Loading...
CR 92-70 Traffic Study CTY RD 73 \ 1 y 0 .. March 16, 1992 ~ 0 ~ ~ Council Report; 92-70 P K I TRAFFIC STUDY COUNTY ROAD 73 (HOPKINS CROSSROADS) AND COUNTY ROAD 5 (MINNETONKA BOULEVARD) Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: "Move to authorized staff to proceed with a traffic study of the County Road 5 and County Road 73 intersection that would be performed by a traffic consultant at a cost of approximatelY $7.000.00'1. This action will allow a traffic study to be performed on this intersection to address concerns of the city as well as nearby neighborhoods. Overview This intersection has been considered for upgrading several times in the past. The last time was in 1988 when the City of Minnetonka requested, by resolution, that the City of Hopkins perform a joint study to consider upgrading. Subsequent action never occurred, and to this date the city of Minnetonka still strongly desires that this intersect-ion be upgraded with at least temporary signals. Traffic counts and movements at this intersection warrant the installation of a signal system. To install a signal system that would work properly, Minnetonka Boulevard would have to be upgraded with widening to allow for turn lanes. This upgrading would extend several hundred feet in each direction but would not call for widening beyond that point. primary Issues to Consider o Why is a traffic study needed? o What is the cost of a study? o What would the study consist of? o What are the alternatives? Supportinq Information o Detailed Background o Analysis of Issues Public Works Director Council Rpt 92-70 M,arch 16, 1992 Page 2 Detailed Backqround The issue of upgrading the intersection of County Roads 5 and 73 was first considered in 1976. At that time, the county proposed improvements to this intersection due to increasing traffic and congestion. At that time, both the city of Minnetonka and the city of Hopkins rejected the County's proposal. The issue again was raised in 1981 by the County and at that time Minnetonka approved the improvement and Hopkins rejected the concept. In 1988, the City of Minnetonka passed a resolution and forwarded the resolution to the city Council of Hopkins again requesting a joint study of the intersection which would include preliminary drawings of intersection improvements. Hopkins responded by holding an information meeting and invited representatives from the Belgrave Association to attend and to offer comments on the concept. Ultimately, the City Council in Hopkins rejected the Minnetonka request. To date, there have been no improvements at that intersection. Analvsis of Issues o Why is a traffic study needed? Traffic counts and movements at this intersection definitely warrant the installation of a signal system. The city of Minnetonka strongly believes that signals would be an asset to this intersection and would like the City of Hopkins to concur with them. However, in order to concur with Minnetonka on this issue staff is recommending that an independent traffic analysis be performed at the intersection. An independent analysis would look at all the issues, consider the concerns of the Belgrave Association, and weigh the arguments on both sides of the issues. Performing a traffic analysis at this intersection would also indicate to Minnetonka that we are attempting to cooperate with them on this issue. o What is the cost of a study? The estimated cost to perform a traffic study is $7,000.00. o What would the study consist of? The study would include analyzing previous' studies and plans, accident dates, traffic counts and movements and especially the concerns of the neighborhood. It would basically be geared towards analyz ing temporary signals since that is all that is being requested by Minnetonka at this time. Meetings would be held with the neighborhoods as well as with the city Council to discuss the findings. council Rpt 92-70 M,3.rch 16, 1992 Page 3 o What are the alternatives? 1. ,Authorize an independent traffic analysis of all of the options and issues. Said study would be done by the City of Hopkins at Hopkins' expense. A primary benefit to this option is that it allows Hopkins to independently look at the issue, consider the concerns of the Belgrave Association, and weigh the arguments on both sides of the issue. The negative to this option is that the cost of the study would be borne by the City of Hopkins and would likely be non-refundable from project costs. 2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the County to install temporary signals only at this intersection, and that minor widening of Minnetonka Boulevard be approved by the City. The benefit of this option is that the only improvements we would be concurring to is temporary signals and not a complete reconstruct of the intersection. Temporary signal construction would have minor geometric impacts on the neighborhood versus permanent signals. Furthermore, this option would not require the city to spend money on a traffic study. 3. The final option would involve taking no action at this time. The neighborhood association,has recently written a letter reinforcing their position of not wanting any action to occur on this intersection. They would likely see this option as the most beneficial to the association and the city of Hopkins. The primary negative to this option is that, again, the concerns of the city of Minnetonka and Hennepin County would not be met.