COM 0649.004 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

must be made from the same lane. Consequently, the level of service was calculated for the approach as a whole. Optional Criterion B, Controlling Vehicle/Pedestrian Conflicts Although pedestrian volumes were not counted, high volumes of pedestrians were not observed. There are no locations that generate large volumes of pedestrian traffic in this area. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to this study. Optional Criterion C, Blind Intersections. A field review of the study intersection showed that there were no sight distance problems for the drivers on Kakalina Street. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to this study. Optional Criterion D, Intersection of Two Residential Collector Streets Nani Kailua Drive functions as a collector street while Kakalina Street is a local street. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to this study. This criterion may be applicable in the distant future as the area develops and Kakalina Street becomes a collector roadway. In all, three of the four optional criteria were not applicable to this study. Therefore, only optional criterion A was evaluated and the results are reported in the next section. D.2 Evaluation of Speed Changes Attributable to the Four Way Stop A "before and after" spot speed study was conducted to determine if any changes in traffic speed on Nani Kailua Drive occurred as a result of the four way stop control. Spot speed counts were taken on June 26, 2003, about a month before the multi -way stop signs were installed, and on August 28, 2003, about a month after the signs were installed. A month is generally sufficient time for traffic to get adjusted to new traffic control devices. The spot speed study was conducted per the methodology described in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook (2nd Edition, 1982). Two lines 88 feet apart were marked on both a