Below is the latest email from VDOT representative.
The good news is that Warrant study qualifies for a signal; however, VDOT feels that are adequate controls in place to not have a signal (bad news). Originally VDOT was saying that none of the Warrants were being satisfied, since we pushed for a second study (and VDOT study data) we were able to see a VDOT Warrant being satisfied. Talking to people, we are going to push for a signal. If you have comments. Please let us know This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or call Supervisor Foust's office -- Ph: 703-356-0551
There have been some developments on other action items for which I would like to confirm with the necessary stakeholders for accuracy before sharing them with you. The Magarity Sidewalk (along with others) was supported at two of the FCDOT meetings and also on the survey. I will send a status email within a week.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
Animesh (Volunteer)
Mr. Gupta,
This is a follow-up response concerning your request for a traffic signal at the intersection of Magarity Road and Peabody Street.
We have completed a traffic signal study for this intersection utilizing the nationally accepted guidelines in the Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In following these guidelines, our study included the collection and analysis of vehicular and pedestrian volumes, crash data, delays, and a review of the existing geometric conditions.
The signal warrant analysis computer program that we utilize found that warrant five, the school crossing warrant, was satisfied due to the number of students crossing and the number of conflicting vehicles. However, when lacking specific data, this program makes assumptions concerning crossing distance, crossing speed and the number of available gaps, based on the pedestrian and vehicle volumes, and uses these to perform its calculations. The critical piece of information for the warrant five analysis, the number of adequate gaps in traffic, is not available due to the presence of the crossing guard who provides artificial gaps for the crossing students.
Further, the MUTCD states that even if warrant five is met, that “consideration shall be given to the implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school crossing guards or a grade-separated crossing.” Clearly most of these measures have already been implemented, and in our judgment, they are adequate to provide safe crossing for students traveling to and from the school.
None of the other eight traffic signal warrants came close to meeting the criteria for signalization. Based on our analysis of this location we do not support installation of a traffic signal at this time.
Please contact me should you have further questions concerning this issue.
Sincerely,
Don Moyer
Area Engineer, North Fairfax County
VDOT Traffic Engineering Section
Northern Region Operations
