My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007_0820_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2007
>
2007_0820_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2012 12:41:30 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 2:54:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Debra Bloom, P.E. July 18,2007 <br />City of Roseville Page 8 <br />I Alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS B or better under year <br />� 2030 peak hour conditions, with the respective traffic controls and existing geometric layout. <br />� Again, installing traffic signals at one or both of the balccrest Avenue approaches will provide <br />� additional gaps for the immediate or adjacent side-street approaches to Fairvi�w Avenue, thus <br />5 increasing safety for these vehicles and improving their access. Under year 2030 peak hour <br />6 conditions the installation of a traffic signal or signals does have a significantpositive impact on <br />� the operations of the side-street appraach{esj. It should be noted that there will be no significant <br />� queuing issues along Fairview Avenue, related to the installation of traffic signals under <br />'� Alternatives 2 and 3. <br />] f] <br />] 1 The overall corridor operations were reviewed as part of the year 2030 operations as well to <br />I� determine the impact Alternatives 2 and 3 will have on corridor mobility (travel time <br />13 comparison). Results of the analysis shown in Table 4 indicate that Alternative 2 will increase <br />1�� travel times along Fairview Avenue an additional five seconds during the p.m. peak hour (worst <br />15 case peak period). Alternative 3 will increase travel times along Fairview Avenue an additional <br />l� 25 seconds during the p.m. peak hour (worst case peak period). It should be noted that the <br />l r baseline travel time under Altemative 1 conditions (existing traffic control) was modeled to be <br />I R approximately 215 seconds during the year 2030 p.m. peak hour. <br />l� <br />�+� Table 4 <br />�] Year 2030 Volume Peak Hour Corridor Analysis <br />�?� Travel Time Comparison <br />Travel Time Difference in Seconds <br />Intersection Weekday Saturday <br />A.M. Midday P.M. Midday <br />Alternative 1—E�stin Traffic Control 0 0 0 0 <br />Alternative 2—Si nal at �akc��est - West A roach 2 4 5 3 <br />Alternative 3— Signals at bakcrest - Both �vyvvn�clles 12 17 25 16 <br />�, � <br />i. <br />�� <br />�� SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS <br />'��a In order to determine the potential need for a traffic signal (Alternatives 2 and 3) at the Fairvie�w <br />� r Aven�e/Oaker�st Avenue intersection, a signal warrant analysis was completed for existing and <br />�1� year 2030 volume conditions. Results of this analysis show that under existing volume <br />�� conditions, the intersection of �'air�vievv� Avenu�/Oakcr�st Avenue does not meet signal warrants. <br />3�? However, although the intersection does not currently meet signal warrants the results indicate <br />�� that minimal growth in traffic volumes could result in multiple signal warrants being met. <br />�� Therefore, this intersection should be monitored continuously to determine its quantitative traffic <br />�3.� signal need in the near future. Under year 2030 volume conditions, the intersection of Fairview <br />;3� AvenuelOakcrest Avenue meets multiple signal warrants, justifying the installation of a traffic <br />�� signal under future conditions (see Appendix for signal warrant analysis data and graphics). <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.