Transportation Engineering Report 10 Part 2

8/19/2019 Transportation Engineering Report 10 Part 2

1/17

( )

MINOR STREET. ONE OF TWO

CONDITIONS SHOULD BE

SATISFIED FOR THE WARRANT

TO BE SATISFIED.

ITEM #11: MINIMUM

PEDESTRIAN VOLUME

THIS WARRANT IS

SATISFIED WHEN THE PEDES-

TRIAN VOLUME CROSSING THE

MAJOR STREET ON AN

AVERAGE DAY IS AT LEAST 100

FOR EACH OF ANY FOUR


2/17

( )

HOURS OR 190 OR HIGHER

DURING ANY ONE HOUR AND

THERE ARE FEWER THAN 60

GAPS/HR THAT ARE ACCEP-

TABLE BY PEDESTRIANS FOR

CROSSING. IN ADDITION, THE

NEAREST TRAFFIC SIGNAL

ALONG THE MAJOR STREET

SHOULD BE AT LEAST 300 FT

AWAY FROM THE PROPOSED

INTERSECTION, UNLESS THE

INSTALLATION OF THE

PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL


3/17

( )

WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT

THE PROGRESSION OF

TRAFFIC.

ITEM #12: SCHOOL CROSSING

THIS WARRANT IS USED

WHEN THE MAIN REASON FOR

INSTALLING A TRAFFIC SIGNAL

CONTROL IS TO ACCOM-

MODATE THE CROSSING OF

THE MAJOR STREET BY

SCHOOLCHILDREN. WHEN AN

ANALYSIS OF GAP DATA AT AN


4/17

( )

ESTABLISHED SCHOOL ZONE

SHOWS THAT THE FREQUENCY

OF OCCURRENCE OF GAPS

AND THE LENGTHS OF GAPS

ARE INADEQUATE FOR SAFE

CROSSING OF THE STREET BY

SCHOOLCHILDREN, THIS

WARRANT IS APPLIED.

ITEM #13: COORDINATED

SIGNAL SYSTEM

THIS WARRANT MAY

JUSTIFY THE INSTALLATION OF


5/17

( )

TRAFFIC LIGHTS AT AN

INTERSECTION WHERE LIGHTS

WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HAVE

BEEN INSTALLED, BUT THE

INSTALLATION WILL ENHANCE

THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT

OF TRAFFIC ALONG A

HIGHWAY SEGMENT WITH A

COORDINATED TRAFFIC-

SIGNAL SYSTEM.


6/17

( )

ITEM #14: CRASH EXPERIENCE

THIS WARRANT IS USED

WHEN THE PURPOSE OF

INSTALLING A TRAFFIC SIGNAL

CONTROL IS TO REDUCE THE

NUMBER AND SEVERITY OF

CRASHES AT THE INTER-

SECTION. THIS WARRANT

JUSTIFIES SIGNALIZATION OF

AN INTERSECTION WHEN

CRASH FREQUENCY HAS NOT

BEEN REDUCED BY AN

ADEQUATE TRIAL OF LESS


7/17

( )

RESTRICTIVE MEASURES. IT

STIPULATES THAT THE USE OF

TRAFFIC SIGNALS IS WAR-

RANTED AT AN INTERSECTION

IF FIVE OR MORE INJURY OR

REPORTABLE PROPERTY DA-

MAGE ONLY CRASHES HAVE

OCCURRED WITHIN A 12-

MONTH PERIOD AND THAT

SIGNAL CONTROL IS A

SUITABLE COUNTER MEASURE

FOR THESE CRASHES.


8/17

( )

ITEM #15: ROADWAY NETWORK

THIS WARRANT JUSTIFIES

THE INSTALLATION OF

SIGNALS AT SOME INTER-

SECTIONS WHEN SUCH AN

INSTALLATION WILL HELP TO

ENCOURAGE CONCENTRA-

TION AND ORGANIZATION OF

TRAFFIC NETWORKS. THE

WARRANT CAN BE APPLIED AT

INTERSECTIONS OF TWO OR

MORE MAJOR ROADS WHEN (1)

THE TOTAL EXISTING OR


9/17

( )

IMMEDIATELY PROJECTED

ENTERING VOLUME IS AT

LEAST 1000 DURING THE PEAK

HOUR OF A TYPICAL WEEKDAY

AND (2) THE FIVE-YEAR

PROJECTED TRAFFIC VO-

LUMES, BASED ON AN

ENGINEERING STUDY.

ITEM #16: OBJECTIVES OF

EVALUATION

THE OBJECTIVE OF AN

EVALUATION IS TO FURNISH


10/17

( )

THE APPROPRIATE INFOR-

MATION ABOUT THE OUTCOME

OF EACH ALTERNATIVE SO

THAT A SELECTION CAN BE

MADE. THE EVALUATION

PROCESS SHOULD BE VIEWED

AS AN ACTIVITY IN WHICH

INFORMATION RELEVANT TO

THE SELECTION IS AVAILABLE

TO THE PERSON OR GROUP

WHO WILL MAKE A DECISION.

AN ESSENTIAL INPUT IN THE

PROCESS IS TO KNOW WHAT


11/17

( )

INFORMATION WILL BE

IMPORTANT IN MAKING A

PROJECT SELECTION.

ITEM #17: IDENTIFYING

PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS

A TRANSPORTATION

PROJECT CAN AFFECT A

VARIETY OF GROUPS IN

DIFFERENT WAYS. IN SOME

INSTANCES, ONLY ONE OR A

FEW GROUPS ARE INVOLVED;

IN OTHER CASES, MANY


12/17

( )

FACTIONS HAVE AN INTEREST.

EXAMPLES OF GROUPS THAT

COULD BE AFFECTED BY A

TRANSPORTATION PROJECT

INCLUDE THE SYSTEM USERS,

TRANSPORTATION MANAGE-

MENT, LABOR, CITIZENS IN THE

COMMUNITY, BUSINESS, AND

LOCAL, STATE, AND NATIONAL

GOVERNMENTS.


13/17

( )

ITEM #18: SELECTING AND

MEASURING EVALUATION

CRITERIA

A TRANSPORTATION

PROJECT IS INTENDED TO

ACCOMPLISH ONE OR MORE

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES,

WHICH ARE MADE OPE-

RATIONAL AS CRITERIA. THE

NUMERICAL OR RELATIVE

RESULTS FOR EACH CRITERIA

ARE CALLED MEASURES OF

EFFECTIVENESS. CRITERIA SE-


14/17

( )

LECTION IS A BASIC ELEMENT

OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS

BECAUSE THE MEASURE USED

BECOMES THE BASIS ON

WHICH EACH PROJECT IS

COMPARED.

ITEM #19: MEASURES OF

EFFECTIVENESS

ONE APPROACH IS TO

CONVERT EACH MEASURE OF

EFFECTIVENESS TO A COM-

MON UNIT, AND THEN, FOR


15/17

( )

EACH ALTERNATIVE, COMPUTE

THE SUMMATION FOR ALL

MEASURES. A COMMON UNIT

IS MONEY, AND IT MAY BE

POSSIBLE TO MAKE A

TRANSFORMATION OF THE

RELEVANT CRITERIA TO

EQUIVALENT DOLLARS AND

THEN COMPARE EACH

ALTERNATIVE FROM AN

ECONOMIC POINT OF VIEW. A

SECOND APPROACH IS TO

CONVERT EACH MEASURE OF


16/17

( )

EFFECTIVENESS TO A

NUMERICAL SCORE.

ITEM #20: EVALUATION

PROCEDURES AND DECISION

MAKING

THE DECISION MAKER

TYPICALLY NEEDS TO KNOW

WHAT THE COSTS OF THE

PROJECT WILL BE; IN MANY

INSTANCES, THIS ALONE WILL

DETERMINE THE OUTCOME.

ANOTHER QUESTION MAY BE,


17/17

( )

DO THE BENEFITS JUSTIFY THE

EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR

TRANSPORTATION, OR WOULD

THE MONEY BE BETTER SPENT

ELSEWHERE? THE DECISION

MAKER ALSO WILL WANT TO

KNOW IF THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IS LIKELY TO

PRODUCE THE STATED

RESULTS.

Documents

Transportation Engineering Report 10 Part 2