HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - Traffic Signal C.R. 42 & Rutgers
STAFF AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT:
8A
GREG ILKKA, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY
ENGINEER
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING TO CONSIDER
SCOTT COUNTY'S REQUEST TO PROVIDE A FULL
ACCESS INTERSECTION AND INSTALLATION OF A
TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY
STATE AID HIGHWAY 42 AND RUTGERS STREET.
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
DATE:
FEBRUARY 2, 1998
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this agenda item is to consider Scott
County's request to provide a full access intersection and
the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of County
State Aid Highway (CSAH) 42 and Rutgers Street, on the
border of the cities of Prior Lake and Savage. Alternatives
for the configuration of the Timothy Avenue and CSAH 42
intersection will also be considered. A map of the area is
included. Appropriate graphics of the alternatives under
consideration will be presented at the Council meeting.
BACKGROUND:
The city of Savage has received a development proposal for
property located in the northwest quadrant of the CSAH 42
and TH 13 intersection. The proposal includes a Rainbow
Foods store and miscellaneous smaller retail stores. The
City of Savage commissioned a traffic study to determine the
feasibility of locating a traffic signal at Timothy Avenue as
requested by the developer. The results of that study
indicated a signal was feasible at Timothy for a short period
of time, however, considering projected traffic volumes the
appropriate long term location for the traffic signal is Rutgers
Street with full access to the north and south.
At the December 1, 1997 Council meeting, a resolution was
passed recommending that Scott County deny the request
for access and signal at Timothy. The Council did not take a
position on a traffic signal at Rutgers Street. Subsequently,
Savage, Scott County, and the developer have generally
reached agreement that the full access and traffic signal
should be placed at Rutgers Street.
16200rmg~Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY' EMPLOYER
DISCUSSION:
ISSUES/QUESTIONS:
RUTGERS.DOC
The City Council discussed this matter further at their
January 12th work session. At that discussion there seemed
to be consensus on the following three issues:
1) Rutgers Street as the full access intersection for
proposed development with traffic signal within 12
months.
2) Timothy Avenue closed at Commerce.
3) No change to Timothy and CSAH 42 intersection, and
acknowledgment that restriction of the left-out and
potentially the left-in could be as soon as 24 to 36
months.
The proposal to provide full access and signal at Timothy
and CSAH 42 is no longer under consideration. The traffic
study commissioned by Savage that led to the decision to
abandon the Timothy proposal also evaluated a traffic signal
at Rutgers under a full-build scenario when the entire
northwest quadrant of TH13 and CSAH 42 is developed.
This evaluation concluded that a signal at Rutgers would
work under projected traffic volumes.
CSAH 42 is currently classified as a Principal Arterial with
access spacing guidelines of one-half mile. Scott County's
guidelines would allow one-quarter mile access spacing.
CSAH 42 is also currently the subject of a Corridor Study to
evaluate its functional classification and to try to provide
recommendations to resolve the access vs. mobility conflicts
that already exist, especially in Burnsville and Apple Valley.
A signal at Rutgers Street would be consistent with the
County's access spacing guidelines and with the efforts of
the Corridor Study to balance the needs of access vs.
mobility.
There have been many issues and questions raised by the
proposal for access to County CSAH 42 including, but not
limited to, the following:
1) Increased traffic through residential neighborhoods.
2) Access to neighborhoods and businesses.
3) Why not put the signal at Harbor Street?
4) What impact will the signal and full access
intersection have on Rutgers?
5) What happens to the existing Timothy intersection?
6) What are potential short term and long term
solutions to access concerns in this area?
To facilitate discussion of these issues and questions staff
provides the following information for each:
1) Increased traffic through residential neighborhoods.
This was a particularly important issue when the proposal
was to put the signal and access at Timothy. Timothy from
CSAH 42 runs through a residential neighborhood and leads
to Boudin Street which connects to TH 13. The length of
road to travel along this route is shorter and more direct to
get to southbound TH 13 than is the route along CSAH 42 to
TH 13 then south. Furthermore there are no signals to
contend with. This shortcut currently invites increased traffic
which is intolerable to residents. This would get worse after
completion of the proposed development.
At Rutgers Street however, the same situation does not
exist. To get from CSAH 42 to southbound TH 13 through
Rutgers and Watersedge to Boudin is a very circuitous route
and by no means a shortcut. When the Boudin's Manor
plats were originally developed Rutgers Street did in fact
connect straight through Boudin's Park to Boudin Street.
Because it encouraged the shortcut from CSAH 42 to
southbound TH 13 the residents in the area petitioned the
then (pre-1976) City Council to close it off through Boudin's
Park and turn the right-of-way into parkland, which they did.
As far as staff is aware there nave been no further
complaints of traffic using Rutgers/Watersedge/Boudin as a
shortcut. There is no reason to believe this would change
due to the proposed signal. Although some drivers
unfamiliar with the area may try this route and go out of their
way once, they would not likely make the same mistake
twice.
2) Access to neighborhoods and businesses.
Providing a full access intersection in this segment of CSAH
42 between Boone Avenue and TH 13 is going to impact the
remaining two intersections in some way. The three
intersections in this segment include Harbor Place, Rutgers
Street, and Timothy Avenue. These impacts will most likely
be restrictions on the movements in and out of these streets.
The worst case restriction is the right-in-right-out
intersection. Consider the worst case scenario, when traffic
volumes on CSAH 42 reach the level that all intersections
that are not signalized are restricted to right-in-right-out.
RUTGERS.DOC
Under this scenario Rutgers is the logical choice for the
signal. It provides the benefit of full access to CSAH 42 to
the greatest number of people. If Timothy is closed at
Commerce, then all the homeowners in the Boudin's Manor
area still have full access to CSAH 42 via Rutgers. A signal
at Harbor Place would not allow this, and the Boudin's
Manor area residents would not have full access to CSAH
42 except via TH 13.
Businesses' in the area are extremely concerned about any
changes that reduce access to their business. The worst
case scenario outlined above may be unbearable for them.
One of the potential long term solutions discussed in (6)
below may address the problem.
The residents on Timothy have studied the proposals and
have requested that the City close off Timothy at Commerce
to prevent any cut through traffic regardless of where a
traffic signal goes. This actually reduces access to their
neighborhood. However, it would leave Commerce open to
CSAH 42 for access to the businesses. A potential long
term solution to improve residential access is discussed in
(6) below. The immediate cost to close Timothy is estimated
at approximately $5,000. This would not provide for a cui de
sac at the end, that would be a more significant cost.
3) Why not put the signal at Harbor Street?
Having evaluated Timothy and Rutgers for access and
signal this is the next logical question. The developer
probably has a right to reasonable access to his property. A
full access intersection at Harbor doesn't really provide
reasonable access. Rutgers, as well as Harbor, are farther
west than the landowner's westerly property line. Harbor is
the most westerly intersection, the developer has
compromised to the Rutgers location but it is highly unlikely
he would accept access from Harbor.
More importantly, the distance between Harbor and Boone
Avenue is short enough that the same situation that ruled
out Timothy would apply to Harbor and Boone, inadequate
stacking distance to turn left. Under projected traffic
volumes, Boone Avenue will also require signalization at
some point in the future.
Another consideration is providing full access to CSAH 42 to
the greatest number of people, and inconveniencing the
RUTGERS. DOC
least number of people. If Rutgers is a full access
intersection, most likely Harbor will be restricted someday, in
some fashion. The same would be true of Rutgers if Harbor
is a full access intersection. Harbor is a relatively short
deadend street. There are fewer numbers of people who
will be inconvenienced by a restricted access at Harbor than
a restricted access at Rutgers which serves as access to
CSAH 42 for a much larger neighborhood and could serve
the entire Boudin's Manor area.
Lastly, a full access intersection and signal at Harbor would
be inconsistent with the County's access spacing guidleines.
4) What impact will the signal and full access
intersection have on Rutgers?
It is staffs opinion it will have relatively little impact on traffic
levels on Rutgers. According to the traffic study, which
looked at the p.m. peak hour of traffic, traffic volumes would
be expected to increase from 50 vehicles per hour (vph)
entering and 20 vph exiting (current) to 60 vph entering and
25 vph exiting (post-development) during the p.m. peak
hour.
As traffic volumes on CSAH 42 increase there will be a long
term benefit to this neighborhood to have a signal at Rutgers
that provides a safe opportunity to access CSAH 42 in all
directions.
5) What happens to the existing Timothy intersection?
This is directly related to issue (2), access to businesses.
The businesses located along Commerce are very
concerned about the future of the Timothy/CSAH 42
intersection. The County has indicated there will probably
need to be some access restrictions to the intersection
sooner or later. The County Engineer's latest interpretation
of "sooner or later" is 24 to 36 months. The developer and
Rainbow are pushing very hard to maintain at least a left
turn in off of eastbound CSAH 42. In order to accomodate
that movement the left out of Timothy to westbound CSAH
42 would have to be eliminated. The left off of CSAH 42 into
Timothy could remain. The business owners believe this
would have a negative impact to their businesses.
Staff met with the County Engineer and the Savage City
Engineer to discuss alternatives for the Timothy intersection
RUTGERS DOC
on Monday, January 26th. Unfortunately, we were unable to
identify any alternatives that satisfied both Cities access
requirements and the County's traffic safety concerns. The
City of Savage still believes that unless Rainbow gets a left-
in at Timothy they won't build. The County has provided
graphics of the intersection alternatives A thru E which were
discussed and they are attached to this report.
From a traffic engineering perspective, we did agree on how
long we could reasonably expect these different alternatives
to safely function given increasing traffic volumes.
If the existing full access to and from Timothy (Intersection
"A" from the graphics) for the Prior Lake side remains and
the County grants the Rainbow development a right-in-right-
out only access at Timothy, we anticipate access restrictions
would be required on the Prior Lake side within 2 to 3 years.
At that point in time, the cost to restrict only the left-out
access would be at Prior Lake's expense. This work could
run as high as $30,000. If the City were unwilling to fund the
incremental restriction the County would fully fund a full
median to restrict Timothy to a right-in-right-out. This is
represented by Intersection "B". From the graphics, the
existing Timothy intersection "A" could incrementally change
from "A" to "E" and ultimately to "B", Incremental changes
would be at Prior Lake's expense.
If, on the other hand, the County unilaterally, or with Prior
Lake's consent, grants a left-in to Rainbow and eliminates
the left-out of Timothy we anticipate further access
restrictions would not be required for 3 to 10 years. This is
represented by Intersection "C". These intersection
modifications now would be at the County and developer's
expense.
As identified in the traffic study, the stacking distance
between TH 13 and Timothy for left turns into Timothy will
someday be insufficient for the volume of traffic projected for
CSAH 42. This will someday also require elimination of the
left-in to Timothy, though that is much further in the future.
This situation is represented by Intersections "B" and "D".
The Council should consider restricting the left-out now and
keeping the left-in for 3 to 10 years versus losing both
movements within 2 to 3 years with the Timothy intersection
becoming a right-in-right-out. This option is represented by
RUTGERS. DOC
Intersection "C" which would ultimately transition to
Intersection "B".
The left-out of Timothy is currently a dangerous movement.
With this development and increasing traffic volumes on
CSAH 42 it will only become more dangerous. The
alternative is to turn right, go to the TH 13 intersection and
make a U-turn. Depending on the time of day this
movement may actually be faster than waiting to make the
left-out.
6) What are potential short term and long term
solutions to access concerns in this area?
In the short term, to address the Timothy Avenue residents
concern about cut-through traffic the Council could consider
closing Timothy at Commerce to prevent cut-through traffic
on Timothy. Although this reduces access to the
neighborhood, a potential long term solution has been
identified with a modification of a recommendation from the
TH 13 corridor study. That study calls for a full access
intersection for Commerce at TH 13 and for Boudin to
become a right-in-right-out intersection. A more appropriate
long term solution would be to construct both Commerce
and Boudin as frontage roads that lead to a common
signalized intersection. This would greatly enhance access
to both the commercial properties and the neighborhoods for
the long term.
A short term solution to the businesses concerns about the
Timothy/CSAH 42 intersection would be for the County to
not make any changes to the existing access until such time
as the traffic dictates. A longer short term solution would be
to restrict the left-out now but keep the left-in. This would
provide time for the City and County to evaluate a long term
solution: the feasibility of acquiring the properties that abut
CSAH 42, between Timothy and Rutgers for the purpose of
a frontage road and/or commercially developable property.
This frontage road would connect Rutgers with Commerce
and provide the Commerce businesses a full access
intersection to CSAH 42. The County would benefit from
such a project by eliminating direct access to CSAH 42 for
three residences. Any such plan would also entail an
acceptable grading and screening plan to mitigate impacts
to the residential properties to the south.
RUTGERS. DOC
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
RUTGERS.DOC
Lastly, if the City of Prior lake does not concur with a traffic
signal at Rutgers Street, Minnesota Statutes, Chap. 162.02,
subd. 8a, allows the County Board to request by resolution
that the MnDOT Commissioner appoint a Dispute Resolution
Board to review and provide recommendations on the
matter. The Dispute Resolution Board would be neutral or
third parties, not representatives of the communities involved
and would be comprised of one County Commissioner, one
City Councilperson, one County Engineer, one City
Engineer, and one MnDOT representative. It is staffs
opinion this Board would decide in the County and Savage's
favor.
For the purposes of the public information meeting we have
notified residents and business owners along Commerce,
Timothy, Natalie, Denese, Lois, Boudin, Rutgers, Grayling
Circle, Watersedge, CSAH 42, and in the Harbor that this
issue would be on the City Council agenda on Monday,
February 2, 1998. Over 200 notices were sent out on
January 21, 1998 indicating the place, date, and time for the
Council meeting. We expect residents and business owners
to be present for the discussion.
Attached is correspondence received from Mr. Dave Moran
conveying his observations on these issues.
In accordance with Scott County's policy on cost
participation, funding for a traffic signal at Rutgers would be
split between Scott County and the Cities of Prior Lake and
Savage according to the number of legs of the intersection
within the respective jurisdiction. The City of Prior Lake
would be expected to fund one-fourth of the signal
installation, approximately $30,000. If the traffic predictions
prove correct, the City's share could be incorporated into the
Capital Improvement Program, advance funded by Scott
County, and paid to them in the programmed year.
The cost to close Timothy at Commerce is estimated at
approximately $5,000. To construct a cui de sac at the dead
end would be approximately $25,000 and would need to be
programmed into the C.I.P.
The estimated cost to construct both Commerce and Boudin
as frontage roads that lead to a common signalized
intersection is $390,000 including signal, right-of-way costs
are estimated at an additional $150,000. With the exception
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDA TION:
RUTGERS.DOC
of right-of-way costs MnDOT would probably participate in
this project.
The estimated cost to construct a connection between
Commerce and Rutgers is $110,000 with right-of-way costs
estimated at an additional $650,000 to $900,000, depending
on the number of properties that would need to be acquired.
Such a project would benefit the County and they should be
willing to participate in the cost.
The alternatives are as follows:
1) Hold a Public Information Meeting to solicit public input
regarding a full access and traffic signal at County CSAH 42
and Rutgers Street as well as what to do with the current
Timothy Avenue and CSAH 42 intersection and direct the
staff based on the information received.
"
"i .
~
~
w ,
> ." TH 13
<[
w /^\
z
0
0
o:l
l-
(/)
CR 42 ~
~'_')
I-
f5 (/)
~ (/)
~ ~
~~~c~ 8
~~\)~ ~
~~ ~
~
,
I I I
.
/
w
> DENESE ST.
<[
(/)
>-l
o
...J
~
I ~' 11 J~ R S ~.~ C ' l' I 0 ~
CJ~ 42 & '1'1-1
>-
I
I-
o
:E
o-t
I-
j I
w
u
~
W
:E
L /'" .....
8 1,-
I '--... ---- -
. 'l
~~;
o Jb1
1_ 3
EXHIBIT
1
r.
CSAH 42 & Timothy Avenue
Possible Intersection Improvements
IINTERSECTION "A" I
Existing (2-3 yrs)*
jA~
IINTERSECTION "s" I
Ultimate (> 2-10 yrs)**
CSAH 42
.r
t
-..........
CSAH 42
/~~l
~
./ ~~.~..
...
t
-----
"".,=.,."",,;,,,,,.,,,..,,,.~,,,..~ . ~ . . ~
~~tt~~l:ttgf.~;;;;:;;J ~ '-._" ._:.~~
----- -----
~' \t
>-
o
::!
;=
~g:~~~~:W1JJ21;~~~~~~{fi~J?~~~~
~ .W~'~.'~ 1
>- '" 111 ~:
i!: <
o
::!
;=
CSAH 42
...
t
~
IINTERSECTION "0"1
Interim (> 10 yrs)*
i I I
/A~
I INTERSECTION
Interim (3-10
"E"I
IINTERSECTION "c"l
Interim (3-10 yrs)*
~JI~
----- -----
"".,.._~._._....._..........., 1f~.... ~
;~';I;JP' ~.... .r ~ .
~ .., ~ ,,,-..,._~,._.-..-...~..._'
----- -----
~r;
o
::l:
;=
CSAH 42
...
t
-..........
CSAH 42
.r
t
~
~"-"-"/~l!~ri1f~1fr~~
~;;'t;~~J~~\}~~ ~._-- ~
"""'. ........ r
' 1l t.:
>- '.
. i!:
o
::!
. ;=
~ rl
>-
i!:
o
::l:
;=
* Estimated time in which improvements would be functional.
** Estimated time in which ultimate improvement would need to be implemented.
1/27/98
?' "'" .'....~ F"'" ..
R:~~ r,?'.;"<<ld .: ~~,
JAN 2 6 1998
Dave and Joanne Moran
14403 Waters Edge Trail N.E.
Prior Lake, MN. 55372
Mr. Wesly Mader
3470 Sycamore Trail S.W.
Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372
Jan. 24, 1998
Dear Mayor Mader:
Thanks for allowing me to sit in on your deliberations relating to Timothy or Rutgers A venue
traffic light. I found the comments and rational interesting.
I understand that the reccomendation on a "'lighted" intersection will be made by the Council at it's
meeting in February. Since I will be out of the City during that month, and also part of March I
chose this method of conveying my observations on this question.
As you know, I have reservations about the safety aspect of a traffic light at Rutgers. Irrespective
of the Engineer's "hunch", and the County representative not being" concerned" with added
traffic using Rutgers as an entry to the neighborhood I believe there are issues that need to be
reviewed.
A traffic signal at Rutgers will attract more traffic on Rutgers. The survey shows an increase of 20
vehicles at peak. hour, in addition to the 30 vehicles that currently use the street. That is a 66%
increase! I suspect that most of these will transit the area as opposed to being neighborhood
residents.
This traffic will pass near a playground. on a narrow street that has cars parked on each side
during events, with youngsters running into and across the street. In addition there is a blind
intersection that is in use along Grayling that cuts though a narrow area from Waters Edge Trail
north to Rutgers. This is a " bad"' intersection because you have to virtually enter the roadway
before you can visually check for conflicting traffic.
My reccomendation is to extend a service road on the north side of 42 from the Rainbow store to a
point opposite the Harbor and place the light in that location. That gives the Traffic Engineers
. .
more room to hold vehicles awaiting light changes. It would not create a problem for left turns into
Dave and JOanne Moran
14408 Waters Edge Trail N.E.
Prior Lake, MN. 55372
Rutgers, nor would it impede traffic outbound from Rutgers. In addition, I understand the "
standard for distance between lights is 1/4 mile. ( changed from 1/2 mile when Timothy was
considered) Rutgers is 1200 feet from 13 which falls short of the standard, while the Harbor is 1/4
mile. If, as the engineers say, no one in their right mind would use Rutgers as an outlet from the
neighborhood, then what is the problem going to the Harbor area?
I recognize this is not an acceptable solution to the Rainbow people, but it does reduce the hazards
to children in the park area.
Be that as it may. I do understand that we cannot always have things our way, and that at times the
greater need of the public must take preference over individual concerns. If indeed the light "must"
be at Rutgers I otTer the following suggestions.
#1. Cut Natalie Road straight north from Boudin to Rutgers and eliminate the park, or at least
reduce it by the width of the roadway
#2. Gose off the extension of Grayling between Waters edge Trail and Rutgers.
These changes would serve to reduce the level of traffic on most of the very narrow streets in the
neighborhood and enhance the safety factor.
Thanks for your consideration and for giving me the opportunity to present my views.
Dave Moran
~
cc:Mr. Greg Ilkka, City Engineer