TCAG Annual Intersection Monitoring Program

Transcription

1 TCAG Annual Intersection Monitoring Program 2015 Intersection Monitoring Report Prepared by: Transportation Modeling Department August, 2015 Work Element

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...1 PROJECT LOCATION...1 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)...1 METHODOLOGY...5 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS...6 RECOMMENDATIONS...8 FIGURES Figure 1- Project Study Area...2 Figure 2- List of Intersections...3 Figure 3- City of Dinuba Intersection Geometries...10 Figure 4- City of Dinuba Traffic Count Volumes...11 Figure 5- City of Exeter Intersection Geometries...12 Figure 6- City of Exeter Traffic Count Volumes...13 Figure 7- City of Farmersville Intersection Geometries...14 Figure 8- City of Farmersville Traffic Count Volumes...15 Figure 9- City of Lindsay Intersection Geometries...16 Figure 10- City of Lindsay Traffic Count Volumes...17 Figure 11- City of Porterville Intersection Geometries...18 Figure 12- City of Porterville Traffic Count Volumes...19 Figure 13- City of Tulare Intersection Geometries...20 Figure 14- City of Tulare Traffic Count Volumes...21 Figure 15- County of Tulare (East) Intersection Geometries...22 Figure 16- County of Tulare (East) Traffic Count Volumes...23 Figure 17- County of Tulare (West) Intersection Geometries...24 Figure 18- County of Tulare (West) Traffic Count Volumes...25 Figure 19- City of Visalia (North) Intersection Geometries Figure 20- City of Visalia (North) Traffic Count Volumes Figure 21- City of Visalia (South) Intersection Geometries...28 Figure 22- City of Visalia (South) Traffic Count Volumes Figure 23- City of Woodlake Intersection Geometries Figure 24- City of Woodlake Traffic Count Volumes TABLES Table 1- Intersection Level of Service Criteria...4 Table 2- Existing PM Peak Hour Conditions...7 Table 3- Mitigated PM Peak Hour Conditions: Intersection Level of Service Transportation Monitoring Report Page i August 2015

3 APPENDIX APPENDIX A - HCS 2010 Analytical Reports: Signalized and Non-Signalized Intersections 2015 Transportation Monitoring Report Page ii August 2015

4 INTRODUCTION: Since 1997 the (TCAG) has monitored 50 intersections per year throughout Tulare County as part of its annual Intersection Monitoring Program. The monitoring program has assisted local agencies in identifying signalized and stop controlled intersections that operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS) and recommends possible mitigation measures, such as installing traffic signals, adding lanes, optimizing signal timing/phasing, etc., to improve operations. In addition, the Intersection Monitoring Program has assisted TCAG member agencies that have limited staff and resources to conduct important intersection analysis for potential problem intersections. PROJECT LOCATION: Traffic count data for this report was collected at specified intersections throughout Tulare County, Figure 1. Each member agency was requested to provide TCAG with a prioritized list of intersections within their jurisdiction for possible monitoring. TCAG staff then narrowed and compiled the agency lists into a final list of 50 intersections for evaluation. Figure 2 presents the final list of intersections. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS): Traffic operations have been quantified through determination of LOS. LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade A through F is assigned to an intersection representing worsening traffic conditions. LOS is calculated for different intersection control types using the methods documented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and as presented in Table 1. LOS standards vary throughout the County and its eight incorporated cities. The TCAG 2014 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) provides that LOS shall be no lower than LOS D for urban areas and LOS C for rural areas. However, each local agency that owns and operates transportation facilities may select a LOS standard more stringent than the minimum LOS standards identified in the RTP. For the purposes of this report LOS D is taken as the threshold for acceptable traffic operations at all study intersections. Although Caltrans has not designated a LOS standard, their Highway Design Manual indicates that Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on the state highway facilities; however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. If the existing state highway facility is operating at less than the target LOS, the existing measures of effectiveness (MOE) should be maintained Transportation Monitoring Report Page 1 August

5 Figure 1 Project Study Area 2015 Intersection Monitoring Report 2015 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 2 August

6 Figure 2 List of Intersections: 2015 Intersection Monitoring Report Dinuba Tulare J St M St Exeter Palm Orange Farmersville Ash E Citrus W Citrus Oakview Steven Lindsay Hermosa Honolulu Sierra View Valencia Porterville Laspina Blackstone Cherry E St J St M St O St Brentwood Cherry SB SR99 Offramp Visalia Campus Ferguson Goshen Houston Mill Creek Mineral King Noble Riggin Shannon Pkwy Tulare Walnut Whitendale Mulberry N Grand County Henderson Homassell Road Ave 360 Road Ave 264 Woodlake Road Ave 288 Road Ave 280 Sierra Road Ave 256 Wutchumna Road Ave 184 Road Ave 208 Road Ave Transportation Monitoring Report Page 3 August

7 2015 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 4 August

8 METHODOLOGY: The methodology for conducting the Annual Intersection Monitoring Program consisted of collecting on-site traffic count data (turning movement counts) at 50 intersections within Tulare County followed by analysis of the data using the Highway Capacity Software 2010 (HCS 2010) developed by the McTrans Center at the University of Florida. Data collection was performed by Quality Traffic Data, LTD. Data analysis was performed by TCAG staff. Data Collection: Intersection turning movement counts were collected for the PM peak hour period. Typically, the PM peak hour is defined as the one-hour period of peak traffic flow counted between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. Intersection counts consisted of the total number of turning movements per direction per approach during the peak 1-hour period. Data was collected by the consultant using on-site tally and intersection video methods. Intersection turning movement count data was provided to TCAG for use in the analysis. Intersection geometry was determined either by field inspection or use of the latest aerial photo coverage obtained through Google Earth. Intersection locations, geometrics, and turning volumes are shown in Figures 3 through 22. Data Analysis: Existing traffic operations and LOS for signalized and non-signalized intersections were quantified for the PM peak hour using the HCS 2010 software. The HCS 2010 includes modules which implement HCM 2010 procedures for analysis of stop controlled and signalized intersections. Non-signalized Intersections: A total of 26 non-signalized intersections were analyzed for existing intersection delay and LOS. Information required in analyzing non-signalized intersections in HCS 2010 included: Analysis period 15 min Peak Hour Factor default Lane configuration per intersection geometrics Demand vehicle miles per hour (vmh) per traffic counts Base saturation flow default passenger cars/hour/lane (pc/h/ln) 2 % Heavy vehicles default - 3% 3 % Grade default - 0-6% 1 Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report No.599, p.5 2 Transportation Research Board, 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Chapter 18, p Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report No. 599, p Transportation Monitoring Report Page 5 August

9 Signalized Intersections: A total of 22 signalized intersections were analyzed for existing intersection delay and LOS. Information required in analyzing signalized intersections in HCS 2010 includes: Signal Warrants: Lane configuration (per intersection geometry) Speed in miles/hour (mph) Cycle length (sec.) Maximum green time (sec.) Demand in vehicles per hour (vph) Minimum green time (sec.) Lane width (default - 12ft.) Queue length (per approach) Analysis period (15min.) Yellow change (sec.) Heavy vehicles (default - 3% ) Red clearance (sec.) Base saturation flow (default pc/h/ln) To determine whether significance should be associated with non-signalized intersection LOS, a supplemental traffic signal warrant analysis was also performed. Signal warrant criteria described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD), Chapter 4-C, Warrant #3, the Peak Hour warrant, was applied to all non-signalized intersections being analyzed. An intersection that meets a signal warrant may benefit from signalization; however, the final decision for this mitigation should be based on further monitoring and a comprehensive Traffic Engineering Study. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: Existing peak-hour traffic operations were analyzed in HCS 2010 using current intersection turning movement counts, lane geometry and intersection controls. Table 2 provides a summary of the analysis results, and Appendix A contains the HCS 2010 analytical reports. The analysis found that 2 of the 26 non-signalized intersections analyzed are currently operating below LOS D during the PM peak hour and meet the requirements of CAMUTCD Warrant #3, Peak Hour warrant for possible signalization. The intersections are: Tulare J St, in Dinuba Tulare M St, in Dinuba 2015 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 6 August

10 Table 2 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE PM Peak Hour Control Delay Warrant No. Intersection Jurisdiction Type (sec./veh.) LOS Met? 1 Tulare / J Street Dinuba TWSC F Y 2 Tulare / M Street Dinuba TWSC F Y 3 E & W Saginaw Dinuba S(2) * * * 4 Kaweah / Palm Exeter OWSC F* Y 5 Visalia / Orange Exeter AWSC B N 6 Farmersville / E. Citrus Farmersville OWSC B N 7 Farmersville / W. Citrus Farmersville OWSC C N 8 Farmersville Blvd. / Ash Farmersville AWSC B N 9 Visalia / Steven Farmersville OWSC B N 10 Visalia / Oakview Farmersville OWSC B N 11 Foothill / Honolulu Lindsay AWSC 7.44 A N 12 Foothill / Hermosa Lindsay OWSC 9.00 A N 13 Harvard / Sierra View Lindsay TWSC 9.60 A N 14 Harvard / Valencia Lindsay AWSC 7.97 A N 15 Tulare / Homassel Porterville AWSC B N 16 Newcomb / N. Grand Porterville AWSC B N 17 Indiana / Mulberry Porterville TWSC 7.20 A N 18 Plano / Henderson Porterville AWSC B N 19 Prosperity / SB SR99 Off Ramp Tulare S B N 20 Prosperity / Cherry Tulare S B N 21 Prosperity / Brentwood Tulare S B N 22 Cross / J Street Tulare S B N 23 Cross / M Street Tulare S B N 24 Cross / Cherry Tulare S C N 25 Cross / O Street Tulare S B N 26 Bardsley / Laspina Tulare S B N 27 Cross / Blackstone Tulare S C N 28 Cross / E Street Tulare S B N 29 Demaree / Shannon Pkwy Visalia OWSC B N 30 Demaree / Riggin Visalia S B N 31 Demaree / Ferguson Visalia S B N 32 Demaree / Houston Visalia S C N 33 Demaree / Goshen Visalia S D N 34 Demaree / Mill Creek Visalia S 9.20 A N 35 Demaree / Mineral King Visalia S B N 36 Demaree / Noble Visalia S B N 37 Demaree / Campus Visalia S 8.20 A N 38 Demaree / Tulare Visalia S B N 39 Demaree / Walnut Visalia S C N 40 Demaree / Whitendale Visalia S C N 41 Valencia / Wutchumna Woodlake TWSC B N 42 Valencia / Sierra Woodlake TWSC B N 43 Road 180 / Ave 288 County AWSC B N 44 Road 204 / Ave 280 County TWSC D N 45 Ave 256 / Road 216 County TWSC B N 46 Road 232 / Ave 184 County TWSC 9.20 A N 47 Road 236 / Ave 208 County TWSC 9.30 A N 48 Road 244 / Ave 216 County TWSC 9.10 A N 49 Road 80 / Ave 360 County S B N 50 Road 108 / Ave 264 County S B N Legend: S Signalized OWSC One way stop TWSC Two way stop AWSC All way stop NM Not measurable very low volumes * Intersection counted during Veterans Memorial Building event * Intersection not measurable 2 Intersections counted as 1 by vender performing data collection 7

11 Table 3 below lists the intersections which were determined to be operating below acceptable LOS, together with the results of mitigation by either optimizing intersection signal timing or modifying the existing stop controls. Both failing intersections in this report are in the Tulare Street Business Corridor in the city of Dinuba. Because of heavy traffic due to vigorous business activity, a local high school in the immediate vicinity, diagonal parking and the lack of right-of-way to add left hand turn lanes in this corridor, modifying existing stop controls from two way stop controls to all way stop controls does not appear to have a significant impact on LOS on either of these intersections, but does provide significant improvement in delay. Signalizing these intersections appears to provide significant improvement in overall intersection delay, and LOS for these intersections should be improved to acceptable levels. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the information presented in Table 3, the following are the recommended mitigation measures for the above intersections based on the results of this study (Appendix B): Tulare J Street (No. 1): This intersection is two-way stop controlled and currently operating at LOS F during the PM peak hour. By making the intersection all-way stop controlled, the intersection still operates at LOS F, however delay is significantly improved. The intersection appears to meet signal warrant. TCAG staff recommends a warrant analysis be performed. Tulare M Street (No. 2): This intersection is two-way stop controlled and currently operating at LOS F during the PM peak hour. By making the intersection all-way stop controlled, the intersection may be improved to LOS E or better. The intersection did not meet signal warrant Transportation Monitoring Report Page 8 August

12 Additional Traffic Studies: The results of 2015 Intersection Monitoring Report are provided for planning purposes only. It is therefore recommended that before making any improvement at the above intersections, that the local jurisdiction (city or county) perform a full engineering traffic study to determine the most appropriate mitigation based on existing conditions Transportation Monitoring Report Page 9 August

13 City of Porterville Exis ng Lane Geometrics and Controls Figure Newcomb & Grand 17 Indiana & Mulberry 18 Plano & Henderson 10

14 City of Porterville PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Figure Newcomb & Grand Indiana & Mulberry Plano & Henderson

15 Appendix A HCS 2010 ANALYTICAL REPORTS - SIGNALIZED AND NON-SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 12

16 All-Way Stop Control file:///c:/users/dwinning/appdata/local/temp/u2kf63a.tmp Page 1 of 1 8/6/2015 General Information Analyst M Hays Agency/Co. TCAG Date Performed 7/7/2015 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project ID 2015 Intersection Monitoring East/West Street: N. Grand Ave ALL-WAY CONTROL ANALYSIS Site Information Intersection N Grand Newcomb St Jurisdiction City of Porterville Analysis Year 2015 North/South Street: Newcomb St Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR L TR L TR PHF Flow Rate (veh/h) % Heavy Vehicles No. Lanes Geometry Group Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns Prop. Right-Turns Prop. Heavy Vehicle hlt-adj hrt-adj hhv-adj hadj, computed Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s) x, initial hd, final value (s) x, final value Move-up time, m (s) Service Time, t s (s) Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h) Delay (s/veh) LOS A B A A A A Approach: Delay (s/veh) LOS A B A A Intersection Delay (s/veh) Intersection LOS Copyright 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+ TM Version 5.6 Generated: 8/6/ :43 AM B 13

17 Two-Way Stop Control file:///c:/users/dwinning/appdata/local/temp/u2k20df.tmp Page 1 of 1 8/6/2015 General Information Analyst M Hays Agency/Co. TCAG Date Performed 6/30/2015 Analysis Time Period PM Peak TWO-WAY CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection Mulberry Indiana St Jurisdiction City of Porterville Analysis Year 2015 Project Description 2015 Intersection Monitoring East/West Street: Mulberry Ave North/South Street: Indiana St. Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes Configuration LT TR LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak-Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement Lane Configuration LT LT LTR LTR v (veh/h) C (m) (veh/h) v/c % queue length Control Delay (s/veh) LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh) Approach LOS B B Copyright 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+ TM Version 5.6 Generated: 8/6/ :41 AM 14

18 All-Way Stop Control file:///c:/users/dwinning/appdata/local/temp/u2kbe9d.tmp Page 1 of 1 8/6/2015 General Information Analyst M Hays Agency/Co. TCAG Date Performed 7/7/2015 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Project ID 2015 Intersection Monitoring East/West Street: Henderson ALL-WAY CONTROL ANALYSIS Site Information Intersection Plano Jurisdiction City of Porterville Analysis Year 2015 North/South Street: Plano Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration L TR LT R L TR LTR PHF Flow Rate (veh/h) % Heavy Vehicles No. Lanes Geometry Group b Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns Prop. Right-Turns Prop. Heavy Vehicle hlt-adj hrt-adj hhv-adj hadj, computed Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s) x, initial hd, final value (s) x, final value Move-up time, m (s) Service Time, t s (s) Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h) Delay (s/veh) LOS B C B A C B B Approach: Delay (s/veh) LOS C B C B Intersection Delay (s/veh) Intersection LOS Copyright 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+ TM Version 5.6 Generated: 8/6/ :37 AM C 15