In no particular order of priorty - yet...
Complete Streets Manual (pdf)
Location - issue - idea - priority
Central @ Yale/Willard - speed thru intersection on Central - crossing island/mini circle
Chapel thru Park - speeding & bike lane issues - protected bike lanes & road "diet"
Edgewood thru Park - speeding & bike lane issues - protected bike lanes & road "diet"
Chapel "t" intersections & crossing points - speeding - crossing islands, bike lanes, road "diet"
Edgewood - speeding, pedestrian safety, school zone - crossing islands, bike lanes, road "diet"
Alden / Willard - speeding, 2-way stop, school zone - SCROLL DOWN FOR MORE INFO
Yale Ave. - speeding, school zone -
Yale & Chapel - speeding, sight lines, "gateway to Yale Bowl" - traffic circle AERIAL PIX BELOW
W. Elm & Forest - dangerous turns - no left/rt turn only; finalize solution
Cleveland Rd - cut-thru to avoid Forest & RT34 - speed humps
Willard & Forest to Barnett- cut-thru to avoid Forest/Fountain intersection
W. Rock & Edgewood - school crossing - bump outs
 |
| crossing island from New Haven Complete Street Manual |
 |
| a crossing island example - rumble strip version |
Alden/Willard 4-way stop Warrant Study
M.U.T.C.D. – Multi Way Stop CriteriaSection 2B.07 Multi-Way Stop Applications
Support:
01 Multi-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain
traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with multi-way stops include
pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multi-way
stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately
equal.
02 The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.04 also apply to
multi-way stop applications.
Guidance:
03 The decision to install multi-way stop control should be based on an engineering study.
04 The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi-way
STOP sign installation:
A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim
measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are
being made for the installation of the traffic control signal.
B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to
correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and
left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions.
C. Minimum volumes:
1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street
approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per
hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and
2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the
intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches)
averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an
average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per
vehicle during the highest hour; but
3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds
40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the
values provided in Items 1 and 2.
D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all
satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this
condition.
Option:
05 Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include:
A. The need to control left-turn conflicts;
B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high
pedestrian volumes;
C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is
not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also
required to stop; and
D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of
similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would
improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection.
 |
| Willard/Alden Warrant Study Results 11/3/10 |
 |
| Yale & Chapel Aerial Photo |
