2022.06.28 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A) Where traffic control signals are justified, the multiway stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. The traffic volume at this intersection is far from the requirement of needing a traffic signal. (NOT MET) B) Five or more reported crashes in a 12‐month period that are susceptible to correction by a multiway stop installation. Such crashes include right turn and left turn collisions as well as right‐angle collisions. This intersection has 3 accidents in 10 years (NOT MET) C) Minimum volumes: a) The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and b) The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor‐street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour; but c) If the 85th‐percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items a) and b). Low speed low volume of vehicles/pedestrians (NOT MET) With multiway not meeting warrants we then look at other treatment options if warrants are met. The use of STOP signs on the minor‐street approaches should be considered if engineering judgment indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions: A) The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or highway exceed 6,000 vehicles per day; The volume in this area is well below 1000 vehicles per day (NOT MET) B) A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe conflicting traffic on the through street or highway; and/or Staff reviewed the existing site lines as you approach the yield signs and we believe that vegetation located outside of the existing ROW does create a restricted view. With the existing grades/elevations of the adjacent properties, staff is not certain that removing the vegetation would be enough. (MET) C) Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction by the installation of a STOP sign have been reported within a 12‐month period, or that five or more such crashes have been reported within a 2‐year period. Such crashes include right‐angle collisions involving road users on the minor‐street approach failing to yield the right‐of‐way to traffic on the through street or highway. 3 accidents in 10 years (NOT MET) With warrant B of the STOP sign consideration being met it is staff’s recommendation to replace the YIELD sign with STOP. This information was also presented to the Public Safety Commission on June 13,