Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-44-82 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT R. DUPUIS, P. ENG., DIRECTOR HAMPTON,ONTARIO TEL.(416)263-2231 LOB 1JO 987-5039 REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 31 , 1982. REPORT NO. WD-44-82. SUBJECT: PEDESTRIAN CROSSOVER. KING STREET, BOWMANVILLE, r EAST OF DIVISION STREET. RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended: 1 . That this report be received, and; 2. That the Region of Durham be requested to undertake a Spring traffic count at the King Street/Division Street intersection in Bowmanville, to determine whether the warrants for traffic signalization are met. BACKGROUND: Early in 1982, discussions regarding the installation of a pedest- rian crossover at the intersection of King Street and Division Street in Bowmanville were initiated. Staff enlisted the assistance of the Regional Municipality of Durham's Traffic Department to determine the feasibility of a pedestrian crossover at this location, and the study involved the taking of pedestrian and vehicular traffic counts, assessment of accident data, and the evaluation of criteria required. i The report on the Region of Durham's findings was received by the Town on March 25, 1982, and a copy is attached hereto for information. �J (C) WD-44-82. - 2 On March 15, 1982, without benefit of the attached report, Council passed a by-law designating the King Street/Division Street cross- over. Generally there are three items for consideration of a pedestrian crossover at the subject location: 1 . Installation of signs and pavement markings which are legal requirements for a pedestrian crossover. 2. Installation of an illuminated overhead sign to supplement the installation indicated in Item 1 (above) . 3. Installation of a pedestrian-activated traffic signal for a crosswalk. The Region of Durham's study found that a pedestrian crossover, as indicated in Item 1 (above) would be undesirable for the following reasons: (i) "No Stopping" zones should be designated and signed on both sides of a pedestrian cross- over, which is difficult to implement and enforce in a commercial area. On King Street there is, in fact, parking within the area of the crossover. Advertising signs distract motorists and detract from the crossover signing; again, on King Street, some of the trees planted as part of the Downtown Beautification Program obscure the crossover signs. Turning movements of traffic at intersections make them undesirable locations for a cross- over; visibility is restricted. ry WD-44-82 - 3 REPORT: With respect to Item 2 (above) an overhead sign could alleviate some of the detailed problems, and is an integral item of most pedestrian crossover installations: However, such a sign would cost somewhere between $4,000 and $5,000 and the problems related to parking in the area would still exist. Item 3 (above) represents the most practical and desirable solution, but, again, high costs are a significant factor. A pedestrian-activated traffic signal , mid-block (in the area of the Veltri Complex) would cost approximately $15,000 to install . The Region of Durham, in their study of the entire matter, found that the demand for a pedestrian crossing at this location was not high and would not, at the present time, meet the warrants required by the Ministry of Transportation & Communications for subsidy purposes. A pedestrian-activated traffic signal at the King Street/Division Street intersection would require a fully signalized intersection and would cost between $25,000 and $30,000. Full traffic signals would be required in order to control both turning and through traffic. Again, at this location, there is not sufficient traffic to warrant signals and, therefore, such an installation would not be subsidizable by the Ministry. Having considered all aspects of this matter, it is recommended that the pedestrian crossover, as installed (without an overhead sign) be left in place. Further, it is suggested that the Town enlist the assistance of the Region of Durham in performing another Count at the intersection, preferably within the next few weeks, as recomm- ended by their Traffic Department. This would ensure that pedestrian and vehicular traffic movements would be at the maximum and would possibly warrant traffic signal installation. Respectfully submitted, R.G. Dupuis, P. Eng. , Director of Public Works. May 25, 1982. RGD:vh RECEIVED J VAR 90 W2 WORKS DEPT. DURHAM March 24, 1,982 TOWN of NEWCASTLE The Regional Municipality of Durham Mr. D.T. Gray Works Department Deputy Director Public Works Department Box 623 Corporation of the Town of Newcastle 105 Consumers Dr. ton, Ontario Ham Whitby, Ontario p Canada,L1N6A3 LOB 1JO (416)668-7721 Dear Sir: W.A.TWELVETREES,P,Eng. Commissioner of Works Re: Intersection of King and Division Streets, Bowmanyi l l e Please quote our ref: This is to advise that we have completed a review of traffic operations at the above noted intersection as requested in your TRA-N-1-2 letter of January 14, 1982. Our objective was to determine: - the need for traffic control signals, - the need for, and location of, a Pedestrian Crossover (PXO), and - the best location for the school crossing. The following tasks were included in our review: (a) an 8 hour manual count of all vehicular and pedestrian traffic movements around the intersection. (b) a count of midblock pedestrian crossings east of Division Street. (c) an estimation of pedestrian delay and crossing difficulty. (d) an analysis of collision reports. (e) a subjective review of intersection operations. j King Street in Bowmanville is a connecting link portion of Highway #2 and the main street through the town centre. It has two driving lanes and parking lane on each side. Average weekday two way traffic volumes are approximately 12,000 vehicles/day. Division Street, by conitrast, is a minor road carrying approximately 1500 vehicles per average weekday. It also has two driving lanes with parking permitted on both sides. Division Street is controlled by Stop si ns at King Street. RECEIVED I MAR 25 1982 Wt7mi "< CU"'(- —_._... -- .—Ale AcTI r Page 2 Field studies were conducted on Friday, February 5, 1982 between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The data collected has been summarized and a copy is attached for your information. Vehicle and pedestrian volumes recorded at the intersection were not sufficient to satisfy the new Ministry of Transportation and Communications warrants for traffic control signals. These warrants have been established as a guide to Indicate where the installation of signals may benefit traffic movements. Generally speaking, the Province will not subsidize the cost of installing unwarranted traffic signals. A warranted location is eligible for subsidy. —► The history of collisions at this intersection (three in three years), does not indicate an operational problem. As you would expect in a downtown location, there was a great deal of pedestrian activity both on King Street and crossing King Street, in the vicinity of Division Street. Over the survey period, 517 pedestrians crossed King Street at the intersection and an additional 111 pedestrians crossed King Street midblock between Division and George Streets. The majority of the midblock crossings observed involved senior public school students crossing just east of Division Street at noon and later on in the afternoon. These pedestrians did not experience any unusual difficulty or delay in crossing King Street and a PXO is, therefore, not warranted at this location. The large number of pedestrians crossing King Street at the Division Street intersection, together with the delays experienced by a few, would warrant the installation of a PXO at this location. When reviewing the practicality of installing a PXO at either location, the following points should be considered; i - the midblock location would not serve the majority of the pedestrians. - "No Stopping" zones should be signed on both sides of a PXO. This would be difficult to implement and enforce in a commercial area. - advertising signs would be a distraction to motorists. - turning movement conflicts at intersections make them undesirable locations for a PXO. For these reasons, a Pedestrian Crossover is not recommended for King Street at Division Street or midblock east of Division Street. I Page 3 —► If the Town feels compelled to provide some form of protection for pedestrians crossing King Street then traffic control signals would be preferable. Based on a subjective review of the intersection, it is our opinion that properly designed and installed traffic control signals, interconnected with the signals at Temperance Street, would go a long way toward removing much of the confusion that presently exists and would afford pedestrians a far greater degree of safety than a PXO. Although the warrants for signals are not currently met, the M.T.C. is in the process of revising the pedestrian signal warrant and they may give some consideration to an application based on the high pedestrian crossing volume experienced at Division Street. If they do not, you still have the option of installing the signals without provincial subsidy. The following course of action is suggested for your consideration: (a) Schedule another count for the intersection. Our count was done in winter with less than ideal weather conditions. A count in the Spring, before summer holidays, may show a significant change in vehicular and pedestrian movements. We also noted that extending the survey hours to 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. would probably increase the volume totals. (b) If the new survey confirms our observations and you agree that signals are preferable, then pursue the question of Provincial subsidy with the M.T.C. (c) In the meantime, relocate the existing school crossing and adult guard from the west side of Division Street to the east side. This location would likely serve more students and the change would be supported by the Principal of the Queen Street school and the Community Services Division of the Durham Regional Police. Some discrepancies in the field placement of parking restriction signs were observed around the intersection. I have attached a list of these for your information and whatever action you consider j necessary. If any of the preceding requires clarification or if we can assist you further, please let me know. Yours truly, , ellamy /Jw Traffic Supervisor Attachment