The URL can be used to link to this page

Traffic Safety Study - 1982 I I~ I j ,[ J"".,' L L 'L , r ~1 r t r , 1 r I II I ~ LI J OJ SALINA, KANSAS ~9B2 T.RAFFICSAFETV STU..DV !'>R€PAREi):BV BU(H[R ~ WI LlIS CONSt)L'TlNGENGlNEERS:PLANN€i'lS l{AF'lCHlTECTS I I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I CITY OF SALINA, KANSAS I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Keith Duckers John Burgess Karen Graves Merl e Hodges Charles Roth Mayo r ......................................................... City Commissioners ............................................. I .. ... ....... .......... ..... .................. ............................................ . I City Manager ..................................~................... Assistant City Manager .................................... William Rufus Nye E. Harri s I City Engineer and Director of Utilities Assistant City Engineer ................... . Dean Boyer, P.E. Do n Hu ff, P. E. ..................................... . Traffic Engineer ................................................ Don Bassett I I KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Bureau of Transportation Planning I Safety Engineer .....................................Charles A. Brunson, P.E. I BUCHER & WILLIS Consulting Engineers, Planners and Architects I Partner ............................................ Raymond E. Lamfers, P.E. Project Engineer ....................................... Jimmy H.C. Lin, P.E. Engineer ......................................... Charles M. Schwinger, P.E. Technician ..................................~................ James G. Peine Technician .................................................. Victor E. Clark Text Editor ................................................. Patty S. Lourie Word Processor ...~............................................ Lynne Wilhelm 'I I I' I I, I. ,I. of St udy Authorization Program and Procedure Study Fundi ng Acknowledgements I I I CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION I Scope St udy St udy I TARLE OF CONTENTS .................................... .............. . ....... ......... ............................ .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. ...................................... ....................... .... ..................... I CHAPTER TWO - EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................... Street Functional Classification Street Features Inventory Railroad Grade Crossings Traffic Control Devices Traffic Signs Traffic Signals Pavement Markings Traffic Volume Street Illumination Traffic Control Speed Zones Travel Time Pa rki ng Accident Experience I I I ................ ................ ....... ... .......... ................... ....................................... . ........................................ . ....... ...................... ...................... ................................................ . ........................... ....... ............. .. ............................... ... .............. .............. ............................... .................. ..... ........ ........ .............. . . . .". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I .................................................... . ........................ ..................... ....................................................... .. I CHAPTER THREE - COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND PRIORITIES I Severi ty Rati ng Benefit/Cost Ratio .............................................. Periodic Review ................................................. ........................................... ...... I CHAPTER FOUR - IMPROVEMENTS ......................................... Railroad Grade Crossings Traffic Signs Pavement Markings Traffic Control Speed Zones Special Study Locations Location 1- Location 2 Location 3 Lo cat ion 4 Locat ion 5 Location. 6 Lo cat ion 7 Location 8 Locat ion 9 Location 10 Locat ion 11 ....................................... . ........................... .... .................... I .............................................. . ............................................... .. .................... ................................. I I I I. I' ........................................ . Ninth Street and Magnolia Road ............... Ninth Street and South Street ................ Broadway Boulevard and State Street .......... Broadway Boulevard and Cloud Street .......... Ohio Street and Iron Avenue .................. Ninth Street and Crawford Avenue ............. Santa Fe Avenue and Republic Avenue .......... Ninth Street and Belmont Boulevard ........... College Avenue at State Street and Ash Street Broadway Boulevard and South Street .......... Broadway Boul evard, Pacifi c Avenue and Ni nth Street .... ... .......... ..... ....... Page Number 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 11 13 13 14 20 20 22 23 25 26 27 28 31 31 31 31 33 33 35 37 38 39 40 41 45 49 53 57 61 67 71 75 76 76 I I I Location 12 - Ninth and Cloud .................................. I CHAPTER FIVE - PROGRAM CONTINUATION AND EVALUATION I Evaluation and Updating ........................................ Traffic Accident Records ....................................... Traffic Operation Evaluation ................................... Traffic Control Devices ........................................ St reet In vento ry ............................................... Traffic Safety Report .......................................... Financing ...................................................... Public Information and Education ............................... I I I INDEX TO TABLES I Principal Arterial Street Features ................................. Minor Arterial Street Features ..................................... Collector Street Features .......................................... Railroad Crossing Inventory........................................ Make, Features and Condition of Traffic Signals .................... Travel Time and Delay Summary...................................... Peak Hour Counts ................................................... Speed Zone Summa ry Table .......... '. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. Metered Parking Space Usage Summary................................ Summary of Total Accident Data ..................................... Three-Year Economic Loss and Priority Listings - Intersections and Midblock Railroad Grade Crossing Improvement Summary........................ Signing Improvement Quantities ..................................... Improvement Project Summary........................................ Location 1 - Peak Hour Traffic ..................................... Location 1 - Accident Reduction Table .............................. Locat,ion 1 - Improvement Cost Table ................................ Location 2 - Peak Hour Traffic ..................................... Location 2 - Signal Warrants to Actual Conditions Table ............ Location 3 - Peak Hour Traffic ..................................... Location 3 - Accident Reduction Table .............................. Location 3 - Improvement Cost Table ................................ Location 4 - Peak Hour Traffic ..................................... Location 4 - Accident Reduction Table .............................. Location 4 - Improvement Cost Table ................................ Location 5 - Peak Hour Traffic ..................................... Location 5 - Accident Reduction .................................... Location 5 - Improvement Cost Table ................................ Location 6 - Peak Hour Traffic ..................................... Location 6 - Accident Reduction Table .............................. Location 6 - Improvement Cost Table ................................ I I I .............................................. ..... I I 'I I 'I :'1 'I i i Page Number 77 79 79 79 80 80 81 81 81 81 5-6 7-8 9-11 12-13 15-18 19 21 24 28 29 30 34 36-37 40 41 43 44 45 46 49 51 52 53 55 56 57 59-60 60 61 63 64 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page Number Location 7 - Accident Reduction Table .............................. 68 Location 7 - Improvement Costs Table ............................... 69 Location 8 - Peak Hour Traffic .........~........................... 71 Location 8 - Accident Reduction .................................... 73 Location 8 - Improvement Costs Table ............................... 73 INDEX TO MAPS Fo 11 owi ng Page No. Pavement Marking Map ............................................... 20 Traffic Volume Map ................................................. 20 Street Lighting Map ................................................. 22 Traffic Control Map ................................................ 23 Speed Zones and Travel Time Map .................................... 26 Pa rk i ng Ma p ........................................................ 28 Ace i dents Map ...................................................... 30 Location 1 - Ninth & Magnolia, Aerial Photo ....................... 44 Location 2 - Ninth Street & South Street, Aerial Photo ............ 47 Location 3 - Broadway Boulevard and State Street, Aerial Photo .... 52 Location 5 - Ohio Street and Iron Avenue, Aerial Photo ............ 60 Location 6 - Ninth Street and Crawford Avenue, Aerial Photo ....... 65 Location 7 - Santa Fe Avenue and Republic Avenue, Aerial Photo .... 70 Location 8 - Ninth Street and Belmont Boulevard, Aerial Photo ..... 74 Location 11 - Broadway Boulevard, Pacific Avenue and Ninth Street, Aerial Photo ....................... 76 i i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CHAPTER ONE I NTRODUCTI ON The safety of automobile travel has been a primary concern since the time when the motor vehicle was introduced as one of the major transportation modes in this country. The daily exposure of the average automobile driver or pedestrian to traffic hazards is an exceedingly complex problem. Gener- ally, after-the-fact solutions, such as police crackdown on errant drivers or lower speed limits for a prevailing condition, merely advocate treating the symptoms instead of the causes. Along with adequate driver education, traffic engineering application is one of the most effective countermeasures in hi ghway acci dent preventi on. Traffic engineering measures and traffic control devices, when applied with sound engineering principles and in accordance with accepted standards, help the motorists and pedestrians to use highways more safely, therefore reducing the potential of vehicle accidents. The primary purpose of this study report is to identify the deficiencies of the existing street and traffic control systems in the City of Salina, Kansas, and to ensure the full and legitimate application of modern traffic engineering practice and uniform traffic control standards in the City street system. This report presents an evaluation of the current traffic and traf- fic safety-related elements in the City of Salina along with recommendations and remedies which will reduce the potential of traffic accidents and upgrade the traffi c operati ons in the Ci ty. Thi s study wi 11 assi st the City of Salina in initiating a long-range traffic safety program and in participating in federal aid traffic safety improvement programs. Scope of Study The scope of the study consi sts of project i dentifi cati on and ori enta- tion, data collection and inventory, evaluation and analysis of the basic traffic engineering elements and accident data in the City for the improve- ment of traffi c safety. The juri sdi cti on of the study is 1 imi ted to the entire street system in the City which is presently maintained by and is the responsibility of the City of Salina. However, the locational emphasis of the study was primarily confined to the major street system (arteri al and collector routes) within the corporate limits of the City. Problem areas are identified, evaluated and corrective measures described along with estimated costs and acci dent reducti on potenti al . Pri ority ranki ng of improvement projects for the Ci ty was arrived at by usi ng the benfit/cost methodology outl i ned in the Hi ghway Safety Program Ma nua 1 , Volume 13, IITra ffi c Engineering Servicesll of the National Highway Safety Program Standards pursuant to the provisions of Section 402 of Title 23 of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. Study Authorization The study program was authorized by the City of Salina in cooperation with Saline County, the State of Kansas and the Federal Highway Administra- ti on. Formal noti ce to proceed wi th the study was issued by the Kansas 1 Department of Transportation on January 20, 1982. The authori zed project duration was from January 20, 1982 to September 30, 1982. Study Program and Procedure The study program follows three basic phases or steps: 1. Project Identification, Orientation, Organization and Planning; 2. Field Data Collection and Inventory; 3. Project Analysis and Report. The work plan was developed by the Consultant in accordance with National Highway Safety Standards pursuant to the provisions of Section 402 of Title 23 of the 1966 Highway Safety Act and the requirements as amended by the Bureau of Transportation Planning, Kansas Department of Transportation. The Consultant developed the study program, outlined and monitored the inventory process; field checked, reviewed, and analyzed the data collected; and drafted, prepared, presented and printed this study report. The staff from the Ci ty Engi neer I s Department performed all the street and traffic engineering-related data collections and assembled and compiled traffic accident stati sti cs and data for a three-year study peri od between 1979 and 1981. The City staff also contributed and assisted in the evalua- tion and analysis of data and improvement recommendations. Study Funding The Federal Hi ghway Admi ni strat i on of the U. S. Department of Transporta- tion provided a financial grant to Salina, Kansas, to defray the cost of those work itemsi n the study program performed by the Consultant. These funds were authorized by Congress in Section 402 (C) of Public Law 89-564, II Nat i ona 1 Hi ghway Sa fety Act of 1966". The City matched the fundi ng by providing the manpower for the data collection and inventory, as well as for 'the administration of the project. Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the Federal Highway Administration, the Safety Coordinating Section of the Bureau of Transportation Planning - Kansas Depart- ment of Transportation, the City Engineer, City Traffic Engineer and the staff from the City Engineer's Department for their assistance and input in making this study possible. 2 I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .;.:J(..... CHAPTER ~~n.;.3;i EXISTING CONDITIONS The safety and quality of traffic operation on any street are determined by two factors: the drivi ng envi ronment and human behavi or. The drivi ng environment is composed of factors such as roadway geometrics, placement and condition of traffic control devices, traffic volume and flow patterns, park- ing patterns, operating speeds, nighttime illumination, weather conditions, etc. Human factors on the other hand are the individual responses to the driv- ing environment. For instance, the driving environment may include a stop sign; but a driver mayor may not choose to obey the stop sign. With the exception of sudden mechanical failure, all accidents can be directly attri- buted to human behavi or and drivi ng envi ronment. Because each human is different and responds differently from others in the same circumstances, the reduction of traffic accidents based on human behavior alone might become a difficult task. However, where accident patterns at anyone location show a significant similarity, it is likely that the human behavior reflects an environmental problem that can be corrected. Thus, for a successful traffic safety analysis, a comprehensive inventory and evaluation of all environmen- tal factors and recent accident experience is essential. To assist the Consultant in the preparation of this study, the City Engi- neering staff conducted a thorough inventory of each of the following traffic engineering and safety-related elements: 1) Physical Features ",_':" roadway and right-of-way width, curbing and sidewalk for all major streets; street lighting; railroad grade cross- ings; parking facilities and usage, etc. 2) Traffic Control Devices -- all traffic signs, signals and pavement markings, and other devices such as railroad crossing gates. 3) Traffic Characteristics -- traffic volumes including 24-hour counts and peak hour turning movement counts; train traffic volumes; spot speeds and travel times; and parking patterns. 4) Accident Statistics -- location and severity of the accident exper- i ence for a three-year study peri od between January 1, 1979, and December 31, 1981, along with their statistics. Collision diagrams for the high accident frequency locations were prepared by using the records from the City Police Department. Street Functional Classification An inventory, in order to be effective, must have some type of organiza- tion. The most useful criteria for street organization is by their use, or functional classification. Streets in the City of Salina can be divided into five functional classi- fications: 3 1) Freeway: A divided, limited access facility which has full control of access with no traffi c crossi ngs at grade. The freeway is de- signed solely for the purpose of moving high speed traffic and is not intended to service or provide access to abutting property. 2) Principal Arterial: A facility intended to carry the major portion of tri ps enteri ng and 1 eavi ng the urban area. It shoul d have hi gh continuity and should be protected from direct access by individual uses. 3) Minor Arterial: A facility intended'to move through traffic to and from major traffic generators within the city. Minor arterial s may have less continuity and should, have greater access than principal arterials. 4) Collector: A street intended to take traffic from a local street to an arterial where such traffic can then proceed to its destination. Generally, a collector services a neighborhood or large subdivision. Collectors should be planned in a manner that they clearly provide a "collector" service for a neighborhood or development unit, but i nhi bi t any through traffi cmovement between nei ghborhoods or adja- cent development units. 5) Local Streets: A street intended to serve the individual properties abutting the street. Local streets shoul d be designed to di scourage through tra ffi c. The City of Salina has also designated by ordinance that specific streets with high continuity be considered as "through streets" and as such are enti- tled to traffic right-of-way by signing protection. The "through streets" i ncl ude arteri al, coll ector and local streets. Addi ti onal streets not des- ignated by ordinance have al so been provided with traffic right-of-way by signing installation. The street classifications are. ultimately the preference of the City; however, it is suggested that the five functional classifications are more descriptive than the "through street" designation, and that the individual merit of stop or yield protection along a street would be more flexible and responsive to the traffic operational needs than a blanket ordinance re- quiring control. Street Features Inventory Once classified, the Salina streets categorized by the Consultant as arterial or collector were inventoried by the City staff. This inventory included the name of the street, the section of the street with homogeneous features, roadway width, right-of-way width, parking characteristics, curbing and sidewalks. This inventory, as listed in the following Street Features Inventory Tables, provided essential information for specific recommendations as dis- cussed in the study 1 ocat i on sections of Chapter Four, "Improvements". Al so these features should be compared by the City to accepted design standards. As capital improvements are implemented along arterial and collector streets, every effort should be made to bring all sections of the arterial and collec- tor streets into conformity with design standards. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~~, '. '- ;il'i:tt~h~~~~~~'rls. I I PR I NC I PA~.;:ARTERIAL SJR~EJ.;:,FEA TURES I Right- Name of of- Roadway Lt./Rt. Lt. /Rt. Lt. /Rt. Street From/To Way Width Parking Curb Sidewalk I Belmont Wayne Roach 120' 461* NP NP C C S NS Roach Quincy 120' 461* NP NP C C S S Quincy Magnol i a 120. 461* NP NP C C S NS I Magnolia Hart 1201 461* NP NP C C NS NS Hart Key 1201 461* NP NP C C S S Key Daley 120' 461* NP NP C C NS S I Da 1 ey Hi ghl and 1201 461* NP NP C C S NS Highland Market Place 1201 461* NP NP C C S S Market Pl ace Ni nth 1201 461* NP NP NC NC NS NS I Broadway Ni nt h Tenth 801 371 NP NP C C NS NS Tenth El event h 801 37' NP NP C C NS S El eventh No rt h 80' 37' NP NP C C NS NS I North Ash 150' 371 NP NP C C NS NS Ash St ate 70' 541 NP NP C C NS NS State Wa 1 nut 70' 541 NP NP C C NS NS I Walnut 5001 north of Crawford 1201 541 NP NP C C NS NS 500 I north of Crawford Crawford 1201 54' NP NP C C NS S I Crawford S. Ninth . 120 I 541 NP NP C C NS NS Crawford City Limi ts I-135 1051 28' NP NP NC NC NS NS I I -135 Cen tenn ia 1 801 531 NP NP C C NS NS Centennial Cherokee 801 41' NP NP C C NS NS Cherokee Broadway 801 411 NP NP C C NS S Broadway Mo-Pac RR 70' 401 NP NP C C NS NS I Mo-Pac RR Ni nt h 651 401 NP NP C C S S Ni nt h Fi fth 731 401 NP NP C C S S Fi ft h Second 731 40' NP NP C C S NS I Second Front 731 401 NP NP C C S S Front 543' E. of Front 70' 40' NP NP C C S NS I 5431 E. of Front El mo re 601 401 NP NP C C S NS Elmore Ohio 601 401 NP NP C C NS NS Ohi 0 250' E. of I Ohi 0 601 401 NP NP C C NS NS 2501 E. of Va r. Ohio Le f ran 651-85' 26' NP NP C C NS NS I Lefran Indi an Va r. Rock Pa rk 651-851 261 NP NP NC NC NS NS Indian Park River Bridge 601 26' NP NP NC NC NS NS I River Bridge River Bridge 60' 261 NP NP NC NC NS NS River Bridge Victoria Heights Dr. 1401 261 NP NP NC NC NS NS Vi ctori a I Heights Dr. t~arymount 651 261 NP NP NC NC NS NS Ma rymount Se i t z 90' 261 NP NP' NC NC NS NS Se i t z City Limits 85' 261 NP NP NC NC NS NS I 5 I PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL STREET FEATURES I Ri ght- L t./Rt. I Name of of- Roadway Lt./Rt. Lt./Rt. Street From/To Way Width Parking Curb Sidewalk Ninth Culver 1-70 Var. Avg. I 120' 52' NP NP NC NC NS NS 1-70 Dike 2001-1501 52' NP NP NC NC NS NS Dike Euclid Var. Avg. I 1601 50' NP NP NC NC NS NS E uc 1 i d Inez 801 471 NP NP C C NS NS Inez Pacifi c 801 471 NP NP C C S S I Pacific North 801 47' P P NC NC S S North Bishop 901 47' P P NC NC NS S Bishop Elm 901 471 P P C C S S I Elm Ash 901 471 NP NP C C S S Ash State 90' 47' NP NP C C S S State South 741 36'-471 NP NP C C S S South Prescott 701 371 NP NP C C S S I Prescott Crawford 631 36' NP NP C C S S Crawford Republic 65' 37' NP NP C C S S Republic Cloud 701 35'-37' NP NP C C S S I Cloud Charlotte 1201 481 NP NP NC C NS NS Charlotte Les1 ie 1201 48' NP NP NC NC NS NS Leslie Wayne Var. Var. NP NP NC NC NS NS I Wayne Magnolia 150'-1761 441 NP NP NC NC N NS Magnolia City Limits Var. Avg. 170' 441 NP NP NC NC NS NS Ohio Pacific Elm 70' 441 NP NP C . C NS NS I Elm Ash 701 37'-391 NP NP C C NS S Ash Johnstown 701 371-391 NP NP C C S NS I Johnstown Iron 701 271-39' NP NP C C S S Iron Staple 701 361-401 NP NP C C S S Staple Hazel Ct. 7eil 361-401 NP NP C C NS NS I Hazel Ct. Greeley 70' 36'-40' NP NP C C S NS Greeley Indi an Rock 120' 461* NP NP C C NS NS Indian Rock Westchester 1201 46'* NP NP C C S NS Westchester Prescott 1201 461* NP NP C C NS NS I Prescott Crawford 1201 461* NP NP C C NS S Crawford Faith 1201 461* NP NP C C NS NS Faith Manor 120' 46'* NP NP C C S NS I Manor Ell sworth 1201 461* NP NP C C NS NS Ellsworth K i rwi n 120' 461* NP NP C C NS S Kirwin Albert 1201 461* NP NP C C NS NS A1 bert Wayne . 1201 461* NP NP C C S S I * 4 lanes with grass median. I I 6 I -;f~~ :-i-.; ,. ..." .~ ",,,, I I MINORIARTERIAL STREET FEATURES "' .,'.' I Rig h t- Name of of- Roadway Lt./Rt. Lt./Rt. Lt./Rt. Street From/To Way Width Parking Curb Sidewalk I Ash Broadway Ninth 801 39' P P C C S S Ninth Fifth 80' 541 NP NP C C S S Fi fth Fourth 801 641 NP NP C C S S I Fourth Des Moines 80' 48' P P C C S S Des Moines Ohio 80' 481 P P C C S NS I Centenni al Crawford Burchinal Rd. 100' 241 NP NP NC NC NS NS Burchinal Rd.General Jim 1001 241 NP NP NC NC NS NS General Jim Schill ing 1001 231 NP NP NC NC NS NS Schilling Ba i 1 ey 1001 311 NP NP NC NC NS NS I Cloud Centennial Cherokee 601 36' NP NP NC NC NS NS Cherokee Dover Drive 601 36' NP NP C C NS S I Dover Drive Bel-Air 60' 36' NP NP C C NS NS Bel-Air Haskett 60' 361 NP NP C C S NS Haskett Broadway 501 361 P P C C NS NS I Broadway Hageman 60' 36' P NP C C S NS Hageman Ninth 601 361 P NP C C S S Ninth Highland 611 36' NP NP C C NS S Highland Fourth 611 481 P NP C C NS S I Fourth Osborne 61' 361 P P NC C NS S Osborne Quincy 611 361 P P C C NS S Quincy Norton 611 361 P P C C NS NS I Norton L ewi,s 611 361 P P C C S S Lewis Ohio' , 61' 361 P P C C NS NS I Country Club Marymount Eastborough 601 291 NP NP NC C NS NS Eastborough Ci ty Umi ts 801 291 NP NP NC NC NS NS I Iron Co 11 ege Ninth 971 421 P P C C S S Ninth RR Tracks 1001 601 P P C C S S RR Tracks Front 1001 60' P P C C S S I Front Delaware 701 37'-40' P NP C C S S Delaware 300' E. of Indi ana 70' 37'-40' P NP C C S NS I 300' E. of Indiana Wisconsin 70' 37'-401 P NP C C S S Wisconsin Rridge 701 37'-40' P NP C C S NS Bridge Marymount 701 401 NP NP C C S NS I Magnolia Ninth Highland 50' 361 NP NP C C NS NS Highland Drake 60' 361 P P C C NS S I Drake Belmont 601 36' P P C C NS NS Belmont Edward 751 491 NP NP C C S S Edward Ohio 751 491 NP NP C C S s I I 7 I MINOR ARTERfAL STREET FEATURES I Ri ght- Lt./Rt. I Name of of- Roadway Lt./Rt. Lt./Rt. Street From/To Way Width Parking Curb Sidewalk Marymount Country I Club Iron 60' 321-40' NP NP NC NC NS NS Iron Hillside 601 32'-401 NP NP C C NS NS Hillside Glen 60' 321-401 NP NP C C S NS I Gl en Brooh.Jood 70' 401 NP NP C C NS S Brookwood Starlight 751 40' NP NP C C NS S Starlight Crawford 75' 401 NP NP C C NS NS I Ohio Wayne Oxford 601 321 NP NP C C S NS Oxford Magnolia 60' 321 NP NP C C NS S Magnolia Felton 70' 32' NP NP NC NC NS NS I Felton 3751 S. of Burr Oak 80' 32' NP NP NC NC NS NS 375' S. of I Burr Oak City Limits 601 321 NP NP NC NC NS NS Pacific Ninth Santa Fe 811 32'-40' P P C C S S I Santa Fe Fifth 82.5' 401 P P C C S S Fifth Fourth \ 80' 40' P P C C' S S Fourth Third 801 40' P P C C S NS Third 120 I E. of I Third 80' 401 P P C C NS NS 120 I E. of Third Front 601 401 P P C C NS NS I Front Ohio 801-731 221 NP NP NC NC NS NS Ohio Curve 501 221 NP NP NC NC NS NS Curve Ci ty L imi ts 401 221 NP NP NC NC NS NS I Santa Fe Pacifi c Mo-Pac RR 1001 601 P P C C S S Mo-Pac RR Mulberry 1001 60' P P C C S S Mulberry Cl afl in 1001 601 P P C C S S I State 1-135 Ci ty Limi ts 451 241 NP NP NC NC NS NS City Limits Broadway 661 321-361 NP NP NC NC NS NS I Broadway Chicago 661 36' P P C C S NS Chicago Clark 66' 361 P P C C S S Cl ark t.1o-Pac RR 66' 36' P P C C S NS I Mo-Pac RR Co 11 ege 661 361 P P C C S NS I I I 8 I I COLLECTOR STREET FEATURES I Right- I Name of of- Roadway Lt ./Rt. Lt. / Rt . Lt./Rt. Street From/To Way Width Parking Curb Si dewa lk Otto Hasket Neptune 60' 32' P P C C NS S I Ends 150' East Neptune Hageman 60' 32' P P C C NS NS Hageman Tulane 60' 32' P P C C NS S I Tulane Ni nth 60' 32' P P C C S NS Prescott Montrose Ninth 60' 32' P P C C S S I Ni nth Highland 80' 40' P P C C S S Highland Santa Fe 50' 30' P P C C S S Santa Fe Fourth 68.5' 36' P P C C S S I Fourth Front 50' 32' P P C C S S Front Ohio 60' 32' NP NP C C NS NS Quincy Magnolia Le 1 and Way 60' 32' P P C C NS S I (Belmont) Le 1 and Way Kensi ngton 60' 32' P P C C S S Ken s i ngton Cloud 60' 32' P P C C NS S I Cloud Jewell 80' 32' P P C C NS NS Jewell Re pub 1 i c 80' 32' P P C C NS S Republic Centennial Cherokee 80' 40' P P NC NC NS NS I Cherokee Broadway 801 40' P P C C NS NS Broadway Hancock 64' 32'-36' P NP C C NS NS Hancock Custer 64' 32'-36' P NP C C NS S I Custer El eventh 64' 32'-36' P NP C C S S El eventh Tent h 64' 32'-36' P NP C C NS S Tenth Ni nth 64' 32'-36' P NP C C S S I Ninth Highland 68' 36' P NP C C S S Highland Santa Fe 33' 26' P NP C C NS S Santa Fe Osborne 63' 36' P NP C C S S I Osborne Front 63' 36' P NP C C S NS Front Quincy 53' 32' P P C C S NS Quincy Roach 53' 32' P P C C NS NS Roach Pea r 1 60' 32' P P C C S NS I Pe a r 1 Ohio 60' 32' P P C C NS NS Seitz Applewood I Lane Gl en 60' 32' P P C C NS NS Gl en Edgehill 60,' 32' P P C C NS NS Edgehill Eastborough 60' 32' P P C C NS NS I South Broadway Montrose 62' 3D' P P C C NS PS Montrose Santa Fe 62' -80(' 30'-37' P P C C S S I I 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "';~'" v''. ,'" y ~ -. ' . ','~ ,(,<,",:: "':.?T ' :~.'.',~!J,..,r COLLECTOR STREET FEATURES Right- Name of of- Roadway Lt./Rt. Lt./Rt. Lt./Rt. Street From/To Way Width Parking Curb Sidewalk Wayne Highland Fourth 60' 32' P P C C NS NS Fourth Leland Way 60' 321 P P C C S NS Leland Way No rto n 601 32' P P C C NS S Norton Roac h 601 321 P P C C S S Roach Ohio 60' 321 P P C C S NS P=Parking; NP=No Parking; C=Curb; NC=No Curb; S=Sidewalk; NS=No Sidewalk, PS=Partial Sidewalk. Railroad Grade Crossings Railroad grade crossings present conflict points between vehicular traf- fic and trains and as such significantly affect traffic flow and safety. Accidents that occur at grade crossings are usually severe in terms of fatalities, injuries and property damage. Ideally, these conflicts could be eliminated by total grade separation, but only in extremely high volume situations would this solution be economic- ally justifiable. Hence~' other types of protection devices have been developed. Next to grade separation, either flashing lights or gates are equally effective for protection in an urban setting. Stop signs follow lights and gates in effectiveness, but should only be used on a temporary basis while plans are being prepared for lights or gates. The basic protec- tion required at all railroad crossings is the crossbuck. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTeD) requires a crossbuck (RI5-1) and one railroad advance warning sign (WID-I) for each approach to a grade crossing, except for very specifically 1 imited cases. All rail road grade crossi ng protection devices are the legal responsibil Hy of the rail road companies, except for the railroad advance warning sign which is the responsibility of whoever maintains the roadway. The city street system in Salina intersects with the main lines and spurs of three railroads (Union Pacific; Missouri Pacific; Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe) at 81 grade crossing locations. Fifteen of these locations are protected with flashing lights and nine of these locations with gates. Many of the crossings do not meet MUTCD standards for crossbucks, and most of the crossings do not meet MUTCD requirements for railroad advance warning signs. The inventory of all 81 crossings is summarized in the Railroad Crossing Inventory Table. Specific and general recommendations for improvement are treated in the "Improvements" chapter. Locations of crossing gates and flashing lights are also illustrated on the Traffic Control Map later in this chapter. 11 I RAILROAO CROSSING INVENTORY I PROTECTION VOLUf1E Adv. (ADT) Location No. X l~a rn i n g Stop Fl ash Vehicles Trains Railroad On-Between Tracks Bucks Signs Signs Lights Gates (Est.) I 1. Mo-Pac Scan 1 an-Genera 1 Jim/Ganey 6 * 1* 1,600 2 2. r10-Pac Centennial-General Jim/De Russey 2 2* * 3,200 2 I 3. Mo-Pac Broadway-Cloud/nover 1 4 1* X 9,520 2 4. Un-Pac Broadway-North/Lincoln 1 2 2 X 9,545 2 5. Un-Pac Chicago-Elm/Logan 1 1* * 300 4 6. ATSF Chi cago-El m 3 1* * 300 1 7. ATSF, Mo- I Pac Phillips-Bishop/North 3 1* * 300 0 8. Un-Pac Twelfth-Bishop/North 3 2* * 300 7 9. ATSF, Mo- Pac Twelfth-Bishop/North 5 2 * 300 10 I 10. Pac Ninth-North/North 5 2 X X 7,350 7 11. Un-Pac Ni nth-North 2 1* 7,350 8 12. ATSF Ni nt h-Pi n e/ North 4 2 X X 7,350 8 13. ATSF Ninth-Pine 1 1* * 7,350 0 14. Mo-Pac Ninth-Bishop/Pine 2 4* 1 X 7,350 2 I 15. Mo-Pac Eighth-Pine/Elm 2 2* * 300 2 16. Mo-Pac Seventh-Pine 7 1* * 300 3 17. ATSF Seventh-Pine/North 5 1 * 300 8 18. Un-Pac Sevent h- Nort h 2 1* * 300 7 I 19. Mo-Pac Santa Fe-Elm/Pine 1 3 X 6,010 4 20. Mo-Pac Santa Fe-Pine 2 * 6,010 0 21. ATSF Santa Fe-Pine/North 3 2* X X 6,010 8 22. Un-Pac Santa Fe-North 5 2* 6,010 8 23. Un-Pac Santa Fe-North/Lincoln 6 2 1 X X 5,690 7 I 24. Un-Pac Fifth-Elm/Pine 2 2* * 1,600 8 25. Mo-Pac Fi fth-Pi ne 5 1* 1,600 4 26. ATSF Fi fth-North 3 2* 1,600 8 27. Un-Pac Fourth-Center/South 1 1,400 4 I' 28. Un-Pac Fourth-Walnut/Iron 1 1* 1,800 8 29. Un-Pac Third-Elm 1 * * 300 0 30. Mo-Pac Thi rd-Pi ne 6 2* * 300 6 31. CRIP Thi rd-North 1 2* 300 0 32. ATSF Third-North/Lincoln 2 2* 300 8 I 33. Mo-Pac Second- Pi ne 4 ' 1* * 300 6 34. CRIP Second-North/Lincoln 1 2* * 300 0 35. ATSF Second-North/Lincoln 3 2* * 300 8 36. Mo-Pac Front-Pine 1 2 * 300 8 37. . CRI P Front-North/Lincoln 1 2 * 300 0 I 38. ATSF Front-Lincoln/Railroad 2 2 * 300 8 39. Mo-Pac Ohi o-North/York 1 2* * 6,160 12 40. CRIP Ohio-Woodland/Pacific 1 2* * 5,640 0 41. ATSF Ohio-Woodland/Pacific 2 2 5,640 8 I 42. Un-Pac Ohio-Woodland/Pacific 4 2 * X X 5,640 7 43. t1o-Pac Schilling-Centennial/Foxboro 1 2* * X X 5,080 2 44. Mo-Pac Magnolia-Centennial/Ninth 1 2 2* 4,107 2 45. Un-Pac Magnolia-Belmont 1 1* * 3,785 2 46. ' Un-Pac Belmont-Magnolia 1 2 * 2,520 2 I 47. Un - Pa c Wayne-Fourth/Leland 1 2 * 700 2 48. Un-Pac Raymond-Leland/Fourth 1 2 * 300 2 49. Mo-Pac Cloud-Dover/Roberts 1 2* * 2,198 2 50. Un-Pac Cloud-Fourth 1 2* * 6,600 2 I 5l. Un-Pac Cl afl in-Fourth 1 1* * 3,400 2 52. Un-Pac Ellsworth-Fourth 1 1* * 300 2 53. t1o-Pac Republic-Vassar/Hancock 1 '2* * 3,908 2 54. Un-Pac Republic-Fourth 1 1* * 3,015 2 55. Mo - Pa c Franklin-Plaza/Hancock 1 1* * 300 2 I 56. t10-Pac Crawford-Vassar/Hancock 1 2 2 X X 11,155 2 57. Un - Pa c Crawford-Fourth 1 2 2 X X 8,655 2 58. Un-Pac Prescot t -F ourt h 1 1* * 4,600 2 59. Un - Pa c Center-Fourth 1 1* * 400 3 I 60. r1o-Pac South-Clark/Montrose 1 2 2* X 5,100 2 61. Un-Pac South-Fourth 1 . 1 * 600 4 62. t1o-Pac Spruce-Clark/College 1 1* * 2* 200 2 63. Un-Pac Mulberry-Fourth 1 1* * 1,200 4 64. Mo-Pac Walnut-Clark/College 1 2 * 2* 2,800 2 I 65. Un - Pa c Walnut-Fourth 1 1* * 2,100 6 66. t1o-Pac University-Clark/College 1 1* * 2* 300 2 I2 I '.""::;:;,;0-:-:. :.~(F o "-Ti:: "J"--'" I I I I I I I PROTECT ION VOLUME Adv. (ADT) Location No. X \1arning Stop Fl ash Vehicles Trains Rai 1 road On-Between Tracks Bucks Signs Signs Lights Gates (Est.) 67. Un-Pac Iron-Fourth 1 2* 2 X 9,000 8 68. Mo-Pac State-Clark/College 1 2 * 2* 2,300 2 69. Mo-Pac ASh-Chicago/College 1 2 * 2* 2,900 2 70. Un-Pac Ash-Fourth 3 2 2* X X 7,635 8 71. Mo-Pac Park-Chicago/College 1 1* 2* 300 2 72. Mo-Pac Elm-West/College 1 1* 2* 300 2 73. Un-Pac El m-Fourth 4 0* * 2,900 8 74. Un-Pac Elm-Third 5 2* * 2,900 0 75. Un-Pac North-Whittredge 1 1* * 1,800 2 76. Un-Pac North-Eleventh/Tenth 1 1* * 2,300 0 77. Un - Pa c North-Tenth/Ninth 2 0* * 2,300 78. ATSF North-Fourth 3 0 3* * 2,000 8 79. CRIP North-Third/Second 1 2 * 2,000 0 80. Mo-Pac North-York/Ohio 2 0* * 1,700 4 81. Mo-Pac Nort h- York/Ohi 0 1 2 * 1,700 8 *Qoes not meet MUTCD Standards, see signing maps. Un-Pac: Union Pacific M9-PaC: Missouri Paci fic ATSF: Atchi son, Topeka and Santa Fe CRIP: Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific I I I I I I I I Traffic Control Devices Because traffic safety is dependent upon human behavior and the driving envi ronment, it is essent i a 1 that there be some means of modifyi ng both of these factors; traffic control devices regulate behavior and warning of devia- tions in the driving environment. The MUTeD allows for and specifies the use and design of a variety of traffic control devices: regulatory signs, warn- ing signs, guide signs, pavement markings, delineators and object markers, barricades, channelizing devices, traffic signals, railroad grade crossing flashing lights and gates, etc. For the purpose of this study, the City Engineering staff inventoried only permanent traffic control devices (except guide and information signs); temporary devices such as construction signing were not inventoried. The information provided by the City was field inspected and reviewed by the Consultant, either simultaneously with tIle City's data collection, or at a later date. Specific and general recommenda- tions regarding all traffic control devices will be discussed in Chapter Four, "Improvements". Traffic Signs I I Traffic signs are the most common and the most diversified of all traffic control devi ces. The MUTeD catagori zes all tra ffi c signs into three major divisions according to their basic function: (1) regulatory signs state mandatory traffic information (such as no parking or stop); (2) warning signs alert motorists to an unexpected condition (such as a turn or a narrow bridge); and (3) guide signs inform motorists of locations (such as mile markers, highway route numbers or hospital directions). I I 13 To be truly effective, signs must (1) command attention; (2) convey a clear and concise message; (3) command the respect of motorists; and (4) al- low motori sts the opportunity to act. In order to meet these criteri a for effectiveness, the MUTCD specifies standards of placement, design and warrant of signs. Seeking to meet the requirements of the MUTeD, the City Engineering staff and the Consultant conducted a joint inventory of all regulatory and warning signs on city-maintained streets. This inventory has been displayed in graphic form in a 22" x 36" set of exhibits. The existing condition of each sign has been noted along with specific improvement recommendations. Generally, the placement of most signs in Salina is adequate. However, the design, specifically the size, of most speed limit and stop signs is substandard. Also, many existing stop signs are not warranted, and many railroad advance warning signs which are required are absent. The parking signs carry a variety of legends, many non-standard. The condition of the majority of signs, rowever, is good as the City has a full-time sign depart- ment to perform routine maintenance. Traffic Signals Traffic signals when properly designed, installed and operated can be very effective in increasing the safety and quality of traffic operation. When unwarranted or poorly designed, however, signals can actually increase acci dent potenti al and motori st del ay. For thi s reason, the MUTeD estab- 1 ishes specific design criteria and eight (8) technical warrants for signal installation. One of these eight must be met for installation of a legal traffic signal: Warrant 1 - Minimum vehicular volume Warrant 2 - Interruption of continuous traffic Warrant 3 - Minimum pedestrian traffic Warrant 4 - School crossing Warrant 5 - Progressive movement of traffic Warrant 6 - Accident experience Warrant 7 - Systems Warrant 8 - Combination of warrants The City of Salina maintains 63 traffic signals, including 13 school crossing signals and four (4) pedestrian crossing signals. In addition to these 63 signals, the City also operates one four-way flashing red beacon and 23 flashing amber hazard identification beacons and speed limit sign beacons. Presently the twenty-two (22) signals in the Central Business District are synchronized. The signal inventory as performed by the City Engineering staff is sum- marized in the Make, Features and Condition of Traffic Signals Table. The location of all signals are also illustrated on the Traffic Control Map later in this chapter. Specific recommendations related to traffic signals will be discussed in detail in the "Improvements" chapter. I4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . '';'.')"'-;' ,:""1J-'~, ~l''l'};j:''''.'i~~l;:.'' "'~:' ~;:r-:tf.'it<;ff.5.,(~~q.!-1~ I ';.. t ":.. MAKE. FEATURES AND CO~mITION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS I Si gnal'.; *Controll er Pedestrian r1a ke"'a nd. W-DW* Streets Phase Mountlng Lens Type Network Condition Indication Comments I Crawford & 2-Phase Mast Arm R-12" EF-15 Good Yes Mid-Block Cherokee-Dun 1 Ped.-Act. A-12" ET-501 Sc hoo 1 G-12" Crossing W-9" I Broadway & 2-Phase 2-Mast Ann R-12" ET-460 Good 1979 North Full Act. A-12" TF453R52002B800 G-12" Broadway & 2-Phase 4-Mast Ann R-12" ET-460 Good 1979 I State Full Act. A-12" TF453B5202B800 G-12" Broadway & 4-Phase ' 2-Mast Ann R-12" ET 308A20000 Good 1975 South Semi-Act. 2-Pedestal A-12" Moduvac G-12" I Broadway & 4-Phase 4-Mas t Ann R-12" Moduvac Fair 1973 Crawford Semi-Act. A-12" ET-300 G-12" ET-300 I Broadway & 8-Phase 4-Mast Ann R-12" Yes Proposed Crawford Full Act. A-12" G-12" W-12" I Broadway & 4-Phase 2-Mast Arm R-12" ET 308A20000 Good 1978 Republic Semi -Act. 2-Pedestal A-12" G-12" Broadway & 4-Phase 4-Mast Arm R-12" ET 308A20000 Good I Cloud Semi-Act. A-12" G-12" Phillips & 2-Phase 2-Mast Arm R-12" EF-20 Good Yes Wal nut Semi-Act. 2 -Pedes ta 1 A-12" I G-8" W-9" Hageman & 2-Phase 2-Mast Ann R-12" ET-501 Good Yes Mid-Block Will is-Mapl e Ped-Act. A-12" EF-15 School I G-12" Crossing W-9" Cloud & 2-Phase 2-Mast Arm R-12" ET -501 Good Yes Mid-Slack 9th-ll th Ped-Act. A-12" EF-15 Schoo 1 G-12" Crossing I W-9" Broadway & 3-Phase 2-Pedestal R-12" EF-20 Good Yes 1969 Pacifi c-9th Fixed Time 3-Mas t Ann A-8" 5-Leg G-8" I W-9" 9th & 2-Phase 2-Mast Ann R-12" ET -501 Good No' Mid-Block Woodland-Grand Ped-Act. A-12" EF-15 School G-12" Crossing I W-9" 9th & 2-Phase 4-Mast Ann R-12" EF-20 Inter-- Good Elm Fixed Time A-8" Connect G-8" I 9th & 2-Phase 4-Mast Arm R-12" EF-20 In te r- Good Ash Fixed time A-8" Connect G-8" I 9th & 2-Phase 4-Pedestal R-12" EF-20 Inter- Good Yes Iron Fixed Time A-8" Connect G-8" W-9" I 9th & 2-Phase 4-Pedesta 1 R-12" EF-20 Inter- Good Walnut Fixed Time A-8" Connect G-8" 9th & 2-Phase 2-r~ast Ann R-12" EF-15 Good Yes 1975 Mul berry SeMi-Act. 3-pedestal A-12" I G-12" W-12" I 15 MAKE. FEATURES AND CONDITION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS I *Controll er Pedestri an Signal Make and fI-DW I St reet s Phase Mountlng Lens Type Network Cond it i on Indication Comments 9th & 4-Phase 4-Mast Arm R-12" EF-20 Good Yes Crawford Fixed Time A~12" G-12" I W-12" 9th & 2-Phase 2-Mast Ann R-12" ET -501 Good Yes r~i d-Bl ock Bond-Franklin Ped-Act. A-12" EF -15 Sc hoo 1 G-12" Crossin9 I W-9" 9th & 3-Phase 4-Pedesta1 R-12" EF-20 Good Yes Rep ub 1 i c Ped-Act. A-8" All Red G-fl" W-9" I 9th & 2-Phase 4-Pedesta 1 R-12" EF-20 Good Claflin Fixed Time A-fl" G-8" 9th & 3-Phase 2-Mast Ann R-12" EF-21-B300 Good Yes I Cloud Ped-Ac t. 3-Pedesta1 A-8" 067676-22-1 G-8" W-9" 9th & 4-Phase 2-Ma st Ann R-12" DP-900 Good Yes I Otto Semi -Act. 5-Pedesta 1 A-I2" Solid State G-12" W-9" 9th & 4-Phase 4-Span Wi re R-12" ET-300 Good I Magnolia Full Act. A-12" Moduvac G-12" Sol id State Bth& 4-Phase 5-Pedesta 1 R-12" EF-20 Inter- Good Yes Ash Fi xed Time 2-Mast Arm A-8" Connect I G-8" W-9" 8th & 2-Phase 4-Pedesta 1 R-12" Ef-20 Inter- Good Iron Fi xed Time A-8" Connect I G-811 8th & 2-Phase 4-Pedesta 1 R-12" EF-20 Inter- Good Wa 1 nut Fi xed Time A-8" Connect G-8" I lth& 2-Phase 4-Pedestal R-12" EF-20 Inter- Good Elm Fixed Time A-8" Connect G-8" lth& 2-Phase 4-Ma s t Arm SB-R-A-G-12" EF-20 Inter- Good One-Way I Ash Fi xed Time EB-R-12" Connect No. Bound AG-8" NB-R-12" - AG-8" I WB-R-12"- AG-8" lth& 2-Phase 4-Pedestal R-12" EF-20 Inter- Good Yes One-Way Iron Fi xed Time A-8" Connect No. Bound G-8" I - W-12" lth& 2-Phase 4-Pedesta 1 R-12" EF-20 Inter- Good Yes On e Way Walnut Fixed time A-8" Connect No. Bound G-8" I W-9" Santa Fe & 2-Phase 2-Mast Ann R-12" EF-15 Otis-Antrim Ped-Ac t. A-12" ET-501 G-12" Yes I W-9" Santa Fe & 2-Phase 4-Pedestal R-12" EF-2D Good Pac ifi c Fixed Time A-8" G-fl" I Santa Fe & 2-Phase 4-Pedesta1 R-12" EF-2D Good Elm Fixed Time A-8" G-8" Santa Fe & 2-Phase 4-Ma st Ann R-12" EF-20 Inter- Good I Ash Fi xed Time A-8" Connect G-8" Santa Fe & 2-Phase 2-Ma st Ann R-12" EF-20 Fai r Yes Mid-Block Ash-Iron Ped-Act. G-8" I A-R" 16 ~'r, ;_ ~. ",,,_,._, ._~___,' .. ......._-,,-;~,..'~.'.~ I MAKE, FEATURES AND CONDITION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS *Controller Pedestrian Signal Make and W-DW* I St reet s Phase Mountlng Lens Type Network Cond it ion Indication Comments Fe " 2-Phase 2-Mast Arm R-12" EF -'20 Santa Inter- Good No Le ft Iron Fixed Time 2-Pedestal A-8" Connect Turn I G-8" Santa Fe " 2-Phase 2-Mast Arm R-12" EF-20 Fai r Yes Mi d-8l ock Iron-Wa 1 nut Ped-Act. G-8" A-fl" I W-9" Santa Fe & 2-Phase 2-Mast Arm R-12" EF-20 Inter- Good Walnut Fi xed Time 2-Pedesta 1 A-R" Connect G-8" I Santa Fe & 2-Phase 2-Mast Arm R-12" Wa 1 nut-Mul berry Ped-Act. G-8" A-8" W-9" I Santa Fe & 2-Phase 2-Pedestal R-12" Ef-20 Inter- Good Mulberry Fi xed Time 2-Mast Arm A-B" Connect G-8" Santa Fe & 2-Phase 4-Pedesta 1 R-12" EF -20 Inter- Fai r I South Fi xed Time A-8" Connect G-8" Santa Fe & 2-Phase 2-Mast Arm R-12" ET -121 Inter- Fai r Yes Mi d-Bl ock Sears Ctr. Semi -Act I-Pedestal A-B" Connect I G-8" W-9" Santa Fe & 2-Phase 4-Pedesta 1 R-12" EF-20 Inter- Fai r Prescott Fixed Time A-8" , Connec t G-8" I Santa Fe & 2-Phase 4-Pedesta 1 R-12" EF-20 Inter- Fair Crawford Fixed Time A-8" Connect G-B" I Santa Fe 2-Phase 4-Mast Arm R-12" Yes Proposed Crawford Fixed Time A-12" G-12" W-9" I Santa Fe & 2-Phase 2-Mast Arm R-12" EF -20 Good Yes Schoo 1 Bond Semi -Act. 2-Pedestal A-12" Crossin9 G-12" W-12" I Santa Fe & 2-Phase 4-pedesta 1 R-12" EF-20 Good Yes School Republ ic Fixed Time A-8" Crossing G-8" W-12" I 5th & 2-Phase 2-Pedestal R-12" EF-20 Inte r- Good No. Bound One Way Ash Fi xed Time 2-Ma st Arm A-8" Connect Only So. Bound G-8" W-12" 5th & 2-Phase 4-Pedestal R-12" EF-20 Inter- Fair No. Bound One Way I Iron Fi xed Time A-8" Connect Only So. Bound G-B" W-12" 5th & 2-Phase 4-Pedestal R-12" EF-20 Inte r- Fair No. Bound One Way I Wa 1 nut Fi xed Time A-8" Connect Only So. Bound G-8" W-9" Belmont & 2-Phase 2-Mast Arm R-12" ET-501 Good Yes Mid-Block I Ray -Key Ped-Act. A-I2" EF -15 Schoo 1 W-9" Crossing W-9" Osborne & 2-Phase 2-Pedestal R-12" EF-20 Good Yes Sc hoo 1 I Cloud Semi -Act. 2-Mast Arm A-12" Crossing G-12" w_g" Fran t & 2 - Pha s e 4-Pedestal R-12" EF-20 Fai r I Crawford Fi xed Time A-8" G-8" Oakdale & 2-Phase 4-Pedes ta 1 R-12" ET-121 Fai r Iron Semi -Act. A_A" I G-8" 17 MAKE. FEATURES AND CONDITION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS *Controller Pedestrian Signal Make and W-DW* St reet s Phase Mountlng Lens Type Network Condition Indication Comments Crawford & 2-Phase Mas t Arm R-12" EF-15 Good Yes Mid-B] od Front-Roach Ped-Act. A-8" School G-8" Crossing W-9" Iron & 2-Phase 2-Mast Arm R-12" ET-501 Good Yes 11i d-Bl ock Penn-Col umbi a Ped-Act. A-12" EF-15 Schoo 1 (;-12" Crossing W-9" Roach & 2-Phase 4-Pedes ta] R-12" ET-121 Fa i r Crawford Semi -Act. A-8" G-8" Roach & 2-Phase 3-Pedestal R-l2" ET-3l0 Good Yes SchGo] Belmont Semi -Act. 2-Mast Arm A-l2" Crossing G-l2" W-9" Ohio & 2-Phase 4-Mast Ann R-l2" EF-20 Good Iron Fixed Time A-8" G-8" Ohio & 2-Phase 4-Pedesta 1 R-12" EF-20 Fair Crawford Fi xed Time A-8" G-8" Ohio & 8-Phase 4 t1ast Arm R-12" Proposed Crawford Full Act. A-12" G-12" Ohio & 2-Phase 2 Mast Arm R-12" ET-121 Fair Cloud Semi -Act. 2-Pedestal A-8" G-8" Ohio & 2-Phase 2 r~ast Arm R-12" EF-20 Good Yes Mid-Block Shalimar-Wayne Ped-Act. A-12" School G-12" Crossing W-9" Marymount & 2-Phase 2 Mast Ann R-12" EF-20 Good Yes Glen Semi-Act. 2-pedestal A-12" G-12" W-9" *All Controllers are Eagle Signals. Corri dors wi th closely spaced signals often cause substanti al del ay to motorists because of the constant stopping and starting. Thus, portions of streets heavi ly signal i zed, such as Santa Fe Avenue between El m Street and Crawford Avenue, can often be improved by coordinating the signals to work in synchronization with each other. At the request of the Ci ty,. the Consul tant tested the present synchronization of the Santa Fe Avenue corridor signals. The results of the survey are summarized in the Travel Time and Delay Summary Tables. It can be noted that generally the synchronization works well, except for signal s 6 and 11 where the del ay averages 12 and 10 seconds, respectively. From the fi el d survey it was observed that overall travel time was lower on the inside lanes than on the outside lanes and for northbound traffic than for southbound traffic. 18 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TRAVEL TIME AND DELAY SUMMARY ROUTE: Santa Fe BETWEEN: Crawford and Elm DIRECTION: Northbound DAY: Wednesday DATE: 5-5-81 TIME PER I 00: 3:30-4:00 P.M. SECTION OVERALL TIMEIDELAY TIME (SECONDS) AVG. OVERALL AVe;. RUNNING AVG. DELAY OVERALL RUNNING LENGTH RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 T rr~E TIME TIME SPEED SPEED SECTION (MILES) (Outside Lane ) (Inside Lane) (Outside Lane) ( SECONDS) (SECONDS) (SECONDS) (MPH) rr~p H) ~ 12-11 0.218 54/23 311 39/8 41 31 10 19 25 11-10 0.114 24/7 151 24/2 21 18 3 20 23 10-9 0.161 3313 281 36/4 32 30 2 13 19 9-8 0.108 31/8 191 25/4 25 21 4 16 19 8-7 0.086 181 171 20/5 18 16 2 17 19 7-6 0.066 22/6 33/22 181 24 15 9 10 16 6-5 0.076 211 151 101 15 15 0 18 18 5-4 0.076 I91 141 22/ 18 18 0 15 15 4-3 0..076 161 151 18/2 16 15 1 17 18 3-2 0.076 141 11/ 151 13 13 0 21 21 TOTAL 1.209 277 /47 224/22 260134 254 220 34 17 20 ROUTE: Santa Fe BETWEEN: Elm and Crawford DIRECTION: Southbound DAY: WedneSday DATE: 5-5-81 TIME PER IOD: 3:30-4:00 P.M. SECTION OVERALL TIMEIDELAY TIME (SECONDS) AVG. OVERALL AVG. RUNNING AVG. DELAY OVERALL RUNNING LENGTH RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 TIME TIME TIME SPEED SPEED SECTI ON (MILES) (Outside Lane (Inside Lane) (Outside Lane) (SECONDS) (SECONOS) (SECONDS) (MPH) (MPH) 1-2 0.152 36/4 301 31/3 32 30 2 17 18 2-3 0.076 24/8 131 19/5 19 15 4 14 18 3-4 0.076 221 17/3 221 20 19 1 14 14 4-5 0.076 20/ 161 35/16 24 19 5 11 14 5-6 0.076 53132 14 48/15 38 22 16 7 12 6-7 0.066 1513 111 25/7 17 14 3 14 17 7-8 0.086 1713 161 201 18 17 1 17 18 8-9 0.108 201 32/13 181 23 19 4 17 20 9-10 0.161 30/ 281 271 28 28 0 21 21 10-11 0.114 33/15 35/16 28/8 32 22 10 13 19 11-12 0.218 33/4 29/ 39/10 34 29 5 23 27 TOTAL 1. 209 303/69 241/32 312/64 285 230 55 15 19 I I I I I I I I I ,I I I > t- e t- a: t- a: :) a: :E: 0 0 z z w 0 11. ~ :E: 0 .... m t- en ;: ct .... ::J .... en a: w ct w < ;: :) 0 a: a: ~ en Q. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SANT A FE AVE. 1 I I I I 19 Pavement Markings Pavement markings, like signs, can convey regulation and warning mes- sages. However, pavement markings have the advantage of informing the motor- ist without diverting his attention from the roadway. Furthermore, in some applications (such as centerline striping or parking stall marking) pavement markings fulfill a function which signs are unable to do. The disa9vantages of pavement markings are that they may be obliterated by snow and that they may deteriorate by road wear to where they become ineffective and requi re frequent repl acement. Pa i nted pavement ma rki ngs, a lthough the most common material used, are especially prone to rapid wearing. Other materials which provide the longer life of two to four years are cold plastic markings and thermo plastic markings. Pavement markings have been used in a variety of applications in the City of Salina: lane lines, centerlines, no passing lines, curb delineation, parking stalls, railroad grade crossings, turn lane arrows, crosswalks and stop bars. Dimensions, colors and applications were noted by the Consultant to conform to the guidelines described in the MUTCD. However, because of the City's practice of sealing their streets every other year, they have elected to use paint rather than a longer life material for their pavement markings. Thus, the markings become obliterated within a much shorter time. It was noted by the Consultant that longitudinal lines had not deteriorated as badly as tran sverse ma rki ngs. Chapter Four, II Improvements II wi 11 explore recommen- dations for general and specific marking improvements. The Pavement Marking Map illustrates the locations of pavement marking applications. Tra ffi c Vo 1 ume Volume is the basic and most descriptive characteristic of traffic be- havior. When compared to roadway geometrics, it informs the traffic engineer of capacity probl ems; it serves as a basi s of compari son for accident fre- quency; it determines warrants for traffic control devices; and it helps determine priorities for roadway improvements. Twenty-four hour counts frequently supply the traffic engineer with sufficient information to make basic roadway management decisions. However, where 24-hour counts indicate that a problem may exist, more detailed counts are sometimes required. These detailed counts may consist of 24-hour hourly counts, peak hour counts, model split counts (separating trucks from other vehicles) or pedestrian counts. The City Engi neeri ng staff conducted 24-hour counts at 79 1 ocati ons. These counts indicate major traffic flow along Cloud, Crawford, Iron, Broad- way, Ninth, Santa Fe and Ohio. Specific counts as well as general volume flow are illustrated on the Traffic Volume Map. In addition to the 24-hour counts, the City Engineering staff performed peak hour counts at 27 1 ocati ons requested by the Consultant. Specifi c recommendations based on these counts will be discussed in Chapter Four, II Improvementsll. A record of the peak hour counts is al so tabul ated in the Peak Hour Counts Table. 20 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I -----.-- ----------- PAVEMENT MARKING 1 1 I 1 I == \\\ ".r-- 'I' I .- SCHILLING I --r----)I~ ,I': i - ---i---/F'~' -, ....--~r \\ ","" I 1 ---t--- """'" SOIITH INDUSTRIAL I I AR<A I o or o ------------------- TRAFFIC VOLUME "1" lM1"Eil5T"n I I TRAFFIC COUNTS TRAFFIC FLOW "'l(,t4.......V \ ,~ \~ \ \ ~ 1,000 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 =-r COURSE r;;;.". - ---\:."V.. ~__.. -rn r-'----- --, ,-- I I l' I I.. I I r'.'\ I _I'.J t_../ '_>,' " (' ',.-, I CLOUO~' ., I I I' I I I I I 1 1 I I I y ~lOGIlAf.E I 1'1 I I I 1 I I I · I I 1 I I . I ..----.. ,,....J I, \\~ I' II _A I I SCHilLING J _.. ___1__ no -- -. --',rf" I /" I, ---- .-/f~ \\ \', 0' ;: o " -, ">':-,.1, ~ ~y I I LOCA HON DATE PEAK HOUR PEAK HOUR COUNTS NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND LT Ihru HT Total LT Thru RT Total LT 10 EAST BOUND WEST BOUND Ihru RT Total LT Thru RT Total I Broadway & Pacific 3-18-82 Thurs. 5-6 pm DAY Broadway & North 3-23-81 Tues. 12-1 pm 3-23-81 Tues. 5-6 pm I Broadway & State Broadway & South I Broadway & Crawford I Broadway & Republic Broadway & Cloud I Ni nth & South Ni nth & Crawford I Ninth & Republic Ninth & Cl afl in I Ni nth & Cloud Ninth & Otto 1 Ninth & Magnolia Ninth & Belmont 4-5-82 Mon. 1 4-2-82 Fri. 12-1 pm 4-7-82 Wed. 5-6 pm 4-8-82 Thurs. 12-1 pm 4-20-82 Tues. 5-6 pm 3-25-82 Thurs. 12-1 pm 3-26-82 Fri. 4:30- 5:30 pm 3-31-82 Wed. 12-1 pm 3-30-82 Tues. 12-1 pm 3-31-82 Wed. 5-6 pm 3-30-82 Tues. 12-1 pm 4-5-82 Mon. 5-6 pm 3-29-82 Mon. 12-1 pm 4-1-82 Thurs. 5-6 pm 4-7-82 Wed. 12-1 pm 4-19-82 Mon. 12-1 pm 5-5-82 Wed. 5-6 pm 4-15-82 Thurs. 12-1 pm 3-29-82 Mon. 12-1 pm 4-5-82 Mon. 5-6 pm 4-1-82 Thurs. 12-1 pm 3-25-82 Thurs. 5-6 pm 12-1 pm 12-1 pm 5-6 pm Santa Fe & Pacific 3-19-82 Fri. 3-22-82 Mon. 3-23-82 Tues. 12-1 pm Santa Fe & Ash 1 Santa Fe & Iron Santa Fe & Crawford I Front & Crawford I Roach & Crawford Ohio & Ash I Ohio & Iron Ohio & Crawford I Ohio & Cloud Ohio & Belmont Marymont & Glen I 3-31-82 Wed. 5-6 pm 3-29-82 Mon. 12-1 pm 4-1-82 Thurs. 4:30- 5:30 pm 4-22-82 Thurs. 12-1 pm 4-22-82 Thurs. 5-6 pm 4-21-82 Wed. 5-12-82 Wed. 12-1 pm 5-6 pm 12-1 pm 3-24-82 Mon. 4-2-82 Fri. 12-1 pm 3-24-82 Wed. 5-6 pm 4-1-82 Thurs. 12-1 pm 3-29-82 Mon. 5-6 pm 4-6-82 4-7-82 Tues. 12-1 pm Wed. 5-6 pm 4-20-82 Tues. 5-13-82 Thurs. 12-1 pm 5-6 pm *Indicates a 5th One Way Leg. I I 5/6* 141 28 21 265 55 32 229 25 33 480 65 578 47 292 43 382 180 39 159 156/4* 358 281 29 311 392 63 463 341 286 1 8 10 452 6 531 7 607 198 812 31 565 46 15 440 139 594 48 676 41 65 386 43 494 168 438 153 68 384 47 499 234 534 204 31 422 8 461 24 191 5 220 97 251 68 40 224 12 276 129 388 113 24 269 34 26 387 49 33 305 22 360 45 236 16 297 36 230 39 305 57 201 43 301 30 233 16 279 2 255 78 335 5 236 83 324 23 226 101 350 61 440 106 38 207 111 71 308 109 10 272 20 20 249 13 8 369 20 21 269 60 57 467 0 524 0 508 79 71 553 0 624 0 638 93 35 402 51 488 109 258 154 9 437 47 493 199 397 119 8 276 124 408 53 57 77 187 38 87 54 179 50 176 85 311 o 213 132 345 20 21 268 41 237 35 20 15 71 25 55 28 62 40 71 47 308 42 64 67 3 77 48 118 76 311 115 287 84 345 110 328 142 418 34 o 190 o 2 2 no 105 94 225 18 55 14 45 79 192 23 o 324 26 329 293 81 133 311 89 504 149 116 98 38 60 88 38 134 37 175 151 378 43 37 71 100 400 503 419 573 546 81 76 60 58 311 435 389 592 459 44 443 64 339 ,291 190 o 139 114 5 9 134 194 21 8 9 15 6 13 10 7 29 35 36 91 103 6 5 473 546 642 42 765 30 759 166 972 242 607 416 630 327 462 356 12 488 101 302 11 282 397 350 587 89 731 69 521 155 71 0 139 334 79 72 294 350 481 786 164 231 124 144 431 427 547 540 753 551 630 222 145 208 8* /156 126 47 18 46 33 23 50 14 12 42 46 103 41 64 117 300 27 145 10*/38 220 88 129 61 62 83 88 24 34 27 11 47 8 32 14 88 228 49 30 27 10 67 246 49 39 197 47 410 87 180 128 68 15 133 282 45 569 147 229 146 50 75 80 93 26 194 142 32 254 24 15 127 40 191 115 50 180 300 26 338 386 36 523 79 33 123 12 10 19 75 74 10 119 80 17 208 121 11 100 8 45 236 16 34 287 28 82 418 33 13 88 15 16 3 31 117 38 25 18 7 35 160 47 16 162 18 220 70 154 28 40 8 8 4 o 42 131 o 57 126 142 11 308 157 12 308 276 124 408 153 47 208 142 29 175 220 113 374 41 2 300 138 440 70 56 265 330 32 32 25 25 336 472 18 42 8 7 -381 401 49 65 40 25 66 48 41 108 99 83 269 75 270 124 150 99 219 156 16 o 1 2 49 3 3 1 4 o o o 0 o 0 27 39 97 93 44 116 129 14 64 141 40 .153 41 123 26 307 64 367 418 29 41 243 115 342 84 379 539 27 36 317 24 448 25 438 473 31 38 369 358 17 131 o 392 435 357 474 101 118 109 101 255 197 150 140 148 10 o 12 231 o 5 9 o 3 7 o 92 96 121 143 307 334 395 522 168 209 346 119 297 349 533 116 180 223 252 o o 54 217 199 197 19 21 224 214 190 372 387 467 368 509 27 5 427 401 22 72 47 33 25 428 362 292 266 37 59 o 6 2 o 8 6 street Illumination Street illumination is one of the most important factors in nighttime accident potential reduction in the urban area. Nationally, over one-half of all accidents occur at night with the total driving mileage equal to only one-thi rd of the dayt ime dri vi ng mil eage. In the Ci ty of Sa 1 i na, approx i- mately 33 percent of the accidents occurred at night over a two-year study period. The purpose of street 1 i ghti ng is to produce qui ck, accurate and com- fortable vision at night, thus improving the safety and convenience of night- time travel. A standard for 1 ighting intensity of various roadway and walkway classifications has been developed by the American National Standards Association and adopted by the Illuminating Engineering Society (LE.S.). The following table_shows the current recommended levels of illumination: RECOMMENDATION FOR AVERAGE MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL ILLUMINATION Roadway and Walkway Classification **Footcandles (Lux) Area Classification Commercial Intermediate Resldentlal Vehicular Roadways: Freeway* Major and Expressway* Collector Lo c a 1 All eys Pedestrian Walkways: Sidewal ks Pedestrian Ways 0.6 ( 6.) 0.6 ( 6.) 0.6 ( 6.) 2.0 (22.) 1.4 (15.) 1.0 (11.) 1.2 (13.) 0.9 (10. ) 0.6 ( 6.) 0.9 (10.) 0.6 ( 6.) 0.2 ( 2.) 0.6 ( 6.) 0.4 ( 4.) 0.2 ( 2.) 0.9 (10.) 0.6 ( 6.) 0.2 ( 2.) 2.0 (22.) 1.0 (11.) 0.5 ( 5.) *Both main lanes and ramps. **Footcandle is the expression of energy level, not brightness. It is ex- pressed as lumens per square foot. Source: American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting, Illumi- nating Engineering Society, American National Standards Association, 1972, p. 16. The Street Lighting Map illustrates the existing street illumination sys- t em i n Sa 1 i n a . 22 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------- EXISTING STREET LIGHTING o 175 WATTS MERCURY VAPOR ~ . ; -,.--- I I , . I I' ,.,,,,,,,, ~_~"I - . I . ~ ~~m/-----l u Q,; ~ f~~LOM;r-.--J \(~~t~ .~. ";A( "'~"". (-1: ",..~.:~~~-~'. .1.U$IT.W~...-~,~~ ' , ~\~ __ dDwwWJ r~' \~ ".' ; I mDr;~n~lliDr !l( .~ ~ ~ ~I.n ~~ r:t -------------i' --:r~ jf~!~ Il' --=-~ I ~~ :__"u -, ~ _ --- ----- -\ I'. ~. I. ,.6:.".....1 '1.....", ". ..,... -..f,'III~.l.",......,.:. 1.1...:.... '"..'.... .' '. '. '.,.11,.",..". "-" ,-",,-, '''.-------Ir='(';~~?T.~"...'..--.-'-'':![. i ---t-~. :'.,1[1.. J ----- \~. ~:- \ I PJJFrI I~ 1 I[IJ" I~ il. :;::~ ~ ,~ I 1\ '"."'"":"l'-~---' I! I M~SAL ~ I . ~ . c,.. "" cGi--~' ........~ I t'l "I '1 ' ~PLAN . \\il~. ~,[~1ijnIU~~rnj l[lr~ ~: ~g:,~ -- _J: I, ~ ---J Ii \1 I~ \II ~1:::"ij,~~~t1jc~\ti0rJ>r.~'~ ._O"'''~; 1, ' . i . . 11 ~m~t~~1u~ C;j . ;;-~CI~ . ~ d'~i l. I ~. - ~~ _ ~U~11~ ~~ I :l~ 0 ~_~;;;~/~I -() __..LL : i __,~ a I jl,l k'ri ~~RTH "i.!J ~~.'"T.".. qt{im ... r~lil';-:;'=~~~~-f~J I rt1 I, ' ., ~;t~.~ . J"" ~~ : ~~ ETht' ,., )Y! ~~l , ~ 14 'f1!1 II' ~ ~ 1< I W~'WITliflrn: ~ ()~ n ;/ 4 I ~,Ioi ....___...-.;::: i , ,,11 11 ..i.1 9 I l1l1-UJ.il I J '-. ~ ! . Iii . ~ 1: DJDJ : 4.~1 f~~DJ' -'~"\ i'''~ t //.// r-",----";:".:::~~.--.a ,01 ~~ <'Ii ~) · Etf:N' ~B~~~..r~~~J ~1;~:~~~7~':i-flnTl : ! ~= I: -Il I,d ~t;.t-~f= ~ L~L-.lL'"--d ~}( -Ii l_~ --- J~,r~;:;_ - UU: I I I i: ~IL~ fl ~~~ I 4 "rl'l, I' : l : ~ I,m ifi1- ~~(~~~' ~_ -, I ~ I I l:=::'_.:JL~ ,II =i Jt;;;c=~ i~~mfr. I ~ ,- ;'= in A lif===J 1 [- ,i;": _u__ __ ...,!; ____F~~.i, I'-B~b ~ ~tJ~fjl\ ~ ,,~()0 _ : -='-~ Q,-f ~- I ~1Jt ~,~~-:?-j-'-- -. .' 'M' iY_'lf it JL in L Lll~.Jm~L ut~~.;;~.=r''' ... - mr68~~i~~[o..-.L \ \ ~~ I t I" n Jal!I' ,I' ! I I d~ Q ---=-" -:~.'Q!~' ~E::J ~':::-J c==~:\ ~J \ . ~~'~..~"...'.'."2~. ~','~.IJ..;.. il.'~~1 !..i..,.I......... "..rn..i.:m.'.D~.l~",:........~~...;...,t...,.I..~..1r,. ..-...~.,.,..,....Q..I....1~.rn.. ~~JD[J~ae! ~\, ,:':~' '; -U~1FtibV'l~~n2f~:.~8'fah~~f~C=:=l':::-lC"j~o.E---h-'\\ . ~- 7 rT-~- I;;~ .. _u_",:~ _un _____ : I I I I ~r "~"'~ "-~ I l' ,,",,~~ -em L i'~>i( [' 1\1 I I I; \ ;=" E " '. ' =-v~ :~~, ~ ' r ~.J~' I I~~~ ~J~~ -~ ~..J; ==JL1rII~ b:J'I' ~ ~,\ \\ ~....J ~-----.. == "~. ~:\~\ ~'! II,el II II ,I L II ~; !;:-... ~ ' ','~~ =' - ~~~\' I '\'J\ \~~U:~, I~. D 11'! \\ \~) n ~ ~ '.~~"~?1f .~ ~~,C~. <, \~~~~~\1]'L~lJ~.m .;S\'V . . u.m .. X; · !ill \ -~~ \ ~~.1y,"/(' 1.<~ -' - /d '\ ~ I~I \ ~ . II. ~..~~~"v/ ~^ if9! \~ I ~ : c, I'J :; \~ ], ~.^ ~\~.~'~~~~~~~~~O~~"'il" ~ ~\ .~ . . 1 \ [ , "i:ii,"" ~\, ~ ~JI 'IL' .-;If, LL \ ...L. ,..l \ 7 I '&.."'" I" -.. ",~ ~ Ii .!~, ' "..\', MAGNOLIA __ ,- "" __' //,?: , .. ----"----.l,',-=~J ;.-~~ - ~;;,__~' ",;;,\ ..Ji -I ~~..__ _ _n_" Ie. \ = ~~;(l~"--..- :8 ~2:~", F.),' i, \ \ ' ~Jrtl\f1~~:~?,'"'"" ~L~:r. II '\ \ .. \\\ .~ II m ( , I \ F"oF)~, ...~." ,;:, JAI"'. ' \ ' J--. \\\ ~ ~ ~.~ . : \ . ':~.OitJ8!S~y~~~I, ---4~t \~ ~ j) /' ' I i ~~~ ~~&y'~]~'~" 1,'t.J5i. ~ \ I I) ffl" ~ ~ C"808 ___ ,,1 i V'; !~ : ~ !, !~~~~ I :' \~ ( , II Q>'\il f)"""'---"--< -- 1 - I - ,,- - ~ - - ,\ ~oi:'.::;~(;: !(C--~~'l :oj! \\ , I ~rd)f::' "';r: ;rl' ~\~~~~~S:1~1 \1 I, pn en ~- .., _.J Q~'~- ~ ~ ~ '&~:":. ~ ' I r I '\.. i. ~. _~! g ----I' --.'. ~r---O u_ II I. i : ~~. ''I ! __ tT _ " ~ _ L-j.~. . -;~ : J 1 ~;:;~ - '{- - 'tr- I -~- - n': =rj r.T I... ", 11"e~ I J ~ i I lbL]~~ ~~ 7J~111 :[_~~~~~ ) ~.. ._. _ ,: //w ~ ~ I ~'I ~ ~ Ij!II(~~ ~ =.....~-.-...".CM~~;~,::J!J! )(,// l',I,.l":"""~~~-'''T:'# .~.; }( ~ ''&-~=~~ I ~ II V (( -. ", " .... -- --"1 + /~ ==.-.....]-- - I . nC)f' . ~ f <t 250 WATTS MERCURY VAPOR . 400 WATTS MERCURY VAPOR t; 250 WATTS HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM \ ._----~- 1"""..... .. 400 WATTS HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM , II ~ DENOTES NUMBER OF LAMPS IN THE SAME VICINITY. . \ ;" \ COURSE --i- I -t~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Traffic Control As could be observed from a careful examination of the peak hour traffic counts, traffic flow through an intersection is seldom equally distributed; the origins and destinations of automobile trips cause traffic to flow in unbal anced patterns through an intersection. Furthermore, because of the quality of a roadway, as well as its direction, motorists may prefer one route to another. As a result of certain routes being used more than others, it becomes advantageous to smooth traffic operation to assign the right-of- way at the intersection of routes to avoid conflict. Local streets generally do not require controll ed intersections. How- eve~,where local streets intersect with collector or arterial streets, some fonn of control is advisable, usually stop signs or yield signs. The MUTeD offers warrants for the installation of stop or yield control. As traffic volumes increase and confl ict at intersections increases, traffic control becomes even more necessary. The intersections of collectors with collectors or arterials, and arterials with arterials allow for the use of either stop sign control, or signal control if MUTeD warrants are met. Another point of potential conflict are railroad grade crossings. Right- of-way is always assigned to the trains at grade crossings and, therefore, all traffic control is applicable to the automobile only. The most effec- tive forms of traffic control at grade crossings are flashing lights and automatic gates. The Traffic Control Map shows existing yield signs, stop signs, traffic signals, flashing beacons, flashing lights and automatic gates in the City of Sal i na and denotes where change in control is recommended. The specifi c recommendations affecting traffic control can be found on the signing maps and in the "Improvements" chapter. 23 -------~----------- .,. I : I -t--. ___l__jF= ~ i ~ "\.1. I , --U I, , !t/' '-1'"-- ...;,;,'" II I ' I , I ' "1" "'1Gl-lW"''i lW,.U:S,....1E r- -- --- - r ---- - - - --~)- I ~ I -.-...-..................... .---.............................. ............-...-..-...........--...- I I -1--' 5()(flH INIXJSTRIAL II A,,"", II ,.____'!"'A I TRAFFIC CONTROL . SIGNAL ~ SCHOOL OR PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS <> FLASHING BEACON STOP SIGN CONTROL YIELD SIGN CONTROL o RAILROAD CROSSING / FLASHING LIGHTS . RAILROAD CROSSING / FLASHING LIGHTS & GATES o DENOTES CHANGE IN TRAFFIC CONTROL (SEE SIGNING EXHIBITS FOR DETAILS) COVRSE ..- I I I I I I I I I I ~ -- \\, " '--- 'I' \ i' I': SCHilLING o r o J-:'p 41/ p' ;- ' _________. F (( ----- -/l- .- . --- ( " ~-, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Speed Zones Speed along a roadway is not responsible for accidents as often as is generally thought; in fact, the safer the driving environment is, the faster motori sts tend to drive along it. The danger connected wi th speed is when motorists drive faster than the prevailing environmental conditions warrant. Most experienced motorists have developed a sense of how quickly they can respond to unexpected input along a roadway, and generally drive in accord- ance wi th speed di fferenti al s. The stati sti cal 1 evel that correl ates wi th that speed is commonly considered to be the 85th percentile. The 85th percentile speed for traffic along a given roadway is determined by recording the speed of a significant sample (usually 100 or more) of vehicles and computing the speed below which 85 percent of the vehicles are traveling. However, the 85th percentile is not the sole justification for the establ i shment of speed restri cti ons. The MUTeD suggests five other factors that enter into the engineering judgement involved in establishing a speed zone. These factors relate to roadside development and friction, road- way geometrics and condition, and a review of accident experience. Specific recommendati ons regardi ng speed zones in the Ci ty of Sa 1 i na based on these six factors will be discussed in Chapter Four IIImprovementsll. The exi sti ng speed zones as posted have been illustrated on the Speed Zones and Travel Time Map. Each of these zones was carefully examined and field inspected by the Consultant to determine if the posted speed was appro- priate. The Salina City staff assisted in the review by supplying the Con- sul tant wi th 44 spot speed sampl es of one-di recti onal traffi c. These 85th percentile spot speeds are also indicated on the Speed Zones and Travel Time Map. The estab 1 i shed speed zones and 85th percenti 1 e speeds correl ated we 11 except for five sections of roadway which will be discussed in greater detail in the IIImprovementsll chapter. The five segments, however, are summarized in the following table. Street From/To Posted Speed Centenni al South of Cloud/ 30 ~~PH North of Ba il ey Ninth Claflin/Charlotte 20 r~PH Santa Fe South/Prescott 20 MPH Crawford Ohio/East City 30 MPH Limits Fourth/Front Iron 20 MPH 25 85th Percentile Location of Spot Speeds Spot Speed 41 MPH NB Magnolia 39 MPH SB 28 MPH NB Cl a fl in 28 MPH SB 26 MPH NB No rth of 28 ~1PH SB Prescott 37 MPH EB Upper Mi 11 37 ~1PH WB 44 MPH EB Seitz 41 MPH WB 29 MPH EB Second 30 t~PH WB Travel Time It is a characteristic of motorists not to necessarily take the shortest route, but the quickest route; travel time is generally the primary con- sideration in motorist route selection. Each of the elements discussed thus far in the report affect travel time: roadway geometrics, traffic volume, traffic control and speed. As these elements blend to create preferred travel routes, addi ti onal tra ffi cis generated, prompti ng pri ori ty improve- ment of geometrics and traffic control to be applied to these routes. Thus a cyclical relationship between these elements exists. Travel time becomes especi ally si gnifi cant along si gnal i zed corri dors where traffic progression is desirable, such as for the synchronized traffic signals on Santa Fe Avenue. The Consul tant drove from a starti ng poi nt at the i ntersecti on of Iron Street and Santa Fe Avenue in di fferent di recti ons to the Ci ty 1 imi ts to determine the shortest travel times during both the peak hour and the off- peak hours. It can be noted from the Speed Zones and Travel Time Map that any si gnifi cant difference occurs only along Ni nth Street. Because of the availability of only two travel lanes on Ninth Street, some congestion occurs during peak hour traffic along this route. 26 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SPEED ZONES & TRAVEL TIME POSTED SPEED ZONES: 29~PH 85TH PRECENTILE SPEED ...""" 15 MPH lMTEA$'J;IIt.'\"E 6-- , --------. TRAVEL TIME. , 1\.. ..... . : ',I " I ____uu ),-!:\.J=-=r__........J _ PEAK HOUR ~ I CONTOURS I I I I I I I OFF-PEAK HOUR CONTOURS ....... 20 MPH ~ 20 MPH - SCHOOL ZONE .......... 25 MPH - 30 MPH I..... 40 MPH --- 50 MPH "" , u--~r _u~'___u I ,': , " .6' , , , , , ,,' I , , , , , ',,. , , , , , , , , , , , 7 TIME INTERVALS(ONE MINUTE CONTOURS) * STARTING POINT I I . I . I I I I I COURSE . .~,*~><. I I ''-'" ... I I I I I I I I \\. SCHilLING \ ': .<R'A lJ/Jl.\ i~'i .J ~ ~f' , .: 0, : I ~~' - - ----- ---1---- --)J-" ,.~: ,\ " --::- r. I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Parking Because vehicular travel consists of trips from one point to another, it stands to reason that each point must have facilities for the storage or parking of the vehicles. Although parking is a necessary phenomenon of traffic, it nevertheless produces some undesirable traffic conflict. Parking-related accidents are usually the largest single classification of mid-block accidents. Because of the restricted sight distance and effec- tive roadway width reduction, diagonal parking is significantly more hazardous than parallel parking. Recessed parking, because of allowing greater effective street width, is generally better than strictly on-street parking. According to the recessed parking inventory furnished by the City Engineering Department, Salina has 821 recessed parking spots at 81 locations scattered throughout the City. Even though recessed di agonal parki ng pro- vides safer traffic operation along the street, the same potential accident patterns may develop as wi th on-street di agonal parki ng, though to a 1 esser degree. Much preferable to anyon-street or recessed parking is off-street park- ing. Many scattered businesses in Salina furnish off-street parking for their customers and the City provides 10 parking lots for shoppers in the Central Business Di strict (CBD) with a total of 917 spaces. In some instances it may be desirable or even necessary to prohibit or restrict parking along a street continuously or between certain hours. These restricted parking zones have been displayed graphically on the Parking Map. The lengths of restricted parking sections as shown on the map are: 24.6 mil es No parking anytime - both sides of street. 1.9 mil es No parking anytime - north or west side of street. 2.2 mil es No parking anytime - south or east side of street. 1.5 mil es No parking anytime - north or west side of street, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 4.7 mil es No parking anytime - south or east side of street 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 1.9 mil es 2-hour unmetered angle parking - both sides of street. 0.5 mil e s 10-hour metered angle parking - both sides of street. 37.3 mil es Total restricted parking. In March, 1982, the City Engineering Oepartment performed a useage survey of the 2-hour, 6-hour and 10-hour metered off-street parking spots and the IO-hour metered on-street parking spots. The results of the survey are sum- marized in the Metered Parking Space Usage Summary Table. All recommendations regarding parking signs are based on conformance to standard 1 egends and these recommendati ons are ill ustrated on the si gni ng improvement exhibits. 27 , METERED PARKING SPACE USAGE SUMMARY No. No. Overall Overall No. Highest Average No. Highest Average No. Highest Average Highest Average Lot 12 Min. 30 Min. 2-Hr. Useage Useage '6-Hr. Useage Usage 10-Hr. Usa ge Usage Useage IJseaqe 1 9 9=100% 9=89% 66 43=65% 37=56% 52=5n% 45=6(]% 2 2 36 10=28% 5=14% 10=28% 5=14% 3 4 60 19=32% 12=20% 19=32% 12=20% 4 77 41=53% 29=38% 41=53% 29=38% 5 32 4=12% 3= 9% 31 25=81% 20=65% 27 5=18% 5=18% 34=38% 28= 31% 6 24 3=12% 1= 4% 52 27=52% 23=44% 30=39% 24=32% 7 4 92 18=20% 14= 15% 82 58=71% 50=61% 76=44% 64=37% 8 101 64=63% 58=57% 42 40=98% 35=83% 104=73% 93=65% 9 38 25=66% 23=60% 25=66% 23=60% 10 50 22=44% 13=26% 88 61=69% 54=61% 83=60% 67-49% SUB TOTAL 10 510 206=40% 158=31% 304 220= 72% 190=62% 93 48=52% 42=45% 474=52% 390-43% 200 S. 7th 42 19=45% 15=36% I9=45% 15= 36% 100 N. Rth 37 32=8n% 30=81% 32=86% 30=81% 100 S. 8th 5 45 42=93% 38=84% 42=93% 38=84% 200 W. Iron 6 200 W. Walnut 9 7=78% 7-78% 7=78% 7=78% SUBTOTAL 6 133 100=77% 90=69% 100=77% 90=69% TOTAL 6 15 510 206=40% 158=31% 304 220=72% 190=62% 226 148=65% 132=58% 574=55% 480=46% Accident Experience As mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, it is essential to traffic safety analysi s to have not only an inventory of envi ronmental factors, but also of recent accident experience. The City Police Department and the City Engineering Department prepared statistics, maps and diagrams describing the traffic accident experience in Sal ina for 1979, 1980 and 1981. Because of changes in the mode of reporti ng and tabul ati ng accidents duri ng the three year period (the inclusion of "short form" accident reports and the transi- tion to computer storage of statistics), the quality of the statistics varies throughout the period. However, the total accident number as provided by the City is 4,597 (including "short form" accidents) with an estimated economic loss of $22,856,000. This figure is based on the values of $16,000 for every fatality or injury (F&!) accident and $800 for every property damage only (PDO) accident, as currently used for analysis purposes by the Kansas Depart- ment of Transportation. The following table summarizes the accident statis- tics supplied by the City (not including "short form" reports) for 1979, 1980 and 1981. 28 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r-- ------- ----------- 1 u __+rj _,~U_ ~ III ~ :[~-;l . -r-"--+J.V ~ -'k~'~r""""""- ~" ';-, ~ i " I"'~" , " . ......................" I ~~ ~ t--------l _ ~ I.~\y I __ ~ :<::: __ =-=- ~~~_ ___ '....!.1 ~ _ __--'- , J: ___ NO PARKING ANYTIME - \ : ~: NORTH OR WEST SIDE OF STREET : ~ (~~. ~ ~rJlt I -. .,.,.,., ~gJ't:~~~t::~:~~ OF STREET r--===--- ~~VA" ~. "' JI"~~']rnimrIDT! 1"- 11I1111I1111111111I11 ~O.PARKIN~ O~ NORTH OR WEST SIDE OF STREET ~ ~ ~,4lr' :J .~n - W L 8.00 A.M. 4.00 P.M. ~ r' \\ ~[O Jrnrnw[EwCl' T=- ,. DJill 1mrnrn[[J[:ClC ...... ~O.PARKIN~ O~ SOUTH OR EAST SIDE OF STREET , ~~ ~.ntGrn JoomQ":CC[lJC'l 8.00 A.M. 4.00 P.M. ;;1 ~ demo I ,~tn[coDill[!jnl '~"-"-"-""""---"~'-i~-__:1 /~~ '_' i~: (f /~ rGt~ __ u...,. ~i; -,-- - --- -\. ~, [ll :~' ~tflmrr1mmmn,r-~ /...r ~//'1 '"01"..., ~: ~ ~ -= J SAL \\i mw ~JUWWWWlllUL"L- .~-~ ~ ~ I ~:i ~ PLAN :1 ~ J:JftIigw~rn~ill~~r-u ~:"::, _~~ rrjti I! , I \: _.," /~, i1~~mm8~~~ l[[lJ: ~~~=~~r '-=1 ~1"~'JJ"~: I'l - ",..,/ If . kJ' rnrnrnm[p~[~ ,~~ ~. . 1__ .]]LA;" I _ .~ ~n ~' '~1IIr' . . . ~r: ru~~1r<({ '. ;/ m I' Q-EJ~~El~~5~ I~illr d []Jm[]]rn~~!ll~-~}) ~/ Ij!1 r ---, F= 0 ::::Jl n ,=~ - II iT .L...i\\ ~"~ 1 '/ r ...--..----------.! : ~ I rnrn 3t::5t;;j!;mJ::Jl_lbeuJ,'-:;:;~ .1./fl:IT . ~/, F"~ Ii ~~-: /, ......--..1 (, "L ...-----..-..... , Toom~r----::;J ~:'Z" '~IIIII :~ \ H~~ i YP v: -Wff lu[1I~~";:r I I I L JU~~ WB88Rh : ~ I,~ LJi I 1.1. ,ILJ,\ / Fr~ Ii II~~ RlJ~F~[f] I~~ :I[-~I ; : I II I U[[]~i~~-Jt[~3BUUJ IJ[Jj ~,~r iSD uY .ILL -~- -.-JI ~ I~' ~J~f' [~U I : ',c!:; nDJ DUi]- 'r:' ,I, [~ ,\\~- rirli~ Fn~IJ. ./~ ,c=JI~' =~..-! I I, C"- i ~ : L.4J UIl.LJ~r' 1;-"-"- "-~ -, ~c::=:J1 ) , il: ,H=, i I W~[j]lI]~~ rJ:l JOJrn~~f~ --. ~tn~~f i----~" JI- ,.-tj1mllJ 1, e- ~~ m~71 T~~~ I rlU fell] L1IJ~~~ ~ I "T-1DD~~ II 1, r --!~ ~I ---011 "~- E-'-- ,a~D[l/j__ftJL______'" ! ~I A ~illln~[ll " IlOJ- uDJ- rTl~~ir =-rn-I~~~i\'l 1~~:'~~ ~ l~ \ ~ ~ ~, c::l~-1B~, \ 1-- I \/~( EJrrrlHI '-rrlll;tLulr I I II : 1~~~0 ~~~ \ ._)r I I 9F 'CRAWFORD 1 - \ '--1 . \vj^ ~. . 19I.1Jlli!l9~i i' ~'i ! i 1 11,1 I 16 t:-.-i n if) \\ 11/ 1jl IrJ' 'I W MUNOCIP,," I \ i~~d~[~' ffil~~[i~ L mn~~ =- i~~lmm~;\-.1.!{l_QJ~~~~~ G~f i , \ \ ~n '_llm...n.......' '[.-~.p....,m... ilmwrnt.:.:.j.t.,.,.~,.,.:-jD .. h. :1~.~...mm..l=;. H.:S.. D,..qHF ~~S}--~ .. ~..L:>~ ! n__UU \ ~~' ~ II g\U rnrnm~rl~ jl i\:lDl1Jl:1RQnLlL ~c;'!'j \, .!, ~. i , r';,1 '--~\\> ----... '.~I Ul~1 I ~ _ _ ~[- !L-_.... I ~ _!l--- -- \ ..J , ",\ · :....J "II ~~~~\) ~[lpj~~~~~~= ::;:=;" 1'- EI:",tL3E .1==-=r= '~I\ )) -..- ,,.,...... ";,,;1 \J\ 1\~1Jn I; ~~~ ~F[-J-~~~~~![---~~I 1/ ,j ........, .:I'~nn~ ~~a~~ ~~J~~TJ ~~ih~J~ll'l:r'I9;~a~D\~~t[, I:~ ~j~ 't7 n@n"rJ;thl 'I. """'" f t ' · ~~~ dUL~L,U\ Ib,~r..;~-;c:;J "ll' - L, :=~ j:f I [J,,,ooI"", I : ' {;~r.,_ i.... D~''----l~ DO n L ~,-=-,lEd, l~ I, I r:: : I. I.. ~ '\' \\\t-::::J[l~~ ' : JUl.,;1~TI~C:J]!J' -il- .ill (~ ~! I L___..J i '0 ~ " ~L. ~~[~ Ii --Inr\'~nnn IF ll1~~\ ~~, t......J ! \ \ :\G : '!J=f ,(\ ~ _~IE:?~~~ It]: ~~\~ }~UljU II ~~r" ---1 \ \'\~~ ... ......__m_ _ .-,- '''''-H.. -18 .. ~ "..=:' ~~:' - '1iif: . ~~=:JC'K C-----::::i\)(~llrrnn .~ ....Ai;,! \ \ ~. ../. IF 0 ~'"'~~ l))~\J I ~L :\\ ~'\~~ I ~ ~. :\1\. g if. 1..fl....1 "'\.~\\~~Fc:n~ '~~~' ~~~~~~~OUJf1 \\\ I; ~ 'I 'I III I, ~- Msr'" ~'\~ \\ \ i Ii,=< ; .Ii~ 1'1' " ~ '~~~ '): \\ ~ I ; ._~ . I i ~~) \\ a."\J II ~\J\ .. \\~ \ I I '~::o;;: ~ Ii. '/~ \ \ r~";Ln_ _ \'..' , I, ,,,'>> H ,.~\ ~~~OLIA ~ IlU1 0-..'/), ~~E'. ~/ :;'o-;rf::..: I \ \ ~[J.~~JH~~'&~." '.. ~ ~ti '~\ ]2 t-rc'J ~U (~, / !~~~.~! j: ,\ \ It,= ~.4~ ' '~. .... --- --~~. ~, . . , /-i" I · ~.....'! · W '~, ,?:.. ...~. " li,u I . ll~.Jl'~r ~~r::Jrl ~ ( ..- , UI-~ I' -1-",'j""" i!J "","~ Ji'--,,-,. ,~~~i .. .. _m .--- .11 I __71 Jl ij Ii n a I .~ -----, -- .., _r-o':.=11 i LU \ \ ' i. . ~. c ~.. l ii,' SCHILLlNG \ '.. -. 7 - - u .. ~;.Jl~ ( ~~- ~'--- -~-- i T PARKING \ I I I i ~ OFF STREET METERED PARKING 10 HOUR METERED - ANGLE PARKING- BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET H1(;1r\'~",~ 2 HOUR - UN METERED - ANGLE PARKING '-- l~"/'EIlSTjIt"f( NO PARKING ANYTIME - BOTH SIDES OF STREET --- --.......-- t ----~ ; I ;:: ~ -""' _n_~ 0, 'f o ", ... -- i I I I I I I I I ; I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY OF TOTAL ACCIDENT DATA 1979 1980 1981 Total To ta 1 Accidents 1,119 937 571 2,627 Tota 1 Fatality Accidents 1 2 0 3 Total Fatal iti es 1 2 0 3 Tota 1 Injury Accidents 445 406 411 1,262 To ta 1 Injuries 603 563 Total Property Damage Only Accidents 673 529 571 1,773 Total Vehicles Involved 1,952 1,557 Total Bicycle Accidents' 21 21 13 55 Total Pedestrian Accidents 26 21 18 65 Total Daytime Accidents 757 622 Total Nighttime Accidents 362 315 Total Mid-Block Accidents 474 437 Total Intersection Accidents 645 500 TOTAL ECONOMIC LOSS $7,658,400 $6,919,200 $7,032,800 $21,610,400 The accident frequency for the same three-year period is also graphically portrayed on the Accidents Map. However, only accident locations with a total of five or more accidents have been shown on the map; 1 ess than five accidents at one location indicates totally random occurrences. The highest frequency locations were further defined by accident colli- sion diagrams prepared by the City Engineering Department. These collision diagrams are included in Chapter Four, "Improvements" as part of a special study for improvement. The hi gh frequency 1 ocati ons are al so rated in the Accident Economic Loss and Priority Listings Tables. The high frequency accident locations in the tables have been arranged on the basis of economic loss rather than by the accident number. This arrange- ment correlates better with what is known as the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) number (See thapter Three). This number differs with the acci- dent number in that the EPDO number is weighted six times as heavy for one F&I accident as for one PDO accident. Both the accident number and the EPDO number have also been correlated with traffic volumes to provide an equal basis of comparison between locations. 29 THREE-YEAR ACCIDENT ECONOMIC LOSS AND PRIORITY LISTINGS - INTERSECTIONS Location Fatal Accidents Broadway & Crawford Santa Fe & Crawford Ninth & Magnolia Ohio 1\ Crawford Ni nth 1\ Otto Ninth 1\ South Broadway 1\ State CoIl ege 1\ Ash Broadway & Cloud Ohi 0 1\ Iron Ninth 1\ Crawford Ni nth & Iron Santa Fe & Republic Ninth 1\ Belmont Broadway 1\ Sout h Santa Fe & Ash Santa Fe & Pac ifi c Ohio 1\ North Ninth & Pacifi c Broadway 1\ Walnut Ninth & Clafl in Ninth 1\ Cloud Co 11 ege & State Oakdale & Iron I nj u ry Accidents 11 B Prope rty Damage Accidents 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 3 2 43 50 IB 32 14 12 29 8 20 16 Total Accidents 54 58 25 37 19 17 33 13 24 20 17 9 10 16 15 15 12 11 11 8 12 10 10 EPDO Number 1982 Total Enteri ng Tra ffi c (ADT) 109 98 32,932 21,062 Accident Rate Per 10,000,000 Vehicles 14.97 25.15 10.98 16.78 9.47 10.96 14.65 20.72. 11.77 9.01 7.69 6.70 14.20 8.30 5.84 8.72 13.83 12.25 5.34 5.88 8.78 5.43 16.81 7.32 THREE-YEAR ACCIDENT ECONOMIC LOSS AND PRIORITY LISTINGS - MIDBLOCK Locati on Fatal Accidents 8roadway (Beverly- Crawford) Broadway (South-Armory) Santa Fe (Crawford-Bond) Santa Fe (lron-Wal nut) Crawford (Front-Roach) Santa Fe ,(Walnut-Mulberry) Crawford (Broad- way--Mo. Pac. R.R.) Santa Fe (Bond-Wilson) Santa Fe (South-Prescott) Broadway (Walnut-South) Crawford (Duvall-Broadway) Injury Accidents 4 3 2 2 13 2 2 2 7 14 13 13 10 9 9 6 11 2 2 2 10 10 Property Damage Accidents 47 25 20 26 15 31 26 14 25 20 15 9 11 10 Total Accidents 54 29 23 28 17 32 27 15 Z5 20 15 60 20,794 62 20,139 44 18,325 42 53 38 44 14,165 20,578 5,729 18,616 20,268 40 37 20,198 25 26 25 25 22 21 21 18 17 15 15 13,637 10,287 16,504 23,463 12,569 7,263 8,200 13,682 18,633 10,407 16,803 16 5,977 10 12,482 Two-Way 1982 Total EPDO Entering Number Traffic (ADT) 30 89 23,940 21,335 49 38 9,104 38 9,230 10,780 27 37 9,230 32 11,155 9,104 13,175 20,033 13,306 20 25 20 15 Accident Rate Per 1,000,000 Vehicle Miles 8.96 6.67 13.57 18.46 5.54 21.11 11.fi3 8.85 16.35 3.51 8.58 EPDO Accident Ra te Per 10,000,000 Vehicles 30.22 42.49 26.35 28.12 21.93 27.08 23.52 60.57 21.58 18.02 16.73 16.74 23.08 13.83 15.98 26.41 23.39 12.01 8.33 13.16 8.15 24.45 7.32 EPDO Accident Rate Per 1,000,000 Vehicle Miles 14.76 11.28 22.42 25.07 8.80 24.41 13.79 11. 80 16.35 3.51 8.58 I Three- Year Total Economic Loss I 9.73 $210,400 $168,000 $126,400 $105,600 $ 91,200 $ 89,600 $ 87,200 $ 86,400 $ 80,000 $ 76,800 $ 74,400, $ 53,600 $ 43,200 $ 42,400 $ 42,400 $ 40,000 $ 39,200 $ 39,200 $ 36,800 $ 24,800 $ 23,200 $ 23,200 I I I I I I I I I $ 16,800 $ 8,000 I lhree- Year Total Economic Loss I I $149,600 $ 84,000 $ 64,000 $ 52,800 $ 44,000 $ 40,800 I I I $ 36,800 $ 27,200 $ 20,000 $ 16,000 $ 12,000 I I - .- - - -- - -. - - -. - - - - - - - - - -- l-rlJ i. --:c-=C.-~-.. ~ -- I, J--] u_-1 -r ~I~:~~ --- 1- -~ ~-- - .... lJ . I [~ - t1V -----1 I I , \I~~~il' I I \ \ '. 7'l - ~L i ! II. i,." ~\ ~ Ie ~ . = '~,~. ... -,; .... ~ ~ ~ 'V ~'" ~ 7;:~~'][fJ[[]1[ , ~~ __ Iii rl,~~ JIJwLlIC ! I' \ ' 'DJml]]~~~ i(~jlJ~OL_~' . I \\ NlrnrnrnLDLJL~ ~~[!J~~ "-- - L/~Y ~I' '", J~ ~ - ~~ :;-1 \~ ~dtu mD I : ~L ="~"_""""""""7'L......J~? m __ JL ___ tf=~I~ I :::~~~t ,;- .. ~t - - ... -. -"" mITi]J..fuTLjrn[~ ~mLL_~~-V~,;:?f~ ----.J~~ili, O"~'S;~AN 111 J1JBmgw~w~cw~mr- ~ ~)~,~~ - '~r I - ~jl: . I ----ill. -'''If)ml~qFFl' ir.:J IW' )41 I --I'. - - l'\I 1~d3V/l I ill! i~d. I - DO z:::-J : Ii ~ It.'''.tt.I:tWiHL - --= -JH~..'p __~ ;:1 '"1 \ I ... ~~~ l;" I' l' " --, :;::; ~/ T I <. ~ ' .-.. I~I <f). oG' "I ~ - -- -- , []~ .Jff ~wITIDJ'rn\\ ':'2J3-:!lc:x:'''::::r~~' V ~IJI~111 / IJ -- l]['.,]],n 7(6~jl ~ ,;: !i \\.... ~,.- I , I I ' .1_ '- ~b ~ ':1' _, '--- b ~I l~ ~~~r vmlL, "'" V! ,: ! I Ili3rnf511...J'~ (". 5(2-~: IT!Ff I h 111Fflli~! ~ II ~ ~10(7-;i) ~ /' // ! 1 ! ~. _J ~,l [[ill 'k;Z. WIYI165~\Hi ~4 : 1 J'- >>J ~,,_, D 1 I ~ ' -J a' ::!'1m - ,n ' ~": ~ ! '/ r 1............................a . D ~I' '"'' ~; ~~ -,,'''' ~ ~ " ..~.r45~' ;;(~. :~~[jdmrn~~nTl : "" 'illlOO'~ . "~t.~J .' ." JJ~ n~_JI ilr1fWc7lHUJl} i ~n 1000-0 - '~~ I' 7- ,6-: - 1 ~~~lnmm~nrl\V.rF\)f --- - '0 -, .c~~r r=.-' I """,t, , ~~. , " .,,~c~J~1[Imrn~~ IFr 'fit.:pJt~{: 1-; J:;,"L; a@G', ,~r ,'.~.I ~lJ, ~rTI'~:r0;y)U- -~rn~~~[J[][I-~[~~r h {/ ~(~-O) ~ Tc=~. n II 1 ~'-:;;; -;'. I ---'7ri~-O) __ ~ I:~'i V ~~) I ,flJuU lJlJ ~i I~L__..___ (:-1 ~ A ~lJ~ _ ~.. .,1: ~: I 11- , iut8'it-.l'I.r:;I~) . .';~,~I..' '\ lit. I ), ~..~R~i.!' '\!l )~. --lll~I~'[;jHB~:A i .........-...J.~4:il /? ,. 43-11 .. d~ .... (9-3) I: ~ i'c\'/l, ;,;:;;;;;]l ~;#l'(-...f~!I;-- I _6(5-~lL Ju \.i\~(, ;;.. ( -0. .--'" . 4' ljl-! 1 )~: il\! ~ ~~'Bl_ '\ _ I ~ ' ;PQ _~~~ORD : -"'\ .. 1"''': ]'~I ' (~8' ~ ~ ~~! l'U'1 .' I [!\I'B 5-k1 I ~ ~ - 5 Ii'll ,~ 0 \\t ' ! I[Jflm~rJ MUN'C'PAL I !ml\,M~~~'~;~ 6[lillJ:L~1~~,I'-;:":,;,,~~-...- '~i~~w . .j~~_.l~!l~jr?-~"- ~ :1 ~nU tJnr',r, [J][l]1fEU 'l~y~m'~pgBDDDCJ~'t1--' '\JlL:>~ J~1~J~3~11 \i 'rnrnrnl~l-lr~(4-~.111~~~ ___:~J~~C~~L- ___~ _ ..*:: _ ....,~OURS.! ____u_ ,- r-~ ~-~'.rm 1~~~_l,I.~.[..~~Lj[~:.:..Ji::.::...._-'b '\\ ,-7 (: " I - _~~ r I"~ ,LJC~8:3 E__J~ ,L CJ---"""",-,,=:JDL \\\ !1 It,#, I , -', r::::::= \' II l;:n~r.':,;----- = -- '--"c----~u I~'---' ~'c=::: \ pi c." '-~ -, 1----- --~-~~ U I......,JL\\.__.......Jn:J [1:::;;jj,~_.1 _J~l_..J'----"'''''''' --'" \\1 I...J ") I .' \ '- ----J.( r~D'-r--1Ea I oon~~ :]:0:-- ,- -r=j\\ Ih__.. ......... '_,1 ~i ~;~";-]~~ ~ ~-,' --'~faf =j,C:a8~~aFsTiJd-jL ..u.6(5~1,) - _==---> /} \) ,,' '~I · -,1 _WWOl I--- - - - c+J;==~iC-==jr=. -,' " ( \\ '\ ~ ~ ''-\;'" '- ,=-=L__ ~~L--.J ,.1' h '......... ..... _, \' 7/ ' - 'E3 r= 1i'-.. 711+-0) II 7, D --- j', ~ I 1:;;13_(7-_6N 15(~-11 '\. ' . ~c::::;;]", c_ I, ~ f I I D I I I J"~ :~ '19 ........5(3-2l%;:."!t.:" 'Ui,J ...~!"",,,x_J,----:), U .-1 J(I II!. I I P=- ,.. - L-J ,,----..,. ,'fi(I<k1 1 = 1 nr=----r! r --1~ 1- , , \ IJJ D I I 111 ; f,}d~~~' r~-I~'i""\~~1 1 "",- '. I, . ~J 0-----. 8 , ltJ' i ~ ~n~~~~~~\ \l["f:- ,1"1 \ \\\!~II,11 JnLJI~1 R -, ~ - --\\\ '\r,~~:c-~ .. ~ ' : _ c..J1~ j I J _",--.',~;;UhL~ ~UlIL_~I..!l ~ )\~ \~\ 1/ 8 - C':-'_ ~_ :-:-=ri;fr '0 ~--==:jr---'c..:.., II. -----=sqf\~-]nnn~,o.~.JII ;als,,,~d m, \\ \\\- ~ - -- -- ~-~ --,~~~~i)~'-..~'~. - -~ ~~~~~~ .- '~~~~~l~~~'nfr~~"r~_--. ~" \\\(( - Q 1'3., 5(~k': , "~~(il~l ' '\\J~~, ~~~:i.ttJ\f ., " ,\.. ~ . " ~ ~ . ,11\ :;(lr ,,,-,, i 1 ::~~~r~ .~ .. 1 ':;...1..~' /~ ~o ~_~___~~ c=.~~, . ",.,,\~~~~ r~" .... _d '" ~ ."",,"'. I=" ';.'~.../' \, 4~1~~':: '~r ICJ\~ '~"", "'1"- I ,I \ \ I 1lf1"'", ~~ r'l i """"" B. I \\\ -'--- ~ :.1- ~ / 'II' : \ \ tJ[J~~~~(~1 --- -- ' ' ~~ I 1('" , : -I) II \ 1f1~>:}!~~~~ ~))~'c9~1 \ (II ~ 1 ~ pJ 0..g'8 : i 1503-2) _~. 6~J:J~1 ,I' J~ ~l:' " : ~~ O mt" --, - ,7',JT ~r----1E ~~-- - 1 ----- ~. --- ""- I~ .:i ' '~-j\\JtP-;-:;; 'Ir~~-1~-l1L : \:1 I ~ ~1! ~'E-~ --I I~ 1,:(:: ::~! ,1 , ' 'I I , /~r "ill '" 'l~\;;i'-' I \1' 1 n " , 0 --..-. .... !=,,;~=--=:~r~1 (f''::JJ __ ~ ' r) \ ! I [~n 0 ~ -.----1 I Iv , __ I __~l' , I. , d:i~?, _ L---, do. I ,,~, SCHilLING \' - j IT ~ ~ ~ ("'e-:" ~t-- --I -.)-.-.-,..'(1 \" ~ [I " ~ ![~ ~ l",.,. J. WUTH ---===--- , , ~ h- ~- !I_rr~~~~ I . ;- "':~;;=?-T=~ // ':,,,_10. r_--__,__,.,..y. :~~ I ~1,,~.---~---;--.J,<m:A ~ // -----' -. ~, - i it-- Ii -_....~-+---- lli:i _____m______ --- --- .. ---I . ./;/i" ..... .--1 \ ACCIDENTS TOT ALS: HlGK""jI.'/ .....e 5 10 20 30 40 50 i -- lM"TER.s,.....'E j .,~~ _u \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CHAPTER THREE COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND PRIORITIES This chapter presents the methodology for establishing priorities for improvements not specifically required by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Con- trol Devices (MUTeD), but which would result in significant accident reduction if implemented. Monetary limitations preclude the immediate imple- mentation of all recommended projects; therefore, a priority rating system must be used to schedule projects. Priorities may be established by compar- ing the severity of the accident experience at different locations, or by comparing the ratio of benefits derived from an improvement to the cost of making the improvement at different locations. Severity Rat i ng Severity rating is usually a simple numerical tabulation of accidents. More refinement can be obtained, however, by assigning a greater weight to fatal or injury (F&I) accidents than to property damage only (PDO) accidents. The Manual on Identification, Analysis and Correction of High Accident Locations (HAL) assigns an equlvalent property damage only (EPDO) number of six for each fatal or injury accident and an EPDO number of one for each . property damage only accident. These numbers can be further refined by relating them to the traffic volume. HAL uses the ratio of accidents per 10,000,000 entering vehicles at intersections and accidents per 1,000,000 vehicle-miles on roadway corridors. Another measure of accident severity is the comparison of economic losses incurred by accidents at different locations, such as the costs of $16,000 for each fatal or i nj ury acc i dent and $800 for each property damage on 1 y accident currently applied in the State of Kansas. Benefit/Cost Ratio The determination of benefit/cost ratios is more complex than the rank- ing of priorities by accident severity. HAL provides an estimated percent reduction in accidents of v~rious patterns for a variety of specific improve- ments. These percentages applied to the accident experience costs yield an economic savings resulting from implementation of the specific improvements, or an economic benefit. This benefit is then compared to the annualized cost of constructing or installing the improvement. A number greater than 1.00 indicates that the project "pays for itself" from the benefit of potential accident reduction. The interest rate employed to derive the average annual cost for improve- ments is assumed at 10 percent as currently used by the Kansas Department of Transportation. Periodic Review Project priority assessments need to be made on a periodic basis, as con- ditions are subject to continual change. A new shopping area or housing development may alter traffic patterns and accident experience. Consequent- ly, it is necessary to revise ratings periodically, adding new projects, deleting completed projects, and re-evaluating proposed projects. 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I CHAPTER FOUR IMPROVEMENTS Thi s chapter exami nes the exi sti ng traffi c operational conditi ons di s- cussed in Chapter Two from the standpoint of the MUTCD, the criteria ex- plained in Chapter Three, other technical evaluations, and engineering judgements, and recommends specific and general recommendations for the improvement of traffic operational safety, consistency and convenience. Railroad Grade Crossings As mentioned in Chapter Two, the mlnlmum protection legally required at grade crossings is the crossbuck and the rail road advance warning sign. It is recommended that where this signing is deficient, the City install or re- place the warning signs and take the initiative to urge the railroad to bring the crossbuck s i gni ng up to standard. These s i gni ng recommendati ons are specifically shown on the signing improvement sheets. Although additional crossing protection is not legally required as a minimum, it is sometimes warranted from a safety standpoint. The Kansas Department of Transportation conducted an inventory of all the railroad grade crossings in Salina in May, 1978, and assigned each crossing with a design rating based on the exposure between vehicles and trains. This design rat- ing, however, did not take into account the level of protection already provided. A more in depth procedure for the analysis of protection warrants is described in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Report #50 -- "Factors Infl uenci ng Safety at Hi ghway-Ra il Grade Crossi ngs." This report not only takes into account traffic and train volumes, but also the modifying affect of different levels of protection. Eighteen grade crossings with a high vehicle-train exposure were analyzed on the basis of the Report #50 criteria. A summary of this analysis is shown along with its basic assumptions in the following table. Based on the bene- fit/cost ratio, nine of the existing fifteen flashing lights would econom- ically be justified. Since the other six flashing lights are in place, they should remain in operation. Furthermore, the train volume is very influen- tial to the number of expected accidents and the train volumes could possibly fluctuate more so than vehicle traffic, which could raise the benefit/cost ratio substantially at a number of crossings. 33 , I RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY CROSSING VEH TRAIN A B PROTECTION EXPECTED ACCIDENT IMPROVEHENT BENEFIT I LOCATION ADT ADT FACTOR FACTOR TYPE ACCIDENTS/YR. COST/YEAR COST/YEAR COST RA TI D (MP) Broadway- Cloud/Dover 9,520 2 .012079 3.06 Crossbucks 0.073923 $2,217 $ 0 $1,985 I 0.32 Li ghts 0.007731 $ 232 $ 2,629 $'2,629'= O. 76 ( UP) R roadway- North/Lincoln 9,545 2 .012110 3.06 Crossbucks 0.074113 $2,223 $ 0 $1,990 0.32 Lights 0.007750 $ 233 $ 2,629 $~ 0.76 (UP) Ni nth- I North/North 7,350 7 .009451 3.06 Crossbuck s 0.202440 $6,073 $ 0 $5,438 0.32 Li ghts 0.021170 $ 635 $ 5,438 $'2,'bW 2.07 (ATSF) Ni nth- I Pine/North 7,350 8 .009451 3.06 Crossbucks 0.231360 $ 6 ,941 $ 0 $6,215 0.32 Li ghts 0.024195 $ 726 $ 2,629 $'2,629'= 2.36 0.32 Gates 0.024195 $ 726 $11 ,832 (MP) Ninth- Bishop/Pine 7,350 2 .009451 3.06 Crossbucks 0.057840 $1,735 $ 0 $1,554 I 0.32 Li ghts 0.006049 $ 181 $ 2,629 $z,ozg= 0.59 (MP) Santa Fe- Elm/Pine 6,010 4 .007733 3.06 Crossbucks 0.094652 $2,840 $ 0 $2,543 0.32 Li ghts 0.009898 $ 297 $ 2,629 $2,629= 0.97 I (ATSFl Santa Fe- Pine/North 6,010 8 .007733 3.06 Cros sbuck s 0.189304 $5,679 $ 0 $5,085 0.32 Li ghts 0.019796 $ 594 $ 2,629 $2,bN= 1.93 (UP) Santa Fe- I North/Lincoln 5,690 7 .007347 3.06 Crossbucks 0.157373 $4,721 $ 0 $4,227 0.32 Li 9hts 0.016457 $ 494 $ 2,629 $'2,629'= 1. 61 0.32 Gates - 0.016457 $ 494 $11,832 (UP) Ohio- I Woodland/Pacific 5,640 7 .007287 3.06 Crossbucks 0.156088 $4,683 $ 0 $4,193 0.32 Lights* 0.016323 $ 490 $ 2,629 $2;'029'= 1.59 (MP) Ohio- North/York 6,160 12 .007926 3.06 Crossbuck s 0.291043 $8,731 $ 0 $7,818 I 0.32 Lights* 0.030436 $ 913 $ 2,629 $z,ozg= 2.97 (ATSFl Ohi 0- Woodl and/Pacifi c 5,640 8 .007287 3.06 Crossbucks 0.178386 $5,352 $ 0 $4,792 0.32 Lights* 0.018655 $ 560 $ 2,629 $2,629- 1.82 (MP) Schill i ng- I Centennial/Foxboro 5,080 2 .006612 3.06 Crossbucks 0.040465 $1,214 $ 0 $ 845 0.93 Lights 0.012298 $ 369 $ 2,629 $~ 0.32 0.19 Gates 0.002513 $ 75 $11 ,832 (UP) Cloud- I Fourth 6,600 2 .008491 3.06 Crossbuck s 0.051965 $1,559 $ 0 $1,396 0.32 Li ghts* 0.005434 $ 163 $ 2,629 $2;'029'= 0.53 (MP) Crawford- Vassar/Hancock 11 ,155 2 .014024 ).06 Crossbucks 0.085827 $2,574 $ 0 $2,305 I 0.32 Li9hts 0.008975 $ 269 $ 2,629 $~= 0.88 0.32 Gates 0.008975 $ 269 $11,832 (Up) C rawford- Fourth 8,655 2 .011036 3.06 Crossbucks 0.067540 $2,026 $ 0 $1,814 I 0.32 Li9hts 0.007063 $ 212 $ 2,629 $2,629- 0.69 (MP) South- Cl ark/Montrose 5,100 2 .006636 3.06 Crossbucks 0.028022 $ 841 $ 0 $ 753 0.32 Li gh ts 0.002930 $ 88 $ 2,629 $~ 0.29 (UP) Iron- I Fourth 9,000 8 .011435 3.06 Crossbucks 0.279929 $8,398 $ 0 $7,520 0.32 Li9hts 0.029274 $ 878 $ 2,629 $2,03'= 2.86 ~UP) ~sh- 7,635 I ourt 8 .008491 3.06 Crossbucks 0.207860 $6,236 $ 0 $5,584 0.32 Lights 0.021736 $ 652 $ 2,629 $z:ozg-= 2. 12 0.32 Gates 0.021736 $ 652 $11,832 *Denotes recommended change. I 1 The A Factor is a function of vehicle volume. 2 The B Factor is a function of the protective device type. 3 The expected annual accidents equals the product of the A Factor, B Factor and train volume. crossing 4 The annual accident cost is the product of the expected annual accidents and the estimated cost of a grade I accident ($30,000). construction costs of $20,000 for flashing 5 The improvement cost is based on a 15-year service life with estimated lights and $90,000 for automatic gates, amortized at 10~. 6 The benefit/cost ratio is the ratio of the difference in accident Custs between a lternat i ve protective dev ices to the difference in improvement costs between alternative protective devices. I 34 ~~~'f-9}I:,- :, . .. I I I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1::. . ..". -~.. Traffic Signs The general deficiencies in the traffic signs in the City were discussed in Chapter Two. The recommended improvements for those defici enci es are based on the standards specified in the MUTeD rather than on accident patterns. These specific signing improvement recommendations have been illus- trated for all federal aid urban streets on 18 exhibits and for all non- federalai d urban streets on five exhibits. Because federal funding for signing projects is currently available for FAU streets only~ the distinction between on-system (FAU) and off-system signing improvements should be of great aid to the City in implementing the recommended improvements. The on- system streets have also been shown on an exhibit as a network together with a sheet index for the off-system streets. These exhibits, along with the legend .for their use and the quantities necessary for implementation, have been left unreduced from their original drafted size, and separate from this text for the practical convenience of the City Engineering staff. The estimated recommendation is tions; the total $122,065. cost for total impl ementati on of the on-system s i gni ng $105,715, and $16,350 for the off-system recommenda- cost for all signing improvement recommendations is The following list quantifies the unit costs used to establish these figures: Large Sign (24Ix48") Medium Sign (30"x30") Small Sign (18Ix18") Steel U Channel Post (3#) Sign Removal ,or Adjustment Type III Barricade $ 55/Each $ 40/Each $ 20/Each $ IS/Each $ 5/Each $100/Each 35 I i I II SIGNING IMPROVEMENT QUANTITIES I I MUTCO TOTAL Ii CODE SHEET NUMBER TOTAL SIZE 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 F.A.U. 20 21 22 23 24 NON-F.A.U. ' , Rl-l 30" x30" 10 54 12 22 25 34 58 58 67 13 51 39 71 55 64 66 61 37 797 10 4 5 8 28 I RI-2 36"x36" 1 1 RI-3 12"x6" 3 7 RI-4 1811x6" 2 2 4 " R2-1 24"x30" 3 2 3 10 5 2 2 5 5 2 3 21 16 79 10 10 9 2 31 (20) I R2-1 24"x30" 4 4 (25) R2-1 24" x30" 6 8 9 9 6 5 11 4 3 20 10 4 16 14 137 5 3 9 (30) R2-1 48"x60" I (30) R2-1 24"x30" 15 11 2 6 11 5 58 (40) R2-5a 48"x60" 1 R3-1 24"x24" 1 2 3 R3-2 24"x24" 2 3 4 9 I R3-4 241lx2411 4 4 8 R3-7R 30"x30" 5 2 1 4 12 R3-7L 30"x30" 49 10 20 6 11 6 2 4 15 123 R3-9b 24"x36" 2 2 R4-1 24"x30" 4 4 I R4-2 24"x30" 1 1 R4-7 24"x30" 1 1 8 2 6 19 R5-1 24"x24" 16 8 2 31 2, 5 2 1 69 1 2 R5-2 24"x24" 15 4 19 38 2 2 R6-1R 36"xI2" 10 27 38 I R6-1L 36"xI2" 7 18 26 R6-2R 18"x24" 1 1 R6-3 24"xl8'~ 10 9 18 2 39 R6-3a 24"xI8" 8 1 9 R7-1 12"x18" 10 31 71 12 5 123 15 4 11 29 48 39 18 42 461 11 46 16 37 12 122 I R7-1R 12"xI8" 4 1 6 R7-1L 12"xI8" 3 2 5 R7-2 12"xI8" 4 4 (9-5) R7-5 12"xI8" I (15 m; n. ) R7-5 12"xI8" 3 3 6 (One) R7-5 12"xI8" 3 11 2 2 5 23 2 2 (Two) I R7-5 12"xI8" (Two 7-7) R7 - 5L 12"xI8" 2 3 (Two) R7-5R 12"xI8", 1 R7-1 7 12"xI8" 4 4 I R7-108 12"xI8" 1 (8-6) RI0-5 12"xI8" 4 2 6 RI0-6 24"x36" 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 4 2 21 R15-1 48"x9" 2 1 10 1 2 2 2 1 4 6 32 9 3 2 14 I R15-2 27"x911 2 4 1 2 9 8 1 9 (2) H15-2 27"x9" 3 4 8 8 (3) 3 4 R15-2 27"x91l I ( 4) 3 R15-2 27"x9" (5) 2 3 R15-2 2711x91l (6) I R15-3 27"x9" (7) 2 6 1 2 4 6 36 4 17 5 4 31 51-1 36"x36" 2 2 2 52-1 36"x36" 2 2 4 3 5 2 7 1 28 3 8 6 6 24 S4-1 24"x10" 3 3 2 1 1 2 4 1 2 20 1 9 5 6 21 (8-4 ) 4 2 12 2 4 2 8 I S4-1 24"x10" 2 (8-9, 11-1, 3-4) S4-1 24"x10" 2 3 (7-4) 2 8 I S4-3 24x8" 36 I MUTCD CODE SHEET NUMBER TOTAL TOTAL SIZE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 F.A.U. 20 21 22 23 24 NON-F.A.U. WI-1L 30"x30" 1 WI-3L 30"x30" 2 2 WI-4R 30"x30" 2 WI-4L 30"x30" 1 WI-6 48"x24" 1 2 3 WI-7 48"x24 1 3 1 1 W3-1a 1 2 2 8 W3-3 36"x36" 3 2 3 9 W4-2R 36"x36" 2 W4-2L 36"x36" 1 W6-1 36"x36" 2 W6-3 36"x36" 3 W9-2R 36"x36" 1 W9-2L 36"x36" 1 WI0-1 36"xDia. 2 19 4 4 5 8 4 5 4 10 14 80 24 5 2 31 W11A-2 30" x30" 2 3 4 4 W13-1 18"xI8" 1 (20) W14-1 30"x30" 2 6 9 4 1 4 9 W14-2 30"x30" 1 1 2 2 OM-l 18"xI8" 92 8 35 22 112 3 4 11 27 314 2 4 6 12 OM-2 611x12" 3 3 OM-3 12"x36" 2 4 16 6 4 6 4 16 8 14 8 88 4 4 Type I II Ba rr i cade 1 1 Post 15 12 88 56 106 34 61 17 182 22 22 24 28 57 33 35 78 30 900 40 33 15 5 12 105 Relocate 1 5 2 5 2 6 1 22 5 2 2 9 Remove 12 49 59 36 39 27 6 1 9 1 15 27 33 18 11 353 65 70 37 29 63 264 Cl ear Obstruc- tions I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I ,.-'.-,<'. J Pavement Markings As. noted in Chapter Two, the transverse markings such as stop bars, crosswalks and turn arrows tend to deteriorate faster than the longitudinal marki ngs, such as 1 ane 1 i nes and centerl i nes. Furthermore, the transverse markings on higher volume streets deteriorated faster than on lower volume streets. Although the normal expected life for painted centerline stripes can be as long as two years, these key intersection control markings deter- iorate in less than six months. Because the longitudinal markings do not require painting as often and must be repainted after sealing the pavement every two years, it appears that the marking of longitudinal lines with paint is adequate. The painting of transverse markings at lower volume intersec- tions is probably adequate for the same reason. It is recommended, however, that cold plastic or thermal plastic be applied at high volume signalized intersections for transverse markings. An alternate solution to the problem of paint wear at high volume inter- sections is to schedule them for more frequent repainting. Intersections part i cul arly recommended for priority ma rk i ngimprovement are those located at signalized locations along Ninth, Broadway, Santa Fe, Ohio and Crawford. 37 Traffi c Control In this section the changes noted on the Traffic Control Map in Chapter Two will be explained in greater detail. The signing changes are depicted graphically on the signing improvement exhibits. Only one signal improvement is dealt with in this discussion. 1. It is recommended that the traffic signal at Santa Fe and Pacific be removed, based on lack of warrant. The minimum volumes for warrant are presently not met even during peak hour traffic. Peak hour counts indicate that with stop sign control, Pacific should be given the right-of-way. 2. The T intersection of Otis Avenue and Santa Fe Avenue is currently a three-way stop. Because Santa Fe traffic should stop, being the stem leg of the IITII, it follows that Oti s woul d not need to and it is recommended that the stop signs on Otis be removed. Furthermore, a multiway stop is not warranted under any of the three warrants described in the MUTCD. 3. Because of low traffic volumes and sufficient sight distance, it is recommended that all stop and yield control north of North Street be removed as recommended on signing plans. 4. The warrant for stop signs at rail road grade crossi ngs is on an interim basis only while light or gate plans are being prepared. It is recommended that all stop signs posted along the north-south Missouri Pacific line be removed. 5. It is recommended that Beverly Drive, being an on-system street with an estimated vol ume of 1,000 to 2,000 vehi cl es per day, be compl etely protected with stop signs. 6. It is recommended that Montrose Street between Crawford and South, Prescott Street between Montrose and Ninth, and College Street between Prescott and South be protected with stop signs, and that all other control within the area bounded by Crawford; South, Ninth and the Missouri Pacific Railroad be removed. 7. The stop or yield control at Seventh Street and Weil Place, Fourth Street and Center Street, Hazel Court and Greely Avenue, Johnstown Avenue and Delaware Avenue, Upper Mill Heights Drive Cul-de-sac, Queens Road and Clare- mont Drive, Starlight Drive and Claremont Drive should be removed. 8. Oakdale Avenue should be protected with stop signs. Glen Avenue should be protected with a stop sign at west Upper Mill Heights Drive. 9. It is recommended that all control along Franklin Street be removed. 10. It is recommended that stop protection for Wilson Street and Sunrise Drive be removed. 11. All stop and yield control between the area bounded by Cloud Street, Republic Avenue, the Missouri Pacific Railroad and Ninth Street should be removed. 12. It is recommended that stop protection for Osborne Street be removed. 38 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I ...~~~::..;--~:t,*$~:,,~'--=;;it.("i,~("..t :.,~,;;(~,~~~",,~"'1;~~~}j-~; I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 13. Stop control at Sunrise Drive and Ellsworth Avenue should be removed. 14. Four-way stop control"~t Highland'~~d Republic, Roach and Ellsworth, Qui ncy and Jewell, and Cloud and Hi ghl and is not warranted and shoul d be changed to two-way control with right-of.;.way assigned to Republic, Roach, Quincy and Cloud. 15. It is recommended that Highland south of Cloud be protected with stop signs; that stop signs on Highl and at Lesl ie be removed; and stop signs should be installed on Leslie. 16. It is recommended that Neal Avenue be protected with a stop sign at . Allen Street as Neal Avenue provides continuity between Highland Avenue and Ohio Street and Allen Street is only a one block segment. 17. On the basis of adequate sight distance, it is recommended that all stop control in the airport industrial area west of Centennial Road be removed and that Centennial be protected with stop signs. Speed Zones As mentioned in Chapter Two, five sections of streets in Salina were found to have 85th percentil e speeds 7 to 12 MPH greater than the posted speeds. 1. It is recommended that because of the 85th percentile speed of 40 MPH and the rural roadside development, Centennial be posted 40 MPH instead of the existing 30 MPH speed zone. 2. Although a small commercial development exists in the vicinity of Cloud and Ninth, it is recommended that the portion of Ninth Street between Claflin and Charlotte be posted 30 MPH instead of 20 MPH. This recommenda- tion is based on the 1 ogi c that Cloud Street through thi s same commerci al development is posted 30, and that similar development along Crawford, Broad- way, and Ohio are posted 30 instead of 20. Furthermore, the 85th percentile speed of 28 indicates that the prevailing roadway conditions warrant a post- ing of 30 MPH rather than 20 MPH. 3. The secti on of Santa Fe Avenue between South Street and Prescott Avenue has an average 85th percentile speed of 7 MPH above the posted speed of 20 MPH. Although a higher spe'ed limit is warranted based on the 85th percentile speed, it is recommended that the posted 20 MPH remain in place with enforcement due to the heavy commercial development along both sides. 4. From Ohio Street east to the City limits, Crawford Avenue is present- ly posted 30 MPH. However, 85th percenti 1 e speeds at two 1 ocati ons were discovered to average 37 MPH and 42.5 MPH. Because of the undeveloped nature of this portion of Crawford, a 40 MPH posting seems more appropriate than 30 MPH. Thi s posti ng shoul d run from just east of the commerci al development east of Ohio to the east City limits. 5. The 85th percenti 1 e speed on Iron Avenue between Fourth and Front Streets averages 29.5 MPH, whereas this section of street is posted 20 MPH. The 85th percentile speed is probably significantly higher than the posted speed of 20 MPH because the commercial development is not as intense as in the downtown area. A posti ng of 30 ~1PH is recommended through thi s section of Iron. 39 I These changes in the speed limits are reflected in the signing improve- ment exhi bits. I SPECIAL STUDY LOCATIONS I A number of locations experiencing high accident frequency have been given special consideration in analysis and in recommendations for improve- ments. These intersections, as summarized in the following table, are discussed in detail in the following pages. Most discussions include an aer- ial photograph sketch, accident collision diagram, and calculations of the improvement benefits versus improvement costs. Four of the hi gh acci dent locations have not been given special analysis in this report. Three of the locations: Broadway and Crawford, Santa Fe and Crawford, Ohio and Crawford have the highest accident numbers of any intersections in Salina. However, major improvements are al ready underway for these intersections. The fourth location, Ninth and Otto, has had signal improvements implemented recently. I I I 1 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SUMMARY AVERAGE EXPECTED YEARL Y ANNUALIZED EXPECTED YEARL Y BENEF IT ECONOMIC RECOMMENDED H1PROVEMENT ACCIDENT ECONOMIC COST LOCA TI ON LOSS IMPROVEMENTS COST REDUCTION BENEF IT RATIO 1- Ninth & Magnolia $ 42,133 Signal modifi- $ 1,354 31% $ 19,958 14.74 cation, widen pavement. 2. Ni nth & South $ 29,867 Signal i ze, $ 7,888 90% $ 26,880 3.41 Realign. 3. Broadway & State $ 29,067 Signal modifi- $ 7,745 44% $ 14,416 1.86 cation, widen pavement. 4. Broadway & Cloud $ 26,667 Signal modifi- $ 1,315 46% $ 12,408 9.44 cation. 5. Ohio & Iron $ 25,600 Si gna 1 modifi- $14,934 67% $ 16,955 1.14 cation, widen pavement. 6. Ni nth & Crawford $24,800 Signal modifi- $ 5,647 36% $ 8,859 1.57 ,cat ion, wi den pavement. 7. Santa Fe & Republic $14,400 Signal modifi- $ 2,178 39% $ 5,862 2.69 cation. 8. Ni nth & Belmont $14,133 Signing improve- $ 2,196 40% $ 10,581 4.30 ments, channeli- zation. 9. College & Ash $28,800 Eliminate parking $ ----- 32% $ 9,216 College & State $ 5,600 Elimnate parking $ ----- 32% $ 1,792 10. Broadway & South $14,133 Signal modifi- $ 3,287 33% $ 4,664 1.42 cation, widen pavement. 11- Broadway, Ninth & $12,267 Si gnal modi fi- $ 3,2B7 45% $ 5,520 1.68 Paci fic cation, close access to Pacific West. 12. Ninth & Cloud $ 7,733 Si gnal modifi- $ 1,176 31% $ 2,397 2.04 cation, left turn bays. 1 I I I I I I I I I I 40 I '7"-"'-"".__',' ''''':h.....r'' ~..; "'""t'";,-;.:.<. "'-"-'~""';:M..,~,~_'1i':'l" 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I LOCATION 1 - NINTH STREET ANQJ;1AGNOLIA RQAQ.. Physical Condition Ninth Street at its intersection with Magnolia Road is a four lane, two- way, paved roadway divided by a grass median. In addition to the two through lanes, a left-turn bay is provided for northbound left-turning traffic and both a left'-turn bay and a right-turn bay are provided for southbound traf- fic. Magnolia is also a paved facility. The west leg of the intersection has two exiti ng 1 anes and three enteri ng 1 anes (ri ght-turn, through, and 1 eft- turn) separated by a raised median. The east leg of the intersection provides one entering lane and one exiting lane. Because of the difference in width between the east and west legs of the intersection (five lanes and a median versus two lanes), the westbound cross-intersection al ignment is offset at least one lane. Traffic Volume The City Engineering staff performed twenty-four hour counts on both Magnolia and Ninth Street: north leg - 16,750; south leg - 13,830; east leg - 6,900; west leg - 4,107. Furthermore, peak hour turning movement counts were conducted by the City as tabulated below. Peak Hour Traffic Thursday, March 25, 1982 5:00-6:00 P.M. Ninth Street Magnolia Road North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg Right-Turn 119 47 116 12 Through 392 437 44 157 Left- Turn 199 9 39 139 TOTAL 7TO 493 199 3'01f Thursday, April 1, 1982 12 :00-1 :00 P .r~. Ninth Street Magnolia Road North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg R i ght- Turn 154 51 93 11 Through 258 402 97 142 Left- Turn 109 35 27 155 TOTAL 52T 4ffif ill 308 " 41 Traffi c Control Traffic control at this intersection is a wire-suspended, four-phase, fully-actuated traffic signal providing exclusive southbound and eastbound left-turn phases. Although the capacity of the intersection is adequate for' present peak hour volume, a capacity analysis of the critical movements suggests that the timi ng be adjusted to allow more time for east-west move- ment. Accident Experience During the three-year period from January 1, 1979, through December 31, 1981, 7 injury (F&I) accidents and 18 property damage only (PDO) acci- dents occurred at this intersection with a total economic loss of $126,400. The distinctive patterns of accidents at this location are tabulated as: Rear-End..... 3..... 12% Right Angle.. 7..... 28% Side Swipe... 3..... 12% Left-Turn....12..... 48% TOTAL........25.....100% Of particular significance to the physical and operational problems at this intersection are the right angle and left-turn collisions. All 25 acci- dents have been graphically portrayed on the foll owi ng acci dent coll i sion diagram. 'I, LEGEND FATALITY ::E: :IE: ::::E ::::E :E: 0.. a.. c.. c.... c.. . PERSONAL INJURY 0--- PROPERTY DAMAGE FIXED OBJECT n----. , a) ~ ~ , '" 10-24-80 4'30 PM F to Y 8- 1-81 2:25 PM F to Y ACCIDENT CAUSES LA. :'. to Y. r. to s. F.- to R.s. P. to C. S. to F. R.O. LT. l.P. LL.C. 1.5, 1. B. O.S.S. D. at W. O.W.S.R. S. on W.P. S. on 1. C.W.I. H.B.O. a.F. Inattentive Driving ...... 1 Failed to yield.......... 14 Failed to Stop ........... 2 Failed to Reduce Speed... Following too Close ...... 3 Speed too Fast. ........... Reckless Oriving ......... Improper Turn ............ 4 Improper Passing ".."..' ~ Improper Lane Change..... 1 U) Improper Signal .......... Improper Bac.lcinq ......... :I: Disregarded Stop Si<JTl .... t- Dozed at Wheel........... Z ~~i:~:~9 o~i=:t O;a:oe::n~':: Z Skidded on Ice........... Driving While Intoxicated. Had. Been Drinkinq ........ Brake Failure ............ ~.?i ~ <> o > ..> '" o 0 ... ... o u. ~ , '" a) 0 '::> "?:> '" ... 3 3 g; u. g; u. , , '" N , '" 42 DRINKING DRIVERS SURFACE Driving While Intoxicated... Drinking .................... Not Drinking ................ Not Known ................... Wet....... . Dry....... . Ice/Snow ... HOURS + Daylight ... 20 Darkness ... 5 7-1;-8\A8'l~ PM 2-11-80 2:00 PM to Y MAGNOLIA RD. ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE NO. OF ACC! DENTS INJU RY RECORD Fatal............. Fatalities .......... Personal Injury... 7 Personal Injuries... Property Damage ...18 TOTAL .............25 Study Period: Total Property Damage Loss: 1-1-79 to 12-31-81 RA YES Accident Rate! ~ , ~ a) Fatality Rate: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~s' < I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Recommendations A) Magnolia Road is significantly offset from one side of the intersec- tion to the other for westbound traffic. Furthermore, westbound left-turning vehicles should be provided with a turning lane. These two needs can be met by additional pavement width constructed along the north edge of the east leg of Magnolia Road. B) The large number of left-turn collisions from Ninth Street vehicles (11) indicates that the left-turn vehicles are seeking to turn through an inadequate gap in the heavy Ninth Street traffic. It is recommended that the permissive left-turn movement be eliminated from Ninth Street and be replaced on both legs with exclusive left-turn phases. Protective/permissive left- turns for ~1agnolia Road, however, should continue and should be provided for both legs; volumes are lower on Magnolia Road and the accident pattern does not indicate this problem for Magnolia Road. Recommendations regarding changes in signal heads are specified on the aerial photo illustration. C) Not only should the phasing be revised as recommended in "B", but the timing should be adjusted accordingly. Accident Reduction The expected reduction of accidents derived from the impl ementation of the improvement recommendations is computed in the following table: ESTIMATED ACCIDENT ESTHMTED % ACCIDENTS ACCIDENT IMPROVEMENT TYPE REDUCTION ~ 100 x OF THIS TYPE = REDUCTI ON General Pavement Right Angle .10 x 3 PDO = 0.30 PDO Markings 4 F&I = 0.40 F&I Sideswipe .20 x 3 POD = 0.60 PDO Left- Turn .10 x 10 PDO = 1.00 POO 2 F&I = 0.20 F&I Improve Signals Injury .35 x 6.4 F&I = 2.24 F&I Add Left-Turn Left- Turn .27 x 3.6 PDO = 0.97 PDO Lane & Signal x 1.17 F&I = 0.32 F&I Improve Timi ng Right Angle .10 x 2.7 PDO = 0.27 PDO 2.34 F&I = 0.23 F&I Rear-End .10 x 3 PDO = 0.30 PDO - .65 F&I = 0.06 F&I Left- Turn .10 x 8.03 PDO = 0.80 PDO .85 F&I = 0.08 F&I TOTAL REDUCTION 4.24 POD 3.53 F&I Property Damage Only % Reduction 4.24/18 = 23.56% Injury % Reduction 3.53/7 = 50.43% Overall % Accident Reduction 7.77/25 = 31.08% 43 Improvement Costs The estimated costs of constructing the recommended improvements are itemized and amortized below: 10% ESTIMATED CAPITAL AMORTI ZED IMPROVEMENT UNIT CONSTRUCTI ON SERVICE RECOVERY ANNUAL ITEM QUANTITY COST COST LIFE FACTOR COST 9 << Asphalt Pavement 170 S.Y. $ 12/S.Y. $ 2,040 15 Years 0.13147 $ 268 Back Plates 10 EA. $ 50/EA. $ 500 15 Years 0.13147 $ 66 Signal Head Relocation 2 EA. $250/EA. $ 500 15 Years 0.13147 $ 66 New Signal Heads 2 EA. $500/EA. $ 1,000 15 Years 0.13147 $ 131 Curb & Gutter Removal 250 L.F. $3.50/L.F. $ 875 15 Years 0.13147 $ 115 Curb & Gutter Constructi on 250 L.F. $ 7 IL. F . $ 1,750 15 Years 0.13147 $ 230 Traffic Signs 2 EA. $ 55/EA. $ 110 5 Years 0.26380 $ 29 Thermo Plastic Mark- ing (Stop Bars & Turn Arrows) 260 S.F. $ 3/S.F. $ 780 2 Years 0.57619 $ 449 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 7,555 $ 1,354 Economi c Benefit The expected economic benefit resulting from the applied recommendations is calculated below: 4.24/3 x $ 800 = $ 1,131 Property Damage Reduction Benefit 3.53/3 x $16,000 $18,827 Injury Reduction Benefit Total Annual Accident Reduction Benefit is $19,958. The benefit/cost ratio for these improvements is 19,958/1,354 = 14.74. 44 I I I I 'I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ D nLOCA TION 1-NINTH & MAGNOLIA III ic II. 'I. ' ~I I~ I 'I 'OJ SIGNAL ,HEAD TYPES I, I II .1 Ii '",", ,I I III 12- A 12 L 12- E I~ '~ ~ - :1 ;rs; i7; -..., (*II " If 9 y<' ~ :t<< ~~ ~ ""'!l 'l_ !~ J~ xl ,&' .. (J r l!a ~ rI" !:III 1..," " ifi f!'j.~ If) G, ~ ii, tl f 1~1' ill CI II SIGNAL HEAD RECOMMENDATIONS o 1. INSTALL TYPE L 2. NO CHANGE 3. NO CHANGE 4. NO CH~NGE 5. REMOVE TYPEE 6. REPLACE DEFECTIVE TYPE A WITH. TYPE E 7.~ NO CHANGE , ,8.1 REPLACE TYPE E WJTH TYPE L 9.1 NO 'CHANGE 1 O.~ NO CH~NGE 11. NO CHANGE I 12.~ iiEaL.!-~E TyrE A WITH TYPE E ~3., Nfll'" CH'A'NGE... .:I .. H I . J MAGNOLIA RD -- .j '~~l=~\ " . ~:JI;;~G:ND, .~t "___ 5, SIGNAL, HEAD REFERENCE- ! NUMBER'"' . f"I it .ill,,. ....."l II i ~ ~I [)IFFRENT SIGNAL" HEAD I il ,';fl,~E" W F~ACK PLA'TE ' r .-., ...'-""L. - , 1<>>- ~AM~SIGNAL 'HEAD Lt. ~ !~J, ~K PL~ln. I - ~ ~~ ,.~ ~- -, r j '} "I ~~'l ~ J I o 0 t ,; ~ j; " Ii ~ III I I. I I I I I :1 I I I I I I I I I I I LOCATION 2 - NINTH STREET AND SOUTH STREET Physical Condition Ninth Street, a three-lane major arterial street, intersects with South Street, a two-lane collector street in a residential area. Ninth Street measures 36 feet wide and is offset across the intersection; South Street is 30 feet wide. Traffic Volume The peak hour traffic counts supplied by the City for this intersection are summarized below: Ri ght- Turn Through Left- Turn TOTAL Peak Hour Traffic Tuesday, March 30, 1982 12:00-1:00 P.M. Ninth Street South Street North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg 34 22 8 40 269 305 100 127 24 33 11 24 ill 360 119 191 r~onday, Apri 1 5, 1982 5:00-6:00 P.M. Ninth Street South Street North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg 49 16 16 50 387 236 111 115 26 45 7 IS 462 297 114 T80 Right-Turn Through Left- Turn TOTAL Traffi c Control Presently, the South Street traffic is required by stop sign to stop at Ninth Street. Accident Experience From January 1, 1979, through December 31, 1981, five injury accidents (F&I) and 12 property damage only accidents incurred an economic loss of $89,600 at this intersection. The accident collision pattern is entirely right angle type, as illus- trated on the collision diagram. 45 LEGEND FATALITY . PERSONM., INJURY 0--- PROPERTY DAMAGE FIXED OBJECT n--- ( LA. :'. to Y. .f. to S. F. to R.S. F. to C. S. to F. R.D. r.T. LP. I.L.C. I.S. I.s. 0.5.5. D. at W. O.W.S.R. S. on W.P. S. on I. C.W.I. H.B.o. B.F. 1-8-80 8-6-81 3: 08 PM to Y 4-19-81 1:45 PM F to Y 11- 26-81 1: 15 AM to Y 1-11-81 8-29-81 1 :23 PM 8-28-80 8: 50 AM 3-4-80 9:45 AM F to Y 1-28-80 2:52 PM to F to Y ACCIDENT CAUSES Inattentive Driving ...... 1 Failed to Yield ..........14 Failed to Stop ...........2 Failed to Reduce Speed... Following too Close ...... Speed too Fast ........... Reckless Driving......... Improper Turn ............ Improper Passing ......... Improper Lane Change..... Improper Signal .......... Improper Backing......... Disregarded Stop Sign.... Oozed at Wheel........... On Wrong Side of Road.... Skidded on Wet Pavement.. Skidded on Ice ........... Driving While Intoxicated. Had Been Drinking ........ Brake Failure ............ Recommendations ) DRINKING DRIVERS SURFACE Driving While Intoxicated... Drinking .................... Not Drinking ................ Not Known ................... Wet....... . Dry....... . lee/Snow ... HOURS Daylight ... 15 Darkness ... 2 + 7-19-80 9:35 AM to Y 5- 12-~0 to \ 04 PM SOUTH ST. ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE NO. OF ACCI DENTS INJURY RECORD Fatal............. Fatalities Personal Inj ury ... 5 Personal Inj ~;i~;' : :: Property Damage ...12 TarAi.. .............17 Study Period: I-' (f) :I: I- Z Z Total Property Darnage Loss: RA TES Accident Rate ~ Fatality Rate: The most effective means of reducing the number of right angle collisions ; 5 to install a signal, if it is warranted. Al though only two hours of counts have been collected, they seem to indicate that the necessary volumes are probably satisfied. However, additional counts should be taken to verify the volumes if the City elects to pursue signalization. The following table compares signal warrants to actual conditions. ACTUAL Major street volume 1st Hour 687 (Both approaches) 2nd Hour 759 Minor street volume 1st Hour 191 (One approach) 2nd Hour 180 Applicable accidents 9 in 1? mnnths WARRANT I 0,1; nimum Vehicular Volume) WARRANT 6 (Accident Experience) 500 500 x .8 = 400 150 150 x .8 = 120 5 When the signal is warranted and installed, should be realigned at the same time. These illustrated on the aerial photographic sketch. the offset in Ni nth Street proposed improvements are 46 I I I I 1 I ,I .1' I I I I I I I :1 I I 'I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I 'I Accident Reduction The installation of a signal at this intersection should reduce the number of accidents by 80%. Realignment of Ninth should reduce accidents an additional 10%, for a total of 90% reduction. Improvement Costs The estimated cost of installing a new signal and realigning the pavement is $60,000. Amortized for 15 years at 10% yields an annual cost of $7,888. Economic Benefit The benefit of installing a signal and realigning Ninth Street should be an annual economic savings of: 10.8/3 x $ 800 = $ 2,880 Property Damage Reduction Benefit 4.5/3 x $16,000 = $24,000 Injury Reduction Benefit The total accident reduction benefit is $26,880. The benefit to cost ratio for this project is $26,880/$7,888 = 3.41. 47 "",,\:1 ;W ~ t: .~'. ..~ ~;i:C [' 0 C AJr~9~N Ffi~ , g.,l .. ;,_~......... ""'..I << .J11.llHAL I:IEAQlT~PEJ' ' ~ -. ., :. D " CI !'lI ~""'...:.f l'J2~'7:. L ~ ~.' J I~~ · Q09 ~l' o~ n.~ tA.. ".~. ~fC:iJ tJ .~^ ; ~ ..;," f ~. .'" C 1~,,'1".!" .<Ill... ..... ~I I"~L~~FT~ k. ." 0 'if <:l .'. ..... -I ItC o ,. 'HEM; SIG~. ' '1 I ".' ". ~ ~',/IP Eo oi~~- () = 06 z- ---rL ." A L- -R/W ~ SOUTH ST J.'\. A Ii'., (1 f 14 ~ I~ lJU A~ 11 rl~ ~WQ* ~'I fA A t E), t:;.~f. ~ ~.~~ I 'I ... ,~' ~'a~: ~~. ,I" I ' I. ~~. ~ t:Jrl ..! ~~~J ~ 1 .. " ~. i?l 0 L. : ?t' '1 " , .1...,~L..,k '~ ...../"g. . ~ I II r .... ~ 'I.~ ~'~L~_;' I II "~"I n -,' ......Stalei~~t;':. .......~.. I" .~ . ."" I, '. i'~ ='l"-- ~l~j ~ ...bwl '!I ~~ l!~ C.:i; ,." ,:" ~<'iJ I-'S~-..,.}: f' .. (Ie ) ~r~~--+~ ,.,'t .A J ~.. ",,'r~~~ ,I IUI- ~~ ...... ~(1 :.1"'1-1.... t d'.. ,~ P!t....I' t f I) !fl .' lii.i [13 r}' ~I~ l ~~~ ,~~ ~1'1J III .. a ICI ill ~ a " fiil .. 2-S0~~H It :NIJTH' ~ Il ~...... ~ !ii ':'~ [~CJ "A' ~ (} ~ ~ rg ~ ~ f~~"_ ~- IIIli II :':I' if 1M ~l lml'J['J JJ ~ "J.~"'''' r;1 "~~ ..1'7' .... t. ' ~ ~ , t,' "" '-~ t" '" fii<il";;, f'Z... ',/ ... ,,_ t~ .,rt", .,~' ~-..........I it""";ll . · ~->'; ~ , ~-R/W.- -- ~ n Cl~~ · It::.; ! IZ~~ I J-. ~-<. .! I.," ~ ,.,.. ~.q~ '.' ' LEGE'NO ~ ~ .... Jif c ,,~IJ'..c.;.a "" ~."" .~"" c..." .~I' .' .~< ~ ". .,.~. ........~1fl SIG A. D .T~Y. P.E " ~ ~ y......... 1-. .. ,"0', " . ~~ <<,~, ".,,;, ~ ~ "'Il_..... ......~,......~..............~.. ttlEWIG'NXL WITH'B,ACK..I(, '. ' I. t{. "",", .... ." if! ~r " I~. . ~,'.~ " , 1) ". a. 9 i - 11/# :;l::..,..~ ~~ fjI ........1:1' !!l f;p~ #'1 . '~rlf"'"'1'dnl ,-. 00 L~ f\,1l'l . tJ ... ~ ~Ir "'Cl m,,,,,. ' ,~' ,,:t;,~ .... .'. . ... f.:.. ,~""'. ..... qj ~ c (~'>~~. ,J,. '\\~ .~aA~."" .......'..... ~j" ~S!fj ~. t', : .~ ". "'>~ , .'ii ~ r t- ~.. ..~...~~ r_ ,.,n '\ I 'bj" , '- Irr. ~.,~ I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I I I I I I LOCATION 3 - BROADWAY BOULEVARD AND STATE STREET Physical Condition Broadway is a 54-foot wide, four-lane, narrow raised median-divided facility where it intersects with State Street, a two-lane, 36-foot wide roadway. Both streets are in the federal aid urban system. Broadway is the principal north-south route along the western edge of Salina and is developed commercially along both sides from State Street south to Crawford, and has residential and rural development immediately north of the intersection. State Street is primarily rural development west of the intersection and residential to the east. Sight distance is generally good at the intersec- tion, the exception being to and from the west, where a slight vertical curve crests about 300 feet west of the intersection. Traffic Volume The average daily traffic along Broadway was counted to be 16,126 and on State 4,452. Peak hour turning movement counts taken in April by the City Engineering staff revealed the following volumes: Right-Turn Through Left- Turn TOTAL Peak Hour Traffic Friday, April 2, 1982 12:00-1:00 P.M. Broadway Boulevard S ta te Street North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg 8 65 11 46 452 480 27 42 10 33 83 14 470 578 121 102 Wednesday, April 7, 1982 5:00-6:00 P.M. Broadway Boulevard S ta te Street North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg 9 43 8 64 531 292 47 41 6 47 88 12 546 382 143 117 Right-Turn Through Left-Turn TOTAL Traffic Control In August, 1979 a two-phase fully actuated signal was installed with mastarm-mounted signal heads. 49 I The capacity of the intersection has been more than adequate for all movements. I Accident Experience I The total accident experience at this intersection from January I, 1979, through December 31, 1981, has consisted of 29 property damage only accidents (PDO) and four injury accidents (F&I) with a total economic loss of $87,200. I / The accident collision patterns for the intersection are summarized be- low. Rear-End.... . Right Angle.. Side Swipe... Left-Turn. ... Fixed Object. I 6.....18% 9. . . .. 28% 3..... 9% 13. . . .. 39% 2..... 6% I I TOTAL.........33.....100% LEGEND '" '" '" '" CL CL CL CL FATALITY .... .... '" . ~>- g ... PERSONAL INJURYo--- .. >- ~u '.... .8 .8 .8 .8 PROPERTY DAMAGE '" 0 0 '" .... ,;,u" ';' ";,u,, , M 0 co co FIXED OBJECT , , N r>--- , , 0 '" 8-17-81 9:55 Afl IS 1-27-81 1:08 PM F to Y 10-29-79 1 : F to Y 6-2-79 1:05 AM F to C* 6-17-79 1:00AM IT* ~ ACCIDENT CAUSES Inattentive Driving...... 3 Failed to Yield ..........18 Failed to Stop..... 40.... 3 Failed to Reduce Speed... Following too Close ...... 2 Speed too F as t ........... Reckless Driving......... 1 Improper Turn ............ 2 Improper Passing ......... Improper Lane Change ..... 1 Improper Signal.......... 1 Improper Backing ......... Disregarded Stop Sign.... Dozed at Wheel........... On Wrong Side of Road.... Skidded on Wet Pavement .. Skidded on Ice........... 1 Driving While Intoxicated. Had Been Drinking ........ Brake Failure ............ ...... ~ co '?:~ o ... ~u" , .,. , ~ ')- <l: ~ o <l: o a:: III I These collisions are illustrated on the following accident collision dia- gram. It should be noted on the diagram that seven of the accidents occurred prior to the signal installation. LA. :. to y. ~". to S. F. to R.S. :. to C. S. to F. a.o. LT. !.P. I.L.C. I.S. LB. O.S .5. D. at W. O.W.S. R. S. on W.P. S. on I. D.W.1. H.B.o. a.F. ~ ~ ~ ~ N co M :".; <ji :x; , :e .... , , '" .., 50 I DRINKING DRIVERS I SURFACE Driving While Intoxicated... Drinking .................... Not Drinking ................ Not Known ................... Wet....... . Dry....... . I cejSnow ... I HOURS Daylight ... 19 Darkness ... 14 +, I 5-24-79 4:55 PM F to y* --' 1_29-80 5:05 PM F to Y 10-9-81 5:45 PM F to Y 3-8-81 5: 46 PM F to Y I '" CL -----J o 0<: .. " M~ - <: ';'''' ! ". 6-27-81 IA3:20 AM 5-21-79 3:00 PM F to y* I CL ~ ..vo M 1" .8 ~u- M ~ '" STATE ST. ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE NO. OF ACCIDENTS INJURY RECORD Fatal............. Fatalities.......... Personal Injury... 4 Personal Injuries... Property Damage.. .29 I TOTAL .............33 Study Period: I Total Property Damage Loss: * Occurred prior to signal installation RA TES I Accident Ratel Fatality Rate: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I Recommendations Even though the left-turn movements from Broadway are light, the accident pattern of el even north and southbound 1 eft-turns ; ndi cate a need for 1 eft- turn bays and exclusive phases, rather than permissive phases. Furthermore, the four north and southbound rear-end collisions and the two side swipe ac- cidents may also be related to left-turn movements and the blocking of the left lane by turning vehicles. The construction of left-turn bays would necessitate a widening of Broad- way at the intersection, a corresponding purchase of additional right-of-way, the relocation of two signal poles, the replacement of two mastarm poles with longer mastarm poles, and the addition of two left-turn signal heads. Further recommendations based on the large westbound left-turning volume are the creation of left-turn bays for both westbound and eastbound vehicles. These could be installed simply through the use of pavement marking. The signal heads for the State Street traffic should then be adjusted to key over \ the new outbound 1 ane. . Property Damage Only % Reduction 9.85/22 = 44.77% Injury % Reduction 1.67/4 = 41.75% Overall % Accident Reducti on 11.52/26 = 44.31% Improvement Costs , The estimated costs for constructi ng the recommended improvements are tabulated below: 10% ESTH1ATED CAP IT AL AMORTI ZED IMPROVEMENT UNIT CONSTRUCTI ON SERVICE RECOVERY ANtJUAL ITEM QUANTITY COST COST LIFE FACTOR COST Ri ght-of-Way Lump Sum Lump Sum $ 5,000 15 Years 0.13147 $ 657 Pavement Removal 180 S.Y. $ 6/S.Y. $ 1,080 15 Years 0.13147 $ 142 Curb Removal 800 L.F. $3.50/L.F. $ 2,800 15 Years 0.13147 $ 368 Earthwork 60 C.Y. $ 8/C.Y. $ 480 15 Years 0.13147 $ 63 12" Asphalt Pavement 450 S.Y. $ 16/S.Y. $ 7,200 15 Years 0.13147 $ 947 Curb & Gutter 700 L.F. $ 7/L.F. $ 4,900 15 Years 0.13147 $ 644 Construction Median Construction 80 C.Y. $250/C.Y. $ 20,000 15 Years 0.13147 $2,629 Signal Improvements Lump Sum Lump Sum $ 12,000 15 Years 0.13147 $1,578 Traffi c Si gns 6 EA. $ 60/EA. $ 360 5 Yea rs 0.26380 $ 95 Thermo Plastic Pave- 360 S.F. $ 3/S.F. $ 1,080 2 Years 0.57619 $ 622 ment Marking (Stop Bars & Turn Arrows) TOTAL $54,900 $7,745 Economic Benefit . The economic benefit expected to result from these improvements is: 9.85/2.4 x $ 800 = $ 3,283 Property Damage Reduction Benefit 1.67/2.4 x $16,000 = $11,133 Injury Reduction Benefit The total annual accident reduction benefit is $14,416 providing a benefit to cost ratio of 14,416/7,745 = 1.86. 52 I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ~. i{~l ~. f~Fj'4~)'~ \--~p "~~ .Jr'.'. }rj"" "t' f ~~' L- ' '.l'" -;"fJ ., r:;f~ l,f7'" . "1' /' · \ 1 : r 7 JI ~g ~~ ":' . ~-j~Ot~i NEW!)POG NEW AHJf~X..;lINV 0" "':::'S'IGNAL=H 'r$ ~=-~ .......~..,,,c,' t- ~] l r' Cl,' I 'rs... ~ J r~ t ~.;--' ,,",}5 '. Js ,- Y- [\ R/W I li ' ---r:- III '~:'{~t~;;ION 3- ~R<ibADYlA ~T sl~;~cc~~ i ~"\'~. ~,"". - CoIl'\. ~ 1'"'1,,7" ";,-:,,~.,, . ~ ~ ~., . . . '\ ' rJ'\' ..J~) , '1' .a. "~" "~'i'.... :\. p ~~ .J ~ iJ '":I.G~'~~~~:A; ?-~~s l:~ {J~ ',. ~." ~-cD '~ iI,.. .cf'1m ~ ~)' 12- '11.2'.. . It L j;D...., ", L:'- ~ 1 .~'~' fJ. j f ~ g ~ 1.1" bl ~I' I,. e .>>. '1 :J .1 :~J; .;,fffj j ~ I; ,~t~~ .- r.:1 .., .~ , e~ I iii '1ti. I ~.."f..f!a. . ....,.:: I ~~ t~1 ~--a\ /' I.Jt .1',.'...~~ -.I!1...~.........~.........!t ~~,p'- '. . r,.~'" 11't].~ .'. 't' J j' , ,,-t- ,/ '0' ~ , . ,. ,., . ., :t:..f t ,. n t . ~ t ."",1,\ >~ ~':';tJ ~:. j }.. . iI' .' ,'" '$. ~ ~'- I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 'I I I LOCATION 4 - BROADWAY BOULEVARD AND CLOUD STREET Physical Condition These two federal aid urban streets intersect on a skew of 490181. Broadway Boul evard has two through 1 anes, one 1 eft-turn bay protected by a raised median, and one right-turn channelization from each direction. Cloud Street is a 36-foot wide street providing one through lane and one left-turn 1 ane on both approaches. The al i gnment of Cloud Street from one si de of Broadway Boulevard to the other is slightly offset. Traffic Volume Twenty-four hour counts in 1982 show that Broadway carries an average daily traffic of 7,128 south of the intersection and that Cloud carries 6,616 just west of the intersection. Peak hour turning movement counts obtained by the City Engineering staff are summarized below: Right-Turn Through Left-Turn TOTAL Peak Hour Traffic Tuesday, March 30, 1982 12:00-1:00 P.M. Broadway Boulevard Cloud Street North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg 68 5 80 26 251 191 119 93 97 24 10 75 m 22() 2IT9' 1"94 Wednesday, March 31, 1982 5:00-6:00 P.M. Broadway Boulevard Cloud Street North Leg South Leg East Leg West Leg 113 12 121 32 388 224 208 142 ~ 129 40 17 80 610 m 34b '2'54 Right- Turn Through Left- Turn TOT AL Traffi c Control The traffic operations at Broadway and Cloud are controll ed by a semi- actuated, four-phase signal. The phasing provides protected/permissive 1 eft-turns for southbound and eastbound traffi c, and permi ss ive 1 eft-turns only for northbound and westbound traffic. The signal heads are mastarm mounted. The capacity analysis of the intersection indicates that sufficient green time has been allotted to all phases. 53 I Accident Experience From January 1, 1979, through December 31, 1981, 20 property damage only accidents (PDO) and 4 injury accidents (F&I) occurred at this intersection, incurring an economic loss of $80,000. I I The accidents can be classified into four categories of collision types: I Rear-End..... 6..... 25% Right-Angle..10..... 42% Side Swipe... 1..... 4% Left-Turn.... 7..... 29% I TOTAL........24.....100% I These'collisions have been displayed graphically on the accident colli- sion diagram. I LEGEND ::E ~ ::E "- <( FATALITY ::E ~ <Xl '. 0 or> "- "U ..... M 0 PERSONAL INJURYo---- <Xl 0 E ~O 0 ..., ..., .. Vl a> 0 PROPERTY 0 ";' "? a> DAMAGEr . ..., ~ N ~ FIXED OBJECT ~...: ~ , r>-- 0 ~Vl Vl '" DRINKING DRIVERS SURFACE I Driving While Intoxicated... Drinking .................... Not Drinking ................ Not Known ................... Wet ........ Dry..o.... . Ice/Snow .,. I 1-'-':,::_: ':" ;,' .1 ~: F to Y 9-9-811/: 55 AM .... 12-5-81 1: IA I. HOURS Daylight '" 16 Darkness '" 8 + I 4-3-79 3:00 PM 18 r...... 3-17-79 8:00 AM AM ~ IP I 7-11-80 4:00 PM F to C 10-10-81 6:25 PM F to C 1-19-81 8:12 AM ~ to C ~ 10-9-79 F to Y I . . . . ~ Vl ~>- E CLOUD 5T. 490 IS' ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE NO. OF ACCIDENTS INJURY RECORD Fatal ............. Fatalities.......... Personal Injury... 4 Personal Injuries... . Property Damage ...20 TOlAL .............24 Study Period: I ... . ACCIDENT CAUSES LA. :'. to Y. i'. to S. F. to R.S. E'. to C. S. to F. R.D. LT. I.P. I.L.C. 1.5, LB. 0,5.5. D. at ti. O.W.S.R. S. on ti.P. S. on t. D.W,I, 8.8,0. 8,F. Inattentive Driving...... 3 Failed to Yield ..........12 Fai led to Stop ........... 2 Failed to Reduce Speed... 1 d Following too Close ...... 4 > Speed too Fast ........... ~ ~:;:~::: ~~;~i~:.::::::::: CO Improper Passing ......... Improper Lane Change ..... ~ Improper Signal .......... 1 :::> Improper Backin9" ......... b Disregarded Stop S19"n .... <( ~~Z:~o:: =~~:l o~' ~:~. :::: 0 Skidded on Wet Pavement " Q: Skidded on Ice ........... CD Dr! ving While Intoxicated. Had Been Drinking ........ Brake Failure ............ ~ ::E "- ::E ~ "- o ~~ :>- ..,. - E B o ~ or u.. or L.l... Vl ..,. N ~ , , a> ~ Total Property Damage Loss: I '" 0 .. >- .. N <Xl o 0 .... ..., a> 0 ~L.l... ~ a> 0 RA TES I Accident Rate! Fatali ty Rate: I I I 54 I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I Recommendations <:' "'~'~":'- No geometric changes are recommended at this intersection; several physi- cal and operati onal traffi c control improvements shoul d significantly reduce accidents. The north and southbound 1 eft-turn accident patterns coul d be reduced by employing exclusive left-turn phases for both movements and eliminating north an, southbound permissive left turns. Backplates and longer life pavement markings should reduce all types of accidents. Right-angle collisions could be significantly reduced by furnishing all red clearance periods. Accident Reduction The expected reduction in accident frequency resulting from these improvements is computed in the following tabulation: ESTIMATED ACCIDENT ESTIMATED % ACC !DENTS ACCIDENT IMPROVEMENT TYPE REDUCTION f 100 x OF THIS TYPE = REDUCTION General Pavement Right-Angle .10 x 6 PDO = 0.60 PDO Markings 4 F&I = 0.40 F&I Side Swipe .20 x 1 PDO = 0.20 PDO Left- Turn .10 x 7 PDO = 0.70 PDO Improve Signals All .31 x 17.5 PDO = 5.42 PDO x 3.6 F&I = 1.12 F&I Exclusive Left- All .27 x 4.42 PDO = 1.19 PDO Turn Phase 0.59 F&I = 0.16 F&I Improve Timi ng Rear-End .10 x 3.26 PDO = 0.33 PDO R i gh t-Angl e .10 x 3.73 PDO = 0.37 PDO 1.89 F&I = 0.19 F&I Left- Turn .10 x 3.18 PDO = 0.32 PDO TOTAL REDUCTION 9.13 PDO 1.87 F&I Property Damage Only % Reduction 9.13/20 = 45.65% Injury % Reduction 1.87/4 Overall % Accident Reduction 11/24 Improvement Costs The estimated construction costs to implement these recommendations are tabulated as follows: = 46.75% = 45.83% 55 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Recommendations No geometric changes are recommended at this intersection; several physi- cal and operational traffic control improvements shoul d significantly reduce accidents. The north and southbound 1 eft-turn accident patterns coul d be reduced by employing exclusive left-turn phases for both movements and eliminating north an, southbound permissive left turns. Backplates and longer life pavement markings should reduce all types of accidents. Ri ght-angl e coll i si ons coul d be significantly reduced by furni shi ng all red clearance periods. Accident Reduction The expected reduction in accident frequency resulting from these improvements is computed in the following tabulation: ESTIMATED ACCIDENT ESTIMATED % ACCIDENTS ACCIDENT IMPROVEMENT TYPE REDUCTION f 100 x OF THIS TYPE = REDUCTI ON General Pavement Right-Angl e .10 x 6 POD = 0.60 POD Markings 4 F&I = 0.40 F&I Side Swipe .20 x 1 POD = 0.20 POD Left- Turn .10 x 7 PDO = 0.70 PDO Improve Signals All .31 x 17.5 PDO = 5.42 POD x 3.6 F&I = 1.12 F&I Exclusive Left- All .27 x 4.42 PDO = 1.19 PDO Turn Phase 0.59 F&I = 0.16 F&I Improve Timing Rear-End .10 x 3.26 POO = 0.33 POO R i gh t-Angl e .10 x 3.73 PDO = 0.37 PDO 1.89 F&I = 0.19 F&I Left- Turn .10 x 3.18 PDO 0.32 PDO TOTAL REDUCTION 9.13 PDO 1.87 F&I Property Damage Only % Reduction 9.13/20 = 45.65% , = 46.75% Injury % Reduction 1.87/4 Overall % Accident Reduction 11/24 = 45.83% Improvement Costs The estimated construction costs to implement these recommendations are tabulated as follows: 55 IMPROVEMENT ITEM ESTIMATED SERVICE LIFE UNIT COST $500/EA. QUANTITY 2 EA. CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,000 3 Section left- Turn Signal Heads 15 Years Backplates 8 EA. 1 EA. 1 EA. 15 Years $ SO/EA. $500/EA. $ 40/EA. $ $ $ 400 Detector loop Traffic Sign Thermo Plastic Pave- ment Marking (Stop Bars & Turn Arrows) 15 Years 500 40 5 Years 610 S.F. $ 3/S.F. $ 1,830 2 Years TOTAL $ 3,770 Economic Benefit 10% CAPITAL AMORTI ZED RECOVERY AN/JUAl FACTOR COST 0.13147 $ 131 0.13147 $ 53 0.13147 $ 66 0.26380 $ 11 0.57619 S~ $1,315 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The economi c benefit carrel at i ng wi th the expected acc i dent reducti on should be: 9.13/3 x $ 800 = $2,435 1.87/3 x $16,000 = $9,973 $12,408 Property Damage Reduction Benefit Injury Reduction Benefit Total Annual Economic Benefit The benefit/cost ratio for these improvements is: 12,408/1,315 = 9.44 56 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I' I I I I LOCATION 5 - OHIO STREET AND IRON AVENUE Physical Condition The two federal aid urban streets of Iron Avenue and Ohio Street are both four-lane, paved and curbed arterials. Iron Avenue, a 37-foot wide facility, including parking on each side, is the major east-west thoroughfare in the north end of Sa 1 i na, connecti ng the areas east and west of the Smoky Hill River. Ohio Street, a 33-foot wide roadway, is the only north-south thor- oughfare in the east side of Salina with complete continuity from the south City limits to Interstate 70. It is thus important to recognize that this i ntersecti oni s one of the key intersections in the City with regard to traffic operations, even though presently both streets are of substandard width for four lanes. The adjacent development along both streets is residential, except at the intersection where service stations are located on three of the corners. Traffic Volume Twenty-four hour counts at this intersection indicate average daily traf- fic of 10,449 on the east leg, 9,187 on the west leg, 11,141 on the south leg, and 9,758 on the north leg. The following tables summarize the peak hour turning counts taken by the City Engineering staff: Peak Hour Traffic Wednesday, March 24, 1982 5:00-6:00 P.M. Ohio Street North Leg South Leg Iron Avenue East Leg West Leg Right-Turn Through Left-Turn TOTAL 36 435 76 547 84 287 48 419 47 197 118 362 124 270 41 U5" Friday, April 2, 1982 12:00-1:00 P.M. Ohio Street North Leg South Leg Iron Avenue East Leg West Leg Right-Turn Through Left- Turn TOTAL 35 311 81 ill 115 311 77 W 72 255 101 m 75 269 48 392 57 Traffi c Control I I The traffi cis controll ed at thi s i ntersecti on by a fi xed time traffi c I signal; two mastarm-mounted signal heads are provided for each approach. No special turn lanes or phases have been provided. A capacity analysis of the intersection reveals that sufficient capacity exists for current peak hour volumes and movements, though the timing should be adjusted to allow more green for Iron Avenue. I Accident Experience I I During the period from January 1, 1979, through December 31, 1981, 4 injury accidents (F&I) and 16 property damage only accidents (PDO) occurred at this intersection with a total economic loss of $76,800. These 20 acci- dents fell into four distinctive collision patterns: I Rear-End.... . 5..... 25% Right-Angle. . 3..... 15% Side Swi pe. . . 5..... 25% Left- Turn.... 7..... 35% I TOTAL........20.....100% I These 20 collisions are illustrated on the following diagram. LEGEND FATALITY ~ ::E ~ "- "- '" 00..,. co 0 N . PERSONAL INJURY ().-- PROPERTY DAMAGE .... '" u u "- -' -' 0....... 0_ 0\ co co .... o 0 0 N co .... ~ ~ N N - - FIXED OBJECT II : ::~;::;r:: : ~I j F to S . 6- 5-80 5: 15 PM F to V 8-21-79 4:05 PM IA 6-20-81 11'07 AM IA . ..... v ..... :E :E <( "- "- 0 g ~ 0 ..u .. >- <Xl N '" B B B D a- D !~ .... u. '? 0 co ~ 0 0 '" '" ACCIDENT CAUSES Inattentive Driving...... 2 Failed to Yield .......... 8 Failed to Stop .........04. 2 Failed to Reduce Speed... Following too Close...... 3 Speed too Fast ........... Reckless Driving ......... Improper Turn ............ Improper Passing ......... 1 Improper Lane Change ..... 4 Improper Signal .......... Improper Backing......... Disregarded Stop Sign .... Oozed at Wheel........... On wrong Side of Road.... Skidded on Wet Pavement.. Skidded on Ice ........... ori ving While Intoxicated. Had Been Orinking ........ Brake Failure ............ LA. ? to Y. .i'. to S. F. to R.S. F. to C. S. to F. R.D. LT. 1.P. 1.L,C, 1.5, LB. 0.5.5. D. at W. O.W.5.R. S. on W.P. S. on I. C.W.I. H.B.D. B.F. '" :E '" <( "- "- co 0 '" '" '" co ..>-..>-..>- co '" co o 0 0 .... .... .... '" 0 _ ,.... u...CO u.. co u... o 0 , '" .... , , 0 .... - co '" <( o D co '::l 00- o -r CO 58 DRINKING DRIVERS I SURFACE Driving While Intoxicated... Drinking .................... Not Drinking ................ Not Known ................... Wet....... . Dry. ....... Ice/Snow ... I HOURS Daylight '" 16 Darkness ... 4 ~ '( I I "6 9-25-79 7:00 PM F to V ~2-79 5:25 AM ILC ,.. ,. 2- 8-80 1:45 PM F to C 2-22-80 10:25 PM F to C I '" "- '" ~>- '" IRON AVE. ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE NO. OF ACCIDENTS INJURY RECORD Fatal............. Fatalities.......... Personal Injury... 4 Personal Injuries... Property Damage ...16 TOTAL .............20 Study Period: I I B o <Xl U. o .... , .... I-' (/) o ::I: o Total Property Damage Loss: 1-1-79 to 12-31-81 RA TES I Accident Rate! Fatality Rate: I I k;.,.., I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Recommendations .", . Even though the capacity of this intersection is sufficient for current peak hour volumes, it is recommended that all four approaches be widened and that signal operati on be upgraded to fully actuated eight phase, as i 11 us- trated on the aerial photograph sketch. This recommendation, rather than based on just the capacity analysis, is based primarily on acci dent experience. The 1 arge percentage of 1 eft-turn accidents (35%) and rear-end accidents (25%) relate directly to the manage- ment of left-turning vehicles. The provision of left-turn lanes and left- turn phases should greatly reduce these types of collisions. The widening of the intersection should have a significant impact on the reduction of side swipe accidents. All types of accidents should decrease in frequency and traffic operations improve by the actuation of the signal. A secondary consideration which does not enter into the economic justifi- cation of the improvements, but is nonetheless important, is the potential for traffic growth on the Iron Avenue corridor. Because Iron Avenue is the principal connecting route between the northeast quadrant of Salina and the Central Busi ness Di strict, any development in that quadrant wi 11 generate traffi c onto Iron. Even though the capacity is presently adequate, it is highly probable that this intersection will become increasingly congested. Accident Reduction As a result of implementing these recommendations, it is expected that the number and severity of the accidents at this location will be reduced, as computed in the following table: ESTIt~ATED ACCIDENT ESTIMATED % ACCIDENTS ACCIDENT H1PROVEMENT TYPE REDUCTION t 100 x OF THIS TYPE = REDUCTI ON General Pavement Ri ght-Angl e 0.10 x 3 PDO = 0.30 PDO Markings Side Swipe 0.20 x 4 PDO = 0.80 PDO 1 F&I = 0.20 F&I Left-Turn 0.10 x 4 POD = 0.40 poo 3 F&I = 0.30 F&I Turn Bay Rear-End 0.20 x 5 PD~ = 1.00 PD~ Left- Turn All 0.36 x 13.5 PDO = 4.86 PD~ Lane & Phase 3.5 F&I = 1.26 F&I Improve Signals All 0.31 x 8.64 POD = 2.68 PD~ (Lens Size & 2.24 F&I = 0.69 F&I Backpl ate s) Actuate Signal Rear-End 0.10 x 1. 77 PDO = 0.18 PDO Right-Angle 0.10 x 1.19 PDO = 0.12 PDO Side Swipe 0.20 x 1.41 PDO = 0.28 PDO 0.35 F&I = 0.07 F&I 59 ESTIMA TEn ACCIDENT ESTIMA TED % ACCIDENTS ACCIDENT IMPROVEMENT TYPE REDUCTION T 100 x OF THIS TYPE = REDUCTION Left- Turn 0.10 x 1. 59 POD = 0.16 PDO 1.19 F&I = 0.12 F&I TOTAL REDUCTION = 10.78 PDO = 2.64 F&I Property Damage Only % Reduction 10.78/16 67.38% Injury % Reduction 2.64/4 = 66.00% . Overall % Acci dent Reduction 13.42/20 = 67.10% Improvement Costs In order to achieve this kind of accident reduction, costs for the corre- 1 ati ng improvements are necessarily incurred. These est imated costs are itemized and amortized in the following table: 10% ESTIMATED CAP IT AL AMORTI ZED IMPROVEMENT UNIT CONSTRUCTI ON SERV I CE RECOVERY ANNUAL ITHl QUANTITY COST COST LIFE FACTOR COST Earthwork 475 C.Y. $ 8/C.Y. $ 3,800 15 Years 0.13147 $ 500 Pavement Removal 330 S.Y. $ 6/S.Y. $ 1,980 15 Years 0.13147 $ 260 Curb Removal 2,400 L.F. $3.50/L.F. $ 8,400 15 Years 0.13147 $1,104 9" Asphalt Pavement 1,420 S.Y. $ 12/S.Y. $17,040 15 Years 0.13147 $2,240 New Signal Con- troller, Poles and Heads Lump Sum Lump Sum $60,000 15 Years 0.13147 $7,888 Curb & Gutter Construction 2,40U L.F. $ 7/L.F. $16,800 15 Years 0.13147 $2,209 Traffi c Si gns 4 EA. $ 40/EA. $ 160 5 Years 0.26380 $ 42 Thermo Pl astic 400 S.F. $ 3/S.F. $ 1,200 2 Years 0.57619 $ 691 Pavement Marking (Stop Bars & Turn Arrows) TOTAL $109,380 $14,934 Economic Benefit Translating the expected accident reduction into annual economic savings yields: 10.78/3 x $ 800 = $ 2,875 Property Damage Reduction Benefit 2.64/3 x $16,000 = $14,080 Injury Reduction Benefit Total Annual Accident Reduction Benefit is $16,955. The benefit/cost ratio for these improvements is $16,955/14,934 = 1.14. 60 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOCATION 6 - NINTH STREET AND CRAWFORD AVENUE Physical Condition Ninth Street is a three-lane, two-way, 36-foot wide major arterial street. Crawford is a narrow four-lane, two-way, 40-foot wide major arterial street east of Ninth and a two-lane, two-way, 40-foot wide major arterial street west of Ninth. Left-turn lanes are provided on all four legs of the intersection. The development is residential in character in all directions from the intersection; however, right at the intersection, the development is commer- cial. Traffic Volume The average da i ly tra ffi c obtained from twenty-four hour counts show 11 ,811 vehicl es per day on Ni nth Street north of Crawford, 7,660 on Ni nth Street south of Crawford, and 9,770 on Crawford Avenue east of Ninth. The peak hour turning movement counts are summarized below: Peak Hour Traffic Monday, March 29, 1982 12:00-1:00 P.M. Ninth Street North Leg South Leg Crawford Avenue East Leg West Leg Right- Turn Through Left- Turn TOTAL 111 207 38 356 39 230 36 305 28 287 34 349 26 300 12 338 Thursday, April 1, 1982 5:00-6:00 P.M. Ninth Street North Leg South Leg Crawford Avenue East Leg West Leg Ri ght- Turn Through Left- Turn TOTAL I09 308 71 4M 43 201 57 'JOT 33 418 82 m- 36 386 101 m Traffi c Control The existing traffic control at this intersection is a four-phase, fixed time traffic signal. The signal heads are mastarm-mounted with 12-inch lenses. 61 I Accident Experience I From January 1, 1979, through Decembetj' 31, 1981, 17 acci dents were recorded at this intersection: 13 property damage only accidents (POO), and 4 injury accidents (F&I). The total economi~ loss incurred by the accidents was $74,400. The particular patterns of collisions are summarized below and illustrated on the following collision diagram. I 11.. ... 64% 3. . .l. 18% 1. . .1.. 6% 2. . .l. 12% TOTAL........ 17...l.100% I I Rear-End.... . Right-Angle. . Side Swipe... Left- Turn. . . . I I I 6-27-81 3:02 AM F to C 6-16-81 2:20 PM .. .. F to C po ... DRINKING DRIVERS SURFACI I LEGEND FATALITY . Driving While Intoxicated... Drinking: .................... Not Drinking ................ Not Known ................... Wet ........ Dry....... . Ice/Snow.. . PERSONAL INJURYo-- PROPERTY DAMAGE FIXED OBJECT .-..- HOURS Daylight ... 11 Darkness ... 6 4 I 1 1-- . . I c;~ 1-30-79 9:40 PM F to C 1-?q-7q 5035 PM S on I 12-11-79 8:20 AM IA 9-30-80 1: 00 PM F to C ' I 3-23-~0 on 8; 42 PM .. c-- ,.. . 3- 3-79 IT 3-30-80 11023 PM OWl I 10-17-81 9:05 AM F to C 9- 7-81 F to C 9-10-81 12:20 PM IP .. a 7- 7-81 8:07 AM F to S ~ ACCIDENT CAUSES Inattentive Driving...... 1 Failed to Yield .......... 1 Fai led to Stop ........... 1 Failed to Reduce Speed... Following too Close ...... 8 Speed too Fast ........... Reckless Oriving ......... Improper Turn ............ 1 Improper Passing ......... 1 Improper Lane Change..... Improper Signal .......... Improper Backing ......... Disregarded Stop Sign.... Dozed at Wheel ........... On Wrong Side of Road .... Skidded on Wet Pavement ._ Skidded on Ice ........... 2 Dri ving While Intoxicated_ 2 Had Been Drinkinq ........ Brake Failure............ CRAWFORD AVE. ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE I I.A. ? to Y. i. to S. F. to R.S. F. to C. S. to F. R.D. LT. LP. LL.C. LS. LB. 0.5.5. O. at W. O.W.S.R. S. on W.P. S. on I. O.W.I. H.B.o. B.F. NO. OF ACeI DENTS Fatal ............. Personal Inj ury ... 4 Property Damage .. .13 INJURY RECORD Fatalities .......... Personal Inj uries ... I TotAL 0......,.....17 Study Period: t-= (/) Total Property Damage Loss: I ~ ~ Z Z RA TES I Accident Rate!: Fatality Rate: I I I 62 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Recommendations As can be easily observed from the collision diagram, the most predomi- nant accident pattern is the rear-end collision, and most of these, 53% of all the accidents, occur on Crawford. These accidents are promoted when the heavy Crawford Avenue traffic is funnelled into one through lane of traffic. The Consultant observed a queue of as many as 16 cars waiting to pass through the intersection. This type of accident could be greatly relieved by 1) widening Crawford to two through lanes and one left-turn lane on both approaches. Crawford, being the primary east-west arterial in the City should be improved to carry two lanes of traffic each direction,from Centennial to Ohio; 2) fully actuat- ing the signal to be more responsive to traffic volume fluctuations. The recommended physical changes to the intersection have been illustrated on an aerial photographic sketch. Accident Reduction The expected reduction in accidents is calculated below: ESTIMATED ACCIDENT ESTIMATED % ACCIDENTS ACCIDENT IMPROVEMENT TYPE REDUCTION ~ 100 x OF THIS TYPE = REDUCTION General Pavement Right-Angle 0.10 x 2 POD = 0.20 PDO Markings 1 F&I = 0.10 F&I Side Swipe 0.20 x 1 PDO = 0.20 PDO Left- Turn 0.10 x 1 PDO = 0.10 PDO 1 F&I = 0.10 F&I Actuate Signals Rear-End 0.10 x 9 PDO = 0.90 PDO 2 F&I = 0.20 F&I Ri ght-Angl e 0.10 x 1.80 PDO = 0.18 PDO 0.90 F&I = 0.09 F&I Side Swipe 0.20 x 0.80 PDO = 0.16 PDO Left- Turn 0.10 x 0.90 PDO = 0.09 PDO 0.90 F&I = 0.09 F&I Reconstruct All 0.25 x 11.17 PDO = 2.79 PDO 3.42 F&I = 0.85 F&I TOTAL REDUCTION = 4.62 PDO = 1.43 F&I Property Damage Only % Reduc~ion 4.62/13 = 35.54% Injury % Reduction 1.43/4 = 35.75% Overall % Accident Reduction 6.05/17 = 35.59% 63 Improvement Costs The estimated cost of construction for these improvements is calculated below: 10% ESTIMATED CAPITAL AMORTI ZED IMPROVEMENT UNIT COflSTRUCTI ON SERVICE RECOVERY ANNUAL ITEM QUANTITY COST COST I LIFE FACTOR COST Pavement Removal 290 S.Y. $ 6/S.Y. $ 1,740 15 Years 0.13147 $ 229 Curb Removal 1,200 L.F. $3.50/L.F. $ 4,200 15 Years 0.13147 $ 552 Earthwork 300 C.Y. $ 8/C.Y. $ 2,400 15 Years 0.13147 $ 316 9" Asphalt Pave- ment Construction 890 S.Y. $ 12/S.Y. $10,680 15 Years 0.13147 $1,404 Curb & Gutter Const. 1,200 L.F. $ 7/L.F. $ 8,400 15 Years 0.13147 $1,104 Signal Improvements Lump Sum Lump Sum $11 ,000 15 Years 0.13147 $1,446 Thermo Plastic Pave- 345 S.F. $ 3/S.F. $ 1,035 2 Years 0.57619 $ 596 ment Marking (Turn Arrows & Stop Bars) TOTAL $39,455 $5,647 Economic Benefit Transl ati ng the acc i dent reducti on expe<::ted from impl ementati on of the recommendations into economic savings yields Ithe following benefits: 4.62/3 x $ 800 = $1,232 Property Damage Reduction Benefit I 1.43/3 x $16,000 = $7,627 Injury Reduction Benefit I Total Annual Economic Benefit is $8,819. The benefit/cost ratio of these improvements is $8,859/$5,647 = 1.57. " 64 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----- - I I NARROW STREET -- CONGESTION I I I I I I I I ON NINTH LOOKING WEST ON CRAWFORD I I I I I I I I ON CRAWFORD LOOKING EAST TOWARD NINTH I 65 II ~- L ~'t ~ t} I rt.-n: ::l ~" I .f 'J ;,':tf... r ~ .~., :ll tl49~.,);,. !t" "~ ~# I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I LOCATION 7 - SANTA FE AVENUE AND REPUBLIC AVENUE Physical Condition Santa Fe Avenue is a four-lane, 60-foot wide arterial street with parking on both sides. Republic Avenue is a two-lane collector street, 36 feet wide east of its intersection with Santa Fe and 26 feet wide west of the intersec- tion. Not only is the west leg of the intersection narrower than the east, but these two 1 egs are additi onally offset. The i ntersecti on i tsel f is surrounded by residential development. Traffic Volumes The average daily traffic for this intersection in 1982 is approximately 3,200 vehicles per day on Republic and 7,500 on Santa Fe. Traffic Control The traffi c control at Santa Fe Avenue and Repub 1 i c Avenue consi sts of pedestal-mounted, two-phase, fixed time signal control. The green and yellow signal lenses are all 8 inches; the red lenses are 12 inches. Visibility of several of the heads are restricted. The signal also provides two pedestrian signal heads. Accident Experience From January 1, 1979, through December 31, 1981, 14 property damage only (PDO) and two injury (F&I) accidents occurred at this intersection, causing a total economic loss of $43,200. The particular patterns of these collisions are summarized below and are illustrated on the collision diagram. Rear-End.... . 3..... 19% Right-Angle.. 8..... 50% Side Swi pe. . . 1..... 6% Left- Turn. . . . 4..... 25% TOTAL........16.....100% Recommendations The most beneficial improvement at this intersection would be to increase the visibility of the signals. This would entail replacing two of the pedes- tals with mastarms, as illustrated on the aerial photo, and exchanging the 8-inch signal heads with 12-inch signal heads. 67 I LEGEND FIXED OBJECT HOURS Daylight ... 12 Darkness ... 4 SURFACEi I Wet ..."". I Dry..o.. ... Ice/Snow... 1 I +1 I FATALITY . ~ '" '" << o 0 "- ,:.:. u")":": 9- B~ ,-, '" "- DRINKING DRIVERS ~ '" ,;,u- M ~ , '" '" , o '" ;s: 0; u..co ,.... >- I I _ M '" o 0,.... ,.... +-J +J I I o O'l ,.... 00 co ,.... u-,.... , , N M , , '" M ~ , ~ ,?U- , '" Driving While Intoxicated... Drinking .................... Not Drinking ................ Not Known ................... PERSONAL INJUR!o-- PROPERTY DAMAGE I ~ 7-21-81 9:40 AM IP I ...1...-f 3-1-80 7'00 PM F to Y ACCIDENT CAUSES Inattentive Driving...... 1 Failed, to Yield .......... 7 Failed to Stop ........... 5 Failed to Reduce Speed... Following too Close...... 2 Speed. too Fast........... Reckless Driving......... Improper Turn ............ Improper Passing ......... 1 Improper Lane Change ..... Improper Signal.......... Improper Backing ......... Disregarded Stop Sign .... Dozed at Wheel ........... On Wrong Side of Road .... Skidded on Wet Pavement .. Skidded on Ice ........... Driving While Intoxicated. Had Been Drinking .. .. . .... Brake Failure............ '" "- o M ~ '" '" o "- REPUBLIC AVE. ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE NO. OF ACCIDENTS INJURY RECORD Fatal ............. Fatalities..... ..... Personal Injury... 2 Personal Injuries... Property Damage .. .14 TCYrAL .............16 Study Period: I I 10-16-80 7:10 AM r to Y ~ ~ -, ~ M N ~Vl B 0 "ru- e:' '" 7-25-81 12:25 AM F to Y LA. ? to Y. 'i'. to S. F. to R.S. F. to C. s. to F. R.D. l.T. 1.P. I.L.C. 1.5. 1.B, D.S.5. D. at W. O.W.S.R. S. on W.P. S. on I. D.W.I. H.B.D. B,P, N>O;":'>OO ~ o ... o ':":Vl ... M o 0' arl.J... .....~ a:> a:> > ~ I <t '" ....u- , '" ~ W LL <t I- Z <t fI) I Total Property Damage Loss: RA TES I Accident Rate~ Fatality Rate: I Accident Reduction I The potenti al reducti on in acci dents resul ti ng from these improvements is computed below: I ESTIMATED ACCIDENT ESTIMATED % ACCIDENTS ACCIDENT IMPROVEMENT TYPE REDUCTION -t 100 x OF THIS TYPE = REDUCTION General Pavement Right-Angl e 0.10 x 7 PDO = 0.70 PDO Markings 1 F&I = 0.10 F&I Side Swipe 0.20 x 1 PDO = 0.20 POD . Left- Turn 0.10 x 4 PDO = 0.40 PDO 12" Lens Rear-End 0.10 x 2 PDO = 0.20 PDO 1 F&I = 0.10 F&I Improve Signals PDO 0.31 x 12.5 PDO = 3.88 POD F&I 0.35 1.8 F&I = 0.63 F&I TOTAL REDUCTION = 5.38 PDO = 0.83 F&I Property Damage Only % Reduction 5.38/14 = 38.43% Injury % Reduction 0.83/2 = 41.50% Overall % Accident Reduction 6.21/16 = 38.81% 68 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Improvement Costs The estimated costs of constructi on for these recommendati ons are com- puted bel 0\'1: 10% ESTIMATED CAP IT AL AMORTI ZED IMPROVEMENT UNIT CONSTRUCTI mJ SERVICE RECOVERY ANNUAL ITEM QUANTITY COST COST LIFE FACTOR COST Mastarm Poles 2 EA. $4,000/EA. $ 8,000 15 Years 0.13147 . $ 1,052 Signal Heads 12 EA. $ 500/EA. $ 6,000 15 Years 0.13147 $ 789 Backpl ates 4 EA. $ SO/EA. $ 200 15 Years 0.13147 $ 26 Thermo Plastic Pave- 180 S.F. $ 3/S.F. $ 540 2 Years 0.57619 $ 311 ment Marking (Stop Bars) TOTAL $14,740 $ 2,178 Economic Benefit The economic benefit resulting from the expected accident reduction will be: 5.38/3'X $ 800 = $1,435 Property Damage Reduction Benefit 0.83/3 x $16,000 = $4,427 Injury Reduction Benefit Total annual accident reduction benefit is $5,862 giving a benefit to. cost ratio of $5,862/$2,178 = 2.69. 69 70 I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WIDE STREET -- POOR SIGNAL PEDESTAL VISIBILITY ON SANTA FE LOOKING NORTH TOWARD REPUBLIC ON SANTA FE LOOKING SOUTH TOWARD REPUBLIC :,. Q _ .:d " t ~jJ:h'~~ ~ J ~r _,}' - "" 'I' --,;,,; - L:.......)J . _ ~}:;~!'r s~tit~ FE ~REPUBLlC. r..", :~.:l: ~ - ., ~o ~ 0 l' II ~~J......1lI ~-; I ... J I.' '. I ;;::: . , r 1'1 I n, "~ sr; .. ~ ~.r ~i, L~' r; ~ r- --:2 0,.., -",. ~. '\1 ... C;,. D '--1.-' '1.~ --... 'l"'1 ~ ~ n " L l J~.~~~:'J.. '~)f'- \- ~'l ~".. ....~ l" 7J Q f} {:~;~ ..."''''' ,,'tl.....""I.IO... I>' ""...... '"O:t.... [ NEW,mM~S.TAR~~~'1L POL~rJ' ... .... tL.. It, "~i~ ~ lflil '- '~ y"", ~ , ~. 'I' .J. ~ REPUQ,-IC AVE - -;r -=- _ r:? 11 'i'.!l ~ 'M ~ -'~ 13 ~!,. ~&l1t~'~>-'" ~~. :b.~ "".", .,Q' ~ ..W I:I~ C IIIi ~I f1 ~, El .., k _I .. '~'\.. t!i ' I ,4 ~ ~ S ~~ ( ~ 0: ., ~'.~ io'" ~ NEW MAiTARM .SIG!L rd&~~ ,1! '1ll . III e:I ~ 0 ,1 It f r:L7J' 'It.r-l"~" (W!Jiw ~; y, r; iOO ''''3 0'~ ',l "., " ":.~ ~~ ..:El.'.l-.' ...1'.. Jr. ~. "'J ,~ , .~ "j, f ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1. ~~ ~ '" fr t .., ''1 a III I !1~ II EJ i II ~~. I _t1.... ...... ~~E)y SiGNAL, HE'Ad~ ~."l ! (~.' .. r:--:. ..~ ~'( 6" t'jJ~~~ ~1~', , J ~ fbaLEG.END 'J.' ) L J I" \~ U~... ., . Iw 0 ':.f; :-~!){IN~~!IQL ~~Sl'4U. . ~. .r-... . 71..... '. ..... r":..wITH NEW.;1 i~.SIGN.&.~LHEAo · - ifl ..~-" .,' '"t, '. f;1 I~ ~...F....' " . -~xl'S."'~. G,..~..PE~.,..!lEST. '.r-'P.~~l . l.d'. I ~,;~-.;..t ~""~ . '11l'::C- ~ ~. I . 'li', ~~, :. NEW . ~STA~M:[O,.EE : ITH~ ; J.. .~ ..~ "".~i1i' NE~.l-'1.B"tSIGNAL:HEAD, ;eND It'"T' ~' wi. "'_m,'_~~ ....r ' r 1.BACKPL~TE l.I ~ ...'Oil ~ a:' ~ to<:;t'l r;/..... ~ ~, II ':l ~ iLl,:" ~"~ ~~ eJ ~p '~ " JD , II I j tt 'l; ,i rJI'l\,: . l ...., ~",.-1.~" " I twv. XI!!' ~ i:! t.-~.t :Ji r L J t'...FI III I' .... ~",.='ao Cl ...-" "- e\.' p' ,.,.-1 -I · !} ,a . -.t .. ~ . . . Ii) [.:"'1 ~~~!rJ tf"j~ II u l~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LOCATION 8 - NINTH STREET AND BELMONT BOULEVARD Physical Condition Ninth Street and Belmont Boulevard are both two-way divided, four-lane highways. Both streets are high speed major arterial routes. Although the intersection itself does not give direct access to any roadside development, the intersection of Belmont Boulevard with Ninth Street frontage roads at less than 100 feet east and west of the intersection does provide immediate access to several commercial establ ishments. This entire site thus creates an intersection of four north-south roadways with two east-west roadways. Traffic Vol ume 1982 average daily traffic for Belmont Boulevard is 6,005 and for Ninth Street is 13,173. The peak hour turning volumes are tabulated below: Peak Hour Traffic Monday, AprilS, 1982 12:00-1:00 P.M. Ninth Street North Leg South Leg Belmont Boulevard East Leg West Leg Right-Turn Through Left-Turn TOT AL 15 225 94 334 124 276 8 408 54 14 129 197 10 14 22 46 Tra ffi c Control Currently, Ninth Street traffic has complete right-of-way requiring Bel- mont Boulevard traffic to stop. The east frontage road, Market Place, however, is required to stop for Belmont Boulevard traffic. Accident Experience From January 1, 1979, through December 31, 1981, a total economic loss of $42,400 was incurred at this intersection by the occurrence of two injury accidents (F&I) and thirteen property damage only accidents. The particular patterns of collisions which make it possible to analyze accident causes are summarized below for this intersection as well as illustrated on the collision diagram. Rear-End..... 1..... 7% Right-Angle.. 9..... 60% Side Swipe... 1..... 7% Left-Turn.... 3..... 20% Fixed Object. 1..... 6% TOTAL. . . . . . . .15 . . . . .100% 71. LEGEND FATALITY " PERSONAL INJURYO--- PROPERTY DAMAGE FIXED OBJECT n--- LA. ? to Y. 'i"'. to S. F. to R.S. ? to C. S. to F. K. D. I.T. loP. I.L.C, 1.5, 1.S. 0.5.5. O. at W. O.W.S.R. S. on W.P. S. on I. C.W.I. H.B.D. B. F. BELMONT ST. ACCIDENT CAUSES Inatter.tive Driving ...... 1 Failed to Yield ..........11 Failed to Stop ............ Failed to Reduce Speed... Following too Close...... 1 Speed too Fast........... Reckless Driving......... Improper Turn ............ Improper Passing ......... Improper Lane Change..... 1 Improper Signal .......... Improper Ba.cking ......... Disr~garded Stop Sign.... OOzed at Wheel........... On Wrong Side of Road.... Skidded on Wet Pavement.. Skidded on Ice........... 1 Driving While Intoxicated. Had Been Drinking........ BC.Jio".e F-loiluce ............ Recommendations The recommendations for reducing the accident frequency at this intersec- tion, as illustrated on the aerial photo sk~tch, basically consist of signing and channel i zati on improvements. Accident ,reducti on shoul d resul t from the installation of crossroad signs (W2-1) and ~azard warning beacon at 600 feet south of the intersection for northbound traffic and the rechannelization of the intersection. The purpose of the channelization and the narrowing of the medi an crossovers is to more cl early defi ne the vehi cl e paths and safety zones. ~ :E <( '" ~ '" ~ - >- e e 0 0 en ~~ , N , , N N I I DRINKING DRIVERS SURFACE I Driving While Intoxicated... Drinking .................... Not Drinking ................ Not Known ................... Wet....... . Dry....... . Ice/Snow. .. HOURS I Daylight... 9 Darkness ... 6 + 10-23-80 7:55 PM F to Y 10-27-81 7:43 AM F to (7_9_80 3:45 PM F to Y I ...... -J I - ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE NO. OF ACCI DENTS Fatal............. Personal Injury ... Property Damage ... INJURY RECORD Fatalities .......... Personal Injuries... I f-= (f) TOfAL ............. Study Period: Total Property Damage Loss: I iE z z RA TES Accident Rate~ I Fatali ty Rate: I I I I I An al ternate which the City may choose, to explore at some future time, should the accident pattern prevail, is the signalization of this intersec- tion under the accident warrant. The necessary volume for this warrant may only marginally be met at present; hourly counts shoul d be performed to verify satisfaction of the warrant if the City elects to pursue this alter- nate. Furthermore, the simpler remedies of the first recommendations should have been tri ed fi rst and shown unsati sfactory in order to sati sfy thi s warrant. 72 I I I I 4,!<>,~~-,,;","'~'~f'''-';';T~ {:'.:;J"(i-'7-1f.f;;~ ~'~''':.:''l..,:7'?~' ,-.. ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Accident Reduction The potential accident reduction for the first recommendation has been calculated below:. ESTIMATED ACCIDENT ESTIMATED % ACCIDENTS ACCIDENT IMPROVEMENT TYPE REDUCTION t 100 x OF THIS TYPE = REDUCTI ON General Pavement Right-Angl e 0.10 x 7 PDO = 0.70 PDO Markings x 2 F&I = 0.20 F&I Left- Turn 0.10 x 3 PDO = 0.30 PDO Warning Sign Injury 0.47 x 1.8 F&I = 0.85 F&I PDO 0.26 x 9.1 PDO = 2.36 PD~ Channelization All 0.12 x 7.70 PD~ = 0.92 PDO x 0.95 F&I = 0.11 F&I Warning Signal I nj u ry 0.73 x 0.84 F&I = 0.61 F&I TOTAL REDUCTION = 4.28 PDO = 1.77 F&I Property Damage Only % Reduction 4.28/13 = 32.92% Injury % Reduction 1.77/2 = 88.50% OVERALL % ACCIDENT REDUCTION 6.05/15 = 40.33% Improvement Costs The costs estimated for the constructi on of these recommendati ons are tabulated below: 10% f CAP IT AL AMORTIZED f IMPROVEMENT UNIT CONSTRUCTION SERVICE RECOVERY ANNUAL ITEM QUANTITY COST COST LIFE FACTOR COST Pavement Removal 180 S.Y. $ 6/S.Y. $ 1,080 15 Years 0.13147 $ 142 Median Construction 15 C.Y. $250/C.Y. $ 3,750 15 Years 0.13147 $ 493 9" Asphalt Pavement 220 S.Y. $ 12/S.Y. $ 2,640 15 Years 0.13147 $ 347 Flashing Beacon Lump Sum Lump Sum $ 1,000 15 Years 0.13147 $ 131 New Traffic Signs Lump Sum Lump Sum $ 500 5 Years 0.26380 $ 132 Thermo Plastic 550 S.F. $ 3/S.F. $ 1,650 2 Years 0.57619 $ 951 Pavement Marking (Turn Arrows & Stop Bars) TOTAL $10,620 $2,196 73 Economic Benefit The economi c savi ngs resul ti ng from the expected reducti on in acci dents will be: 4.28/3 x $ 800 = $1,141 Property Damage Reduction Benefit 1.77/3 x $16,000 = $9,440 Injury Reduction Benefit The total annual accident reduction benefit is $10,581 providing a bene- fit to cost ratio of $9,440/$2,196 = 4.30. 74 I I I I I I - I 'I I I I I g g I I D o ~w '\----* ._ _ _ m W 'LO:e~ rl' , @ I ~ 41' ~I i ~-~ I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I LOCATION 9 - COLLEGE AVENUE AT STATE STREET AND ASH STREET These two intersections are both similar in physical characteristics, traffic volume, and accident patterns. In the years of 1979, 1980 and 1981, 13 ri ght-angl e coll i si ons occurred at Coll ege and Ash, and 10 ri ght-angl e and left-turn collisions occurred at College and State. The accident patterns and fi el d observati ons i ndi cate that restricted sight distance because of parking and trees on College is the primary prob- lem. The elimination of on-street parking on College within 100 feet of the intersection could reduce accidents by as much as 32% for an annual economic savings of over $11,000. PARKED CARS -- RESTRICT SIGHT DISTANCE 75 LOCATION 10 - BROADWAY BOULEVARD AND SOUTH STREET Broadway Boulevard, a four-lane median divided street, intersects South Street, a two-l ane roadway, in a commerci al di stri ct. The i ntersecti on is controlled with a four-phase, fixed-time traffic signal. Accident history and field observations indicate a problem of congestion. This problem could be partially alleviated by actuating the signal and by wi deni ng the approach on the east 1 eg of the i ntersecti on at an estimated construction cost of $25,000. The total number of accidents could be reduced by as much as 33% by this improvement project. This would yield a benefit to cost ratio of 1.42. LOCATION 11 - BROADWAY BOULEVARD, PACIFIC AVENUE AND NINTH STREET The intersection of Broadway Boulevard with Pacific Avenue and Ninth Street forms a five-l egged intersecti on. Although acci dent frequency has been low, the signal arrangement is potenti ally confusi ng. To dimi ni sh con- fusion, several alternatives are recommended; the accompanying aerial photo- graphic sketch illustrates the following recommendations. 1. Close the access to the west leg of Pacific from the intersection; access to the adjacent properties is available from one block west. 2. Provide optically programmable signal heads. 3. Provide different type of signal heads for Broadway and Pacific traf- fic. The estimated cost for these improvements is about $25,000, or an annual cost of $3,287. Accident reduction could be as high as 45%, an economic savings of $5,520. This would produce a benefit cost ratio of 1.68. 76 I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I .I". .., !II v 'I,,, << ./ 1" ~ ~ :;:..I'Iil ft. .f !ll!Il~ "'1'1 Y 1 ~I~~ Iio] :1' "-I) ~....- 11 ~I~ 1 ~'I~"O ~''*~ , ' .~ 1" '" '{t:;'",""" 'If] " I!:l ,I Ii.'I a iJ III ______________ __,__,__________n_n__ _ __ "'.._..'...... ___' '...._......_m___ --".-"-- .- . t ~"'"'. ". 4.'........J'.' J" ! . F ~.o G" '.,.....,.. ...' LOCA TION ~1 ,~ :- ,B~OADWA Y.NI'NiRI~ & p . ~. SIGNAL !:lEAD TYPES { I .,1 ~. ClI " ~~ 1 t;"" " 1 '""i -.,.' ~r.,.r'b ~ ~~ ~ 1 . J d 'J D~J r......~ ", ", EXISTING SIGNAL LAYOUT GtJ" 1 ~J a II "'''''1 ~ !SleD p ~ ~ ~ I iIW ....J l.\ III tr- D TYP D-' .... ' NSTRUCTION " 1 i~~ ~I .- .., .".. .~. :(\10' ,,=' '''"..~ iN~~ 145 ~,"' ~Jf g ~..J 141 27. '2'8~~ ... .'if a .. L .....r ~;~l C! Scole in Mtzb! ,.., ,10 ~~ (t..~ ,.... ~ ., ~ ".."...J? ~ ~ ~, it I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I II I LOCATION 12 - NINTH AND CLOUD Cloud Street intersects Ninth Street as a two lane, 36-foot wide facil- ity. Ninth Street at this location is three-lane, 36 feet wide north of the intersection, and five-lane south of the intersection. The intersection is surrounded by commercial development. Traffic control is - a three-phase, pedestrian-actuated signal. Based on field observations and a review of three years of collisions, this intersection gives evidence of a congestion problem. This capacity prob 1 em can be dealt wi th by provi di ng 1 eft-turn bays for each approach. Al so, signal vi sibil i ty is poor. New 12-i nch 1 ens heads shoul d repl ace the existing 8- and 12-inch heads. The estimated annual cost of these improvements is $1,176, producing an estimated accident reduction of 31% with corresponding annual economic savings of $2,397. The benefit/cost ratio is 2.04. 77 NINTH AND CLOUD LOOKING EAST 78 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NARROW STREET -- CONGESTION NINTH AND CLOUD LOOKING SOUTH I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CHAPTER FIVE PROGRAM CONTINUATION AND EVALUATION This study establishes the initial step for the City of Salina to develop a continuing traffic safety program which enables the City to apply modern traffic engineering and enforcement techniques and measures to reduce traffic accident potential. The City should perform periodic evaluations of the City traffic safety program and review pertinent data on traffic safety related elements and the cost effectiveness of the improvement program. This study will be reviewed by the Safety Coordinating Section of the Bureau of Trans- portation Planning, Kansas Department of Transportation with a summary of the review forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration. Evaluation and Updating Benefits to be derived from the study, namely the reduction of accident potential through the adequate application of engineering measures and proper traffic control devices, will be effective and viable only if an evaluation program is i niti ated on a conti nui ng basi s. Thi s report merely presents a "before" conditi on of the study program and the correcti ng measures that should upgrade the traffic control devices in the City of Salina to conform to the national standards and reduce the accident potential in the City to a maximum. "After" studi es shoul d be prepared to moni tor the effect of the improvements and to measure the benefits which have been achieved as a result of these improvements. Data collection and summarization for the "after" studi es shoul d be compil ed in the same manner as those of the "before" studies as presented in this report so that data comparison can be evaluated on an equal term. Traffic Accident Records As part of this traffic safety study, traffic accident statistics re- ported in the City during 1979, 1980 and 1981 have been thoroughly reviewed and analyzed. The City should continue to evaluate the accident experience in the subsequent years on an annual basis. Procedures and format for acci- dent data compilation should be similar to the data provided for the comple- tion of this study. The following procedures are recommended in evaluation of the accident data collected: . Preparation of an annual Traffic Accident Location Map. . Preparation of quarterly and annual high accident location reports. . Notation and recording of annual traffic accidents on collision dia- grams at high accident locations and comparison with historic accident records. . Notati on and recordi ng of roadway improvements. Eva 1 uate the effect of the improvements on traffic flow patterns and accident patterns. . Notation and recording of traffic volume changes. Evaluate the effect of traffic volumes on traffic accidents and accident patterns. 79 . Where improvements rel ate to correcti on of a specifi c acci dent pat-. tern, results should not be determined on, data which are not statistically significant. . Enforcement should be continued at locations where accident patterns reveal apparent result of reckless and careless driving. . Continue to utilize computer data processing procedures being used by the City Police Department to provide a more efficient accident record system. Traffic Operation Evaluation Traffic operation is the primary indicator of the efficiency of street systems in the City. The City should continue to monitor elements which are closely related to the performance of traffic operation, especially at loca- tions where improvements have been implemented: . Monitor the traffic volume change after the improvements. Analyze and record resul ts and impl ement necessary traffic control adjustments to accommodate new traffic patterns. . Record and analyze seasonal turni ng movement vari ati on and moni tor peak hour traffic demand at major intersections. Traffic signal timings should be adjusted periodically to accommodate change in traf- fic demand. . Schedule, conduct, and record travel time, delay and spot speed studi es before and after street and traffi c control improvements are made. Compare and analyze results. Traffic Control Devices . Annually inspect and update the inventory of the traffic control de- vices. Determine the number that remain to be updated to the latest standards. . Revi ew all standards to determi ne future changes necessary to comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. . Eval uate the performance of improvements made in si gning, si gnal i za- tion, and pavement marking, such as changed accident patterns or rates, capacity, and delay patterns. . Signs - Traffic signing inventory maps prepared for the entire City in this study should be updated periodically to reflect the current sign- ing information. . Signals - Capital improvement program should include a signal improve- ment schedule to modernize the signal system in the City and to provi de a uniform install ati on. Routi ne mai ntenance on the si gnal systems shoul d be schedul ed peri odically to ensure the proper func- tion of the signals. 80 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I . Pavement Marking - Pavement markin'g practice in the City has been in conformance with national standards. Maintenance appears to be the major concern as the City only uses paint which requires periodical maintenance. Thermo plastic pavement marking may be considered when- ever major overlays are planned on arterial or collector streets. Pavement markings using paint should be replaced when significant wear occurs. On heavily travel ed arteri al streets, pai nti ng may be re- quired as often as four or more times a year. Street Inventory The City should maintain a permanent record of the up-to-date street inventory data in the same manner as presented in this report. Improvement such as sidewalks, curbs, gutter, street drainage systems, driveways, and geometric changes should be recorded in the street inventory tables as they are completed. Traffic Safety Report Each year the City should review and evaluate the recommendations of this study. Improvement projects that are recommended and impl emented shoul d be continually monitored to determine if the actual effect of the improvements result in reducing traffic accidents. Cost/benefit ratios for each improve- ment should be calculated after a three-year monitoring period. The accident experience before and after improvement at a specific location should be com- pared on the same traffic volume basis. Financing The City has several options concerning financing of improvements. Each year the Ci ty prepares a capital improvement budget. Revenue-shari ng is a second source of funds that are available to the City for funding traffic improvement projects. A third source of fundsi ncl udes bond programs to finance improvements. Federal aid programs have been available to the cities and counties in the State of Kansas for certain types of safety improvement projects as described in the previous chapter. Public Information and Education Public attitude toward the various improvements and to the traffic safety program should be observed. An effective public information and education program will draw citizens' attention to the traffic safety effort and help gain their acceptance of the improvements introduced. The public should be actively involved in the City traffic safety pro- gram. This can best be achieved by establ ishing a Traffic Safety Committee with advisory responsibility to cover public works, police traffic service, the judiciary, traffic safety education, emergency services, health, and administration. The committee need also have membership representing the public-at-large. 81 I I - I I I I I I I I I I I m I I I I