The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10 16 2017 TH13/CR 21 Discussions Presentation (Consultant)CH 21 Downtown Prior Lake Reconstruction Local Transportation Assessment | 10.16.17 SRF Project Role •Involved Throughout the Study Process –March 2017 to Present •PMT Meetings (7) •Open Houses (2) •Visioning Workshops (3) •City Council/Joint Work Session Meetings (3) •Budget Progress ~ 60% 2 Project Goals A.Character: Preserve and enrich the character of Downtown Prior Lake B.Non-Motorized: Provide a comprehensive network for nonmotorized transportation that is compatible with the major transportation corridors C.Safety: Safely accommodate all users along the major transportation corridors D.Mobility: Enhance vehicle mobility on major transportation corridors E.Local: Maintain and enhance local roadway system F.Infrastructure: Provide infrastructure improvements compatible with the natural and human environment G.Cost: Develop a financially responsible infrastructure implementation plan 3 Existing CH 21 Conditions •Crash and severity rates at the study intersections/corridor generally fall below average rates for locations with similar characteristics, except the CH 21/Duluth Avenue intersection, which has a high percent of right-angle crashes. •The CH 21/MN Highway 13 intersection operates at an overall LOS F during the p.m. peak hour as a result of the current traffic signal operation. •Eastbound queues from the CH 21/MN Highway 13 intersection frequently extend beyond Main Avenue during peak periods; occasionally, westbound queues from the CH 21/Main Avenue intersection extend to MN Highway 13. •Due to congestion along CH 21 between MN Highway 13 and Main Avenue, motorists were observed using alternative routes to avoid congestion. 4 Existing Local Transportation System Conditions 5 Existing Travel Patterns 6 motorists are using downtown local roadways to access downtown businesses, but also as alternative routes to avoid congestion at the CH 21/MN Highway 13 intersection Historical Traffic Volumes 7 motorists are using downtown local roadways to access downtown businesses, but also as alternative routes to avoid congestion at the CH 21/MN Highway 13 intersection Local Roadway Crash History (2011 to 2015) •The amount of reported crashes does not suggest any safety issues on local roadways within the study area from a frequency perspective. •Near the Duluth Avenue/Pleasant Street intersection (2) •Near the Arcadia Avenue/Dakota Street intersection (1) •Dakota Street between Arcadia Avenue/MN Highway 13 (2) •At the Main Street/Kop Parkway intersection (2) 8 Pedestrian Network 9 Parking Utilization 10 Alternative A-1 11 Alternative A-2 12 Alternative A Hybrid 13 Alternative B-1 14 Alternative B-2 (Removed from Consideration) 15 Alternative Evaluation (Local Transportation Perspective) •All alternatives improve mobility on the County and State system (CH 21 and MN Highway 13). •Local Transportation Perspective –Travel Patterns –Roadway Capacity –Safety (Vehicular and Pedestrian) –Access –Downtown Compatibility (Land Use, Growth, Etc.) 16 Physical - Travel Pattern Changes Goal: Motorists and pedestrians traveling to downtown from any direction should have a minimum of two options to access downtown, which is considered reasonable from a transportation perspective. 17 A -1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Good Good Good Good Good Mobility Local Physical – Driveway Impacts •Alternatives B-1 and B-2 would negatively impact access, mobility, and circulation within the downtown. 18 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Good Good Good Poor Poor Character Mobility Local Main Avenue and CH 21 Traffic Volume Profiles 19 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Good Good Good Poor Poor Character Mobility Local 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM Hourly Entering Traffic Volumes Main Ave CH 21 Physical – Roadway Cross-Sections/Parking Impacts 20 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Character Local Operational – CH 21 Corridor Travel Times •All four alternatives are expected to improve corridor travel times 21 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Fair Good Fair Fair Good Character Mobility Local Year 2040 Peak Hour Alternative Travel Time (Percent Improvement from Existing) Existing A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 EB Travel Time (s) Duluth Ave to MN 13 AM 175 (0%) 70 (60%) 45 (75%) 75 (55%) 45 (75%) PM 420 (0%) 150 (65%) 80 (80%) 225 (50%) 70 (85%) WB Travel Time (s) Duluth Ave to MN 13 AM 375 (0%) 180 (50%) 110 (70%) 165 (55%) 110 (70%) PM 430 (0%) 110 (75%) 55 (85%) 100 (75%) 45 (90%) Operational – Main Avenue Travel Times 22 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Poor Fair Fair Poor Good Mobility Local 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Existing No Build (Existing) A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia RAB A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main RAB Es t i m a t e d T r a v e l T i m e [ s e c o n d s ] Main Avenue Travel Time Between Dakota and Pleasant (PM Peak) Northbound Southbound Operational – Local Roadway Traffic Volumes 23 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Mobility Local •Local roadway system can accommodate the change in year 2040 traffic volumes. •Improvements to CH 21 corridor operations would result in less motorists diverting through the downtown than currently occurs. Facility Type Daily Capacity Ranges (AADT) * Two-lane undivided urban 8,000 - 10,000 Two-lane undivided rural 14,000 - 15,000 Three-lane undivided urban (two-lane divided with turn lanes) 15,000 - 17,000 Four-lane undivided urban 18,000 - 22,000 Five-lane undivided urban (four-lane divided with turn lanes) 28,000 - 32,000 Four-lane divided rural 35,000 - 38,000 Operational – Local Roadway Traffic Volumes 24 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Mobility Local Operational – Year 2040 Delays and Queues 25 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Good Good Good Poor Fair Mobility Local •All alternatives provide overall acceptable levels of service at the study intersections. •Northbound/southbound queues at the CH 21/Main Avenue intersection under Alternative B-1 will significantly inhibit downtown access, mobility, circulation, and parking. Operational – Vehicular Safety 26 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Safety Local •Multi-lane roundabouts (Alternatives A-2/B-2) statistically have a higher frequency of crashes, but fewer high severity (fatal/injury related type crashes) compared to signalized intersections (Alternatives A-1/B-1). •If the weighted crash costs are the same between the alternatives, the less severe type crash alternatives should be favored. Operational – Pedestrian Safety 27 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Good Good Good Good Fair Non-Motorized Safety Local •All alternatives provide at least three (3) north/south crossings of CH 21. Alternative A-2 and A-Hybrid provide four (4) north/south pedestrian crossings. •From a pedestrian safety perspective, signals have higher driver yield rates to pedestrians than roundabouts. However, there are opportunities to enhance pedestrian crossings to improve driver yield rates. Operational – Pedestrian Safety 28 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Good Good Good Good Fair Non-Motorized Safety Local •Motorists traveling through signalized intersections at a range between 15 and 50 mph, whereas motorists travel through roundabouts at a range between 15 and 20 mph •The risk of severe injury of a pedestrian struck by a vehicle increases from 25 percent at 25 mph to 90 percent at 45 mph •Fewer severe pedestrian-related incidents would be expected under the roundabout alternatives Operational – Pedestrian Delay at Main Avenue 29 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Good Good Good Poor Good Non-Motorized Local Alternative Crossing Treatment Motorist Yield Rate Peak Hour Crossing Delay LOS No Build (Existing)All-way-stop 99% 0-5 sec. A A-1, A-2, A-Hybrid Refuge Island 34% 50-55 sec. F RRFB 84% 10-15 sec. C Hawk 97% 5-10 sec. B B-1 Signal 99% 85-110 sec. F B-1 Roundabout 41% 10-15 sec. B Compatibility – Land Use/Downtown Growth 30 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Good Good Good Good Fair Feasibility Local •Improved access at either Arcadia Avenue or Duluth Avenue will help facilitate downtown growth. •Full-access at Arcadia Avenue provides direct north/south vehicular connectivity in downtown (important under Alternatives A-1 and A-2). Compatibility – Planned Transportation Improvements 31 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Good Good Good Fair Fair Feasibility Local •Alternatives A-1 and A-2 support previous planning efforts. •The Arcadia Avenue extension to Pleasant Street would help balance vehicular activity between Colorado Street and Pleasant Street, and provide motorists with additional options to access/circulate downtown. •The need for the Arcadia Avenue extension should be driven by market forces. Operational – Project Phasing 32 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Mobility Local PHASE 1PHASE 1 PHASE 2PHASE 2 PHASE 3 Compatibility – Streetscaping Opportunities 33 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Good Good Good Fair Good Character Local •Alternatives A-2 and B-2 provides the best opportunity to incorporate streetscaping elements. •Alternative A-1 provides a good streetscaping opportunity. •Alternative B-1 provides the lease amount of opportunities. Compatibility – Property Impacts 34 A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed from Further Consideration Project Goals Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Feasibility Cost Local Intersection Number of Impacted Parcels Number of Full Acquisition Parcels No Build (Existing) 0 0 Alternative A-1 10 2 Alternative A-2 14 2 Alternative B-1 19 1 Alternative B-2 23 1 Alternative Evaluation Summary Matrix 35 Evaluation Criteria A-1 Arcadia Signal A-2 Arcadia Roundabout A Hybrid B-1 Main Signal B-2 Main Roundabout Removed Project Goals Travel Pattern Changes Good Good Good Good Good Mobility Local Driveway Impacts Good Good Good Poor Poor Character Mobility Local Roadway Cross-Section/ Parking Impacts Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Character Local Corridor Travel Times Fair Good Good Fair Good Character Mobility Local Main Ave Travel Times Poor Fair Fair Poor Good Mobility Local Local Roadway Traffic Volumes Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Mobility Local Year 2040 Delays and Queues Good Good Good Poor Fair Mobility Local Vehicular Safety Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Safety Local Pedestrian Safety Good Good Good Good Fair Non- Motorized) Safety Local Land Use/ Downtown Growth Good Good Good Good Fair Feasibility Local Planned Transportation Improvements Good Good Good Fair Fair Feasibility Local Streetscape Opportunities Good Good Good Fair Good Character Local Compatibility - Property Impacts Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Feasibility Cost Local Standalone Issue (Dance Studio) 36 •Pedestrian crossing improvements should be considered regardless of the CH 21/MN Highway 13 project. •Under Alternatives A1 and A2 traffic volumes on Colorado Street are expected to increase. •The Arcadia Avenue extension between Colorado Street and Pleasant Street would provide an alternative route for motorists. Standalone Issue (St. Michael Safety/Crossings) 37 •Pedestrian facilities adjacent to St. Michael’s could be reviewed separate of the CH 21/MN Highway 13 reconstruction. •Under all alternatives, the total volume at the Duluth Avenue/ Pleasant Street intersection is relatively similar. Standalone Issue (Arcadia Avenue/Dakota Street) 38 •Existing sight distance issue for northbound vehicles turning onto Dakota Street. •To address this concern, modifying the intersection to all-way-stop control could be considered. 39 Alternative B-2 (Hybrid) 40