TCAG Annual Intersection Monitoring Program 2016 Intersection Monitoring Report Draft Report Prepared by: Transportation Modeling Department September, 2016 Work Element 605.01
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...1 PROJECT LOCATION...1 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS)...1 METHODOLOGY...5 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS...6 RECOMMENDATIONS...8 FIGURES Figure 1- Project Study Area...2 Figure 2- List of Intersections...3 Figure 3- City of Dinuba Intersection Geometries 1-8...12 Figure 4- City of Dinuba Traffic Count Volumes 1-8...13 Figure 5- City of Dinuba Intersection Geometries 9...14 Figure 6- City of Dinuba Traffic Count Volumes 9...15 Figure 7- City of Exeter Intersection Geometries...16 Figure 8- City of Exeter Traffic Count Volumes...17 Figure 9- City of Farmersville Intersection Geometries 1-8...18 Figure 10- City of Farmersville Traffic Count Volumes 1-8...19 Figure 11- City of Farmersville Intersection Geometries 9-12...20 Figure 12- City of Farmersville Traffic Count Volumes 9-12...21 Figure 13- City of Lindsay Intersection Geometries...22 Figure 14- City of Lindsay Traffic Count Volumes...23 Figure 15- City of Porterville Intersection Geometries...24 Figure 16- City of Porterville Traffic Count Volumes...25 Figure 17- City of Tulare Intersection Geometries 1-8...26 Figure 18- City of Tulare Traffic Count Volumes 1-8...27 Figure 19- City of Tulare Intersection Geometries 9-11... 28 Figure 20- City of Tulare Traffic Count Volumes 9-11... 29 Figure 21- City of Visalia Intersection Geometries 1-8... 30 Figure 22- City of Visalia Traffic Count Volumes 1-8... 31 Figure 23- City of Visalia Intersection Geometries 9-12... 32 Figure 24- City of Visalia Traffic Count Volumes 9-12... 33 Figure 25- City of Visalia Intersection Geometries 13-16... 34 Figure 26- City of Visalia Traffic Count Volumes 13-16... 35 Figure 27- County of Tulare (North) Intersection Geometries... 36 Figure 28- County of Tulare (North) Traffic Count Volumes... 37 2013 Transportation Monitoring Program Page i July 2013
Figure 29- County of Tulare (South) Intersection Geometries... 38 Figure 30- County of Tulare (South) Traffic Count Volumes... 39 TABLES Table 1- Intersection Level of Service Criteria...4 Table 2- Existing PM Peak Hour Conditions...7 Table 3- Mitigated PM Peak Hour Conditions: Intersection Level of Service...8 APPENDIX APPENDIX A - HCS 2010 Analytical Reports: Signalized and Non-Signalized Intersections APPENDIX B - HCS 2010 Analytical Reports: Mitigated Signalized and Non-Signalized Intersections 2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page ii September 2016
INTRODUCTION: Since 1997 the (TCAG) has monitored 50 intersections per year throughout Tulare County as part of its annual Intersection Monitoring Program. The monitoring program has assisted local agencies in identifying signalized and stop controlled intersections that operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS) and recommends possible mitigation measures, such as installing traffic signals, adding lanes, optimizing signal timing/phasing, etc., to improve operations. In addition, the Intersection Monitoring Program has assisted TCAG member agencies that have limited staff and resources to conduct important intersection analysis for potential problem intersections. PROJECT LOCATION: Traffic count data for this report was collected at specified intersections throughout Tulare County, Figure 1. Each member agency was requested to provide TCAG with a prioritized list of intersections within their jurisdiction for possible monitoring. TCAG staff then narrowed and compiled the agency lists into a final list of 50 intersections for evaluation. Figure 2 presents the final list of intersections. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS): Traffic operations have been quantified through determination of LOS. LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade A through F is assigned to an intersection representing worsening traffic conditions. LOS is calculated for different intersection control types using the methods documented in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and as presented in Table 1. LOS standards vary throughout the County and its eight incorporated cities. The TCAG 2014 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) provides that LOS shall be no lower than LOS D for urban areas and LOS C for rural areas. However, each local agency that owns and operates transportation facilities may select a LOS standard more stringent than the minimum LOS standards identified in the RTP. For the purposes of this report LOS D is taken as the threshold for acceptable traffic operations at all study intersections. Although Caltrans has not designated a LOS standard, their Highway Design Manual indicates that Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on the state highway facilities; however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. If the existing state highway facility is operating at less than the target LOS, the existing measures of effectiveness (MOE) should be maintained. 2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 1 September 2016
Figure 1 Project Study Area 2016 Intersection Monitoring Report 2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 2 September 2016
Figure 2 List of Intersections: 2016 Intersection Monitoring Report Dinuba Tulare N. Alta @ Sequoia Cartmill @ Retherford N. Alta @ E. Saginaw Cartmill @ Hillman N. Alta @ W. Saginaw Cartmill @ Mooney N. Alta @ North Way Prosperity @ J St. S. Alta @ Tulare Bardsley @ K St. Tulare @ Uruapan Bardsley @ O St. Tulare @ H St. Bardsley @ Spruce (South) S. Crawford @ Sierra Bardsley @ Spruce (North) N. Crawford @ Saginaw Bardsley @ Laspina Bardsley @ Mooney Exeter Bardsley @ Morrison Belmont @ Firebaugh Visalia Visalia @ Orange Palm @ G St. Demaree @ Mill Creek Palm @ F St. Demaree @ Mineral King Palm @ D St. Demaree @ Noble W. Palm @ Kaweah Demaree @ Campus C St. @ Kaweah Demaree @ Tulare Demaree @ Walnut Farmersville Demaree @ Whitendale Demaree @ Caldwell Walnut @ Rd. 156 Demaree @ Packwood Walnut @ Freedom Demaree @ Visalia Pkwy Walnut @ Rd. 168 WB SR-198 ramp @ Shirk Farmersville @ Terry EB SR-198 ramp @ Shirk Farmersville @ E Citrus Watson @ Noble Farmersville @ W Citrus Lovers Lane @ Mill Creek Farmersville @ Front Mill Creek @ McAuliff Farmersville @ Ash Ave 296 @ Rd. 156 Visalia @ Steven Visalia @ Shasta Porterville Visalia @ Hester Visalia @ Oakview North Grand @ SR-65 Westfield @ Westwood Westfield @ Lombardi Westfield @ Mathew Westfield @ Indiana 2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 3 September 2016
Lindsay Porterville Parkside @ Hickory Newcomb @ Mulberry Tulare @ Foothill Prospect @ Morton Tulare @ Strathmore Hermosa @ Westwood County Hermosa @ Sweetbriar Lindmore @ Lindsay Ave 408 @ Rd. 56 Lindmore @ Mirage Ave 430 @ Rd. 72 Lindmore @ Harvard Ave 424 @ Rd. 104 Ave 416 @ Rd. 120 Ave 232 @ Rd. 36 Ave 264 @ Rd. 108 Ave 256 @ Rd. 204 Ave 192 @ Rd. 208 Ave 264 @ Rd. 108 Ave 256 @ Rd. 204 Ave 192 @ Rd. 208 2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 4 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 5 September 2016
METHODOLOGY: The methodology for conducting the Annual Intersection Monitoring Program consisted of collecting on-site traffic count data (turning movement counts) at 78 intersections within Tulare County followed by analysis of the data using the Highway Capacity Software 2010 (HCS 2010) developed by the McTrans Center at the University of Florida. Data collection was performed by Quality Traffic Data, LTD. Data analysis was performed by TCAG staff. Data Collection: Intersection turning movement counts were collected for the PM peak hour period. Typically, the PM peak hour is defined as the one-hour period of peak traffic flow counted between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. Intersection counts consisted of the total number of turning movements per direction per approach during the peak 1-hour period. Data was collected by the consultant using on-site tally and intersection video methods. Intersection turning movement count data was provided to TCAG for use in the analysis. Intersection geometry was determined either by field inspection or use of the latest aerial photo coverage obtained through Google Earth. Intersection locations, geometrics, and turning volumes are shown in Figures 3 through 22. Data Analysis: Existing traffic operations and LOS for signalized and non-signalized intersections were quantified for the PM peak hour using the HCS 2010 software. The HCS 2010 includes modules which implement HCM 2010 procedures for analysis of stop controlled and signalized intersections. Non-signalized Intersections: A total of 50 non-signalized intersections were analyzed for existing intersection delay and LOS. Information required in analyzing non-signalized intersections in HCS 2010 included: Analysis period 15 min Peak Hour Factor default - Observed Lane configuration per intersection geometrics Demand vehicle miles per hour (vmh) per traffic counts Base saturation flow default - 1700 passenger cars/hour/lane (pc/h/ln) 2 % Heavy vehicles default Observed % Grade default - 0-6% 1 Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report No.599, p.5 2 Transportation Research Board, 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Chapter 18, p. 18-76 3 Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report No. 599, p. 5 2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 6 September 2016
Signalized Intersections: A total of 28 signalized intersections were analyzed for existing intersection delay and LOS. Information required in analyzing signalized intersections in HCS 2010 includes: Signal Warrants: Lane configuration (per intersection geometry) Speed in miles/hour (mph) Cycle length (sec.) Maximum green time (sec.) Demand in vehicles per hour (vph) Minimum green time (sec.) Lane width (default - 12ft.) Queue length (per approach) Analysis period (15min.) Yellow change (sec.) Heavy vehicles (% observed) Red clearance (sec.) Base saturation flow (default - 1750 pc/h/ln) To determine whether significance should be associated with non-signalized intersection LOS, a supplemental traffic signal warrant analysis was also performed. Signal warrant criteria described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD), Chapter 4-C, Warrant #3, the Peak Hour warrant, was applied to all non-signalized intersections being analyzed. An intersection that meets a signal warrant may benefit from signalization; however, the final decision for this mitigation should be based on further monitoring and a comprehensive Traffic Engineering Study. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS: Existing peak-hour traffic operations were analyzed in HCS 2010 using current intersection turning movement counts, lane geometry and intersection controls. Table 2 provides a summary of the analysis results, and Appendix A contains the HCS 2010 analytical reports. The analysis found that 1 of the 50 non-signalized intersections analyzed is currently operating below LOS D during the PM peak hour and meets the requirements of CAMUTCD Warrant #3, Peak Hour warrant for possible signalization. The intersection is: Walnut Ave. @ Road 156, in Farmersville The analysis found that 1 of the 28 signalized intersections analyzed is currently operating below LOS D with high delay times. The intersection is: Cartmill Ave. @ Hillman St., in Tulare 2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 7 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 8 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 9 September 2016
Table 3 below shows the intersections which were determined to be operating below acceptable LOS, together with the result of mitigation by either optimizing intersection signal timing or modifying the existing stop controls. The intersection at Walnut Ave. and Road 156 is in rural Tulare County just outside of the city of Farmersville, however the route is heavily traveled during the morning and evening peak hours as a commuter route between Farmersville and Visalia. Signalizing this intersection appears to provide significant improvement in overall intersection delay and LOS should be increased to an acceptable level. The intersection at Cartmill Ave. and Hillman St. is a heavily traveled route serving commuters between Visalia and Tulare. It also serves as access to and from State Route 99, retail centers in north Tulare and Visalia. Because of the heavy amount of traffic and the lane configuration, the east/west directions of travel must use split phasing which causes a significant increase in delay time. While retiming the signals at this intersection would appear to relieve some of the delay, it would not result in a significant decrease in delay time, or significant improvement in LOS, and would be at the expense of the delay for the north/south traffic at the intersection. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the information presented in Table 3, the following are the recommended mitigation measures for the above intersections based on the results of this study (Appendix B): Walnut Ave @ Rd 156 (No. 1): This intersection is all-way stop controlled and currently operating at LOS F during the PM peak hour. By signalizing the intersection, it would appear to improve operation to at least LOS C, and delay would be significantly improved. The intersection appears to meet signal warrant. TCAG staff recommends a warrant analysis be performed. 2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 10 September 2016
Cartmill Ave @ Hillman Street (No. 2): This is a signalized intersection currently operating at LOS E with high delay times for the east/west traffic. Construction widening Cartmill Avenue to four lanes from the SR-99 interchange to Mooney Blvd. is due to begin this year. This should result in significantly improved overall delay times, and LOS should return to acceptable levels. Additional Traffic Studies: The results of 2016 Intersection Monitoring Report are provided for planning purposes only. It is therefore recommended that before making any improvement at the above intersections, that the local jurisdiction (city or county) perform a full engineering traffic study to determine the most appropriate mitigation based on existing conditions. 2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 11 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 12 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 13 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 14 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 15 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 16 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 17 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 18 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 19 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 20 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 21 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 22 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 23 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 24 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 25 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 26 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 27 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 28 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 29 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 30 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 31 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 32 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 33 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 34 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 35 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 36 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 37 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 38 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 39 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 40 September 2016
Appendix A HCS 2010 ANALYTICAL REPORTS - SIGNALIZED AND NON-SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 41 September 2016
2016 Transportation Monitoring Report Page 42 September 2016