TRAFFIC CONTROL ORDERS DOWNTOWN MIDLAND January 23, 2017

Downtown Traffic Control Orders History: October 3, 2016 – Joint City Council and Downtown Development Authority Meeting, at the library. Initial information presented on All-Way Stop Control (AWSC) October 24 2016 – City Council approved Downtown Midland Streetscape Redevelopment Plan

Downtown Traffic Control Orders Plan Recommendations: Use of All-Way Stop Control (AWSC) along Main Street at the intersections of Ashman, McDonald and Rodd Streets Engineering Study of AWSC requirements in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices All-Way Stop Control trial study to help assess the recommendation

Downtown Traffic Control Orders

Downtown Traffic Control Orders AWSC trial study began in November 2016 Signals set to all-way red flash Stop signs installed Revised pavement markings Required parking removal on side streets for visibility

Downtown Traffic Control Orders

Downtown Traffic Control Orders Traffic Control Order Resolutions: 4 resolutions presented are related to the parking spots 1 resolution to remove traffic signals and the intersections operate as All-Way Stop Control Parking

DLZ Presentation of ASWC

Test Study Implementation Midland Main Street Streetscape Design Rodd, McDonald, and Ashman Intersections All Way Stop Control Test Study Implementation Engineering Study 1/23/17

AWSC Test Study Methods Methods presented at 10/23/16 City Council Meeting Methods memo (dated 10/19/16) Compare various metrics for signal control and AWSC “Before” video data – 4/26/16 “After” video data – 12/10/16 (Holly Jolly Days Festival)

Test Study Metrics Crash data Auto delay Auto queuing Auto compliance with “rules of road” Pedestrian delay Pedestrian illegal crossing movements Pedestrian/Auto “near misses”

AWSC Implementation November 10, 2016 - fully implemented Signals turned off/covered Added/adjusted signs Removed parking near intersections Changed pavement markings to remove center left turn lanes

Test Study Results Crash data Auto delay Auto queuing Before: 2.8 crashes/year (total all intersections) After: no intersection crashes through 1/5/17 Auto delay Before: overall avg = 9.5 seconds After: overall avg = 11.0 seconds Auto queuing Before: max queue = 4 to 6 cars After: max queue = 3 to 4 cars

Test Study Results Auto compliance with “rules of road” Before: NA After: 2% did not comply Pedestrian delay Before: 5.4 seconds After: 2.5 seconds Pedestrian illegal crossing movements Before: 28.6% of crossings After: 12.5% of crossings Pedestrian/Auto “near misses” None for either scenario

Test Study Conclusions No meaningful difference: Crash data Auto delay Auto queuing Pedestrian/Auto “near misses” AWSC performed better: Pedestrian delay Pedestrian illegal crossing movements AWSC – good compliance with “rules of road” Consider optimal stop bar/crosswalk locations

AWSC Engineering Study Document compliance with MMUTCD 2B.07 Justify use of AWSC/Support TCO Similarities to signal warrant analysis Factors considered (only need to meet one): Crashes Traffic volumes/operations Left turn conflicts Vehicle/pedestrian conflicts Restricted sight distances

AWSC Engineering Study All three intersections demonstrate need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts (Criterion B) These locations generate high pedestrian volumes Number of peak hour pedestrian crossings: Date Ashman McDonald Rodd 4/26/16 55 119 51 12/10/16 250 203

AWSC Engineering Study Conclusions: AWSC does meet requirements of MMUTCD Section 2B.07 Meets Criterion B Justifies TCO’s for AWSC Documentation created

The End