Loading...
CR 88-144 Minnetonka - Request Traffic Signals --.- .... ,. (j - . '\. <, 'I July 14, 1988 0 P K ' " Councl. Report: 88-144 CITY OF MINNETONKA - REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS COUNTY ROAD #73 AND COUNTY ROAD #5 Proposed Action. staff recommends adoption of the following motion: ~ that the City of Hopki~s join the City of Minnetonka in S request to Hennepin County to consider the installation of traffic signals at CSAH No. 73 and CSAH No.5. Also. Move that the city of Hopkins work with Hennepin County and the, City of Minnetonka on an acceptable design for the intersection. These actions will not commit the City of Hopkins to having the signals installed. Any plans developed by Hennepin County will have to be presented to both cities for their approval prior to construction. Overview. This intersection has been considered for upgrading several times. The City of Hinnetonka is requesting at this time that the City of Hopkins join in a request to Hennepin County to consider the installation of traffic signals. . Traffic counts and Movements at that intersection warrant the installation of a signal system. To install a signal system that would work properly, the roadways on each side of the intersection would have to be upgraded with widening to allow for turn lanes. This upgrading would extend several hundred feet but would not call for a widening beyond that point. Primarv Issues to Consider o Should the City of Hopkins. join with the City of Minnetonka in this request? o What is the extent of the project? o Will additional right-of-way be needed? o What are the traffic implications? o What are the costs involved? SUDPorting Information. o City of Mlnnetonka Resolution 88-8650 Map I Clon P. Anderson 'rector of Engineering . .~, ..... - .. .. - -,:- . Council Report: 88-144 Page 2 DetaileQ Backqround~ County state Aid Highway No. 5, Minnetonka Boulevard, and ~ounty State Aid Highway No. 73, Hopkins Cross Road, are both 2 lane roads with asphalt shoulders and rural sections with ditches. Where they intersect, the road surface has been striped for 4 lanes in each approach so traffic can cue up at that intersection. The intersection is, and has been for many years, controlled by a 4 way stop sign. As stated in Minnetonka Resolution 88-8650, the signalization of the intersection of C.S.A.H. No.'s 5 and 73 was considered in 1976 and again in 1981- Neither City approved the proposed layout in 1976 and the City of Hopkins did not approve a proposed layout in 1981. The City of Minnetonka, by Resolution 88-8650 is requesting the City of Hopkins to join in a request to Hennepin CQunty to consider the installation of traffic signals at this intersection as soon as posaible. They are also aSking Hopkins to work with Hennepin County and the City of . Minnetonka staff on an accepta1')le design for the inter8ection. Analysis. An intersection with 4 lanes in each approach is a very difficult intersection to control with stop siqns under heavy traffic conditions. The morning and eveninq rush hour traffic causes lengthy backups. This is due to the number of left and right turns with through traffic in an intersection where there is no set pattern of riqht-to- proceed. Accidents are minor damaqe accidents due to the slow speeds involved. Average daily traffic is 12,600 vehicles per day on Minnetonka BOUlevard and 9,600 vehicles per day on Hopkins Cross Road. This is a 80% increase on Minnetonka Boulevard since 1976 with a slight decrease on Hopkins Cross Road. . -~ ~ . Council Report: 88-144 Page 3 p~tm~rv Issues t~ CODside~. o Should the City of Hopkins join with the City of Minnetonka in this request? The request to the County will be for the County to consider the installation of traffic signals as soon as possible. The staff of the two c1 ties would work with the County to achieve an acceptable design for the intersection. This request does not bind either City to approve a proposal as presented by the County. Final approval must be given by each City prior to any construction taking place. o What is the extent of the project? The request to the County would be to desiqn a traffic siqnal system for the intersection. To adequately handle the present and anticipated traffic, right and left turn bays will have to be constructed on all four approaches. This desiqn would requi:re some widening and reconstruction from 600 to 800 feet back from the intersection on each approach. Widening in the area of the intersection would require that some of the ditch section be filled with storm . drainage placed in pipes. o Will additional right-of-way be needed? To install the right and left turn la.nes, some additional right-of-way may be needed at the intersection to properly provide for sight distances and snotJ' st.orage. Through traffic would not be routed closer to the residences. o What &re the traffic implications? A four-way stop intersection causes all vehicles to stop at all times. This causes each vehicle to brake and then to accelerate after leaving the intersection. This breaking and accelerating creates a certain amount of noise at the intersection. At a traffic light controlled intersection, two approaches are allowed to continue through the intersection without stopping or accelerating. An occasional vehicle may accelerate to 'make' a light. The other two approaches will have to stop and wait for a qreen and then accelerate from the intersection. The general flow at a traffic light controlled intersection is smoother than at a stop sign controlled intersection. The present design with stop signs allows vehicles to stop and then proceed immediately during low traffic volume tlmes. With traffic light control, som.e vehicles will be required to stop and wait for a green to proceed. .. .- ~. Council Report: 88-144 Page 4 o What are the costs involved? Present Hannepin County policy for participation in an improvement of this type is for a 50"'50 split between the cities and the county for the cost ot the signals, estimated at $85,000-$90,000. No estimate can be made for road improvements without a desiqn. A typical project would call for about 20' City and 80l County participation. The two cities would agree separately on the share of these COBts~ ;,. ,.. "