Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.a. Danville Avenue Traffic Control Review4ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Meeting: October 18, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: Danville Avenue Traffic Control Review AGENDA SECTION: Department Head Reports PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer AG 4 r - ATTACHMENTS: October 12, 2005 Memorandum APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: To be determined. ISSUE: Consider modifications to traffic control on Danville Avenue and side streets between 156' Street and 160`h Street. BACKGROUND: In response to an accident that recently occurred on Danville Avenue at Upper 156`'' Street, a review of the existing traffic volumes and traffic control on Danville Avenue between 156`h Street and 160' Street has been conducted, This review also looked at the accident history for the past 5 years based on Police records and looked at the existing conditions along the corridor The attached memorandum from Chuck Rickary the City's traffic engineering consultant provides information on the existing conditions and traffic volumes and options for Council consideration to modify the existing traffic control on this segment of Danville Avenue and the side streets. As noted in the attached memorandum, the evaluation for the installation of additional traffic control has been made in accordance with the City's Policy on Traffic Control Device Standards which refers to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (,MMUTCD). The options listed in the memorandum include a summary of advantages and disadvantages as well Chuck Mckart will be in attendance at the meeting to present the findings and conclusions included in the attached memorandum. Staff is anticipating that several residents within the Danville Avenue neighborhood will be in attendance at the meeting. SUMMARY: As documented in the memorandum, the existing traffic volumes do not warrant modifications to the existing traffic control on Danville Avenue and the side streets. While the number of accidents in the past 5 years cannot be dismissed, the number does not warrant modifications to the existing traffic control either. At a minimum, there are some site distance issues that should be addressed and consideration G 1Streets0anville AvenuelDanvA leTrafficControtCC10 -18 -95 doc given for advance notice signing of the intersection at Upper 156`h Street and Danville Avenue. Staff is seeking Council direction on this matter based on the options and advantages /disadvantages noted in the attached memorandum. i WSB - Infrastructure a Engineering . Planning a Construction 701 Xenia Avenue Soutl Suite #300 a,soc,nfu, t„� Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 541 -4800 Fax: 763 541 -1700 Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rosemount From: Chuck Rickart, P.E., P. T.O.E. WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: October 12, 2005 Re: Danville Avenue Traffic Review IESB Project No. 1005 -99 Introduction The City of Rosemount has received numerous complaints as to the operation and safety of intersections along Danville Avenue between 1601" Street and Upper 1561h Street. Figure 1 (attached) shows the location of the street within the City of Rosemount. These complaints relate primarily to the safety of the intersections along the roadway. Several crashes and "close calls" have occurred at several of these locations. As a result, City staff has requested that a traffic review be completed to determine what alternatives are available to improve this situation. The followmg sections of this memorandum outline the review and analysis of the roadway, and an outline of alternatives that could be implemented for potential safety improvements. Data Collection Traffic volumes were collected at three locations along the roadway. The counts were conducted on October 4 and 5, and range from 830 vehicles per dayjust north of 160th Street to 900 vehicles per day north of Upper 156th Street. The AM peak hour volumes ranged from 71 vehicles per hour to 81 vehicles per hour, and the PM peak hour volumes ranged from 85 vehicles per hour to 106 vehicles per hour. A crash investigation was also conducted, based on police records, for the roadway segment. It was found that on Danville Avenue six reported crashes have occurred from 2003 -2005. Two of these crashes occurred at 158th Street/ 158'11 Court and two at Upper 156th Street. Of these crashes, all were right angle crashes, with the vehicles on the side street proceeding through the intersection. Two additional crashes were also reported at the intersection of 1601h Street, with vehicles pulling out from Danville Avenue on to 160th Street, where the crash occurred. In addition to the reported crashes, several "close calls" have been reported by residents along the corridor From these conversations, simiIar type situations have occurred where vehicles coming from the side streets almost hit vehicles on Danville Avenue. G �trceidM. flk AvmueUlHMO -D-W IIAIcl01105 d Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rosemount October 12, 2005 Page 2 of 5 Site Review / Analysis Currently, Danville Avenue is a two -lane, two -way street with uncontrolled intersections. The posted speed limit is 30 m.p.h. Existing traffic must follow traffic laws as it pertains to yielding the right -of -way at uncontrolled intersections. This means that vehicles approaching on the right -hand approach would have the right -of -way when two vehicles enter the intersection at the same time. Based on the traffic volumes collected on Danville Avenue (830 -900 vehicles /day), the volumes are typical for a residential type street. Typically, residential volumes range from 500 -1,000 vehicles per day, depending on the development and the configuration of the roadway. In this situation, the roadway is acting as a minor collector, bringing traffic to either 160th Street or 1561h Street, then to the mayor collectors. Another indication that this roadway has a higher functional classification is the limited access, specifically between 16011 Street and Upper 1561h Street. There are very few driveways in this stretch of roadway, thus giving it a feel of a higher functional roadway. Traffic control at specific intersections is critical to the operation of both intersecting roadways. If incorrect traffic control is installed for the existing traffic conditions and topographic characteristics of an intersection, unnecessary delays and /or crashes could occur. The traveling public, especially persons not familiar with the area, typically drive based on instinct. Drivers subconsciously evaluate their surroundings to determine if stop signs should be or should not be located on an intersection approach. It is very difficult to determine what the correct intersection control should be; however, the following factors should be evaluated when determining intersection control: 1. Traffic conditions 2. Topographic conditions 3. Human factors Based on these conditions and factors, potential intersection control can be evaluated and determined. Several techniques can be used to determine what kind of intersection control is warranted at specific intersections. The City's policy in evaluating the need and location of stop sign control is the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD), Section 213-5. The warrants for an all -ways stop control based on the MnMUTCD are: Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the all -way stop can be an interim measure. 2. An accident problem indicating that five or more reported accidents per year, of a type correctable by all -way stop sign installation. 3. Minimum traffic volumes: a. Total traffic volume entering the intersection from approaches must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for 8 hours of an average day. G AvmueU M0.lkmdle v >101105d Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rosemount October 12, 2005 Page 3 of 5 b. The combined vehicle and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay of the minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle. However, C. When the 85th percentile speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the requirements can be reduced to 70 %. Based on these criteria, none of the intersections along Danville Avenue would meet requirements for all -way stop control. Studies conducted throughout the country have concluded that installation of stop signs, where not warranted or justified, can cause additional crashes and create enforcement problems for local officials. In addition, studies have concluded that stop signs, as a speed reduction measure, do not work. In fact, it has been found that speeds near intersections will actually increase. Boulevard trees have been planted along the entire length of Danville Avenue, from 160th to Upper 156th Street. These boulevard trees are now matured and have canopies that are significant and, in some cases, give the illusion of hiding intersections as you are driving along Danville Avenue. In addition, specifically at the intersection of 158th Street, approaching Danville Avenue from the east, there is a significant amount of landscaping located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. This landscaping, together with the road curving slightly, creates a sight line issue to the north. At the intersection of Upper 156th Street, traffic approaching Danville Avenue from the east or west is looking up a hill to the south. If a vehicle is traveling at the posted 30 mph speed limit on Danville Avenue, a vehicle approach on upper 156th Street should be able to see them. In addition, as you are heading eastbound or westbound on Upper 156th Street, the intersection does not line up exactly straight through the intersection. This, again, gives the illusion that there is not a major intersection ahead. All other intersections along the roadway do not have specific sight line issues based on the site review Alternatives Based on the traffic review of this roadway, four primary alternatives exist for the corridor. Each is discussed below, with other advantages and disadvantages. Do Nothing: This alternative would not provide any improvements or modifications to the street. Advantages Disadvantages • Zero cost for implementation. • Does not address any issues raised by the residents in the area. • Sight line and potential crash issues could continue to occur. G \Streete0.,1k My ..0 U MO- Oam01eAw101105 &o Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rosemount October 12, 2005 Page 4 of 5 Side Street Stop Signs: This alternative would add two -way stop control to all side streets along Danville Avenue. In order to provide consistency for the corridor, it is recommended that stop signs be installed on all side streets, not lust selected intersections. Advantages Disadvanta es • Provides a clear indication of the • Sight line issues would still exist for Upper vehicle right -of -way through the 156th Street and 158t" Street. corridor. from the all -way stops. • Improves the safety of the • Speeds on Danville Avenue could increase intersections by requiring a full due to the knowledge that side streets are stop condition for each side street required to stop. Danville Avenue to stop. • Additional enforcement would be required due to the increased speeds and stop sus. All -Way Stops at 158th Street and 156th Street: This alternative would install all -way stops at these intersections. Advantages Disadvantages • The intersections of upper 156th • Speeds and noise along Danville could Street and 158th Street would be increase as a result of starting and stopping improved for safety. from the all -way stops. • The sight line issues at upper • Over time at intersections that don't meet 1561h Street and 158th Street stop sign warrants, vehicles tend to begin to would be eliminated by requiring ignore the stop sign and start rolling Danville Avenue to stop. through the intersection, which can cause additional severe crashes. • Additional enforcement would be required due to be.stop signs. 4. Signing and Sight Line Improvements: This alternative would provide minor signing and sight line improvements along the corridor. This would include installation of intersection ahead signs on the side streets of 158th Street and Upper 156th Street, as well as intersection ahead signs on Danville Avenue approaching Upper 156th Street and 158" Street. In addition, at 158th, the landscaping in the northeast quadrant would need to be modified to improve the sight lines. Advantages Disadvantages • Addresses the sight line issues at • Does not change the sight line conditions at 158" Street. Upper 156th Street. • Provides warning of the • Maintains the same roadway conditions as intersections where visibility exists today. appears to be an issue. • Over time, people may begin to "not see" the warning signs. G 6tmets \Dwn llc AvnueWINO- OannlcAvo-101105 doc Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rosemount October 12, 2005 Page 5 of 5 Conclusion Based on the above alternatives and the analysis of the existing site conditions, any of the alternatives, except to do nothing, would provide some improvement to the safety of the corridor. The critical factor to remember in choosing an alternative that would include the addition of stop signs will be the need for additional enforcement and potential increased speeds along the corridor. The costs for any of the alternatives would be minimal. cc: James Verbrugge, City Administrator, Rosemount, Andy Brotzler — City Engineer, Rosemount Gary Kalstabakken —Police Chief, Rosemount lh/sm G lSmets \Danville AvenueVdEMO- Dennlle v >101105 doc CITY OF ROSEMOUNT POLICY TITLE: POLICY NUMBER: PROPOSED BY: DATE APPROVED BY COUNCIL: TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE STANDARDS PS -1 POLICE/PUBLIC WORKS NOVEMBER 6, 2001 PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to delineate the city's process and procedures for locating and installing traffic control devices; to include, signing, pavement markings and traffic signals. 1ID11IDWA It is the policy of the City of Rosemount to follow the guidelines and recommendations contained in the most current approved Minnesota Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) to make decisions on design, locations, installation and maintenance of signs, pavement markings and traffic signals. Minnesota State Statute 169 06, Sub. 3 states, "All traffic control devices erected shall conform to the state manual and specifications." PROCEDURE The Public Works Department will have primary responsibility for determining the need for traffic control devices on Rosemount city streets. All requests received for installation or evaluation of traffic control devices, such as, stop signs or crosswalk markings, will be routed to the city engineer or designee for evaluation. The city engineer or designee will be responsible for providing a written response to individuals whom request evaluation of traffic control devices. In those instances in which the evaluation reveals unusual factors or extenuating circumstances to consider, the city engineer will bring the matter to the Development Review Committee for discussion. A member of the Development Review Committee may also request evaluation or discussion concerning a request for a traffic control device. The city engineer or designee is responsible for coordinating with state and county agencies when a traffic control evaluation request is received regarding a state or county roadway within the city limits. w� Ii OO ln9Tr' o c APf. m CT. W r( 155th o a� ST ��2c �LI 15, =' PATH COL CMB Q 156th ST. a W. a UPPERpPLE �a . z� Op 1R•F o CT. r_ O V • ls6 f UR 9. v �? a DARGNG , CRIST4/ CARD1 ° PATH W 157 th CT. W. 157th U. I158th CT. 158th ST- W. CR IM14 AL F CINN AM01 159th W'CT. DAKOTA � z o w 60th a z ST. LAKE- o m VILLE z ° a 0 City of Rosemount, Minnesota Danville Avenue West Prepared by g E WJB x�o,ws Mu gset6 ]3 P �I 4. v - J�pc 0� PSG oil 11 Project Location Map Figure 1 � rs .`ROSEMOUNT MINNESOTA . r /. • '�¢� l � ' • • .t �i ni�� ? • � i � � � F 'FkF � i i Y i � • 4 t r 1 - } y r • � n .'S j,,( t i 1a M ` t i T �. yy a� f ° � l � • • � 1. FI .'#' � T � _LLB �`ak f ] k 9Fk A tv a * F � A. ♦ �# l City of Rosemount, Minnesota Danville Avenue West Aerial Photo Prepared by — Y A 11IX1aFVen�eswn 11� &I0 v E Minre IM MN SW6 WSB Figure 2 k 01 wvvnsmuwwe � +.owfnixo. ewMrvn= t�xsvxucnax IN BY CrLARLES LASZEWSKI Mae 1 of 2 Posted on Mon, Oct. 17, 2005 BY CHARLES LASZEWSKI ROAD SAGE BY CHARLES LASZEWSKI Pioneer Press Q. I have a question about four -way stop signs. Recently, I was traveling south, approaching an intersection. Two other cars arrived at about the same time but in this order: westbound, northbound, then myself The westbound car traveled through first The northbound car had its signal light showing it was taking a left turn, and I was going straight. I went through the intersection, making the other car wait before it could turn left. The driver honked and looked to be angry. I believed that the alternating passage system goes by the roads themselves. First the east -west road got a turn, then the north - south. I believe I had the right of way since I was going straight Was I correct? — Lyle B., Blaine N My biggest gripe with Minnesota drivers is that they do not know how to maneuver a four -way stop. I have had three children take drivers' instruction in school With each child, I taught them how to treat a four -way stop and each one questioned the instructor. The answer to all was that' yes, your mom is correct, but we don't bother teaching that because no one does it correctly anyway " Please inform generations of Minnesotans how to do this It has little to do with who got there first, more than one car can go at a time and it's not OK to turn left into oncoming traffic. — Diane D., Cottage Grove F-0111 If Road Sage ever compiles a Top 10 list of most -asked questions, this one will rank up there with the pedestrian crosswalk law and what to do when emergency vehicles are coming. What Diane and Lyle are talking about are the near simultaneous arrivals of cars at a four -way stop. And here, the law is unambiguous. The Minnesota Driver's Manual states that when two vehicles reach an intersection controlled by stop signs at the same time, the car to the left must yield to the driver on the right. Diane is correct that two cars going the opposite direction can proceed forward at the same time, much as they would if they were at a green light That applies even if, say, the westbound car is first in line to go and the eastbound car lust arrived North and south traffic must wait for the westbound car to clear the intersection so no harm is done if the eastbound car goes at the same time. Lyle also was correct that he had the right of way in his circumstance. Again, on the section involving the simultaneous arrival of vehicles, the driver's manual states that "a driver who wishes to make a left turn must yield to vehicles approaching from the opposite direction when these vehicles are in the intersection or are near enough to pose the risk of a crash " All that said, the great thing about intersections is that they automatically make drivers cautious. David Engwicht, who has made a career of advising cities on ways to slow traffic, has suggested, along with other measures, removing stop signs because "it brings in uncertainty and they have to look each other in the eye." http Hwww twincities com/ mld/ twmcities /news/transportatton/12920095 1rtm '1temp1ate =c - 10/18/2005