Final Report Traffic Signal Warrant Study Addison, Texas Dallas County Prepared for: Town of Addison Prepared by: Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Dallas, Texas KHA # 063543005 q;1 Kimley-Hor!l and ;\s.'Wciatcs, Inc. 2003 􀁾􀁟􀁮Kimley-Horn 􀁾􀁉􀁅􀁾􀀮􀁊􀀠and Associates, Inc. Traffic Signal Warrant Study Various Locations Addison, Texas DaUas County Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 12700 Park Central Drive DaUas, Texas 75251 January 9, 2003 ---""""" ,..:--"i-OF 􀀱􀀧􀀺􀁾􀀧􀁜􀀬􀁜􀁾􀀠'1-" .......... \ ,:-c,"-•.... itf .... J' \l /*.... 􀁾􀀠.... * 􀁾􀀬1'*: :r '..*.11' .. •...•••••••••••••••.•••••••••••• I ( BRIAN K. SHEWSKl I t .....················ ·······..:····; ,. 68 ?9 .;􀁉􀀬􀁾􀀧􀀢􀀠􀁾􀁥􀀠7-:11J! . 􀁩􀁾􀁾􀀠 Executive Summary Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) was retained by the Town ofAddison to determine ifthe Town maintained signalized intersections met State guidelines for traffic signal warrants. The 30 intersections evaluated in this traffic signal warrant study are summarized below: 1. Marsh at Arapaho 16. Midway at Spring Valley 2. Belt Line at Marsh 17. Spring VaHey at Greenhill 3. Belt Line at Business 18. Addison at Arapaho 4. Belt Line at Commercial 19. Addison at Lindbergh 5. Belt Line at Surveyor 20. Addison at Airport 6. Belt Line at Runyon 21. Addison at Keller Springs 7. Belt Line at Midway 22. Addison at Westgrove 8. Belt Line at Beltway 23. Addison at Sojourn 9. Belt Line at Addison 24. Quorum at Westgrove 10. Belt Line at Quorum 25. Quorum at Keller Springs 11. Midway at Dooley 26. Quorum at Airport 12. Midway at Lindbergh 27. Quorum at Arapaho 13. Midway at Beltway 28. Quorum at Edwin Lewis 14. Midway at Proton 29. Arapaho at Edwin Lewis IS. Midway at Hornet 30. Westgrove at Sojourn The Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) sets forth twelve (12) warrants, orjustifYing sets ofconditions, at least one ofwhich should be fully satisfied before a traffic signal is warranted for construction. This study determined in a quantitative manner if a signalized intersection met any of the TMUTCD signal warrants. Twenty-six (26) of the thirty (30) intersections met Warrant II (peak Hour Warrant). The four intersections that did not meet any of the warrants include: ') /' • Addison at Sojourn • Airport at Quorum , • Arapaho at Edwin Lewis /' • Quorum at Edwin Lewis The remainder ofthis report highlights the traffic data collection and detailed signal warrant analyses for each ofthe signalized intersections. C:\Documents and Settings\brian,shewski\My Doeomems\AddisQn\final report,doc Table of Contents Item Page 1. Executive Summary 1 2. Introduction 1 3. Study Procedures 3 4. Signal Warrants 4 5. Conclusions 6 6. Figure A. Town ofAddison Traffic Signal Locations 2 7. Appendix 7 C:IDocuments and Settings\brian.stiewski\My Document5\Addison\Final report.doc 11 Traffic Signal Warrant Study Introduction The use of Federal funds for traffic signal upgrades or new installations requires that each intersection meet at least one ofthe twelve (12) warrants as defined in the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD). Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) was retained by the Town of Addison to determine which of the Town maintained signalized intersections met any of these warrants. The 30 intersections evaluated in this traffic signal warrant study are summarized below: l. Marsh at Arapaho 16. Midway al Spring Valley 2. Belt Line at Marsh 17. Spring Valley at Greenhill 3. Belt Line at Business 18. Addison at Arapaho 4. Belt Line at Commercial 19. Addison at Lindbergh 5. Belt Line at Surveyor 20. Addison at Airport 6. Belt Line al Runyon 21. Addison at Keller Springs 7. Belt Line at Midway 22. Addison at Westgrove 8. Belt Line at Beltway 23. Addison at Sojourn 9. Belt Line at Addison 24. Quorum at Westgrove 10. Belt Line at Quorum 25. Quorum at Keller Springs 11. Midway at Dooley 26. Quorum at Airport 12. Midway at Lindbergh 27. Quorum at Arapaho 13. Midway at Beltway 28. Quorum al Edwin Lewis 14. Midway at Proton 29. Arapaho at Edwin Lewis 15. Midway at Hornet 30. Westgrove at Sojourn These 30 intersection locations are also illustrated in Figure A on the next page. Two additional intersections shown in this figure, Arapaho at Surveyor and Landmark at Landmark Plaza, were known not to meet any warrants and were not included in the study. Belt Line, Midway, Marsh, Arapaho, and Spring Valley are six -lane divided arterials. Belt Line and Midway are also both regional principal arterials. The remaining roadways and cross-streets are four-lanes or less. C:\Documents and Settings\brian.shewski\l\.1y Documents\Addison\Final report.doc 1 CJ) c o·-... co (J o ...J c 0 CJ).-"C "C « "I-0 C ;: {!. 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠('\j0 􀁾􀀠C'? en􀁾«• c::en 0c:: 0 n 􀁾􀀠(])! () !!! 0 (]).....::::J ...J c::C) >"'0 "'0.:::I (]) ..... NU. 00= CO 0 c:: c:: :c Cl () ro(]) ...!!! (]) (]) .r::..... .....c:: ••0 Study Procedures Overview of Signal Warrants. As previously noted, one (I) of the TMUTCD traffic signal warrants must be fully satisfied before Federal funding can be considered as an option for traffic signalupgrades.or.new jnstallations ..Factorsincluded in.the evaluation ofthese warrants can include vehicle and pedestrian volumes, the number of traffic lanes, the prevailing traffic speeds, traffic accident experience, and school zones. Traffic Volume Data. Relative to traffic volumes, the warrants consider the total hourly approach volumes in both directions on the major street along with the corresponding hourly volumes for higher volume approach on the minor street. These volume thresholds are detailed within each warrant discussion. Hourly traffic volumes were utilized from several sources. The majority ofthe approach counts were pulled from the data collected for the traffic signal retiming projects for Belt Line Road, Midway Road, Marsh Lane, and Addison Road. Ifan intersection did not meet the peak peak hour warrant, additional hourly counts were used from 24-hour traffic counts collected by GRAM Traffic. This count information is highlighted in the intersection warrant spreadsheets found in the Appendix. Number ofApproach Lanes. The number of approach lanes will affect the volume thresholds for certain warrants. Ifan approach only has one lane the volume threshold for warranting is reduced. For this study, only one intersection cross-street had a one-lane approach -Sojourn at Addison Road. Speeds. Relative to the TMUTCD signal warrants, the traffic volume thresholds depend on whether or not the 85th percentile speed on the major street is greater than 40 MPH. Based on travel time runs conducted as part ofthe traffic signal timing projects and the fact that the posted speed limit is 30 to 40 MPH throughout the study area, there was no reduction allowed in the volume thresholds. TrafficAccident Data. Relative to the application ofthe signal warrants, traffic accident experience is used only to reduce certain traffic volume thresholds. Traffic accident frequencies at the four unwarranted signalized intersections were determined by Town staff not to be significant. C:\Document'i and Settings\brian.shewskl\My Documents\Addison\Final report.doG 3 Signal Warrants The spreadsheets found in the Appendix highlight the traffic volume warrant( s) conducted for each intersection. As discussed previously, twenty-six (26) ofthe intersections met the peak hour warrant whicheliminaw.L the need to conduct additionalwarnmt. analyses. HQw.ever,four (4) of·the intersections required additional warrant analysis. The following discussion summarizes this analysis. • Warrant I Minimum Vehicular Volume. This warrant would be satisfied only ifthe following volume levels exist for at least eight (8) hours ofan average day: • At least 600 vehicles per hour (VPH) on the major street (sum of both approaches) concurrently with, • At least 200 VPH on the higher volume approach ofthe minor street. • None ofthe four intersections satisfied this warrant. • Warrant 2 -Interruption of Continuous Traffic. This warrant would be satisfied only if the following volume levels exist for at least eight (8) hours ofan average day: • At least 900 vehicles per hour (VPH) on the major street street (sum of both approaches) concurrently with, • At least 100 VPH on the higher volume approach of the minor street. • None of the four intersections satisfied this warrant. • Warrant 3 -Minimum Pedestrian Volume. The satisfaction ofthis warrant would require that the following pedestrian volume levels for the crossing ofthe major street: 100 or more pedestrians per hour for at least four (4) hours of an average day or at least 190 pedestrians per hour during anyone hour. Although pedestrian volumes were not recorded, field observations during peak hours indicated that this :warrant would almost certainly not be satisfied for any of the intersection locations. C:\Docurnents and Sertings\brian.shewski\My Documents\Addison\Final report.doc I 4 • Warrant 4 -School Crossing. Even though Addison Road has a school speed zone at Sojourn, there is not an established school crossing at this intersection. Therefore, this warrant is not applicable. • Warrant 5 -Progressive Movement. This warrant would be applicable only at a location between existing coordinated traffic signals. Even then, Warrant 5 would be satisfied only ifthe spacing between the existing coordinated signals had been determined to be too great to maintain the necessary degree of vehicle platooning for signal coordination purposes. Accordingly, this warrant is not applicable. • Warrant 6 -Accident Experience This warrant would be satisfied iffive (5) or more accidents oftypes susceptible to correction by signal control had occurred during a 12-month period and if traffic volumes werc at least 80 percent of those required to satisfY Warrant 1 or Warrant 2. As previously noted, accident frequencies for the four (4) unwarranted intersections were not deemed significant enough to satisfy this warrant. • Warrant 7 -Systems Warrant. This warrant would be applicable only at the common intersection oftwo or more designated major routes. Other requirements ofthis warrant are that there the total entering volume (TEV) be at least 1,000 during the peak hour and that the five-year projected volumes satisfy one or morc of Warrants 1,2,8,9, and 11. The four unwarranted intersections do not fall into this category. • Warrant 8 -Combinations of Warrants. This warrant would be satisfied if two or more of Warrants 1,2, or 3 were satisfied to the extent of80 percent or more ofthe stated values. The four unwarranted intersections did not meet the stated values for this warrant. • Warrant 9 Four Hour Volumes. This warrant is evaluated by plotting the actual data points for the counted hours on a graph. If four (4) hours fall above the applicable line, the warrant is satisfied. The four unwarranted intersections did not meet the stated values for this warrant. C:\Documents and Seumgs\brian.shewski\My Documenls\Addison\Final report.doc 5 • Warrant 10 -Peak Hour Delay. This warrant is intended for existing STOP sign controlled intersections and is therefore not applicable for this study. • Warrant.l! -Peak Hour Volume. This warrant.isevaluatedjn the same manner as Warrant 9, i.e., by plotting the actual data points for the counted hours on a graph. As previously stated, twenty-six (26) ofthe 30 intersections evaluated met the requirements of this warrant. • Warrant 12 -Warrant Volumes for Traffic Actuated Signals, This warrant is evaluated in the same manner as Warrants 9 and II, i.e., by plotting the actual data points for the counted hours on a graph. If eight (8) ,or more of the points lie above the applicable line, the warrant is satisfied. Alternately, iftwo (2) or more of the points lie above a second line, the warrant is satisfied. In the case of the four (4) remaining unwarranted intersections, this warrant is not satisfied. Conclusions This study determined in a quantitative manner which Town ofAddison signalized intersections met at least one ofthe TMUTCD signal warrants. The results show that twenty-six (26) ofthe thirty (30) intersections met Warrant II (Peak Hour Warrant). The four intersections that did not meet any of the warrants include: • Addison at Sojourn • Airport at Quorum • Arapaho at Edwin Lewis • Quorum at Edwin Lewis The traffic volume warrants are detailed in the Appendix. The other warrants are highlighted within the body ofthe report. C:\Doc:umenls and Settlngs\brian,shewski\My Documents\Addison\Final reporLdoc 6 APPENDIX C:\DQcuments and Settings\brian,shewski\My Documents\Addison\Final report.doc 7 Table A1 Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment Using Actual 2001 Traffic Volumes MAJOR STREET: MARSH '# OF APPROACH LANES; 3 MINOR STREET: ARAPAHO #. OF APPROACH LANES: 2 TOVVN, STATE; Addison, TX 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED GREATER THAN 4il MPH ON MAJOR STREET ('{ OR N): MAJORST ITWO-WAY TRAFFIC MINOR ST WARRANT 1 WARRANT 2 "I I TRAFFIC MAIN SIDE BOTH MAIN SIDE I80TH HEAVY lEG LINE STREET MET LINE STREET MET I WARRANT 11WARRANT 9 THRESHOLD VALUES • 600 200 900 100 I I I 06;00 AM TO 07:00 AM 07;00 AM TO 08:00 AM 08:00 AM TO 09:00 AM 09:00AM TO 10:00AM 10:00AM TO ":00AM ":OOAM TO 12:00 PM 12:00PM TO 01:00 PM 01:00PM TO 02:00 PM 02:00 PM TO 03:00 PM 03:00 PM TO 04:00 PM 04:00 PM TO 05:00 PM 05:00 PM TO 06:00 PM 3.921 321 Y y y Y Y y y y 06:00 PM TO 07:00 PM 07:00 PM TO 08:00 PM 08:00 PM TO 09:00 PM 09:00PM TO 10:00 PM I 1 I """I "r---:---+--:---l 3.921 321 1 1 1 1 B HOURS NEEDED B HOURS NEEOED 4 HRS NEEDED 1 HR NEEDED NOT SATISFIED NOT SATISFIED NOT SATISFIED SATISFIED 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠WARRANT 1 -Minimum Vehicular Vehicular Volume Warrant (8 hours) WARRANT 2 --Interruption to Continuous Traffic (8 hours) WARRANT 9 --Four Hour Volume Warrant Figure 􀀴􀁾􀀷􀀠WARRANT 11 Peak Houf Volume Warrant 􀁾􀀠Figure 4-5 ------TableA2 Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment Using Actual 2001 Traffic Volumes MAJOR STREET: ,BELTLINE # OF APPROACH LANES: :5 MINOR STREET: MARsH # OF APPROACH LANES: '5 TOWN, STATE: Addison. TX 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED GREATER THAN 40 MPK ON MAJOR STREET (Y OR N): N MAJORST MINORST WARRANT 1 TWO-WAY TRAFFIC MAIN SiDE BOTH TRAFFIC HEAVY LEG LINE STREET MET THRESHOLD VALUES • 600 200 06:00AM TO 07:00AM 07:00AM TO 06:00AM 2.913 3356 Y Y Y 08:00AM TO 09:00AM 09:00AM TO 10:00 AM 10:00 AM TO 11:00AM l':00AM TO 12:00 PM 12:00 PM TO 01:00 PM 01:00 PM TO 02:00 PM 02:00PM TO 03:00 PM 03:00 PM TO 04:00 PM 04:00 PM TO 05:00 PM 05:00 PM TO 06:00 PM , 06:00 PM TO 07:00 PM 07:00 PM TO 08:00 PM 08:00PM TO 09:00PM 􀁾􀁏􀁐􀁍􀀠TO 10:00 PM 2,913 3,356 1 1 1 8 HOURS NEEDED NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 2 MAIN §TOE 80TH WARRANT 9 LINE STREET MET 900 100 Y Y Y Y 1 1 1 1 8 HOURS NEEDED 4HRSNEEDED NOT SATISFIED NOT SATISFIED ---------------------WARRANT 11 Y 1 1 HRNEEOED SATISFIED WARRANT 1 􀁾􀀭Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant (8 hours) WARRANT 2 􀁾􀁾􀀠Interruption to Continuous Traffic (8 hours) WARRANT 9 􀁾􀁾􀀠Four Hour Volume Warrant -Figure 4-7 WARRANT 11 Peak Hour Volume Warrant -Figure 4-5 TableA3 Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment Using Actual 2001 Traffic Volumes MAJOR STREET: BELT LINE # OF APPROACH LANES; 5 M.NOR STREET; BUS.NESS ' # OF APPROACH LANES; 2, TOWN. STATE; Addison, TX 85TH PERCENT1 8 HOURS NEEDED NOT SATISFIED 􀁾􀁾􀀢􀀠WARRANT 9 Y 1 􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀠􀀮􀀮􀁾􀀠4 HRS NEEDED NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 11 0 ! ------------1 HR NEEDED NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 1 -Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant (8 hours) WARRANT 2 Interruption to Continuous Traffic (8 hours) WARRANT 9 􀁷􀁾􀀠Fout Hour Volume Warrant Figure 􀀴􀁾􀀷􀀠WARRANT 11 .-Peak Hour Vofume warrant -Figure 􀀴􀁾􀀵􀀠 ----------Table A30 Traffic Signal Warrant Assessment Using Actual 2001 Traffic Volumes MAJOR STREET: 􀁗􀁾􀁓􀁲􀀮􀁇􀁒􀀰􀁖􀁅􀀠# OF APPROACH LANES; 3, MINOR STREET; SOJOURN # OF APPROACH LANES; '3, TOWN,STATE Addison, TX 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED GREATER THAN 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET (y OR Nl: N MAJORST MINORST WARRANT 1 TWO-WAY TRAFFIC MAIN SID'E 80TH· TRAFFIC HEAWLEG LINE STREET MET THRESHOLD VALUES 600 200 06:00AM TO 07:00AM 07:00 AM TO 08:00AM , 08;00 AM TO 09:00AM 09:00AM TO 10;00 AM lMOAM TO 11:00 AM 11:00 AM TO 12;00 PM 12;00 PM TO 01:00 PM 01:00 PM TO 02;00 PM 02;00 PM TO 03;00 PM 03;00 PM TO 04;00 PM 04;00 PM TO 05:00PM 05:00 PM TO 06:00 PM , 1,601 396 Y Y Y 06;00 PM TO 07;00 PM 07:00PM TO Oa;ooPM 08:00PM TO 09;00 PM 09:00 PM TO 10:00 PM 􀀭􀁾􀀭1.601 396 1 1 1 ----8 HOURS NEEDED NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 2 MAIN siDE BOTH LINE STREET MET 900 100 y y y 1 1 1 8 HOURS NEEDED NOT SATISFIED WARRANTg y 1 -----4 HRS NEEDED NOT SATISFIED WARRANT 11 y 1 c----1 HRNEEDED SATISFIED WARRANT 1 -Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant Warrant (8 hours) WARRANT 2 --Interruption to Continuous Traffic (8 hours) WARRANT 9 --Four Hour Volume Warrant -Figure 4-7 WARRANT 11 --Peak Hour Volume Warrant -Figure 􀀴􀁾􀀵􀀠