The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20210276.tiffRESOLUTION RE: APPROVE APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) GRANT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board has been presented with an Application for the Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant from the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, on behalf of the Department of Public Works, to the Colorado Department of Transportation, with further terms and conditions being as stated in said application, and WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to approve said application, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the Application for the Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Grant from the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, on behalf of the Department of Public Works, to the Colorado Department of Transportation, be, and hereby is, approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chair be, and hereby is, authorized to sign said application. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 27th day of January, A.D., 2021. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: W..atAvo jeit44, Weld County Clerk to the Board BY: Deputy Cler Steve oreno, C erry L. James, Pro APP: '• �' D • FOR _' �: EXCUSED County Attorney Date of signature: 02/®2/ ike Freeman Lori Sain CC: P(,3(SA/CP/ER/DD )AcT(Bc/c0), CA OM) °2 /OV2 l 2021-0276 EG0079 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PASS -AROUND REVIEW PASS -AROUND TITLE: Call for 2024 Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Local Agency Projects DEPARTMENT: Public Works DATE: 01/13/20 PERSON REQUESTING: Elizabeth Relford, Don Dunker, Cameron Parrott Brief description of the problem/issue: Applications for HSIP funds for the state fiscal year 2024 have been requested. There is approximately $2.6 million available for safety improvement projects in CDOT Region 4. Applications arc due by January 31, 2021. Staff started by looking at potential candidates and found four areas that could meet the requirements for these applications. Analyses were performed including safety performance functions for total accidents and for accidents with injuries or fatalities. The projects identified have been analyzed for potential crash reductions and a benefit cost ratio (B/C ratio) has been generated for each. The projects identified are: Project Pattern Found Proposed Imp. SPF Total Crashes (Obs./Exp.) SPF Injury + B/C Fatal (Obs./Exp.) WeId/CDOT Ranking from CIP Cost Est. Ratio Hwy 392 @ WCR 55. Broadside Traffic Signal 2.12/0.73 0.99/0.37 1 $780,000 4.67 Hwy 52 @ WCR 41 None Found Traffic Signal & Geometry Improvements 1.52/1.15 1.32/0.77 11 $3,083,906 4.07 Hwy 392 @ WCR 43 Broadside 1 with Injuries Traffic Signal & Minor Geometry Imp. 3.70/1.68 1.98/0.74 2 $1,780,000 3.86 Hwy WCR 35 @ Broadside Improvements eometry 2.19/1.38 1.41/0.96 22 $1,726,029 2.13 Detailed backup documentation about each project is attached for reference. This Federal funding is set up as 90% Federal Funds and 10% Local Agency Fund, Since these candidates are all within CDOT maintained rights -of -way, CDOT would be responsible for the 10% local agency match as well. Weld County could potentially manage the project but possibly not have to contribute any finding toward it. Any project with a B/C ratio greater than 1.00 qualifies for an HSIP application. The table above ranks the projects according to the highest B/C ratios. What options exist for the Board? (include consequences, impacts, costs, etc. of options): • Allow staff to apply for the HSIP funds for one specific location • Allow staff to apply for HSIP funds for multiple locations • Deny staff to apply for the HSIP funds 2021-0276 E.G©09 Recommendation: Due to the small amount of funds available, CDOT will probably not award the entire available funds to one project. Staff recommends applying for HSIP funds for the SH 392/CR 35 intersection because CDOT already anticipates building a traffic signal at this intersection in 2024. It would negatively impact our needed county road improvements if we don't coincide our improvements with theirs at this location. If we apply for multiple projects, staff recommends applying for $1M max per project. Weld County would have to cover the overmatch to make the projects whole, but it may increase our chances of obtaining these grant funds. Approve Recommendation Perry L. Buck Mike Freeman Scott K. James, Pro-Tem Steve Moreno, Chair Lori Saine Schedule Work Session Other/Comments: COLORADO Department of Transportation Office of the Chef Engineer. COLORADO MOVING TOWARDS ZED/ DEATHS Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Local Agency Application (submit applications to Regional Traffic Engineer) https: / /www.codot.gov/safety/traffic-safety/programs-and-analysis/hsip Requesting Agency: Weld County Submitted By: Cameron Parrott, P.E. Title: Senior Engineer Email: cparrott@weldgov.com Phone: (970) 400-3745 Date: 01/21/21 (All fields required unless otherwise noted) 1) Location (Road Number, Street, Milepost, etc.): The intersection of State Highway 392 and Weld County Road (WCR) 35 2) Documented crash history (if available, otherwise CDOT Crash Database will be used for evaluation using the most recent available three to five years of crash data): 20 accidents between 6/30/2015 and 6/30/2020, with 16 injuries and 1 fatality (see attached DiExSys, LLC VZS documentation) 3) Traffic volume counts (All directions/approaches, if available): WCR 35 South Leg = 2655, WCR 35 North Leg = 3125 St. Hwy. 392 West Leg = 7100, St. Hwy. 392 East Leg =7100 4) Description/Illustration of existing safety concern (Photos Recommended): This intersection meets warrants for a traffic signal according to the attached report completed by CDOT and their consultant in August of 2020. 5) Description/Illustration of proposed improvement and the extent to which it addresses the crash problem: CDOT Region 4 has already budgeted to install a traffic signal at this intersection in 2024 through their Traffic Signal Pool (SGN) program. In partnership with CDOT, Weld County is proposing to construct geometric improvements on each leg of WCR 35 in order to make this intersection complete. These improvement include adding left turn lanes and larger radii to improve truck movements through the intersection. This intersection has a recognized pattern of broadside collisions. The installation of a traffic signal specifically to help reduce broadside collisions and the addition of left turn lanes and widening is shown to reduce accidents by as much as 52%. Colorado Department of Transportation Highway Safety Improvement Program Traffic and Safety Engineering Branch Local Agency Application / 0021 0027 COLORADO Department of Transportation Office of the Cnlef Engineer COLORADO MOVING TOWARDS ZER40 DEA- ivi 6) Amount of HSIP funding requested for proposed safety improvement (90% Federal share only, not including state/local 10% match): $1,000,000.00 *CDOT will provide 10% match on projects located along state highway system. Local agencies are to provide match for projects that are located off the state highway system. 7) Total estimated proposed safety improvement cost (Preliminary Cost Estimate Tabulation Recommended): $2,080,000 for the entire project (Signal + Geometry Improvements) $780,000 for the new traffic signal (Cost for signal not included in this application) $1,300,000 for the geometric improvements^ ^Benefit/Cost evaluation will be based off of this amount. 8) Planned construction advertise date: November 1, 2023 9) Planned construction completion date: May 31, 2024 Additional comments or notes regarding project or funding: This location has been identified by CDOT as warranting a traffic signal per the attached report. The geometric improvements proposed by Weld County make this project complete and increase the safety. Weld County understands the amount of money available to our region for this program is approximately $2.6M. In partnership with CDOT, Weld County is proposing to only request $1M of funding toward this project. The additional funds needed to complete this project would be covered as part of Weld County's Local Agency Overmatch (approximately $300K or 23.1%). Colorado Department of Transportation Highway Safety Improvement Program Traffic and Safety Engineering Branch Local Agency Application COLORADO Department of Transportation Office of the Chief Engineer COLORADO MOVING TOWARDS ZERO DEATEr; Colorado Department of Transportation Region & State Traffic Engineers Alazar 2829 Denver, alazar.tesfaye(a�state.co.us W. Tesfaye CO Howard - 80204 Region PI 1 Traffic Engineer jason.nelsonstate.co.us Jason 5615 Pueblo, Wills Nelson CO Blvd 81009 - Region 2 Traffic Engineer (303) 512-4040 (719) 546-5411 Katrina 10601 Greeley, katrina.kloberdanz@state.co.us Kloberdanz W. CO 10th 80634 St - Region 4 Traffic Engineer Zane Znamenacek - Region 3 Traffic Engineer 222 S Grand zane.znamenacekstate.co.us 6th Junction, St, Room CO 100 81501 (970) 683-6275 (970) 350-2211 julie.constan@state.co.us Julie 3803 Durango, Constan Main CO - Ave, 81301 Region Suite 100 5 Traffic Engineer Vacant Services 2829 Denver, - W. CO HQ Manager Howard Traffic 80204 PI and Safety Engineering (970) 385-1449 CDOT Region Boundary Map MOFFAT ROUTT ' sJACKSON f RIO BLANCA GARFIELD 3 EL PASO r-- EAGLE PITKIN II EsA -'DELTA \-." GUNNtSON � --- MONTROSE SAKI MIGUEL .N INSDALE_.. uACHE t _4 it I __ --� 11`60)'�A PLATA _ J I40NTEZUM4 r MONT 154 CUSTER 1,1 NEHUERF F isoff• LAMOS4Le tIc_GRANDC ARCHULETA 1 . CONEJOS -o `MINER MORGAN ADAMS WASHINGT l'36C PUEBLO `).---„,. I4T(R0 DGWIC PHILLIPS KR CARSON Colorado Department of Transportation Traffic and Safety Engineering Branch Highway Safety Improvement Program Local Agency Application litairk it WELD COUNTY Intersection of St. Hwy. 392 and WCR 35 ONLINE MAPPING + .... �r 1►'M4�A1 JC�1!N/f�IW V+�d!'Y.w�� ...+<b'.Al�}��'.JA^.`�'�K�"'M`WW1w' 200.0 1 WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary_Sphere Weld County Colorado l This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 0 100.00 200.0 Feet Legend L_J County Boundary —e- Railroad Lines Creek / Canal - Large Scale Perennial Intermittent Ephemeral - Artificial Path Canal Ditch Coastline Connector Pipeline Underground Conduit River - Large Scale Area of Complex Channels Area to be Submerged Baylnlet ■ Bridge CanalDitch ■ DamWeir Flume Foreshore ■ Hazard Zone Inundation Area ■ Lock Chamber Rapids SeaOcean Notes f - r • Y a 1.x..86 /- r - Weld County 1'Public Works Department DiExSysTm Roadway Safety Systems Detailed Summary of Crashes Report 01/25/2021 Job #: 20210125135734 cation: Accident History for HWY 392 and CR 35 From:06/30/2015 To:06/30/2020 — Severity PDO: INJ: FAT: 9 10 1 Total: 20 16 :Injured 1 :Killed Number of Vehicles One Vehicle: Two Vehicles: Three or More: U nknown: 1 19 0 0 Total: 20 Location On Road: Off Road Left: Off Road Right: Off Road at Tee: Off in Median: U nknown: 19 0 1 0 0 0 Total: 20 — Lighting Conditions Daylight: Dawn or Dusk: Dark - Lighted: Dark - Unlighted: U nknown: 14 2 0 4 0 Total: 20 — Weather Conditions None: Rain: Snow/Sleet/Hail: Fog: Dust: Wind: U nknown: 17 2 1 0 0 0 0 Total: 20 — Crash Rates PDO: INJ: FAT: N /A * N /A * N /A ** * MVMT ** 100 MVMT Total: N/A Crash Type Overturning: Other Non Collision: Pedestrians: Broadside: Head On: Rear End: Sideswipe (Same): Sideswipe (Opposite): Approach Turn: Overtaking Turn: Parked Motor Vehicle: Railway Vehicle: Bicycle: Motorized Bicycle: Domestic Animal: Wild Animal: Light/Utility Pole: Traffic Signal Pole: Sign: Bridge Rail: Guard Rail: Cable Rail: Concrete Barrier: 0 0 0 15 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bridge Abutment: Column/Pier: Culvert/Headwall: Embankment: Curb: Delineator Post: Fence: Tree: Large Boulders or Rocks: Barricade: Wall/Building: Crash Cushion: Mailbox: Other Fixed Object: Total Fixed Objects: Rocks in Roadway: Vehicle Cargo/Debris: Road Maintenance Equipment: Involving Other Object: Total Other Objects: Unknown: 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total: 20 — Mainline/Ramps/Frontage Loads Mainline: Crossroad (A): Ramps B: C: D: 0 F: 0 G: 0 H: 0 I: 20 — Frontage/Ramp Intersections 0 M: 0 N: 0 O: 0 P: 0 J: 0 K: 0 T: 0 Z: 0 0 0 Left Frontage Rd (L): Rt Frontage Rd (R): HOV Lanes (V): Unknown: Total: 20 Road Description At Intersection: At Driveway Access: Intersection Related: Non Intersection: In Alley: Roundabout: Ramp: Parking Lot: Unknown: 19 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total: 20 oad Conditions Dry: Wet: Muddy: S nowy: Icy: S lushy: Foreign Material: With Road Treatment: Dry w/Icy Road Treatment: Wet w/Icy Road Treatment: Snowy w/Icy Road Treatment: Icy w/Icy Road Treatment: Slushy w/Icy Road Treatment: Unknown: 17 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total: 20 Any intentional or inadvertent release of this data or any data derived from its use shall not constitute a waiver of privilege pursuant to 23 USC 409. Page 1 User: cparrott on PW-20195577 catio Weld County Public Works Department DiExSysTIVI Roadway Safety Systems Detailed Summary of Gashes Report 01/25/2021 Job #: 20210125135734 * Accident History far HWY 392 and CR 35 From:06/30/2015 To:06/30/2020 — Vehicle Ty Pe Veh 1 Passenger Car/Van: 8 Passenger CarNan w/Trl: 0 Pickup Truck/Utility Van: 8 Pickup Truck/Utility Van w/Trl: 0 SUV: 3 SUV w/Trl: 0 Truck 10k Ibs or Less: 0 Trucks > 10k Ibs/Bus > 15 People: 1 School Bus < 15 People: 0 Non School Bus < 15 People: 0 Motorhome: 0 Motorcycle: 0 Bicycle: 0 Motorized Bicycle: Farm Equipment: Hit and Run - Unknown: Other: U nknown: 0 0 0 0 0 Veh 2 6 0 5 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Veh 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total: 20 19 0 Contributing ffract,• r No Apparent Contributing Factor: Asleep at the Wheel: Illness: Distracted by Passenger: Driver Inexperience: Driver Fatigue: Driver Preoccupied: Driver Unfamilar with Area: Driver Emotionally Upset: Evading Law Enforcement Officier: Physical Disability: U nknown: Ve h11 12 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 2 Veh 2 18 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Veh 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total: 20 19 0 — Condition of Driven No Impairment Suspected: Alcohol Involved: RX, Medication, or Drugs Involved: Illegal Drugs Involved: Alcohol and Drugs Involved: Driver/Pedestrian not Observed: U nknown: Veh 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Veh 2 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 Veh 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total: 20 19 0 Vehicle Movement _ Going Straight: Slowing: Stopped in Traffic: Making Right Turn: Making Left Turn: Making U -Turn: Passing: Backing: Enter/Leave Parked Position: Starting in Traffic: Parked: Changing Lanes: Avoiding Object/Veh in Road: Weaving: Wrong Way: Other: Unknown: Veh 1 12 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 Veh 2 13 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Veh 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 otal: 20 19 0 Direction Veh 1 North: 5 Northeast: 0 East: 1 Southeast: 0 South: 12 Southwest: 0 West: 2 Northwest: Unknown: 0 Veh 2 0 0 9 0 1 0 9 0 0 Veh 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T * tal: 20 19 0 Any intentional or inadvertent release of this data or any data derived from its use shall not constitute a waiver of privilege pursuant to 23 USC 409. Page 2 User. oparrott on PW-20195577 Weld County Public Works Department DiExSys TM Roadway Safety Systems SPF :' ' •. del: CO m Rural 2 -Lane ivided UnSignalized -Leg Intersections (2098) 01/25/2021 Job it 20210125135903 Location: Accident History for HWY 392 and CR 35 From:06/30/2015 To:06/30/2020 3 0 2,000 2 1 0 Lower Limit (20%) Total Upper Lim it (80%) 0 Observed (EB) O Expected 4,000 6,000 8,000 Mainline AADT 10,000 1 2,00 0 14,000 16,000 Any intentional or inadvertent release of this data or any data derived from Page 1 its use shall not constitute a waiver of privilege pursuant to 23 USC 409. User: cparrott on PW-20195577 Weld County Public Works Department DiExS ys TM Roadway Safety Systems SPF Models CO - Rural 2 -Lane Divided UnSignalized 4 -Leg Intersections (2018) 01/25/2021 Job #: 20210125135929 Location: Accident History for HWY 392 and CR 35 From:06/30/2015 To:06/30/2020 Lower Lim it (20%) IN + FAT Upper Limit (80%) O Observed (EB) O Expected 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Mainline AADT 10,000 12,000 14,000 1 6,0 00 Any intentional or inadvertent release of this data or any data derived from Page 1 its use shall not constitute a waiver of privilege pursuant to 23 USC 409. User: cparrott on PW-20195577 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE - HWY 392 AND WCR 35 GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS CONTRACT ITEM UNIT ESTIMATED QUANTITY ESTIMATED UNIT PRICE ESTIMATED TOTAL ITEM COST MOBILIZATION LS 1 $ 125,000.00 $ 125,000.00 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS 1 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION CY 7000 $ 12.00 $ 84,000.00 AGGREGATE BASE COURSE (CLASS 6) TON 3180 $ 30.00 $ 95,400.00 HOT MIX ASPHALT(100)(PG 64-22) TON 1150 $ 95.00 $ 109,250.00 HOT MIX ASPHALT (100)(PG 64-28) TON 575 $ 105.00 $ 60,375.00 DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL LS 1 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 SIGNING AND STRIPING LS 1 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 UTILITY RELOCATIONS LS 1 $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00 ROW/EASEMENT ACQUISITIONS LS 1 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 1,144,025.00 CONTINGENCY % 13.6% -- $ 155,975.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 1,300,000.00 1861 � l �0' Weld County Public Works Department DiExSysTM Roadway Safety Systems Economic Analysis Report 01/25/2021 Job #.- 20210125135929 Location: Accident History for HWY 392 and CR 35 From:06/30/2015 To:06/30/2020 Benefit Cost Ratio Calculations Crashes PDO: 9 INJ: 10 16:Injured FAT: 1 1 :Killed Projected Crashes and Reduction Factors Weighted PDO: Weighted INJ: Weighted FAT: B/C Weighted Year Factor: Cost: $ 780,000 From: 06/30/2015 To: 06/30/2020 Benefit Cost Ratio: 2.76 2.21 3.93 0.25 5.00 Days: 1828 20% :CRF for PDO 20% :CRF for INJ 20% :CRF for FAT 20% :Weighted CRF Other Information Cost of PDO: Cost of INJ: Cost of FAT: Interest Rate: AADT Growth Factor: Service Life: Capital Recovery Factor: Annual Maintenance/Delay Cost: (B/C Based on Injury Numbers : PDO/Injured/Killed) Type of Improvement: New Signals (General) Special Notes: Overall General Crash Reduction $ 10,800 $ 101,100 $ 1,798,500 5% 2.0`)/0 20 0.080 $ 0 INFORMATION ONLY Benefit Cost Ratio: 2.76 Cost: $ 780,000 Service Life: 20 Any intentional or inadvertent release of this data or any data derived from its use shall not constitute a waiver of privilege pursuant to 23 USC 409. Page 1 User: cparrott on PW-20195577 t Weld ; : u ty Public /forks eae. sites e o rt rr , 01/25/2021 Job #_ 20210125135929 Location: Accident History for HWY 392 and CR 35 From:06/30/2015 To:06/30/2020 Benefit Cost Ratio Calculations PDO: INJ: FAT: Crashes 9 10 1 Projected Crashes and Reduction Factors Weighted PDO: 16:Injured Weighted INJ: 1 :Killed Weighted FAT: B/C Weighted Year Factor: Cost: $ 1,300,000 From: 06/30/2015 To: 06/30/2020 Benefit Cost Ratio: 3.31 2.21 3.93 0.25 5.00 Days: 1828 40% :CRF for PDO 40% :CRF for INJ 40% :CRF for FAT 40% :Weighted CRF Other Information Cost of PDO: Cost of INJ: Cost of FAT: Interest Rate: AADT Growth Factor: Service Life: Capital Recovery Factor: Annual Maintenance/Delay Cost: (B/C Based on Injury Numbers : PDO/Injured/Killed) Type of Improvement: Add Left Turn, Lane Widening Special Notes: Geometry Improvements Only $ 10,800 $ 101,100 $ 1,798,500 5% 2.0% 20 0.080 $ 0 Benefit Cost Ratio: 3.31 Cost: 1,300,000 Service Life: 20 Any intentional or inadvertent release of this data or any data derived from its use shall not constitute a waiver of privilege pursuant to 23 USC 409. Page 1 User cparrott on PW-20195577 3 Weld County Public Works Department DiExS ys Tm Roadway Safety Systems Economic Analysis Report 01/25/2021 Job #: 20210125135929 Location: Accident History for HWY 392 and CR 35 From:06/30/2015 To:06/30/2020 Benefit Cost Ratio Calculations Crashes Projected Crashes and Reduction Factors Other Information PDO: 9 Weighted PDO: 2.21 52% :CRF for PDO Cost of PDO: $ 10,800 INJ: 10 16:Injured Weighted INJ: 3.93 52%:CRF for INJ Cost of INJ: $ 101,100 FAT: 1 1 :Killed Weighted FAT: 0.25 52% :CRF for FAT Cost of FAT: $ 1,798,500 B/C Weighted Year Factor: 5.00 52% :Weighted CRF Interest Rate: 5% AADT Growth Factor: 2.0% Cost: $ 2,080,000 Service Life: 20 From: 06/30/2015 Capital Recovery Factor: 0.080 To: 06/30/2020 Days: 1828 Annual Maintenance/Delay Cost: $ 0 Benefit Cost Ratio: 2.69 (B/C Based on Injury Numbers : PDO/Injured/Killed) Type of Improvement: Add Left Turn, Lane Widening, and new signal Special Notes: (Composite ARF - New Signal ± Geometry Improvements) Benefit Cost Ratio: 2.69 Cost: $ 2,080,000 Service Life: 20 Any intentional or inadvertent release of this data or any data derived from its use shall not constitute a waiver of privilege pursuant to 23 USC 409. Page 1 User: cparrott on PW-20195577 t/ fiC€ EASES. lr•; I E-RSECTION R.ALIu 1MOVErvI Nif.5 ..EASIER . PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1111 H STREET P.O. BOX 758 GREELEY. CO. 80632-0758 PHONE 970) 356-4000 FAX (970) 304-6497 CDOT REGION 4 "TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT STUDY" POINT EVALUATION SHEET - MUTCD 2009 Intersection: Major Street: Minor Street: Study Date: SH 392 & WCR 35 Priority I high SH 392 WCR 35 Aug -20 Point Distribution Hours Met Points Acquired Hours met by Warrant 1 a. Condition "a" 1 point/hour 5 5 b. Condition "b„ 1 point/hour 6 6 c. Combination of "a" and "b„ 1 point/hour 13 13 Max. 24 pts or 24 hours 24 24 Hours met by Warrant 2 a.I Major Street (both approaches) 1 I point/hour I 5 I 5 Max. 24 pts or 24 hours Additional Points Awarded for intersection meeting a warrant. a. Warrant 1 25 points Warrant 1: Yes 25 b. Warrant 2 15 points Warrant 2: Yes 15 c. Other 10 points Additional Warrants: 1 10 Accidents - 1 year a. per correctable accident > 4 5 I points Correctable Crashes: I 5 I 5 Max. 25 pts Other Factors a. Intersection is location of school crossing with school abutting intersection 20 points Name of School(s): No 0 b. High volume pedestrian crossing (shopping center, large public building, community center) 15 points No 0 c. Large employment industrial center ( high peak traffic volumes) 20 points No 0 TOTAL I 84 TATE ' HIGHWAY 392 SIGNAL WARRANT T St te Hi h August 2020 Prepared for: CDOT-Region 4 10601 West 10th Avenue Greeley, CO 80634 Prepared by: Alex Liston, El Kenneth Ryan, PE, PTO E Muller Engineering Company 777 South Wadsworth Boulevard Suite 4-100 Lakewood, Colorado 80226 303.988.4939 Muller Project Number: 20004.05 Version By Date Notes 1.0 Muller 8/28/2020 Initial draft sent to CDOT 1.1 Muller 9/24/2020 Updated Procedure Section 3.2.5, COVID-19 Volume Analysis 1.2 Muller 10/2/2020 Updated with additional Warrant 1 and hours Warrant 2 Summaries met. ENGINEERING COMPANY fa0 r i` -b..`Lv i t9 Aug020 Sty t tvl r t, 9 2 NR Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVESUMMARY 1111■023®119m611313n9119een1811GIULIUeea11911eae2a a00186103e13e00a13018011samne110®e..a131306113©19611 ant] a.20 e9 BS913.13E0®ae eDeaa.a13eae. 1 1.1 ecornm'.�.ndato 'ns nam.13913m11092s06111210e13e13061n13.O22123®212118(29®.911131300.0611101118®®a13mmwaoe13am®116102313®®(22313012®1811023®13018®011020.0®(21813.nae.e 2 INTRODUCTION e.n.131313013023®13.0®13®13121011®01818a09m+a0a®23001010013000120600(2e13zla1360e9.61e201111061m61e(2600ean0a23m2a®a®anm(21323mnme22eeonen13nn.23eaaaao9e® 3 2.1 2.2 2.3 IntersectionGeometry91818Qe13918aarn®aaa0sane0ara13neooranaa0.e0.e.a®...ea®®a®2,2132212131111&12123211313221®e13aea1113023eeoo.aaeoaeona 22®®®e. Existing Traffic Volumes v 11.18aa61mm23.20961nne92A206113ee..6®■m.023®61aa000....0a9s61@61em1313e+9n.0001311008.1813..00.0.13131300.(20130100013.n0 CrashHistory .na13110a00m0.■.....18.®...2169®911nn18.a1199ae11aa820116013m BMOC 22 O.13neaS113m23611121.13Oe9O03e61ag..13060010...0..11.13..00Sae1161ae(2.9 5 3 SUMMARY OF CONDITIONAL DATA AND ADJUSTMENTS anmmaa®eaoeea0......a.e aa00..e011e061 ®e 011086111.OOBE OH 7 3.1 Rural versus Ur i# a, Classification 3.2 3.2.1 One -Lane or Two -Lane Approaches 7 3.2.2 Minor Street Right -Turn Reductions 8 3.2.3 Passenger Car Equivalence Factor (PCE) 8 m e e m® B n a n m® O n a n n a e m m o a a n 23 n n m a m e a n n e a a n n e® e 9. o a e o 6 e n a s o a. O 0 a n m a a® 0 n n n 0 e e. a. a n 61 13 6 7 Ad]UStnientS 01361®182923111123.2123..0.2123..132121..aae.................e...®1111eaasn11oee00..eeso....e..........a0eeo13me1113a13aa00eeam.13eaeo0 7 3.2.4 Season Adjustment Factor 8 3.2.5 COV1D-19 Volume Adjustment Analysis 8 4 WARRANT DISCUSSION mamma. MMMMMMMMMMMMM ..1320119619139321111e1da0eea00011122■o.ee..■a.■.e.0..0189610m13ae13130..e0.e.09900.a0013 10 4.1 Warrant 1 v Eight —Hour Vehicular Volume 0130221212122612313®ea0361e000e.Mee.23132121........ 18110..018me..aa....a0...0.0a 10 4.2 Warrant 2 — Four —Hour Vehicular a.......e......e...0a..........0....a.0 12 4.3 Warrant 3 — Peak Hour.a.29®11ao13(2960181898239e99aL'018219913.e9mean..®13asae1361aaaaeae.132121.e..(213960.6e......a23a18aO.....a...G189. 14 4.4 Warrant 4 — Pedestrian Volume 21961...a■6021.119913189...23.239..9..61..a.11aW6001360ea619a1318®009en13132323.0.0...018..a..e......0 14 4.5 Warrant 5 — School Crossing (2an11918.2113....6121139.ana117e(29(2aa1313fl1318..22ION13220em.m.61901121119®9.!ISM 911ae2113911e9®9.21200aa...o.a© 14 4.6 Warrant 6 — Coordinated Signal System .oee119e13e911na9.Gila ena(71113e61e9e0a51!LBO 601123.21®OeAaa186013ee.a239a...9923..23.9e 14 4.7 Warrant 7 — Crash Experience ....230130.an....81360..e00023..90ae23e000001000..00011.0e9a..ac23oe.a000........099a960e 09 14 4.8 Warrant 8 ® Roadway Network 1823021.....e....a...a..0.0132sa000.e0a..03003001300.0001800002300...230.a....230..0a00.0000 15 4.9 Warrant 9 Intersection Near a Railroad Grade Crossing 2222®122210232212219.n0..009009110230a00913am13181199®9 16 5 SUMMARY AND RECO ,`::,' ME I Da I O N S W O O 21 21 23 I9. 23®@ 13 13 a O® 9 m a. a t3 Ora 21 20 6 23 21 11 11 23 S9 a a 11122013211126129 9. 61 9 a e 9 2-0 13 a 23 6 23 0 22 I0 121 122® H O n n 23 1329 29 12 13 9 9 20 16 CDOT-Region , a ust 2020 ;Mate HighwRy a Signal Warrant ant Stud hway 392/ CR List of Figures FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP OF SH 392 AND VVCR 35 e9 Om9mGlae0a68H 9ma a es®9e amm 99a©9mam99o®9eae9mesmsass0s9e 99nae 9u69 FIGURE 2 - AERIAL AND GEOMETRY OF Ski 392 AND \NCR 35 FIGURE 3 - SH 392/VVCR 35 APPROACHES FIGURE 4 - 2019 AND 2020 ADT TRENDS List of Tables a m m s 2139M m m a m B m m m 61 m a m a s® kl 9 e u 9 e 6 a s o u s a e 6 m MC a e m a e o u o m e m a E 9 m e a s ME BE e s s s s e o a m m a a m B e a s m a e o a e s a 0 m m m e m e 9 m m m m a u o e Mill m e 9 9 9 m a a 9 e WOW m m m 9 9 0 9 9 m MO e C m sae ON OMB Elea s e a s s s a a s a e e e a s e a s e a m s a s e e a a m e a a s a e m a n e m a a m 9 7® 9 m a e m m 9 a e e m u m 9 9 e a e 3 4 4 9 TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF SIGNAL VVARRANTS �. TABLE 2 CURRENT 6000 AM - 7:00 PM APPROACH VOLUMES aem9a9 mnm Bm©a09m sam®99aee0& Mantle. BOB eesas8009me TABLE 3 — ACCIDENT DATA smsseaemmm same9a maesa aemeaea9messssssssass9@0 MOM me am eesemsssmseam e m m m9m me 99 m 9 II Mae mom a ms s smaaasaasaasa■ 5 5 TABLE 4 - SUMMARY OF CONDITIONAL DATA AND ADJUSTMENTS aoemmonammmemmnmmmm9®neamanneommm9a essms 7 TABLE 5 - FIVE-YEAR FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES m6asasseeaseaeaem®aDaaaeaeseee9Emnaes9mae9mmaa9m9®eamaanees6eaeo 16 Appendix A — Traffic Count Data Appendix B — Crash Data Appendix C — Future Warrants rvi Tau e of Contents Page n Aut t ?CPO a q y 392 Sig State Hi ',arrant uy 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The intersection of State Highway (SH) 392 and Weld County Road (WCR) 35 is located approximately 1.85 miles west of the US 85/SH 392 intersection. SH 392 at this location can be described as a two-lane rural highway serving the Towns of Greeley and Lucerne. At WCR 35, SH 392 is oriented east -west and has a through lane and a left -turn lane in each direction. WCR 35 is a two-lane rural roadway oriented in the north -south direction. The northbound and southbound approaches have one left-turn/through/right- turn lane in each direction. The four-way intersection is currently stop -controlled on the WCR 35 approaches. The evaluation of the intersection was performed in accordance with the traffic signal warrants that are found in the "Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies" section of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 Edition. The MUTCD outlines nine warrants that should be used to assess the need to signalize an intersection. The traffic counts for Warrants 1-3 were taken on August 5t", 2020. Crash data for Warrant 7 was provided by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). This approach was used in the evaluation and Table 1 summarizes the results. Table 1- Summary of Signal Warrants Warrants Warrant Met , N/A Comments Yes No Warrant Vehicular 1— Eight- Hour Conditions for the A "rural" and classification B are both 80 % satisfied (70% thresholds). for 13 hours Volume Warrant Vehicular 2 — Volume Four-hour Five (5) hours plot above the "1 Lane & 1 Lane" line. Warrant Vehicular 3 — Peak -Hour There applicable. is no unusual condition for Warrant 3 to be Volume Warrant Volume 4 — Pedestrian There Warrant is not 4. enough pedestrian volume to satisfy Warrant 5 School Crossing X Intersection therefore is not an established Warrant 5 is not applicable. school crossing, — Warrant Signal 6 — Coordinated System There necessary are no degree adjacent of platooning signals that would to Warrant provide 6. the Warrant Experience 7 — Crash Five adequate broadside remediation crashes within available. a 12 -month span and no Warrant Network 8 — Roadway Intersection minor street is not a regional highway. Warrant Near 9 — a Grade Intersection Crossing Intersection Therefore is not located Warrant near 9 is not applicable. any grade crossings. 1.1 Recommendations Based on the MUTCD warrant analysis of the SH 392 and WCR 35, a signal is warranted. This intersection passes three signal warrants. Warrant 1, the eight -hour vehicular volume warrant. Warrant 2, the four- hour vehicular volume warrant. Lastly, Warrant 7, the crash history warrant. M j� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pees I ay 92 CD iZ +J "ion f%iSt C Y nal Warrant Study uc p State Highway 392/INCR 35 Signalization at this intersection would both reduce delay on the minor street approaches and increase safety for vehicles entering the intersection. LL FR CDOT-Region 4 A,muct 2020 State Highway 392 Signal Warrant Study State Highway 392/WCR 35 2 INTRODUCTION The intersection of SH 392 and WCR 35 is located approximately 1.85 miles west of the US 85/SH 392 interchange in Weld County. Currently, the proximate land uses are largely agricultural, with a large -parcel residential development in the northwest quadrant. A vicinity map of this location is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1- Vicinity Map of SH 392 and WCR 35 The purpose of this document is to assess and evaluate the need to signalize the intersection SH 392 and WCR 35. This study was prepared in accordance with the traffic control signal needs section found in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 Edition. The following key guidance statements found in the MUTCD were used at SH 392 and WCR 35: A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more warrants are met. A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing a traffic control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection. A traffic control signal should not be installed if it will seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow. Existing conditions, traffic volumes, intersection geometry, and crash history were all used in evaluating the nine traffic control signal warrants as described in the MUTCD. AMULLER INTRODUCTION Page 3 CDOT-Region 4 State Highway 392 Signal Warrant Study August 2029 State Highway 392/ WCR 35 2.1 Intersection Geometry Figure 2 shows the intersection geometry and traffic control devices for SH 392 and WCR 35. Figure 2 - Aerial and Geometry of SH 392 and WCR 35 The intersection is a four -leg intersection with a speed limit of 55 mph on the major street (WCR 35) approaches and 45 mph on the minor street (WCR 35) approaches. SH 392 is a two-lane roadway with left turn lanes. The intersection terrain is relatively flat. Google Earth Street view images of the intersection approaches are shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 - SH 392/WCR 35 Approaches South Approach West Approach North Approach East Approach WMULLER INTRODUCTION Page 4 n CDOT-Reg on August 2020 Stag Highway ,(! 392/SCR 3 Highway 392 Signal Warrant Study 2.2 Existing Traffic Volumes Intersection turning movement and approach traffic counts were taken on August 5t", 2020 between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Table 2 lists the hourly approach volume counts collected during this time. Table 2 — Current 6:00 AM — 7:00 PM Approach Volumes Start Time Major Street Both Approaches) (Total of Minor Street Approach (Highest Volumes) Total Peds 6:00 AM 638 110 0 7:00 AM 757 133 0 8:00 AM 491 104 0 9:00 AM 435 111 0 10:00 AM 437 116 0 11:00 AM 477 89 0 12:00 PM 441 98 0 1:00 PM 480 86 0 2:00 PM 541 107 0 3:00 PM 586 96 0 4:00 PM 724 119 0 5:00 PM 730 127 0 6:00 PM 425 91 0 2.3 crash History Crash data during a five-year period from July 1St, 2014 to June 31St, 2019 was provided by CDOT. During that period, there were twelve (12) crashes that can be attributed to the intersection. A summary of the crashes is provided below. Table 3 — Accident Data Date Time Vehicle Direction 1 Vehicle Direction 2 Crash Type Severity (PDO/INJ) 1/7/2015 0752 West West REAR -END PDO 7/23/2015 1654 South West BROADSIDE PDO 2/5/2016 1511 North East BROADSIDE INJ 9/27/2016 0723 West West SIDESWIPE (SAME DIRECTION) PDO 2/13/2017 1300 South East BROADSIDE INJ 11/8/2017 1940 South West BROADSIDE PDO 6/1/2018 1330 North West BROADSIDE PDO 9/8/2018 1517 North West BROADSIDE INJ 9/20/2018 1745 South West BROADSIDE PDO 10/21/2018 1050 North East BROADSIDE FAT 4/26/2019 1615 South West BROADSIDE INJ 6/17/2019 2053 South West BROADSIDE PDO ON Page 5 '30 Di l ;'.ry,.. Est State Highway 392 I aal Warra State Highway n WC As shown in Table 3, ten (10) of the crashes were broadside type crashes. These crashes are considered correctable with the installation of a traffic signal. Per MUTCD threshold criteria, there were five crashes in the one-year period of June 17th, 2018 to June 17th, 2019 that could have been corrected by a signal. YY M U 1., kilt , g==.: `VJt! D O7 o, R 5 August x # aly 392 Signal acre �f(a�,. kry 's.. s ^s. >. Highway a c, ICS 3 SUMMARY OF CONDITIONAL DATA AND ADJUSTMENTS The analyses contained in this report are based on collected data and on engineering judgment. The following information and assumptions in Table 4 was used to analyze the MUTCD warrants: Table 4 — Summary of Conditional Data and Adjustments Roadway Characteristic Observed Major Street Approach: SH 392 Minor Street Approach: WCR 35 Major Street Posted: 55 miles per hour (mph) Minor Street Posted Speed: 45 miles per hour (mph) Traffic Control: Stop controlled on minor street approaches Rural / Urban Classification Rural Seasonal Adjustment used? No Percentage of trucks 6.6% Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) Not used Peak One Hour of Weekday Vehicle Activity 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Pedestrian traffic 0 3.1 Rural versus Urban CI .{,400 SSification According to the MUTCD, an intersection can be classified two different ways: either as "Urban" or as "Rural". To classify an intersection as "Rural", the major street speed must exceed 40 mph or be located in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000. All other intersections should be considered "Urban". The population is less than 10,000 and the posted speed on the major street approach (SH 392) exceeds 40 mph; Therefore, the 70% "Rural" reduction factor was applied t0 warrants 1, 2, and 3. 302 Adjustments 3.221 One -Lane or Two -Lane Approaches The MUTCD states that engineering judgment can be used to determine whether the major and minor street approaches at an intersection are one -lane or two -lanes. Categorizing an approach as either one - lane or two-lane should be based on site -specific traffic characteristics. The Major Street, SH 392, has one through lane in each direction entering the intersection; Therefore, the major street was analyzed as a "one -lane" approach., The Minor Street, WCR 35, has one through lane in each direction entering the intersection; Therefore, the minor street was analyzed as a "one -lane" approach. A "two-lane" analysis can be preformed to determine if a non -signalized option, such as a designated right -turn lane, would be adequate for this intersection. Upon review of aerial imagery, an irrigation ditch „ — • �-c.a ..s m rn d i. m. an x,. :3 • C D O 41: oN an August 2020 7n/way7n/way 392 Signatya rant study State ilighwy 392/WCR 35 borders the northbound approach to the east, crosses the westbound approach, and runs along SH 392 north of the road. The addition of right -turn lanes at this location would be prohibitively expensive due to this ditch; Therefore, a two-lane analysis was not conducted for this intersection. 3.2.2 Minor Street Right -Turn Reductions The MUTCD states that right -turning traffic should not be included in the minor street volume if the movement enters with minimal conflict. Due to the high speeds on SH 392 and the need to wait for through and left -turn traffic, the right -turning vehicles are subject to control delay; Therefore, the right - turn traffic was not removed. 3.2.3 Passenger Car Equivalence Factor (PCE) It is not always necessary to convert truck traffic to PCE's for a warrant study; however, NCHRP Report 457 — Evaluating Intersection Improvements recommends considering the effects of heavy vehicles in the warrant study when the percentage is higher than 5%. SH 392 experiences relatively high truck traffic (approximately 6.6%); However, no adjustments for PCE were made. 3.2m { Season Adjustment Factor Seasonal adjustment factors are more commonly applied to intersections along rural recreational routes that experience seasonal peaking traffic characteristics. However, typical weekday peaking characteristics do occur, so a seasonal adjustment factor was not applied to the traffic volumes. 3.2.5 COVID-19 Volume Adjustment Analysis Traffic counts for this signal warrant were taken on August 5th, 2020 through August 6'h, 2020. Traffic volumes during this time may be lower than "typical" traffic volumes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. An analysis was preformed to compare annual trends from 2019 and 2020 to adjust the volumes at this intersection if they were found to be significantly impacted (lower) due to the pandemic. Analysis was based on traffic volume data from CDOT's OTIS database. Data were obtained from the continuous count stations nearest the intersection of SH 392 and WCR 35. Count locations included US 85 in the City of Greeley and US 85 north of the Town of Nunn. In order to determine a difference between "typical" traffic volumes and "COVID-19" volumes, data from both 2019 and 2020 were analyzed in February and July. The February and July timeframes were chosen because the most recent "typical" (pre-COVID) traffic volume data were collected in February of 2020 and July was the most recent continuous count month for both years of interest. The 2019 and 2020 data were filtered to include only mid -week days in the February and July study period. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for each month were computed using mid -week volumes. Fig. re 4 shows the difference in ADT volumes for both continuous count locations. Pia L v _an. ER r a n ast-r'', Sral Page 8 State Highway 39.2 Signal Warrant Stud August 202O Figure 4 - 2019 and 2020 ADT Tends 26000 25000 u 24000 � 23000 O 22000 Q 21000 20000 US 85L -Greeley Count Station, MP 266.65 23007 February Month 24966 July 4400 4200 au 4000 v f 3800 it 3600 Q 3400 February US 85L -Pawnee Grassland Count Station, MP 293.15 Month 4268 July ® 2019 g 2020 The continuous count station in the City of Greeley is more representative of the traffic flow conditions at the study intersection. This count station is closer to the study intersection and the travel patterns are likely to be more similar. An analysis of the traffic volumes at the Greeley ATR showed an increase of approximately 5.0% between July 2019 and February of 2019. Comparatively, traffic volumes showed an increase of approximately 2.010 between July 2020 and February 2020. A comparison of July 2019 and July 2020 traffic volumes showed a total decrease of 10.94/ due to COVID. Since the WCR 35 and SH 392 intersection volumes were collected in early August (close to July), the lower 2020 counts are partially offset by the higher summer counts resulting in a net difference of approximately 6% to 9%. This difference was determined to be marginal given that traffic volumes often vary by 5% from day to day. Given this marginal difference, an adjustment vvas not made to the counts for the studied intersection. wzu L. r.z.r‘. Summai Amditional and Adjustment, Page ,DOT -Rea o August 2020 4 s �9lAta y 397 signal Warrant Study State Highway 392/VCR 35 4 WARRANT DISCUSSION A traffic control signal warrant analysis uses the nine warrant studies outlined in the MUTCD to help determine the need for a signal at a given intersection. The following is the list of warrants found in the MUTCD: ® Warrant 1— Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume ® Warrant 2 — Four -Hour Vehicular Volume ® Warrant 3 — Peak Hour ® Warrant 4 — Pedestrian Volume ® Warrant 5 — School Crossing ® Warrant 6 — Coordinated Signal System ® Warrant 7 — Crash Experience ® Warrant 8 — Roadway Network ® Warrant 9 — Intersection Near a Railroad Grade Crossing 4.1 Warrant 1 _ Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 1— Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume requires that volumes during certain times of the day exceed criteria outlined in the MUTCD. To analyze this warrant, the 70% volume level was used because the critical speed of the major street was greater than 40 mph. The warrant is considered satisfied if the Condition A or Condition B is 100% satisfied. The warrant is also considered satisfied if Condition A and Condition B are 80% satisfied. A review of the hourly volumes at this intersection shows that Condition A and Condition B are 80% satisfied for 13 hours. The traffic volumes were able to be 80% satisfied for Condition A and Condition B. Warrant 1— Eight Hour Vehicular Volume is satisfied. 10 gt 2020 State Highway 392/WCR 35 way 392 Signal arrant Study TRAFFIC City: Windsor SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY Engineer: AJL County: Weld County Date: August 11, 2020 Major Street: State Highway 392 Lanes: 1 Critical Approach Speed: 55 Minor Street: WCR 35 Lanes: 1 Volume Level Criteria 1. Is the critical speed of major street traffic > 70 km/h (40 mph) ? x Yes ❑ No 2. is the intersection in a built-up area of an isolated community of <10,000 population? x Yes ❑ No If Question 1 or 2 above is answered "Yes", then use "70%" volume level x 70% ❑ 100°/0 WARRANT 1 - EIGHT -HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Applicable: x Yes ■ No Warrant 1 is satisfied if Condition A or Condition B is "100%" satisfied. Satisfied: x Yes ❑ No Warrant is also satisfied if both Condition A and Condition B are "80%" satisfied. Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% Satisfied: ❑ Yes x No 80% Satisfied: x Yes ❑ No Eight Highest Hours (Minimum Requirements (volumes in veh/hr) (80%Shown in Brackets) � Q . � � cL � � � o_ r o✓ c � . Q � cL c ®.. E E,_ � � . Q < o - 0 0 Approach Lanes 1 2 or more o 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 CD 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 - Volume Level 100% 70% 100% 70% r` 06 Cn 6 4 th 6 ,` r74 N &- ; ed di � 7 (xi ;- Both Approaches on Major Street 350 (280) 757 730 724 638 586 541 491 477 Highest on Approach Minor Street 105 (84)�j�� 133 127 119 110 96 107 104 89 100% Satisfied? yes yes yes yes no yes no no 80% Satisfied? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Record 8 highest hours and the minimum volumes are met for corresponding eight hours . Condition volumes in boxes is 80% satisfied provided. Condition if parenthetical is volumes 100°I satisfied are if the met for eight hours. Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Applicable: x Yes ❑ No Condition B is intended for application where the traffic volume Excessive Delay/Conflict: x Yes ❑ No is so heavy that traffic on the minor street suffers excessive delay 100% Satisfied: ❑ Yes x No or conflict in entering or crossing major street. 80% Satisfied: x Yes ❑ No Eight Highest Hours Minimum Requirements in in Brackets) . , O c c_ � � ia < 0_ (volumes veh/hr) (80%Shown Q o_ r2 Q i2 u2 u2 Q Q® Approach Lanes 1 2 or more o O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O o O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 Volume Level 100% 70% 100% 70% c 60 6 6 4 Sri( -13 r~ � 00 di 7- N (:64 (*Ni Both Approaches on Major Street 525 (420) 757 730 724 638 586 541 491 477 Highest on Approach Minor Street 53 (42) 133 127 119 110 96 107 104 89 100% Satisfied? yes yes yes yes yes yes no no 80% Satisfied? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Record 8 highest hours and the corresponding volumes in boxes provided. Condition is 100% satisfied if the minimum volumes are met for eight hours . Condition is 80% satisfied if parenthetical volumes are met for eight hours. Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457 Page 11 r T -a egjon 4 Beata Highway 392 Signal Warrant study August 2020 State Highway 392/WCR 3 4.2 Warrant 2 — FoursHour Vehicular Volume Warrant 2 - Four -Hour Vehicular Volume requires that the volumes during certain times of the day exceed criteria laid out in the MUTCD. To analyze this warrant, the 70°1 volume level was used because the critical speed of the major street was greater than 40 mph and the surrounding community is less than 10,000 people. The line used is determined by the number of lanes in the approaching legs of the intersection. For this analysis, 1 Lane and 1 Lane was chosen. Based on the criteria for the 70% volume level, five (5) hours fall above the appropriate line, exceeding the four (4) hour threshold for warrant satisfaction. Warrant 2 — Four Hour Vehicular Volume is satisfied. vi UL natC SSI Page p 6t CDO on 4 Augu. 2020 State Hi 4a -v 9 Signal War M State Highway u S'Ludy C R 35 TRAFFIC City Windsor SIGNAL WARRANT Engineer: SUMMARY AJL County. Weld County Date: August 11, 2020 Major Street: State Highway 392 Lanes: 1 Critical Approach Speed: 55 Minor Street: WCR35 Lanes: 1 Volume Level Criteria 1. Is the critical speed of major street traffic > 70 km/h (40 mph) ? x Yes ❑ No 2. Is the intersection in a built-up area of isolated community of <10,000 population? x Yes ❑ No If Question 1 or 2 above is answered "Yes", then use "70%" volume level x 70% ❑ 100% WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME Applicable: x Yes ■ No If all four points lie above the appropriate line, then the warrant is satisfied. Satisfied: x Yes ❑ No Plot four volume combinations on the applicable figure FIGURE 4C-1: Criteria for "100%" Volume below. Level 700 = 600 a > 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES 500 F- < w0 w ce a 400 < ce 2 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE 300 z �J O > 1LANE &1LANE 200 O Four Volumes 100 ----H---115 Highest Major Minor *80 Hours Street Street o 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 757 133 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH 1300 1400 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM 730 127 " Note: 995 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume threshold for a mirror street approach more lanes and with one lane. 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 724 119 FIGURE 4C-2: Criteria for "70°/0" Volume Level 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 638 110 (community Less than 10,000 population or above 70 km/hr (40 mph) on Major Street) 400 r a. 2 OR MORE LANES &2 OR MORE LANES =300 W O CL CC F- o[�. 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE ¢ 200 � Ow z2 E c 1 LANE & 1 LANE J 0 `, - t;sri _ ` >100 rs• _ "60 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES - VPH "Note: Data points in blue indicate four hours with the highest volume. 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a rrrnor street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume threshold for a minor street approach with one lane. Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457 WARRANT DISrUSSION e J.a c+. a g o n 4 rest 2 State ' way 392 Signal Warrant Study State Highway 392 ,R 35 4.3 Warrant 3 — Peak Hour Warrant 3 - Peak Hour states, "The signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complex, or high -occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large number of vehicles over a short time." (MUTCD, Section 4C.04 - 02). The volume criteria necessary to meet this warrant was met, however this warrant was not applicable because the intersection did not meet the standard, in the MUTCD, of an unusual case. Warrant 3 - Peak Hour is not applicable. 4.4 Warrant 4 — Pedestrian Volume Warrant 4 - Pedestrian Volume requires that Criteria 1 or Criteria 2 be fulfilled and that Criteria 3 be fulfilled. Due to the low very low pedestrian volume at this intersection, Criteria 1 and Criteria 2 were not fulfilled. Criteria 3 is the only part of the warrant that was fulfilled at this location. The nearest signal is located at SH 392 and US 85 is approximately 1.85 miles east of the intersection. This warrant is not satisfied. 4.5 Warrant 5 — School Crossing Warrant 5 — School Crossing was not applicable because this intersection is not an established school crossing. 4.6 Warrant 6 — coordinated Signal System Warrant 6 — Coordinated Signal System was not applicable because there are no coordinated adjacent signal systems that would encourage vehicle platooning for the purpose of coordinated traffic flow. 4.7 Warrant 7 — Crash Experience Warrant 7 - Crash Experience requires three criteria be met for the warrant to be satisfied. The data that was used to do the Crash Experience Warrant was provided by CDOT. Between the five-year period of July 1, 2014 and June 31, 2019 there were ten (10) reported broadside crashes (five within a 12 -month period). Criteria A states that adequate trial of other remedial measure has failed to reduce the crash frequency. However, based on engineering judgement, there are no other cost-effective remedial measures to address the observed crash pattern; Therefore, the other remedial measures have failed by default, Criteria B and Criteria C were also met. Based on the MUTCD warrant criteria, this warrant is satisfied. tikt- AN DISCUSSION Pa} 14 CDOrnR o August 2020 t o lfw'6.:.J Highway �,�''�y'� 392 Signal a Warrant '�j }'Q �yYlw�y. d �Y erari•La t f J j�.,`'° a 392/WCR C 5i 4 a City: County: Major Street: Minor Street: TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY Windsor Weld County Engineer: Date: AJ L August 11, 2020 State Highway 392 Lanes: 1 Critical Approach Speed: 55 WCR 35 Lanes: 1 WARRANT 7 - CRASH EXPERIENCE Applicable: p Yes ❑ No Record hours where criteria are fulfilled, the corresponding volume, and other Satisfied: ❑ Yes in No information in the boxes provided. The warrant is satisfied if all three of the criteria are fulfilled. Criteria Hour Volume Met? Fulfilled? Yes No Yes No 1. One of the w arrants to the right is met. Warrant 1, Condition A (80% satisfied) x ❑ Warrant 1, Condition B (80% satisfied) x ❑ Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume at 80% of volurre requirements: 80 ped/hr for four (4) hours or 152 ped/hr for one (1) hour N/A 0 x ❑ ❑ x 2. Adequate trial of other remedial measure has failed to reduce crash frequency. Measure tried: No Adequate Measures ❑ X 3. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by signal; have occurred w ithin a 12-mo. period. Number of crashes per 12 months: 5 ❑ x 4 m Warrant Roadway Network Warrant 8 -Roadway Network states a traffic control signal might be justified to encourage organization of traffic flow. It also states that both the major and minor streets must be considered as "major routes". WCR 35 is not considered a major route or regional highway. Criteria 1-b requires that one or more future projection warrants 1,2, or 3 must be met. Five-year future traffic volumes are provided in Table 5. Based on the criteria needed to satisfy this warrant, the intersection does carry enough volume to warrant a signal, but WCR 35 is not a major route; therefore, Warrant 8 is not satisfied. '; m u irrLER "ARRANT DISCUSSION Page 15 t � g w C ��yax� � on August 2020 State Highway 392/WCR 35 Highway 392 Signal Warrant Study Table 5 - Five -Year Future Traffic Volumes Start Time Major Street Highest Approach Minor Street EB & WB 6:00 AM 671 116 7:00 AM 796 140 8:00 AM 517 109 9:00 AM 458 117 10:00 AM 460 122 11:00 AM 502 94 12:00 PM 464 103 1:00 PM 505 90 2:00 PM 569 113 3:00 PM 616 101 4:00 PM 762 125 5:00 PM 768 134 6:00 PM 447 96 4.9 Warrant 9 � Intersection Near a Railroad Grade Crossing Warrant 9 —Intersection Near a Grade Crossing is not applicable because this intersection is not located near a railroad grade crossing. 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the MUTCD warrant analysis of SH 392 and WCR 35 intersection, this study determined that a traffic signal is warranted for the current intersection configuration. This intersection meets three of nine warrants outlined in the MUTCD for signalization. Warrants met include: ® Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume ® Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume ® Warrant 7, Crash Experience Therefore, a traffic signal is warranted at the SH 392/WCR 35 intersection. " uu FR SUMMARY Ark RECOMMENDATIGNS ≥ C 'n4> nr y>A DT R- on Atigu. 2020 Highway 392 I I Warrantturfy State Highway 9 /INC Appendix A Traffic Count Data UMULLER ALL TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Peak Hour - All Vehicles SH392 (234) 127 .0.88 56 (129) NJ CN CO O (559) l (542) 13 338 1., 0 � L 411323 N 298 0.86 10 W 0.88 E 0.82 398 � 376 ..� S j_ 12 �.► 423 12 r 0 WCR35 Location: 1 WCR35 & SH392 AM Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 Peak Hour: 07:00 AM - 08:00 AM Peak 1.5 -Minutes: 07:30 AM - 07:45 AM (674) in i t r (694) WCR35 O N ICJ NO SH392 (183) 86 0.86 55 (115) Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Traffic Counts Interval Start Time Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk 1 i N W (\VOE o �0 S s 0 1 i SH392 SH392 WCR35 WCR35 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Rolling Pedestrian Crossings U -Turn Left Thru Right U -Turn Left Thru Right U -Turn Left Thru Right U -Turn Left Thru Right Total Hour West East South North 7`45 AM 8 231 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 8:30 AM 8:45 AM Count Total 0 5 59 0 4 53 0 5 68 0 6 66 0 30 622 2 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 3 47 3 50 1 6 49 5 9 39 4 3 22 0 33 483 26 Peak Hour 0 10 376 12 0 12 298 13 0 3 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 12 0 2 13 14 5 8 2 0 2 0 4 0 2 0 3 15 3 15 4 19 5 17 10 155 662 0 0 0 6 153 0 0 0 5 177 0 0 0 5 167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 30 0 42 128 64 1,565 0 0 0 0 33 20 0 27 62 38 903 0 0 0 0 VVCR35 ALL TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES (303) 216-2439 www.alltrafficdata.net Peak Hour - All Vehicles (178) 98 SH392 (777) 469 44 53 wij 310 mop 375 im•0 12 186 (352) WeR35 N O •-• --J O O «J 1 lili 0 .DL 36 S 400' 429 .a 09 36 � 0 � 343 Location: 1 WCR35 & SH392 PM Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2020 Peak Hour: 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM Peak 15 -Minutes: 05:00 PM - 05:15 PM (838) 4m0 501 (695) 7 nit r�► (623) a -W �D ,. CSH392 I N N 1 t (217) 108 0.87;; 132 (258) Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Traffic Counts Interval Start Time SH392 Eastbound Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk SH392 WCR35 Westbound Northbound N t to 0 lo W k epg o 0 0 i 0 1 4—o o— n WCR35 Southbound Rolling Pedestrian Crossings U-Tum Left Thru Right U -Turn Left Thru Right U -Turn Left Thru Right U-Tum Left Thru Right Total Hour West East South North 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 1 6 0 1 24 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 0 11 61 13 0 11 66 7 0 16 57 0 15 61 0 11 81 10 0 11 64 8 0 1 0 9 82 6 44 5 0 1 27 6 0 0 11 3 180 0 4 15 5 0 9 18 10 0 4 11 14 240 991 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 3 218 1,047 0 6 0 1 20 2 225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Count Total 0 106 555 34 0 73 700 65 0 28 181 49 0 19 110 49 1,069 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 53 310 12 0 36 429 36 0 13 97 22 0 11 60 27 1;106 0 0 0 0 All Traffic Data Services www.alltrafficdata.net Page 1 Date Start: 05 -Aug -20 SH392 E.O. WCR35 Site Code: 3 Station ID: Start Time 05 -Aug -20 Wed EB WB Total 12:00 AM 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 PM 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 17 17 14 21 61 205 333 20 18 19 18 36 129 305 422 335 273 219 201 261 218 222 263 261 309 295 205 135 100 59 41 34 218 216 236 216 223 258 278 325 415 220 118 94 52 36 23 37 35 33 39 97 334 638 757 491 435 437 477 441 480 541 586 724 730 425 253 194 111 77 57 Total Percent 4186 49.7% 4243 50.3% 8429 AM Peak Vol. PM Peak Vol. 07:00 422 16:00 309 07:00 335 17:00 435 07:00 757 17:00 730 All Traffic Data services www.alltrafficdata.net Page 2 Date Start: 05 -Aug -20 SH392 E.O. WCR35 Site Code: 3 Station ID: Start 06 -Aug -20 Time Thu 12:00 AM 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 PM 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 EB WB Total 16 20 11 18 13 13 21 21 59 29 197 133 330 289 399 305 269 230 227 188 180 227 113 201 120 228 121 230 173 264 281 331 301 318 410 406 218 211 140 103 90 92 61 71 35 36 31 24 36 29 26 42 88 330 619 704 499 415 407 314 348 351 437 612 711 724 429 243 182 132 71 55 Total Percent 3724 4080 47.7% 52.3% 7804 AM Peak Vol. PM Peak Vol. 07:00 07:00 399 305 17:00 16:00 318 410 WM m. OM 07:00 704 17:00 724 Grand Total Percent ADT 7910 8323 48.7% 51.3% ADT 8,116 AADT 8,116 16233 All Traffic Data Services www.alltrafficdata.net Page 1 Date Start: 05 -Aug -20 WCR35 N.O. SH392 Site Code: 4 Station ID: Start 05 -Aug -20 Time Wed NB SB Total 12:00 AM 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 PM 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 9 4 4 3 5 1 1 6 8 15 13 56 47 110 56 76 104 78 111 124 116 104 89 103 98 93 86 130 105 129 90 159 98 199 84 127 78 68 59 54 50 33 21 25 8 11 0 133 13 7 6 7 23 69 157 189 180 189 240 193 201 179 235 219 257 283 205 127 104 54 33 11 Total Percent 1656 1525 52.1% 47.9% 3181 AM Peak Vol. PM Peak Vol. 10:00 07:00 124 133 17:00 14:00 199 105 MIN MEI 10:00 240 17:00 283 All Traffic Data Services www.alltrafficdata.net Page 2 Date Start: 05 -Aug -20 WCR35 N.O. SH392 Site Code: 4 Station ID: Start 06 -Aug -20 Time Thu 12:00 AM 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 PM 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 NB S B Total 1 0 5 0 3 1 2 6 4 8 13 51 32 98 42 132 68 114 74 103 87 126 84 87 104 85 97 91 164 84 178 86 243 100 287 86 174 77 111 83 65 38 60 26 10 8 6 5 1 5 4 8 12 64 130 174 182 177 2'13 171 189 188 248 264 343 373 251 194 103 86 18 11 Total Percent 1914 1495 56.1% 43.9% 3409 AM Peak Vol. PM Peak Vol. Grand Total Percent ADT 10:00 07:00 87 132 17:00 16:00 287 100 3570 3020 54.2`)/0 45.8% ADT 3,295 AADT 3,295 10:00 213 17:00 373 6590 All Traffic Data Services WWW.aI Itrafficdata. net Page 1 Date Start: 05 -Aug -20 WCR35 S.O. SH392 Site Code: 2 Station ID: Start 05 -Aug -20 Time Wed NB SB Total 12:00 AM 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 PM 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 3 1 2 3 4 24 48 55 62 52 76 89 97 83 107 96 119 2 1 1 4 9 15 56 85 99 80 80 77 92 103 89 110 114 91 55 53 33 17 4 84 55 43 19 15 2 5 2 3 7 13 39 104 140 161 132 200 169 174 175 210 185 229 175 110 96 52 32 6 Total Percent 1301 48.9% 1359 51.1% 2660 AM Peak Vol. PM Peak Vol. 11:00 10:00 89 124 17:00 17:00 127 114 MEM 10:00 200 17:00 241 All Traffic Data Services www.alltrafficdataonet Page 2 Date Start: 05 -Aug -20 WCR35 S.O. SH392 Site Code: 2 Station ID: Start 06 -Aug -20 Time Thu 12:00 AM 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 PM 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 NB S B Total 4 1 2 1 1 1 5 3 5 2 17 18 59 54 48 100 53 73 85 75 103 88 68 109 86 66 77 104 79 82 90 138 12'1 113 102 81 71 72 74 44 34 35 27 8 9 6 7 109 Total Percent 1288 49.3% 1322 50.7% 5 3 2 8 7 35 113 148 162 158 178 156 195 143 183 172 259 215 152 146 78 62 17 13 2610 AM Peak Vol. PM Peak Vol. 11:00 08:00 88 109 16:00 16:00 138 121 Grand Total Percent ADT 2589 2681 49.1% 50.9% ADT 2,635 AADT 2,635 10:00 178 16:00 259 5270 COG,f Re, August 2`x.32O Highway 392 Signal 'tea Stag 9gb may 392/W R 3 Appendix B Crash Data MUL L ER system h ivy sec mp Year date time severity serial agencyname report_id location road_desc vehicles contour condition lighting weather limit' limit2 lirnit3 ramp region rucode event 1 eve nt_2 even - LS she acctype dir_1 vehicle__1 M MgCuo1W nw. .. STATE HIGHWAY STATE HIGHWAY STATE HIGHWAY STATE HIGHWAY INJ CSP 3A-16-0245 ON 392 392 B 113.58 113.58 2 4 2/5/2016 11/8/2017 1511 1940 PDO PDO 16504003 105358 CSP WLDSO 3A-17-2242 18W20078 ON ON 392 B B 113.58 4 6/1/2018 1330 INJ 176729 392 113.58 5 9/8/2018 1517 W LDSO 18W034590 ON 16552 AT INTERSECTION AT INTERSECTION AT INTERSECTION AT INTERSECTION STRAIGHT ON - LEVEL DRY DAYLIGHT NONE UK N RURAL BROADSIDE BROADSIDE BROADSIDE N PASSENGER CAR/VA N 2 2 STRAIGHT ON - LEVEL DRY DARK -UNLIGHTED NONE 55 55 UK N 4 RURAL BROADSIDE BROADSIDE BROADSIDE S SUV STRAIGHT ON - LEVEL DRY DAYLIGHT NONE 55 UK 55 UK N 4 RURAL BROADSIDE BROADSIDE BROADSIDE N PICKUP TRUCK/UTILITY VAN 2 CURVE ON -LEVEL DRY DAYLIGHT NONE 55 UK N 4 RURAL BROADSIDE BROADSIDE BROADSIDE N PASSENGER CAR/VA N 2 55 55 4 driver 1 factor_1 speed_1 ve h move 1 age_1 sex 1 state_1 belt_1 dir 2 vehicle_2 driver 2 factor_2 speed_2 ve h move 2 age_2 sex_2 state_2 belt_2 dir 3 vehicle_3 d rive r_3 factor_3 speed_3 ve h_m ove_3 age_3 sex 3 state_3 belt 3 wa n_type loc_01 link M CO Y N O IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR MAKING LEFT TURN F CO Y E PICKUP TRUCK/UTILITY VAN NO IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED NO APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR 5 N O IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR 10 N O IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED UNKNOWN MAKING LEFT GOING STRAIGHT TURN 18 63 M M CO CO Y Y W W PASSENGER CAR/VAN N O IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR 55 8 MAKING LEFT GOING STRAIGHT TURN 41 M WY Y 5 75 SUV N O IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N O IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR MAKING LEFT TURN 45 17 F CO Y W TRUCK GVW > 10K/BUSSES > 15 PEOPLE NO IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED DRIVER INEXPERIENCE 50 GOING STRAIGHT GOING STRAIGHT 41 F CO Y NO IMPAIRMENT NO IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED SUSPECTED HWY 392 AT 0 NO APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR HWY 392 AT 18 M CO Y 5 23 NO IMPAIRMENT NO IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR HWY 392 AT NO APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR HWY 392 AT 0 loc_02 hazmat_1 hazmat_2 hazmat_3 violcode 1 violcode_2 violcode_3 cycprot_1 cycprot_2 cycprot_3 drvinj_1 d ry i n j_2 d ruin j_3 dui�1 dui 2 d u i_3 city county latitude longitude injlevel_1 injlevel_2 injlevel_3 injlevel_4 injlevel_5 CR 35 NO NO NO CR 35 NO NO NO FAIL YIELD ROW FAIL YIELD ROW AT STOP SIGN AT STOP SIGN N ONE N ONE DROVE WITHOUT VALID DR LICENSE N ONE N ONE N O INJURY POSSIBLE/COMPL AINTOFINJURY NO INJURY N N N N N N CR 35 N O N O N O N ONE NONE N O INJURY N O INJURY N N N WCR 35 N O N O N O FAIL YIELD ROW AT STOP SIGN N ONE NONE N O INJURY N O INJURY N N N WELD WELD WELD WELD 40.481102 -104.734916 1 1 0 0 0 40.481102 -104.734916 5 0 0 0 0 40.481102 -104.734916 2 0 0 0 0 40.481102 -104.734916 2 1 0 0 0 system hWy sec mp Year date time severity serial agencyname report_id location road_desc vehicles contour condition weather limit1 limit2 limit3 ramp region rucode event 1 eve nt_2 eve nt_3 mhe acctype dir_1 vehicle 1 STATE HIGHWAY STATE HIGHWAY STATE HIGHWAY STATE HIGHWAY 392 113.58 5 9/20/2018 1745 392 392 B B 113.58 113.58 5 5 10/21/2018 0/17/2019 1050 2053 PDO FAT 20120 WLDSO CSP 18W036323 3A182080 ON ON B 392 113.58 1 1/7/2015 0752 PDO PDO 251708 292443 15001850 CSP WLDSO 3A191018 15W000705 ON ON AT INTERSECTION AT INTERSECTION AT INTERSECTION AT INTERSECTION STRAIGHT ON - LEVEL DRY DAYLIGHT NONE UK N RURAL BROADSIDE BROADSIDE BROADSIDE S PASSENGER CAR/VA N 2 STRAIGHT ON - LEVEL DRY DAYLIGHT NONE 55 55 UK N 4 RURAL BROADSIDE BROADSIDE 2 STRAIGHT ON - LEVEL WET DAWN OR DUSK RAIN 55 55 UK N 4 RURAL BROADSIDE N TRUCK GVW > 10K/BUSSES > 15 PEOPLE BROADSIDE BROADSIDE BROADSIDE S PICKUP TRUCK/UTILITY VAN 2 STRAIGHT ON - LEVEL ICY DAYLIGHT 2 SNOW/SLEET/HAIL 45 55 65 55 UK N 4 4 RURAL REAR -END REAR -END REAR -END W PASSENGER CAR/VAN driver_1 factor_1 speed_1 ve h_m ove_1 age_1 sex 1 state_1 belt 1 dir 2 vehicle_2 driver 2 f actor_2 speed_2 ve h move 2 age_2 sex_2 state_2 belt_2 dir_3 vehicle_3 driver_3 factor_3 speed_3 ve h_m ove_3 age_3 sex 3 state_3 belt_3 Wan_type loc_01 link M CO Y W PASSENGER CAR/VAN N O IMPAIRMENT NO IMPAIRMENT NO IMPAIRMENT NO IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED DRIVER EMOTIONALLY UPSET 5 SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR MAKING LEFT GOING STRAIGHT TURN 20 M CO Y E TRUCK GVW > 10K/BUSSES > 15 PASSENGER PEOPLE CAR/VAN 10 SUSPECTED NO APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR 5 25 GOING STRAIGHT GOING STRAIGHT 23 42 24 M CO N W M CO Y W SUV N O IMPAIRMENT NO IMPAIRMENT NO IMPAIRMENT NO IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED NO APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR SUSPECTED NO APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR 45 55 65 10 GOING STRAIGHT GOING STRAIGHT GOING STRAIGHT SLOWING M CO Y 24 59 M CO Y NO IMPAIRMENT NO IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR HWY 392 AT 0 N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR HWY 392 AT F CO Y 20 29 F CO Y NO IMPAIRMENT NO IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED SUSPECTED NO APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR HWY 392 AT N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR HWY 392 AT 0 loc_02 hazmat_1 hazmat hazmat_3` drvinj_2 drvinj dui_1 dui. 2... dui 3 City. toumy latitude 10n i�u 8, injleve injlevel_2 ihjievel 3 ipjlevel injlevel WCR 35 N O N O N O N ONE N ONE N O INJURY N O INJURY N N N CR 35 NO NO NO NONE NONE NO INJURY FATAL N N N CR 35 N O N O NO WELD CR 35 N O N O N O FAIL YIELD ROW TOO FAST FOR AT STOP SIGN CONDITIONS N ONE N ONE N O INJURY N O INJURY N N N WELD WELD WELD 40.481102 104.734916 3 0 0 0 0 40.481102 -104.734916 1 0 0 0 1 N ONE NONE N O INJURY N O INJURY N N N WELD 0 40.481102 0 -104.734954 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 system hWy sec mp Year date time severity serial agencyname report_id location road_desc vehicles contour condition lighting Iimit2 limit3 ramp region rucode a cctype dir_1 STATE HIGHWAY STATE HIGHWAY STATE HIGHWAY STATE HIGHWAY 392 392 392 392 B B B B PDO 113.58 2 7/23/2015 1654 INJ 15519040 CSP 3A-15-1518 ON AT INTERSECTION 2 STRAIGHT ON - LEVEL DRY 113.58 3 2/13/2017 1300 INJ 2467 CSP 3A-17-0281 ON AT INTERSECTION STRAIGHT ON - LEVEL DRY DAYLIGHT DAYLIGHT NONE UK N RURAL NONE 55 40 UK N 4 RURAL SIDESWIPE (SAME DIRECTION) UNKNOWN SIDESWIPE (SAME DIRECTION) UNKNOWN 2 113.58 113.60 5 3 4/26/2019 9/27/2016 1615 0723 PDO 277866 16535151 CSP CSP 3A190691 3A-16-1913 ON ON INTERSECTION AT INTERSECTION RELATED STRAIGHT ON - LEVEL DRY DAYLIGHT NONE 55 55 UK N 4 RURAL UNKNOWN OVERTURNING FENCE BROADSIDE S PICKUP TRUCK/UTILITY VAN BROADSIDE S PICKUP TRUCK/UTILITY VAN UNKNOWN BROADSIDE S PICKUP TRUCK/UTILITY VAN 2 STRAIGHT ON - LEVEL DRY DAWN OR DUSK NONE 55 55 UK N 4 RURAL 2 55 55 4 SIDESWIPE (SAME DIRECTION) SIDESWIPE (SAME DIRECTION) SIDESWIPE (SAME DIRECTION) W PICKUP TRUCK/UTILITY VAN driver_1 factor_1 speed_1 ve h move 1 age_1 sex_1 state_1 belt_1 dir 2 vehicle_2 driver 2 factor_2 speed_2 ve h_m ove_2 age_2 sex 2 state_2 belt 2 dir_3 vehicle 3 driver_3 factor_3 speed_3 ve h_m ove_3 age_3 sex 3 state_3 be It_3 wa n_type I o c_O1 link N O IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR 10 N O IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR 10 N O IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR N O IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED UNKNOWN 10 GOING STRAIGHT GOING STRAIGHT GOING STRAIGHT WEAVING 25 F CO Y W SUV NO IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED NO APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR MAKING LEFT TURN M CO Y M CO Y E 83 60 M CO Y W PASSENGER CAR/VAN N O IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR PASSENGER CAR/VA N NO IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED NO APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR 53 32 M AZ Y W PICKUP TRUCK/UTILITY VAN N O IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR 20 55 55 10 MAKING RIGHT GOING STRAIGHT GOING STRAIGHT TURN 17 M CO Y 33 M CO Y NO IMPAIRMENT NO IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR HWY 392 AT 0 NO APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR HWY 392 AT 19 M CO Y 56 NO IMPAIRMENT NO IMPAIRMENT SUSPECTED SUSPECTED N O APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR CR 35 AT NO APPARENT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR HWY 392 99999FE 0 loc_02 hazmat_1 hazmat_2 hazmat_3 violcode_1 violcode_2 violcode_3 cycprot_1 cycprot_2 cycprot_3 d rvi n j_1 d ry i n j_2 drvinj_3 dui__1 dui_2 dui_3 city county latitude longitude injlevel_1 injlevel_2 injlevel_3 injlevel_4 injlevel_5 CR 35 N O N O N O CARELESS DRIVING N ONE N ONE N O INJURY NO INJURY N N N CR 35 N O N O NO CARELESS DRIVING CAUSE INJURY N ONE N ONE POSSIBLE/COMPL AINTOFINJURY N ON - INCAPACITATING INJURY HWY 392 N O N O N O CARELESS DRIVING CAUSE INJURY N ONE N ONE N O INJURY N O INJURY WELD WELD WELD 40.481102 104.734954 2 0 0 0 0 40.481102 -104.734916 0 1 1 0 0 CR 35 N O N O NO CARELESS DRIVING N ONE N ONE NO INJURY N O INJURY N N N WELD 0 40.481103 0 -104.734571 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 CDOT-Region August 2020 e wa% X92 Signal Warrant Study Beata if ai) "92[WCR 35 Appendix C Future Warrants "DOT -Region August 21120 Highway 392 Signal Warrant Study State Highway 392/WCR 35 Major Minor TRAFFIC City. Windsor SIGNAL WARRANT Engineer: Date: Lanes: Lanes: SUMMARY AJL County. Weld County August 11, 2020 Street: State Highway 392 1 Critical Approach Speed: 55 Street: WCR 35 1 Volume Level Criteria of major street traffic > 70 km/h a built-up area of an isolated is answered "Yes", then use (40 mph) ? community of<10,000 "70%" volume level ❑x Yes ❑ No population? ❑x Yes ❑ No ❑x 70% ❑ 100% 1. Is the critical speed 2. Is the intersection in If Question 1 or 2 above WARRANT 1 - EIGHT -HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME (FUTURE} Applicable: ❑x Yes ❑ No Satisfied: ❑x Yes ❑ No Satisfied: ❑ Yes ❑x No 80% Satisfied: El Yes ❑ No Warrant 1 is satisfied if Condition Warrant is also satisfied if Condition A - Minimum A or Condition B is "100%" both Condition A and Condition Vehicular Volume satisfied. B are "80%" satisfied. 100% (volumes in veh/hr) Minimum Requirements (80%Shown in Brackets) Eight Highest Hours g ¢¢ � E o � 0 c_ o r a¢¢ i , , o l 0 z 0 � 0¢¢ ¢ 0- Approach Lanes 1 2 or more o a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Level 100% 70% 100% 70% r:: co o u; o co o v o iii o 6 o r; O c; o v O c;; 0 ci 0 co O m esi Both Approaches on Major Street 350 (280) 796 768 762 671 617 569 517 502 Highest Approach on Minor Street 105 (84) 140 134 125 116 101 113 109 94 Record 8 highest hours minimum volumes are Condition B - Interruption Condition B is intended is so heavy that traffic or conflict in entering or 100% Satisfied? yes yes yes yes no yes yes no 80% Satisfied? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes and the corresponding volumes met for eight hours. Condition of Continuous Traffic for application where the traffic on the minor street suffers excessive crossing major street. in boxes provided. is 80% satisfied if parenthetical volume Excessive delay 100% 80% Condition is 100% satisfied if the volumes are met for eight hours. Applicable: px Yes ❑ No Delay/Conflict: ❑x Yes ❑ No Satisfied: ❑ Yes 0 No Satisfied: px Yes ❑ No (volumes in veh/hr) Minimum Requirements (80%Shown in Brackets) Eight Highest Hours ci ¢ . ¢ � o_ � n. , a , o_ .i.i ¢ ¢ o_ , o_ R o_ , o_ ,i ¢ . ¢ Q �a Approach Lanes 1 2 or more 0 0 r:: 0 0 co 0 0 6 0 0 u; 0 0 v 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 n 0 0 c:;4 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 M 0 0 co 0 0 6 o 0 � 0 0 � ' Volume Level 100% 70% 100% 70% Bath Approaches on Major Street 525 (420) 796 768 762 671 617 569 517 502 Highest Approach on Minor Street 53 (42) 140 134 125 116 101 113 109 94 100% Satisfied? yes yes yes yes yes yes no no 80% Satisfied? yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Record 8 highest hours minimum volumes are and the corresponding volumes met for eight hours. Condition in boxes provided. Condition is 80% satisfied if parenthetical is 100% satisfied if the volumes are met for eight hours. Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457 UMULLER CDOT-Region d August 2020 State Highway 392 Signal Warrant Study State Highway 392/WCR 35 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY City: Windsor Engineer: AJL County. Weld County Date: August 11, 2020 Major Street: State Highway 392 Lanes: 1 Critical Approach Speed: 55 Minor Street: WCR 35 Lanes: 1 Volume Level Criteria 1. Is the critical speed of major street traffic > 70 km/h (40 mph)? ❑x Yes ❑ No 2. Is the intersection in a built-up area of isolated community of<10,000 population? ❑x Yes ❑ No If Question 1 or 2 above is answered "Yes", then use "70%" volume level ❑x 70°/0 ❑ 100% WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME (FUTURE) Applicable: O Yes ❑ No If all four points lie above the appropriate line, then the warrant is satisfied. Satisfied: ❑x Yes ❑ No Plot four volume combinations on the applicable figure below FIGURE 4C-1: Criteria for "100%" Volume Level 700 = 600 I. 2 OR MORE LANES 82 OR MORE LANES = 500 w0 F as 400 sil 2 OR MORE LANES 81 LANE i 300 oOiii > 1 LANE 8 t LANE 200 S = Four Volumes 100IIIII •„5 Highest Major Minor eo Hours Street Street - 0 400 700 1000 7:00AM- 8:00 AM 796 140 300 500 600 800 900 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -VPH 4:00 PM- 5:00 PM 768 134 'Note: 115 vph applies as the lower ttresholdvolumefor aminor street approach with two ormore lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volune threshold for a minor street approach with one lane. 7:00 AM - 8:00 AM 762 125 FIGURE 4C-2: Criteria for "70%" Volume Level 3:00 PM - :00 4PM 671 116 (Community Less than 10,000 population or above 70 kmltr (40 mph) on Major Strec.) - 400 a ?� ' 2 OR MORE LANES 82 02 MORE LANES = 300 WO In i 20R MORE LANES 81 LANE a 200 o la z 33 O >100 • 4, . _ '80 0 = 1 LANE 8 1 LANE '60 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -VPH ' Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or no re lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume threshold for a moor street approach with one lane. Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457 UMULLER CDOT-Reg;on 4 August 2020 State: S=gn,A Warrant Study � ghvvay 392/WCR 35 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT SUMMARY City: Windsor Engineer: AJL County: Weld County Date: August 11, 2020 Major Street: State Highway 392 Lanes: 1 Critical Approach Speed: 55 Minor Street: WCR35 Lanes: 1 Volume Level Criteria 1. Is the critical speed of major street traffic > 70 km/h (40 mph)? ❑x Yes ❑ No 2. Is the intersection in a built-up area of isolated community of<10,000 population? O Yes ❑ No If Question 1 or 2 above is answered 'Yes", then use "70`)/0" volume level ❑x 70% ❑ 100% WARRANT 3 - PEAK HOUR (FUTURE) Applicable: ❑ Yes ❑x No If all three criteria are fulfilled or the plotted point lies above the appropriate line, Satisfied: ❑O Yes ❑ No then the warrant is satisfied. Plot volume combination on the applicable figure below. Unusual condition justifying use of warrant: FIGURE 4C-3: Criteria for "100%" Volume Level 600 N/A 2 OR MORE LANES 82 OR MORE 500 L.-11-'.."' = a Record hour when criteria are fulfilled 400 F xIxI and the corresponding delay or volume W o a•i in boxes provided. r $ 300 2 O MORE LANE581 LME w 2 s Peak Hour 2 1 LANE 8 1 LANE 7:00 AM J 796 j 140 x 200 x • x 100 so Criteria 00 1. Delay on Minor Approach pp '(vehicle -hours) ° 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 14°0 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -VPH Approach Lanes 2 1 Delay Criteria* 5.0 4.0 •Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and Delay* N/A N/A 110 vph applies as the lower threshold volume threshold for a ninor street approach with one lane. Fulfilled?: ❑ Yes xp No "70% FIGURE 4C-4: Criteria for Volume Level (Community Less than O,000population orabove 70km/IT(40mph on Major 500 2. Volume on Minor '(vehicles per Approach hour) 2 O MORE LANES 62 OR MORE Approach Lanes 2 1 j- 400 Volume Criteria 150 100 W U \\N 2 OR MORE LANES 81 LANE Volume* N/A 140 a 300 F Fulfilled?: ❑x Yes El No a 2 w 1 LANE 8 1 LANE 2 E3200 g "..s.".."--...„,_„.._. / 3. Total Entering Volume u = 100 00 *(vehicles per hour) ` No. of Approaches 4 53 7s Volume Criteria* 800 650 0 Volume* 936 N/A 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 Fulfilled?: ❑x Yes ❑ NO MAJOR STREET- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -VPH • Note: 170 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume ttreshold for a minor street approach with one lane. Source: Revised from NCHRP Report 457 UMULLER APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) GRANT .4' ATTEST: Weld Cou BY: Clerk to the B BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Deputy Cler • the :oard� Y�Steve Moreno, Chair docV-0;76 Hello