Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO073_FREEWAY RESERVATION EAST rroo7a I � �� C -LOS� � ' . �(�� � _ - -- Qll/l ne 4 � Rock E. Miller & Associates Traffic & Transportation Engineers April 12, 1991 Ms. Sandra Genis City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca 92390 Subject: Traffic Study for 15 Dwelling Unit project on Newport Hills Drive West Dear Ms Genis: In accordance with your authorization, Rock E. Miller and Associates has completed the subject study for the proposed 15-unit single family residential subdivision in the City of Newport Beach. The report was prepared primarily to address the traffic phasing ordinance requirements of the City, the impact upon local circulation within the subdivision,and the potential signalization of the intersection of Ford Road and Newport Hills Drive West. Please contact me as soon as possible if you have any questions about the report, or if you need additional information. It has been a pleasure to prepare this report for the City of Newport Beach. Sincerely, Rock E. Miller, P.E. Principal Newp15.stu\91021 17852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 707, Tustin, CA 92680 FAX(714)573-9534 TEL. (774)573-0317 RECEIVhv OY PLANNING DEPARTMENT "FTY OF NEWPORT REACH AM MAR 6 1991 PM 71819110111112111213141516 MANNING � COMPANY March 6, 1991 Sandra L. Genis Principal Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: Freeway Reservation South Dear Sandy: Enclosed please find a check for $3,300 for the traffic study for the above referenced project. Should you require any additional information please feel free to contact me and thank you for your assistance in this matter. Regards, zl�tEtl - Brice H. Ki tle BHK/cmz Enclosure cc: City of Newport Beach Correspondence File City of Newport Beach Fees Paid File 20201 S.W.Birch St. Suite 200 Santa Ana Heights California 92707 714,250.4200 714.250,9008 Fax s .. •, d2 FAA • Traffic Study For • 15 - UNIT SUBDIVISION In The City of Newport Beach Presented To: • Prepared By. hoc% �. ivain & xQ�ociatan • • Rock E, Miller & Associates Traffic & Transportation Engineers May 8, 1991 • Ms. Sandra Genis City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca 92390 . Subject: Traffic Study for 15 Dwelling Unit project on Newport Hills Drive West Dear Ms Genis: In accordance with your authorization, Rock E. Miller and Associates has completed the subject study for the proposed 15-unit • single family residential subdivision in the City of Newport Beach. The report was prepared primarily to address the traffic phasing ordinance requirements of the City, the impact upon local circulation within the subdivision,and the potential signalization of the intersection of Ford Road and Newport Hills Drive West. • Please contact me as soon as possible if you have any questions about the report, or if you need additional information. It has been a pleasure to prepare this report for the City of Newport Beach. • Sincerelv— Rock E. Miller, P.E. • Principal Newpl5.stu\91021 • 77852 East Seventeenth Street, Suite 707, Tustin, CA 92680 FAX(714)573-9534 TEL, (714)573-0317 • • • Traffic Study for • 15-Unit Subdivision on Newport Hills Drive West the City of Newport Beach • Prepared for City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92390 (714) 644-3344 • • Prepared by Rock E. Miller and Associates • 17852 East 17th Street, #107 Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 573-0317 • I • I • TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 • LOCATION MAP 2 TRIP GENERATION 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION 3 . TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 7 MITIGATION 9 SITE ANALYSIS 9 • TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS 13 SUMMARY 14 I� • ♦ Project Description The City of Newport Beach has received an application to construct a 15 dwelling unit project in the Harbor View neighborhood of Newport Beach. The project would be located on Newport hills Drive West about one half mile south of Ford Road. MacArthur Boulevard • will form the west boundary for the proposed project, however there will be no direct access to this roadway. The land for the proposed site is currently vacant. The site was previously being reserved for improvements of MacArthur Boulevard to Freeway Standards. Since that freeway project was abandoned permanently by the State and the City many years ago, the project site is • currently being -considered for private development. The location of the proposed project and the local and regional circulation system are shown in Figure 1. A site plan for the project is not currently available, however the site will likely be developed as a horseshoe road connecting with Newport Hills Drive • near the north and south property lines for the site, similar to the local street system for the remainder of neighborhood. • • • • 1 • • North • ICI 73 e{5% 0� I • Bison Ave a� -y S Rd Q o • y a6p4me o C` PROJECT SITE 0 • San g Joaquin o Hilf s • Road o Son • Coast Hi hwo • FIGURE iffIli IFWF Vicinity Map 1 Rack E. Miller & Associates • • • Trip Generation Trip generation characteristics for typically occurring land uses are normally based on rates published in the Traffic Generation Manual, Fourth Edition, published by the Institute of Transpor- tation Engineers (ITE) . This manual indicates the probable traffic • generation rates for various land uses based upon studies of existing developments in comparable settings. The City of Newport Beach has published a list of generation rates for use in studies within the City. These rates are slightly different than the ITE rates, and are based in part upon studies of existing developments in Newport Beach. • Table 1 summarizes the various traffic generation rates utilized for the project and also presents the anticipated weekday, AM, and PM peak two-hour traffic to be generated by the component phases of the project. • Trip Distribution Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable destinations, directions, or traffic routes which will be utilized by project traffic. The potential interaction between the proposed • land use and surrounding residential areas, employment oppor- tunities, services, and regional access routes are considered to identify the routes where the project traffic will distribute. The anticipated trip making characteristics for the project are presented on Figure 2 . This figure is based upon an overall traffic distribution of 75% to the freeway system and various • commercial and retail opportunities to the north, plus 25% to the local employment and retail opportunities to the south. Figure 3 indicates forecasts of additional vehicular traffic on roadways in the study area for the peak weekday 2 1/2 hour study periods in the morning and in the evening. • • 3 I• Table 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY PEAK 2 1/2 HOURS • Land Use Single Family Residential Trips Total Unit of Measure Per du Vehicle Trips • Week day traffic Generation Rate 12 . 9 193 AM Peak 2 ..5 Hour Total 1.8 27 AM Peak In 0. 6 9 • AM Peak Out 1.2 18 PM Peak 2. 5 Hour Total 2.0 30 PM Peak In 1.4 21 PM Peak Out 0. 6 9 • Notes: du = Dwelling Units • • 4 • • 'a •sue 0 • North is s • �a� 459 og r ersit • Bison Ave or S • o� a m r a �• ord Rd • °b0�mc y. 25q o w PROJECT SITE Q • San q) Joaquin ? R d N Hills Sy • Rood M� �o o San u -o f07 • Coast HI hwo • D.r FIGURE cp FAA Trafflc Rock E. Miller & Associates s trl b u tion 2 • • M LEGEND nn/nn AM/PM Traffic 4 Volume • ,,'61 s • 73 8/4 419 — pr i\i� v�1�y�91t m AIN 1 il" � F I 0 Bison Ave 0 >0 \¢ ao> ord Rd w Cus • ' 4 N •e PROJECT SITE 0 • San i Jooquin •L Hms Q North f, • .�ti Rood oSan o tt - j 4 • Coast Ni hwQ II• Traffic Assignment 'FIGURE �,� IAV 2 Ho ur Rock E. Miller & Associates AM & PM Peak Hour • i • • Traffic Impact Analysis The extent of traffic impact for the proposed project is evaluated by measuring the percentage of traffic increase for the project on roadways in the vicinity where traffic increases may have a • significant impact upon traffic conditions. If the proposed project will cause a 1% increase in the peak two-and-one-half hour traffic volume on any approach to an intersection where traffic conditions are considered significant, then that intersection must be studied in depth to identify any need for mitigation. • The one percent* test above is based upon predictions of future traffic levels at the appropriate intersections, including considerations of existing traffic levels, regional traffic growth, and traffic expected from committed projects which have not been fully constructed or occupied. Existing traffic volumes at all significant intersections are maintained and published annually by • the City. The City also maintains a list of committed projects and a list of traffic growth factors for all significant arterial streets in the City. These were furnished to Rock E. Miller and Associates for this- study. The one-percent test was applied to the following intersections, in • consultation with the City regarding the potential area of impact for the project. The intersections studied are: MacArthur Boulevard at Jamboree Road MacArthur Boulevard at Ford Road MacArthur Boulevard at San Joaquin Hills Road • Future traffic conditions for these intersections were forecast for three years into the future, the anticipated year of the opening of the project. The resultant future traffic volumes for each intersection were • compared with the forecasted level of traffic associated with the project from Figure 3 . Wherever the ratio of project traffic to forecasted future traffic is less than one-percent, the proposed project will not have a significant effect upon the intersection, and further analysis will not be required. Table 2 summarizes the most relevant one-percent forecasts for each of the intersections, and indicates that the proposed project will not have a 1% impact at any of the locations. Completed forms for full evaluation of the one percent analysis appearing the report appendix. • 7 • • • Table 2 • ONE PERCENT TEST Most Significant Approaches 1% of Peak • Approach 2 1/2 Hour Rojec.'t Intersection and Time Volume allure Jamboree Rd/MacArthur B1 Northbound AM 34 5 MacArthur B1/San Joaquin Hills Westbound AM 27 1 • MacArthur B1/Ford Rd Westbound AM 24 14 MacArthur Bl/Ford Rd Southbound PM 85 16 Notes: Project Input may be significant if project volume is greater than 1% of Peak 2 1/2 hour volume. • • • • • 8 • • Mitigation Mitigation Measures will not be required to remedy project related traffic impacts, because the proposed project will not have a significant impact upon any intersections in the study area. • site Analysis A site plan for the proposed development in not available, however the development is expected to consist of a typical neighborhood of single family residential homes. Guidelines utilized by the City • for the development of single family neighborhoods would insure that on-site circulation problems are not created by development of the project site. Potential impacts of site traffic upon existing roadways in the neighborhood or its access to the existing arterial street are of greater concern for a project of this scope and location. • Figure 4 shows a map of the neighborhood including the proposed development site. This neighborhood is generally bounded by MacArthur Blvd, Ford Road, San Miguel Drive, and San Joaquin Hills Road. Newport Hills Drive is the main collector roadway, forming a horseshoe loop through the neighborhood. This roadway has • limited residential frontage near the south end of the loop, but there is no direct access to homes along most of the roadway. The figure includes existing daily traffic volumes on streets within the neighborhood. There are a number of existing all-way stops signs and several • other neighborhood traffic controls in existence along Newport Hills Drive. All-way stops are located at Port Margate, Port Stanhope, Port Laurent, Port Sutton, Eastgate, and Port Weybridge. The intersection of Newport Hills Drive West and Port Seabourne is controlled by Stop signs and raised islands on two of the three intersection legs. The intersection of Newport Hills East and Port • Seaborne also contains raised islands on two of the three intersection legs, however this intersection is not controlled by Stop Signs on any approach. Figure 5 indicates project related traffic increases expected on the streets within the neighborhood. These increases are expected • on Newport Hills Drive West north of the project site, on Port Seaborne Way, on a short segment of Newport Hills East, and on Port Sutton Drive. The traffic increases within the neighborhood vary from a high of 193 daily vehicles on Newport Hills Drive north of the project site, to 48 daily vehicles on Port Seabourne and Port Sutton. Figure 6 indicates the total forecasted daily traffic I'• volumes on the subject streets upon completion of the proposed project. 9 • • • S932v Ford Rd QNl b 2 • 0 X `> p y • key „s?e 174 D Gate SY1 • 1 o& 29�Aor!` s4�f0 7O r• • 0\ t • North • /Y FIGURE cR /EAa►= �> Existing Daily Rock E. Miller & Associates. Tra ff1 C l.�o un is 4 • • --73 72.,, Fora Ra y I q spy >B a � at Gpf � e Or m A8 • v8 Ap 1%(110 °D c 6\ S°n • North • c� M, Pro jec t-Rela t e d FIGURE Rock E. Miller & Associates Daily Tra ffl c 5 • i 5462 ea7t� a� or Ry O�' v N Ol o Z U O R � �o Fost o t dote pr rn o *0 v� �r �°cPt e�pt SOn North � FIGURE fpIEAA Future Daily 6 Rock E. Miller & Associates Tra ffl c CO un tS III A Residential streets designs in single family neighborhoods are normally prepared to minimize the occurrence of undesirable traffic volumes on streets with direct frontage or driveways. Developments are not normally planned or recommended when traffic volumes exceed 2000 vehicles per day, while there are usually no problems when traffic volumes are kept below 1000 daily vehicles. For streets in between these limits, traffic conditions can be found undesirable to some residents, especially when vehicles are required to make left or right turns near homes, in steep hilly terrain, or on long straight stretches of roadway. These undesirable conditions typically concern excessive numbers of speeders or high vehicle speeds. These problems can be well founded, however the addition of a small number of additional vehicles will not significantly increase these problems. The existing conditions on Port Seabourne Way and on, Newport Hills Drive West, south of Port Seabourne, both fall into the 1000-2000 vehicle range. As such the traffic increases forecasted could slightly increase the incidence of traffic complaints or undesirable traffic behavior by drivers on these streets. On streets with traffic greater than 2000 vehicles per day, residential frontage is not desirable. Traffic levels on these streets make them suitable primarily as collector streets. Such streets can typically handle up to 5000-6000 vehicles per day without significant change in apparent traffic conditions, except at their intersections with multi-lane arterial roadways. The traffic increases forecast on Newport Hills Drive West, from near Ford Road to Port Seabourne, and on Port Sutton are thus not considered significant. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis The traffic conditions on Newport Hills Drive West approaching Ford Road are significant, particularly with respect to the need for additional traffic controls at this intersection. The City of Newport Beach staff advised Rock E. Miller and Associates that this intersection has been studied for potential signalization at various 'times in the past, and that these studies should be updated in conjunction with this study. A warrant analysis was conducted based upon existing traffic information, the posted speed limit on Ford Road, and various other factors which are used to evaluate the need for traffic signals. There are eleven commonly accepted warrants for the placement of traffic signals at intersections. Fulfillment of any of these warrants is an indication that intersection condition would improve by the placement of traffic signals. These conditions could relate to overall delay, delay to cross traffic, pedestrian crossings, safety, or several other factors. If none of the warrants are fulfilled, it is an indication that traffic conditions would 13 • li PY robabl not be improved by the placement of traffic signals. • Instead, delays could increase waiting for green signals, and accidents which typically happen at traffic signals, such as running the red light, could increase. The warrant analysis determined that five of the eleven warrants are currently fulfilled at the intersection, based on existing traffic volumes from these two roads. Traffic from the proposed 157unit project will not cause the fulfillment of any additional warrants, however it will further the need for traffic signals at the location. The extent of impact by the project upon the need for signalization can be based upon different analysis assumptions. Rock E. Miller and Associates recommends that this impact be measured based upon the ratio of project approach daily traffic to "Signal Warranting" traffic. This is the estimated daily traffic volume published by CALTRANS to normally warrant a traffic signal for Interruption of Continuous Traffic for the minor inter-secting street. This warranting volume is 1, 120 daily vehicles, while the project approach daily volume is 73 vehicles. Thus, the project contri- butes 6.5% of the volume necessary to warrant a traffic signal. The level of increase is not sufficient to alter operating conditions at the location, but existing and project traffic will • be delayed at the location, especially in the morning peak hours. Summary A fifteen unit development is being proposed on Newport Hills Drive West, between Port Renwick and Port Tiffen in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed development will generate 193 new vehicle trips per day, including 27 in the morning two-and-one-half hour peak, and 30 in the evening two-and-one-half peak. These trips will result in traffic increases on streets in the project vicinity. An analysis of this proposed development was performed consistent with he procedures and guidelines of the Newport Beach Traffic Phasing ordinance. That analysis determined that the proposed project will not have a significant (1%) impact upon any of the critical arterial intersections within the City. As a result no intersection specific studies or mitigation measures are required • as a result of the proposed project. The project will cause measurable traffic increases on streets within the existing neighborhood. None of these increases are expected to visibly affect conditions on these streets, but several of the streets experience existing traffic levels where occasions of neighborhood improper driving practices are most frequent. • 14 • • The intersection of Ford Road and Newport Hills Drive West is currently not signalized. A traffic is currently warranted at this location. The proposed project will not cause significant increases in the need for a signal at this location, however project traffic may be delayed along with existing traffic if the location is not signalized in the future. 0 0 • 0 15 0 • v • �I Appendix: e • • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/MACARTHUR BL (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage nter pring 90 AM Peak 2), Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 47IPe:rkole�rHour Direction Peak 2;. Hour Growth Peak lumeour PeaVolume HourPe Directionume Volume VolumeNorthbound 279585 491 3Southbound 5g 918 2808 1834 Eastbound 919 27 11Westbound 257578 763 3416 • Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ® Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected • Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: • PROJECT: FORM I 1.14 0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD MACARTHUR BL (Existing Traffic Volumes based on verage nter pring 19 90) PM Pn"] ved Approach Existing ects Projected 1� of Projected Project Direction Peak 2h Hour ;, Hour Peak 2;. Hour PeaYolumeour PeeVolumeour Volume ume Volume I Northbound 1496 2039 20 2 Southbound 2693 Eastbound 1752 2719 27 0 i Westbound 3138 95 989 4222 42 3 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 7 Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 21, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection 'Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • DATE: 0 PROJECT: FORM I u� • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring 9 90 AM • Peak 211 Hour Approved Projected 1% of Projected, Project Approach Existing Regional Projects Direction Peak 2 Hour Growth PeaYolume Hour Pea Volume Hour PeaVolumeour PeaVolumeour Volume Volume Northbound 4043 637 370 5050 51 0 • southbound 50 4055 640 335 Eastbound 531 84 18 633 6 1 0 i Westbound 2202 347 106 2655 27 1 • Project Traffic is. estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected • Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. • • I'• • DATE: • PROJECT: FORM I 1 • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/SAN JOAQUIN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring _ PM • Tf ved ApproachM26 ects Projected 1% of Projected Project Directionk Hour Peak 2k Hour Pea�ojumeour I PenVotumeour ume Yolume I Northbound • Southbound6806 68 0 Eastbound 324 2493 25 1 Westbound 1 51 22 11 ,343 11 0 • Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected M Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected • Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: '• PROJECT: FORM I 138 • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL/FORD RD 90 (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pring • AM Peak 21, Hour Approved „ Regional Projects Approach Existing Projected 1 of Projected Project Peak �uHour Peame �o2kour Direction Peak 2)5 Hour Growth Pe°Volumeour Pe°volume ur Volume Volume I lume Northbound 5381 849 582 6812 68 0 • Southbound 741 354 5795 58 7 4700 i Eastbound 312 Westbound 1972 312 151 2435 24 14 • Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected © Peak 21 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected • Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • • DATE: • PROJECT: FORM I MO • • 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection MACARTHUR BL FORD RD (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Verage 1, pring 9 Q Prt • Peak 2)1 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1:, of Projected Project Direction Peak 2�t Hour Growth Peak 211 Hour Peak 21, Hour Penk 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Northbound 4708 742 361 5811 2 0 • Southbound 1062 683 8482 85 16 6737 Eastbound 594 94 38 726 7 i 0 Westbound 190 30 1427 14 7 1207 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 0 Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume • Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected 0 Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. • • • DATE: • PROJECT: FORM I iyi Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-5 12.1906 (� Figure 9.1 A , TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS • CALC -&ZE� DATE CHK DATE DIST CO RTE PM i Major St: ��� �20� Critical Approach Speed 50 mph • Minor St: ' Critical Approach Speed mph Critical speed of major street traffic240 mph -------------" IE OR RURAL(R) In built up area of isolated community of< 10,000 pop. --------- ❑ t ❑ URBAN(U) • WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ® NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES ® NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (00%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R APPROACH Hour • LANES t 2or more I.2 Both AOprehs. 500 350 600 20 Q ,9 1�11 / Major Street (400) (280) (600) 33B CJIU 72 -)GLj! 7SZ QZ 7kz J ' MMorStrreetch 020) (84)15U IUD (1801 t10 ZSj Zy� j77 jb0 /S/ /Y7 /y3 /�lZ *NOTE:Heavier left turn movement from Major Street Included when LT-phasing is proposed ❑ • WARRANT 2- Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES M NO ❑ 809b SATISFIED YES ® NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R U R • APLANESH 1 2or more 8, _ y4 7,4M Low"I , Hour Both Apprcha. 750 525 800 830 d(g 72 ?6y T 2 g[�Z 7b2 0S� s MelorStreet (800) (420) (720) 504 fJ U Highest Appreh 75 1 53 too 70 - /77 /&0 / -/ /Cf' �y� icf, Minor Street• (60) (421 (80) (5 Z5/ ZK 5 'NOTE:Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT-phasing is proposed ❑ WARRANT 3- Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ a0% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R •r- Majoru�Testa No Median (480) (336) Hour Volume a•Metllan h(800000) Pe It's On Hlgheat Volume X•Walk XingMeor Street IF MIDBLOCK SIGNAL PROPOSED ❑ •�•. MIN.REQUIREMENT DISTANCE TO NEAREST ESTABLISH IjoCRWLKJ FULFILLED ISO Feet I N/E_ft S/W_ft I Yes ❑ No ❑ The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal.Delay,congestion,confusion or other evidence of the need for,rlght of way assignment must be shown. • TS40A • Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-7 tx•tges Figure 9.1 C • TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WARRANT S-Cojnbination of Warrants SATISFIED YES IS NO ❑ REQUIREMENT WARRANT /I FULFILLED • TWO WARRANTS 1 -MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME SATISFIED 2•INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC 80% 3•MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME YES 91. NO ❑ WARRANT 9- Four Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES NO ❑ • 2 or Approach Lanes One more EyaF. "'4 -.'f Hour Both Approaches , Malor Streat Fpr<l �� 11a12 30 Highest Approaches , MlnorStrsst k9wl. *Refer to Fig.9.2A(URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-2B(RURAL AREAS)to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10- Peak Hour Delay, SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP • sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours fora on_e-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach;and YES ❑ NO ❑ 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes;and YES ❑ NO ❑ • 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds Boo vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. YES ❑ NO ❑ WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume SATISFIED* YES ® NO ❑ • 2 or Approach Lanes One more Hour Both Approaches , Malor Strest • Highest Approaches , Minor Streat *Refer to Fig.9.2C(URBAN AREAS)or Figure 9-2D(RURAL AREAS)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. • • Ts•mc i 9-8 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 12.1eas Figure 9.1 D TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS (Based on Estimated Average Daily Traffic-See Note 2) URBAN ..................... RURAL ....................... Minimum Requirements • EADT u , 1. Minimum Vehicular Vehicles per day on major Vehicles per day on higher- Satisfied x Not Satisfied street(total of both volume minor-street approach approaches) (one direction only) Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 .......................... 1 ........................... 8,000 6,600 2,400 1,680 or more ...41, VI.l..... O...Z ......•••••• 9,600 720 2,400 4880 2 or more ................. C^-or more ................ 9,600 6,720 3,200 2,240 1 .......................... 2 or more .................. 8,000 5,600 3,200 2,240 2. Interruption of Continuous Traff IC Vehicles per day on major Vehicles per day on higher- Satisfied X Not Satisfied street(total of both volume minor-street approach approaches) (one direction only) • Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach Major Street Minor Street Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 .......................... 12,000 8,400 1,200 850 ormore ...11.`l<.`�..... ©.... t.? .........•... 14,400 to, 1,200 !20� 2 ormore .................aa ormore ....4............. 14,400 10,080 1,6001 2 or more .................. 12,000 8,400 1,600 1, 3. Combination Satisfied Not Satisfied 2 Warrants 2 Warrants No one warrant satisfied but following warrants fulfilled 80%or more ............ 1 2 NOTE; 1. Heavier left turn movement from the major street may be Included with minor street volume if a separate signal phase is to be provided for the left-turn movement. 2. To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where actual traffic volumes cannot J be counted. is•iaD �~ TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. LOCATION CODE 02110.OD2 LOCATION - NEWPORT HILLS DR W-S/O FORD AVERAGED VOLUES FOR - THURSDAY 2/14/91 TO FRIDAY 2/15/91 AMA&lwllHlm***** PM TIME NB S8 TOTAL TINE NB SB TOTAL MOD - 12:15 3 3 6 12:00 - 12:15 32 29 61 12:15 - 12:30 2 3 5 12:15 - 12:30 22 35 57 12:30 - 12:45 0 1 1 12:30 - 12:45 34 37 71 12:45 - 1:00 1 6 2 9 3 15 12:45 - 1:00 35 123 33 134 68 257 1:00 - 1*15 0 3 3 1:00 - 1:15 32 36 68 1:15 - 1:30 1 4 5 1:15 - 1:30 32 41 73 1:30 - 1:45 1 1 2 1:30 - 1:45 38 39 77 1:45 - 2i00 0 2 0 8 0 10 1:45 - 2:00 40 14 ' 33 149 73 291 2:OD - 2:15 0 3 3 2:00 - 2:15 25 45 70 2:15 - 2:30 0 0 0 2:16 - 2:30 39 38 77 2:30 - 2:45 2 1 3 2:30 - 2:45 34 G 42 76 2:45 - 3:00 1 3 5 9 6 12 2:45 - 3:00 49 14 49 174 98 321 3:00 - 3:15 2 0 2 3:00 - 3:16 52 53 105 3:15 - 3.30 2 0 2 3:15 - 3:30 54 60 114 3:30 - 3:45 2 2 4 3:30 - 3:45 36 45 81 3:45 - 4:00 0 6 0 2 0 8 3:45 - 4:00 35 177 2 43 201 78 378 4:00 - 4:15 0 1 1 4:00 - 4:15 40 41 81 4:15 - 4:30 2 1 3 4:16 - 4:30 42 56 98 4:30 - 4:45 0 1 1 4:30 - 4:45 35 r 53 88 4:45 - 5:OD 2 4 0 3 2 7 4:45 - 5:OD 34 151 57 207 91 358 5:00 - 5:15 6 2 8 5:00 - 5:15 31 61 92 5:15 - 5:30 8 1 9 5:15 - 5:30 31 53 84 5:30 - 5:45 6 0 6 5:30 - 5:45 26 70 96 6:45 - 6:00 7 27 1 4 8 31 5:45 - 6:00 41 129 61 245 102 374 6:OD - 6:15 6 0 8 6:00 - 6:25 37 67 104 6:15 - 6:30 24 4 28 6:15 - 6:30 38 60 98 6:30 - 6:45 25 7 32 6:30 - 6:45 41 47 88 6:45 - 7:00 16 73 11 22 27 95 6:45 - 7:00 27 k44 43 217 70 360 7:00 - 7,15 36 16 52 7:00 - 7:16 26 43 69 7:15 - 7:30 66 13 79 7:15 - 7:30 29 26 55 7:30 - 7:45 81 �1 , 20 101 7:3D - 7:45 23 36 59 7:45 - 8:00 66 249 ' 31 80 97 329• 7:45 - 8:00 21 99 26 131 47 230 8:00 - 8:16 71 34 105 8:00 - 8:15 19 24 43 8:15 - 8:30 63 24 87 8:15 - 8:30 10 38 48 8:30 - 8:45 54 24 78 8:30 - 8:45 13 26 39 8:45 - 9:00 63 F� 19 101 82 352 8:45 - 9:00 8 50 19 107 27 157 9:00 - 9:15 42 35 77 9:00 - 9:15 14 25 39 9:15 - 9:30 40 16 56 9:15 - 9:30 15 17 32 9:30 - 9:45 35 22 57 9:30 - 9:45 13 21 34 9:45 - 3000 43 160) 24 97 67 257 9:45 - 10:00 13 55 24 87 37 142 10:00 - 10:15 32 25 57 10:00 - 10:15 8 16 24 10:15 - 10:30 33 15 48 10:15 - 10:30 5 14 19 10:30 - 10:45 28 25 53 10:30 - 10:45 9 14 23 10:45 - MOD 24 117 28 93 52 210 10:45 - MOD 6 2B 11 55 17 83 11:00 - 11:15 33 23 56 MOD - 11:15 3 9 12 11:16 - 11:30 29 34 63 11:15 - 11:30 7 11 16 11:30 - 11:45 40 31 71 11:30 -,11:45 3 6 9 11:45 - 12:00 33 135 37 125 70 26D 11:45 - 12:00 2 15 6 32 8 47 TOTALS 1.033 553 1,586 1,259 1.739 2,998 ADT'S 2,292 2.292 4.584 . TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. MACHINE COUNT DATA LOCATION - NEWPORT HILLS OR W 8 FORD RD 15 MINUTE VOLUMES .��+,k+.at► AM • ,ur PM *A* TIME N. LEG E. LEG S. LEG W. LEG TOTAL TIME N. LEG E. LEG S. LEG W. LEG TOTAL . (SB) (WB) (NB) (EB) (SB) (WB) (NB) (EB) ec , &x***************� 12:00 - 12:15 - 8 - 19 27 12:00 - 12:15 - 110 - 108 218 12:15 - 12:30 - 6 - 12 18 12:15 - 12:30 - 92 - 95 187 12:30 - 12:45 - 4 - 9 13 12:30 - 12:45 - 99 - 91 190 12:45 - 1:00 - 3 - 14 17 12:45 - 1:00 - 89 - 72 161 1:00 - 1:15 - 2 - 8 10 1:00 - 1:15 _ 98 _ 79 177 1:15 - 1:30 - 1 - 6 7 1:15 - 1:30 81 103 184 1:30 - 1:45 - 4 - 7 11 1:30 - 1:45 - 104 - 87 191 1:45 - 2:00 - 5 - 7 12 1:45 - 2:00 - 94 - 93 187 2:00 - 2:15 - 3 - 6 9 2:00 - 2:15 - 100 - 97 197 2:15 - 2:30 - 3 - 2 5 2:15 - 2:30 - 101 - 75 176 2:30 - 2:45 - 1 - 6 7 2:30 - 2:45 _ 92 _ 109 201 2:45 - 3:00 - 0 - 3 3 2:45 - 3:00 93 95 188 3:D0 - 3:15 - 1 - 2 3 3:00 - 3:15 - 86 - 111 197 3:15 - 3:30 - 5 - 4 9 3:15 - 3:30 - 66 - 114 180 3:30 - 3:45 - 2 - 4 6 3:30 - 3:45 - 70 - 122 192 3:45 - 4:00 - 1 - 1 2 3:45 - 4:00 - 89 - 106 195 • 4:00 - 4:15 - 1 - 3 4 4:00 - 4:15 - 81 - 101 182 4:15 - 4:30 - 4 - 1 5 4:15 - 4:30 - 98 - 117 215 4:30 - 4:45 - 2 - 0 2 4:30 - 4:45 - 71 - 117 188 4:45 - 5:00 - 3 - 3 6 4:45 - 5:00 - 73 - 144 217 5:00 - 5:15 - 10 - 1 11 5:00 - 5:15 - 72 - 162 234 5:15 - 5:30 - 14 - 2 16 5:15 - 5:30 - 91 - 141 232 5:30 - 5:45 - 12 - 6 18 5:30 - 5:45 - 89 - 173 262 5:45 - 6:00 - 19 - 8 27 5:45 - 6:00 - 71 - 192 263 6:00 - 6:15 - 31 - 8 39 6:00 - 6:15 - 74 - 211 285 6:15 - 6:30 - 42 - 15 57 6:15 - 6:30 - 68 - 138 206 6:30 - 6:45 - 72 - 18 90 6:30 - 6:45 - 50 - 151 201 6:45 - 7:00 - 93 - 29 122 6:45 - 7:00 - 59 - 107 166 7:00 - 7:15 - 84 - 54 138 7:00 - 7:15 - 57 - 138 195 7:15 - 7:30 - 120 - 38 158 7:15 - 7:30 - 47 - 79 126 7:30 - 7:45 - 149 - 42 191 7:30 - 7:45 - 21 - 60 81 7:45 - 8:00 - 185 - 56 241 7:45 - 8:00 - 33 - 60 93 8:00 - 8:16 - 132 - 69 201 8:00 - 8:15 - 19 - 53, 72 8:15 - 8:30 - 134 - 74 208 8:15 - 8:30 - 23 - 74 97 8:30 - 8:45 - 134 - 61 195 8:30 - 8:45 - 25 - 51 76 8:45 - 9:00 - 129 - 85 214 8:45 - 9:00 - 19 - 44 63 9:00 - 9:15 - 123 - 76 199 9:00 - 9:15 - 20 - 43 63 • 9:15 - 9:30 _ 120 _ 78 198 9:15 - 9:30 _ 23 _ 51 74 9:30 - 9:45 111 67 178 9:30 - 9:45 35 65 100 9:45 - 30:DO - 82 - 75 157 9:45 - 10:00 - 37 - 56 93 10:00 - 10:15 - 93 - 76 169 10:DO - 10:15 - 30 - 36 66 10:15 - 10:30 - 99 - 79 178 10:15 - 10:30 - 18 - 39 57 10:30 - 10:45 - 78 - 89 167 10:30 - 10:45 - 13 - 37 60 I� 10:45 - 11:00 - 104 - 73 177 10:45 - 11:00 - 18 - 35 53 11:00 - 11:15 - 103 - 92 195 11:00 - 11:15 - 11 - 21 32 11:15 - 11:30 - 92 - 84 176 11:15 - 11:30 - 10 - 18 28 11:30 - 11:45 - 97 - 81 178 11:30 - 11:45 - 9 - 16 25 11:45 - 12:00 - 104 - 83 187 11:45 - 12:00 - 8 29 37 TOTALS - 5,462 - 5,952 11,414 • TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. MACHINE COUNT DATA LOCATION - NEWPORT HILLS OR W & FORD RD HOURLY VOLUMES TIME N. LEG E. LEG S. LEG W. LEG TOTAL TIME N. LEG E. LEG S. LEG W. LEG TOTAL . (SB) (WB) (NB) (EB) (SB) (WB) (NB) (EB) 12:OD - 1:00 - 21 - 54 75 12:00 - 1:00 - 390 - 366 766 1:00 - 2:00 - 12 - 28 40 1:00 - 2:00 - 377 - 362 799 2:00 - 3:00 - 7 - 17 24 2:00 - 3:00 - 386 - 376 762 3:00 - 4:00 - 9 - 11 20 3:00 - 4:00 - 311 - 453 64 4:00 - 5:00 - 10 - 7 17 4:00 - 5:00 - 323 - 479 y 5:00 - 6:00 - 55 - 17 72 5:00 - 6:00 - 323 - 668 991 • 6:00 - 7:00 - 238 - 70 308 6:00 - 7:00 - 261 - 607 7:00 - 8:00 - 538 - 190 7:00 - 8:00 - 158 - 337 495 B:00 - 9:00 - 529 - 289 818 ' 8:DO - 9:00 - 86 - 222 308 9:00 - 10:00 - 436 - 296 703 9:00 - 10:00 - 115 - 215 330 10:00 - 11:00 - 374 - 317 691 10:00 - 11:00 - 79 - 147 226 11:00 - 12:00 - 396 - 340 736 11:00 - 12:00 - 38 - 84 122 TOTALS - 5,462 - 5,952 11,414 1-.MMMf * Mtt.++fR*'RiMite** COUNT DATES ARE AS FOLLOWS - East Leg (WB) - 3/25/91 TO 3/26/91 West Leg (EB) - 3/25/91 TO 3/26/91 I�