Minutes 07/27/1971 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.T'. lv 2'7 lC171 On motion of Mr. Irvine Smith and seconded by Mr. Raymond Turner, the following ordi- nance was placed on first reading by the following vote: "AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL SECTION 18-92.1 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VIRGINIA, 1961, MAKING CONSTITUTION AVENUE A TWO-WAY STREET BETWEEN COUNTY STREET AND MEANDER ROAD." Ayes: Holley, Johnson, King, Irvine Smith, Raymond Smith, Turner Nays: None 71-527 "As requested by the City Council, a study has been made by the Traffic Engineering Department regarding the installation of a traffic light at of Cedar Lane and West Norfolk Road. the intersect The criteria used by the City for the installation of traffic lights is the Federal Administration's manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In order for a ~ignal to be installed in accordance with the manual, one of six warrants must be met. Hi From the data received from the study, it was found that a signal at Cedar Lane and West Norfolk Road did not meet any of the six warrants necessary. Therefore, I recommend we do not signalize this intersection at this time. The six warrants which are set up by the F.H~]A. are as follows: (1) The "Minimum Vehicular Volume" warrant is intended for application where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason for consideration. The ~arrant is satisfied when£for each of any 8 hours of an average day ~c~e:i~rAf£~c volumes on the major street (total of'both approaches) equal SOO vehicles per hour. On the higher v.olume, minor street which must be during the same 8 hours as the major street (one direction only), there ~; ' ~ must be at least 1S0 vehicles per hour. From (2) the results of ourtraffic countswe could not come close to these requirements. "Interruption of Continuous Traffic" warrant is intended for application where operating conditions on a major street are such that the minor street traffic suffers undue delay or hazard in entering or crossing the major street. 7S0 vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) must exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day. 7S vehi¢~e:~ip~hpur Cone direction only) must exist on the minor street during the same 8 hours. The intersection~in question could not meet this warrant. In addition to this, we ran some delay studies for each approach of this intersection and found that east-bound traffic on West Norfolk Road was delayed an average of 10 seconds from 8:00 a.m. to 8:4S a.m. The west-bound.traffic on West Norfolk Road was delayed an average of 18 seconds from S:10 p.m. to S:4S p.m. As you can see, this delay problem only exists $S minutes in the morning and 4S minutes in the evening. The remainder of the day traffic flows normal with no delay problems. Most of the complaints received are from people complaining of a back-up problem. This problem does exist in the morning and evening peak hours but not enough to warrant the expense of installing a traffic signal. (3) "Minimum Pedestrian Volume" warran%. Since the intersection of West Norfolk Road and Cedar Lane have no pedestrian traffic, this warrant not be satisfied. could (4) "Progressive Movement" warrant. Progressive movement control sometimes ne- cessitates traffic signal installations at intersections where they would not otherwise be warranted in order to maintain proper grouping of vehicles and effectively regulate group speed. A location such as West Norfolk Road and Cedar Lane could not warrant a signal under this warrant. CS) "Accident Experience" warrant is satisfied when: CA) Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the accident frequency; and CB) Five or more reported accide*ts oi types suscep tible of correction by a traffic control signal have occurred within a 12-month period, each accident in volving personal injury or property damage to an apparent extent of $100~00 or more; and CC) The signal installation will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. From our accident investigation records for the past 12 months there were only two accidents, one a rear-end and one an angle type. A signal would have eliminated the angle accident but not the rear-end. So as you can see, we do not have an accident-prone situatiol therefore, a signal is not warranted.