Sometime within the next few weeks representatives from the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) will be in downtown Oxford counting pedestrians and vehicles to see if further study of possibly putting a traffic signal at M-24 and Broadway is warranted.
“The whole idea is to determine whether or not to recommend a full-blown study based on normal (traffic and pedestrian) patterns at peak times,” said Tom Pozolo, development engineer for MDOT’s Oakland Transportation Service Center.
Called a “preliminary warrant survey,” Pozolo said, “it’s basically a screening” whereby the “judgement of traffic professionals” determines whether a more detailed and involved study is necessary.
Village officials last week voted to recommend MDOT’s representatives conduct their preliminary warrant survey on a Friday and Saturday between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. for the pedestrian traffic crossing between the Oxford 7 and Starbucks and on a Thursday and Friday between 2:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. for vehicular traffic turning on Broadway.
The times and days village officials selected were based on a report from Police Chief Mike Neymanowski which stated that during those periods the traffic turning on Broadway was “heavy” and the number of people crossing M-24 between the theater and coffee shop was “larger.”
Neymanowski said the times are his “best guess as to the busy times.”
Manager Mark Slown expressed his concern that MDOT could come on a day when the traffic and/or pedestrians levels are low due to poor weather or school closings and that could be a “real problem.”
Slown said the village “can’t control” when MDOT comes to do the survey.
Officials said they want MDOT to take into consideration the pedestrian traffic crossing between the theater and coffee shop (both of which are at the corner of the Dennison/M-24/Stanton intersection, a block north of Broadway and M-24) because it’s a “safety hazard” with all the kids “running across” on Friday and Saturday nights.
Officials reasoned that a traffic signal at Broadway and M-24 would provide a “safe alternative” for pedestrian crossing that’s only 150 feet away from the theater and coffee shop, “a lot closer than” the Burdick/M-24 signal and crosswalk.
Although he said MDOT is “trying to work with” the village on this issue, Pozolo said, with regard to the number of hours and days requested by officials, they “usually don’t spend that long of a time” doing a preliminary survey.
“We’re not going to spend a whole day to determine if we should spend another whole day,” he said.
As to exactly which hours on which dates MDOT representatives will be out doing the survey, Pozolo said, “We don’t like to advertise.”
“We want to see normal traffic patterns,” he said. “We don’t want someone to try to skew the results” by, for instance, driving up and down the same road over and over again.
Pozolo said the survey will be conducted during peak hours, but how many hours and days are spent on it will be up to the traffic professionals.
Pozolo said before MDOT considers a spot for a traffic signal it has to meet “at least one” of the 11 “warrants.” Those warrants are:
n Warrant 1 ? Minimum vehicular traffic: This warrant requires a minimum number of vehicles on both the major street and cross street for each of any eight hours during the day. The minimum volume warrant for rural environments and/or smaller municipalities is 70 percent of the requirement for urban conditions.
n Warrant 2 ? Interruption of continuous traffic: Warrant 2 provides for situations where a very high volume of major street traffic restricts entry of cross street traffic causing excessive delay.
n Warrant 3 ? Minimum pedestrian traffic: Occasionally a situation arises where very high pedestrian traffic activity conflicts with high traffic volumes.
n Warrant 4 ? School crossing: Warrant 4 provides minimum installation guidelines for traffic signals at established school crossing locations based on the number of children utilizing the crossing and the availability of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during crossing periods.
n Warrant 5 ? Progressive movement: Between two widely spaced signals in a system, an intermediate traffic signal, properly located, may serve to regulate the size and speed of the traffic “platoon.” A signal may be installed under this warrant if vehicle speeds vary and volumes are high.
n Warrant 6 ? Crash experience: Certain conditions at an intersection may result in a high incidence of “right-angle” crashes. This warrant provides for a reduction in the number of vehicles required under other warrants.
n Warrant 7 ? Systems warrant: This allows installation of traffic signals at some intersections to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow networks.
n Warrant 8 ? Combination of warrants: Warrant 8 says when several of the preceding conditions are nearly satisfied, a signal may provide the best solution at the intersection.
n Warrant 9 ? Four hour volumes: This warrant is used when volumes are very high on the major street for a minimum of four hours a day. The side street volumes can be lower than in Warrant 1.
n Warrant 10 ? Peak hour delay: This warrant would be applied where traffic conditions are such that one hour of the day, the minor street traffic suffers excessive delay entering or crossing the main street.
n Warrant 11 ? Peak hour volume: This warrant is also intended for application where traffic conditions are such that for one hour of the day, minor street traffic suffers undue delay entering or crossing the main street. The volume requirement for this warrant is higher than for Warrant 10.