The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20200419.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 29th day of January, A.D., 2020. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: ditifm) • eit4;ve Weld County Clerk to the Board BY: AP County Attorney Date of signature: 9I /30/20 Mike Freeman, Chair Steve Moreno, Pro -Tern EXCU D am Barbara Kirkmeyer cc, PW(CP!e.RlcH13M), O.GT C(3G 1063 Coy.( Est) O I /30/2O 2020-0419 EG0078 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PASS -AROUND REVIEW PASS -AROUND TITLE: Weld County 2020 HSIP Application DEPARTMENT: Public Works DATE: January 28, 2020 PERSON REQUESTING: Elizabeth Relford Brief description of the problem/issue: This HSIP application is requesting a grant for installation of a traffic signal at SH 392 & WCR 47. Based on the citizen comments, Public Works feels this application will be very competitive and because it's on the state system, CDOT has to cover the local match requirement. There is not a cost to the county to submit this application and we hope it will advance their construction timeline of 2045, since the project meets signal warrants. The signal cost is estimated to be $600,000. What options exist for the Board? (include consequences, impacts, costs, etc. of options): 1. Place on January 29th BOCC agenda. 2. Request a work session. Recommendation: Approve to put on the January 29, 2020 BOCC agenda. Sean P. Conway Mike Freeman, Chair Scott K. James Barbara Kirkmeyer Steve Moreno, Pro -Tern 9-9 Approve Recommendation via eaat Schedule Work Session Other/Comments: 0.2 A,2O - b `/-1 067 Karla Ford From: Sent: To: Subject: Ok with me. Sean Sent from my iPhone Sean Conway Wednesday, January 29, 2020 2:39 AM Karla Ford Re: Please Reply: Weld County - WCR 47-SH 392 HSIP Application > On Jan 29, 2020, at 5:28 AM, Karla Ford <kford@weldgov.com> wrote: > > Do you approve putting this on the agenda? > > Karla Fordo > Office Manager, Board of Weld County Commissioners > 1150 O Street, P.O. Box 758, Greeley, Colorado 80632 > :: 970.336-7204 :: kford@weldgov.com :: www.weldgov.com :: > My working hours are Monday -Thursday 7:00a.m.-4:00 p.m. > Friday 7:00a.m. - Noon > > > > Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. > > > Original Message > From: Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com> > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:11 AM > To: Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>; Scott James <sjames@weldgov.com>; Steve Moreno <smoreno@weldgov.com>; Mike Freeman <mfreeman@weldgov.com> > Cc: Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com>; Karla Ford <kford@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Don Warden <dwarden@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <jmcdonald@weldgov.com>; Cameron H. Parrott <cparrott@weldgov.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com> > Subject: Emailing: Weld County - WCR 47-SH 392 HSIP Application > > Commissioners, > > I am asking for your assistance please. Public Works had received approval to send a pass around to you for approval to put the attached Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) on the BOCC agenda for approval to submit to CDOT. Unfortunately, it slipped through the cracks and was never forwarded to Karla. As a result, we are asking for your approval to add it to tomorrow's BOCC agenda because the application is due on Friday (January 31st). > > This HSIP application is requesting a grant for installation of a traffic signal at SH 392 & WCR 47. Based on the citizen comments, Public Works feels this application will be very competitive and because it's on the state system, CDOT has to 1 COLORADO Department of Transportation Office of the Chief Engineer COLORADO MOVING TOWARDS ZER• DtAm;3 Fe�era( Hi4hvvay Sdetv I ris ment Program (HSIP) Locii I iency ..App cation (submit applications to Regional Traffic Engineer) Requesting Agency: Weld County Submitted gym Cameron Parrott Titl{-'m Senior Engineer Email: cparrott@weldgovocom Phone: (970) 400-3745 Date: 01/15/20 (All fields required unless otherwise noted) 1) Location (Road Number, Street, Milepost, etc.): The intersection of State Highway 392 and Weld County Road 47 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): Weld County has crash data associated with the crash analysis program DiExSys. From this program we were able to pull the latest five years of crash data which consists of data starting on Jan. 1st, 2013 through Dec. 31st, 2017. This data showed that at this intersection there had been eight total crashes with five being property damage only and three involving injuries which included six injured parties. The DiExSys data is attached to this application for reference. Since the data available from DiExSys is a couple of years old, we researched and found that there have been five reported crashes between November 2018 and July 2019. This is a significant upward trend in the number of crashes at this intersection. These crashes included three property damage only crashes, one injury crash, and one fatal crash. The fatal crash occurred on May 2nd, 2019 during the day and included two fatalities. The crash occurred when a northbound left turning vehicle was broadsided by an eastbound traveling medium -duty truck. This crash is correctable by a traffic signal. One of the property damage only crashes also consisted of a northbound left turning vehicle being broadsided by an eastbound vehicle, which is also correctible by a signal. Information is not yet available about the other three crashes, so currently it is not possible to determine if any or all of them are correctible by a signal. Colorado Department of Transportation Traffic and Safety Engineering Branch https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/hsip COLORADO Department of Transportation Office of the Chef Engineer 3) Traffic volume counts (All directions/approaches, if available): MOVING TOWARDS ZERO UcAfrlc Roadway From To Approach Directin AADT Trucks Hwy 392 WCR 45 WCR 47 Eastbound 4,000 14.4 Hwy 392 WCR47 WCR 49 Westbound 4,000 14.4 WCR 47 WCR 66 Hwy 392 Northbound 4,282 60.0 WCR 47 Hwy 392 WCR 70 Southbound 552 34.0 4) Descripti'• n/Illustration of existing sdety cncern (Photos Recommended): This intersection meets warrants for a traffic signal according to the attached report completed by CDOT and their consultant in 2019. Within the past year, there have been 5 accidents, but we do not have access to those accident reports at this time. 5) DescriptiII/illustration of proposed improvement and the extent to which it addresses the crash prt•}blem: Installing a traffic signal at this intersection is anticipated to decrease the number and severity of accidents by up to 80%. 6) Amount of HSIP funding requested for proposed safety improvement (90% Federal portion only, not including state/local 10% match)`: $540,000 *CDOT will provide 10% match on projects located along state highway system. Local agencies 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): $600,000^ ^Benefit/Cost evaluation will be based off of this amount. 8) Planned c nstruction advertise date: July 1, 2022 9) Planned crnstr ctin c • mpletion date: March 31, 2023 Additional comments or notes regarding project •r funding: This location has been identified by CDOT as warranting a traffic signal per the attached report. The severe uptick in the number and severity of accidents at this intersection over the last two years drastically increases the need for this improvement. Colorado Department of Transportation Traffic and Safety Engineering Branch https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/hsip COLORADO Department of Transportation .sc. c$ the C.h(ef Engineer Colorado Department of Transpo tation 1Y COLORADO MOVING TOWARDS 2ER• D ATH3 egion & State Traffic Engineers Alazar Tesfaye - Region 1 Traffic Engineer 2829 W. Howard PI Denver, CO 80204 alazar.tesfaye()state. co. us (303) 512-4040 Jason Nelson - Region 2 Traffic Engineer 5615 Wills Blvd Pueblo, CO 81009 ason.nelson@state.co.us (719) 546-5411 Zane Znamenacek - Region 3 Traffic Engineer 222 S 6th St, Room 100 Grand Junction, CO 81501 zane.znamenacek@state.co.us (970) 683-6275 Katrina Kloberdanz - Region 4 Traffic Engineer 10601 W. 10th St Greeley, CO 80634 katrina.kloberdanzstate.co.us (970) 350-2211 Julie Constan - Region 5 Traffic Engineer 3803 Main Ave, Suite 100 Durango, CO 81301 ulie.constanstate.co.us (970) 385-1449 Charles Meyer - State Traffic Engineer 2829 W. Howard PI Denver, CO 80204 charles.e.meyer@state.co.us a@state.co.us (303) 757-9879 CDOT Regio oundary Colorado Department of Transportation Traffic and Safety Engineering Branch https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/hsip 1 Weld County D ExSys TM eraul S licKirsD oadway Safety;... mary fCr= h a l rent Systems s Re, rt 01/14/2020 Job #: 20200114113956 Location: Accident History for CR 47 and HVVY 392 From:01/01/2007 To:12/31/2018 Severity PDO: 13 INJ: 5 FAT: 0 Total: 18 8 :Injured 0 :Killed Number of Vehicles One Vehicle: Two Vehicles: Three or More: Unknown: 7 11 0 0 Total: 18 Location On Road: Off Road Left: Off Road Right: Off Road at Tee: Off in Median: Unknown: 11 4 2 1 0 0 Total: 18 Lighting Conditions Daylight: Dawn or Dusk: Dark - Lighted: Dark - Unlighted: Unknown: 13 1 0 3 1 Total: 18 Weather Conditions None: Rain: Snow/Sleet/Hail: Fog: Dust: Wind: Unknown: 12 2 2 0 0 2 0 Total: 18 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 4 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 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 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 1 0 0 1 0 Total: 18 — Mainline/Ramps/Frontage Roads Mainline: Crossroad (A): —Ramps B: C: D: E: 0 F: 0 G: 0 H: 0 I: 18 — Frontage/Ramp Intersections 0 M: 0 N: 0 O: 0 P: 0 J: 0 K: 0 T: 0 0 0 0 Left Frontage Rd (L): Rt Frontage Rd (R): HOV Lanes (V): Unknown: 0 0 0 0 Total: 18 Road Description At Intersection: At Driveway Access: Intersection Related: Non Intersection: In Alley: Roundabout: Ramp: Parking Lot: Unknown: 1 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 Total: 18 Road Conditions Dry: 9 Wet: 1 Muddy: 0 Snowy: 1 Icy: 5 Slushy: 1 Foreign Material: 0 With Road Treatment: 0 Dry w/icy Road Treatment: 0 Wet w/Icy Road Treatment: 0 Snowy w/Icy Road Treatment: 1 Icy w/Icy Road Treatment: 0 Slushy w/Icy Road Treatment: 0 Unknown: 0 Total: 18 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 PVC/ -20195577 W lC•'u t blicW r s eart peat 1 iExSysTm RoadRoadway a t ty Syst r s tailed Su mp°7 a of Cr nhes R 01/14/2020 Job #: 20200114113956 Location: Accident History for CR 47 and HWY 392 From:01/01/2007 To:12/31/2018 — Vehicle Type Veh Passenger Car/Van: 9 Passenger Car/Van w/Trl: 0 Pickup Truck/Utility Van: 4 Pickup Truck/Utility Van w/Trl: 2 SUV: 3 SUV w/Trl: 0 Truck 10k lbs or Less: 0 Trucks > 10k Ibs/Bus > 15 People: 0 School Bus < 15 People: 0 Non School Bus < 15 People: 0 Motorhome: 0 Motorcycle: 0 Bicycle: 0 Motorized Bicycle: 0 Farm Equipment: 0 Hit and Run - Unknown: 0 Other: Unknown: 0 0 Veh 2 2 0 5 0 3 0 0 1 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: 18 11 0 Contributing Factor Veh 1 No Apparent Contributing Factor: 9 Asleep at the Wheel: 1 Illness: 0 Distracted by Passenger: 1 Driver Inexperience: 3 Driver Fatigue: 0 Driver Preoccupied: 3 Driver Unfamilar with Area: Driver Emotionally Upset: Evading Law Enforcement Officier: Physical Disability: Unknown: 0 0 0 0 1 Veh 2 11 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 Total: 18 11 0 — Condition of Driver No Impairment Suspected: Alcohol Involved: RX, Medication, or Drugs Involved: Illegal Drugs Involved: Alcohol and Drugs Involved: Driver/Pedestrian not Observed: Unknown: Veh 1 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 Veh 2 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 Veh 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total: 18 11 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 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Veh 2 7 2 0 0 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 Total: 18 11 0 Direction Veh 1 North: 2 Northeast: 0 East: 7 Southeast: 0 South: 3 Southwest: 0 West: 6 Northwest: Unknown: 0 0 Veh 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 5 0 0 Veh 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total: 18 11 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: cparrott on PW-20195577 SPF Model° v l y i 'x ysTM rag 2 Lane P tic rks r �L 5';1� v�� Ie��y�,'/(�� t ..: 'l ...r :� '�. Y W 41 oay Safety S st �ms e(VT/Size 4 -Leg Intersections (2 I 01/14/2020 Job #: 20200114113823 Location: Accident History for CR 47 and HWY 392 From:01/01/2007 To:12/31/2018 Accidents/Year 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.6 OA 0.2 Lower Limit (20%) Total Upper Limit (80%) 0 Observed (EB) O Expected 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 r • t.0 .., W' Ac n 6,000 7,000 8,000 Mainline AADT M 4 f! .:•, is r va Ira S R Ma Ca .. - a v "b rLI sr. Ira 9,000 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 PVV-20195577 APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) GRANT _��r G( BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: ,C/.�d;t/4A) v• 4 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO I lerk to the Boar' BY: MLL Deputy CI-, to he Bo, . I ike Freeman, Chair JAN 2 9 2020 Weld C unty Public orks Depart, en DiEx ysTM R.afay Safety y Ec is Analysis Re rt 01/14/2020 Job #: 20200114113956 Location: Accident History for CR 47 and HWY 392 From:01/01/2007 To:12/31/2018 Benefit Cost Ratio Calculations Crashes Projected Crashes and Reduction Factors PDO: 13 Weighted PDO: INJ: 5 8:Injured Weighted INJ: FAT: 0 0 :Killed Weighted FAT: B/C Weighted Year Factor: Cost: $ 600,000 From: 01/01/2007 To: 12/31/2018 1.33 0.82 0.00 12.00 Days: 4383 Other Information 80% :CRF for PDO Cost of PDO: 80% :CRF for INJ Cost of INJ: 80% :CRF for FAT Cost of FAT: 80% :Weighted CRF Interest Rate: AADT Growth Factor: Service Life: Capital Recovery Factor: Annual Maintenance/Delay Cost: Benefit Cost Ratio: 1.58 (B/C Based on Injury Numbers : PDO/Injured/Killed) Type of Improvement: New Signals (Specific) Special Notes: Broadside Or Specific Crash Pattern Only $ 10,700 $ 98,900 3 1,766,400 5% 2.0% 20 0.080 0 Benefit Cost Ratio: 1.58 Cost: $ 600,000 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 Engineer's Estimate Hwy 392 and WCR 47 Traffic Signal ITEM NUMBER CONTRACT ITEM UNIT ESTIMATED QUANTITY ESTIMATED UNIT PRICE ESTIMATED TOTAL ITEM PRICE 503 Drilled Caisson (42 inch) LF 80 $750.00 $60,000 613 2 inch Electrical Conduit (trenched) LF 1000 $15.75 $15,750 613 2 inch Electrical Conduit (bored) LF 700 $26.00 $18,200 613 3 inch Electrical Conduit (trenched) LF 300 $25.75 $7,725 613 3 inch Electrical Conduit (bored) LF 900 $38.00 $34,200 613 Pullbox (16"x24"x12") EACH 4 $1,000.00 $4,000 613 Pullbox (24"x36"x24") EACH 1 $1,880.00 $1,880 613 Wiring LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000 613 Luminaire (LED) EACH 4 $850.00 $3,400 614 Traffic Signal Face (12-12-12) EACH 10 $850.00 $8,500 614 Traffic Signal Face (12-12-12-12) EACH 8 $1,040.00 $8,320 614 Fire Pre-Emption Unit and Timer EACH 2 $5,300.00 $10,600 614 Intersection Detection System (Camera] EACH 4 $8,000.00 $32,000 614 Traffic Signal Pole (50 foot mast arm) EACH 4 $33,500.00 $134,000 614 Controller and Cabinet EACH 1 $35,300.00 $35,300 614 Sign Panel (Class I) SF 108 $28.00 $3,024 625 Construction Surveying LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000 626 Mobilization LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000 700 Electric Service Force Account FA 1 $15,000.00 $15,000 700 Minor Contract Revisions Force Account FA 1 $30,000.00 $30,000 Contingency (9.4%) 1 $43,100.00 $43,100 CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE TOTAL $500,000 DESIGN ESTIMATE TOTAL (20%) $100,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE $600,000 47 nt Fin eport Prepared for: L Department of ransportation Prepared by: a S's Project Manager: Jeff Ream, PE. PTOE Apex Design Reference No. P170269, Task Order #18 August 28, 2019 COLORADO Department of Transportation SH 392 / CR 47 Signal Warrant Analysis Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction 2 2 Data Collection 3 2.1 Field Observations 3 2.2 Traffic Data 3 2.3 Signal Warrant Analysis 5 2.3.1 Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume (Not Met) 5 2.3.2 Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume (Not Met) 7 2.3.3 Warrant 3, Peak Hour Volumes (Not Applicable) 8 2.3.4 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume (Not Applicable) 8 2.3.5 Warrant 5, School Crossing (Not Applicable) 9 2.3.0 Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System (Not Applicable) 9 2.3.7 Warrant 7, Crash Experience (Not Met) 9 2.3.8 Warrant 8, Roadway Network (Met) 10 2.3.9 Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing (Not Applicable) 10 3 Additional Considerations 11 3.1 Sight Distance 11 4 Conclusions and Recommendations 12 August 28, 2019 COLORADO Deparinte.nt of Transportation SH 392 / CR 47 Signal Warrant Analysis List of Figures Figure 1-1: Study Location 2 Figure 2-1: AM Peak Hour Traffic Count Diagram 4 Figure 2-2: Mid -Day Hour Traffic Count Diagram 4 Figure 2-3: PM Peak Hour Traffic Count Diagram 5 Figure 2-4. Warrant 1 Evaluation 7 Figure 2-5: Warrant 2 Evaluation 8 Figure 3-1: Sight Distance Looking West 11 List of Tables Table E-1: Traffic Signal Warrant Summary 1 Table 2-1: Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts for SH 392 and CR 47 4 Table 2-2: Summary of Traffic Signal Warrant Evaluation 5 August 28, 2019 ii apexdesi: n COLORADO Department o€ I transportation SH 392 / CR 47 Signal Warrant Analysis Executive Summary This report presents the results of a signal warrant evaluation for the State Highway (SH) 392 / County Road (CR) 47 intersection. The study intersection is located approximately five miles northeast of the Town of Greeley SH 392 is the major roadway, forming the eastbound and westbound approaches, and CR 47 forms the northbound and southbound approaches. The need for intersection signalization was evaluated based on an analysis of the nine signal warrants available in the 2009 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Chapter 4C, Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies. Table EA indicates that five of the nine warrants are not applicable to the intersection, and that the intersection currently satisfies one of the four warrants that are applicable to the intersection. Table El: Traffic Signal Warrant Summary tt'Rwetvnn "n ..... .....r avwe meRm[T.:CtH'dMi4'.VYM`W'Ybfflv.WA'i:Mx xNxwauev"2� •. ••... .. •... .., :. ...ra-ytYY SrJc..1rwtavrmvF'uwax Warrant (MUTCD Section 4C) Result Warrant 1, Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 23 Four -Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 33 Peak H ur Warrant 43 Pedestrian Volume \A arrant 5, choc i Cr- sling Warrant 63 Coordinated Signal System Warrant 7, Crash Experience Warrant 89 RoadwayNetwork arrant 9, Intersection Nef. r a Grade Crossing Not Met Not Met Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Met Piet Not Applicable Since the signal satisfies one of the MUTCD warrants, it suggests the intersection would benefit from a traffic signal. Other recommendations to implement include lowering the speed limit along SH 392 to 55 mph and trimming vegetation to maintain good sight distance in both directions. August 28, 2019 1 ;esign COLORADO. Department of f Transportation SH 392 / CR 47 Signal Warrant Analysis 1 Introduction is report summarizes the signa warrant evaluation for he SH 392 I CR 47 intersectio r near Greeley. The study intersection is located approximately five miles northeast of the City of Greeley aid the traffic control at the intersectioi is side -street stop (see [Figure 14). The intersecion has four legs, with SH 392 forming the eastbound and westbound approaches, ano CR. 47 forming the northbound and southbound approaches. SH 392 has slightly rolling terrain but is mostly leve terrain in both directions in the viciiity of the intersection. The speed limit is 65 miles per hour (mph). CR 47 has straight, genera ly level terrain in both directions, with a 55 mph posted speed limit to the south. The north leg of CR 47 shifts to gravel after the intersection and does not have a posted speed limit sign. SH 392 is ioentified' as the major street in this study and both approaches have a left turn lane, through lane, and right turn lane. CR 47 is identified as the minor street approach and both approaches iav : left turn lane, a through lane, and a right turn lane. Figure 1-1: Study Location V _ Ft 392 . �ev:•�+.i" Fi.ia_a—k.PiiS. 'M .Y•! .n .� .xa::,^rn W -A ' Vito •0..(N..‘” •-•nJThv, .bi..5 s.�.fsM . r7 t'•"1 n" :Sari+fig.,,. n.}.' D a fro. • tv % tic, v,•.•'y •s " .t V ....• ....3 A 4 ::a x.ry a•°a :—.� ..fir 'IX ecr a w'-'M•1n V"y:.,/' " •♦ ti a .. . •.9.. f.. . Mu e)T .dw♦ t :.rd. •-v.., 4 r �.. ...}y.S=_ ..!&J4, ':}c .,, dv._. a.,et ,. "'.-``.•ti4,:i .tea{. `,x'.•' 1•"7.l x$taS• 4-:s. re..n x a .Iy x.>xxx0..'.4Y . w 4, . kr• •a. SO'• , rw3Y"•",zdg r4 Lye . S .. .. . .' x d ^n • vim". +ate.••••"'.1 . y. d . x. uw'Kwr.. •�•.xhe.. amid.rm ie�`'wAn"a'n. •Velsyixk'i.d'Warpla, T . Illor, xT. 'C3xx''• Y....Y.....00.. 0.44.*•.'u�a x. 5', ?3.4 .. ,?ItAt.7 j:a%�' l_�:1:; ..ecfG'':x�`x1.5 M.xc ryvW:f!f: •: T!.". .. .nlp..a... ..w ...p.. ..... 3:. we{.fife ^, c y{1�Nk+�'Or".+p—t,[�'x-:#�".?�a- *'�_Y,S+k-ii; 14e NM9Y.--Mew._. .T 'R�l !<..��Y��a ^ .. ♦}�.�+ .nhYM.. - .: .%)•••c ii'esw .�W w• • ^ .2 r. . • v-•., f Sxx.c` :'e,4 ''s; 1. °`' _ YtP.-4444.14t• 1' /4 A gust 28, 2019 2 apexdestgn COLORADO Department of Transportation. SH 392 / CR 47 Signal Warrant Analysis 2 aCollect' ri 2.I Field Observations Field observations were conducted on Monday, August 19° 2018 during the AM peak period to o bserve traffic operations and evaluate the intersection's sight distances. This intersection was reconstructed in 2017/2018 to provide 12 -foot wide through and auxiliary lanes on each approach. Eastbound SH 392 now has one through lane, a 400 -foot left turn lane and a 365 -foot right turn lane, while, westbound SH 392 has one through lane, a 350 -foot left turn lane, and a 300 -foot right turn lane. The speed limit is 65 mph in each direction. Northbound CR 47 has one through lane, a 465 -foot left turn lane and a 900 -foot right turn lane, while southbound CR 47 has one through lane, a 175 -foot left turn lane and a 175 -foot right turn lane. The north leg of CR 47, the pavement terminates to gravel approximately 500 feet from the intersection. The speed limit for CR 47 is 55 mph to the south and no posted speed limit to the north. All approaches are on a level grade. Heavy truck traffic was noted on all legs of the intersection. Northbound left turning traffic had difficulty finding gaps to complete turns, difficulty accelerating up to 65 mph before westbound traffic caught up to the vehicles, and difficulty seeing around eastbound right turning vehicles for o ncoming eastbound traffic. Eastbound and westbound left turning vehicles also had difficulty seeing oncoming through traffic if vehicles were present in the opposing left turn lane. Sight distance was also evaluated and is discussed in Section 3 of this report. 2.2 Traffic Data To determine if the intersection meets warrants for signalization, turning movement counts were collected for 13 hours on August 6, 2019, beginning at 6:00 AM and ending at 7:00 PM. The AM, mid -day, and PM peak hour turning movement counts are summarized in Table 2-1, and on Figure 24 through Figure 24. As the table and figures indicate, the predominant traffic movements are eastbound and westbound along SH 392 and to and from the south on CR 47. The north leg of CR 47 has low traffic volumes. Because traffic volumes are generally split evenly between the left and right turn lanes on n orthbound CR 47, that approach was considered to have two lanes for this evaluation. August 28, 2019 3 apeXC±1gfl COLORADO Department ©t Transportation SH 392 / CR 47 Signal Warrant Analysis Table 24: Peak Hour Turing Movement Counts for SH 392 and CR 47 !y Iettt4YMAP(f.WMJMMNW'N.Y]Y SIal e..Mhl YNNIAAMXtrin AXACA yMSJt.R:AdtAtttr ' .. •. C•_: v'). •. : .. .: '.i!'n.YUM::e �Sa5 .�CTj� EB SH 392 A affgrin.,WIMerevamsm+ A -uu. .=wM+v'n:vn.MuORTIt. a. �LLwoYUY:avnvvsecWs.uwr4vnrrnro .. +vmNm':.LYCfma+ wxvnrwrx:wutn. ranwx:?xn.. tixu:v'.��.w.+rx ..rn rnvv Iw.w:rcmr....n.n.vr.u•u'..wns•Nnww+9P.v.w.......... ... __. _._.- __ ..... AM Peak 3 1 159 1 131 61 ! . 136 x�. 0165113 �'.xvow•=' _tMr_t.•ne..aoxw�=,-,---xAlmrme.uar...- taN am•.ama®wtmcemaumamaemn..:: , v 7 Mid Day 3 1 86 62 59 113 1 46 LYwv.v NW'bf/l'Xdtl6W.YW tl •.45MY:VLUNM'dM0.":PIiWVC.'A '.YA'FAA`LI4 /. .. y:V1:14M'^IYNII /IOM1fJMWWxR=9EtiPJ:1KVLMAP iaLY(..A•..".. :: ��ypWIW✓.... ..YlIII4N9i09itfIDA9CtIDP]IOxYW :! Y f�a.� PM Peak 3 126 87 i 108 :.._.184 .,:,, , 4 1 Source: All Traffic Data counts collected on August 6, 2019. AIWA rt/blYTAWAWNA I.WWMMMfWZ WB SH 392 - NB CR 47 5LAAAAIWP W wuewMve'n9'M0.YrIxMAMAVA W .7. WitWO4¢tmr•1.VCAPAW[cu•w xveW:.a.•t.Nmo.Fl:. 2t 4A=Alaxnenit..P��.ieusWICOACAlle bsnaeuvx IMNPAA:i .'.:.wvnsnmmiee:vnam•• ftQrw'C.xf=010OYM1Y L T 1 R YJ6YPMAt-nwlxmvw ..esci,.,re.'... SB CR 47 L T R L T Figure 2-1: AM eak H 3 15 0 -,,;e ur Traffic Count Diagram Ct U -44r--- 136 61 AY4v:MVd'61V\WtOIVIAM 41NNF:.tYVYOAT")4YMiw=VIS.W.xY�...O.M.totttn2'MiMw.1MJAJAKAP41I.+9tty. 102 0 1 15 AyG6YiRM1[P.1M1W.MILJAJUEVWOtA t% 108 10 61 :A'A:M'WSWAWAAY^.11i -..•._ -- •im:Pt .MVStie' _. ... ..:. .... (q�yYtIWLVMVTM9L9M'WtatenItt) 79 1 MRF>3•YlR.IttMM1RVnYtlPoil9{:VA 8 0 22 Figure 2-2: Mid -Day Hour Traffic Count Diagram 8 8 1 r SH 392 SH 392 65 13 102 46 11 61 86 -r 62 tzt cc U t_ 1 113 59 August 28, 2019 4 apexdesign COLORADO Department of . Transportation SH 392 / CR 47 Signal Warrant Analysis e Figure 24: PIA Peak Hour Traffic Count Diagram 1022 0 it SH 392 3--t 126 —Dip- 87 viik Tie U 4 Source: All Traffic Data counts collected on August 6, 2019. 23 Signal Warrant Analysis The need for intersection signalization was evaluated based on an analysis of the applicable warrants available in the 2009 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Chapter 4C, Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies. Table 2-2 summarizes the results of this warrant analysis; four of the nine MUTCD warrants are applicable to the intersection and traffic conditions meet one of the four. Each warrant evaluation is discussed in greater detail below. Table 2=2: Summary of Traffic Signal Warrant Evaluation Warrant (MUTCD Section 4C) Applicable? Warrant Met? Warrant 15 Eight=HF, ur Vehicular V-lu'7 e Yes No Warrant 29 Four -Hour Vehicular Volume Yes No Warrant 39 Peak sour No N/A Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume No N/A Warrant 59 chl Cr.sskkg No N/A Warrant Coordinated Signal System No N/A Warrant 7, Crash Experience Yes No arrant 89 Roadway Netw.rk Yes Yes Warrant 9, lnte.rsecUlon Near a Grade Crossing No N/A . .wam:•.aa+m. .o.,.»ro w..+nm....saw.r'..'_...... r. ....... ....n.u+xr.1_.. ._..W awbe.•�ue.- ruv.�.:S ti �.:. wr.... 2.3,1 `arrant L Eight-Hur Vehicular Volume (Not Met) As stated in the MUTCD (Section 4C.02), "the Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal." 17, August 28, 2019 5 apexdesign COLORADO Department of Transportation SH 392 / CR 47 Signal Warrant Analysis The MUTCD (Section 4C.02) also states that "the Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street." Furthermore, the MUTCD (Section 4C.02) states that "the combination of Conditions A and B is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and Condition B is not satisfied and should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alternatives that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems." The 13 -hour turning movement count data was used to conduct the evaluation. The community has a population of less than 10,000 and the major street speed limit is greater than 40 mph, so the evaluation used the reduced volume thresholds for the analysis. For Condition A, the volume warrants on the major and minor streets of the intersection were met for six of the study hours. Because the minimum vehicular volumes must be satisfied for eight hours or more, Condition A was not met. For Condition B, the minimum vehicular requirements were met for zero of the study hours. Since the minimum vehicular volumes must be satisfied for at least eight hours in a day, Condition B was not met. For the combination of Conditions A and B, the minimum vehicular requirements were satisfied for four of the study hours. As such, the combination of Conditions A and B was also not met. Figur: 24 summarizes the evaluation for Warrant 1 and concludes that the criteria for the Warrant 1 Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume was not met for the study location. August 23, 2019 6 apexdesign Major Street Minor Street COLORADO Department Of Transportation SH 3921 CR 47 Signal Warrant Analysis Count Date: 85th Percentile Speed: Population less than 10,x: Minimum Volume Adjustment. Approach Data Major Street: Minor Street: Traffic Volumes Time of Day Tuesday, August 6, 2019 55 MPH (on the major -street) Yes 0.7 SH 392 CR 47 Figure 2-4: Warrant I Evaluation MIUTCD TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDY Warrant 1- Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume (either 1.0 or 0.7, see note 1) Approach Lanes: Approach Lanes: Minor Street Traffic Volumes CR47 1 2 Northbound (VPH) Southbound (VPH) Higher Approa.c.h. Major Street Traffic Volumes SH 392 Eastbound (VPH) Westbound Total (VPH) Volume 6-7AM1 7 -SAM 9- 10 AM 1�-11.AM 11 AM -1%1c/on Noon -1PM - 2 PM 1. - 3 FEr1 3 - 4 PM •" - 5 FM 5 - E PM 6-7P1si TOTALS 180 151. 12:9 125 1..01 104 1.11 les 152 158 197 213 130 18 17 ., 12. g 1.3 t Z 7 21 32 26 S 1359 201. WARRANT NO.1-EIGHT HOUR VE.li lICUEAR. VOC• UM.E (CONDITION Al Minimum VehicularVolumes Major Street Minor Street Min Volume A,cijusted Mn Volume 5'i 350 140 5 hour(s) met or exceeded the red ure WARRANT NO.1- EIGHT HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME (CONDEFLON B) Minimum Vehicular Volumes Major Street Minor Street Min Volume Adjusted MniVolume 750 ice 525 70 0 hour(s) met or exceeded the require 180 151 129 125 W1. 104 11.1. 108 1.52 15cS 19? 213 13S 293 2.36 1.9s 151 145 124 140 157 175 132 2.16 231 136 2,.33`? 197 215 1.62 136 143 152 158 174 191 2.37 296 238 149 490 451 360 287 2$$ 276 298 331 366 369 512 469 285 �•"-r3 4,782 Warrant IA Conditions Met? YES YES fVIUTCD TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDY Warrant 1- Eight -Hour Vehicular Volume (Continued) WARRANT NO.1- EIGHT HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME (COMBINATION OF A & 8) Minimum Vehicular Volumes (A) Min Volume Adjusted Min Vo;ume 4co Major Street Minor Street Minimum Vehicular Volumes (B) Min Volume Adjusted Min Volume 600 Si 1.50 280. 112 420 56 600 SOO 1iPi "' YES YES YES YES "•r Warrant 18 Conditions Met? r ',11* NC J:_ Combination Warrant IA Conditions Met? YES YES YES YES 1\10 YES YES YES YES YES Ccribna"son Warrant 18 Conditions Met? YES YES /..,C- NC NC 0 $ Hourly Traffic Volumes CJ rat .; 4,1 91 0 .•E ..a Time of Day Noon •IPt') Q Major &reet Toni Volume U MInor Street Higher Approach Volumes 23.2 Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume (Not Met) As stated in the MUTCD (Section 4C103), "the Four -Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal." The 70 percent factor table was used for the Warrant 2 evaluation because the major street speed limit is greater than 40 mph. Figure 2-5 summarizes the evaluation and indicates that three of the four highest hourly traffic conditions at the intersection are above the minimum requirements line for an intersection with two or more lanes and one lane on the approaches of the intersection. As such, Warrant 2, Four -Hour Vehicular Volume was not met for the study location. August 28, 2019 7 apexde.sign COLONADO Department of ► Transportation SH 392 / CR 47 Signal Warrant Analysis Figure 2-5: Warrant 2 Evaluation Figure 44.0 Warrant Z Four4Hour Vehicular volume (709, Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10i000 POPULATION N OR ABOVE 0 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 MINOR STREET HIGHER - VOLUME APPROACH - VPH 100 200 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES r2 OR R. LANES & 1 LANE LANE & 1 LANE MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF 8TH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) ote: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold vl me for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies • as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane! 300 400 600 800 900 1000 2.33 Warrant 3, Peak Flour V hi es (Not Applicable) As stated in the MUTCD (Section 40.04), "the Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of one hour of an average day, the minor -street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street." Typically, Warrant 3 is only applicable to intersections adjacent to large businesses that generate considerable amounts of traffic for short periods of time (e.g. at shift changes), or similar land uses. Since the area around the intersection is rural farm land and sparsely residential, the current land uses serviced by the SH 392 and CR 47 intersection are not consistent with the types that would generate the traffic described by this warrant. Therefore, this warrant is not applicable to the study location. 2.3.4 Warrant 4, Ped strian Volume (Not Applicable) As stated in the MUTCD (Section 4C.05), "the Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street." The intersection of SH 392 and CR 47 did not have any pedestrian crossing activity during the 13 -hour count period. As such, Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume is not applicable to the study location. August 28, 2019 8 apexdesign COLORADO Department of Transportation SH 3921 CR 47 Signal Warrant Analysis 233 Warrant 5, School Crossing (Not Applicable) As stated in the MUTCD (Section 4C.06), "the School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that school children cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. For the purposes of this warrant, the word `school children' includes elementary through high school students." There are no schools located near the intersection and school crossings are not the principal reason a traffic signal is being considered. As such, Warrant 5, School Crossing is not applicable to the study location. 236 'arrant 6, Coordinated Signal System (Not Applicable) As stated in the MUTCD (Section 4C.07), "progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles." There are no other nearby signals along SH 392, therefore, signal progression is not a concern. As such, Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System is not applicable to the study location. 2.3.7 Warrant 7, Crash Experience (Not Met) As stated in the MUTCD (Section 4C.08), "the Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the severity and frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal." The MUTCD also states that this warrant is only met if "five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have occurred within a 12 -month period." There were five reported crash in the five year span examined, from July 1, 2013 through July 31, 2018 which was before and during construction of the new layout of the intersection. There have been five reported crashes in the 12 months since then, including three property damage only crashes, one injury crash, and one fatal crash. The five crashes were from the period o₹ November 2018 through July 2019. The fatal crash occurred on May 2nd, 2019 during the day, and included two fatalities. The crash occurred when a northbound left turning vehicle was broadsided by an eastbound traveling medium -duty truck. This crash is correctable by a traffic signal. One of the property damage only crashes also consisted of a northbound left turning vehicle being broadsided by an eastbound vehicle, which is also correctible by a signal. Information is not yet available about the other three crashes, however, so it is not possible at this time to determine if any or all of them are correctible by a signal. Therefore, because information on crash type is not currently available for three of the five crashes that have occurred in the past year, it cannot be concluded at this time that crash conditions meet Warrant 7, Crash Experience. August 28, 2019 apexdesi.qn COLORADO Department a€ Transportation SH 392 / CR 47 Signal Warrant Analysis 23.8 Warrant 8, Roadway Network (Met) As stated in the MUTCD (Section 40.09), "installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network." The Roadway Network warrant is only applicable at the intersection of two major roadways. CR 47 is currently designated as a 4 -lane controlled -access county highway and provides access from 1-76 to SH 392. It provides an alternative parallel north/south route to US 85, and thus is considered a major road. In addition, the Weld County 2035 Transportation Plan (May 2011) shows CR 47 continuing north as a major roadway facility north from SH 392 to Highway 14. As such, Warrant 8, Roadway Network is applicable to the study location. Considering the above, and the traffic conditions at the intersection (6 of 8 hours satisfied for Warrant 1 and 3 of 4 hours satisfied for Warrant 2), and the intersection has seen a significant increase in crashes since it was improved, and that one of the crashes was a fatality, Warrant 8 is met. 2.3.9 Warrant 9, I ter section Near a Grade Crossing (Not Applicable) As stated in the MUTCD (Section 4C.10), "the Intersection Near a Grade Crossing signal warrant is intended for use at a location where none of the conditions described in the other eight traffic signal warrants are met, but the proximity to the intersection of a grade crossing on an intersection approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal." The SH 392 / CR 47 intersection is not adjacent to any rail or light rail grade crossings. As such, Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing is not applicable to the study location. August 28, 2019 10 apexdesiari !COLORADO Department of Transportation SH 392 / CR 47 Signal Warrant Analysis 3 Additional Consi er bons In addition to the MUTCD warrant criteria, the sight distance at the intersection was also evaluated. odSight Distance The sight distance for CR 47 left turn movements at the intersection was evaluated during the field visit to ensure that side street movements can adequately see on -coming traffic in each direction of SH 392. The evaluation was based on minimum criteria from the 2011 edition of A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHT®) for Cases B1, Left Turn from Stop B2, Right Turn from Stop, and B3, Crossing Maneuver from Stop. This evaluation used a vertex for the departure sight triangle on the minor road of 14.5 feet from the edge of the traveled way and an assumed 1,100 feet as the intersection sight distance for CR 47, based on a design speed of 65 MPH with combination trucks. Combination trucks were used as the design vehicle because of the high truck traffic along SH 392 and CR 47. The intersection sight distance for left turns from northbound CR 47 is 1,300 feet looking west and 1,530' feet looking east. Southbound CR 47 looking west is approximately 2,000 feet and the sight distance is much further out to the east than the northbound measurement. The sight distance for the northbound left turns from the stop bar at CR 47 is hindered by small vegetation and the utility poles are adjacent to the stop bar as shown in Figure 3-1. However, drivers would pull forward into the crosswalk to see around the obstacles which increase the sight distance. Figure 3-1: Sight Distance Looking West ark Mont August 28, 2019 11 m ape :re gn !COLORADO Department of Transportation SH 392 / CR 47 Signal Warrant Analysis ., Conclusions and Recommendations r The SH 392/CR 47 intersection northeast of Greeley satisfies one of the four applicable MUTCD warrants for traffic signalization (Warrant 8, Roadway Network). In addition to satisfying Warrant 8, several other factors were considered in the traffic control recommendation: ® The traffic conditions at the intersection satisfy 6 of the 8 hours required for Warrant 1, which indicates that the signal is likely to satisfy this warrant in the near future. The traffic conditions at the intersection satisfy 3 of 4 hours required for Warrant 2, which indicates that the signal is likely to satisfy this warrant in the near future, as well. The intersection has experienced five crashes in the nine month period between November 2018 and July 2019, including one fatal crash. This represents a significant increase in crashes over pre -widening conditions (five crashes occurred in the five year period between July 1, 2013 through July 31, 2018), and suggests that the intersection may well experience five correctible -by -a -signal crashes within 12 months if traffic control remains the same. Therefore, based on the intersection satisfying Warrant 8 and on the above conditions and considerations, it is recommended that a traffic signal be installed at this location. Other recommendations to implement include lowering the speed limit along SH 392 to 55 mph and keep the vegetation trimmed along SH 392 to maintain good sight distance. August 28, 2019 12 pexd (303) 216-2439 www. a l ltraffi cd ata . net Peak Hour - All Vehicles (201) 32 0.61 ' 17 (203) SH 392 (2,556) 302 It -1. N O N 0 0 CR 47 N 00, 184 0:87 126 W ��0.95 E 108 216 S 87 —4co0 (2,334) n t r (2,194) Location: 1 CR 47 & SH 392 AM Date: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 Peak Hour: 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM Peak 15 -Minutes: 04:45 PM - 05:00 PM CR 47 «J 1 l.► Lit '- 0 4 3 at a -. 8 SH 392 0 O COv (2,448) a 296 0.96 205 (1,889) 217 0.90 197 (1,859) Note: Total study counts contained in parentheses. Traffic Counts Interval Start Time SH 392 Eastbound SH 392 Westbound Peak Hour - Pedestrians/Bicycles on Crosswalk O 1 CR 47 Northbound 0 mot 0 N AE S 0 40 0 �I 1 i CR 47 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 6:00 AM 0 0 6:15 AM 0 1 6:30 AM 0 2 6:45 AM 0 0 7:00 AM 0 0 7:15 AM 0 2 7:30 AM 0 2 7:45 AM 0 1 8:00 AM 0 1 8:15 AM 0 3 8:30 AM 0 0 8:45 AM 0 0 9:00 AM 0 1 9:15 AM 0 3 9:30 AIV1 0 1 9:45 AM 0 0 10:00 AM 0 1 10:15 AM 0 4 10:30 AM 0 2 10:45 AM 0 0 11:00 AM 0 1 11:15 AM 0 0 11:30 AM 0 1 11:45 AM 0 1 12:00 PM 0 4 12:15 PM 0 0 12:30 PM 0 2 12:45 PM 0 0 1:00 PM 0 2 1:15 Piv 0 1 1:30 PM 0 0 1:45 PM 0 3 2:00 PM 0 3 2:15 PM 0 2 2:30 PM 0 1 37 32 0 12 29 44 35 0 16 38 48 34 0 21 35 30 30 0 12 34 23 29 0 24 41 32 26 0 16 26 30 25 0 18 37 30 36 0 14 39 34 18 0 10 28 31 17 0 9 30 29 24 0 18 29 26 15 0 15 23 15 12 0 13 28 29 19 0 12 17 19 18 0 16 22 22 12 0 7 21 21 11 0 11 17 18 18 0 16 24 22 20 0 13 24 20 8 0 18 20 15 14 0 20 30 16 14 0 5 25 16 15 0 17 26 17 14 0 9 19 26 11 0 17 22 26 7 0 13 21 10 15 0 10 26 20 19 0 16 31 31 13 0 14 24 18 17 0 10 20 17 13 0 19 38 25 17 0 17 31 20 13 0 10 27 29 14 0 17 31 33 23 0 14 40 0 0 15 1 31 0 0 2 1 160 688 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 22 0 0 4 0 172 686 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 5 23 0 0 2 1 192 667 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 7 26 0 0 7 1 164 628 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 3 20 0 0 4 0 158 619 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 6 24 0 0 3 1 153 579 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 22 0 0 5 1 153 569 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 19 0 2 0 1 155 546 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 0 1 1 1 118 503 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 2 27 0 0 1 3 143 489 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3 17 0 0 0 1 130 463 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 16 0 0 3 3 112 448 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 21 0 1 0 1 104 424 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 15 0 0 2 4 117 411 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 20 0 1 0 0 115 402 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 15 0 0 2 1 88 397 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1 9 0 1 3 1 91 397 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 4 0 0 0 1 108 418 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 13 0 1 0 1 110 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 9 0 0 0 0 88 395 0 0 0 0 1 0 15 2 11 0 1 1 1 112 393 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 2 12 0 0 2 1 90 385 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 5 11 0 0 0 2 105 393 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 11 0 0 3 2 86 387 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 15 0 0 0 2 104 416 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 5 11 0 0 1 1 98 433 0 0 0 0 2 0 17 2 14 0 0 1 0 99 430 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 3 12 0 0 1 1 115 459 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 3 14 0 1 0 3 121 457 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 20 0 0 2 1 95 439 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 4 15 0 0 5 3 128 475 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 8 0 0 2 1 113 502 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 13 0 0 1 0 103 525 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 1 12 0 0 0 0 131 555 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 5 14 0 1 0 2 155 555 0 0 0 0 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM. 0 0 0 0 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 0 6:15 PM 0 6:30 PM 0 6:45 PM 0 Count Total 0 0 22 0 0 14 0 2 20 0 1 25 0 1 21 15 11 9 14 14 0 13 0 19 0 17 0 15 0 19 38 1 0 27 40 0 0 17 41 1 0 25 44 0 0 21 40 1 0 22 1 16 4 19 5 7 1 21 2 14 0 0 2 1 0 0 7 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 1 136 546 0 0 0 0 133 548 0 0 0 0 131 595 0 0 0 146 650 0 0 0 0 138 685 0 0 2 43 24 0 16 31 0 0 29 2 14 0 1 10 3 175 0 1 38 21 0 24 48 0 0 30 4 22 0 0 2 0 190 0 3 32 17 0 27 37 0 0 26 3 24 0 0 3 1 173 0 0 27 23 0 20 35 0 0 33 4 22 0 0 5 1 170 2 26 14 0 18 38 0 0 18 2 19 0 0 1 1 139 0 20 11 0 8 26 0 0 18 5 13 0 0 2 1 104 2 27 7 0 9 16 1 0 15 2 9 0 0 0 2 90 0 0 0 1 12 14 0 16 17 0 0 13 2 14 0 0 1 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 63 t332 939 0 828 1,608 12 0 880 128 851 0 11 122 68 6,842 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 708 672 0 0 586 0 0 503 0 0 0 0 423 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour 0 3 126 87 0 108 184 4 0 108 10 79 0 0 22 10 741 0 0 0 0 Chloe Rempel From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Bruce Barker Tuesday, January 28, 2020 11:12 AM CTB Elizabeth Relford FW: Emailing: Weld County - WCR 47-SH 392 HSIP Application 2020 HSIP Application.doc Did we get this onto tomorrow's agenda? Bruce T. Barker, Esq. Weld County Attorney P.O. Box 758 1150 "O" Street Greeley, CO 80632 (970) 400-4390 Fax: (970) 352-0242 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is attorney privileged and confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. Original Message From: Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:31 AM To: Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>; Scott James <sjames@weldgov.com>; Steve Moreno < smoreno@weldgov.com>; Mike Freeman <mfreeman@weldgov.com> Cc: Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com>; Karla Ford <kford@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick < egesick@weldgov.com>; Don Warden <dwarden@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <jmcdonald@weldgov.com>; Cameron H. Parrott <cparrott@weldgov.com>; Don Dunker < ddunker@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: Emailing: Weld County WCR 47-SH 392 HSIP Application Karla, Here is a pass around so the Commissioners don't have to use the email to respond. Thanks, Elizabeth Original Message From: Elizabeth Relford Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2020 9:11 AM To: Barbara Kirkmeyer <bkirkmeyer@weldgov.com>; Scott James <sjames@weldgov.com>; Steve Moreno < smoreno@weldgov.com>; Mike Freeman <mfreeman@weldgov.com> Cc: Bruce Barker <bbarker@weldgov.com>; Karla Ford <kford@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick < egesick@weldgov.com>; Don Warden <dwarden@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald 1 <jmcdonald@weldgov.com>; Cameron H. Parrott <cparrott@weldgov.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com> Subject: Emailing: Weld County - WCR 47-SH 392 HSIP Application Commissioners, I am asking for your assistance please. Public Works had received approval to send a pass around to you for approval to put the attached Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) on the BOCC agenda for approval to submit to CDOT. Unfortunately, it slipped through the cracks and was never forwarded to Karla. As a result, we are asking for your approval to add it to tomorrow's BOCC agenda because the application is due on Friday (January 31st). This HSIP application is requesting a grant for installation of a traffic signal at SH 392 & WCR 47. Based on the citizen comments, Public Works feels this application will be very competitive and because it's on the state system, COOT has to cover the local match requirement. There is not cost to the county to submit this application and we hope it will advance their construction timeline of 2045, since the project meets signal warrants. Please let me know if you are ok with adding the attached application to tomorrow's BOCC agenda? Again, I apologize to the everyone for this last minute request. Sincerely, Elizabeth Relford Deputy Director Weld County Public Works 1111 H Street PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632-0758 Email: erelford@co.weld.co.us Office: (970) 400- 3748 Mobile: (970) 673-5836 Web: http://www.co.weld.co.us Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. if you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. 2 Hello