COM 0649.004 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

was sent out in January 2004 about five months after to determine if there had been any changes in opinions. The email messages and summary report are included in the Appendix E. RESULTS OF EVALUATION E.1 Criteria for Four Way Stops The five applicable criteria were evaluated to determine if a four way stop is warranted. Criterion A, Traffic Control Signals Justified. The hourly traffic count volumes are compared with the traffic control signal warrants 1 and 2 on Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The hourly volumes do not exceed the warrant volumes for any hour of the day; thus, traffic control signal warrants are not met. Discussions with the County Department of Public Works staff indicated that they thought that traffic control signals are not warranted at this intersection. Therefore, this criterion for traffic signals is not met and a four way stop is not warranted. Criterion B, Accident Experience. The County Police Department reported that there were no traffic accidents for the two year period. Therefore, this criterion for accident experience is not met and a four way stop is not warranted Criterion C, Minimum Volumes. Table 3 lists the hourly volumes counted on each approach during the ten hour count. It also notes whether or not the major and minor street volumes exceed the minimum volumes criteria for multiway stops. The table shows that the major street (Nani Kailua Drive) and the minor street (Kakalina Street) volumes did not exceed the minimum volumes for any hour of the day. Therefore, this criterion for minimum volumes is not met and a four way stop is not warranted. Criterion D, Combination of Criteria. Since the above criteria were not met, the criteria were reevaluated with 80% of the values for criteria B and C. Since there were no reported traffic accidents and the adjusted traffic volume criteria 12.