T3 Design, Corporation 10340 Democracy Lane, Suite 305 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone 703.359.5861 ▪ Fax 703.359.5863 Visit us at www.t3design.us 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE: May 18, 2015 TO: City of Richmond FROM: Asma Ali, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE RE: Hull Street Road Improvements – Signal Warrant Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY T3 Design evaluated traffic signal warrants as a part of the Hull Street Road improvement project in City of Richmond. The project limits extends between Chippenham Parkway and Arizona Drive and it involves improving roadway geometry and implementing access management to the adjacent properties. The project is expected to be advertised in 2018 and completed in 2020. The design year is 20 years from the build out year, or 2040. Traffic signals warrants were evaluated for the following intersections for the existing, build out and design years traffic conditions: 1. Hull Street Road at Bryce Lane 2. Hull Street Road at Swanson Road/Chesterfield Drive 3. Hull Street Road at Linwood Avenue The signal warrant evaluation indicate the following results: 1. Hull Street at Bryce Lane intersection: Traffic signal Warrants 2 and 3 are met for the for the design year (2040) traffic conditions. Signal warrants are not met for the existing and build year conditions. 2. Hull Street at Swanson Road/Chesterfield Drive intersection: a. Signal warrants are not met for the existing, build out and design year conditions when Swanson Road is considered higher volume minor approach and Hull Street Road is considered major conflicting street. b. Signal Warrant 3 is met for the design year conditions when eastbound left turn lane from Hull Street Road is considered minor approach and westbound Hull Street Road is considered major conflicting street. 3. Hull Street at Linwood Avenue intersection: Signal warrants are not met for the existing, build out and design year conditions. Based on the results of the signal warrant evaluation, new traffic signals are not proposed for construction as part of the roadway improvement project. However, it is recommended to monitor traffic volumes at the Hull Street and Bryce Road intersection and install a traffic signal when warranted, which is expected in about 20 to 25 years.
73
Embed
10340 Democracy Lane, Suite 305 - City of Richmond, Virginia · 2019-06-14 · T3 Design, Corporation 10340 Democracy Lane, Suite 305 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone 703.359.5861 Fax
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
T3 Design, Corporation 10340 Democracy Lane, Suite 305 Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Phone 703.359.5861 ▪ Fax 703.359.5863
Visit us at www.t3design.us
1
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 18, 2015
TO: City of Richmond
FROM: Asma Ali, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE
RE: Hull Street Road Improvements – Signal Warrant Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY T3 Design evaluated traffic signal warrants as a part of the Hull Street Road improvement project in City of Richmond. The project limits extends between Chippenham Parkway and Arizona Drive and it involves improving roadway geometry and implementing access management to the adjacent properties. The project is expected to be advertised in 2018 and completed in 2020. The design year is 20 years from the build out year, or 2040. Traffic signals warrants were evaluated for the following intersections for the existing, build out and design years traffic conditions:
1. Hull Street Road at Bryce Lane 2. Hull Street Road at Swanson Road/Chesterfield Drive 3. Hull Street Road at Linwood Avenue
The signal warrant evaluation indicate the following results:
1. Hull Street at Bryce Lane intersection: Traffic signal Warrants 2 and 3 are met for the for the design year (2040) traffic conditions. Signal warrants are not met for the existing and build year conditions.
2. Hull Street at Swanson Road/Chesterfield Drive intersection:
a. Signal warrants are not met for the existing, build out and design year conditions when Swanson Road is considered higher volume minor approach and Hull Street Road is considered major conflicting street.
b. Signal Warrant 3 is met for the design year conditions when eastbound left turn lane from Hull Street Road is considered minor approach and westbound Hull Street Road is considered major conflicting street.
3. Hull Street at Linwood Avenue intersection: Signal warrants are not met for the existing, build out and design year conditions.
Based on the results of the signal warrant evaluation, new traffic signals are not proposed for construction as part of the roadway improvement project. However, it is recommended to monitor traffic volumes at the Hull Street and Bryce Road intersection and install a traffic signal when warranted, which is expected in about 20 to 25 years.
nelson
Draft
T3 Design, Corporation 10340 Democracy Lane, Suite 305 Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Phone 703.359.5861 ▪ Fax 703.359.5863
Visit us at www.t3design.us
2
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
INTRODUCTION
This report presents traffic signal warrant evaluation results for the intersections of Hull Street Road with Bryce Lane, Swanson Road/Chesterfield Drive, and Linwood Avenue as a part of the Hull Street Road improvement project. The project involves improvements to Hull Street Road geometry, including intersection geometry, adding dedicated left and right turn lanes, and implementing access management to the adjacent properties. The project limits extend between Chippenham Parkway to the west and Arizona Drive to the east. The project is expected to be completed in 2020, and the design year is 2040. Signal warrants were evaluated for existing (2015), build out (2020) and design year (2040) traffic conditions. The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD, 2009) includes nine warrants to be considered for a traffic signal installation. Out of the nine warrants, the following five warrants were evaluated as a part of this study:
Warrant 5 (School Crossing), Warrant 6 (Coordinated Signal System) Warrant 8 (Roadway Network), and Warrant 9 (Intersection Near a Grade Crossing) are not applicable at these locations, so they were not included. Fourteen-hour turning movement counts were collected at the study intersections from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM during the weeks of January 19 and January 26, 2015. The three years crash history (from February 1, 2012 to January 31, 2015) was obtained from City of Richmond for each intersection. This memorandum presents traffic data for the existing and future year conditions, signal warrant analysis methodology, signal warrant analysis results, and recommendations.
T3 Design, Corporation 10340 Democracy Lane, Suite 305 Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Phone 703.359.5861 ▪ Fax 703.359.5863
Visit us at www.t3design.us
3
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
EXISTING ROADWAY GEOMETRY Hull Street Road is an urban principal arterial that runs east to west as four- to six-lane divided highway between I-95 to the east and US 460 to the west. The land uses along Hull Street Road are a mix of residential and commercial developments, including shopping centers, grocery stores, fast food and sit-down restaurants, and a mobile home community. There are closely-spaced driveways and median crossover openings throughout the corridor. Based on the 2014 average annual daily traffic (AADT) published by VDOT, the daily traffic volumes on Hull Street Road range from 24,000 to 26,000 vehicles per day between Chippenham Parkway and Route 161 (Belt Boulevard). The speed limit on Hull Street Road is 35 mph. Bryce Lane is a two-lane urban collector which terminates at Hull Street Road at its northern end as a stop-controlled T-intersection. The land uses along Bryce Lane are primarily residential, but it also provides access to a few commercial developments adjacent to its intersection with Hull Street Road. The AADT on Bryce Lane is 2,100 vpd between Hull Street Road and Broad Road, and the posted speed limit is 30 mph. Swanson Road/Chesterfield Drive is a two-lane local road which terminates at Hull Street Road at its southern end as a stop-controlled intersection opposite from Chesterfield Drive. The land uses along Swanson Road are primarily residential, but it also provides access to the Food Lion Grocery store and a fast food restaurant near its intersection with Hull Street Road. The AADT on Bryce Lane is 1,600 vpd between Whitehead Road and Bolton Road and the posted speed limit is 25 mph. Chesterfield Drive is a two-lane local road that ends at 1,000 feet south of Hull Street Road. The segment of Chesterfield Road that intersects Hull Street Road is blocked off by a barricade 200 feet south of the intersection. Linwood Avenue is a two-lane local street which terminates at it northern end at Hull Street Road as a stop-controlled T-intersection. At its southern end, Linwood Avenue terminates at Powell Road approximately 1,600 south of Hull Street Road. The land uses along Linwood Avenue are primarily residential, but it provides access to a few commercial developments adjacent to its intersection with Hull Street Road. The posted speed on Linwood Avenue is 25 mph. ADDT volumes are not published for this street. Figure 1 shows the location, existing lane configuration and traffic controls for the study intersections.
T3 Design, Corporation 10340 Democracy Lane, Suite 305 Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Phone 703.359.5861 ▪ Fax 703.359.5863
Visit us at www.t3design.us
4
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Figure 1: Study Site Location and Lane Configuration
5
SIGNAL WARRANTS EVALUATION METHODOLOGY Traffic signal were evaluated using two different methods:
Considering the side streets (Bryce Lane, Swanson Road, and Linwood Avenue) as the
high volume minor approaches and Hull Street Road (eastbound and westbound) as the
conflicting major approach.
Considering the following left turning movements on Hull Street Road as the high volume
minor street and the conflicting Hull Street Road approach as the major street:
o Hull Street at Bryce Lane – Westbound left turn as the minor approach and
eastbound Hull Street Road as the conflicting major street
o Hull Street at Swanson Road – Eastbound left turn as the minor approach and
westbound Hull Street Road as the conflicting major street
o Hull Street at Linwood Avenue – Westbound left turn as the minor approach and
eastbound Hull Street Road as the conflicting major street
Right Turn Reduction
Since the degree of conflict for right turns from the minor street is less than for through and left turns that must cross two directions of oncoming traffic, the right turn movement experiences lesser delays than the left turn or through movements. The effect of right turn volumes from the minor street approach has been recognized in Section 4C.01 of MUTCD. This section states that engineering judgment should be used to reduce right turn volumes from the minor street traffic counts when evaluating signal warrants. The NCHRP Report 457 provides a methodology for right turn volume reduction based on conflicting volumes, number of lanes on the conflicting approach, and the side street lane configuration. In a research article published in ITE Journal, Traffic Signal Warrants, Two Agencies Preferences (2001), practice for right turn volume reduction by different agencies is discussed. Based on the methodology defined in NCHRP Report 457, ITE Journal research article, and engineering judgment, the following right turn reduction factors were applied at each intersection:
Northbound right turns from Bryce Lane - 40 percent
Southbound right turns from Swanson Road - 75 percent
Northbound right turns from Linwood Avenue – 0 (zero) percent
Traffic Volume Projection
To calculate future traffic volumes, existing volumes were projected by a one percent compounded annual growth rate over a five-year period, 2015 through 2020, or an overall increase of 1.05 percent for the build out year analysis. Design year traffic projections were based on increasing existing volumes for one percent compounded over 25 years, 2015 through 2040, or an overall 1.28 percent increase. The one percent annual traffic growth rate was approved by City of Richmond.
6
As a part of the access management implementation, median crossover openings are proposed to be closed throughout the corridor. With the median crossover closures, left turning volumes to and from the side streets were re-routed to the nearest intersections. The existing year AM (6:00-9:00 AM) and PM (3:00-7:00 PM) peak period turning movement counts were collected at all major median crossover openings, but midday (9:00 AM-3:00 PM) and of-peak (7:00-8:00 PM) hourly volumes at the median crossover openings were not collected as it was out of the scope of this study. The midday and off-peak hourly volumes at median crossover openings were calculated using hourly volume percentages from the study intersection counts or an average of the AM and PM peak period counts were used. The total traffic volumes for the signal warrant evaluation are the sum of the projected background traffic volumes and the re-routed volumes.
SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION RESULTS The signal warrant evaluation yields the following results:
Intersection of Hull Street at Bryce Lane
When considering Bryce Lane as the minor street and Hull Street Road as the major street, signal warrants are not met for existing or build out year (2020) traffic conditions.
When considering Bryce Lane as the minor street and Hull Street Road as the major street, Warrant 2 (Four Hour Volume) and Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Volume) are met for design year (2040) traffic conditions.
When considering the westbound left turn from Hull Street Road as the minor approach and eastbound Hull Street Road as the conflicting major road, signal warrants are not met for existing, build out or design year traffic conditions.
A sensitivity analysis of the traffic volumes was conducted, considering Hull Street Road as the major street and Bryce Lane as the minor street, to determine an intermediate year when traffic signal warrants are expected to be met prior to the design year. This analysis indicates that Warrants 2 and 3 are expected to be met around 2036, or four years prior to the design year. This means that a signal does need to be constructed at this intersection as part of the roadway improvement project. It is recommended that traffic volumes be monitored and installation of a traffic signal be considered in about 20 to 22 years.
7
Intersection of Hull Street at Swanson Road/Chesterfield Drive
When considering southbound Swanson Road as the minor street and Hull Street Road as the major street, traffic signal warrants are not met for existing, build out or design year traffic conditions.
When considering the eastbound left turn from Hull Street Road as the minor street and westbound Hull Street Road as the major street, Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Volume) is met for the design year conditions. Since Warrant 3 is applicable in special cases, meeting Warrant 3 alone is typically not considered enough justification for installation of a traffic signal.
A traffic signal is not recommended at this intersection as a part of the Hull Street improvement project. Intersection of Hull Street at Linwood Avenue
When considering northbound Linwood Avenue as the minor street and Hull Street Road as the major street, traffic signal warrants are not met for existing, build out or design year traffic conditions.
When considering the westbound left turn from Hull Street Road as the minor street and eastbound Hull Street Road as the major conflicting street, signal warrants are not met for existing, build out or design year conditions.
A traffic signal is not recommended at this intersection as a part of the Hull Street improvement project. Table 1 presents a summary of the signal warrant evaluation for the existing and future traffic conditions.
Table 1 – Hull Street Road Traffic Signal Warrant Evaluation Summary
Signal Warrants
Intersection of Hull Street Road at
Bryce lane Swanson Road Linwood Avenue
Existing Year
(2015)
Build Out Year
(2020)
Design Year
(2040)
Existing Year
(2015)
Build Out Year
(2020)
Design Year
(2040)
Existing Year
(2015)
Build Out Year
(2020)
Design Year
(2040)
Warrant 1 (8-Hour Vehicular Vol) N N N N N N N N N
Warrant 2 (4-Hour Vehicular Vol) N N Y N N N N N N
Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Vol) N N Y N N Y N N N
Warrant 4 (Pedestrian Vol) N N/A N/A N N/A N/A N N/A N/A
Warrant 7 (Crash Experience) N N/A N/A N N/A N/A N N/A N/A
Installation of Traffic Signal Recommended
- N Y N N N N N N
8
The details of traffic signal evaluation methodology and analysis results are presented in the following appendices: List of Appendices: Appendix A – MUTCD (2009) Methodology for Traffic Signal Warrants Evaluation Appendix B - Signal Warrant Evaluation Results – Hull Street at Bryce Lane Intersection Appendix C - Signal Warrant Evaluation Results – Hull Street at Swanson Road/Chesterfield Drive Intersection Appendix D – Signal Warrant Evaluation Results – Hull Street at Linwood Avenue Intersection Appendix E - Turning movement counts and crash reports
A-1
APPENDIX A – MUTCD (2009) TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION
Warrant 1 (Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume):
Warrant 1 has two (2) Conditions. The Conditions are based on the combined volume of both main street approaches and the side street approach with the higher volume. Condition A, Minimum Vehicular Volume, “is intended for application where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.” Condition B, Interruption of Continuous Traffic, “is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street.” At least one of the conditions must be met for eight (8) hours to meet the warrant. Table A-1 presents volume thresholds for Conditions A and B for Warrant 1.
Major St Minor St 100% a 80% b 70% c 56%d 100% a 80% b 70% c 56%d
1 1 500 400 350 280 150 120 105 84
2 or more 1 600 480 420 336 150 120 105 84
2 or more 2 or more 600 480 420 336 200 160 140 112
1 2 or more 500 400 350 280 200 160 140 112
Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
Number of Lanes for
Moving Traffic on
Each Approach
Vehicles per Hour on
Major Street (total of both approaches)
Vehicles per Hour on
Higher Volume Minor Street
(one direction only)
Major St Minor St 100% a 80% b 70% c 56%d 100% a 80% b 70% c 56%d
1 1 750 600 525 420 75 60 53 42
2 or more 1 900 720 630 504 75 60 53 42
2 or more 2 or more 900 720 630 504 100 80 70 56
1 2 or more 750 600 525 420 100 80 70 56 a Basic minimum hourly volume b Used for combination of Condition A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures c May be used when the major street speed exceeds 40 mph
d May be used for combination of A and B when the major street speed exceeds 40 mph
Since the 85th percentile speed on Hull Street Road was not measured and the posted speed limit is 35 mph, the 100 percent volume thresholds were used for the major and minor street traffic. In Table A-1, the cells shaded in orange highlight the volume thresholds for Conditions A and B for the intersections of Hull Street at Bryce Lane and Hull Street at Linwood Avenue (two lanes on major street approaches and one lane on the minor street approach). The orange cells also highlight volume thresholds when considering Hull Street Road left turning lane as the minor approach and the conflicting approach on Hull Street Road as the major street. The green cells highlight volume thresholds for Condition A and B for the intersection of Hull Street at Swanson Road (two lanes on the major and minor streets approaches). A traffic control signal may be considered if traffic volumes on the major street and minor street are equal to or higher than the minimum thresholds for Conditions A and B for any eight hours of a day. The minimum thresholds for the major and minor streets must meet for the same hour.
A-2
Detailed evaluation of Warrant 1 for the study intersections is presented in Appendices B through D.
Warrant 2 (Four-Hour Vehicular Volume):
Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume, is “intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.” Warrant 2 is based on the combined volume of both main street approaches and the side street approach with the higher volume. The volumes are compared to a curve based on the number of lanes on the major and minor street approaches. Warrant 2 must be met for four (4) hours to meet the warrant. Figure 4C-1 in MUTCD (2009) presents curves for Warrant 2 for the 100 percent volume threshold. A graphical representation of Warrant 2 is shown for each intersection in Appendices B through D.
Warrant 3 (Peak-Hour Volume):
This warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of one hour of an average day, the minor street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. This warrant will be applied only in unusual cases. Meeting Warrant 3 alone is typically not considered enough justification for installation of a traffic signal Warrant 3 has two criteria. Criteria A is based on the delay experienced by the minor street approach and the traffic volume entering an intersection during the peak hour. For Criteria A, delay is calculated using Synchro 8 software. In Criteria B, the peak hour volume is compared to a curve based on the number of lanes on the major and minor street approaches. A traffic control signal can be considered if the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) for the peak hour falls above the applicable curve for the existing combination of approach lanes. Figure 4C-3 in MUTCD (2009) illustrates the curve for Warrant 3 for the 100 percent volume threshold. Either Criteria A or B is required to be met to satisfy Warrant 3. Results of Warrant 3 for the study intersection are presented in Appendices B through D.
Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
This warrant is intended for application where the traffic volumes on a major street are so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. This signal warrant is considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met:
A. For each of any four hours of an average day, the total traffic volume on the major street (both approaches) and the pedestrian volume on the major street (both approaches) for the same hour falls above the curve in Figure 4C-5 (MUTCD 2009). In Figure 4C-5, the minimum pedestrian volume threshold is 107 pedestrians per hour.
B. For any one hour of an average day, the total traffic volume on the major street (both approaches) and the pedestrian volume on the major street (both approaches) for the same hour falls above the curve in Figure 4C-7 (MUTCD 2009). In Figure 4C-7, the minimum pedestrian volume threshold is 133 pedestrians per hour.
A-3
Detailed evaluation of Warrant 4 for each intersection is included in Appendices B through D.
Warrant 5, School Crossing
This warrant is intended for application where the fact that school children cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. There is no school in the vicinity of this intersection. This warrant is not applicable at any of the study locations.
Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed to maintain proper platooning of vehicles. The three study intersections are located roughly halfway between the adjacent signalized intersections at Warwick Road and Orcutt Lane that are approximately one mile apart. When signals are more than half a mile apart, platoons are too dispersed and vehicles arrive at the second intersection in a more random manner so that coordination is not beneficial. If a signal is warranted at any of the three study intersections, it would need to be coordinated with the Warwick Road and Orcutt Lane intersections. However, signalizing any of the three study intersections would not be expected to improve current operations at either Warwick Road or Orcutt Lane. Since the coordination between the signalized intersections of Warwick Road and Orcutt Lane is not considered beneficial for intersections a mile apart, Warrant 6 was not evaluated for the study intersections.
Warrant 7, Crash Experience
This warrant is intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. The three-year crash history (February 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014) was reviewed for the crash type and frequency at each intersection. Detailed evaluation of Warrant 7 for each intersection is included in Appendices B through D.
Warrant 8, Roadway Network
Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be considered to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. This warrant is considered for the intersection of two or more major routes. Detailed evaluation of Warrant 8 for each intersection is included in Appendices B through D.
Warrant 9, Intersection near At-Grade Railroad Crossing
This warrant applies to intersections located near an at-grade railroad crossing. A traffic control signal may be considered if the queue length of stopped traffic on the minor street approach exceeds the amount of separation between the intersection and railroad tracks. Since there are no at-grade railroad crossings in the study area, Warrant 9 is not applicable.
B-1
APPENDIX B – SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION: HULL STREET ROAD AT BRYCE LANE INTERSECTION
Speed Limit on Hull Street Road – 35 mph
Speed Limit on Bryce Lane – 30 mph
Number of Lanes on Major Approaches (Hull Street Road EB/WB) – 2
Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach (Bryce Lane) – 1
Right Turn Reduction Factor – 40% (for NB right turns from Bryce Lane)
Volume Threshold for Warrants Evaluation – 100%
Option 1 – Hull Street Road (both approaches) is the major street and Bryce Lane is the
minor street
Option 2 - Hull Street Road eastbound approach as the major street and the westbound
left turn from Hull Street Road as the minor street
Re-Routed Traffic volumes – SBL (50%) from Food Lion, WBL to Chesterfield Drive,
Cond. B Peak Hr Vol on Minor Approach (vph) 113 > 100 Y
Cond. C Total Vol Entering Int. during Peak Hour (vph) 1700 > 650 Y
B-5
Figure B-2: (2015) Warrant 3 Curve – Criteria B
Warrant 3 is not met for both Options 1 and 2.
Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
The number of pedestrians crossing Hull Street Road during any four hours of the day is less than the 107 ped/hour needed to meet Criteria 1. Also, the number of pedestrians crossing Hull Street Road during any one hour or peak hour is less than the 133 ped/hour required to meet Criteria 2. Therefore Warrant 4 is not met for the Hull Street Road and Bryce Road intersection.
Warrant 7 (Crash Experience)
The three-year crash history (February 01, 2012 to January 31, 2014) includes a total of six angle crashes, or an average of two angle crashes per year. Since the total number of angle crashes that are susceptible to be corrected by the installation of a traffic signal is less than 5 crashes per year, Warrant 7 is not met for the intersection of Hull Street Road and Bryce Lane.
Warrant 8, Roadway Network
This warrant is considered for the intersection of two or more major routes. Since Bryce Road is an urban collector and not a major route, Warrant 8 is not met.
B-6
A summary of signal warrant analysis for the existing year conditions is presented in Table B-6.
Table B-6: (2015) Traffic Signal Warrant Summary
2015
Hull Street Rd
Bryce Ln as Minor Approach
WBL Hull Street Rd as Minor Approach
Signal Warrant Applicable Satisfied Satisfied
Y/N Y/N Y/N
1. Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Y N N
2. Four Hour Vehicular Volume Y N N
3.Peak Hour Y N N
4. Pedestrian Volume Y N N
5. School Crossing N - -
6. Coordinated Signal System N - -
7. Crash Experience Y N -
8. Roadway Network N - -
9. Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
N - -
B-7
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION (2020)
Table B-7: Re-Routed Volumes from Adjacent Properties
Table B-8: Build Out Year (2020) Total Volumes
Time
WBL to
Chesterfield SBL from Food Lion
NBL from Happy
Mart
NBL from
Berrywood
NBL from Shamrock
Gas Station EBL to Happy Mart EBL to Berrywood
EBL to Shamrock
Gas Station
EBL to Silverwood
Dr
6:00-7:00 AM 1 1 0 7 0 4 0 0 2
7:00-8:00 AM 3 1 1 6 2 14 2 0 12
8:00-9:00 AM 5 3 0 8 3 5 1 0 2
9:00-10:00 AM 4 2 2 8 4 5 1 1 17
10:00-11:00 AM 5 2 2 6 4 12 2 1 18
11:00-12:00 PM 2 2 2 4 3 9 1 1 21
12:00-1:00 PM 0 5 6 5 2 1 2 1 6
1:00-2:00 PM 5 7 8 5 3 3 3 6 11
2:00-3:00 PM 4 8 9 6 3 1 1 1 12
3:00-4:00 PM 11 7 8 5 12 4 1 1 45
4:00-5:00 PM 6 8 15 4 7 11 0 1 18
5:00-6:00 PM 3 12 13 5 5 1 0 2 20
6:00-7:00 PM 2 10 8 4 10 0 2 0 19
7:00-8:00 PM 2 10 11 9 4 0 0 0 12
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
6:00-7:00 AM 13 687 15 16 323 0 16 0 27 0 0 0
7:00-8:00 AM 43 1196 32 25 439 0 22 0 47 1 0 3
8:00-9:00 AM 21 1100 45 46 477 0 41 0 78 1 0 5
9:00-10:00 AM 39 630 27 37 432 0 28 0 63 0 0 3
10:00-11:00 AM 50 580 18 41 459 0 20 2 39 2 0 8
11:00-12:00 PM 45 521 30 43 549 3 13 0 35 3 1 5
12:00-1:00 PM 24 590 29 41 575 0 15 3 54 2 4 0
1:00-2:00 PM 42 623 25 74 621 0 17 0 66 1 1 4
2:00-3:00 PM 34 594 38 78 727 0 20 0 66 0 0 0
3:00-4:00 PM 80 707 37 98 953 0 24 0 58 2 0 4
4:00-5:00 PM 56 713 47 110 1154 0 36 0 78 0 0 2
5:00-6:00 PM 47 710 64 130 1320 0 17 0 95 1 0 3
6:00-7:00 PM 43 622 62 111 1066 0 20 0 79 0 0 1
7:00-8:00 PM 36 479 44 80 772 0 28 1 70 0 0 0
Hull Street Rd Hull Street Rd Bryce Ln Bryce Ln
Time
B-8
Warrant 1 (8-Hour Vehicular Volume) Results
Table B-9: (2020) Option 1 – Warrant 1 Results
(Considering EB/WB Hull Street Road as the major street and Bryce Lane as the minor street)
Table B-10: (2020) Option 2 – Warrant 1 Results (Considering EB Hull Street Road as the major street and WB left turn from Hull Street Road as
the minor street)
CONDITION A:
MINIMUM
VEHICULAR
ANALYSIS
CONDITION B:
INTURRUPTION ON
CONTINUOUS
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
600 900
150 75
Both Approaches Higher Approach Satisfied at Satisfied at
Major Volume Minor Volume 100% 100%
6:00-7:00AM 1054 32 N N
7:00-8:00 AM 1735 50 N N
8:00-9:00 AM 1689 88 N Y
9:00-10:00 AM 1165 66 N N
10:00-11:00 AM 1148 43 N N
11:00-12:00 PM 1191 33 N N
12:00-1:00 PM 1259 47 N N
1:00-2:00 PM 1385 57 N N
2:00-3:00 PM 1471 60 N N
3:00-4:00 PM 1876 59 N N
4:00-5:00 PM 2080 82 N Y
5:00-6:00 PM 2272 74 N N
6:00-7:00 PM 1905 67 N N
7:00-8:00 PM 1412 71 N N
Warrant 1 Not Met
Req'd Major Volumes
Req'd Minor Volumes
Hour
CONDITION A:
MINIMUM
CONDITION B:
INTURRUPTION ON
600 900
150 75
Both Approaches Higher Approach Satisfied at Satisfied at
Major Volume Minor Volume 100% 100%
6:00-7:00AM 716 16 N N
7:00-8:00 AM 1270 25 N N
8:00-9:00 AM 1166 46 N N
9:00-10:00 AM 696 37 N N
10:00-11:00 AM 648 41 N N
11:00-12:00 PM 597 43 N N
12:00-1:00 PM 643 41 N N
1:00-2:00 PM 690 74 N N
2:00-3:00 PM 666 78 N N
3:00-4:00 PM 825 98 N N
4:00-5:00 PM 816 110 N N
5:00-6:00 PM 822 130 N N
6:00-7:00 PM 727 111 N N
7:00-8:00 PM 559 80 N N
Warrant 1 Not Met
Req'd Major Volumes
Req'd Minor Volumes
Hour
B-9
Figure B-3: (2020) Warrant 2 Curve
In Option 1, traffic volumes for two hours fall above the curve and two hours fall below the curve. In Option 2, all four hours volumes fall below the curve; therefore, Warrant 2 is not met for both Options 1 and 2.
Cond. B Peak Hr Vol on Minor Approach (vph) 119 > 100 Y
Cond. C Total Vol Entering Int. during Peak Hour (vph) 1814 > 650 Y
B-10
Figure B-4: (2020) Warrant 3 Curve – Criteria B
Warrant 3 is not met for both Options 1 and 2. A summary of signal warrant analysis for the build year (2020) conditions is presented in Table B-10.
Table B-12: (2020) Traffic Signal Warrant Summary
2020 Build Out Year
Hull Street Rd
Bryce Ln as Minor Approach
WBL Hull Street Rd as Minor Approach
Signal Warrant Applicable Satisfied Satisfied
Y/N Y/N Y/N
1. Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Y N N
2. Four Hour Vehicular Volume Y N N
3.Peak Hour Y N N
4. Pedestrian Volume Y - -
5. School Crossing N - -
6. Coordinated Signal System N - -
7. Crash Experience Y - -
8. Roadway Network N - -
9. Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
N - -
B-11
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION (2040)
Table B-13: Design Year (2040) Traffic Projections
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
6:00-7:00 AM 16 839 18 19 394 0 19 0 33 0 0 0
7:00-8:00 AM 47 1459 38 30 536 0 27 0 58 1 0 4
8:00-9:00 AM 23 1343 55 56 582 0 50 0 95 1 0 6
9:00-10:00 AM 45 768 33 44 527 0 35 0 77 0 0 4
10:00-11:00 AM 55 708 22 49 560 0 24 3 47 3 0 10
11:00-12:00 PM 51 636 37 52 669 3 15 0 42 4 1 6
12:00-1:00 PM 26 719 36 49 701 0 18 4 65 3 5 0
1:00-2:00 PM 45 760 31 89 758 0 21 0 81 1 1 5
2:00-3:00 PM 38 725 46 94 887 0 24 0 81 0 0 0
3:00-4:00 PM 92 863 45 118 1163 0 29 0 71 3 0 5
4:00-5:00 PM 61 869 58 132 1408 0 44 0 95 0 0 3
5:00-6:00 PM 53 867 78 156 1607 0 21 0 115 1 0 4
6:00-7:00 PM 48 759 76 134 1300 0 24 0 96 0 0 1
7:00-8:00 PM 40 585 54 96 943 0 35 1 86 0 0 0
Time
Hull Street Rd Hull Street Rd Bryce Ln Bryce Ln
B-12
Warrant 1 (8-Hour Vehicular Volume) Results
Table B-14: (2040) Option 1 – Warrant 1 Results
(Considering EB/WB Hull Street Road as the major street and Bryce Lane as the minor street)
Table B-15: (2040) Option 2 – Warrant 1 Results (Considering EB Hull Street Road as the major street and WB left turn from Hull Street Road as
the minor street)
CONDITION A:
MINIMUM
VEHICULAR
ANALYSIS
CONDITION B:
INTURRUPTION
ON CONTINUOUS
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
600 900
150 75
Both Approaches Higher Approach Satisfied at Satisfied at
Major Volume Minor Volume 100% 100%
6:00-7:00AM 1285 39 N N
7:00-8:00 AM 2111 62 N N
8:00-9:00 AM 2058 107 N Y
9:00-10:00 AM 1418 81 N Y
10:00-11:00 AM 1394 53 N N
11:00-12:00 PM 1448 41 N N
12:00-1:00 PM 1532 57 N N
1:00-2:00 PM 1683 69 N N
2:00-3:00 PM 1790 73 N N
3:00-4:00 PM 2281 72 N N
4:00-5:00 PM 2528 101 N Y
5:00-6:00 PM 2761 90 N Y
6:00-7:00 PM 2317 82 N Y
7:00-8:00 PM 1717 86 N Y
Warrant 1 Not Met
Req'd Major Volumes
Req'd Minor Volumes
Hour
CONDITION A:
MINIMUM
VEHICULAR
ANALYSIS
CONDITION B:
INTURRUPTION ON
CONTINUOUS
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
600 900
150 75
Both Approaches Higher Approach Satisfied at Satisfied at
Major Volume Minor Volume 100% 100%
6:00-7:00AM 872 19 N N
7:00-8:00 AM 1545 30 N N
8:00-9:00 AM 1421 56 N N
9:00-10:00 AM 846 44 N N
10:00-11:00 AM 785 49 N N
11:00-12:00 PM 724 52 N N
12:00-1:00 PM 782 49 N N
1:00-2:00 PM 836 89 N N
2:00-3:00 PM 809 94 N N
3:00-4:00 PM 1000 118 N Y
4:00-5:00 PM 988 132 N Y
5:00-6:00 PM 998 156 Y Y
6:00-7:00 PM 883 134 N N
7:00-8:00 PM 679 96 N N
Warrant 1 Not Met
Req'd Major Volumes
Req'd Minor Volumes
Hour
B-13
Figure B-5: (2040) Warrant 2 Curve
Traffic volume for four hours of a day fall above the curve, therefore Warrant 2 is met for Option 1. Traffic volume for three hours fall above the curve, therefore Warrant 2 is not met for Option 2.
Cond. B Peak Hr Vol on Minor Approach (vph) 107 < 150 N
Cond. C Total Vol Entering Int. during Peak Hour (vph) 2193 > 800 Y
Figure C-2: (2015) Warrant 3 Curve – Criteria B
Warrant 3 is not met for both Options 1 and 2.
C-5
Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
The number of pedestrians crossing Hull Street Road during any four hours of the day are less than the 107 ped/hour required to meet Criteria 1. Also, the number of pedestrians crossing Hull Street Road during any one hour is less than the 133 ped/hour required to meet Criteria 2. Therefore Warrant 4 is not met for the Hull Street Road and Swanson Road intersection.
Warrant 7 (Crash Experience)
A review of the crash history from February 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014 indicates that a total of two rear-end crashes occurred at the Hull Street Road and Swanson Road intersection during the three-year period. Rear-end crashes are not susceptible to be corrected by the installation of a traffic signal; therefore, Warrant 7 is not met.
Warrant 8, Roadway Network
This warrant is considered for the intersection of two or more major routes. Since Swanson Road is a local street and not a major route, Warrant 8 is not met. A summary of signal warrant analysis for the existing year conditions is presented in Table C-5.
Table C-6: (2015) Traffic Signal Warrant Summary
2015
Hull Street Rd
Swanson Rd as Minor Approach
EBL from Hull Street Rd as Minor Approach
Signal Warrant Applicable Satisfied Satisfied
Y/N Y/N Y/N
1. Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Y N N
2. Four Hour Vehicular Volume Y N N
3.Peak Hour Y N N
4. Pedestrian Volume Y N N
5. School Crossing N - -
6. Coordinated Signal System N - -
7. Crash Experience Y N -
8. Roadway Network N - -
9. Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
N - -
C-6
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION (2020)
Table C-7: Re-Routed Volumes from Adjacent Properties
Table C-8: Build Out Year (2020) Traffic Projections
Chesterfield Dr Swanson Rd (High Volume Minor Approach)Hull St Hull St
C-7
Warrant 1 (8-Hour Vehicular Volume) Results
Table C-9: (2020) Option 1 – Warrant 1 Results
(Considering EB/WB Hull Street Road as the major street and Swanson Road as the minor street)
Table C-10: (2020) Option 2 – Warrant 1 Results (Considering WB Hull Street Road as the major street and EB left turn from Hull Street Road as
the minor street)
CONDITION A:
MINIMUM
VEHICULAR
ANALYSIS
CONDITION B:
INTURRUPTION ON
CONTINUOUS
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
600 900
200 100
Both Approaches Higher Approach Satisfied at Satisfied at
Major Volume Minor Volume 100% 100%
6:00-7:00AM 1071 13 N N
7:00-8:00 AM 1904 18 N N
8:00-9:00 AM 1764 24 N N
9:00-10:00 AM 1226 29 N N
10:00-11:00 AM 1165 31 N N
11:00-12:00 PM 1193 26 N N
12:00-1:00 PM 737 29 N N
1:00-2:00 PM 1254 40 N N
2:00-3:00 PM 1348 43 N N
3:00-4:00 PM 1692 59 N N
4:00-5:00 PM 2055 53 N N
5:00-6:00 PM 2372 70 N N
6:00-7:00 PM 1782 68 N N
7:00-8:00 PM 1231 54 N N
Warrant 1 Not Met
Hour
Req'd Major Volumes
Req'd Minor Volumes
CONDITION A:
MINIMUM
VEHICULAR
ANALYSIS
CONDITION B:
INTURRUPTION ON
CONTINUOUS
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
600 900
150 75
Both Approaches Higher Approach Satisfied at Satisfied at
Major Volume Minor Volume 100% 100%
6:00-7:00AM 353 15 N N
7:00-8:00 AM 546 36 N N
8:00-9:00 AM 528 47 N N
9:00-10:00 AM 499 55 N N
10:00-11:00 AM 494 50 N N
11:00-12:00 PM 615 38 N N
12:00-1:00 PM 369 38 N N
1:00-2:00 PM 612 61 N N
2:00-3:00 PM 716 49 N N
3:00-4:00 PM 961 75 N N
4:00-5:00 PM 1206 104 N Y
5:00-6:00 PM 1392 118 N Y
6:00-7:00 PM 1047 101 N Y
7:00-8:00 PM 703 104 N N
Warrant 1 Not Met
Hour
Req'd Major Volumes
Req'd Minor Volumes
C-8
Figure C-3: (2020) Warrant 2 Curve
For Option 1, traffic volumes for all four hours fall below the curve and for Option 2 traffic volumes for two hours fall above the curve, therefore Warrant 2 is not met for both Options 1 and 2.
(Considering EB/WB Hull Street Road as the major street and Swanson Road as the minor street)
Table C-15: (2040) Option 2 – Warrant 1 Results (Considering WB Hull Street Road as the major street and EB left turn from Hull Street Road as
the minor street)
CONDITION A:
MINIMUM
VEHICULAR
ANALYSIS
CONDITION B:
INTURRUPTION ON
CONTINUOUS
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
600 900
200 100
Both Approaches Higher Approach Satisfied at Satisfied at
Major Volume Minor Volume 100% 100%
6:00-7:00AM 1306 16 N N
7:00-8:00 AM 2322 22 N N
8:00-9:00 AM 2149 29 N N
9:00-10:00 AM 1495 35 N N
10:00-11:00 AM 1418 38 N N
11:00-12:00 PM 1452 31 N N
12:00-1:00 PM 897 34 N N
1:00-2:00 PM 1524 48 N N
2:00-3:00 PM 1641 50 N N
3:00-4:00 PM 2058 71 N N
4:00-5:00 PM 2497 63 N N
5:00-6:00 PM 2757 82 N N
6:00-7:00 PM 2164 80 N N
7:00-8:00 PM 1495 64 N N
Warrant 1 Not Met
Hour
Req'd Major Volumes
Req'd Minor Volumes
CONDITION A:
MINIMUM
VEHICULAR
ANALYSIS
CONDITION B:
INTURRUPTION ON
CONTINUOUS
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
600 900
200 100
Both Approaches Higher Approach Satisfied at Satisfied at
Major Volume Minor Volume 100% 100%
6:00-7:00AM 431 17 N N
7:00-8:00 AM 668 40 N N
8:00-9:00 AM 645 53 N N
9:00-10:00 AM 611 64 N N
10:00-11:00 AM 603 56 N N
11:00-12:00 PM 750 42 N N
12:00-1:00 PM 450 42 N N
1:00-2:00 PM 747 67 N N
2:00-3:00 PM 874 54 N N
3:00-4:00 PM 1174 82 N Y
4:00-5:00 PM 1472 115 N Y
5:00-6:00 PM 1699 130 N Y
6:00-7:00 PM 1278 111 N Y
7:00-8:00 PM 858 118 N N
Warrant 1 Not Met
Hour
Req'd Major Volumes
Req'd Minor Volumes
C-12
Figure C-5: (2040) Warrant 2 Curve
For Option 1, traffic volumes for two hours fall above the curve and for Option 2, traffic volumes for 3 hours fall above the curve, therefore Warrant 2 is not met for Option 1 and Option 2.
Cond. B Peak Hr Vol on Minor Approach (vph) 149 < 150 N
Cond. C Total Vol Entering Int. during Peak Hour (vph) 2915 > 800 Y
C-13
Figure C-6: (2040) Warrant 3 Curve – Criteria B
Warrant 3 is not met for Option 1. Warrant 3 is met for Option 2. Since Warrant 3 considers traffic volume during one peak hour and it is applicable in special cases, meeting Warrant 3 alone is typically not considered enough to justify installing a traffic signal at the Swanson Road intersection.
Table C-17: (2040) Traffic Signal Warrant Summary
2040 Design Year
Hull Street Rd
Swanson Rd as Minor Approach
EBL Hull Street Rd as a Minor Approach
Signal Warrant Applicable Satisfied Satisfied
Y/N Y/N Y/N
1. Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Y N N
2. Four Hour Vehicular Volume Y N N
3.Peak Hour Y N Y
4. Pedestrian Volume N - -
5. School Crossing N - -
6. Coordinated Signal System N - -
7. Crash Experience N - -
8. Roadway Network N - -
9. Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
N - -
D-1
APPENDIX D – SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION: HULL STREET ROAD AT LINWOOD AVENUE
Speed Limit on Hull Street Road – 35 mph
Speed Limit on Linwood Avenue – 25 mph
Number of Lanes on Major Approaches (Hull Street Road EB/WB) – 2
Number of Lanes on Minor Street Approach (Linwood Avenue) – 1
Right Turn Reduction Factor – 0%
Volume Threshold for Warrants Evaluation – 100%
Re-Routed Traffic volumes – WBL to Paul Way East, SBL to Paul Way West, WBL to
Meadow Creek Apartment driveway, WBL to Hoyts Car Care driveway, SBL from
Meadow Creek Apartment driveway, SBL from Old Warwick Shopping Center driveway,
NBL from Chesterfield Drive
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION (2015)
2015 Hourly Volumes
Table D-1: Existing Year (2015) 14-Hour Raw Counts
Time EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR
Peds
Crossing Hull
St
6:00-7:00 AM 0 672 0 4 297 0 7 10 0
7:00-8:00 AM 0 1101 5 7 421 0 8 15 1
8:00-9:00 AM 5 1042 7 3 480 0 9 14 0
9:00-10:00 AM 2 641 1 4 462 1 4 17 1
10:00-11:00 AM 1 564 5 6 411 2 3 12 0
11:00-12:00 PM 4 540 6 7 514 0 3 7 1
12:00-1:00 PM 4 570 5 6 562 3 5 11 0
1:00-2:00 PM 0 573 0 0 577 0 4 17 0
2:00-3:00 PM 0 643 0 0 753 0 9 10 0
3:00-4:00 PM 0 624 1 0 773 0 4 16 0
4:00-5:00 PM 0 703 0 0 1075 0 2 20 0
5:00-6:00 PM 7 703 12 15 1311 0 12 13 0
6:00-7:00 PM 1 620 11 18 942 2 6 22 0
7:00-8:00 PM 2 438 11 8 660 0 12 7 0
Linwood AveHull StHull St
D-2
Warrant 1 (8-Hour Vehicular Volume) Results
Table D-2: (2015) – Warrant 1 Results
Warrant 2 (4-Hour Vehicular Volume)
Figure D-1: (2015) Warrant 2 Curve
Traffic volumes for all four hours fall below the curve, therefore Warrant 2 is not met.
CONDITION A:
MINIMUM
VEHICULAR
ANALYSIS
CONDITION B:
INTURRUPTION ON
CONTINUOUS
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
600 900
150 75
Both Approaches Higher Approach Satisfied at Satisfied at
Cond. B Peak Hr Vol on Minor Approach (vph) 25 < 100 N
Cond. C Total Vol Entering Int. during Peak Hour (vph) 2073 > 650 Y
Figure D-2: (2015) Warrant 3 Curve – Criteria B
Warrant 3 is not met.
Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
The number of pedestrians crossing Hull Street Road during any four hours of the day are less than the 107 ped/hour required to meet Criteria 1. Also, the number of pedestrians crossing Hull Street Road during any one hour is less than the 133 ped/hour required to meet Criteria 2. Therefore Warrant 4 is not met for the Hull Street Road and Linwood Avenue intersection.
D-4
Warrant 7 (Crash Experience)
A review of the crash history from February 1, 2012 to January 31, 2014 indicates that a total of four angle crashes occurred at the intersection of Hull Street Road and Linwood Avenue during the three-year study period. Since the number of angle crashes that are susceptible to be corrected by the installation of a traffic signal are less than five per year, Warrant 7 is not met.
Warrant 8, Roadway Network
This warrant is considered for the intersection of two or more major routes. Since Linwood Avenue is a local street and not a major route, Warrant 8 is not met. A summary of signal warrant analysis for the existing year conditions is presented in Table D-4.
Table D-4: (2015) Traffic Signal Warrant Summary
2015
Hull Street Rd
Linwood Ave as Minor Approach
Signal Warrant Applicable Satisfied
Y/N Y/N
1. Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Y N
2. Four Hour Vehicular Volume Y N
3.Peak Hour Y N
4. Pedestrian Volume Y N
5. School Crossing N -
6. Coordinated Signal System N -
7. Crash Experience Y N
8. Roadway Network N -
9. Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
N -
D-5
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION (2020)
Table D-5: Re-Routed Volumes from Adjacent Properties
Table D-6: Build Out Year (2020) Traffic Projections
Time
WBL to Paul
Way W
WBL to
Meadow Creek
Apt
WBL to Paul
Way E
WBL to
HoytsCar Care
WBL from Old
Warwick
Shopping
Center
SBL from
Cleaners
Shopping Lot
SBL from
Meadow Creek
Apt
SBL from Old
Warwick
Shopping Cent
NBL from
Chesterfield
7:00-8:00 AM 2 0 6 0 0 0 11 0 0
7:00-8:00 AM 1 9 9 0 0 0 14 0 7
8:00-9:00 AM 5 0 4 0 0 0 9 0 2
9:00-10:00 AM 1 2 5 1 7 3 7 4 4
10:00-11:00 AM 4 2 8 1 7 3 5 4 1
11:00-12:00 PM 1 2 9 1 7 3 5 4 0
12:00-1:00 PM 12 2 11 1 7 3 5 7 1
1:00-2:00 PM 12 2 11 1 7 3 4 7 1
2:00-3:00 PM 12 2 11 1 7 3 10 7 2
3:00-4:00 PM 13 2 20 6 16 3 14 7 4
4:00-5:00 PM 26 2 29 1 14 1 11 12 3
5:00-6:00 PM 31 0 27 1 11 7 13 9 3
6:00-7:00 PM 34 0 21 0 10 14 15 9 1
7:00-8:00 PM 16 2 14 1 7 16 13 9 1
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR
7:00-8:00 AM 0 706 0 23 312 0 7 11
7:00-8:00 AM 7 1157 5 40 442 0 8 16
8:00-9:00 AM 7 1095 7 21 504 0 9 15
9:00-10:00 AM 6 674 1 34 486 1 4 18
10:00-11:00 AM 2 593 5 41 432 2 3 13
11:00-12:00 PM 4 568 6 39 540 0 3 7
12:00-1:00 PM 5 599 5 55 591 3 5 12
1:00-2:00 PM 1 602 0 47 606 0 4 18
2:00-3:00 PM 2 676 0 53 791 0 9 11
3:00-4:00 PM 4 656 1 81 812 0 4 17
4:00-5:00 PM 3 739 0 82 1130 0 2 21
5:00-6:00 PM 10 742 13 115 1395 0 13 14
6:00-7:00 PM 2 652 12 122 990 2 6 23
7:00-8:00 PM 3 460 12 87 694 0 13 7
Linwood Ave Hourly
Volumes (vph)Hull Street Rd Hourly Volumes (vph)
Time
D-6
Warrant 1 (8-Hour Vehicular Volume) Results
Table D-7: (2020) Warrant 1 Results
(Considering EB/WB Hull Street Road as the major street and Linwood Avenue as the minor street)
Table D-8: (2020) Warrant 1 Results (Considering EB Hull Street Road as the major street and WBL from Hull Street as the minor
street)
CONDITION A:
MINIMUM
VEHICULAR
ANALYSIS
CONDITION B:
INTURRUPTION ON
CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
ANALYSIS
600 900
150 75
Both Approaches Higher Approach Satisfied at Satisfied at
Major Volume Minor Volume 100% 100%
6:00-7:00AM 1042 18 N N
7:00-8:00 AM 1653 24 N N
8:00-9:00 AM 1635 24 N N
9:00-10:00 AM 1201 22 N N
10:00-11:00 AM 1075 16 N N
11:00-12:00 PM 1157 11 N N
12:00-1:00 PM 1258 17 N N
1:00-2:00 PM 1257 22 N N
2:00-3:00 PM 1522 20 N N
3:00-4:00 PM 1555 21 N N
4:00-5:00 PM 1954 23 N N
5:00-6:00 PM 2274 26 N N
6:00-7:00 PM 1779 29 N N
7:00-8:00 PM 1255 20 N N
Warrant 1 Not Met
Req'd Major Volumes
Req'd Minor Volumes
Hour
CONDITION A:
MINIMUM
VEHICULAR
ANALYSIS
CONDITION B:
INTURRUPTION ON
CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
ANALYSIS
600 900
150 75
Both Approaches Higher Approach Satisfied at Satisfied at
Major Volume Minor Volume 100% 100%
6:00-7:00AM 706 23 N N
7:00-8:00 AM 1170 40 N N
8:00-9:00 AM 1110 21 N N
9:00-10:00 AM 681 34 N N
10:00-11:00 AM 600 41 N N
11:00-12:00 PM 578 39 N N
12:00-1:00 PM 609 55 N N
1:00-2:00 PM 603 47 N N
2:00-3:00 PM 678 53 N N
3:00-4:00 PM 661 81 N N
4:00-5:00 PM 742 82 N N
5:00-6:00 PM 765 115 N N
6:00-7:00 PM 665 122 N N
7:00-8:00 PM 475 87 N N
Warrant 1 Not Met
Req'd Major Volumes
Req'd Minor Volumes
Hour
D-7
Figure D-3: (2020) Warrant 2 Curve
Traffic volumes for all four hours fall below the curve, therefore Warrant 2 is not met for both Option 1 and for Option 2.
Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Volume)
Table D-9: (2020) Warrant 3 “Criteria A” Results
Condition Satisfied
Warrant Satisfied
Cond. A Minor Approach Delay (veh-h) 0.7 < 4 N
N
Cond. B Peak Hr Vol on Minor Approach (vph) 26 < 100 N
Cond. C Total Vol Entering Int. during Peak Hour (vph) 2301 > 650 Y
D-8
Figure D-4: (2020) Warrant 3 Curve – Criteria B
Warrant 3 is not met for both Option 1 and 2. A summary of signal warrant analysis for the build year (2020) conditions is presented in Table D-8.
Table D-10: (2020) Traffic Signal Warrant Summary
2020 Build Out Year
Hull Street Rd
Linwood Ave as Minor Approach
WBL from Hull Street as the Minor Approach
Signal Warrant Applicable Satisfied Satisfied
Y/N Y/N Y/N
1. Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Y N N
2. Four Hour Vehicular Volume Y N N
3.Peak Hour Y N N
4. Pedestrian Volume N -
5. School Crossing N -
6. Coordinated Signal System N -
7. Crash Experience Y -
8. Roadway Network N -
9. Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
N -
D-9
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT EVALUATION (2040)
Table D-11: Build Out Year (2040) Traffic Projections
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBR
7:00-8:00 AM 0 862 0 24 381 0 9 13
7:00-8:00 AM 9 1412 6 42 540 0 10 19
8:00-9:00 AM 8 1336 9 22 616 0 12 18
9:00-10:00 AM 7 822 1 35 592 1 5 22
10:00-11:00 AM 2 723 6 42 527 2 4 15
11:00-12:00 PM 4 693 8 41 659 0 4 9
12:00-1:00 PM 5 731 6 56 721 3 6 14
1:00-2:00 PM 1 735 0 47 740 0 5 22
2:00-3:00 PM 3 825 0 53 966 0 12 13
3:00-4:00 PM 5 800 1 81 991 0 5 21
4:00-5:00 PM 4 902 0 96 1379 0 3 26
5:00-6:00 PM 11 918 15 117 1703 0 15 17
6:00-7:00 PM 2 795 14 126 1208 2 8 28
7:00-8:00 PM 3 562 14 89 846 0 15 9
Linwood Ave Hourly
Volumes (vph)
Time
Hull Street Road Hourly Volumes (vph)
D-10
Warrant 1 (8-Hour Vehicular Volume) Results
Table D-12: (2040) Warrant 1 Results
(Considering EB/WB Hull Street Road as the major street and Linwood Avenue as the minor street)
Table D-13: (2040) Warrant 1 Results (Considering EB Hull Street Road as the major street and WBL from Hull Street as the minor
street)
CONDITION A: MINIMUM
VEHICULAR ANALYSIS
CONDITION B:
INTURRUPTION ON
CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
ANALYSIS
600 900
150 75
Both Approaches Higher Approach Satisfied at Satisfied at
Major Volume Minor Volume 100% 100%
6:00-7:00AM 1267 22 N N
7:00-8:00 AM 2009 29 N N
8:00-9:00 AM 1990 29 N N
9:00-10:00 AM 1459 27 N N
10:00-11:00 AM 1303 19 N N
11:00-12:00 PM 1404 13 N N
12:00-1:00 PM 1522 21 N N
1:00-2:00 PM 1523 27 N N
2:00-3:00 PM 1845 24 N N
3:00-4:00 PM 1879 26 N N
4:00-5:00 PM 2380 28 N N
5:00-6:00 PM 2764 32 N N
6:00-7:00 PM 2148 36 N N
7:00-8:00 PM 1514 24 N N
Hour
Warrant 1 Not Met
Req'd Major Volumes
Req'd Minor Volumes
CONDITION A:
MINIMUM
VEHICULAR
ANALYSIS
CONDITION B:
INTURRUPTION ON
CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
ANALYSIS
600 900
150 75
Both Approaches Higher Approach Satisfied at Satisfied at
Major Volume Minor Volume 100% 100%
6:00-7:00AM 862 24 N N
7:00-8:00 AM 1427 42 N N
8:00-9:00 AM 1353 22 N N
9:00-10:00 AM 830 35 N N
10:00-11:00 AM 732 42 N N
11:00-12:00 PM 704 41 N N
12:00-1:00 PM 743 56 N N
1:00-2:00 PM 736 47 N N
2:00-3:00 PM 827 53 N N
3:00-4:00 PM 807 81 N N
4:00-5:00 PM 905 96 N Y
5:00-6:00 PM 944 117 N Y
6:00-7:00 PM 811 126 N N
7:00-8:00 PM 579 89 N N
Warrant 1 Not Met
Req'd Major Volumes
Req'd Minor Volumes
Hour
D-11
Figure D-5: (2040) Warrant 2 Curve
Traffic volumes for all four hours fall below the curve, therefore Warrant 2 is not met.
Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Volume)
Table D-14: (2040) Warrant 3 “Criteria A” Results
Condition Satisfied
Warrant Satisfied
Cond. A Minor Approach Delay (veh-h) 1.46 < 4 Y
N
Cond. B Peak Hr Vol on Minor Approach (vph) 32 < 100 N
Cond. C Total Vol Entering Int. during Peak Hour (vph) 2796 > 650 Y
D-12
Figure D-6: (2040) Warrant 3 Curve – Criteria B
Warrant 3 is not met for both Options 1 and 2.
Table D-12: (2040) Traffic Signal Warrant Summary
2040 Design Year
Hull Street Rd
Linwood Ave as Minor Approach
WBL on Hull Street as Minor Approach
Signal Warrant Applicable Satisfied Satisfied
Y/N Y/N Y/N
1. Eight Hour Vehicular Volume Y N N
2. Four Hour Vehicular Volume Y N N
3.Peak Hour Y N N
4. Pedestrian Volume N -
5. School Crossing N -
6. Coordinated Signal System N -
7. Crash Experience N -
8. Roadway Network N -
9. Intersection Near a Grade Crossing N -
E
Appendix E – Turning Movement Count & Crash Reports
File Name : Hull St at Bryce Ln - 14 Hour CountSite Code : Start Date : 1/20/2015Page No : 1
T3 Design Corporation10340 Democracy Lane Suite 305
Fairfax, VA 22030(703) 359-5861
File Name : Hull St at Chesterfield Dr - 14 Hour CountSite Code : Start Date : 1/29/2015Page No : 1
Groups Printed- Cars - TrucksSwanson RdSouthbound
Hull StWestbound
Chesterfield DrNorthbound
Hull StEastbound
Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn Peds App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn Peds App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn Peds App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn Peds App. Total Int. Total