Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Signal - Hwy 74 and Shadow Mtn DrCITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Traffic Signals on Highway 74 SUBMITTED BY: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer DATE: May 13, 2004 CONTENTS: April 30, 2004 letter from Caltrans April 28, 2004 record of telephone conversation April 23, 2004 letter to Caltrans Recommendation: By Minute Motion: authorize staff to proceed with design of a traffic signal for the intersection of Highway 74 and Shadow Mountain Drive. Executive Summary: At the April 12, 2004 special City Council meeting, staff was directed to perform traffic signal warrant analysis for Highway 74 and Shadow Mountain Drive and, Highway 74 and Mesa View Drive. The analysis was completed and submitted to Caltrans on April 23, 2004. Caltrans has concurred with our finding that both intersections meet signal warrants and has proposed that the City pay 100% for a signal at Shadow Mountain at this time, and Caltrans would pay 100% for a signal at Mesa View in three to four years. Caltrans also recommends construction of a median island between El Paseo and Haystack Road, which staff concurs with as a future phase of improvements on Highway 74. At this time, staff requests authorization to proceed with design of a traffic signal for the intersection of Highway 74 and Shadow Mountain Drive. Sub e MARK GRE NWOOD, P. CITY ENGINEER Approv:I. HOMER CR ASSISTANT MANAGER FOR DEVELOPME T SERVICES MICHAEL ERRANTE, P.E. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS CARLOS L. OR T GA CITY MANAGER H:lwpclocslHighway 74 signals staff report 051304.wpd STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 DISTRICT DIRECTOR (MS 1201) 464 WEST 4111 STREET, 6IH FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400 PHONE (909) 383-4055 FAX (909) 383-6239 TTY (909) 383-6300 April 30, 2004 Mr. Mark Greenwood City Engineer City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 MAY -4 2004 'JBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OFPALMDESERT Flex your power! Be energy efficient! Dear Mr. Greenwood: This is in response to your letter regarding the intersection of State Route 74 (SR-74) at Shadow Mountain Drive and Mesa View Drive. We have reviewed the Traffic Signal Warrant Study attached to your letter and concur with your conclusion that traffic signals are warranted at both locations. It is our understanding that the City will pay 100% of the project cost (construction, design) for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of SR-74 and Shadow Mountain Drive while the Department of Transportation (Department) will pay 100% of the project cost for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of SR-74 and Mesa View Drive. The City's project will have to go through Department encroachment permit process. We would recommend that the City either consider installing a raised median on SR-74 between El Paseo and Haystack Road or restricting access to SR-74 from Bursera Way and Thrush Road as part of their project to better channelize local traffic to the proposed traffic signal at SR-74 and Shadow Mountain Drive. We are initiating a project to signalize the intersection of SR-74 and Mesa View Drive and we expect to fund it through the District minor allocation program in the next three to four years subject to availability of funding. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Mr. Mark Greenwood April 30, 2004 Page 2 If you have any questions or need clarification, please call Syed Raza, Deputy District Director, Operations at (909) 383-5976. Sincerely, ANNE MAYER District Director c: Syed Raza "Caltrans improves mobility across California" PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RECORD OF PHONE CONVERSATION Contact: Sayed Raza, Caltrans, District 8 From: Mark Greenwood, City Engineer Subject SIGNAL WARRANTS ON HIGHWAY 74 Date: April 28, 2004 Received a call this morning from Sayed Raza at Caltrans District 8. He indicated that Anne Mayer, District Director, had forwarded the signal warrant analysis that we prepared to him for review. We briefly discussed funding and timing for potential signals at Shadow Mountain Drive and at Mesa View Drive. He suggested that Palm Desert install signal at Shadow Mountain now at our cost and Caltrans would install signal at Mesa View in a few years at their cost. 1 agreed that this was a viable concept. We also agreed that this would be subject to approval by both agencies. Caltrans plans to respond to our letter of April 23, 2004 regarding these signals, by May 14, 2004. MARK GREENWOOD, P.E. Homer Croy, ACM/Development Services Mike Errante, P.E., Director of Public Works Mark Diercks, P.E., Transportation 110614110116110.4 H:lwpdoas Highway 74 Phan Cell with Caltrans.wpd CITY Of PRIM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-061 1i FAX: 760 341-7098 inFo@palm-desert.org Fax (909) 383-6239 April 23, 2004 Anne Mayer, District Director Caltrans, District 8, MS 1201 464 W. 4th Street, 12hI Floor San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400 SUBJECT: SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS FOR: HIGHWAY 74 AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE HIGHWAY 74 AND MESA VIEW DRIVE Dear Ms. Mayer, Warrant analysis for the Highway 74 intersections has been completed as agreed at the April 12, 2004 public meeting. The results are summarized below: HIGHWAY 74 AND SHADOW MOUNTAIN DRIVE Fully satisfies Warrant 9 (Four Hour Volume). Satisfies 80% f oWaris ntn2 (Interruption of Continuous Traffic) and is within 4 vehicles in one hour this warrant at 100%. Since the study was performed #°ve a few minutes earut of peak season lier completely satisfies the warrant if a few vehicles or later, we hope that you would agree that Warrant 2 is 100% satisfied as well. In addition to currently satisfying multiple warrants, we are certain this that instalintersectilation ntion of a traffic signal will result in additional side street traffic using for access to Highway 74, further supporting the need for a traffic signal at this location. HIGHWAY 74 AND MESA VIEW DRIVE Satisfies 80% of Warrants 1 (Minimum Vehicular Volume) and 2 (Interruption ation of of Continuous Traffic), resulting in 100% satisfaction of Warrant 8 (C Warrants). This intersection is within a few vehicles in 1 hour of completely satisfying Warrant 1 as well. Highway 74 Signal Warrant Analysis April 23, 2004 As you know, safe access to Highway 74 is an important issue in Palm Desert, and we appreciate your efforts in helping to improve conditions. Copies of the warrant analysis and supporting data are attached for your review. Please contact us as soon as possible to let us know how installation of traffic signals will proceed. MAR GREENWOOD, P.E., PTOE CITY ENGINEER cc: Mayor and City Council Carlos Ortega, City Manager Homer Croy, ACM/Development Services Mike Errante, Director of Public Works Mark Diercks, Transportation Engineer CITY OF PRIM DESERT Figure 1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS City of Palm Desert Major St: Minor St: Highway 74 Shadow Mountain Drive CALC MSD DATE 22-Apr-04 CHK DATE Critical Approach Speed: Critical Approach Speed: Critical speed of major street > 40 mph In built up area of islated community of < 10,000 pop. 55 mph 40 mph or — RURAL (R) URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume APPROACH LANES MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U I R 2 OR MORE 9:00 AM 11:00 AM 100% SATISFIED YES 80% SATISFIED YES 12:00 Noon 01:00 PM 02:00 PM 03:00 PM 04:00 PM NO NO 05:00 PM Both Apprchs. Major Street Highest Apprch. Minor Street' 500 (400) 350 (280) 150 105 (120) (84) 500 (400) 200 (160) _ 350 1106 1217 1173 1186 1367 1372 1328 1194 (280) 140 (112) 316% 81 348% 61 335% 60 339% 61 391% 62 392% 49 379% 62 341% 65 77% 58% 57% _ 58% 59% _ 47% 59% 62% *NOTE: Heavier left tum movement from Major Street included when LT -phasing is proposed Hour Begins Volume Percent Volume Percent WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic APPROACH LANES MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U ( R 1 U I R 2 OR MORE 9:00 AM 11:00 AM 100% SATISFIED YES 80% SATISFIED YES 12:00 Noon 01:00 PM 02:00 PM 03:00 PM 04:00 PM NO NO 05:00 PM Both Apprchs. Major Street 750 (600) 525 (420) 900 (720) 630 (504) 1106 1217 1173 1186 1367 1372 1328 1194 176% 193% 186% 188% 217% 218% 211% 190% Highest Apprch. Minor Street' 75 (60) 53 (42) 100 (80) 70 (56) 81 61 60 61 62 49 62 65 153% 115% 113% 115% 117% 92% 117% 123% *NOTE: Heavier left tum movement from Major Street included when LT -phasing is proposed Hour Begins Volume Percent Volume Percent WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES NO REQUIREMENT FULFILLED Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one hour, and YES NO There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traffic stream of adequate length of pedestrians to cross; and YES I 1 NO The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater than 300 feet; and YESI 1 NO The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow on the major street YESI 1 NO ►�� The satisfaction of a warrant is not justification for a signal. Delay, Congestion, confusion and other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Figure z TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Highway 74 at Shadow Mountain Drive WARRANT 4 -School Crossing WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement Not Applicable See School Crossing Warrant Sheet SATISFIED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS > 1000 Ft. DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL (in Ft.) N 3100 S 3300 E N/A W N/A YES FULFILLED NO YESI 1 NO On one way isolated streets or streets with one way traffic significance and adjacent signals are so far apart that necessary platooning and speed control would be lost On 2-way streets where adjacent signals do not provide necessary platooning and speed control proposed signals could-consitute a progressive signal system YESI NO WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience SATISFIED YES REQUIREMENTS One Warrant Satified 80% WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMIM VEHICULAR VOLUME WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC I I FULFILLED YES ►— �-� NO NO Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow YES ►io.'-�1 NO Adequate trial of Tess restrictive remedies has failed to reduce accident frequency Accidents within a 12 month period susceptible of correction and involving injury of $500 demage. Minimum Required 5 or More Number of Accidents 1 YESI NO YESI NO WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant Min. Volume Requirement > 800 Veh/Hr. SATISFIED ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES During Typical weekday peak hour 1468 Veh/Hr. or During each of any 5 hours on a Sat. and/or Sun. Veh/Hr. Characteristics of Maor Routes Highway system serving as principal network for through traffic Rural or suburban hwy outside of, entering, or traversing a city Appears as major route on an office' plan Major St. Yes Yes Yes Minor St. ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTIC MET, BOTH STREETS No No No YES FULFILLED YES ►-�� NO NO YESI 1 NO The satisfaction of a warrant is not justification for a signal. Delay, Congestion, confusion and other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Figure 3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Highway 74 at Shadow Mountain Drive WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED YES REQUIREMENTS Two Warrants Satified 80% WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMIM VEHICULAR VOLUME YES FULFILLED NO NO WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC YES ►!t NO[-1 WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume Approach Lanes Both Approaches - Major Street One 2 or More Yes SATISFIED* YES ►T. 09:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 AM PM PM PM 1106 1367 1328 1194 Highest Approach Minor Street Yes 81 62 62 Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approaching with one lane. *Refer to Figure 4 to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) 1. The total delay experiened for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a YES STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and five vehicle -hours for a two-lane approach; AND 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for YES one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph YES for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. 65 WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume Approach Lanes Both Approaches - Major Street Highest Approach - Minor Street One Yes 2 or More Yes 11111-0111 NO NO Hour Begins Volume Volume NO 110-71 NO 1 NO SATISFIED* YESI I NO 09:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 AM PM PM PM 1106 81 1367 62 1328 62 Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approaching with one lane. *Refer to Figure 5 to determine if this warrant is satisfied. 1194 65 Hour Begins Volume Volume The satisfaction of a warrant is not justification for a signal. Delay, Congestion, confusion and other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be. shown. 350 300 .c ea 5 a0 0. V00 1 150 0100 50 0 0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Highway 74 at Shadow Mountain Drive Figure 4 Four Hour Volume Warrant (Rural Area) •, j 200 400 600 800 Major St (Both Approches) 1000 1200 2+Major 2+Minor — — —1 Major 2+Minor 2+Major 1 Minor — • — • 1 Major 1 Minor 450 400 350 0 • 300 w 250 t • 200 N0 150 _ 5. 100 50 0 Figure 5 Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Rural Area) ` 0 200 400 600 800 1 Major St. (Both Approaches) 0 2+Major & 2+Minor — — —1 Major & 2+Minor 2+Major & 1 Minor — - • —1 Major & 1 Minor Highway 74 and Shadow Mount 22:00 23:00 1 TOTAL 19:00 20:00 21:00 8 1p 8 15:00 16:00 8 y. 8 11:001 12:00 8 O 8 8 9. r 8 8 8 Y 8 PI 8 8 8 O 1' 0 a 0 10 cs N 0) al N N ;cc- 0 m a a Of m 0 M1 N 0 Is m N • N 41 O 30 CO N • 01 • 1.1 N Nl N t0 O 3 3 0) a b 8 m 4 N g VI 4- N 7 m N N N 0) 0 a M 41. co cs e3Pm m 10 • N 0 • 10 �r W O N -- l7 CO O a CO O ► N CO m .- 10 CO NORTHBOUND m CO N COCO O a 0) a m A CO 3- M1 tO n 0 m N m 10 aNco co m m m m e a1,4 4-▪ - N O O O 40 • N O 40 A m m m N W Is Is NOVO m N N N m ' 0 10 '8m3 0 is Is 0 8 m� to m m O w CO 0 m 11. A :r000v CO 0 411. 10 4 0 N e)▪ a08 0 m 0 M1 N 8 N N a a IsN O CO M1 CO m 0 a m • m 0 m COCV ' m 0 z 0 0 m or CA W 1372 1328 1186 1367 1217 11173 na O 141 O CO N N T 10 O 1A o- 6- 1 8 m m N M 0 0 m M1 m m r- M1 O 40 M1 0) 0) 0 a. m co m co ca m 11 a- r 0 0 N 0. CI CO m • N P7 m a m 0 0- 01 ,-O O N N .- 4- O O 17 N O O -- O O O O O r O N O N z m CO co N co N CO J v M1 _ N) 0 m 01 O O CO N ✓ CO m a .N - m- 10 .- m O CO N CO O CO m O! CO N M M1 m O a 10 m m N N O N 0 0 0 m co M1 10 o O m N N O N O O N O .- ▪ O O • N N .- N N WESTBOUND Of Of CO m 10 m P9 44. 10 m 04 m M1 1306 1016 M1 m A m W N 10 N O � @ ■ 0 a) e D § .O rts ■ a O§� o o z = a. Collision Report Summary 0 a � -m 2 0 0 c CL ƒk )c k)�.k�- §/ U. 22 co Co a)k ga a'2f\7 6\ §6 f\ � . .%2 = al! g ,- o = co Ed � Fc 2� 2� 2� Ran Off Road f. s o w 0 >0 20 0 0 a o v.2 2 2 2 0 > u i/ a $ 0 0 £ % . . 2 Om SM a2 2. e@ o0 eis as q2 ro w c 7 % W% kM C 32 §@ §@ � a«.a2 2/ 0 £ £ 3 0 k k W $ o o $ 0 22 2m 20 = /t .0� =1 3 0> 3> 0> % o $ $ 2 0 2 k k $ A . - % © 032 m m I m k $IS 16 / 2 R 3 3 3 & % % 59' South Head -On 0 0 es f ....j...4�., - ea �_ c_g, _2 vc «2 -a C d >0 0 �2 �f >0 >0 7± c Pen go 7 ) 07 12 20 0 m§ go I$ = B m§ _§ go a a�«�« a29 a2#a2$a(0#0« _ o a==��«aA= a�'Ca�=�J: I: 3:-c- o wco0co0P407cU7n0U)■on00g fog o 0 $ q % 9 k 0 2 J $ 0 C R d 0 00 0 e 0 0 0 61. k 2 k C g§k . . © 2 CO CZ z . f A,,,, 101— ce . . R City of Palm Desert Major St: Minor St: H ghway 74 Mesa View Drive Figure 1 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS CALC CHK Critical speed of major street > 40 mph MSD Critical Approach Speed: Critical Approach Speed: In built up area of 'slated community of < 10,000 pop. ►�411 or DATE 22-Apr-04 DATE 55 mph 40 mph RURAL (R) URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume APPROACH LANES Both Apprchs. Major Street Highest Apprch. Minor Street' *NOTE: Heavier left MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U I R 2 OR MORE U I 1 500 (400) 150 (120) 350 (280) 105 (84) 500 (400) 200 (160) 350 (280) , 140 (112) 10:00 AM 535 153% 134 128% 11:00 AM 587 168% 147 140% 100% SATISFIED YES 80% SATISFIED YES 12:00 Noon 567 162% 108 103% tum movement from Major Street included when LT -phasing is proposed 01:00 PM 619 177% 130 124% 02:00 03:00 PM PM 736 1 658 210% 188% 136 111 130% 106% 04:00 PM 695 199% 88 84% NO NO 05:00 PM 635 181% 109 104% Hour Begins Volume Percent Volume Percent WARRANT 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic APPROACH LANES Both Apprchs. Major Street Highest Apprch. Minor Street' MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U I U ( R 1 750 525 (600) (420) 75 53 (60) (42) _ 2 OR MORE 900 (720) 100 (80) 630 (504) 70 (56) 10:00 AM 535 85% 134 253% 11:00 AM 587 93% 147 277% 100% SATISFIED YES 80% SATISFIED YES 12:00 Noon 567 90% 108 204% *NOTE: Heavier left tum movement from Major Street included when LT -phasing is proposed 01:00 PM 619 98% 130 245% 02:00 PM 736 117% 136 257% 03:00 PM 658 104% 111 209% 04:00 PM 695 110% 88 166% NO NO 05:00 PM 635 101% 109 206% Hour Begins Volume Percent Volume Percent WARRANT 3 - Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES REQUIREMENT FULFILLED NO Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one hour, and There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traffic stream of adequate length of pedestrians to cross; and The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater than 300 feet; and The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow on the major street YES YES YES I 1 YES NO NO NO NO The satisfaction of a warrant is not justification for a signal. Delay, Congestion, confusion and other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. WARRANT 4 -School Crossing WARRANT 5 - Progressive Movement MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS > 1000 Ft. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Highway 74 at Mesa View Drive DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL (in Ft.) N 2600 S N/A Not Applicable See School Crossing Warrant Sheet E N/A W N/A On one way isolated streets or streets with one way traffic significance and adjacent signals are so far apart that necessary platooning and speed control would be lost On 2-way streets where adjacent signals do not provide necessary platooning and speed control proposed signals could consitute a progressive signal system WARRANT 6 - Accident Experience REQUIREMENTS WA One Warrant Satified 80% WARRANT 1 - MINIMIM VEHICI. WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION Signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow Adequate trial of Tess restrictive remedies has failed to reduce SATISFIED RANT LAR VOLUME OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC accident frequency Accidents within a 12 month period susceptible of correction and involving injury of $500 damage. Minimum Required 5 or More Number of Accidents WARRANT 7 - Systems Warrant Min. Volume Requirement > 800 Veh/Hr. During Typical weekday peak hour or During each of any 5 hours on a Sat. and/or Sun. Veh/Hr. 2 YES FULFILLED 1 I NO NO YESNO YES FULFILLED NO .YES ►�� NO1 I SATISFIED ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES 872 Veh/Hr. Characteristics of Major Routes Highway system serving as principal network for through traffic Rural or suburban hwy outside of, entering, or traversing a city Appears as major route on an offical plan Major St. Yes Yes Yes Minor St. ANY MAJOR ROUTE CHARACTERISTIC MET, BOTH STREETS No No No YES ►�-4 NO YESI NO YES1 NO YES ( FULFILLED YES ►w�1 NO NO YESI NO The satisfaction of a warrant is not justification for a signal. Delay, Congestion, confusion and other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. Figure 3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Highway 74 at Mesa View Drive WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants SATISFIED REQUIREMENTS Two Warrants Satified 80% WARRANT WARRANT 1 - MINIMIM VEHICULAR VOLUME WARRANT 2 - INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC WARRANT 9 Four Hour Volume Approach Lanes Both Approaches - Major Street Highest Approach - Minor Street One Yes 2 or More Yes YES FULFILLED NO YES ►�_11 NO SATISFIED YES 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 PM PM PM PM 736 136 658 111 695 88 Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approaching with one lane. *Refer to Figure 4 to determine if this warrant is satisfied. WARRANT 10 - Peak Hour Delay SATISFIED YES (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) 1. The total delay experiened for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a YES STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a one -lane approach and five vehicle -hours for a two-lane approach; AND 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for YES one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph YES for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. 635 109 NO Hour Begins Volume Volume 1 NO NO NO `T. NO WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume Approach Lanes1 One Both Approaches - Major Street Highest Approach - Minor Street Yes 2 or More Yes SATISFIED* YES O NO 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 PM PM PM PM 736 658 136 111 695 88 Note: 100 vph applies as the lowerthreshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approaching with one lane. *Refer to Figure 5 to determine if this warrant is satisfied. 635 109 Hour Begins Volume Volume The satisfaction of a warrant is not justification for a signal. Delay, Congestion, confusion and other evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown. 350 300 0 a 50 a 200 s y150 0100 50 0 0 350 0 ea G300 O. N 250 of cn t 200 en._ 150 0 5 100 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS Highway 74 at Mesa View Drive Figure 4 Four Hour Volume Warrant (Rural Area) - - - - - 2+Major 2+Minor — — —1 Major 2+Minor �--2+Major 1 Minor — - — -1 Major 1 Minor 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Major St. (Both Approches) 0 200 Figure 5 Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Rural Area) 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Major St. (Both Approaches) 2+Major & 2+Minor — — —1 Major & 2+Minor 2+Major & 1 Minor — - - —1 Major & 1 Minor