The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWD-37-90 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REPORT File # Res. By Law TING: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE DATE: MAY 22, 1990 REPORT #: WD-37-90 FILE #: SLE,JECT: REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS OR AN ALL-WAY STOP AT THE NASH ROAD/GEORGE REYNOLDS DRIVE/CARRIAGE LANE INTERSECTION COURTICE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report WD-37-90 be received; 2 . THAT since the warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are not met, signals not be installed; 3 . THAT since the warrants for an All-Way stop are not met, an All- Way stop not be installed; 4 . THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to the Durham Region Police and that they be asked to continue with a regular speed surveillance at this location on Nash Road; and 5 . THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to Mr. Peter Renz . ---------------------------------------------------------------------- REPORT 1.0 ATTACHMENTS No. l: Correspondence dated September 11, 1989 from Mr. Peter Renz. No.2 : Key Map No. 3: Traffic Count Statistics III i REPORT NO. : WD-37-90 PAGE 2 No.4: Evaluation of Minimum Requirements for Traffic Signals No.5: All-Way Stop Evaluating Warrant Study No. 6 : Three Year History of Motor Vehicle Accidents 2.0 BACKGROUND 2 . 1 In response to correspondence dated September 11, 1989, the General Purpose and Administration Committee passed Resolution #GPA-680- 89 : "THAT the Director of Public Works be requested to investigate the requirement for traffic signalization at the intersection of Nash road and George Reynolds Drive" 3.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT 3. 1 The Nash Road and George Reynolds Drive/Carriage Lane intersection is illustrated on Attachment No.2 . 3 .2 A vehicle and pedestrian traffic count, which was taken at the intersection on September 14, 1989, is illustrated on Attachment No. 3. 3 . 3 Warrants for the Installation of Traffic Signals The warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are shown on Attachment No.4 . As illustrated, the warrants are not met. 3 .4 Warrants for the Installation of an All-Way Stop The warrants for the installation of an All-Way stop are shown on Attachment No.5 . As illustrated, the warrants are not met. 3 . 5 Three Year History of Motor Vehicle Accidents The three year history of accident records at this intersection are summarized on Attachment No.6 . This intersection cannot be considered a problem from an accident viewpoint. . . .3 REPORT NO. : WD-37-90 PAGE 3 II 3.6 Delays to Traffic and Pedestrians During the vehicle and pedestrian count, it was noted that there were no lengthy delays to traffic or pedestrians at this intersection. The majority of the children crossing this intersection did so while under the added . protection of the flashing school bus lights . 3 .7 Vehicles Exceeding the Speed Limit In his letter, Mr. Renz states that vehicles frequently travel well above the speed limit along Nash Road. The posted maximum speed on this section of Nash Road is 50 km/hr. The Durham Regional Police has a regular radar surveillance on Nash Road just to the west of this location. 3 .8 Noise Levels of Speeding Vehicles In his letter, Mr Renz states that noise levels of speeding vehicles travelling along Nash road could be reduced significantly by the establishment of 4-Way stop signs . As noted above, the warrants for an All-Way stop at this intersection are not met. Also, studies have shown that the installation of All-Way stop at intersections is not effective in reducing speed of vehicles on a road. From a noise viewpoint, an All-Way stop can create more noise from squealing tires when approaching the intersection and from acceleration when leaving the intersection. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4. 1 From the above, it is concluded that the installation of traffic control signals or an All-Way stop at the Nash Road/George Reynolds Drive and Carriage Lane intersection are not warranted. It is therefore recommended: 1. THAT since the warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are not met, signals not be installed; . . .4 REPORT NO. : WD-37-90 PAGE 4 2 . THAT since the warrants for an All-Way stop are not met, an All-Way stop not be installed; 3 . THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to the Durham Region Police and that they be asked to continue with a regular speed surveillance at this location on Nash Road; and 4. THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to Mr. Peter Renz. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation to the Committee, AA+_kf ------------------------ ---------------------------- Walter A. Evans, P.Eng. , zLawrence E. Kotseff, Director of Public Works [-- Chief Administrative Officer WAE*llv May 3, 1990 Attachments cc: Mr. Peter Renz 3 McLellan drive Bowmanville, Ontario LlE 1Z7 Durham Regional Police 77 Centre Street North Oshawa, Ontario L1G 4B7 i i TYPED AS WRITTEN i i I Mr. Peter Renz 3 McLellan Drive Bowmanville, Ontario L1E 1Z7 September 11, 1989 Mr. Patrick Deegan Local Councillor, Ward II Town of Newcastle 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 Dear Mr. Deegan: The purpose of this letter is to request that the Town of Newcastle take measure to establish 4-Way stop signs at the intersections of Nash Road/George Reynolds Drive and Carriage Lane. The rationale for this request is based on the following: vehicles frequently travel well above the speed limit along Nash Road, endangering other motorists and pedestrians. New construction has increased the population in this area such that Nash Road can now be considered a residential rather than a concession street. Noise levels of speeding vehicles travelling along Nash Road could be reduced significantly by the establishment of 4-Way stop signs . Failing 4-Way stop signs, I would ask that additional police patrols and speed traps be assigned to Nash Road to defer motorists from exceeding posted speed limits . Regards Peter Renz ATTACHMENT MO,I M-37-90 0 W.J (DO ("r z LLJ w -•,- 0 ........................... . .. NA S H ROAD ........................................... w is _ . � w Qz � Q Q U T�UNTON (CCRNE 511 ATFACHMENT s [.. R,,i� I P � �� L, � jl I ' � I vi s• 1 0 { �I ulu iP�u ti n t��n n j MAPLE k,SITE SUBJECT ,�J G �E ti I �__ KEY {`SAP i TABLE 1. 0 EIGHT HOUR VEHICLE COUNT (VEHICLE PER HOUR APPROACHING INTERSECTION) AND PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES AT THE NASH ROAD/GEORGE REYNOLDS DRIVE AND CARRIAGE LAN SEPTEMBER 14, 1989 TIME SLOT NASH ROAD NASH ROAD GEORGE REYNOLDS CARRIAGE TOTAL DRIVE LANE EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND NORTHBOUND 0730-0830 96 80 88 10 274 0830-0930 97 79 71 14 261 1030-1130 87 62 42 9 200 1130-1230 121 97 63 *17 298 1230-1330 112 64 49 12 237 1430-1530 124 *109 48 4 285 1530-1630 173 71 59 10 313 1630-1730 *185 73 *93 5 *356 TOTALS 995 635 513 81 2,224 1630 594 PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES ( 0730 - 0930, 1030 - 1330, 1430 - 1730) East Approach 11 Pedestrians West Approach 26 Pedestrians North Approach 26 pedestrians South Approach 31 pedestrians TOTAL 94 pedestrians ATTACHT1T NO,3 IT--37-90 i I 82.03.07 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS FOR TWO LANE ROADWAYS - LOCATION A/fiSH Roma—_—__— AT GFoR6E REY.vot _ORtv�' _CC0v27-/C F_) MUNICIPALITY Town/ of- A),5 C22,SXt,-_ DATE Of SURVEY DccFruF_R 2 � MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR TWO-LANE ROADWAYS COMPLIANCE FREE RESTRICTED FLOW FLOW WARRANT DESCRIPTION OPERATING OPERATING SPEED SPEED GREATER LESS THAN SECTIONAL ENTIRE THAN OR 70 km/h EQUAL TO % 70 km/h I. OA Vehicle Volume,All Approaches MINIMUM for Each of the Heaviest 8 Hours 480 720 VEHICULAR of an Average D",and ___ -— — — — — a)B Vehicle Volume,Along Minor p VOLUME Streets for Each of the Same 1 20 1 7 0 8 Hours 2, mA Vehicle Volume,Along Major DELAY TO Street for Each of the Heaviest 8 480 7 2 0 O,2 8• Hours of an Average Day,and ' — _— CROSS -- - - - - - -- -- - - - �$, O MB Combined Vehicle and Pedestrian TRAFFIC Volume Crossing the Major 50 75 Street for Each the Some J g' 8 Hours 0 3. A Total Reported Accidents of I Types Susceptible to Correction by a Traffic Signal,per 12 Month 5 r Period Averaged Over a 36 ss ACCIDENT _ —Month Period,and HAZARD 8 Adequate Trial of Less Restrictive Remedies,Where Satisfactory YES ❑ Observance and Enforcement r Have Failed to Reduce the NO❑ Number of Accidenis,and C Fulfillment of Either of the Above Warrants(Minimum Vehicular YES ❑ Volume or Delay to Cross Traffic)to the Extent of 80% NO ❑ or More. 4.COMBINATION Two or More of the Above ,YES ❑ Warrants (1,2or3)Satisfied to NO 9-" WARRANT the Extent of 80% or More. 5, A Pedestrian Volume Crossing the MINIMUM Major Street Average per Hour for 120 240 the Heaviest 8 Hours of on Average °A PEDESTRIAN _Day,and__________ _---- --------- NIA VOLUME (i)B Whicle Volume Along Major Street = Average Per Hour for the Some 290 575 8 Hours. NOTES, 01 Vehicle Volume Warrants (IA),(2A) and (58) for Roadways Having Two or More Moving Lanes In one Direction Should Be 25% Higher Than Values Given Above, (2)For Definition of Crossing Volume Refer 10 Note A)on the Signal Warrant 1, Analysis Form 82.03.08 The Lowest Sectional Percentage Governs the Entire Warrant, ATTACHMENT NOA (4-)For °T°Inlerseciions the Values for Warrant ( 18) Should Be Increased by 50% VlD-37-9J S.2.03.08 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS FORM FOR INTERSECTION CONTROL. I Minimum warrants for installation of traffic signals for roadways with two or more lanes. Major street....................... .... .. . No. of lanes.............. Minor street............ .. .... .. ........ FREE FLOW CONDITIONS (RURAL) ❑ RESTRICTED FLOW CONDITIONS (URBAN) [1�( >L 70 ICM/H2 WARRANT I-MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME 100% SATISFIED - YES ❑ No 80 % SATISFIED — YES ❑ No MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS PERCENTAGE WARRANT 80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) 2 or MORE HOUR ENDING FREE ESTR. FREE RESTR. FLOW CONDITION FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW 1130 ❑ ®/ I] � 0830093 1230 1330 1.S3o /630 1730 TOTAL ACROSS 480 720 600 900 (385) (575) (480) (7201 27Y 261 Zoo 298 237 295 313 35'6 A. ALL 100% FULFILLED APPROACHES 60% FULFILLED e� SECTIONAL PERCENT ACTUAL% IF BELOW 60%VALUE 38 36 1218 1Y/ 1-3 3 yo y3 y9 30$ TOTAL DOWN �O$ +8• 38.S 120" 170" 120" 170" TOTAL (95►" (135)" 1951" (135)" 98 $S S/ 80 6/ 5-7- 69 98 ACROSS 8 100% FULFILLED MINOR STREET e BOTH APPROACHES 60% FULFILLED GL SECTIONAL PERCENT ACTUAL% IF S8 �O 30 BELOW 80%VALUE 97 36 13) y1 %FOR 'T'INTERSECTIONS THESE VALUES SHOULD BE INCREASED BY 50% DOWN 3s1 +B• y3 9 WARRANT 2- DELAY TO CROSS TRAFFIC 100 % SATISFIED - YES ❑ NO ,[.�._,/ 80 % SATISFIED - YES ❑ NO L� - MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS lB % SHOWN IN BRACKETS1 PERCENTAGE WARRANT APPRO-A-CR-L-ANtS 1 2or MORE HOUR ENDING FREE RESTR FREE RESTR FLOW CONDITION FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW E3 11X � O 176 176 1 TOTAL y9 1/8 176 z33 zyy 2S ACROSS 480 720 600 1900 (385) (575) (480) (720) A. MAJOR STREET 100% FULFILLED ' BOTH APPROACHES 60% FULFILLED SECTIONAL ACTUAL % IF PERCENT BELOW 80%VALUE 2Y 2y Z/ 3C, 2y 3Z 3y 36 22s TOTAL 28 DOWN i �0) �(4 75 y6 TOTAL (601 S 32,5 39.0 36,0 32.5 SS,S 6o,S ACROSS B. TRAFFIC 100% FULFILLED CROSSING MAJOR STREET 80% FULFILLED 80 1 SECTIONAL PERCENT ACTUAL% IF �2 6J y3 S2 y8 y3 7yl 77 BELOW 80%VALUE JB.3 TOTAL oowN y6 3 "e• S8 f11 i/,t 14 1-7 i'.. ?r WARRANT 3 - ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE 100 % SATISFIED — YES ❑ NO ` 80 % SATISFIED - YES ❑ NO tJ A. Reportable accidents within a 12 month period averaged over 36 consecutive months susceptible to correction by a traffic signal. WARRANT VALUE AVERAGE NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS FULFILLED 5 ...... .......Y. l00% O% B. Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies has failed to reduce accident frequency. -Yes ❑ No W 100% 0% C. Either Warrant I (Minimum Vehicular Volume)or Warrant 2 (Delay to Cross Traffic) satisfied 80% or more. -Yes ❑ No DI, WARRANT 4— COMBINATION WARRANT SATISFIED - YES ❑ NO ❑ Used if no warrant satisfied 100% REQUIREMENT WARRANT SATISFIED 80%OR MORE FULFILLED Two Warrants Warrant I - Minimum Vehicular Volume -Yes 1❑ No 2- Satisfied 80% Warrant 2- Delay to Cross Traffic -Yes ❑ No [a- -Yes ❑ No Warrant 3- Accident Experience -Yes [] No [6j-' CONCLUSION,TRAFFIC SIGNALS WARRANTED — YES ❑ NO Ly WARRANT 5 — FOR MID-BLOCK SIGNAL 100 % SATISFIED- YES ❑ NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENT APPROACH LANES I 2orM_ORE TOTAL AVERAGE FLOW CONDITION3fiR FR€ R HOURS I HOUR FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW A A.PEDESTRIANS tv CROSSING MAJOR ST. 120 240 '120 240 B.MAJOR STREET L. BOTH APROACHES 290 575 365 720 NOTES- I. The warrant values are based on annual average daily traffic(AADT)which approximates May and October traffic. 2.For warrants 1,2,3 and 4,each hourly volume must exceed the minimum requirements for the warrant to be 100% satisfied. 3.For warrant 5 the 8 hour average must exceed the minimum requirements for the warrant to be 100%satisfied 4. The crossing volume is defined as- (1)Left turns from both minor street approaches (2)The heaviest through volume from the minor street (3)5O%of the heavier left turn movement from major street when both of the following criterla are met- (a)The left turn volume >120 vph (b)The left turn volume plus the opposing volume > 720 vph (4)Pedestrlans crossing the major street B2"8 February , 1982 INTERSECTION: NASH ROAD/ GEORGE REYNOLDS DRIVE AND CARRIAGE LANE - COURTI FOUR-WAY STOP EVALUATION - WARRANT STUDY AS OF DECEMBER 20, 1989 MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES - DECEMBER 1985, MTO 1 Guidelines for All-Way Meets Warrants Comments Stop Control i 1.A) At two like roadways . Yes Each approach should contain the same number of lanes and have preferably four non skewed approaches . l .b) As an interim measure No Signals not where traffic control warranted signals are warranted but cannot be implemented immediately. l.c) At locations having a high No Only one accident accident frequency where on record less restrictive measures have been tried and found inadequate. l.d) As a means of providing No an introductory period to accustom drivers to a reversal of intersection control. Installation under this warrant will be for a period not to exceed three months . Overall Section 1 No .ATACH"PIENT NO,5 UID-37-90 i i i Guidelines for All Way Meets Warrants Comments Stop Control 2 . Arterial roads and major collector streets 2 .a) A total vehicle volume on No Highest count 356 all intersection approaches 4 :30 - 5:30 p.m. exceeding 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of the day and 2 .b) A combined vehicular and No Only 100 units pedestrian volume on the minor street exceeding 200 No delay in units per hour for the same crossing. eight hours with an average delay to traffic on the minor street of greater than 30 seconds . 2 .c) A volume split does not No Volume split exceed 70/80 73/27 Over 8 hours Overall Section 2 No 3 . On roads and streets not considered to be arterial or major collector streets . 3 .a) A total vehicle volume on Yes 356 vehicles intersection approaches not 4 :30 - 5:30 p.m. exceeding 350 for highest hour recorded. and i 3 .b) A volume split does not No exceed 75/25 for a three- way control or 65/35 for a four-way control . j i Overall Section 3 No i II THREE YEAR TRAFFIC ACCIDENT HISTORY HASH ROAD/GEORGE REYNOLDS DRIVE AND CARRIAGE LANE INTERSECTION 1. 1989 • Date: August 1, 1989, Motor Vehicle Accident 89-93951 Conditions : 5:45 p.m. , daylight, clear weather, gravel dry, roadway under construction and in very poor shape. Sequence of Events: A car stopped on nash Road facing eastbound intending to turn left on to George Reynolds Drive, was partially in the wrong lane and was struck by a westbound car. Charges: No charges were laid. 2 . 1988: No accidents recorded at this intersection. 3. 1987 : No accidents recorded at this time. ATTACHMENT NO,6 IT-37-90 i i i i