By Nick Sodano
We finally have a “warrant analysis”, or traffic study, which concludes that a light is not needed for the intersection of Rte 537 and Garden. It is provided in full below [minus the Appendixes and Charts]. And now that the criteria on pedestrian and traffic volumes for this kind of study are clearer, we wait with interest for the next study that hopefully has been completed for Garden Street and Mount Holly Avenue. Casual observations of the number of kids on the street at that location and resident reports about the frequency of accidents there would suggest a higher level of risk. The Mount Holly Reporter will provide an update as soon as it is available.
SUMMARY: A County Engineer traffic study during 2023 and 2024 at the intersection of Garden and Branch Streets found that a traffic control signal was not needed at the intersection. The study evaluated the number of crashes plus the traffic and pedestrian volume at the intersection. While it found that crashes exceeded a criterion during 2018, the overall crashes did not meet the criteria to warrant a signal. The study also found that while the pedestrian volume is not high enough to warrant a signal, “pedestrians do need to make a circuitous route when traveling southbound/northbound on Branch Street” and that sidewalks are missing on Branch Street. Regarding the speed limit, the Traffic Division has issued an opinion that the speed limit of 35 mph is adequate along this segment of CR 537.
What follows is the actual study.
Signal Warrant Analysis
Intersection: CR 537 (Branch St) & CR 617 (Garden St). Municipality: Mount Holly Township.
Date: October 2024
INTRODUCTION
On behalf of Mount Holly Township, Burlington County Engineer’s Office (BCEO) has performed a traffic signal warrant analysis at the intersection of CR 537 Branch Street and CR 617 Garden Street located in Mount Holly, New Jersey. The analysis was conducted utilizing the turn movement count data obtained by BCEO on Thursday June 1, 2023, through Tuesday June 6, 2023; for a complete data set of a typical 6AM to 6PM day for traffic. An Automated Traffic Recorder utilizing radar was used to obtain traffic data for volume, speed, gap and classification. The analysis was completed using the criteria outlined in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2023 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) in Chapter 4C.
BACKGROUND
County Route (CR) 537, Branch Street, is a bi-directional, two-lane road that generally runs West to East. CR 537 intersects CR 617 Garden Street at Mile Post (MP) 19.68 in Mount Holly, New Jersey. The speed limit for this section of the roadway is 35 mph. The speed limit on CR 617 is 35 mph. Ashurst Lane also intersects CR 537 near CR 617. Ashurst Lane is a municipal owned roadway. For this study, Garden Street and Ashurst Lane were used as separate legs of the minor road.
METHODOLOGY
A signal warrant analysis is an engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics to determine whether the installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular intersection. Data was gathered through review of aerial imagery, maps, motor vehicle crash reports, and manual vehicular traffic counts. The MUTCD indicates nine (9) warrants that would justify the installation of a traffic control signal. The collected data was used to evaluate applicable warrants, for this intersection, the warrants investigated include:
• Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
• Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
• Warrant 3: Peak Hour
• Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume
• Warrant 7: Crash Experience
Per the MUTCD, a traffic signal should not control traffic movements at an intersection unless one or more of the signal warrants in the manual are satisfied. However, the satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant does not justify the installation or the continued operation of a traffic control signal. It only defines the minimum conditions under which the installation of a traffic signal might be justified. A traffic signal should not be installed if its operation will seriously disrupt progression of traffic flow, overall safety, or operation of the intersection.
WARRANT 1: EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME
Standard: Per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD):
The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day:
A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the more critical minor-street approach, respectively, to the intersection; or
B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the more critical minor-street approach, respectively, to the intersection.
These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however, the 8 hours that are selected for the Condition A analysis shall not be required to be the same 8 hours that are selected for the Condition B analysis.
Evaluation:
Warrant 1 is associated with the vehicular volumes during eight hours of a typical day and can be satisfied by meeting Condition A or Condition B. Condition A is applied at intersections with a large volume of intersecting traffic. Condition B is intended for application at locations where major road vehicular traffic is so large that traffic on the minor road experiences excessive delay and/or conflicts in crossing or entering the major road.
The data from the count was compared to the requirements for Warrant 1 in the MUTCD. Review of the data indicates that Condition A and Condition B at 100% were not met at this intersection. The application of the 70% columns is not applicable in this case, since the posted speed limit does not exceed 40 mph. The results indicated that the volumes still did not meet the requirements of the 70% columns. Therefore, the traffic volumes from this study do not satisfy the criteria of Warrant 1 – Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume.
WARRANT 2: FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME
Standard: Per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD):
The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the more critical minor-street approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing combination of approach lanes.
Evaluation:
Warrant 2 is associated with the vehicular volumes during any 4 hours of a typical day, and it is intended for application when the main reason for traffic signal installation is the volume of traffic intersecting a major street. The graph entitled Figure 4C-1 Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume is attached within the appendix of this report. The graph depicts the applicable curve as shown in the MUTCD with the plotted points representing vehicles per hour on CR 537 Branch Street (the major street) and CR 617 Garden Street and Ashurst Lane (the minor street). Collected volume compared to the requirements for Warrant 2 – Four-Hour Vehicular Volume indicates that the volume requirements are not satisfied for the intersection.
WARRANT 3: PEAK HOUR
Standard: Per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD):
This signal warrant should be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time.
The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories are met:
A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day:
1. The total stopped-time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach or 5 vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach, and
2. The volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes, and
The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches.
B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the more critical minor-street approach (one direction only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes.
Evaluation:
Warrant 3 is associated with the vehicular volumes during the peak hour of a typical day such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. This signal warrant is applied in cases where many vehicles will be attracted or discharged over a short time. With the location of several communities within proximity of the study location, this intersection warrant may be subject to this warrant. The graph entitled Figure 4C-3 Warrant 3: Peak Hour is attached within the appendix of this report. The graph depicts the applicable curve as shown in the MUTCD with the plotted points representing vehicles per hour on CR 537 Branch Street (the major street) and CR 617 Garden Street and Ashurst Lane (the minor street). The collected volume compared to the requirements for Warrant 3 – Peak Hour indicates that the volume requirements are not satisfied for the intersection.
WARRANT 4: PEDESTRIAN VOLUME
Standard: Per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD):
The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing should be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met:
A. For each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-5; or
B. For 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minutes periods) of an average day, the plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) falls above the curve in Figure 4C-6.
Evaluation:
Warrant 4 is associated with the comparing the vehicular volume on the major street to the pedestrians crossing that street. It is intended for application where the traffic on the major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. The graph entitled Figure 4C-5
Warrant 4: Pedestrian Four-Hour Volume is attached within the appendix of this report. The graph depicts the applicable curve shown in the MUTCD with the plotted points representing vehicles per hour on CR 537 Branch Street against the total of all pedestrians crossing CR 537 Branch Street. This warrant does allow the criteria to be reduced by 50% if the 15th percentile speed of pedestrians crossing is less than 3.5 feet per second. This reduction was used for this analysis based on the assumption that children and elderly will be using the crosswalk. Based on the collected volume compared to the requirements for Warrant 4 Pedestrian Volume indicates that the volume requirements are not satisfied for the intersection.
WARRANT 7, CRASH EXPERIENCE
Standard: Per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD):
The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that all of the following criteria are met:
C. Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has
failed to reduce the crash frequency; and
D. At least one of the following conditions applies to the reported crash history (where each reported crash considered is related to the intersection and apparently exceeds the applicable requirements for a reportable crash):
1. The number of reported angle crashes and pedestrian crashes within a 1-year period
equals or exceeds the threshold number in Table 4C-2 for total angle crashes and
pedestrian crashes (all severities); or
2. The number of reported fatal-and-injury angle crashes and pedestrian crashes within a 1-year period equals or exceeds the threshold number in Table 4C-2 for total fatal and injury angle crashes and pedestrian crashes; or
3. The number of reported angle crashes and pedestrian crashes within a 3-year period equals or exceeds the threshold number in Table 4C-3 for total angle crashes and pedestrian crashes (all severities); or
4. The number of reported fatal-and-injury angle crashes and pedestrian crashes within a 3-year period equals or exceeds the threshold number in Table 4C-3 for total fatal and- injury angle crashes and pedestrian crashes; and
E. For each of any 8 hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour (vph) given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 (see Section 4C.02), or the vph in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exists on the major-street and the more critical minor-street approach, respectively, to the intersection, or the volume of pedestrian traffic is not less than 80 percent of the requirements specified in the Pedestrian Volume warrant.
These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours.
Data: Crash history at the intersection of Branch Street, Garden Street, and Ashurst Lane were reviewed using New Jersey Department of Transportation Safety Voyager. Safety Voyager software is an application that compiles crash data throughout the State and allows users to access it and obtain reports. Crash data was obtained for 2019 - 2024; 2024 is not yet complete. Table 4 Crash Data in Appendix B shows a summarization of the crash data by crash type. During this period, 18 crashes were reported to have occurred at the intersection. Of these 18 crashes, 4 crashes were angular or pedestrian with 1 crash involving injury. No crashes involved fatalities.
Table 4C-2 in Appendix A shows the minimum number of reported crashes in a 1-year period. 2018 was the only year that met this criterion. Table 4C-3 in Appendix A shows the minimum number of reported crashes in a 3-year period. None of the years meet this criterion.
The third part of this warrant involves traffic volume requirements. The recorded data does not meet the 80% columns of Condition A or Condition B of Table 4C-1. Therefore, Warrant 7 Crash Experience is not satisfied because all criteria must be met.
WARRANT ANALYSIS CONCLUSION
The collected data at the intersection of Branch Street (CR 537), Garden Street (CR 617) and Ashurst Lane indicates that that the signal warrants that would be applicable for the intersection are not satisfied. Due to this conclusion, a traffic control signal would not be warranted at this location.
ATR DATA COLLECTION
Traffic data was collected from May 31, 2023 to June 8, 2023 using an Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR). Twp ATR’s was mounted at positions located at about Mile Post 19.60 and 19.80. For the data collection process, volume, speed, and vehicle classification were obtained. The collected data for the study is summarized below:
SPEED EVALUATION CONCLUSION
Based on this engineering evaluation, the Burlington County Engineering Office Traffic Division has issued an opinion that the posted speed limit of 35 mph is adequate along this segment of CR 537. The County will verify the locations of speed limit signs along this road and install additional speed limit signs (35 mph) as needed in order to clarify the condition along Branch Street.
SUMMARY
Based on this evaluation, the Burlington County Engineer’s Office has issued an opinion that the intersection of Branch Street (CR 537) and Garden Street (CR 617) located in Mount Holly is not warranted.
This opinion was rendered as the engineering evaluation shows that the minimum volume threshold is not met. The warrants were re-evaluated using a 70% reduction factor, the thresholds were still not met. A traffic signal would be more of a detriment to traffic flow and require reconfiguration of the alignment of the roadways.
Based on field observations, pedestrians do need to make a circuitous route when traveling southbound/northbound on Branch Street. The route is to cross Branch Street, then Garden Street, and finally Ashurst Lane. It should be presented to the township, if they would want to extent the sidewalk on the eastside Branch Street, but it should be noted that there is no sidewalk on that side of Branch Street till Lakeview Terrace which is over 2,000 feet north. If conditions change such that a re-examination is required, the County will complete a new engineering evaluation.