15. Stop Sign - 5th Avenue WN and Wyoming StCity of Kalispell Public Works Department
Post Office Box 1997, Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 -Telephone (406)758-7720, Fax (406)758-7831
REPORT TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jim Hansz, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: STOP Sign Installation at Fifth Avenue WN and Wyoming Street
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2001
BACKGROUND: Late last year property owners living in the vicinity of this intersection
approached the City to request installation of four-way STOP control at the intersection. Their
concerns related to the excessive speeds of vehicles and a desire to reduce accidents and improve
safety at the intersection. In response to their request the Police and this Department reviewed
accident data and traffic data to determine whether the conditions warranted installation of four-
way control. Accident history at this intersection does not satisfy the warrant.
Traffic data was collected and then, forwarded to Morrison Maierle for analysis
following MUTCD and HCM procedures. The results of this independent analysis are attached.
This showed that existing conditions did not satisfy all the warrants for a four-way STOP. Only
the volume warrant was met. The delay warrant was not met. In fact, the traffic count data
indicated a justification to reverse the existing STOP arrangement. This is something that Public
Works and the Police Department would not recommend because it could adversely affect safety
near Russell School and would likely cause an increase in accidents at Fifth WN and Wyoming.
Morrison Maierle also indicated that a new edition of the MUTCD would include a
revision of the four-way STOP analysis criteria. This new edition is available and the situation
has been re-examined. As before, the volume warrant is met but the delay warrant is not met. In
other words, regardless whether old or new criteria are used, conditions do not satisfy all the
required warrants for a four-way STOP installation. However, the new MUTCD offers some
additional latitude to justify this installation.
The new MUTCD includes several other new criteria listed as optional considerations for
making this specific decision. One of these options deals with the "intersection of two residential
neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where
multiway stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics through the
intersection. " I believe the intersection of these two streets can be reasonably determined to fall
into this category.
Morrison Maierle have performed an all -way STOP analysis that shows the operation of
this intersection is improved by the installation of a four-way stop. Therefore, an installation of
four-way STOP control is justifiable.
RECOMMENDATION: Review Fifth Avenue WN and Wyoming Street intersection to
determine whether a four-way STOP sign installation is desirable. Staff concludes the
installation is justified.
FISCAL EFFECTS: None.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Council
Respectfully
James C. Hansz, P.E.
Director of Public Works /
Attachment: Warrant Analysis Data
Chris A. Kukulski
City Manager
Report compiled August 14, 2001
14066563432t# 1
FAX TRANSMISSION
MORRISON Engineers
Scientists
MAIERLE,INC. Planners
Surveyors
Since 1945 2020 Grand Avenue
Billings, MT 59102
Phone: (406) 656-6000
DATE:
August 14, 2001 PROJECT NO.:
SEND TO:
Jim Hansz
FAX NO.:
758-7831
FROM:
Bob Beckman
THIS IS PAGE 1 OF 5 PAGES
MESSAGE:
In response to your phone message I am offerina the following excerpts from the
MUTC132000. As mentioned in my January 2 2001 memo the volume thresholds have
been reduced for the major street in this new edition We are able to meet the volume
thresholds under both cases however, the criteria for delay is still well below the 30
second threshold. I have also included a revised capacity analysis run under the new
HCM2000 procedures. Results are generally the same as my earlier analysis indicating
delays of 17.7 sec and 12.6 sec for the WB and ES approaches respectively, Lastly I
have included a graph from the new HCM2000 indicating likely intersection control type
based on peak hour volumes. As you can see the relative peak hour volumes indicate
that a two-way stop is appropriate Hope this helps: I'll follow-up with a phone call in
case you have further questions
OUR FAX NUMBER IS (406) 656-3432
# AIRPORTS # HIGHWAYS # CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING # PHOTOGRAMMETRY
# STRUCTURES # SURVEYING # WATER # WASTEWATER # WATER RESOURCES
H.,M8710371WO 14_01.doc
6-14-Ul; b:10FM
! -----------
14066563432;# 2
Page 28-10
December 2000
Where there is a marked crosswalk at the intersection, the STOP sign should be
installed in advance of the crosswalk line nearest to the approaching traffic.
Option:
At wide -throat intersections or where two or more approach lanes of traffic exist on the
signed approach, observance of the stop control may be improved by the installation of an
additional STOP sign on the left side of the road and/or the use of a stop line. At channelized
intersections, the additional STOP sign may be effectively placed on a channelizing island.
Support:
Figure 2A-2 shows some typical placements of STOP signs.
Section 2B.07 Multiway Stop Applicat ons
Support:
Multiway stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic
conditions exist Safety concerns associated with multiway stops include pedestrians, bicyclists,
and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multiway stop coptml is used where thg
volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal.
The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.05 also apply to multiway
stop applications.
Guidance:
The decision to install multiway stop control should be based on an engineering
study.
The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multiway
STOP sign installation:
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.
B. A crash problem, as indicated by 5 or more reported crashes in a 12-month
period that are susceptible to correction by a multiway stop installation. Sucl
crashes include right- and left -turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.
C. Minimum volumes:
1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street
Sou. 2$.06 to 2E.07
e-
—is—U1 H: tBPM
14066563432;# 3
December 2000
Page 2B-1 t
approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour
for any 8 hours of an average day, and
2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the
intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches)
averages at least 200 units ner hour fnr the. came R hn,ns with nn Puprno
delay to minor -street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds ner vehicle
3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major -street traffic exceeds 65
km/h (40 mph), the minimum vehicular volume wan -ants are 70 percent of
the above values.
D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B. C.1 and C 2 are all
satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from
this condition.
Option:
Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include:
A. The need to control left -turn conflicts;
B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high
pedestrian volumes;
C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able
to safely negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop;
and
D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar
Section 2B.08 YIELD Sign (RI -2)
Standard:
The YIELD (R1-2) sign shall be a downward -pointing equilateral triangle with
a wide red border and the legend YIELD in red on a white background.
Support!
The YIELD sign assigns right-of-way to traffic on certain approaches to an intersection.
Vehicles controlled by a YIELD sign need to slow down or stop when necessary to avoid
interfering with conflicting traffic.
Sect. 213.07 to 2B.08
I - o Iwo -Way Stop Control-
vvV V V
14066563432;# 4
Pagel of 2
TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY
General Information ISIte Information
al st
IR Beckman
en /Co.
rrison-Maierle Inc.
Date Performed
18114101
a
alysis Time Period IPM
Peak Hour
19
Percent Heavy Vehicles
0
—
0
—
Median Type
Undivided
RT Channellzed
0
0
Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
Confi uratlon
LTR
LTR
U stream Si nal
0
0
Minor Street
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
7
B
9
10
11
12
L
T
R
L
T
R
olume
99
135
a
5
84
14
Peak -Hour Factor, PHF
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
ago
0.90
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
110
150
8
5
93
15
Percent Heavy Vehicles
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent Grade (%)
0
0
tared Approach
N
ill
Storage
0
0
RT Channelized
0
0
lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
Configuration
LTR
LTR
Delay, Queue Len th
and
Level of
Servlce
Approach
NIB
SB
Westbound
Eastbound
Movement
1
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
Lane Configuration
LTR
LTR
LTR
LTR
(vph)
33
3
268
113
C (m)(vph)
1462
1439
548
586
IC
a o2
0.00
0.49
0.19
95% queue length
0.07
0.01
2.67
1
0.71
Control Delay
7.5
T 5
17.7
12.6
LOS
A
A
C
B
Approach Delay
17.7
12 6
Approach LOS
C
8
file://C:\WIND0WS\TEMP\u2kDIF4.TMP 8/14/01
14066S63432;# 5
Peak -Hour Factor
Highway Capacity Manual 2000
Refer to the peak -hour factor discussion in this chapter under Section II, Urban `
Streets, Required Input Data and Estimated Values.
4'
Length of Analysis Period
Refer to the length of analysis period discussion in this chapter under Section II,
Urban Streets, Required Input Data and Estimated Values,
Intersection Control Type
The intersection control type for an existing facility is known, by definition. In the
case of future facilities, the likely intersection control types can be forecast using Exhibit
10-15 and the forecast two-way peak -hour volumes on the major and minor streets. Note
that this exhibit is based on a set of specific assumptions, which are identified in a
footnote.
EXHIBIT 10-15. INTERSECTION CONTROL TYPE AND PEAK -HOUR VOLUMES
(SEE FOOTNOTE FOR ASSUMED VALUES)
800
700
jB00 Infeasible region
minor> on
500
b
r 400 AII-wwdayystop
g AWSCr
0
z L9S
2
y 200
�` 1001 / p TwoTwsca
Traffic signal control°
t
200 400 600 Boo 7000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
M�for Street Peak -Hour Two -Way Volume (veh/h)
Notes
a. Roundabouts may be appropriate within portion of these ranges.
Source. Adapted from Traffic Conlrof Oavices Handbook (8, pp. 4-18) - peak-ellrocnon, 8-h warrants convened to bvo-way
peak -hour volumes assuming ADT equals twice the s-h volume and peak hour is 10 percent of dally. Two-wayvolumes
assumed to he 150 percent of peak-dlrecdon volume,
Cycle Length
Greater accuracy can be achieved when using the computational methodology if the
cycle length for each intersection along the urban street is known or can be calculated on
the basis of intersection -specific data. In the absence of a known cycle length or
intersection -specific data, the cycle lengths for signalized intersections along an urban
street can be estimated using the default values in Exhibit 10-16.
EXHIBIT 10-16. DEFAULT CYCLE LENGTHS BYAREA TYPE
10-21 Chapter 10 - Urban Street Concepts
Signalized Intersections
wl MORRISON
i2iRLE,INC.
llld C011fbdy:':
TO: Jim Hansz
memo
CC: Terry Richmond
FROM: Bob Beckmah J
RE: West Wyoming Street & Fifth Avenue WN
DATE: January 2, 2001
I have completed a review of four-way stop warrants at the intersection of West
Wyoming Street and Fifth Avenue WN. Again, the traffic volume review is based on
conditions of an "average day". This is typically construed as a Tuesday thru Thursday
for analysis purposes. Weekend conditions are usually inconsistent and/or extreme and
are therefore not usually considered when evaluating warrants. As published in the
MUTCD, the recommended minimum traffic criteria for installation of a four-way stop
are:
a) The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches
must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any eight hours of an
average day, and
b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or
highway must average 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 maximum hour
For evaluation purposes, I considered the 24-hour traffic data provided by you for
October 17-19, 2000. Both averages throughout this period, as well as, individual day
counts were reviewed. Your question regarding averaging over an 8-hour period was a
good one that I had never considered. In reading the MUTCD warrant, it certainly could
be construed that way. To verify interpretation of the warrant, I contacted the City of
Billings Traffic Engineer, the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) office, and the
FHWA who authors the MUTCD requesting clarification. Although there are some
mixed feelings, the general consensus was that an averaging of the 8-hour period was
appropriate. This also was confirmed by an FHWA traffic engineer who further
indicated item a) would be reworded to address only the major street with an average
threshold of 300 vehicles per hour in the new MUTCD Millennium Edition due out
shortly. Other interpretations compared the 500—vehicle threshold to an average hourly
volume of an average day.
As such, it was confirmed that the intersection of West Wyoming Street and 51h Avenue
WN would meet the above volume criteria for items a) and b). To confirm average
delay, an unsignalized (two-way stop control) analysis was performed using Highway
Capacity Software (HCS). This analysis was performed using the average approach
H:10387W3Thansz0102_01.doc
Memo
Month, Day, Year
Page 2
volumes distributed consistent to the December 21, 2000 peak hour turn counts
recorded by your staff. Stop signs currently exist along the eastbound and westbound
West Wyoming approaches. Results of this analysis indicate favorable intersection
level -of -service (LOS) conditions and delay under PM peak hour conditions. In fact,
delay at both eastbound and westbound approaches is significantly less than the 30
second threshold indicated under item b) above.
The evaluation performed herein suggests that a four-way stop sign is currently not
warranted at the intersection of West Wyoming Street and 5t' Avenue WN.
Consideration should be given, however, to change the orientation of the stop signs to
northbound and southbound approaches, rather than eastbound and westbound.
Generally, in less there are overriding circumstances, stop signs should normally be
posted to stop the lesser flow of traffic. West Wyoming traffic counts suggest this to be
the major route.
One other item of particular note, relates to the comparison of the December manual
turn count to the hourly approach counts conducted in October. The December count
was considerably lower for the intersection during the peak hour, 347 versus 641, and
well below the 500-vehicle threshold. The higher October count may have been due to
diverted or construction related traffic. This comparison, however, likely reinforces the
conclusion of the previous paragraph.
In your correspondence of November 28, 2000 you indicated that the primary focus of
the nearby resident's is to control vehicular speeds in this area. This is a common
request under these circumstances, however, it should be noted that the MUTCD
clearly states that, 'stop signs should not be used for speed control." Other possibilities
that could be considered to achieve this objective include school zone signing, flashing
beacons, and restrictive speed limits during school hours. Signing could also be
employed using the MUTCD approved fluorescent green background for enhanced
visibility.
I have included miscellaneous count summaries and HCS output for your review. We
would be happy to further assist you in developing a traffic control plan for this area if
you choose to pursue these improvement options.
hansz0l_02_01ADC
January 3, 2001