D E - I (1) a) E E 0 , T -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMI -_ '( Analyst _ _ _ Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GR_ ___ PVPC 5113104 AM Peak _ Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Route 9 101d Ferry Road 2003 Project Description East/West Street: Route 9 North /South Street: OI d Ferry Road Intersection Orientation: East -West uehicleoh�mes and �d ; smen�s Major Street Eastbound I Study Period hrs : 0.25 Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 475 10 17 407 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.78 0.78 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh /h) 0 539 11 21 521 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, P 0 2 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h ) 13 0 17 0 _`� 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.55 1.00 0.55 1.00;; 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh /h) 23 0 30 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade ( %) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Co .n,'tr ®ela} ,Queue L,,e,,rt th„ L.eue, of Serva e Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1' 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 21 53 Capacity, c (vph) 1020 339 v/c ratio 0.02 0.16 Queue length (95 %) 0.06 0.55 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.6 17.6 LOS A C Approach delay (s /veh) -- -- 17.6 Approach LOS -- -- C HCS200drM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d T 7 -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMM! Y Analyst_ Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period GR PVPC 5113104 PM Peak Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Route 9 101d Ferry Road 2003 Project Description East/West Street: Route 9 North /South Street: OI d Fen Road Intersection Orientation: East -West �/eh�cle �/olmes and �1d :,- s men s_ Major Street Eastbound I Study Period hrs : 0.25 rM Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h ) 0 464 3 10 546 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.91 0.91 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh /h) 0 493 1 3 10 599 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, P 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 1 0 1 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh /h ) 12 0 15 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.66 1.00 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate (veh /h) 18 0 22 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent grade ( %) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR C „ontrol Dela Queue den Approach ,,h;, L eu,,e,, of Servae EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 10 40 Capacity, c (vph) 1078 345 v/c ratio 0.01 0.12 Queue length (95 %) 0.03 0.39 Control Delay (s /veh) 8.4 16.8 LOS A C Approach delay (s /veh) -- -- 16.8 Approach LOS -- -- C HCS2006TM Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 05:00 PM 141 Route 9 i Old Ferry Road - ioneer Valley Planning Commission,-' Route 9 0 Start Time 26 Central Street 133 From North - Location :- Northampton - - West Springfield -MA 01089 File- Name -: 5238pm - - - - Counter# : 0945 (413) 781 -6045 Site Code : 00005238 Operator: KS Left Start Date : 10/22/2003 Fun. Class: U2 Trucks Page No : 1 Trucks r.`.rnnne Printari- I Inehikarl Factor 1.0 05:00 PM 141 Route 9 2 Old Ferry Road 7 Route 9 0 Start Time 2 133 From North 1.1 From East 05:15 PM 145 From South 2 0 Start Time Thru Left Trucks Right Left Trucks Rig ht I Thru Trucks Int. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1.01 1.0 04:00 PM 119 2 2 3 1 0 1 151 5 284 04:15 PM 133 4 1 2 3 1 3 118 4 269 04:30 PM 127 1 0 7 5 0 1 114 3 258 04:45 PM 132 4 2 1 4 0 0 122 1 266 Total 511 11 5 13 13 1 5 505 13 1077 05:00 PM 141 4 2 55.2 7 4 0 Start Time 2 133 2 1.1 295 05:15 PM 145 2 2 0 1 6 0 05:30 PM 0 124 2 165 282 05:30 PM 165 2 2 0.905 4 1 0 05:00 PM 0 121 1 296 05:45 PM 143 3 1 4 2 0 1 126 3 283 Total 594 11 7 16 13 0 3 504 8 1156 Grand Total 1105 22 12 29 26 1 8 1009 21 2233 Apprch %a 97.0 1.9 1.1 51.8 46.4 1.8 I 0.8 97.2 2.0 Total % 49.5 1.0 0.5 1.3 1.2 0.0 0.4 45.2 0.9 PeaK Hour from u4:uu PM to ub:45 t'M - reaK l Oi 'I Route 9 Old Ferry Road Route 9 55.2 From North From East From South Start Time Thru Left Trucks 1.1 Right Left Trucks 2 169 Peak Factor 0 11 1156 High Int. 05:30 PM 0.659 Total 165 2 2 169 Total 296 0.905 PeaK Hour from u4:uu PM to ub:45 t'M - reaK l Oi 'I Intersection 05:00 PM 29 55.2 Volume 594 11 7 612 Percent 97.1 1.8 1.1 05:30 Volume 165 2 2 169 Peak Factor 0 11 1156 High Int. 05:30 PM 0.659 Volume 165 2 2 169 Peak Factor 296 0.905 16 13 0 29 55.2 44.8 0.0 4 1 0 5 05:00 PM 7 4 0 11 1156 0.6 97.9 0.659 Right Thru Trucks Int. Total Total 3 504 8 515 1156 0.6 97.9 1.6 0 121 1 122 296 0.976 05:00 PM 2 133 2 137 0.940 08:00 AM 100 2 08:15 AM 103 4 08:30 AM 145 6 08:45 AM 128 0 Total _ -. i'oneer Valley Planning Commission IJ � i Old Ferry Road 26 Central Street Route 9 41.3 - - -Location :- Northampton- - -- --West Springfield, -MA -01089 - - - -- - File Name :5238 -arn- -- - - Counter# : 0944 (413) 781 -6045 Site Code : 00005238 Operator: NO 2.3 Start Date : 09/19/2003 Fun. Class: U2 Left Page No : 1 Left Grnuns Printed- Unshifted Right Thru 08:00 AM 100 2 08:15 AM 103 4 08:30 AM 145 6 08:45 AM 128 0 Total 476 Route 9 787 Old Ferry Road 93.8 Route 9 41.3 43 25 3.2 From North 120 From East 35.2 1.4 From South 2.3 1.3 Start Time Thru Left I Trucks Ri ht Left Trucks Right Thru Trucks Int. Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.01 1.0 1.01 1.01 1.0 07:00 AM 63 1 2 3 1 0 2 79 2 153 07:15 AM 62 4 2 9 3 1 4 101 6 192 07:30 AM 87 3 4 7 1 0 4 129 6 241 07:45 AM 99 7 3 9 6 1 2 137 4 268 Total 311 15 11 28 11 2 12 446 18 854 08:00 AM 100 2 08:15 AM 103 4 08:30 AM 145 6 08:45 AM 128 0 Total 476 Grand Total 787 Apprch % 93.8 Total % 41.3 2 3 1 4 1 4 2 6 3 6 5 6 12 141 151 15 14 27 25 114 43 25 3.2 3.0 120 60.6 35.2 1.4 1.3 2.3 1.3 0 2 151 2 263 1 3 114 4 238 0 4 120 5 291 0 3 109 3 260 1 12 494 14 1052 3 24 940 32 1906 4.2 2.4 94.4 3.2 0.2 1.3 49.3 1.7 i Hour t'rom U /:UU AM ro Ub:40 AM - reaK "I Or 1 Route 9 Old Ferry Road Route 9 54.3 From North From East From South Start Time Thru Left Trucks 2.3 Right Left Trucks 2 153 Peak Factor 1 16 1060 High Int. 08:30 AM 0.547 Total 145 6 2 153 Total 291 0.779 i Hour t'rom U /:UU AM ro Ub:40 AM - reaK "I Or 1 Intersection 07:45 AM 35 54.3 Volume 447 19 11 477 Percent 93.7 4.0 2.3 08:30 Volume 145 6 2 153 Peak Factor 1 16 1060 High Int. 08:30 AM 0.547 Volume 145 6 2 153 Peak Factor 291 0.779 19 14 2 35 54.3 40.0 5.7 6 3 0 9 07:45 AM 9 6 1 16 1060 2.0 95.3 0.547 Right Thru Trucks Int. Total Total 11 522 15 548 1060 2.0 95.3 2.7 4 120 5 129 291 0.911 08:00 AM 2 151 2 155 0.884 i 'ioneer Valley Planning COmmISSIL. -. 26 Central Street - -West Springfield, MA 01- 089 - - - File -Name : - 5758pm- - (413) 781 -6045 Site Code : 00005758 Start Date : 01/30/2004 Page No : 1 Grnuns PrintPrl- I Inshiftarl 12:00 PM 93 Route 9 Old Ferry Road 4 Route 9 4 117 3 From North 12 :15 PM From East 4 From South 2 Start Time Thru I Left Trucks Right I Left Right Thru Trucks Int. Total Factor 1.01 1.0 1 1.0 1.01 2 1.0 1.0 1.01 1.0 3 11:00 AM 84 1 0 2 2 0 84 2 175 11:15 AM 89 3 2 1 1 1 110 2 209 11:30 AM 98 4 1 2 2 2 108 2 219 11:45 AM 105 3 31 4 1 1 117 0 234 Total 376 11 61 9 61 4 419 6 837 12:00 PM 93 5 3 4 2 4 117 3 231 12 :15 PM 84 4 3 2 3 6 119 2 223 12:30 PM 139 7 2 4 4 2 127 2 287 12:45 PM 114 3 1 1 1 2 112 4 .238 Total 430 19 9 11 10 14 475 11 979 01:00 PM 114 10 1 7 4 0 111 2 249 01:15 PM 120 4 5 2 1 2 113 1 248 01:30 PM 143 3 2 7 3 2 119 0 279 01:45 PM 119 2 1 3 1 1 122 4 253 Total 496 19 9 19 9 5 465 7 1029 02 :00 PM 122 1 2 2 3 2 120 2 254 Grand Total 1424 50 26 41 28 25 1479 26 3099 Apprch % 94.9 3.3 1.7 59.4 40.6 1.6 96.7 1.7 Total % 46.0 1.6 0.8 1.3 0.9 0.8 47.7 0.8 Route 9 Old Ferry Road Route 9 From North From East From South Start Time Thru Left I Trucks App. Total I Right I Left I App. Total Right Thru Trucks A p. Total Int. Total Peak Hour From 11:00 AM to 02:00 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 01:15 PM Volume 504 10 10 524 14 8 22 7 474 7 488 1034 Percent 96.2 1.9 1.9 63.6 36.4 1.4 97.1 1.4 01:30 Volume 143 3 2 148 7 3 10 2 119 0 121 279 Peak Factor 0.927 High Int. 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 01:45 PM Volume 143 3 2 148 7 3 10 1 122 4 127 Peak Factor 0.885 0.550 0.961 2 _. pioneer Valley Planning Commissic 26 Central Street West .Springfield, -MA 01089 - - -- -- File- Name :- 5758pm2 (413) 781 -6045 Site Code : 00005758 Start Date : 02/04/2004 Page No : 1 r?.rnnne Prinfcrl_ I Inchiff -I 03:00 PM 107 Route 9 4 Old Ferry Road 8 Route 9 0 Start Time 3 161 From North Total From East 03:15 PM 107 From South 2 6 Start Time Thru I Left Trucks Right Left Trucks Ri ht Thru Trucks Int. Total Factor 1.01 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.01 1.0 0.886 02:00 PM 96 4 2 4 0 2 2 97 3 210 02:15 PM 109 5 2 5 3 0 0 99 4 227 02:30 PM 136 1 4 5 2 0 1 116 3 268 02:45 PM 119 6 41 2 3 0 2 109 1 246 Total 460 16 121 16 8 21 5 421 11 951 03:00 PM 107 6 4 68.0 8 2 0 Start Time 3 161 4 Total 295 03:15 PM 107 5 2 6 1 0 0 95.8 2 117 4 High Int. 238 03:30 PM 123 7 3 123 4 2 0 Peak Factor 3 141 2 0.886 285 03:45 PM 123 17 3 4 4 0 3 104 2 260 Total 460 35 12 17 8 0 11 523 12 1078 Grand Total 920 51 24 33 16 2 16 944 23 2029 Apprch % 92.5 5.1 2.4 I 64.7 31.4 3.9 I 1.6 96.0 2.3 Total % 45.3 2.5 1.2 1.6 0.8 0.1 0.8 46.5 1.1 vas vii 1v 11 v­ vv rwi w vv.-ry rrvI - rcan I ui I Route 9 Old Ferry Road Route 9 68.0 From North From East From South Start Time Thru Left Trucks Total Right Left Trucks 03:00 Volume 107 6 4 117 Peak Factor 95.8 0.625 High Int. 03:45 PM 4 Total 295 Volume 123 17 vas vii 1v 11 v­ vv rwi w vv.-ry rrvI - rcan I ui I Intersection 03:00 PM 25 68.0 32.0 Volume 460 35 12 507 Percent 90.7 6.9 2.4 03:00 Volume 107 6 4 117 Peak Factor 95.8 0.625 High Int. 03:45 PM 4 168 295 Volume 123 17 3 143 Peak Factor 0.886 17 8 0 25 68.0 32.0 0.0 8 2 0 10 03:00 PM 8 2 0 10 1078 2.0 95.8 0.625 Right Thru Trucks Int. Total Total 11 523 12 546 1078 2.0 95.8 2.2 3 161 4 168 295 0.914 03:00 PM 3 161 4 168 0.813 PIONEER VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET �a�- 6; I Date: Calculated By: Checked By: G � Major St: Critical Approach Speed mph 1 Lane: X 2 or more: Minor St: 0 A �e-rr 1 -o a A Critical Approach Speed mph 1 Lane: 2 or more: Existing Control: STOP YIELD Critical speed of major street traffic >= 40 mph or Rural (R) In built up area of isolated community of <= 10,000 pop. R Otherwise if neither of the above statements are true iCurban (U) WARRANT 1 - Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume h n \ 100% SATISFIED a ( XJ O Cl S CI` MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED u (J `JaE�SF�C (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U I R U I R Hour Approach Lanes 1 2 OR MORE '7 -SA °^ Q -9A" 12 -I PH t -zp" 2--3 P 3 -4i PM y -5PM 5 P" Both Approaches 500 350 600 420 3 'IO qty (OyLt X20 1050 clg9 102.3 Major Street 400 280) 480 336 Highest Approach 150 105 200 140 3 5 2(o 2- 30 2L1 2Ll 2 Minor Street* 120 84 160 112 OR Condition B - Interrupton of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED a MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED u (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U I R U I R Hour Approach Lanes 1 2 OR MORE 12 - 1 1 "^ I -z I' 2- 3PH S -'•( 9 ' q -5 P " 5 - 0 k' Both Approaches 750 525 900 630 13 90S 9 9 1 4 ( Oyy �2 - C l0�jC7 9 yq 1023 Major Street 600 420 720 504 Highest Approach 75 53 100 70 '3 5 9, 22 3v 26 ZLI 2. Minor Street* (60) (42) (80) (56) 22 * NOTE: Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT- phasing is proposed a Basic Minimum hourly volume. ° used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures. WARRANT 2 - Four- Hour Vehicular Volume SATIS FIED * NO� �S Hour Approach IL - I Prat I- Zell 3 -HPM 5_( fH Both Approaches , Major Street 9q y I o4y 1 0 ` 50 l oZ3 Highest Approach , Minor Street 22. 3o 240 2 *Refer to Fig. 4C -1 (Urban Areas) or Fig. 4C -2 (Rural Areas) on pages 4C -7 in the MUTCD, to determine if this warrant is satisfied. The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown. t -PION EER - VALLEY -PLAN NING COMMISSION- - TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET WARRANT 3 - Peak Hour Condition A: SATISFIED J U`k OVA I I ` NG2 � FULFILLED YES I NO The total delay experienced by traffic on a side street controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and five vehicle -hours for a two -lane approach; and The volume on the side - street approaches equals or exceeds 100 vph for a one -lane approach or 150 vph for a two lane approach; and The total entering volume serviced during this hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four (or more) approaches or 650 vph for intersections with V �hroo �nnrn�nhoc p OR ition B: SATISFIED* 0� � At T wA Approach Lanes — I Hour 1 -2P�' Total of Both Approaches , Major Street 190 PEDs /HR Highest Approach, Minor Street �o to Fig. 4C -3 (Urban Areas) or Fig. 4C -4 (Rural Areas) on pages 4C -9 in the MUTCD, to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 4 - Pedestrian Volume Minimum 100 PEDs /HR Lanes Street OR Hour FULFILLED YES NO X Minimum Requirement Hour Approach Lanes 190 PEDs /HR 1 Major Street PEDs /HR Less than 60 gaps per hour (of adequate length for a Ped. to cross)? Nearest signalized intersection more than 300 feet away? YES I NO SATISFIED Ok l r�� WARRANT 5 - School Crossings Not Applicable See School Crossings Warrant Sheet The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown. -- Page -2 -of .S 1 PIONEER VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET WARRANT 6 - Coordinated Signal System SATISFIED A FULFILLED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL YES NO > 1000 ft. N ft., S ft., E ft., W ft. ON A ONE WAY ST. (or street with predominantly unidirectional traffic) THE ADJACENT SIGNALS ARE SO FAR APART THE NECESSARY PLATOONING & SPEED CONTROL IS NOT PROVIDED ON 2 -WAY ST. WHERE ADJACENT SIGNALS DO NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY PLATOONING & SPEED CONTROL & PROPOSED & ADJACENT SIGNALS COULD CONSTITUTE A PROGRESSIVE SIGNAL SYSTEM WARRANT 7 - Crash Experience SATISFIED FULFILLED YES NO An adequate trial of less restrictive remedies with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the accident experience. Five or more reported accidents of types susceptible to correction by traffic signal control have occurred within a 12 -month period, each accident involving personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable accident. A volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic not less than 80% of the requirements specified in warrants 1 or 2. �( The signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. WARRANT 8 - Roadway Network 1 S��� SATISFIED IV�I �Q� FULFILLED MINIMUM VOLUME REQUIREMENT ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES YES NO DURING TYPICAL WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR 3` PM X 1000 VEH / HOUR 10 VEH / HR DURING EACH OF ANY 5 HRS OF A SATURDAY AND /OR SUNDAY Igo 0 J k VEH /HR CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES Major St Minor St HWY SYSTEM SERVING AS PRINCIPLE NETWORK FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC wo N RURAL OR SUBURBAN HWY OUTSIDE OF, ENTERING, OR TRAVERSING A CITY `40 (J A APPEARS AS MAJOR ROUTE ON AN OFFICIAL PLAN YES NO ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS MET, BOTH STS. }( The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown. - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- - - - - - -- -------------- - - - - -- Page- 3- of-- 3--- -.. - --