HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-20 Meeting PacketEdina Transportation Commission
Roll-Call Sign-in Sheet
November 20, 2008
Last Name First Name Signature
Bonneville Thomas
Brown Steve _ ' c_--
Janovy Jennifer
c ,
Mooty Paul ‘1LC
Plante Warren ei>4-444;
Sierks Julie 911,-L6 /3,tutii'm).
Usem Marc
Les
,) i/
(-' Wanninger
White Jean
Workinger Geof
, /7 ,
i 6 • A'
AGENDA
Regular Meeting of the
Edina Transportation Commission
6:00 PM, Thursday, November 20, 2008
Edina City Hall
4801 West 50th Street
Council Chambers
I. Call to Order
II. Comments
a. Chair Comments
b. Public Comments
III. Old Business
a. No Old Business - October Meeting was Cancelled
IV. New Business
a. Aloft Edina Hotel - 77 th and Hwy 100 *+
V. Approval of Minutes
a. Regular Meeting of September 18, 2008 *+
VI. Planning Commission Update (Commissioner Brown)
VII. Bike Edina Task Force Update (Commissioner Janovy)
VIII. Staff Updates (Mr. Sullivan)
IX. Adjournment
* Attachment included
+ Item requiring action by the ETC
# Item for information only
During "Public Hearings," the Chair will ask for public comment after City staff members make their presentations. If you wish to
speak on the topic, you are welcome to do so as long as your comments are relevant to the discussion. To ensure fairness to all
speakers and to allow the efficient conduct of a public hearing, speakers must observe the following guidelines:
• Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes or less. The Chair will modify presentation times, as deemed
necessary.
• Try not to repeat remarks or points of view made by prior speakers and limit comments to the matter under consideration.
• In order to maintain a comfortable environment for all those in attendance, the use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or
any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed.
During "Public Comments," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to speak about something not on the
agenda. Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes or less and cannot speak to an issue for which a public hearing
was previously held and closed or a matter scheduled for a future hearing. Individuals should not expect the [Board or Commission]
to respond to their comments. Instead, the [Board or Commission] might direct the matter to staff for consideration at a future
meeting.
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing
amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
AGENDA
Regular Meeting of the
Edina Transportation Commission
6:00 PM, Thursday, November 20, 2008
Edina City Hall
4801 West 50th Street
Council Chambers
I. Call to Order
II. Comments
a. Chair Comments
b. Public Comments
III. Old Business
a. No Old Business - October Meeting was Cancelled
IV. New Business
a. Aloft Edina Hotel - 77 th and Hwy 100 *4'
V. Approval of Minutes
a. Regular Meeting of September 18, 2008 *+
VI. Planning Commission Update (Commissioner Brown)
VII. Bike Edina Task Force Update (Commissioner Janovy)
VIII. Staff Updates (Mr. Sullivan)
IX. Adjournment
* Attachment included
+ Item requiring action by the ETC
# Item for information only
During "Public Hearings," the Chair will ask for public comment after City staff members make their presentations. If you wish to
speak on the topic, you are welcome to do so as long as your comments are relevant to the discussion. To ensure fairness to all
speakers and to allow the efficient conduct of a public hearing, speakers must observe the following guidelines:
Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes or less. The Chair will modify presentation times, as deemed
necessary.
Try not to repeat remarks or points of view made by prior speakers and limit comments to the matter under consideration.
In order to maintain a comfortable environment for all those in attendance, the use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or
any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed.
During "Public Comments," the Chair will ask to hear from those in attendance who would like to speak about something not on the
agenda. Individuals must limit their presentations to three minutes or less and cannot speak to an issue for which a public hearing
was previously held and closed or a matter scheduled for a future hearing. Individuals should not expect the [Board or Commission]
to respond to their comments. Instead, the [Board or Commission] might direct the matter to staff for consideration at a future
meeting.
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing
amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
•
Suite 345N
2550 University Avenue West
St. Paul, Minnesota
55114
pr.] I= Irs Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Memorandum
To: Wayne Houle, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer, City of Edina
Jack Sullivan, PE, Assistant City Engineer, City of Edina
Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE, WSB & Associates, Inc.
From: JoNette Kuhnau, PE, PTOE
Melissa Barnes, BIT
Date: November 18, 2008
RE: Edina Gateway Pentagon Park Redevelopment Phase 1 Final Development Plan
Traffic Impact Analysis Report
The purpose of this memorandum is to address City Consultant comments (the
"Comments") dated November 12, 2008, from City review of the Traffic Impact Analysis
(TIA) Report for the Edina Gateway Phase 1Final Development Plan dated October
2008.
The City Consultant comment is show in italics followed by the response in normal text:
1. In general, the traffic impact analysis follows the guidelines and process set
forth as part of the Overall Development Plan and AUAR.
Comment noted.
2. In Section 2.1, Site Access, the text indicates that access to the hotel will be
via two access points along the TH 100 frontage road. Looking at the
figures, it appears that access can also be provided through the parking lots
of the Pentagon Park office tower site. This should be clarified.
Secondary access is available through the Pentagon Park office parking lots.
However, no trips were assigned to those access points because the most
convenient access to the hotel would be via the TH 100 NB Frontage Road.
This assumption represents a "worse case" analysis where nearly all the
traffic would be concentrated at the W 77th Street/TH 100 NB intersection,
rather than spread out over several intersections.
3. Section 2.2, Existing Land Use, indicates that the building occupancy has not
changed from the original AUAR and Overall Development Plan. This is a
fine assumption as long as the occupancy has not increased over that time
period. Please verifi, that the occupancy has either stayed the same or
decreased
As of November 18, 2008, the building occupancy on the Pentagon Towers
site is 66.5 percent, excluding the two buildings on the hotel site that are
currently vacant in preparation for being removed as part of the Phase 1
•
TEL 651 645 4197
FAX 651 645 5116
November 18, 2008
Page 2 of 9
development. Therefore, the analysis that was done assuming 69.3 percent
occupancy was conservative.
Overall in the Pentagon Park complex, the occupancy has gone from
approximately 65.6 percent as documented in the Overall Development Plan
to a current rate of approximately 57.5 percent.
4. Section 2.3, Existing Conditions and Traffic, indicates that the baseline
traffic is based on traffic counts conducted in 2007. Although this is fine for
this phase of the development, it should be noted that for subsequent phases,
new traffic counts should be conducted to provide the most updated traffic
information.
Comment noted. New traffic counts will be done when future phases move
into the Final Development Plan stage.
5. Section 6.0, Traffic Impact Analysis, includes a reference to an assumption
that all intersections with failing operations should be addressed through
signal timing first, ([possible, then through implementation of roadway
improvements. Was there any review of signal timing changes for either the
isting 2007 operations or the 2009 Phase] no-build operations? If signal
timing alternatives were reviewed, please document and discuss any changes
from the baseline signal timing that may have changed.
Signal timings were optimized for the 2009 No Build scenario, due to the
amount of background development occurring in the area. In response to
discussions with the City of Edina regarding the potential impacts if the
recommended No Build mitigation measures are not in place prior to the
construction of Phase 1, an additional scenario was modeled for 2009 that
documents the operations assuming Phase 1 is constructed with the existing
roadway geometry, with no improvements. This scenario will be referred to
in the remainder of this memo to as Build (No Improvements).
At France Avenue and W 76th Street, two Phase 1 site-generated trips are
assumed to use this intersection in the AM peak period and three Phase 1
site-generated trips are assumed to use this intersection in the PM peak
period. The Phase 1 site-generated trips during the AM and PM peak periods
are less than 0.1% of the total intersection volume and therefore not assumed
to cause any measurable additional delay. The simulation output indicates
that the intersection remains at the same LOS in the Build (No
Improvements) scenario as in the No Build scenario.
At the W 78th Street and France Avenue intersection, no Phase 1 site-
generated trips are assumed to use this intersection in the AM peak period
and three Phase 1 site-generated trips are assumed to use this intersection in
the PM peak period. The Phase 1 site-generated trips represent 0.0% of the
total intersection volume during the AM peak period and less than 0.1% of
the total intersection volume in the PM peak period. Therefore, the addition
of the site-generated trips does not result in any measurable increase in delay.
The simulation output indicates that the intersection remains at the same LOS
in the Build (No Improvements) scenario as in the No Build scenario.
November 18, 2008
Page 3 of 9
At Edina Industrial Boulevard and Metro Boulevard, 12 Phase 1 site-
generated trips are assumed to use this intersection in the AM peak period
and 23 Phase 1 site-generated trips are assumed to use this intersection in the
PM peak period. The Phase 1 site-generated trips represent 0.6% of the total
intersection volume during the AM peak period and 1.1% during the PM
peak period. The simulation output indicates that during the AM peak period
the intersection is a LOS C in the No Build scenario and a LOS D in the
Build (No Improvements) scenario. However, the movement that had
increased delay was the northbound left-turn, which did not have any Phase 1
site-generated traffic added. As the intersection delay increased only slightly
over the LOS C/D threshold and the additional volumes were minor, it was
concluded that there was no significant impact to intersection operations due
to the Phase 1 site-generated traffic. During the PM peak period, the
intersection operated at LOS E in the No Build scenario and a LOS D in the
Build (No Improvements) scenario. The changes in intersection LOS are
primarily to modeling variability and do not represent significant changes in
operations.
At W 77th Street and TH 100 northbound, 52 Phase 1 site-generated trips are
assumed to use this intersection in the AM peak period and 63 Phase 1 site-
generated trips are assumed to use this intersection in the PM peak period.
The site-generated trips during the AM and PM peak periods represent 1.8%
of the total intersection volume during the peak periods. The simulation
output indicates that the intersection remains at the same LOS in the Build
(No Improvements) scenario as in the No Build scenario.
Tables 4, 5, 6, & 7 from the TIA have been updated to include the 2009
Build (No Improvements) scenario.
November 18, 2008
Page 4 of 9
Table 4. AM Peak Hour Level of Service
Intersection
Traffic
Control
2007 Existing 2009 No Build 2009 No Build (Improved) 2009 Build JImproved) 2009 Build (No Improvements)
LOS Delay Notes LOS Delay Notes LOS Delay Notes LOS Delay Notes LOS Delay Notes
France Avenue /
W 76th Street
Traffic
Signal
C 30.9 NBL LOS E E 59.9
EBL, WBL, LOS E
EBT, WBT, WBR,
NBL LOS F E 62.1
EBL, WBL, WBR LOS
E
EBT WBT NBL LOS F E 62.2
WBL, WBR LOSE
EBT, WBT, NBL LOS
F E 57.6
EBL, WBL, WBR,
SBL LOSE
EBT, WBT, NBL LOS
F
Edina Industrial
Boulevard /
W 78th Street
Traffic
Signal C 27.8 C 31.6 NBL LOSE C 31.7 EBL LOS F C 32.3
NBL LOSE
EBL LOS F D 40.6 NBL LOS F
Edina Industrial
Boulevard I
Metro Boulevard
Traffic
Signal B 11.5 B 14.4 B 11.9 B 12.2 B 14.1
W 77th Street)
TH 100 SB
Traffic
Signal c 26.3 C 29,3 C 30.7 EBL LOS E C 31.0 EBL LOS F C 31.0
W 77th Street /
TH 100 NB
Traffic
Signal c 22.1 B 16,4 B 16.9 B 16.9 B 18.0
W 77th Street!
Towers Site Access
Traffic
Signal A 5.0 A 5.9 A 5.3 A 4.6 A 6.0
W 77th Street /
Computer Avenue
Traffic
Signal c 20.6 A 6.4 A 4.5 A 4.4 A 5.9
W 77th Street!
Parklawn Avenue
Traffic
Signal c 20.9 B 19,8 B 10.5 NBL LOSE B 12.3 B 19.4
W 77th Street!
Minnesota Drive!
Johnson Avenue
Traffic
Signal B 11.7 B 12.2 B 12.2 B 12.1 EBT LOS E B 12.4
France Avenue!
Minnesota Drive
Traffic
Signal C 252 D 42.1
EBL, NBL, SBL LOS
E
EB, WBT LOS F 0 39.3 EBT, WBT LOS F D 39.0 EBT, WBT LOS F D 40.3
EBL, NBL LOSE
EBT, WBT LOS F
E Bush Lake Road!
1-494 WB
Traffic
Signal B 16.5 C 21.1 B 18.4 B 182 Et 19.6
E Bush Lake Road /
1-494 EB
Traffic
Signal B 14.6 o 16.8 C 26.5 WBL LOS F D 35.1 WBL LOS F B 17.5
France Avenue!
W 78th Street!
1-494 WB
Traffic
Signal C 24.7 D 37.4
NBL, EBL LOS E
WBL, WBT LOS F C 25.8
WBL, NBL LOS E
WBT LOS F C 25.1
NBL, WBL LOS E
WBT LOS F C 36.1
WBL, WBT, NEIL LOS
F
France Avenue!
1-494 EB
Traffic
Signal 211 NBL LOS E C 29.2 EBR LOS E D 41.6 NBT LOS F D 41.1 NBT LOS F C 29.6 EBR LOS E
Viking Drive / TH 100
NB Frontage Road
All Way
Stop A 5.0 A 5.1 A 5.1 A 3.8
Computer Avenue!
Viking Drive
Al! Way
Stop A 54 A 54 A 5.4 A SI
Frontage Road!
North Hotel Access
E Leg
Stop A 0.5 E LEG LOS A A 0.5 E LEG LOS A
Frontage Road /
South Hotel Access
E Leg
Stop A 0.8 5 LEG LOS A A 0.8 E LEG LOS A
November 18. 2008
Page 5 of 9
Table 5. PM Peak Hour Level of Service
Intersection
Traffic
Control
Existing 2009 No Build 2009 No Build (Improved) 2009 Build (Improved) 2009 Buildpo
Delay
Improvments)
Notes LOS Delay Notes LOS Delay Notes LOS Delay Notes LOS Delay Notes LOS
France Avenue /
W 76th Street
Traffic
Signal c 32.2 F 177.3
EBL, EBT. EBR, WBL,
WBT, NBL, SBL, SBT,
SBR LOS F F 176.0
SBL LOSE
EEL, EBT, EBR, WBL,
WBT, SBT, SBR LOS F F 112.6
SBL LOSE
EBL, EBT, EBR, WBL, WBT,
NBL, SBT, SBR LOS F F 156.0
EBL, EBT, EBR, WBL, WBT,
NBL, SBL, SST, SBR LOS F Edina Industrial
Boulevard)
W 78th Street
Traffic
Signal c 29.7 c 31.8 WBL, SBL LOS E c 32.6 WBL SBL LOS E c 30.4 c 28.4 WEL, SBL LOSE
Edina Industrial
Boulevard /
Metro Boulevard
Traffic
Signal E 71.3 E 56.0
EBR, NET LOS E
EBL EBT LOS F c 26.3 c 25.0 WBL LOS E 0 45.6 EEL EBT LOS F
W 77th Street /
TN 100 SB
Traffic
Signal c 48.2 EBT LOS F D 48.2
NBL, NBT, NBR, SET
LOSE
WBL, SBL LOS F c 29.1 WBL LOS E c 29.2 SEL LOS E D 53.7
SET LOSE
NBL, NBT, NBR, SBL LOS F
W 77th Street /
TN 100 NB
Traffic
Signal c 50.6 EBL LOS F D 37.4
SBL LOSE
EBL, NET, SBT LOS F C 20.9
NBR LOSE
NET LOS F c 24.0 NET LOSE D 38.1
SEL LOSE
EBL, NBT, NBR SBT LOS F
W 77th Street /
Towers Site Access
Traffic
Signal c 26.6 B 12.5
EBL, SBR LOSE
NBL LOS F B 11.3 A 9.9 NBL LOSE B 13.5
EBL, SBL, SBR LOSE
NBL LOS F
W 77th Street /
Computer Avenue
Traffic
Signal c 23.4 B 10.1 A 9.3 A 9.4 a 10.6
W 77th Street /
Parklawn Avenue
Traffic
Signal c 32.4 B 18.1 a 16,5 13 16.6 B 17.8
W 77th Street /
Minnesota Drive)
Johnson Avenue
Traffic
Signal c 29.5 c 23.1
EBL, EBT, WBL, WET,
NBL LOSE c 22.7 EBT LOSE c 21.9 EBL, WET LOSE c 23.0
EBL, EBT, WBL, WET LOS
E
France Avenue /
Minnesota Drive
Traffic
Signal 6 67.6 WBL LOS F F 188.5
EBL, WBL, NBL LOS E
EBT, WET, SEL, SET,
SER LOS F F 182.7
EEL WBL LOSE
EBT, WET, NBL, SBL,
SBT, SEM LOS F F 165.9
EBL, WBL LOSE
EBT, WBT, NBL, SBL, SET,
SER LOS F F 188.6
EBL, WBL LOSE
EBT, WBT, NBL, SEL SET,
SBR LOS F
E Bush Lake Road)
1494 WB
Traffic
Signal 6 11.2 B 117 a 11.5 a 11.8 B 11.9
E Bush Lake Road /
1-494 EB
Traffic
Signal c 22.2 c 21.8 c 22.3 c 22.2 c 21.7
France Avenue /
W 78th Street /
1-494 WB
Traffic
Signal c 44.0 D 41.2 EBL, SBT LOS E c 33.9 SBT, EBL LOS E D 35.8
SBT LOS E
EBL LOS F D 42.7
EBR, SBT LOSE
EBL LOS F
France Avenue /
1-494 EB
Traffic
Signal 17.7 c 25.9 c 26.6 c 28.3 c 25.7
Viking Drive) TN 100
NB Frontage Road
All Way
Stop A 4.9 A 4.9 A 4.8 A 4.8
Computer Avenue /
Viking Drive
All Way
Stop A 5.6 A 56 A 5.6 A 5.6
Frontage Road /
North Hotel Access
E Leg
Stop A 0.5 E LEG LOS A A 0.5 E LEG LOS A
Frontage Road /
South Hotel Access
E Leg
Stop A 0.9 E LEG LOS A A 0.9 E LEG LOS A
November 18, 2008
Page 6 of 9
Table 6. AM Peak Hour Oueuin
Intersecbon Traffic
Control
2007 Existing 2009 No Buld 2009 No Build (Improved) 2009 Phase 1 Build (Improved) 7009 Phase 1 Build (No Improvements
Queue Length Notes Queue Length Notes Queue Length Notes Queue Length Notes Queue Length Notes
France Avenue /
W 76th Street
Traffic
Signal WBL - 248/200
WOO -ISO/ISO
Two WB LT lanes -
queues of 114/200
and 248/200
WBL - 246/200
WON -129/100
Two WB LT lanes -
queues of 112/200
and 246/200
WBL - 2371200
WON - 115/100
Two WB LT lanes -
queues 01 1061200
and 237/200
WBL -233/205
WBR -1021100
Two WB LT lanes -
queues 01125/200
and 233/200
Edina Industrial
Boulevard /
W 78th Street
Traffic Signal 001- 347/280 NBL - 346/280 NBL - 353/280
Edina Industrial
Boulevard /
Metro Boulevard
Traffic Signal
W 77th Street /
TH 100 SB
Traffic
Signal
W 77th Street /
TH 100 NB
Traffic
Signal
W 77th Street /
Towers Site Access
Traffic
Signal
W 77th Street /
Computer Avenue
Traffic
Signal
W 77th Street /
ParkAswn Avenue
Traffic
Signal
W 77th Street /
kfinnearta Drive /
Johnson Avenue
,
,'-',,,—c, Signal
France Aven. /
Minnarota Drive
Traffic
Signal
NBL - 285/240 NBL - 279/240
E Bush Lake Road /
1-494 WB
Traffic
Signal
E Bush Lake Road /
1-494 EB
Traffic
Signal
France Avenue /
W 78th Street /
1-494 WB
Traffic
Signal
France Avenue /
1-494 EB
Traffic
Signal
Viking Drive / TH 100
NO Frontage Road
All Way
Stop
Computer Avenue I
Vikirs3 Drive
All Way
Stop
Frontage Road/
North Hotel Access
E Leg
Stop
Frontage Road /
South Hotel Access
E Leg
Stop
Viking Or/net
Towers Site Access
N Leg
Stop
Computer Avenue /
East Ramp
W Leg
Stop
W 77th Street /
West Senior Access
N Leg
Stop
W 77th Street /
East Senior Access
N Leg
Stop
November 18, 2008
Page 7 of 9
Table 7. PM Peak Hour Oueuin
Intersection
Traffic
Control
2007 Edsting 2009 No Build 2009 No Buld (Improved) 2009 Phase 1 &Rd (Improved) 2009 Phase 1 Build No Improvements1
Notes Queue Length Notes Queue Length Notes Queue Length Notes Q.. Length Notes Queue Length
France Avenue /
W 76th StreM
Traffic
Signal
EBL - 260/200
EBR - 350/240
WBL - 250/200
VVBL - 271/200
SBL- 513/460
Tyne EB LT lanes -
queues of 143/250
and 260/200
EBL- 251/200
EBR - 369/240
WBL -231/200
WBL - 263f200
Two Eft LT lanes -
queues 01 152/200
and 251/200
EBL - 242/200
606 -352/240
WBL - 232/200
WBL - 265/200
Into EB LT lanes -
queues 01 155/200
and 242/200
AOL- 266/200
EBR - 360/240
WBL - 279/200
WBL - 261/200
Teo EB LT lanes -
queues of 162/200
and 266/200
Edna Industnal
Boilevard /
W 78th Street
Traffic
Signal
Edina Industrial
Boulevard /
Metro Boulevard
Traffic
S'll-4"1
W 77th Street /
TH 100 Sf3
Traffic
Signal
EBT - 553/468
EBTR -
541/466
EST 6 EBTR queue
past upstream
intersections NOR - 271/200 NOR - 262/200
W 77th Street /
TH 100 NB
Traffic
Signal
EBL - 425f335 ESL - 411/335 EBL - 431/335
W 77th Street /
Towers Site Access
Traffic
Signal EBL - 107/70 EBL - 159/70
W 77th Street /
Computer Avenue
Traffic
Signal
W 77th Street /
Parklaym Avenue
Traffic
Signal
W 771h Street /
Minnesota 0//lee!
Johnson Avenue
rT affic
Signal
France Avenue /
Minnesota Drive
Traffic
Signal
WBL - 515/400
EBL - 249/200
SBL - 227/150
SOT - 1563/1215
SEIT - 1540/1215
SOT- 1570/1215
SBT - 1094/950
SBR - 1164/900
SBT queues past
upstream
intersections
EBL - 263/200
SBL - 223/150
SBT - 1512/1215
SBT - 1509/1215
SBT- 1519/1215
561-1576/1215
596 -9189/900
SBT queues past
upstream
intmsections
COL - 248/21/0
WBL -400/400
SBL - 217/150
001- 1496/1215
SOT- 1463/1215
091- 1469/1215
SOT - 1530/1215
SBR - 1122/930
SBT queues past
upstream
intersections
COL - 241/490
WBL -403/400
SBL - 230/150
SOT - 1652/1215
561 - 1543/1215
SBT - 1677/1215
SBT- 1076/900
5E16 - 1133/900
5131 queues past
upstream
intersections
E Bush Lake Road /
1-494 WB
Trafft
Signal
E Bush Lake Reed!
1-494 EB
Traffffi
Signal
France Avenue /
W 78th Street /
I-494 WB
T raffic
Signal
SBT - 513/386
SEM - 494/386
SOT-4-44/366
SBT - 468/386
SBT queues past
upstream
intersectffins
SBT -453/386
SBT - 528/386
091-471/366
561- 405/366
SST queues past
upstream
intersections
5131-463/386
SBT- 514t386
SBT - 467/386
SEIT - 4941366
SBT queues past
upstre.
intersections
001-509/366
SBT- 504/386
501 -455/306
501-472/366
SOT queues past
upstream
intersections
France Avenue /
1,194 EB
Traffic
Signal
Viking Drive / TH 100
NB Frontage Road
AN Way
Stop
Computer A..° /
\Meng Drive
Ail Way
Stop
Frontage Road /
Nati Hotel Access
E Leg
Stop
Frontage Road /
South Hotel Access
E Leg
Stop
November 18, 2008
Page 8 of 9
6. Section 6.3, 2009 Phase I Build Operations, included a reference to the
signal timing optimization that was conducted to accommodate traffic growth
and pattern changes. Similar to comment no. 5, was this included prior to
the addition of the development traffic?
Yes. See response to comment 5.
7. Section 6.3, 2009 Phase I Build Operations, the last paragraph indicates
that the same issues occur in both Phase 1, no-build recommended and build
conditions. Earlier in the text, it was indicated that the no-build
recommended improvements identified were assumed as part of the build
analysis. If this is a correct statement, it should be clarified.
All improvements identified in the No Build analysis were assumed to be
inplace as part of the Build analysis. The last paragraph should be clarified to
state that only the operations issues that were unmitigated along France
Avenue still occur in the Phase 1 Build scenario.
8. Section 6.5, Parking Supply and Operations, more clarification should be
given to how the parking spaces meet City code. This issue will be discussed
more with the Planning Commission and City staff
The existing Pentagon Towers site does not meet Edina City code in terms of
the number of spaces provided; however, there is no current parking shortage
on the site due at least in part to the current occupancy rate of 66.5 percent.
Current Edina City Code would require 711 spaces for the existing buildings
that total 168,496 square feet as compared to the 626 spaces currently
provided.
During the demolition and construction phases, City Code would require 632
spaces based on the 146,506 square feet remaining, compared to the 587
spaces that would be available. Similar to the existing condition, factoring
the required number of spaces by the occupancy rate, only 420 spaces would
be expected to be needed and no parking shortage would be expected.
Upon completion of the hotel, a total of 655 parking spaces will be provided.
City Code requires 170 spaces for the hotel and 632 spaces for the office, for
a total of 802 spaces. Again, the office uses would be expected to generate a
significantly lower parking demand compared to that calculated using City
Code due in part to the occupancy rates on the site. Further, the hotel and
office are compatible uses for shared parking because the peak time for
parking at the office would be the off-peak for parking at the hotel and vise
versa. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) shared parking calculation results in a
maximum parking demand of 634 spaces on the site, which is less than the
655 parking spaces provided.
Based on the overall occupancy on the site and the ability for the office and
hotel to share parking, no parking shortages are expected, even though the
site does not meet City Code in terms of the total number of parking spaces
provided.
November 18, 2008
Page 9 of 9
9. Section 7.0, Transit Facilities, a discussion on how hotel employees would
have an opportunity to use transit should be included.
Transit is available to all current and future users of the site, as there are bus
stops located near the W 77th Street/Computer Avenue intersection.
10. Section 8.0, Pedestrians and Bicycle Facilities, a reference to a new sidewalk
on the east side of the TH 100 north frontage road is made. It should be
clarified how this sidewalk will connect to the existing sidewalk system and
the actual terminus of the new sidewalk.
New sidewalk will be constructed along the TH 100 NB frontage road from
the south hotel access and extending north to connect to the existing sidewalk
in the southeast quadrant of the W 77th Street/TH 100 NB intersection.
11. Section 9.0, Travel Demand Management, a third bullet point should be
included indicating that the developer will provide access to transit through
sidewalk connections to 77th Street.
Comment noted. Improved access to the bus stops on W 77th Street will be
accomplished through the new sidewalk to be constructed on the site and
along the TH 100 NB frontage road, as described in the response to comment
10.
12. All figures should show an outline of the proposed Phase I development.
Following a discussion with the City of Edina, it was determined that the
figures would not be modified.
13. Figure A2-3 Phase 1 site plan should include a legend or be more clearly
defined on what is in place and what is new as part of the proposed
development.
Following a discussion with the City of Edina, it was determined that the
figure would not be modified.
14. Figures A5-4 and A5-5 indicate the no-build and build-lane geometty and
indication of the changes between each of these should be indicated or these
figures should be combined if there is no change between them.
Figure A6 illustrates the differences between the No Build and No Build
Improved lane geometries and would illustrate the difference between the No
Build Improved and Build Improved lane geometries, if there were any. In
this case, the geometries are the same in the No Build Improved and the
Build scenarios, as there were no recommended improvements based on the
Build analysis. The geometries shown in Figures A5-4 and A5-5 are
consistent with the format of those included in the Overall Development
Plan.
Transportation Commissioners
Jack Sullivan, PE
Assistant City Engineer
November 20, 2008
Subject: Aloft Edina Hotel
Phase 1 Final Development
Plan
Agenda Item No.: IV.a
ACTION:
• Recommendation/Motion
• Discussion
Information
To:
From:
Date:
REVISED NOV. 20, 2008
Page 1 of 2 Item IV. a.
Edina Transportation Commission
REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation:
All items highlighted in yellow are additions since the initial Report/Recommendation
was created.
Review the following attached documents:
• Transportation Impact Analysis for Phase 1 Final Development Plan - Aloft Edina
Hotel
• Review letter to Mortenson Development dated November 14, 2008
• Review memo from WSB dated November 12, 2008.
• Review memo from Kimley-Horn and Associates dated November 18, 2008
If so desired by the Transportation Commission, adopt a motion recommending that
the development application has satisfied the Staff and WSB review memorandums
and that the "Phase 1 Final Development Plan - Aloft Edina Hotel" Transportation
Impact Analysis is within the parameters set forth in t e AUAR study, Preliminary
Development Plan and Overall Development Plan and hat the transportation system is
not adversely effected by this development.
There are outstanding items as listed in the letter by Cit staff dated November 14, 2008.
Staff has been in communication with the Development lleam and has come to verbal
agreement on the majority of these items. It is our unde!rstanding that these items will be
completed in writing prior to the ETC meeting and addr ssed with the commission members
on the 201h of November by both staff and the develop ent team.
43koz\- I! J 4 PO or,,n
Le 4elorks
MEngineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\Transportation Commission \Agendas\2008 R&R\20081120 Revised_AloftEdina_Hotel_Traffic_study.doc
Page 2 of 2 Item IV. a.
Edina Transportation Commission
The Development Team has since provided acceptable further study results in the Kimley-
Horn memo dated November 18, 2008. At this time all outstanding questions and concerns
from Staff and WSB have been addressed. The above Staff recommends is still valid.
Info/Background:
The developer came to the City in the spring of 2007 about a possible redevelopment of the
area near 77th Street from Trunk Highway 100 to Minnesota Boulevard.
The consulting firm of WSB and Associates completed an Alternative Urban Area wide
Review (AUAR) of the project site. One of the components of an AUAR is transportation
impacts to the project site.
The ETC has reviewed the AUAR and recommended that the draft AUAR document be
released for public comment on June 21, 2007. Since that time the final AUAR document
has been approved by all regulatory agencies as well as the Edina City Council on November
5, 2007.
The ETC has reviewed and approved the Preliminary Development Plan at the November 15,
2007 meeting.
The ETC has also reviewed and approved the Overall Development Plan at the February 21,
2008 meeting.
G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traftic \Transportation Commission \Agendas \2008 R&R\20081120 Revised_Aloft_Edina_Hotel_Traffic_study.doc
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF EDINA
DATE: November 14, 2009
TO: ETC Members
FROM: Jack Sullivan
SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Updates
ETC Members,
We have a light meeting this month. We only have one development submittal to review. We
have been working diligently with the development team to resolve the outstanding issues as
contained in staff and WSB review memos. I will walk thru in step by step fashion any issues
that staff believes is still outstanding and welcome comments and questions by the
Commission.
At this time we do not have any development submittals for the month of December and
knowing that we are close to the Holidays (the meeting is scheduled for December 181h, 2008)
is has been suggested that we look at cancelling this meeting. This is something we can
discuss further at our November meeting.
See you all at the November 20th ETC meeting.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Jack D. Sullivan, PE
Assistant City Engineer
City of Edina
Direct: 952.826.0445
jsullivan@ci.edina.mn.us
Page 1 of 2 Item IV. a.
Edina Transportation Commission
REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING
REPORT/RECOMMENDATION
To:
From:
Date:
Transportation Commissioners
Jack Sullivan,
Assistant City Epgineer
November 20, 2008
Subject: Aloft Edina Hotel
Phase 1 Final Development
Plan
Agenda Item No.: IV.a
ACTION:
• Recommendation/Motion
• Discussion
Information
Recommendation:
Review the following attached documents:
• Transportation Impact Analysis for Phase 1 Final Development Plan — Aloft Edina
Hotel
• Review letter to Mortenson Development dated November 14, 2008
• Review memo from WSB dated November 12, 2008.
If so desired by the Transportation Commission, adopt a motion recommending that
the development application has satisfied the Staff and WSB review memorandums
and that the "Phase 1 Final Development Plan — Aloft Edina Hotel" Transportation
Impact Analysis is within the parameters set forth in the AUAR study, Preliminary
Development Plan and Overall Development Plan and that the transportation system is
not adversely effected by this development.
There are outstanding items as listed in the letter by City staff dated November 14, 2008.
Staff has been in communication with the Development Team and has come to verbal
agreement on the majority of these items. It is our understanding that these items will be
completed in writing prior to the ETC meeting and addressed with the commission members
on the 20th of November by both staff and the development team.
Info/Background:
The developer came to the City in the spring of 2007 about a possible redevelopment of the
area near 77th Street from Trunk Highway 100 to Minnesota Boulevard.
G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\Transportation Commission\Agendas\2008 R&R\20081120Aloft_Edina_Hotet_Traffic_study.doc
Page 2 of 2 Item IV. .
Edina Transportation Commission
The consulting firm of WSB and Associates completed an Alternative Urban Area wide
Review (AUAR) of the project site. One of the components of an AUAR is transportation
impacts to the project site.
The ETC has reviewed the AUAR and recommended that the draft AUAR document be
released for public comment on June 21, 2007. Since that time the final AUAR document
has been approved by all regulatory agencies as well as the Edina City Council on November
5, 2007.
The ETC has reviewed and approved the Preliminary Development Plan at the November 15,
2007 meeting.
The ETC has also reviewed and approved the Overall Development Plan at the February 21,
2008 meeting.
GAEngineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffiffransportation Commission \Agendas\2008 R&R\20081120_A1oft_Edina_Hote1_Traffic_study.doc
City of ina
November 14, 2008
Mr. Chris Winter
Mortenson Development
700 Meadow Lane North
Minneapolis, MN 55422
RE: Review of Phase 1 Final Development Plan — Aloft Edina Hotel
Dear Mr. Winter:
The City of Edina and WSB and Associates have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
Report for "Phase 1 Final Development Plan — Aloft Edina Hotel. The following outstanding
issues need to be addressed prior to the November 20, 2008 Transportation Commission
meeting.
1. The City requests a traffic analysis of the 2009 Phase 1 Build Operations without the
four improvements outlined in the 2009 Phase 1 No-Build Scenario. It is critical to
quantify the traffic implications of associated without the infrastructure improvements
as outline in section 6.2 and figure A6.
2. All comments in the attached WSB memo dated November 12, 2008.
Please call me at (952) 826-0445 if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Jack D. Sullivan
Assistant City Engineer
Attachments: Memo from Chuck Rickart of WSB & Associates, Inc. dated Nov. 12, 2008
c: Wayne Houle — Public Works Director/City Engineer
Chris Hickok — Wayzata Properties
Dan Cole — Kimley-Horn and Associates
JoNette Kuhnau Kimley-Horn and Associates
Chuck Rickart — WSB and Associates
GAEngineering\General\70 - 79 Streets\77th Street West - Gateway\ALoft Hote1\20081114 Mortenson Development Traffic.doc
City Hall 952-927-8861
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
FAX 952-826-0390
EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394 www.cityofeclina.com TTY 952-826-0379
WSB
Infrastructure u Engineering • Planning • Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
& Associates, Inc. Suite #300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 541-4800
Fax: 763 541-1700
Memorandum
To: Wayne Houle, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Jack Sullivan, PE, Assistant City Engineer
City of Edina
From: Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE
Transportation Engineer
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date: November 12, 2008
Re: Edina Gateway — Pentagon Park Redevelopment
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Study Review
City of Edina, MN
WSB Project No. 1686-02
As you requested, we have reviewed the traffic impact study prepared by Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. for the proposed Edina Gateway — Pentagon Park Redevelopment, Phase 1 —
Aloft Edina Hotel. The proposed redevelopment is located south of 77' Street on the east side of
the TH 100 north frontage road. The proposed redevelopment of Phase 1 of the overall Edina
Gateway — Pentagon Park Redevelopment plan includes a 150-room hotel development. It also
includes demolition of two existing buildings on the existing Pentagon Park site.
Based on a review of the traffic impact study, the following questions and comments are made:
1. In general, the traffic impact analysis follows the guidelines and process set forth as
part of the Overall Development Plan and AUAR.
2. In Section 2.1, Site Access, the text indicates that access to the hotel will be via two
access points along the TH 100 frontage road. Looking at the figures, it appears that
access can also be provided through the parking lots of the Pentagon Park office
tower site. This should be clarified.
3. Section 2.2, Existing Land Use, indicates that the building occupancy has not
changed from the original AUAR and Overall Development Plan. This is a fine
assumption as long as the occupancy has not increased over that time period. Please
verify that the occupancy has either stayed the same or decreased.
4. Section 2.3, Existing Conditions and Traffic, indicates that the baseline traffic is
based on traffic counts conducted in 2007. Although this is fine for this phase of the
ACEC 2008 Firm of the Year
GAEnginecring \General \ 70 -79 Streets \ 77th Street West - Gateway\ ALoft Hotel \MEMO-whoule-111208.doc
Wayne Houle and Jack Sullivan
City of Edina
November 12, 2008
Page 2 of 3
development, it should be noted that for subsequent phases, new traffic counts should
be conducted to provide the most updated traffic information.
5. Section 6.0, Traffic Impact Analysis, includes a reference to an assumption that all
intersections with failing operations should be addressed through signal timing first, if
possible, then through implementation of roadway improvements. Was there any
review of signal timing changes for either the existing 2007 operations or the 2009
Phase 1 no-build operations? If signal timing alternatives were reviewed, please
document and discuss any changes from the baseline signal timing that may have
changed.
6. Section 6.3, 2009 Phase 1 Build Operations, included a reference to the signal timing
optimization that was conducted to accommodate traffic growth and pattern changes.
Similar to comment no. 5, was this included prior to the addition of the development
traffic?
7. Section 6.3, 2009 Phase 1 Build Operations, the last paragraph indicates that the same
issues occur in both Phase 1, no-build recommended and build conditions. Earlier in
the text, it was indicated that the no-build recommended improvements identified
were assumed as part of the build analysis. If this is a correct statement, it should be
clarified.
8. Section 6.5, Parking Supply and Operations, more clarification should be given to
how the parking spaces meet City code. This issue will be discussed more with the
Planning Commission and City staff.
9. Section 7.0, Transit Facilities, a discussion on how hotel employees would have an
opportunity to use transit should be included.
10. Section 8.0, Pedestrians and Bicycle Facilities, a reference to a new sidewalk on the
east side of the TH 100 north frontage road is made. It should be clarified how this
sidewalk will connect to the existing sidewalk system and the actual terminus of the
new sidewalk.
11. Section 9.0, Travel Demand Management, a third bullet point should be included
indicating that the developer will provide access to transit through sidewalk
connections to 77th Street.
12. All figures should show an outline of the proposed Phase 1 development.
13. Figure A2-3 Phase 1 site plan should include a legend or be more clearly defined on
what is in place and what is new as part of the proposed development.
14. Figures A5-4 and A5-5 indicate the no-build and build-lane geometry and indication
of the changes between each of these should be indicated or these figures should be
combined if there is no change between them.
\EngineeringlGenerah70 -79 Streets \77111 Street West -GatewayNALott HoleINEMO-whoule-111208.dec
Wayne Houle and Jack Sullivan
City of Edina
November 12, 2008
Page 3 of 3
In addition to these comments, WSB included this development as part of the overall southeast
Edina Transportation Model to review potential impacts at non-site related intersections. This
review concluded that no significant change in intersection levels of service or anticipated traffic
queues would occur with this development.
Based on these comments and my general review of the site configuration and traffic impacts, it
appears the proposed Phase 1 development plan is consistent with the Overall Development Plan
and AUAR prepared for this site. Therefore, I would recommend approval of the Phase 1
development plan for this site.
G lEngineerineCcueral \ 70 -79 Sums 77thStrect West - Gateway AL° ft Hotel \ N1E MO-v.hou 1e-111208 doe
AGENDA
Regular Meeting of the
Edina Transportation Commission
6:00 PM, Thursday, September 18, 2008
Edina City Hall
4801 West 50th Street
Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Les Wanninger, Jean White, Jennifer Janovy, Steve Brown, Geof Workinger, Julie Sierks,
Warren Plante, Marc Usem,
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Tom Bonneville, Paul Mooty
STAFF PRESENT:
Jack Sullivan, Rebecca Foster
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by chair Workinger.
IL Comments
a. Chair Comments
Chair Workinger said he would like Commissioner Brown to brief the ETC on the West 70th
Street/Cornelia Area Traffic Survey. Commissioner Brown reported that approximately 700 of
1400 surveys have been returned. The survey results will be completed for the next SAC
meeting which will be scheduled for mid to the end of October.
b. Public Comments
None.
Ill. Old Business
a. No Old Business - August Meeting was Cancelled
Commissioner Plante asked staff how the transportation issues were being addressed in and
around the schools now that school has started. Mr. Sullivan gave an update on sidewalks that
have been installed over the summer and that crosswalk paint has been freshened up. The
staff is working with the public and private schools and residents with fall construction updates.
The Traffic Safety Committee is also reviewing new concerns from residents to install or change
crosswalk locations, speeds, or volumes of traffic in school neighborhoods. Mr. Sullivan said
the City meets with the Edina School Transportation quarterly or on an as-needed basis to
discuss current issues.
IV. New Business
Chair Workinger gave a warm welcome to the two newest ETC members Commissioner Janovy
representing the Bike Task Force and student member Commissioner Sierks.
1
a. 7355 York Avenue - Southdale YMCA and CommonBond Housing
Assistant City Engineer Sullivan discussed the Transportation Impact Analysis of the new
72,000 sq ft YMCA facility immediately west of the existing facility. The building would be built
in the parking lot of the current facility. Once the new YMCA building opens, a 130 unit multi-
family building would be built on the site of the razed YMCA building.
Based on the review of the traffic study, the following questions and comments were raised by
the City's traffic consultant, Mr. Rickart:
1. A figure should be provided showing the studied intersections in relationship to
the proposed site.
2. Although the Executive Summary discusses the intersections and driveways
analyzed, it should also be included in Section 2, Proposed Development and
Study Area. In addition, a discussion on the existing and proposed access
locations and geometry should be provided. [He assumed] that the proposed
locations do not change and the existing geometry is proposed not to change.
A figure showing the existing site access and circulation with respect to the
proposal should be provided.
3. Traffic counts were conducted during the AM Peak, PM Peak and Saturday
Peak. How was it determined that the Saturday late AM was the peak period?
4. A figure showing the location of the existing parking should be provided. The
analysis shows that only 177 spaces are used on an average day. Are there
events that require additional parking? The parking need should be based on a
peak event.
5. Figure 3.4 should be updated to show all of the side street Stop signs.
6. Section4, Projected Traffic indicates that the assumptions in the section were
revised with City staff. This is true in some cases, but not all.
• It is indicated that the Directional Orientation is based on a weighted
distribution. This should be explained.
• The city's model was not used for the analysis. This was okayed in this
case because the intersections being analyzed were not all in the city's
model. They will be added should the development get approved.
• The background traffic assumed less than 1% per year growth rate
based on the MnDOT State Aid projection factor. This is acceptable,
however, other adjacent development should also be included in the
projections (i.e. Westin, 69th and York, etc.).
7. The analysis results indicate that the intersection of York Avenue and Parklawn
Avenue and York Avenue with the north site entrance will have some
movements at unsatisfactory Levels of Service.
• The overall Level of Service at the north side entrance will be at a LOS
D with the westbound movement at LOS F. With the additional traffic
associated with the adjacent developments this should be closely
looked at again.
• The queuing analysis only looked at the PM Peak hour. The traffic
volume exiting the north side entrance is higher in the AM Peak. To
insure that the queues and storage lengths are adequate, the AM Peak
should also be analyzed at both intersections.
• The mitigation, based on the queuing analysis, is to add a westbound
right turn lane at the north side entrance. A mitigation analysis should
be provided showing the LOS and queuing results with the addition of
this lane. Also, a figure should be provided showing that the right turn
lane can be accomplished on the site.
2
8. As discussed previously, the parking analysis should look at peak event for the
YMCA. Providing a proposed 326 spaces, 11 less than today, is a concern. A
shared parking analysis should also be conducted to determine exactly how
much parking demand there truly will be on site.
9. The study discusses the use and availability of transit for the YMCA site. It
should be expanded to include how people at the YMCA will get to the transit
facilities. Are sidewalks provided/available? A detailed site plan should be
provided.
Staff's recommendation is as follow:
Recommendation:
Review the attached transportation impact analysis submitted by Spack Consulting
dated August 29, 2008 and follow up memo dated September 17, 2008. Staff and WSB
believe that the memo addresses all the concerns.
If so desired by the Transportation Commission, adopt a motion recommending that
traffic generated from the proposed 7355 York Avenue does not adversely affect the
adjacent transportation system; with the following conditions:
1. The Development will be responsible for improvements to the
infrastructure at the median nose of York Avenue and the north
entrance/exit.
Info/Background:
Staff received a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) on August 29, 2008 for the
construction of a new 72,000 sq ft YMCA facility immediately west of the existing facility.
The building would be built in the parking lot of the current facility. Once the new YMCA
building opens then a 130 unit multi-family building would be built on the site of the
razed YMCA building.
The final build out for both buildings would be in 2011 or 2012.
Staff's initial review of the TIA and recommendation to the ETC at the time of
submission of the ETC Packets (on September 11, 2008) is shown in the following:
Review the attached transportation impact analysis submitted by Spack
Consulting dated August 29, 2008 and review a memo dated
September 9, 2008 from WSB and Associates.
Currently staff and our traffic consultant WSB feel that this
transportation submittal is not yet complete. Staff, WSB and Spack
Consulting are working to resolve the outstanding items listed in the
attached memo prior to the Edina Transportation Commission meeting
on September 18, 2008.
Currently the conditions of the approval are:
1. This development shall address all comments in WSB's September
9, 2008 memo to the satisfaction of the ETC and Engineering
Department.
3
2. Improved site plan showing mitigation measures to the site,
including new extended right turn lane.
Therefore staff is withholding a recommendation on this project
pending the resolution of the outstanding issues.
Commissioner Wanninger motioned to accept the traffic report and staff's
recommendation including Assistant City Engineer Sullivan's additional
recommendation that the development team be responsible for the relocation of the
south entrance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brown.
All voted aye.
b. 6200 Interlachen Blvd — Interlachen CC Maintenance Bldg
Assistant City Engineer Sullivan discussed the construction of a new 24,000 sq. ft.
maintenance and storage facility on Belmore Lane, east of John Street. Interlachen
Country Club wanted to move the access from Waterman Avenue to Belmore Lane.
This triggered a traffic impact study. Since the draft traffic study was completed, the
development team decided to gate the proposed access to Belmore Lane and use it for
only emergency access. Therefore, all trips generated from the new maintenance
facility would continue to use Waterman Avenue. No action necessary.
V. Approval of Minutes
a. Regular Meeting of July 17, 2008
Commissioner Wanninger motioned to approve the minutes of July 17, 2008, and it was
seconded by Commissioner Brown.
All voted aye.
Mr. Sullivan informed the ETC that staff will be meeting with the City Council about the 2008
Comp Plan Transportation Chapter next Wednesday. At that time, he will find out what direction
will be needed for the Circulator Service in the Southdale Area and the East/West Connector.
Commissioner White informed the ETC about the SW Transit Way. They are studying Light Rail
in the SW Area and Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority completed the alternative analysis
and is into the draft environmental impact study now and they will have scoping meetings that
are open to the public in October.
VI. Planning Commission Update (Commissioner Brown)
Commissioner Brown informed the ETC about the 2008 Comp Plan review.
VII. Staff Updates (Mr. Sullivan)
Staff updates included the W. 70th St. Cornelia Area Traffic Study survey and the Comp
Plan as listed above.
Chair Workinger asked that a 'Bike Task Force Update' be added to the agenda for
future meetings.
VIII. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
4
Traffic Safety
Fundamentals Handbook
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology
Published August 2008
Prepared by CH2M HILL, Inc.
osoN 00041,
(al) 4".OF
Mn/DOT Traffic Safety Fundamentals Handbook - Introduction
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) published the original version of the Traffic Safety Fundamentals Handbook in April, 2001.
Over 2,000 copies have since been distributed through Mn/DOT's education and outreach efforts to practicing professionals in both government
agencies and the private sector. In addition, this handbook has been used as a resource in undergraduate and graduate traffic engineering classes at
the University of Minnesota.
In the years since 2001, the field of traffic safety has witnessed several important changes. First, Federal Highway Legislation (SAFETEA-LU) raised
the level of importance of highway safety by making it a separate and distinct program and by increasing the level of funding dedicated to safety.
In response to this legislation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provided implementation guidelines that required the states to prepare
Strategic Highway Safety Plans and encouraged their safety investments to be focused on low cost stand-alone projects that can be proactively
deployed across both state and local highway systems.
Minnesota's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) was prepared in accordance with the FHWA guidelines and was approved in July, 2006. The SHSP
included identification of a statewide safety goal, safety emphasis areas and a list of high priority safety strategies. The SHSP also identified a new
approach to distributing the funds associated with the Highway Safety Improvement Program — driven by the distribution of fatal and life changing
injury crashes across Minnesota. As a result of this strategic safety planning effort and the hard work of safety professionals in both State and local
governments, dozens of highly effective safety projects have been implemented and the results are
impressive — Minnesota met the initial safety goal of getting under 500 traffic fatalities (494 fatalities
in 2005).
However, one fact remains constant — highway traffic fatalities are still the leading cause of death
for Minnesotans under 35 years of age. This indicates there is still much work to do in order to move
Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths.
This new edition of the handbook has been updated to reflect new safety practices, policies and
research and is divided into four sections:
• Crash Characteristics — national and state crash totals including the basic characteristics as a
function of roadway classification, intersection control, roadway design and access density.
• Safety Improvement Process — Black Spot Analysis + Systematic Analysis = Comprehensive Safety
Improvement Process.
• Traffic Safety Toolbox — identification of safety strategies with an emphasis on effectiveness.
• Lessons Learned
For additional information regarding traffic safety, please contact Mn/DOT's Office of Traffic, Safety
and Technology, Traffic Safety Engineer at (651) 234-7016.
Document information and Disclaimer:
Prepared by: CH2M HILL, Inc
Authors: Howard Preston, PE, Michael Barry and William Stein, PE
Funding: Provided by Mn/DOT Division of State Aid for Local Transportation
Published by: Mn/DOT Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology
The contents of this handbook reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of
the data presented. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views of or policies of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation at the time of publication. This handbook does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.
414.1• .11., 44., 444,40 r
• 1Ir• *-41.
Cartirf,". /ft .11., VIL NSZIMAIs lol/M117 nlet 6,1,1 1n1 4,9.`14"WV,0111*•.1L,Vre • own" tv,A. • IN •••n .COIF 41. IC24 -ri.,"40.
Ineill.ILY n RAIL shign fn. / trPritr.OrrirArart tontli.na .1 A Kikoormort *Rut %vi
TOW .74.01; Prie):11-Vh • Lir .4'eIF1 C.P.V.rkr 111' Irt am [pi
ti 1f) PPVIVIJIIKA
varli.t3 r.T.4 r.rxrwleztproDit
+wit-N:4:1A PP It )1.'0M ir_ravt•VA PArdli.t 4 ‘,,,,N.4%. tiV ; 4.112getiPirq
09 NT is::,EMtivor", Wif6:14
Alse:•:PONA/NFALlt)
ttel
1,07;1`4:21,1i,KISAVAP;;,*
t1404,11AVIVIXt
Table of Contents
Crash Characteristics
A-1 Nationwide Historic Crash Trends
A-2 Upper Midwest 2006 Crash Data
A-3 Fatality Rates of Surrounding States-2006
A-4 Minnesota Urban vs. Rural Crash Comparison
A-5 AASHTO's Strategic Highway Safety Plan
A-6 Role of Driver, Road, and Vehicle
A-7 Emergency Response Time
A-8 Fatal Crashes are Different
A-9 Minnesota's Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT)
A-10 Minnesota's Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT)
A-11 Crash Involvement by Age and Gender
A-12 Total Crashes by Road, Weather, & Lighting Conditions
A-13 Access vs. Mobility—The Functional Class Concept
A-14 Typical Functionally Classified Urban System
A-15 Intersection Crash Rates (MN) by Control Type and Family
A-16 Intersection Crash Severity (MN) by Control Type and Family
A-17 Intersection Crash Distribution by Rural vs. Urban
A-18 Roadway Segment Crash and Fatality Rates by
Jurisdictional Class
A-19 Roadway Segment Crash Rates of Facility Type by
Rural vs. Urban
A-20 Roadway Segment Crash Distribution by Rural vs. Urban
A-21 Roadway Segment Crash Rates as a Function of Facility Type
and Access Density (MN)
Safety Improvement Process
B-1 Minnesota's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
Minnesota's Safety Emphasis Areas
B-3 Safety Emphasis Areas—Greater Minnesota vs. Metro
B-4 Comprehensive Safety Improvement Process
B-5 Why Have a Black Spot Identification Process?
B-6 Alternative Methods for Identifying Potentially
Hazardous Locations
B-7 Effect of Random Distribution of Crashes
B-8 Calculating Crash Rates
B-9 Supplemental Analysis: More Detailed Record Review
B-10 Mn/DOT's High Crash–Cost Trunk Highway Intersections
B-11 Systematic Analysis— State Highways
B-12 Implementation Guidance for State Highways
B-13 Systematic Analysis County Highways
B-14 Implementation Guidance for County Highways
B-15 Safety Planning at the Local Level
Traffic Safety Tool Box
C-1 Traffic Safety Tool Box—Then vs. Now
C-2 Traffic Safety Tool Box—Then vs. Now
C-3 Effectiveness of Safety Strategies
C-4 Roadside Safety Strategies
C-5 Edge Treatments
C-6 Horizontal Curves
C-7 Slope Design/Clear Recovery Areas
C-8 Upgrade Roadside Hardware
C-9 Effectiveness of Roadside Safety Initiatives
C-10 Addressing Head-On Collisions
C-11 Intersection Safety Strategies
C-12 Conflict Points—Traditional Intersection Design
C-13 Conflict Points—New Intersection Design
C-14 Enhanced Signs and Markings
C-15 Intersection Sight Distance
C-16 Turn Lane Designs
C-17 Roundabouts and Indirect Turns
C-18 Traffic Signal Operations
C-19 Red Light Enforcement
C-20 Safety Effects of Street Lighting at Rural Intersections
C-21 Flashing Beacons at Rural Intersections
C-22 Transverse Rumble Strips at Rural Intersections
C-23 Pedestrian Safety Strategies
C-24 Pedestrian Crash Rates vs. Crossing Features
C-25 Curb Extensions and Medians
C-26 Neighborhood Traffic Control Measures
C-27 Speed Zoning
C-28 Technology Applications
C-29 Work Zones
C-30 Crash Reduction Factors
C-31 Average Crash Costs
C-32 Crash Reduction "Benefit/ Cost" (B/C) Ratio Worksheet
C-33 Typical "Benefit/Cost" Ratios for Various Improvements
Lessons Learned
D-1 Lessons Learned: Crash Characteristics
D-2 Lessons Learned: Safety Improvement Process
D-3 Lessons Learned: Traffic Safety Tool Box
,ONEso,
4.0p ToPts
Crash Characteristics Contents
A-1 Nationwide Historic Crash Trends
A-2 Upper Midwest 2006 Crash Data
A-3 Fatality Rates of Surrounding States-2006
A-4 Minnesota Urban vs. Rural Crash Comparison
A-5 AASHTO's Strategic Highway Safety Plan
A-6 Role of Driver, Road, and Vehicle
A-7 Emergency Response Time Comparison
A-8 Fatal Crashes are Different
A-9 Minnesota's Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT)
A-10 Minnesota's Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT)
A-11 Crash Involvement by Age and Gender
A-12 Total Crashes by Road, Weather, & Lighting Conditions
A-13 Access vs. Mobility—The Functional Class Concept
A-14 Typical Functionally Classified Urban System
A-15 Intersection Crash Rates (MN) by Control Type and Family
A-16 Intersection Crash Severity (MN) by Control Type and Family
A-17 Intersection Crash Distribution by Rural vs. Urban
A-18 Roadway Segment Crash and Fatality Rates by
Jurisdictional Class
A-19 Roadway Segment Crash Rates of Facility Type by
Rural vs. Urban
A-20 Roadway Segment Crash Distribution by Rural vs. Urban
A-21 Roadway Segment Crash Rates as a Function of Facility Type
and Access Density (MN)
1994 1979 1984 2006 1999 1989 2004 1972
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6,300
37
2,026
4,226
6,181
38
1,862
4,281
5,973
39
1,746
4,189
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6,700
41
2,153
4,459
6,500
36
2,123
4,337
1 "
Total (thousand)
Fatal (thousand)
Injury (thousand)
PDO (thousand)
Fataiities
Total 44,257 42,642 41,345 42,636 45,582 40,716 54,589* 51,093
N/A 195 238 251 181 159 144 119
3.0 2.4 1.7 3.0 2.7 1.5 1.3 2.1
198
1.4
170
206
1.4
180
$230.6** N/A
Crash Trends
Crashes
Traffic
Registered Vehicles (million)
VMT (trillion)
Crashes/100 MVM
Fatalities/100 MVM
Fatalities per million registered vehicles
US Dollars (billion) $150.5 N/A N/A
N/A
2.6
278
276
1.7
209
235
1.5
195
317
2.2
252
N/A
3.3
355
N/A
4.3
458
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Nationwide Historic
972 was the worst year for fatalities in U.S. N/A = Not Available VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
**Estimated for reported and unreported crashes in 2000 PDO = Property Damage Only 100 MVM = Hundred Million Vehicle Miles
Source: National Highway 7inffic Safety Admmistration (NHTSA)
Highlights
• Nationally, over the past 10 years, there have been about 6.5 million crashes and between 40,000 and 45,000 deaths annually.
• Over that same period, VMT (exposure) has increased by almost 30%.
• The long-term trend is fewer crashes and fatalities, in spite of the increased exposure.
• As a result, there have been fairly dramatic decreases in both crash and fatality rates.
• Even though there have been significant decreases in both total crashes and fatalities, there have been large increases in the costs of those crashes.
linffie Safity Fundamenudc
Handbook-2008
ID\
A-1
North
South
Dakota Dakota Iowa Wisconsin Minnesota
Crashes
Total
Fatal
Injury
PDO
Total
Traffic
Registered Vehicles (million)
VMT (billion)
Crashes/MVM
Fatal ities/100 MVM
Fatalities/MRV
78,745
456
24,663
53,626
16,534
101
4,141
12,292
15,830
172
4,296
11,362
54,815
386
16,950
37,479
117,877
659
35,296
81,922
494 I 111 I 191 439 712
4.8 N/A 1.0 3.4 5.3
56.6 7.7 8.5 31.7 59.4
1.4 2.0 1.9 1.7
0.9 1.5 2.3 1.2
103 N/A 191 129
2.0
1.2
134
Us ser Midwest Area
2006 Crash Data
Highlights
• Regionally, there is a wide variation from state to state
in both the total number of crashes (15,000 to 118,000)
and the number of fatalities (111 to 712).
• This variation is consistent with the state to state variation
in exposure (VMT).
• Minnesota has averaged approximately 90,000 crashes
and between 500 and 600 fatalities annually over the
past several years.
The trend in Minnesota is fewer crashes and fatalities, in
spite of an increase in exposure (VMT).
• Minnesota has been a leader in the area of highway
• safety, with one of the lowest statewide average crash
•
and fatality rates compared to other states in both the
region and nationally.
• • There is a relationship between the number of fatal
•
crashes and fatalities. In general across the upper
midwest area, the ratio was 1.1 fatalities per fatal crash.
US Dollars (million) $1,529
N/A= Not Available
PDO = Property Damage Only
Source: 2006 Starr Publications of MN, ND, SD. IA and WI
$399 I $411
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
100 MVM = Hundred Million Vehicle Miles
N/A
$2,715
MRV = Million Registered Vehicles
Thage Softly Fundamentals
Handbook-2008
44;4
opro.- A-2
Fatality Rate = Fatalities per Hundred
Million Vehicle Miles (MVM) Traveled
Fatalit Rates of
Surrounding States 2006
MIRO
NORTH
DAKOTA
1.4
National Average =
1.4 Fatalities / 100 MVM Highlights
• Minnesota has the lowest fatality rate in the region
and consistently one of the lowest fatality rates in the
• nation. AdlIllbNgOlisiv ,-........;__,
SOUTH
DAKOTA
2.1
WISCONSIN
1.2
NEBRASKA
1.4
• • National Fatality Rates
- Average – 1.4
- Range – 0.8 to 2.3
- Trends – Lowest fatality rates in the northeast
(mostly urban)
- Highest rates in west, southwest, and southeast
(most rural)
Minnesota had the second lowest rate.
ILLINOIS INDIANA • Since 1994, Minnesota's fatality rate has dropped by
1.2 1.3 almost 42%. This is the largest decline of any state.
. „ Traffic fatalities are still the leading cause of death for
Minnesota residents under 35 years of age.
. • The data suggests there are significant opportunities
to move Toward Zero Deaths by focusing state safety
• efforts on the primary factors associated with severe
crashes—safety belts, alcohol, young drivers, road
edges, and intersections.
Minnesota National!
Fatalities Fatality Rate Fatality Rate
1984 584 1.8 2.6 •
1989 605 1.6 2.1
1994 644 1.5 1.7
1999 626 1.2 1.5
2006 494 0.9 1.4
Source: National Highway Traffic Soo, Administration (AIR TSA)
Thaflie Safity litiathlmentab
Handbook-2008 A-3
Fatal Crashes
70% Rural
72% Urban
Total Crashes
28% Rural
30% Urban
Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT)
48% Rural
52% Urban
13% Urban
87% Rural
Miles
Note: "Rural" Refers to a non–municipal area and cities with a
population less than 5,000.
Minnesota Urban vs. Rural
Crash Comparison
Highlights
• The total number of crashes is typically a
function of exposure (VMT).
• In Minnesota, slightly more than one-half of the
VMT is in urban areas and approximately 70%
• of the total number of statewide crashes are in
urban areas.
• • However, 70% of the fatal crashes in Minnesota
are in the rural areas.
• On the average, rural crashes tend to be more
severe than urban crashes — the fatality rate on
rural roads is more than 2.5 times the rate in
urban areas.
• • The higher severity of rural crashes appears to
• be related to crash type, speed, and access to
• emergency services.
Source: 2004 -2006 Minnesota TIS Crash Data
7idffic Safety Fundamentals
Ilandlmok-2008
4)01141;I:Z4it
11:0 A-4
400
300
—MI-- National
—4.-- Minnesota
1
200
100
AASHTO's Strategic
Highway Safety Plan
Persons Killed in Traffic Crashes
558
Highlights
1200 • In the 1990's, AASHTO concluded that historic efforts
to address traffic safety were not sufficient to cause
• a continued decline in the annual number of traffic
1000 fatalities.
• AASHTO's Strategic Highway Safety Plan was first
800
published in 1997 and then updated in 2004.
• The plan suggested a new national safety performance
measure — the number of traffic fatalities and setting a
goal to reduce the nation's highway fatality rate to not
more the one fatality per 100 million VMT by 2008.
60000
55000
50000
45000
40000
35000
30000
Z 25000
1100
— 900
42642
43 10
700
Le)
600
a
500
20000 —
15000
10000 —
5000
0
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Year
The 494 traffic fatalities in 2006 is the lowest number in more than 50 years.
2000 2005
MnDOT_A-05_2
. • The plan introduced innovative ideas including:
- Shared responsibility — all roads, all levels of road
authorities
- Safety Emphasis Areas
- Focus on Proven Strategies
- Consideration of Driver, ,
Roadway and Vehicle
analyzing crash causation
interactions when
Strategic
safety piagia
AAsum
- Development of
State and Local
Comprehensive
Safety Plans
•
Source: Minnerota Department of Thamportation (Mn/DOT) and National Highway 7i4flc Safer y Adminisn-ation (NIITSA)
huffic Safety liosdanumtak
Handbook-2008
,ONCiot,
(0) So, Tioo41" A-5
Highlights
Crash Causation Factors • Crashes are caused by a variety of factors involving
Roadway
(34%)
- Road edge dropoffs
- Intersection design
3 0/0
1°/
Vehicle
(12%) 2°/ - Tire blowouts
- Towing trailers
- Oversize and load distribution
Example—Roadways are the sole contributing factor in 3% of crashes and
the roadway and driver interaction is the factor in 27% of crashes.
Driver
(93%)
Not wearing safety belt
- Using alcohol
- Driving aggressively
Source: Human Factors Highway Safity, Elizabeth Alicandri
Role of Driver
Road, and Vehicle
drivers, the roadway, and vehicles
— Driver behaviors that attribute to crashes include
not wearing a safety belt, using alcohol, and
driving aggressively. Driver behaviors are a factor
in a total of 93% of crashes.
- Roadway features focus on road edges and
intersections. Roadway features are a factor in
34% of crashes.
- Vehicle equipment failures, including tire
blowouts, towing trailers, over size and load
distribution. Vehicle failures are a factor in 12%
of crashes.
.
•
Studies have shown that Safety Programs
• that address multiple factors of the four
• Safety E's — Education, Enforcement,
Engineering, and Emergency Services—will
be the most effective.
• Examples of education and enforcement programs
▪ include the Department of Public Safety's Project
Night Cap (alcohol) and CLICK IT or Ticket (safety
belt usage).
Traffic Sttfity Fundamentals
Handbook-2008
0.,,OES0,4
(.0611 A-6
46
min.
Emergency Response
Time Comparison
lime of
Crash to
Notification
"Time
Notification to
the Time of
Arrival
at Scene
Arrival at Scene to Time
of Arrival at Hospital
cts
29 min. Note: Times are rounded to
nearest minute
"Rural" Refers to a
non—municipal area and
cities with a population
less than 5,000
EMS Response Time (minutes)
Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Highlights
• It appears that Emergency Response time may be a significant contributing factor to the higher frequency of fatal crashes in rural areas.
• Response times in rural areas are more than 50% longer than in urban areas.
• The higher frequency of fatal crashes in rural areas combined with the large EMS response times has lead to the research currently underway, in both Minnesota and
nationally, regarding an automatic emergency notification system (MayDay) and enhancing the 511 (roadway information) system to provide first responders with
real-time routing information to trauma centers
finffic Safety Fundamentals
Handbook-2008 A-7
4.0nNESe9„
4.).0r-rt,"
Traffic Safety Fundamentab
Handbook-2008
Fatal Crashes
are Different Percentage (Y0) 40%
le All Crashes
34% All Rural Crashes
32% Fatal Crashes
30% 28%
23%
20% 19%
17% 4110—
15% 1 5 To
14%
10%
• 7%
4% 50/ •
0 .
Rear End Run Off Road Head-On Angle •
Highlights
• For the past 30 years, the primary safety performance
measure was the total number of crashes. This resulted
in safety investments being focused on locations with
the highest number of crashes, which also have larger
numbers of the most common types of crashes.
• The most common types of crashes in Minnesota are Rear
End (28%) and Right Angle (19%). These crashes occur
most frequently at signalized intersections along urban/
suburban arterials — which ended up being the focus of
safety investment.
• One problem with directing safety investments towards
signalized urban/suburban intersections is that there was
little effect on reducing fatalities — only about 10% of fatal
crashes occur at these locations.
• The advent of Minnesota's Toward Zero Deaths (TZD)
program and the recent adoption of a fatality-based safety
performance measure lead to research that first identified
that fatal crashes are different than other less severe
crashes.
• Fatal crashes are overrepresented in rural areas and on
the local road system. The most common types of fatal
crashes are Run Off Road (34%), Right Angle (23%), and
Head-On (17%).
• These facts about fatal crashes have changed Mn/DOT's
safety investment strategies — which are now focused on
road departures in rural areas and on local systems.
Source: 2004- 2006 Minnesota TIS Cursh Data
• I INRISF
E. UNSE
• NI.' 1111
• • n1.1
• NARK • STREET LIGHTS ON • DARK NO It REET LIGHTS • OTHER
• DARE • STREET LIGHTS OFF • DARV.• UNKNOWN LIGHTING • uNrNe.,N
Minnesota Crash 'Napalms Analmils Toot
MnCNL4T(1 of 2)
NoT rmrcinso
rAMC SIGNALS
OVERHEAD FLASHERS
STOP SIGN ALL APPROACHL:
STOP SIGN OTHER
511110 $IGN
OFFICER. FLAGMAN OR S:HOOLIPAIROL
HOOL RUE ship. Ap.,
:r4,0L7.0r,E 51511
NO PASSING 2005
RAILROAD CROSSING GATES
RAILROAD CROSSING -FLASHING UGH
RAILROAD CROSSING STOP SINS
111:11 CROSSING • OVERH40 FLASHER
HUVNNG • LIVSAHLAU 1.1,4511tri
11.(,
Crashes by Severity
Pica County (2002-2005)
F..00 ROD
400
400
300 300
6
200 200
100 TOO
0
IncAle111 /N,
Crash Mapping Analysis Tool
Version 33.0
mm
Cop, noilhi
Iowa State Univw,i1 = A1rICI Foundafion IV
Minnesota's Crash Mai I in • Lru
Analysis Too (MnCMAT)
Highlights
• In order to assist cities and counties in gaining a better
understanding of crash characteristics on their systems, Minnesota
Local Road Research Board and Minnesota County Engineers
Association (MCEA) have made a new tool available— the
Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT).
• MnCMAT is a map—based computer application that provides 10
years of crash data for every county in Minnesota.
• Individual crashes are spatially located by reference point along
all roadways in each county.
• Up to 73 pieces of information are provided for each crash,
including route, location (reference point), date/day/time,
severity, vehicle actions, crash causation, weather, road
characteristics, and driver condition.
• Analysts can select specific intersections or roadway segments for
• study. An overview of the entire county can also be generated.
• • For more information about MnCMAT, consult the website:
http://www.dotstate.mn.us/stateaid/sa_crash_map_tool.html
Traffic &deo" Fundamcntab
Handbook-2008 A-9
1 ram
AnAl
556
IOU)
NMI
9
"Z.
"61 - l ,F.CKEDSACV 11 Crashes by Surface Conditions
:Th. of Brooklyn Pan, (1996 2005)
Cral ,es by Seventy
Crfi of Orooklyn Park ( I 906-2006)
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
8 2000
1500
1000
500
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000 8
1500
1000
500
0
Lii
2
3/132007
I000e010 8090
Baffle Safety Fundamentab
Handbook-2008
Minnesota's Crash Mal oIfl!
Analysis Tool (MritMXT)
1
Highlights
• The recommended analytical process
for conducting a safety/crash study is to
compare Actual conditions at a specific
• location (intersection or segment of highway)
• compared to Expected conditions (based on
• documenting the average characteristics for a
• large system of similar facilities).
• • MnCMAT supports this analytical process
▪ by providing both the data for individual
• locations and for larger systems — individual
o or multiple counties.
• These graphs provide summaries of crash
data for the City of Brooklyn Park.
• The data indicates crashes predominately
occur on dry surface conditions and are more
likely to occur during the week. Additionally,
the graph shows the distribution of crashes by
Crashes by Day of Week
City of Brooklyn Park (1 996-2005)
------__I—.I MN 11 11 11 111
MI 11 11 11 11 Urn
pI 11 11 11 11 11 I
I 11 11 11 11 11 11 I
I 11 11 II 11 II 11
I 11 11 11 II 11 11 •
SUN MON TLIE WED THU FRI SAT
Day of Week
1600
1400
1200
1000
eoo
600
400
200 severity.
3/13/2007
SavaGTaphic
Incidents- 81392
Pmt Chat
MnCMAT(2 of 2)
0.1 ""a,"
a) •Lit ct? cr 113
4
Age Group
Source: 2004- 2006 Minnesota Crash Facts
16
14
12
10
• ct
C
•
cZ,
ON Percentage of All Drivers in Population
NI Percentage of All Drivers in Crashes
ct 0) ct a) .0. 0)
0')N
03
LI) a LI) 0
CO N N 03
Licensed vs. Crash—Involved Drivers, 2006
Age an Gender
3500
IN Male
MI Female 3000
lin t; IA.,
a? .<4. 0) 'Tr 01 ct 01 Tt 0) CY)
ca) g (0' (9 Ln 0 n n 0 Lr) cc c c. cn cn as as as as N N co
soo
. 2500
cid
1000 CIJ
Age Group
Highlights
• The distribution of fatal crashes and total crashes by age indicates that young people are overrepresented.
• A recent analysis of crashes found that Minnesota has the highest percentage of young drivers (under 19 years of age) involved in fatal crashes of any
state (approximately 14%), and those drivers only make up about 8% of the driving population.
• Minnesota's Strategic Highway Safety Plan has documented that young drivers (under 21 years old) are involved in 24% of fatal crashes. As a result,
addressing young driver safety issues has been adopted as one of Minnesota's main safety emphasis areas.
• One strategy has been found to be particularly effective at reducing the crash involvement rate of young drivers — adoption of a comprehensive
Graduated Drivers License (GDL) program. The Minnesota Legislature took a step in this direction in 2008 by adding provisions that prohibit driving
between midnight and 5 a.m. during the first 6 months of licensure and limiting the number of unrelated teen passengers during the first 12 months of
licensure.
Tiaffie Safily Fundamentah
Handbook-2008 A-11
68% Dry
14% Wet/Muddy
9% Ice or
Packed Snow
2% Other
7% Snow/Slush
56% Clear
1% Fog, Dust,
Smoke, ect.
3% Other
Lighting Conditions
Total Crashes by Road, Weather,
& Lighting Conditions
66% Daylight
5% Dawn or-
Dusk
2% Other
Road Conditions
Weather Conditions
26% Cloudy
16% Dark with
Streetlights
11°A) Dark without
Streetlights
Highlights
• Some elements of traffic safety are counter-
intuitive. Many people think that most crashes
occur at night during bad weather.
• However, the data clearly indicates that crash
frequency is a function of exposure. Most crashes
occur during the day on dry roads in good weather
conditions.
• It should be noted that some recent research has
looked at safety issues during night time hours and
during snow events. This research concludes that
these conditions represent a significant safety risk
because low level of exposure results in very high
crash rates.
•
•
during dark conditions but 26% of fatal crashes
• occur during hours of darkness.
14% Rain, Snow,
Sleet or Hail • • In addition, the new focus on fatal crashes
reinforces the concern about night time hours
being more at risk-11% of all crashes occur
Source: 2004- 2006 Minnesota TIS GAM Data
7inc Safety Fundamental,.
Handbook-2008 A-12
Access vs. Mobility
The Functional Class Concept
Highlights
• One of the key concepts in transportation planning deals with the functional classification
of a road system. The basic premise is that there are two primary roadway functions—
Access and Mobility—and that all roadways serve one function or the other, or in some
cases, both functions.
• The four components of most functionally classified systems include Local Streets,
o 6 Collectors, Minor Arterials, and Principal Arterials.
• The primary function of local streets is land access and the primary function of principal
arterials is moving traffic. Collectors and minor arterials are usually required to serve some
combination of both access and mobility functions. •
" • Key reasons supporting the concept of a functionally classified system include the
following:
- It is generally agreed that systems that include the appropriate balance of the four types
• of roadways provide the greatest degree of safety and efficiency.
- It takes a combination of various types of roadways to meet the needs of the various
• land uses found in most urban areas around the state.
- Most agencies could not afford a system made up entirely of principal arterials. A
• region could be gridlocked if it was only served by a system of local streets.
- Roadways that only serve one function are generally safer and tend to operate more
efficiently. For example, freeways only serve the mobility function and as a group have
No Thru Traffic No Local Traffic
the lowest crash rates and the highest level of operational efficiency.
Low Speed
Mobilit
High Speed .
-
Functional classification can be used to help prioritize roadway improvements.
• The design features and level of access for specific roadways should be matched to the
intended function of individual roadways.
• The appropriate balance point between the competing functions must be determined for
Functional Classification System 0 0'2)
each roadway based on an analysis of specific operational, safety, design, and land features.
Source: FHIVA Publication No. FHW/A-RD-91-044 (Nov 1992)
Yingie Safity Fundamentals
landbook-2008 A-13
C.)
• 1.-2. Note: Percentage of
Roadway Mileage
SK(e c\ksk 2pe: stp
SPc" "So
•
MnDOT_A-13 •
• Principal Arterial
• Minor Arterial
Collector
Local Streets
I
Typical Functionally
Classified Urban System
ADT — Average Daily Traffic
VMT —Vehicle Miles Traveled
MPH - Miles Per Hour
2K- 2,000
1M - 1,000,000
Functional Classification System (2 of 2)
Source: FHWA Publication No. FHWA-RD-91-044 (Nov 1992)
Highlights
• Local Streets
- Low volumes (less than 2K ADT)
- Low speeds (30 MPH)
- Short trips (less than one mile)
— Two lanes
- Frequent driveways and intersections
- Unlimited access
- 75% system mileage / 15°/oVMT
- Jurisdiction - Cities and Townships
— Construction cost: $250K to
$500K/mile
• Collectors
- Lower volumes (1K to 8K ADT)
- Lower speeds (30 or 35 MPH)
- Shorter trips (1 to 2 miles)
— Two or three lanes
- Frequent driveways
- Intersections to 1/8th mile spacing
- 10% system mileage! 10% VMT
— Jurisdiction - Cities and counties
— Construction cost: $1M to $2M / mile
• Minor Arterials
- Moderate volumes (5K to 40K ADT)
- Moderate speeds (35 to 45 MPH)
- Medium length trips (2 to 6 miles)
- Three, four, or five lanes
- Only major driveways
- Intersections at 1/4 mile spacing
- 10% system mileage / 25% VMT
— Jurisdiction - Counties and Mn/DOT
— Construction cost: $2.5M to
$7M / mile
• Principal Arterials
High volumes (greater than 20K ADT)
- High speeds (greater than 45 MPH)
- Longer trips (more than 6 miles)
— 4 or more lanes - access control
- Intersections at 1/2 mile spacing and
Interchanges 1+ mile spacing
- 5% system mileage / 50(3/0VMT
— Jurisdiction - Mn/DOT
— Construction cost: $10M to
$50M / mile
Traffic Safiqy Fundamentals
Handbook-2008
ost4ES'o?..,
litrk 4".0p.tcaa° A-14
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Signalized Signalized Signalized
Low Vol.,21 High Vol.,T, Low Vol.,
Low Speed(3) Low Speed,, High Speed,4
(6236) (59) (152) (264) (58)
Control Type/Family (no. of intersections)
Note: Only for Trunk Highway Intersections
Intersection Crashes (I of 2)
Source: 2004-2006 Minnesota DS Crash Data
0.8
Signalized
High Vol.m
High Speed,
(382) CRASH RATE (Crashes per MEV) Thru-STOP All STOP
MEV = million entering veh.
> 15000 MEV 3<45mph
< 15000 MEV > 45 mph
0.6
0.3
0.7 0.7
Intersection Crash Rates MN
by Control Type and Family
Highlights
• Crash frequency at intersections tends to be a function of exposure —the
volume of traffic traveling through the intersection. As a result, the most
commonly used intersection crash statistic is the crash rate—the number of
crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV).
• Crash frequency also tends to be a result of the type of traffic control at the
intersection. Contrary to the popularly held opinion that increasing the amount
of intersection control results in increased safety, the average crash rate at
• signalized intersections (0.7 per MEV) is more than 150% higher than average
crash rate at stop sign–controlled intersections (0.3 per MEV). In addition, the
average severity rate and the average crash density is also greater for signalized
• as opposed to stop sign controlled intersections.
• It should be noted that approximately 40% of the Thru-STOP intersections had
no crashes in the 2004-2006 time period. At those intersections with crashes, •
the average crash rate is approximately equal to the all STOP condition.
• A wealth of research also supports the conclusion that traffic signals are only
• rarely safety devices. Most Before vs. After studies of traffic signal installations
• document increases in the number and rate of crashes, a change in the
distribution of the type of crashes, and a modest decrease in the fraction of
fatal crashes.
• As a result of crash characteristics associated with signalized intersections,
installing traffic signals is NOT one of Minnesota's high priority safety strategies.
• There is also data to support a conclusion that some type of left turn phasing
(either exclusive or exclusive/permitted), addressing clearance intervals and
providing coordination helps to minimize the number of crashes at signalized
intersections.
Miele Safety litudatnentak
landbook--2008 .fr
esEso\c.
A-15
0.201a__
-63.30/0-. 766.1 °/0
Highlights
• The distribution of intersection crash severity appears
to be a result of the type/degree of intersection
control methods. Based on a review of over 31,000
crashes at more than 7,100 intersections, All-Way
1.5 STOP-controlled and low speed/volume signalized
intersections were found to have the highest
percentage of property damage only crashes (71%)
and the lowest percentage of injury crashes (29%).
Intersections with traffic signal controls had the lowest 1.0 a • percentage of fatal crashes (0.2%).
• The data also suggests that (on average) the installation
of a traffic signal does not result in a reduction in crash
• severity. The severity rate at signalized intersections
0.5
▪
(1.1) is about 120% higher than at intersections with
Thru/STOP controls (0.5).
• This data supports the theory that increasing the
• amount of intersection controls does not necessarily
• result in a higher level of intersection safety.
2.0
WI Fatal M PDO
IIII Injury I. Severity Rate
PDO = Property Damage Only
MEV = Million Entering Veh.
15000 MEV 11<45mph
< 15000 MEV (1, > 45 mph
Intersection Crash Severity (MN)
by Control Type and Family
100%
julL
90%
5 ?.110/0' 29.1%
80%
70%
60%
763.0 °/0- -70.5°0- 30W._ -66.6°0-
t, 50`k
40% -
30%
20% -
10% -
0% - i
Signalized Signalized Signalized Signalized
Low Vol. High Vol. Low Vol., High Vol.., ,
Low Speed ,,. Low Speed„ High Speed„; High Speed,i
(152) 1264) (58) (362)
Thru-STOP All STOP
(6236) (59)
Control Type/Family (no. of intersections)
Note: Only for Trunk Highway Intersections
Source: 2004-2006 Minnesota TIS Crash Data
Intersection Crashes (2 of2)
Mtge Safety Fundamentab
Handbook-2008
0,0E5'0,4
ID) 4.P.OrTcOat". A-16
SigrOized
e
34% Other
32% Rear End
52% Rear End
23% Other
2% Right-Turn
7% Left-Turn
25% Right Angle
Urban
1% Right-Turn
7% Left-Turn
17% Right Angle
Intersection Crash Distribution
by Rural vs. Urban
1% Right-Turn
3% Left-Turn
17% Rear End
53% Other 26% Right Angle
Rural
1% Right-Turn
52% Rear End . r--7% Left-Turn
,,,gce—•L-' 16% Right Angle
24% Other
Other — Sideswipe (Passing/Opposing), Runoff Road, Head—On, and Other/Unknown Crashes.
Note: "Rural" Refers to a non—municipal area and cities with a population less than 5,000.
Highlights
• The crash type distribution that can be expected at
an intersection is primarily a function of the type of
intersection control.
• At stop—controlled intersections, in both rural and urban
areas, the most common types of crashes are right angle
and rear end collisions.
• At signalized intersections, the most common types of
crashes are rear end, right angle, and left turn collisions.
Several Key Points:
• Traffic signals appear to reduce but not eliminate right angle crashes.
• Right turns present a very low risk of a crash (1% to 2% of intersection crashes).
• Left turns present a very low risk of a crash (3% to 7% of intersection crashes).
• Crossing conflicts present a very high risk of a crash (16% to 26% of intersection crashes).
• Rear end conflicts present the highest risk of a crash (17% to 52% of intersection crashes).
Th!filt- Sqfily haul(' mewab
landboa-2008 sfroFT," A-17
Roadway Segment Crash and Fatality
Rates by Jurisdictional Class
Crashes Fatalities Crash
Rate* Fatality Rate**
9,689 43 0.8 0.3
•22,583 196 1.1 1.0
22,768 185 1.6 1.3
21,423 41 2.7 0.5
2,282 29 1.9 2.4
78,745 494 1.4 0.9
Miles Roadway Jurisdiction
Classification
Interstate 914
Trunk Highway 10,956
CSAH /County Roads 44,997
City Streets 19,105
Other (Township, etc.) 59,387
State Total 135,359
" per million vehicle miles IMVM)
** per 100 million vehicle miles (100 MVM)
Source: Minnesota Motor Vehicle Crash Facts (2006)
Highlights
• As a class, interstates had lower crash and fatality rates than conventional
roadways. This is likely due to three factors:
- Interstates only serve a mobility function
- Interstates tend to have a consistently high standard of design
- Interstates have very strict control of access
• Of the conventional roadways, Trunk Highways had the lowest crash rate
and the second lowest fatality rate.
• City streets had the highest crash rate and a low fatality rate.
• County and township roads had moderately high crash rates and the
highest fatality rates.
• This distribution of crashes generally supports the idea that greater
numbers of crashes occur in urban areas and greater numbers of fatal
crashes occur in rural areas.
• Crash rates and fatality rates by roadway jurisdiction (and for the state
as a whole) are interesting, however, there is a great deal of evidence to
suggest that crash rates are more a function of roadway design than who
owns the road.
7ilaffic &lily Fundamentals
Hand600k-2008
;
0004E5,041.
i?(DI A-18
5.0
CU 3.5
a-cu 1f=
3.0
2.5
CU -5, 2.0
1.5
1.0
CLi 0.5
5-Lane 4-Lane
Divided
4-Lane
Divided
Interstate 2-Lane 3-Lane 4-Lane
Undivided
Rural
III Urban
Note: Only for Trunk Highway Segments
"Rural" Refers to a non–municipal area and cities with a population less than 5,000.
Roadway Segment Crash Rates
Facility Type by Rural vs. Urban
Highlights
• Average crash rates vary by location (Rural vs. Urban) and
•
type of facility.
. • Freeways have the lowest crash rates and are the safest
roadway system in the state.
• Rural roadways have lower crash rates than similar urban
roads.
• Urban conventional roadways-often minor arterials which
serve both a mobility and land access function—have the
highest crash rates.
• Four–lane undivided roadways have the highest crash rate—
these facilities are usually found in commercial areas with
high turning volumes and with little or no management of
access. Over the years, this average has been lowered (from
a rate of 8.0 in 1990), due to Mn/DOT's efforts to convert the
worst segments to either three-lane, four-lane divided or five-
lane roads. The addition of left turn lanes to segments of urban
conventional roadways typically reduces crashes by 25% to
40%.
. • The distribution of crash rates by facility type points to the
• relationship between access density and safety—highways
• with low levels of access (freeways) have low crash rates and
highways with higher levels of access (conventional roads)
have comparatively higher crash rates.
Source: 2004-2006 Minnesota TIS Crash Data
Ira* Safrty hindamentaic
landbook-2008 A-19
12% Sideswipe
20% Other
9% Run-Off Road
4% Head On
11
I
34% Rear-End
21% Right Angle
31% Run-off Road
8% Sideswipe
7% Head On 14% Right Angle
15% Rear-End
25% Other
Roadway Segment Crash
Distribution by Rural vs. Urban
Urban
Rural
Note: Only for Trunk Highway Segments
"Rural" Refers to a non—municipal area and cities with a population less than 5,000.
Percentages are rounded.
Source: 2004 -2006 Minnesota TIS Crash Data
Highlights
• There is a significant difference in the types of crashes
that occur on urban versus rural roads.
• Urban crashes are predominately two vehicle (about
85%) and rural crashes are predominately single vehicle
(about 55%).
• The most common types of urban crashes include:
- Rear-End (34%)
- Right Angle (21%)
• The most common types of rural crashes include:
- Run off the Road (31%)
- Rear-End (15%)
- Right Angle (14%)
• Some types of crashes are more severe than others. Only
7% of all rural crashes involve head-on collisions, but
they account for 20% of the fatal crashes.
• Deer hits are underreported because they rarely result
in injury to vehicle occupants. A conservative estimate
is that as many as 24% of rural crashes involve hitting a
deer. For more information about collisions involving a
deer, see www.deercrash.com
Traffic Safety Funthyonentab
Handbook-2008 A-20
Rural Urban
• • •
- 2-Lane Conventional
4-Lane Conventional
Expressway
WW1. il=•n M=I
Roadway Segment Crash Rates as
a Function of Facility Type and
Access Density (MN)
15 30 45
Access Density
Note: "Rural" Refers to a non—municipal area and cities
with a population less than 5,000.
Source: Mn/DOT Research Report 1998-27 "Statistical Relationship between Vehicular crashes and Highway Access"
Highlights
• Previous safety research going back 30 years indicated a potential relationship between access
density and crash rates. However, this research did not account for other factors that are known
• to affect crash rates (rural vs. urban, design type of facility, etc.) and none of the data was from
Minnesota.
• As a result, in 1998, Mn/DOT undertook a comprehensive review of the relationship between
access and safety on Minnesota' s Trunk Highway System. This effort ended with the publication
of Research Report No. 1998-27, "Statistical Relationship Between Vehicular Crashes and
Highway Access."
. • The key components of the research included:
- Conducting a detailed analysis of a 766-mile sample of the state's 12,000 mile Trunk
Highway System.
- Documenting the density of access and the crash characteristics on over 430 segments of
roadway.
- Conducting rigorous statistical tests in order to achieve a high degree of statistical reliability.
- Dividing the roadway segments into 11 separate categories in order to account for the
primary factors that account for the crash rate variability.
• • The significant results include:
- Documenting for the first time the actual access density (an average of
8 per mile in rural areas and 28 per mile in urban areas).
- Observing a statistical relationship between access density and crash rates in 10 of 11
categories.
- Identifying a statistically significant tendency (in 5 out of 6 categories with sufficient sample
size) for segments with higher access densities to have higher crash rates in both urban and
rural areas.
Ii.itge Safi-0, Fundainen rah
1 landhook-2008 OF R P. A-21
Safety Improvement Process
B-1 Minnesota's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
B-2 Minnesota's Safety Emphasis Areas
B-3 Safety Emphasis Areas—Greater Minnesota vs. Metro
B-4 Comprehensive Safety Improvement Process
B-5 Why Have a Black Spot Identification Process?
B-6 Alternative Methods for Identifying Potentially
Hazardous Locations
B-7 Effect of Random Distribution of Crashes
B-8 Calculating Crash Rates
B-9 Supplemental Analysis: More Detailed Record Review
B-10 Mn/DOT's High Crash–Cost Trunk Highway Intersections
B-11 Systematic Analysis— State Highways
B-12 Implementation Guidance for State Highways
B-13 Systematic Analysis—County Highways
B-14 Implementation Guidance for County Highways
B-15 Safety Planning at the Local Level
Minnesota's Strategic
Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
Highlights
• Minnesota Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is a data driven
document that addresses the following issues:
— Comprehensive: Addressed Four Safety E's
— Systematic: Considered all roads
• Identifies a new safety performance measure: Fatal and life-changing
injury crashes
• Documents a new safety goal: 400 or fewer fatalities by 2010
• Identifies a need to focus safety investments on rural areas and on local
systems in order to achieve the goal
.
▪
• Identifies the Critical Emphasis Areas (CEAs) and Critical Strategies
— Driver behavior based emphasis areas
— Unbelted vehicle occupants
— Alcohol related
— Speeding related
• —Young driver involved
— Infrastructure-based emphasis areas
• — Intersection
• — Single vehicle road departure • • — Head-on and sideswipe
. • Includes both Proactive & Reactive Elements
• http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/shsp/index.html
•
Saler), hmflainenhils
Handbook-2008
4t410,30),..
OF v044 B-11
Statewide Fatalities (2001-2005)
Total Vehicle Occupant Fatalities 2,429
Total Nonvehicle Occupant Fatalities (i.e., Pedestrian, Bicyclist) 579
Total Fatalities 3,008
Driver Behavior Based Emphasis Areas Number Percentage* Rank
Unbelted (Based on Veh. Occ. Fatalities) 1,271 (52%) 1
Alcohol-Related 1,068 (36%) 2
Speeding-Related 850 (28%) 5
Involved Drivers Under 21 718 (24%) 6
Infrastructure-Based Emphasis Areas Number Percentage* Rank
Intersection 1,004 (33%) 3
Single Vehicle Run Off Road 965 (32%) 4
Head-On and Sideswipe 611 (20%) 7
Minnesota's Safet
Emphasis Areas
Source: lklinnesota Strategic Highway Safety Plan *Note: Crashes may have more than one factor - percentages total more than 100%
Highlights
• Guidance provided by Federal Highway and AASHTO suggest that state
and local safety programs will be the most effective if their implementation
efforts are focused on mitigating the factors that cause the greatest number
of fatal crashes.
• An analysis of Minnesota's crash data documented the factors causing fatal
crashes; the results support designating seven safety emphasis areas in two
basic categories: Driver Behavior and Infrastructure.
• Mn/DOT has taken the lead in addressing the Infrastructure based
Emphasis Area by adopting a focus on lane departure crashes in rural areas,
Minnesota's Safety Emphasis Areas (1 of 2)
establishing goals for proactively deploying low cost treatments widely
across systems of roadways, and revising the Highway Safety Improvement
Program in order to direct more resources to those elements of the system
that are most at risk—rural highways and local roads.
• The Minnesota Department of Public Safety has taken the lead in
addressing the Driver Behavior—based emphasis areas, mostly through
education and enforcement programs such as Click It or Ticket, Safe &
Sober, HEAT (High Enforcement of Aggressive Traffic), Safe Communities,
and a comprehensive set of limitations (hours of operation, number of
unrelated passengers, etc. ) for the most at risk group in Minnesota—
teenager drivers.
Tlinffic Saba), Fundamentals
Handbook-2008
01,4E304
B-2
Safety Emphasis Areas
Greater Minnesota vs. Metro
Driver Behavior Based Emphasis Areas Infrastructure Based Emphasis
Intersection
Areas
Head-on and Total Fatalities Unbelted Alcohol-
Related
Speeding-
Related
Young Driver
Involved
Single Vehicle
Run Off Road Sideswi se
Statewide
3,008 1,271
(52%)
1,068
(36%)
850
(28%)
718
(24%)
965
(32%)
1,004
(33%)
611
(20%)
Greater Minnesota Districts (2001-2005 Fatalities)
State Trunk Highway 1,089
(53%)
476
(49%)
284
(26%)
262
(24%)
224
(21%)
282
(26%)
360
(33%)
295
(27%)
Local Roads 974
(47%)
492
(63%)
460
(47%)
284
(29%)
263
(27%)
459
(47%)
298
(31%)
129
(13%)
Greater Minnesota
Districts Total 2,063 968
(55%)
744
(36%)
546
(26%)
487
(24%)
741
(36%)
658
(32%)
424
(21%)
Metro District 12001-2005 Fatalities)
State Trunk Highway 465
(49%)
162
(45%)
167
(36%)
145
(31%)
103
(22%)
108
(23%)
126
(27%)
112
(24%)
Local Roads 480
(51%)
141
(45%)
157
(33%)
159
(33%)
128
(27%)
116
(24%)
221
(46%)
76
(16%)
Metro District Total 945 303
(45%)
324
(34%)
304
(32%)
231
(24%)
224
(24%)
347
(37%)
188
(20%)
Source: Minnesota Strategic Highway Safety Plan Represents at least 3% greater than statewide average
Highlights
• Almost 70% of the fatalities in Minnesota are in the 79 counties outside of the 8 county Minneapolis — St. Paul Metropolitan Area.
• Fatal crashes are split almost evenly between the state and local roadway systems — which results in higher fatality rates on the local system.
• In Urban areas, the primary factors associated with fatal crashes are intersections and speeding.
• In Rural areas, the primary factors associated with fatal crashes are not using safety belts, alcohol, and road departure crashes.
Minnesota's 5feiy Emphasis Areas (2 oil)
Safety Lund,' Iiienialc
Handbook-200R B-3
C...111101 01.001
Black Spot
Analysis
Reactive
ea:(A
=_ =r- A — • — rzE. •=-- —
Proactive System Wide
Analysis
-
C/)
C13
LL-
B-4
00E3°,4
NeTsog'
Safeo, Fundamentals
Handbook-2008
Years
Comprehensive Safety Improvement Process
Comprehensive Safety
Improvement Process
Analytical Techniques Implementation Strategies Highlights
• For the past 30 years, most safety programs have been focused on
identifying locations with a high frequency or rate of crashes – Black
• Spots – and then reactively implementing safety improvement
strategies.
• The result of making Black Spots the highest priority in the safety
• program was to focus safety investments primarily on urban and
• suburban signalized intersections—the locations with the highest
number of crashes. However, these Black Spot intersections were
▪ found to account for fewer than 10% of fatal crashes.
.
▪
• A new, more systematic based analysis of Minnesota's crash data
combined with the adoption of a goal to reduce fatal crashes has led
• to a more comprehensive approach to safety programming—a focus
• on Black Spots in urban areas where there are intersections with
high frequencies of crashes and a systems-based approach for rural •
▪ areas where the total number of severe crashes is high but the actual
number of crashes at any given location is very low.
r."
Why Have a Black Spot
Identification Process?
Highlights
• Conducting periodic Black Spot reviews of your system supports project
development activities and are an integral part of a best practices
• approach to risk management. Monitoring the safety of your system
is good practice and is the industry "norm" against which you will be
• evaluated.
Project Development
• Crashes are one measurable indicator of how well a system of roadways
and traffic control devices is functioning.
.
•
• Understanding safety characteristics can assist in the prioritization and
• development of roadway improvement projects by helping document
• Purpose and Need.
•
•
Risk Management
• • Actively identifying potentially hazardous locations is better than being in
• the mode of reacting to claims of potentially hazardous locations by the
• public (or plaintiff's attorneys).
• • Knowledge (actual or constructive) of hazardous conditions is one of
• the prerequisites for proving government agency negligence in tort cases
"Rural" Refers to a non—municipal area and cities with a population less than 5,000
resulting from motor vehicle crashes.
• All crash analysis performed as part of a safety improvement program is
• not subject to discovery in tort lawsuits.
; Data Systems
• „ In order to be able to develop countermeasures to mitigate the effects of
crashes, agencies need a monitoring system to identify crash locations,
and the key characteristics and contributing factors associated with the
crashes. MnCMAT provides virtually all of the data necessary to support
Black Spot analyses.
,Saligy Fundamental,
I landbook-2008 B-5
• The third method involves using a statistical quality control technique called "Critical Crash Rate"
Advantage: Disadvantage:
Only identifies those locations as hazardous if they — Most data intensive methodology (volumes and
have a crash rate statistically significantly higher than categorical averages).
at similar facilities.
Conclusion:
— Of these three methods, critical crash rate is the most accurate, and statistically reliable method
for identifying hazardous locations.
Critical Rate is a
iry statistically adjusted
Crash Rate to
account for random
nature of crashes.
•
•
emIN
Crash Rate is
greater than Y
crashes per million
vehicles annually.
Ammr-_ AIM*
The second method consists of computing crash rates and then comparing them to an arbitrarily selected threshold value
of Y crashes per unit of exposure (a crash rate).
• Advantage: Disadvantages:
— Allows comparison of facilities with different traffic
-
Subjective selection of the threshold value.
volumes.
-
Requires more data (traffic volumes).
• Does not account for known variation in crash rates
among different types of road designs.
• — Does not account for the random nature of crashes.
Conclusion:
— Limited applicability, better than just using crash frequency.
liaffie Saslity Fundamentals
Handbook-2008 B-6
ii
Number of
Crashes annually
is greater than X
crashes per year.
• • The first method would involve setting an arbitrary threshold value of X crashes per year at any particular location. This is
• the simplest approach with the least data requirements. However, the selection of the threshold value is subjective and this
• methodology does not account for variations in traffic volume or roadway design/traffic control characteristics.
This method is better than nothing and would be most applicable in systems consisting of similar types of roads with only
small variations in traffic volumes.
Alternative Methods for Identifying
Potentially Hazardous Locations
Highlights
• There are three primary methods for identifying potentially hazardous locations.
Effect of Random
Distribution of Crashes
5.0
4.0
:112 3.0
c3.3 2.0
1.0
High •.
due
11111111111•1n..
Locations
to
above
random
Locations statisti
above average du
cally
to
Iignlficarit i 1 defect in he location
natiffibl
average
crashes n ic
•
Rate
•
all
A verage
• • •
Low =11111n111111=1*
Exposure/Volume
Highlights
The Concept of "Critical Crash Rate"
• • The technique that uses the critical crash rate is considered to be the best for
• identifying hazardous locations.
„
•
• The critical crash rate accounts for the key variables that affect safety, including:
•
-
The design of the facility
The type of intersection control
- The amount of exposure
— The random nature of crashes
.
▪
• The concept suggests that any sample or category of intersections or roadway
segments can be divided into three basic parts:
- Locations with a crash rate below the categorical average: These locations are
considered to be SAFE because of the low frequency of crashes and can be
eliminated from further review.
- Locations with a crash rate above the categorical average, but below the
critical rate: These locations are considered to be SAFE because there is a very
high probability (90-95%) that the higher than average crash rate is due to the
random nature of crashes.
— Locations with a crash rate above the critical rate: These locations are
considered to be UNSAFE and in need of further review because there is a
high probability (90-95%) that conditions at the site are contributing to the
• higher crash rate.
.
•
• The other advantage of using the critical crash rate is that it helps screen out 90%
of the locations that do not have a problem and focuses an agency's attention and
resources on the limited number of locations that do have a documented problem
(as opposed to a perceived problem).
Sak), hindanietitals
Handbook-2008 B-7
Critical Rate:
R =R +Kx (R /m)1/2+0.5/m a a
= Critical Crash Rate
for intersections: crashes per MEV
for segments: crashes per MVM
= System Wide Average Crash Rate by Intersection
or Highway Type
m = Vehicle Exposure During Study Period
for intersections: years x ADT x (365/1 million)
for segments: length x years x ADT x (365/1 million)
k = Constant based on Level of Confidence
Level of Confidence 0.995 0.950 0.900
2.576 1.645 1.282
Calculatin • Crash Rates
in tersecti on Rates
(number of crashes) x ( 1 million )
Rate per MEV
(number of years) x ( ADT ) x ( 365 )
Aar—
Segment Rates.:
(number of crashes) x ( 1 million )
Rate per MVM (segment length) x (number of years) x ( ADT ) x ( 365)
MEV — Million Entering Vehicles
MVM — Million Vehicle Miles
ADT — Average Daily Traffic on each leg entering an intersection or the daily two-way volume on a segment of roadway
Highlights
• The number of crashes at any location is usually a function of exposure. As the number of vehicles entering an intersection or the vehicle miles of travel along a roadway
segment increase, the number of crashes typically increase.
• The use of crash rates (crash frequency per some measure of exposure) accounts for this variability and allows for comparing locations with similar designs but different volumes.
• Intersection crash rates are expressed as the number of crashes per million entering vehicles.
• Segment crash rates are expressed as the number of crashes per million vehicle miles (of travel)
• The Critical Crash Rate is calculated by adjusting the systemwide categorical average based on the amount of exposure and desired statistical level of confidence.
• The difference between the systemwide categorical average and the critical rate increases as the volume decreases.
• When computing the critical crash rate, the term m (vehicle exposure) is the denominator in the equations used in the calculation of either the intersection or segment crash rate.
• The same formulas can be used to calculate fatality or injury rates, or the rate at which a particular type of crash is occurring.
• A good rule of thumb is to use three years of crash data when available. More data is almost always useful, but increases the concern about changed conditions. Using only one
or two years of data presents concerns about sample size and statistical reliability.
Trfli Safity
Handbook-2008 B-8
111101•Millillfr Roadway Geometry
Driver Age
Crash Rate
Severity
Type of Crash
Day/Night
Road Surface Condition
Driver Familiarity
Alcohol Involvement
Traffic Control Devices
Actual VS. Expected
1,771!!4-717,75-71FIERII.7
I D6
Supplemental Analysis:
More Detailed Record Review
Highlights
• After identifying hazardous locations, the next
step is to conduct supplemental analyses in
order to better understand the nature of the
problem and to help develop appropriate
mitigative strategies.
• A more detailed understanding of the
contributing factors is necessary to develop
countermeasures because there is currently
no expert system in place that allows mapping
from a high crash rate to the base safety
solution. Traffic engineers need to know more
about the particular problems at specific
locations because our "Tool Kit" is far less
developed than other areas of roadway
engineering.
• The supplemental analysis of crash data
involves comparing ACTUAL crash
characteristics to EXPECTED characteristics
and then evaluating for differences. These
differences document crash causation factors,
which help identify effective countermeasures.
• It is important to remember that roads that are
similar in design, with similar volumes will
operate in a similar manner and will probably
have similar crash characteristics.
Safi-ty htudawrittals
1fandbook-2008
iitaiE0S)
B-9
Mn/DOT's Hi '.h Crash Cost
Trunk HighWay Intersections
% II mil vial I" ,
111440,44,0„.
1111011, -wleillrhiltilf;
Atilt" ri:gRIAISliti
gleigriletia41 to VIIMItitalitiir T O . ,- 111111reihaillikOw.:Al
IV kt lit w-PP:r- 1141-3.1143522iittre. mho Alii ow tit`,
hingralliaWlegrinihr 1
Source:10-04— 1066 Minnesota TIS crash Data
Highlights
• Mn/DOT uses a number of techniques to identify potentially hazardous
locations, including critical crash rate, crash frequency, crash severity,
and crash cost.
• Mn/DOT publishes a Top 200 list of high crash intersections along the
state's 12,000 mile trunk highway system on an annual basis.
• The list ranks intersections by crash cost, frequency, severity, and rate.
• Intersections on the list generally have the following characteristics:
— Crash frequencies between 1 and 63 per year.
— Crash rates between 0.2 and 5.7 crashes per million entering vehicles.
— Crash costs between $0.26 million and $1.2 million per year.
• Listed intersections are overwhelmingly signalized (70%) and in
urban areas (69%).
• In general, this approach does NOT adequately identify intersections
with safety deficiencies in rural areas.
• This approach also does not necessarily identify locations with fatal
crashes (fewer than 10% of fatal crashes in Minnesota occurred at
intersections in the Top 200 list).
• • The key point is that a black spot analysis should continue-to be a
necessary part of a comprehensive safety program, but a systematic
evaluation should also be performed.
Top 200 Intersections
Trunk Highway High Crash-
Cost Intersections
January 1,2004 - December 31, 2006
leaffn• Snlety Funtlitmental,
Handbook-2008
0,04E50,4,,
714,`,44' B-10
S stematic Anal sis
State Highways Facility Type
Crash Summary by Facility Types_- Greater Minnesota Districts
SeVerity-
Rate
- '
Fatal Rate
Crash
Density Priority Miles Fatal
Serious
Injury
Crash
Rate Rural . . Freeway 702 54 77 0.6 0.8 0.6 3.7 v
4-Lane Expressway 712 49 94 0.8 1.2 0.8 3.5 V
4-Lane Undivided 27 0 4 0.9 1.4 0 2.5
4-Lane Divided Conventional (Non expressway) 123
3,774
11
48
24
74
12
0.8
1.9
1.4
1.2
1.9
4.4
0.3 v
= , ,7;
ADT < 1,500
1 500 < ADT< 5,000 3,916 110 185 0.7 12 1.4 0.7 V
5,000< ADT < 8,000 583 45 52 0.9 1.4 1.7 2.0 V
ADT > 8,000 198 24 35 0.9 1.4 1.5 3.5 v
Sub Total 10.034 341 545
.
-`es =
Freeway 21 2 7 1.4 1.9 0.3 21.3
4-Lane Expressway 41 4 19 2.4 3.5 0.9 12.6
4-Lane Undivided 43 1 20 3.9 5.6 0.3 16.9
4-Lane Divided Conventional (Non expressway) 66 8 45 3.3 5.1 12 17.6
Three-Lane 30 0 10 2.8 3.8 0.0 10.1
Five-Lane 12 2 4 2.8 3.9 1.6 13.7
g
ADT < 1,500 81 1 4 1.9 3.0 1.8 0.7
1,500 <ADT <5,000 238 0 22 2.1 3.0 0.0 2.4
5,000 < ADT <8,000 111 10 19 2.0 2.8 1.9 4.6
ADT > 8,000 75 5 19 2.6 3.7 0.8 10.5
Sub Total 718 33 169
Crash Summa
FaciliV Type
b Facili T , es - Metro District
Crash
Rate
Severity
Rate Fatal Rate
Crash
Density Priority Miles
Crashes
Fatal
Serious
Injury
- ii-,
Freeway 122 22 24 0.6 0.9 0.5 11.1 v
4-Lane Expressway 111 17 65 1.0 1.5 0.7 10.3
4-Lane Undivided 0 0 0 2.5 3.1 0.0 14.8
4-Lane Divided Conventional (Non expressway) 1 0 0 1.3 2.0 0.0 9.2
i
ADT < 1,500 13 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
1,500 4 ADT <5,000 89 5 8 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.3
5,000 < ADT < 8,000 98 8 18 1.2 2.0 1.8 2.7 V
ADT > 8,000 137 17 33 1.3 2.0 12 6.9 V
Sub Total 571 69 150 Urban Freeway 267 43 128 1.2 1.6 0.2 41.7 V
4-Lane Expressway 124 17 81 1.9 2.7 0.5 23.9 V
4-Lane Undivided 20 2 25 5.8 7.8 0.7 41.3 V
4-Lane Divided Conventional (Non expressway) 21 3 19 5.0 6.8 0.9 38.6 se
Three-Lane 9 0 2 3.1 4.3 0.0 16.8
Five-Lane 2 0 3 5.6 8.8 0.0 52.4
.
ADT <1.500 1 0 0 4.0 6.3 0.0 2.1
1,500< ADT <5,000 9 0 0 2.8 3.9 0.0 33
5,000 < ADT <8,000 26 2 2 2.3 3.3 1.6 5.5
ADT z 8,000 54 6 20 3.0 42 1.1 15.6
Sub Total 533 73 280
Sourc': Ahl/1)()1' .511.SP Cnbh Jere ordi, 20(4-200"5
hytIfic Safety Fundrunnitab
Handbook-2008 B-11
Highlights
• Historically, the absence of Black Spots in a system of roads was
interpreted to mean that there were no safety deficiencies and that there
• were no opportunities to effectively make investments to reduce crashes.
.
•
• However, a new interpretation of the crash data by the Federal Highway
Adminitration (FHWA) and an increasing number of state departments
• of transportation suggests that neither of these assumptions is correct.
•
•
A review of Minnesota's crash data, conducted as part of the Strategic
• Highway Safety Plan, provides several insights in support of a
systematic approach for addressing safety deficiencies.
• On the state's highway system, the facility types that present the greatest
• opportunity to reduce fatal crashes (based on the total number of fatal
▪ crashes) are rural two-lane roads (50%) and freeways (22%). However,
• until recently there have been few projects on these facilities because
the process of filtering the data failed to identify any Black Spots.
. • Further analysis of these priority facilities shows that neither the overall
crash rate nor the fatality rate are at all unusual, but the pool of fatal
• crashes susceptible to correction is still large and represents the greatest
opportunity for reduction: addressing road departure crashes on rural
• two-lane roads and cross-median crashes on freeways.
.
▪
• The final point in support of a systematic approach to address safety
▪ in rural areas is the very low density of crashes along rural two-lane
• highways - 61% of fatal crashes occur on the 87% of the system that
averages less than one crash per mile per year.
Note: Crash rate is crashes per million vehicle miles; fatality rate is fatal
crashes per 100 million vehicle miles
50/50 GOAL
Corridor Management
and Technology
Improvements
Employ ITS Technologies
Dec. Speed Enforcement
in School Zones
Access Management
Low-Cost Intersection
Improvements
Red Light Enforcement
Turn Lane Modifications
Road Departure
Improvements
Edge Treatments
Enhanced Del. of Curves
High-Cost Improvements
Interchanges
31e7 -
• "INN
GOAL FOR METRO DISTRICT
Moderate-Cost
Intersection
Improvements
Improve Traffic
Signal Operations
Accel/Decel Lanes
Indirect Turns
Roundabouts Channelization Safety Edge
Street Lights
I.
Enhance Traffic
Signs and Markings
Raved Shoulders
Rumble Strips/Stripes
Cable Median Barrier
Road Safety Audit
ry-4 1311117•
Upgrade Roadside Hardware •
Improve Sight Distance
GOAL FOR GREATER MINNESOTA DISTRICTS
111111 WI IIIIIII
Implementation Guidance
for State Highways
Highlights
• As part of the Strategic Highway
Safety Plan, Mn/DOT developed
implementation guidance for the districts.
• The goal for districts in greater
Minnesota is to have a safety program
that is primarily focused on proactively
deploying (relatively) low-cost safety
strategies broadly across their systems of
rural two-lane roads and freeways.
• The goal for the Metropolitan District is
to base their safety program primarily on
deploying generally higher cost safety
strategies at their Black Spot locations,
while reserving a small fraction of their
resources for widely deploying low-cost
new technologies or innovations across
their system.
Tkaffic Safety Fundamentals
Handbook-2008
0,0E80,44
g(
4,Or „floe' B-12
Additional Analysis to Support
Priorities of CEAs in Freeborn County
(2002-2006 Crash Data)
Freeborn County Crashes on
Conventional Roads (553)
65% Freeborn
County System
35% State
Highway System
37%
Intersection
Related
63% Lane
Departure
18%
Intersection
Related 82% Lane
Departure
Crash Types on
County System
(All Crashes)
Life Changing
Crashes on County
System (Fatal and
Severe Injuries)
S stematic Anal sis
County Highways
Freeborn County Road
Safety Audit Review
Analysis Model
10 Year Crash
Database in
County (7,034)
All Crashes Coded
on or within 100'
of CSAH (1,872)
All County Road
Life Changing
Crashes (1,872) (Ks + As) (114)
Freeborn County Emphasis Areas
• Rural Segments
1
— Lane Departure Crashes
• Rural Intersections
— Angle Crashes
Highlights
• An example of safety planning at
the local level is the work done by
• Freeborn County.
.
•
• The County's crash data was analyzed
▪ using the MnCMAT tool — this analysis
• identified Lane Departure crashes along
• rural segments on the county system
and Angle crashes at rural intersections
• as the highest safety priorities.
• • A review of crash data for the 2002
to 2006 timeframe found 65% of • • the crashes on conventional roads
occurred on the county system.
• The most relevant type of crash is lane
• departure and 63% of these occurred
• on the county system.
.
•
• Lane departures accounted for 82% of
the severe crashes and 92% of these
occurred on the county system.
Systematic Analysis if County Highways (I of 2)
Source: Freeborn County Road Safety Audit Report, 2008
MO-L. Safi°, Fundamentals
liMulbook-2008 B-13
a.
!--4, •
s t_ •
High Priority Locations on the Local System—
Horizontal Curves:
• No individual curves identified as Black Spots
• 48% of severe crashes in curves
• 17 of 72 (24%) cut es identified as visual traps
Lane De arture Crashes
Key Objectives:
Keep Vehicles in Their Lane
Key Strategies:
• Improved curve
delineation
• Improved lane markings
Key Objectives:
Improve Shoulders
Key Strategies:
• Safety edge
• Paved shoulders
• Shoulder rumble strips
Rumble Strip
Key Objectives:
Improve Roadsides
Key Strategies:
• Clear roadside of
fixed objects
• Breakaway sign and
mailbox supports
• Flatten slopes
Systematic Analysis of County Highways (2 of 2)
Source: Freeborn County Road Safety Audit Report. 2008
Examples of implementations not
compliant with current standards
=II =III INN MI IIIIIII NMI =I =II
Implementation Guidance
for County Highways
Highlights
• The objective of the safety analysis conducted by
Freeborn County was to identify the primary causes
• of their severe crashes and to conduct a mapping
exercise linking crash causation with a shortlist of
• high priority safety strategies.
. • The review of county crash data found no Black
• Spots on the county system, but did find a pool
of life-changing crashes (fatal+severe injury) that
• would be susceptible to correction.
. • The safety analysis found that lane departure crashes
accounted for 87% of all life-changing crashes
• and that 48% of these crashes occurred in curves
• — which make up only about 6% of the county's
• highway system.
▪ A field review of a sample of the county's system
found that about one-quarter of the curves (17 of
72) constituted a "visual trap" — a horizontal curve
that followed a crest vertical curve or where there
was a township road on the extended tangent.
• A shortlist of high priority strategies was developed
to address lane departure crashes and a method was
developed to assist in prioritizing horizontal curves
based on the number of crashes, curve radius,
presence of a visual trap, and proximity to other
high priority curves.
list//ic Safety hindarnonaly
Handbook-2008 (D) NFTIV, B-14
SUE COMMIDIIIIES
Of WRIGHT COW
Safety Planning at
the Local Level
Highlights
• Federal highway legislation requires all states to prepare Strategic Safety Plans, and all of
the states have complied.
• However, both national and Minnesota crash data indicate that between 40 and 50%
• of traffic fatalities occur on local roads — this clearly indicates the need for local road
authorities to undertake their own strategic safety planning in order to support the
• statewide effort.
. Mn/DOT has supported safety planning at the local level by increasing levels of financial
assistance and technical support. The 2009-2010 Highway Safety Improvement Program
allocated almost $12M for 45 projects on the local system (including several projects that
•
involve the preparation of county strategic safety plans).
•
• • The single most important practice to support safety at the local level is for agencies to
•
dedicate a portion of their annual capital improvement program to implementing low-
cost strategies on their system.
• • The preparation of a data driven Safety Plan will assist in identifying the primary
factors contributing to serious crashes, and this will assist in identifying the high
priority safety strategies. The overall objective is to develop a multi-year list of safety
improvement projects.
•
▪
• In addition to improvements to roadways, other local safety based practices could include:
- Initiating/participating in a Safe Communities program
Initiating/participating in a Safe Routes to School program
Initiating a fatal crash review process
- Participating in road safety audits
- Support law enforcement initiatives to reduce speeding, improve seat belt
compliance and reducing drinking and driving.
7;4In. Safety Fundamentals
Handbook-2008 B-15
Traffic Safety Tool Box Contents
C-1 Traffic Safety Tool Box—Then vs. Now C-13 Conflict Points —New C-23
C-2 Traffic Safety Tool Box—Then vs. Now Intersection Design C-24
C-3 Effectiveness of Safety Strategies C-14 Enhanced Signs and Markings
C-4 Roadside Safety Strategies C-15 Intersection Sight Distance C-25
C-5 Edge Treatments C-16 Turn Lane Designs C-26
C-6 Horizontal Curves C-17 Roundabouts and Indirect Turns C-27
C-7 Slope Design/Clear Recovery Areas C-18 Traffic Signal Operations C-28
C-8 Upgrade Roadside Hardware C-19 Red Light Enforcement C-29
C-9 Effectiveness of Roadside Safety C-20 Safety Effects of Street Lighting C-30
Initiatives at Rural Intersections C-31
C-10 Addressing Head-On Collisions C-21 Flashing Beacons at Rural Intersections C-32
C-11 Intersection Safety Strategies C-22 Transverse Rumble Strips
C-12 Conflict Points —Traditional at Rural Intersections C-33
Intersection Design NES%
( OF TA
Pedestrian Safety Strategies
Pedestrian Crash Rates vs.
Crossing Features
Curb Extensions and Medians
Neighborhood Traffic Control Measures
Speed Zoning
Technology Applications
Work Zones
Crash Reduction Factors
Average Crash Costs
Crash Reduction "Benefit/ Cost" (B/C)
Ratio Worksheet
Typical "Benefit/Cost" Ratios for
Various Improvements
Traffic Safet Tool Box
Then vs. Now
Highlights
THEN: Only a few sources of information about the effectiveness of safety projects
were available, none were comprehensive and there were concerns
about the statistical reliability of the conclusions because of the analytical
techniques that were used. Most of the information available was based on
observations of a limited number of locations.
NOW: Better and more comprehensive set of references are available:
- NCHRP Series 500 Reports — Implementation of AASHTO's Strategic
Highway Safety Plan
http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx
- Report No. FHWA-SA-07-015 Desktop Reference for Crash
Reduction Factors
www.transportation.org/sites/safetymanagement/
docs/Desktop%20Reference%20Complete.pdf
- Safety Analyst —
• www.safetyanalyst.org
4).
Traffic Safety Tool Box (1 of 2)
Thiffic S,iJey how/ammo:1s
Handbook— 2008 FTP
00,0E504s
10)
C-1
Enforcement 1
Aggressive Driving
Unlicensed/
Suspended/Revoked
Drivers
License
• Unbelted
Occupants
• Heavy Trucks
Fmgin
• Trees in Hazardous
Locations
• Head-On Crashes
Unsignalized
Intersections
• Run-Off-Road
Crashes
Pedestrians
• Horizontal Curves
• Signalized
Intersections
• Utility Poles
• Work Zones
l=1 •
1
• Older Drivers
• Distracted/Fatigued
Drivers
• Motorcycles
• Alcohol
• Rural Emergency
Medical Services
Traffic Safely Tool Box (2 of 2)
Traffic Safety Tool Box
Then vs. Now
Highlights
• The National Corporative Highway Research Program
(NCHRP) developed a series of guides to assist state and local
agencies reduce the number of severe crashes in a number of
targeted areas.
• The guides correspond to the 22 safety emphasis areas
outlined in AASHTO's Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
• Each guide includes a description of the problem and a list of
suggested strategies/countermeasures to address the problem.
• The list of strategies in each guide was generated by an expert
panel that consisted of both academics and practitioners in
order to provide a balance and a focus on feasibility.
• In addition to describing each strategy, supplemental
information is provided, including the following;
-
Expected Effectiveness (crash reduction factors)
-
Implementation Costs
-
Challenges to Implementation
-
Organizational and Policy Issues
-
Designation of Each Strategy as either Tried, Experimental,
or Proven
litip://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx
Jif/i Na/e:1 C-2
7i1 Ilk Safely Fundarnenta
Handbook-2008
Effectiveness of
Safety Strategies
Experimental
Highlights
• Traffic Engineers have historically had a "tool box" of strategies that
could be deployed to address safety concerns. The results of recent safety
research studies suggest that the process for originally filling the tool box
appears to have been primarily based on anecdotal information.
•
cs,
"+-1
1.J
4...
LU
0.•
• ;74-1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Graduated Drivers
Licensing
Safety Belt Enforcement
Campaigns
DWI Checkpoints
Street Lights at Rural
Intersections
Access Management
Roadside Safety
Initiatives
Pave/Widen Shoulders
Roundabouts
Exclusive Left Turn
Signal Phasing
Shoulder Rumble Strips
Improved Roadway
Alignment
Cable Median Barrier
Removing Unwarranted
Traffic Signals
Removing Trees in
Hazardous Locations
Pedestrian Crosswalks,
Sidewalks, and refuge
Islands
Left Turn Lanes on
Urban Arterial
•
•
7;13.
.
LU
•
•
•
Rumble Strips
(on the approach
to intersections)
Neighborhood Traffic
Control
(Traffic Calming)
Overhead Red/Yellow
Flashers
Increased Levels of
Intersection Traffic
Control
Indirect Left Turn
Treatments
Restricting Turning
Maneuvers
Pedestrian Signals
Improve Traffic
Control Devices on
Minor Intersection
Approaches
•
'34
1.) • V.
Turn and Bypass Lanes
at Rural Intersections
Dynamic Warning
Devices at Horizontal
Curves
Static/ Dynamic Gap
Assistance Devices
Delineating Trees in
Hazardous Locations
Marked Pedestrian
Crosswalks at
Unsignalized
Intersections
•
•
•
•
•
•
• •
VOL—
The recent research efforts have subjected a number of safety measures
to a comprehensive package of comparative and before vs. after analyses
and rigorous statistical tests. The results of this research indicate that
some safety measures should be kept in the tool box, some removed,
some new measures added, and some continued to be studied.
The 22 volumes that make up the NCHRP Series 500 Reports —
Implementation of AASHTO's Strategic Highway Safety Plan — identify
over 600 possible safety strategies in categories including driver
behavior (speeding, safety belt usage and alcohol), infrastructure related
improvements (to reduce head-on, road departure and intersection
crashes) and providing emergency medical services.
These NCHRP Reports have designated each of the strategies as either
Proven (as a result of a rigorous statistical analysis), Tried (widely
deployed but no statistical proof of effectiveness) or Experimental (new
techniques or strategies and no statistical proof).
It should be noted that virtually all of the strategies that have been
designated in the NCHRP Series 500 Reports as either Proven, Tried, or
Experimental are associated with engineering activities. This is due to
the lack of published research quantifying the crash reduction effects of
strategies dealing with Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Services.
Emphasis Area Objectives and Strate:ies
Objectives Strategies
• 15.1 Al—Install shoulder rumble strips
• 15.1 A2—Install edgeline "profile marking,"
edgeline rumble strips, or modified shoulder
rumble strips on section with narrow or no
paved shoulders
• 15.1 A3—Install midlane rumble strips
• 15.1 A4—Provide enhanced shoulder or in-
lane delineation and marking for sharp curves
• 15.1 A5—Provide improved highway
geometry for horizontal curves
• 15.1 A6—Provide enhanced pavement
markings
• 15.1 A7—Provide skid-resistant pavement
surfaces
• 15.1 A8—Apply shoulder treatments
– Eliminate shoulder drop-offs
– Widen and/or pave shoulders
15.1 A—Keep
vehicles from
encroaching on the
roadside
15.1 Bl—Design safer slopes and ditches to
prevent rollovers
15.1 B2—Remove/relocate objects in
hazardous locations
15.1 B3—Delineate trees or utility poles with
retroreflective tape
15.1 Cl —Improve design of roadside
hardware (e.g., light poles, signs, bridge rails)
15.1 C2—Improve design and application of
barrier and attenuation systems
15.1 B—Minimize
the likelihood of
crashing into an
object or overturning
if the vehicle travels
off the shoulder
15.1.C—Reduce the
severity of the crash
VOLUME 6
11,ch.
Volume 6:A Guide for Add
666.0ff-663d Collittrins
Roadside Safet Strate I ies
Roadside Safety Strategies ( I of 6)
Source: NCHRP Report 500 Series (Volume 6)
Highlights
• Single vehicle road departure crashes have been identified as being one of Minnesota's
Safety Emphasis Areas.
• Single vehicle road departure crashes account for 32% of all fatal crashes in Minnesota
and as much as 47% of fatal crashes on local roads in rural areas.
• The guidance in the NCHRP Service 500 Report–Volume 6 suggests a three step
process for addressing road departure crashes:
1. Keep Vehicles on the Road
2. Provide Clear Recovery Areas
3. Install/Upgrade Highway Hardware
• This three step priority is based on cost considerations, feasibility, and logic. The
strategies associated with keeping vehicles on the road are generally low cost, can easily
be implemented because additional right-of-way and detailed environmental analyses
are not required, and treating road edges directly
addresses the root cause of the problem – vehicles
straying from the lane.
• Providing clear recovery areas is considered to be
the second priority even though the strategies have
been proven effective, because of implantation
challenges – costs are generally higher than for
edge treatments, and additional right-of-way may
be required as well as more detailed environmental
review.
• Installing/ upgrading highway hardware is the third
priority because it can be expensive to construct
and maintain, it can cause injuries when hit, and it
does not address the root cause of the problem.
Tmffic Safety Fundamentals
Handbook-2008 C-4
Paved Shoulder and
Rumble Strip
Edge Treatments
Roadside Safer), Strategies (2 of 6)
Highlights
• Typical edge treatments include shoulder/
edgeline rumble strips, enhanced
• pavement markings, and eliminating
• shoulder drop offs.
• • Implementation costs vary from no cost
• (safety edge) to several thousand dollars
▪ per mile for rumble strips/stripEs.
. • • National safety studies have documented
crash reductions in the range of 20 to
• 50% for road departure crashes.
- • • An unexpected benefit has been observed
on projects where edgelines have been
• painted over the edgeline rumble strips
— night time visibility in wet pavement
conditions was improved (the reflective
beads applied to the nearly vertical face
• of the rumble strip remain above the film
of water on the pavement surface) and
the life of the pavement marking was
extended (snow plows cannot scrap away
the beads on the vertical faces).
Traffic Safety fundamentals
Handbook-2008
ersesotqlt
''oprftrasi C-5
85% Tangent Speed = 60MPH
Fatal + Injury + PDO
Fatal + Injury
immomm Bonneson et al. (5)
Fitzpatrick et al. (6)
Horizontal Curves
4.0
0.0
Source: Texas Transportation Institute (FHWAHX-07/0-5439-1)
Roadside Safety Strategies (3 of 6)
Highlights
• A number of previously published research reports have identified
horizontal curves as at-risk elements of rural road systems, however, the
degree of risk was not quantified.
- • A recent report prepared by the Texas Transportation Institute (FHWA/
• TX-07/0-5439-1) related actual crash rates on rural roads to the radius
of curvature. The results of this research indicates that the crash rate on
curves with radii greater then 2,500 feet is approximately equal to the
crash rate on tangent sections.
' • On curves with radii of 1,000 feet, the crash rate is twice the rate on
• tangents and curves; curves with radii of 500 feet have crash rates eight
times higher than on tangents.
▪ • A number of safety studies that were focused on local, rural systems
• in Minnesota have found road departure crashes are overrepresented
• on horizontal curves —40 to 50% of the road departure crashes in the
selected counties occurred on curves, and curves made up less than
• 10% of the county's system.
• • The same studies also documented that over 60% of the horizontal
curves on the county system have radii less than 1,000 feet — from a
• system perspective, these curves are more at risk.
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 -
Radius, ft
MVM — Million Vehicle Miles
Raffic Safety Fundamentals
Handbook-2008
(NEIN
NFTPI, C-6
Slope Design
Recovery Area
Clear Zone Distance
Clear Runout
r
trea Required
Through
Traveled Way Shoulder Recoverable Slope
1:4 or Flatter Slope
(1:6 or Flatter Desirable)
Non- Recoverable
Slope
Clear Runout
Area
1:6 or
Flatter Slope
Desirable
Slope Design/Clear
Recovery Areas
Example #1
— 6:1 Slope (Fill Slope)
—60 MPH
— 5,000 ADT
Answer: CZ = 30 Feet
Example #2
— 6:1 Slope (Cut Slope)
—60 MPH
—750 ADT
Answer: CZ = 20 Feet
CZ= Clear Zone
ADT = Average Daily Traffic
Note: State-Aid projects use
the Mn/Dot State-Aid
Rural Design Standards.
Over 1,500 ADT; CZ = 30 FT
750-1,500 ADT; CZ = 20-25 FT
0-750 ADT; CZ =7-20 FT
3:1 -
a 5:1
6:1 - - - -
8:1 -
10:1 -
20:1-
Flat
20:1-
10:1-
8:1 -
5:1 -
4:1 -
?\.\ 6C „t.a coo
Traveler Obstacle
Traveled Wa Obstacle
Fill Slopes
Cut Slopes
...3„9.ej.. Obstacle
Traveled
Highlights
• Providing clear recovery areas has been proven to reduce severe road departure crashes
by removing obstacles in hazardous locations and flattening shoulder slopes that cause
vehicles to roll over.
• The recommended clear zone distance is a function of speed, slope, volume, and
horizontal curvature.
• Generally, higher speeds, steeper fill slopes, higher volumes, and locations along the
outsides of horizontal curves require larger clear zones.
• The concept of providing clear recovery areas is primarily intended for rural roadways.
However, the concept can be applied to suburban or urban roadways if road departure
crashes are a concern.
Source: Mn/DOT Road Design Manual Roadcide Safety Strategies (4 of 6)
3:1 -
Over 6000 Design ADT) 0' 10' 20' 10. 1111111111111111111111111111111111
40' 50' 60' 70 80' 90' 100'
1500-6000 Design AD 0' 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' 80' 90'
750-1500 Design ADT 0 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70'
Under 750 Design ADT 0' 10' 20' 30' 40'
Clear Zone Distance(CZ)
* See Mn/DOT Road Design Manual
section 3.3.4 for a discussion on variable
slope determination
50'
Note: "Rural" Refers to a non-municipal area and cities
with a population less than 5,000.
Thuic Safety hindamentab
Handbook-2008 4i>opvcte C-7
Upgrade Roadside
Hardware
Example implementations not compliant with current standards (NCH RP 350)
Highlights
• Upgrading roadside hardware is a part of a comprehensive package of safety strategies aimed at reducing the severity of road departure crashes.
• Typical treatments and their installation costs include the following:
- Impact attenuator = $20,000
Guardrail terminal = $1,500
Guardrail transition = $1,000
W-Beam or Cable Guardrail = $75,000 - $150,000 per mile
• Safety Benefits associated with using modern hardware involve reducing the severity of collisions with guardrail.
Roadside Safely Strategics (5 of 6)
baffle Safety Fundamentals
Handbook-2008 C-8
3
11.2
PDO Crashes
Injury Crashes
Fatal Crashes
Volume (VPD)
MVM
Crash Rates (Crashes/MVM)
Severity Rate
Critical Crash Rates
SVRD Crashes
Passing Crashes
Angle Crashes
Deer Hits
Night
11.2
51
25
26
0
1,100
22.48
2.3
4.1
1.3
37 (73%)
30
3 (6%)
4
1
21(41%)
8 (35%)
2
6
10 (43%)
23
11
12
0
1,100
22.48
1.0
1.5
1.3
10(43%)
Source: Mn/DOT District 1, Mtge Engineering Roadside Safety Strategies (6 of 6)
Effectiveness of Roadside
Safety Initiatives
Highlights
• An estimate of the safety implications by evaluating two very
similar segments of two-lane rural trunk highways in northern
Minnesota: TH 6 and TH 38.
Both roads have the following similar characteristics:
— Have virtually identical volumes
— Serve similar functions (recreational and logging).
— Traverse the Chippewa National Forest.
— Have scenic qualities.
• • TH 6 has been reconstructed and TH 38 has not. (Note: This •
• segment of TH38 has recently been reconstructed but a Before vs.
After Study has not been completed)
• • The results are obvious. TH 38 has the following characteristics:
- More than twice as many crashes.
- More than twice as many injuries.
- A crash rate more than twice the average for two-lane rural
roads (and 30% greater than the critical rate).
- Almost four times as many SVRD crashes (and more than
• three the average for similar roads).
•
-
Ten times as many tree hits.
- More than twice as many night time crashes.
PDO — Property Damage Only
VPD —Vehicles Per Day
MVM — Million Vehicle Miles
SVRD — Single Vehicle Road Departure
• •
lieic Safety hindaniel,:
iftindboole--2008 C-9
14 12
6 19
Fatal
Injury
Damage Only
6
Source: NCHRP 500 Series (Volume 4)
,
,„47;;ZIAZ:Ar4r VuhonA 4 A Aold, 4A1 AU MA! OA c
-
06, A
Total
39 18
Crashes per Month 1.1 0.76
Head—On Crash Frequency
Severity of Crash 36 Months Before 24 Months After
.e13 40
20
1 25
20
10
U
270
240 1
10
1130
SO LJ 5
120
90 (.7 60 0
0
1-44 Cross Median Fatalities
1111111 II•111 NEI MI MN MN
Addressing Head-On
Collisions
Head-On Crashes on a Two-Lane Rural Highway in Delaware
Before and After Use of Centerline Rumble Stripe
Interstate Cross-Median Fatalities 60-
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007*
Source: AASHTO, "Driving Down Lane Departure Crashes", April 2008
Highlights
• Head-on crashes account for approximately 20% of the traffic fatalities in
Minnesota.
• Addressing head-on crashes is one of Minnesota's Critical Safety Emphasis areas.
• Minnesota averages approximately 120 fatal head-on crashes per year, 90% are
passing related on two-lane facilities, slightly less than one-half are on the State
system, and about 75% are in rural areas.
•. • Centerline rumble strips have been found to reduce head-on crashes along
two-lane roads — data from 98 sites in 7 states (including Minnesota) indicated
significant reductions for injury crashes (15%) as well as for head-on and
opposing sideswipe injury crashes (25%).
Additional strategies for two-lane roads include conducting field surveys to
confirm that designated passing zones meet current guidelines for sight distance
• and the use of thermoplastic markings where passing is not permitted.
. • The construction of "Passing Lanes" along two-lane roads has been found to
be a convenience for motorists (providing opportunities to pass slower moving
vehicles). However, there is no evidence that the passing lanes have reduced
head-on crashes.
• A number of states have begun to address cross-median head-on crashes on
• divided highways by installing cable median barriers. Reported reductions in
severe head-on crashes have ranged from 70 to 95%.
• • Mn/DOT has installed approximately 150 miles of cable barrier, with plans to
install an additional 80 miles. A preliminary analysis of Mn/DOT's first cable
median barrier installation (along 1-94in Maple Grove) found a 100% reduction
in fatalities and a 90% reduction in overall crash severity.
fe,fy I 1,1,411710:1,11,
11,7,/,11,04,- J0(18
f
estsop4‘
g
Source: A1n/DOT Strategic Highway Safety Plan
Intersections (1 of 8) :1041;i1nC1e'':41 1111•
Intersection Safet Strate • ies 0
Highlights Objectives Strategies
Relative Cost to
Implement and
Operate
Effectiveness Typical Timeframe
for Implementation
A-Improve access management Al -Implement intersection or driveway closures, relocations, and turning restrictions using
signing or by providing channelization.
Low to Moderate Tried Medium (1-2yrs.)
B-Reduce the frequency and
severity of intersection conflicts
through geometric design
improvements
Bl-Provide left-turn lanes at intersections; provide sufficient length to accommodate
deceleration and queuing; and use offset turn lanes to provide better visibility if needed.
Moderate to High Proven Medium (1-2yrs.)
B2-Provide de bypass lanes on shoulders at T-intersections. Low Tried Short (<1 yr.)
B3-Provide right-turn lanes at intersections; provide sufficient length to accommodate
deceleration and queuing; use offset turn lanes to provide better visibility if needed; and
provide right-turn acceleration lanes.
Moderate to High Proven Medium (1-2yrs.)
B4-Realign intersection approaches to reduce or eliminate intersection skew. High Proven Medium (1-2yrs.)
C-Improve driver awareness of
intersections as viewed from the
intersection approach.
Cl-Improve visibility of intersections by providing enhanced signing. This may include
installing larger regulatory, seaming, and guide signing and supplementary stop signs.
Low Tried Short (<1 yr.)
C2-Improve visibility of intersections by providing lighting (install or enhance) or red
flashing beacons mounted on stop signs.
Low to Moderate Proven Medium (1-2yrs.)
C3-Improve visibility of intersections by providing enhanced pavement markings, such
as adding or widening stop bar on minor-road approaches, supplementary messages (i.e.,
STOP AHEAD).
Low Tried Short (<1 yr.)
C4-Improve visibility of traffic signals using overhead mast arms and larger lenses. Moderate Tried Shod 1<1 yr.)
CS- Deploy mainline dynamic flashing beacons to warn drivers of entering traffic. Low Experimental Short (<1 yr.)
D-Improve sight distance at
intersections,
131-Clear sight triangles approaches to intersections; in addition to eliminating objects in
the roadside, this may also include eliminating parking that restricts sight distance.
Low to Moderate Tried Short (<1 yr.)
E-Choose appropriate
intersection traffic control to
minimize crash frequency and
severity
El -Provide all-way stop control at appropriate intersections. Low Proven Short 1<1 yr.)
E2-Provide roundabouts at appropriate intersections. High Proven Long (>2 yrs.)
F-Improve driver compliance
with traffic control devices and
traffic laws at intersections
Fl-Enhance enforcement of red-light running violations using automated enforcement
(cameras) or adding confirmation lights on the back of signals to assist traditional
enforcement methods.
Moderate Proven/Tried Medium (1-2yrs.)
G-Reduce frequency and
severity of intersection conflicts
through traffic signal control
and operational improvements.
Cl-Employ multiphase signal operation, signal coordination, emergency vehicle
preemption optimize clearance intervals; implement dilemma zone protection; on high
speed roadways, install advance warning flashers to inform driver of need to stop; and
retime adjacent signals to create gaps at stop-controlled intersections.
Low to Moderate Proven/Tried Medium (1-2yrs.)
• Addressing crashes at intersections is one
of Minnesota's Safety Emphasis Areas.
• • Intersection related crashes account for
• more then 50% of all crashes and about
one-third of fatal crashes.
• Approximately two-thirds of fatal
intersection crashes occur in Greater
Minnesota and slightly more than one-half
are on the local system.
• STOP controlled intersections average
slightly less than 1 crash per year and
signalized intersections average almost 7
crashes per year.
• The high priority safety strategies for
unsignalized intersections involve
managing access and conflicts, enhancing
signs and markings, improving intersection
sight distance and providing roundabouts.
• The high priority strategies for signalized
intersections include reducing red
light violations and optimizing signal
operations.
• On the state system, about 55% of intersection crashes occur at locations with STOP control. However,
there are 7 times as many STOP controlled as compared to signal controlled intersections.
• The density of severe crashes (Fatals & A Injuries) is four times higher at signalized intersections than at
STOP controlled intersections.
Traffic Safety Fundamental,
Handbook-2008
0 4.16
ttsiOsg',PIC 41"OF Ts
rui, Access -14
Full Access T
3/4 Access
Right In/Out Access
n7ri
_J )k
4 •
Merge/ Typical Crash Rate
(crashes per mil.
ID Crossing OTurrir _e Total entering vehicles)
4 12 16 32 0.3(1)
0 3 6 9 0.3 (2'
0 2 8 10 0.2°
0 0 4 4 0.1 (3)
Te-1
Right In/Out
Access
•
Full Access
Intersection Design
)
.... Highlights
. •
A review of the safety research suggests that intersection crash rates
are related to the number of conflicts at the intersection. —.. v
• Conflict points are locations in or on the approaches to an •
• intersection where vehicle paths merge, diverge, or cross.
' • The actual number of conflicts at an intersection is a function of the
. number of approaching legs ("T" intersection have fewer conflicts
than 4-legged intersections) and the allowed vehicle movements
. (intersections where left turns are prohibited/prevented have fewer
conflicts than intersections where all movements are allowed).
• A preliminary review of intersection crash data indicates two key points:
lik..._
.
°
,
.
— Some vehicle movements are more hazardous than others. The
• data indicates that minor street crossing movements and left
turns onto the major street are the most hazardous (possibly
because of the need to select a gap from two directions of
•on-coming traffic). Left turns from the major street are less
hazardous than the minor street movements, and right turn
3/4 Access 1 1 movements are the least hazardous.
' 2004-2006 Minnesota TIS Crash Data
Estimated based on Publication FHWA-RD-91-048
'3) Estimated based on a limited sample of Mn/DOT data
- Crash rates at restricted access intersections (3/4 design
and right in/out) are typically lower than at similar 4-legged
intersections. Prohibiting/preventing movements at an
intersection will likely reduce the crash rate.
Conflict Points Traditional
Intersections (2 of 8)
C-112
Full Access
JL --n426", -
Roundabout
Access
l'Indirect Left Turn Access
Crossing °Turning >Merge/Diverge
Typical Crash Rate l(rJslies
po mil. entering nehic les Total
Conflict Points New
Intersection Design
IL
4 12 16 32 0.3"
o o 8 8 0.2(2)
o 4 20 24 0.1 (3)
I" 2004-2006 Minnesota TIS crash data 'Estimated based on a limited sample of Mn/DOT data '3' NCHRP 15-30 Preliminary Draft
Full Access
Roundabout
Indirect Left Turn
Highlights
• Analysis of crash data proves that the most frequent type of severe intersection crash is a right angle — vehicle maneuvers that involve crossing conflicts.
• In response to this data, highway agencies are beginning to implement intersection designs that reduce or eliminate the at-risk crossing maneuvers by substituting
lower-risk turning, merging and diverging maneuvers. Two examples of these new designs include Roundabouts and Indirect Turn Treatments.
• Roundabouts have been implemented at a sufficient number of intersections in Minnesota and around the County, such that follow-up studies have documented a Proven
effectiveness of reducing both the frequency and severity of crashes. More information regarding Roundabouts can be found at — Roundabouts: An Informational Guide
(Report No. FHWA-RD-00-067 www.tihrc.govisafety/00-0675.pd0
• The concept of Indirect Turns has primarily been applied to divided roadways where there is sufficient room in the median to construct the channelization necessary to
restrict crossing maneuvers and to accommodate U-turns. This design technique has been implemented at approximately a dozen intersections in Maryland and North
Carolina and as a result is considered Tried. Before/After studies at these locations have documented close to a 90% reduction in total crashes and a 100% reduction in
angle crashes. More information about Indirect Turns can be found in NCHRP 15-30: Median Intersection Design for Rural High Speed Divided Highways (currently in
draft form at htlp://www.clre.iastate.ecluieducwebhichrp%201-inal%2Oreport/)
Intersections (2 of 8)
osstnE Sot,
Tinge Safety Fu»datnentals
Ian,/book-2008 C-13
Prioritized/Phasing
1. Stop bar
2. Stop sign
3. Junction sign
4. Stop Ahead Message
5. Stop Ahead Sign
36", reserve
48" for
intersections
with
documented
deficiency and
where there are
RR grade
crossings on the
CH approach
1/2 distance
between Stop
Ahead and Stop
1/2 distance
between Stop
Ahead and
Junction sign
450' (min.) to
750' back, 1 size
larger than Stop
(up to 48")
Add can delineators to Stop sign
Stop Bar,
12" to 24"
wide,
8' to 12'
back from
edgeline
Provide three devices indicating
up coming intersection
County Highway
(CH)
Source: 111n/DOT Dist 3-13 County
RSA - CH2A1 HILL 2006
Intersections (3 of8)
Enhanced Si • ns and Markiws
Highlights
• The most common type of crash at STOP
controlled intersections is a right angle crash.
• Research performed in Minnesota (Reducing
Crashes at Controlled Rural Intersections — Mn!
DOT No. 2003-15) found that approximately
60% of these angle crashes involved vehicles
on the minor road stopping and then pulling
out and 26% involved vehicles running
through the STOP sign.
• This same study also found that increasing
the conspicuity of traffic control devices
by using bigger, brighter or additional signs
and markings (such as the STOP AHEAD
message and a STOP bar) are associated with
decreasing Run the STOP crashes.
• A more recent — Safety Evaluation of STOP
AHEAD Pavement Markings (FHWA-
HRT-08-043) — documents the effects of
adding STOP AHEAD pavement markings.
The study looked at 175 sites in Arkansas,
Maryland and Minnesota. The study found
crash reductions in the range of 20 to 40%,
benefit/cost ratios greater than 2 to 1 and
concluded that this strategy has the potential
to reduce crashes at signalized intersections.
,ANESOpi /AM
t
Ttriffic Safety Fundamentals
Handbook-2008
. .
C-14
-
ffffffffff
fffffffffff
STREET
• .* n•n
V 410
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
325 ft
7 sec.
400 ft
8 sec.
475 ft
8 sec.
550 ft
8 sec.
650 ft
9 sec.
725 ft
9 sec.
880 ft
10 sec
950 ft
10 sec
Speed
Intersection
Sight Distance
Intersection Si! ht
Distance
Adequate Sight Distance
MAJOR STREET
Clear Sight Lines
Intersection Sight Distance
Inadequate Sight Distance
MAJOR STREET
•
MINOR
STREET
Source: NCHRP Report 383 — Intersection ,Sight Distance Interjections (4 of 8)
Iowa Highway Safety Management System. and
AliSHTO Green Book
Highlights
• Intersection sight distance refers to the length of the gap along
the major roadway sufficient to allow a minor street vehicle to
either safely enter or cross the major traffic system.
• • A reasonable intersection sight distance allows for adequate
driver perception reaction time (2.5 seconds) and either
• sufficient time to clear the major street, or to turn onto the
• major street and accelerate to the operating speed without
causing approaching vehicles to reduce speed by more than
• 10 mph.
. • • The actual length of the recommended intersection distance is
• a function of the major street operating speed. However, the
size of the gap varies from 7 seconds at 30 mph to 10 seconds
at speeds of 60 mph and above.
• When dealing with Mn/DOT's Trunk Highways, refer to
Section 5-2.02.02 of the Road Design Manual for additional
guidance regarding intersection sight distance.
• It is important to note that intersection sight distance is
always greater than stopping sight distance, by as much
as 30 to 60%.
• The ten second "Rule of Thumb," 10 seconds of intersection
sight distance, is a good estimate regardless of conditions.
• Removal of vegetation and on—street parking are cost—
effective safety improvements for intersections.
I O
•
View Obstructed by sign, vegetation,
utilities, and bus shelter.
_( II
I
Intersection Sight Distance
fffff
hid& Safety Fundann,':
Handbook-2008
'-
'1'.4E14)0p-rfIES°1:44P1'
g C-15
OFF-SET -A- PARALLEL
Left-Turn Lane
liT7(
-B- TAPERED
OFF-SET
Right-Turn Lane
Expressway
Clear Departure Sight Region
With Right-Turn Vehicle Present
As A Result of Offset Right-Turn Bay
Intersections (5 of 8)
Source: NCHRP 15-30 Preliminary Draft Minor Road ds,
Turn Lane Desi • ns
Highlights
• Providing right and left turn lanes at intersections are included in Minnesota's
list of High Priority strategies.
CCO
Co
• However, there are locations where vehicles are stopped or decelerating in
the turn lane and can block the line of sight for other vehicles waiting at the •
intersections. In these cases the use of Off-set left and right turn lanes will
improve the line of sight for vehicles waiting to complete their crossing or
turning maneuvers.
• Off-set turn lanes are considered Tried (as opposed to Proven). A Before
vs. After Study of Off-set Left Turn lanes in North Carolina reported a 90%
• reduction in Left Turn crashes. A similar study of Off-set Right Turn lanes in
Nebraska found a 70% reduction in near-side right angle crashes.
• • The Median Acceleration Lane (MAL) has been used at a number of locations
• in Minnesota and is also considered Tried — Before vs. After studies indicate a
75% reduction in same direction sideswipe crashes, a 35% reduction in far-
side right angle crashes and a 25% reduction involving left turn crashes from
the minor road.
Median Acceleration Lane
4k— )
---- 7_ — — \
1111.111Mmimplip. \ — — — -- • •
TA
/0290,4st
Thtffil. Safety Fundamentals
Handbook-2008 C-16
Minessota THI3 at Scott
County Highway 2
Source: Mn/DOT Metro
District Before: After Study
.2oriN C-17
Roundabouts and Indirect Turns
Highlights
• The most common and most severe type of crash at STOP controlled intersections is
a Right Angle which involves a vehicle on the minor road attempting to select a safe
gap along the major highway in order to cross.
. • • A proven strategy to reduce gap selection related angle crashes involves redesigning
the intersection or median cross-over to eliminate crossing conflicts (which have the
highest probability of a crash) by substituting merging, diverging or turning conflicts
(which have a lower probability of a crash).
• The primary examples of reduced conflict intersection designs include; Roundabouts,
J-Turns and special application for "T" intersections — the Partial Interchange.
• Roundabouts are considered to be Proven effective (there is virtually no possibility
• of an angle crash) with statistically significant crash reductions —38% for all crashes,
76% for injury crashes and for serious injury and fatal crashes. Not withstanding the
superior safety performance, care must be taken when considering conversion to a
Roundabout— implementation costs are in the range of $1,000,000 and all entering
legs are treated equally. The key question is do the traffic characteristics and function
classification support the degrading of mainline traffic operations.
. • The concept behind indirect-turns is that merge, diverge and turning conflicts result
in fewer and less severe crashes. An example of the indirect turn applied to a divided
• roadway is the J-Turn. This application involves constructing a barrier in the median
• cross-over and forcing minor street crossing traffic to instead make a right turn,
• followed by a downstream U-Turn, followed by another right turn. J-Turns have been
Tried at about a dozen locations in Maryland and North Carolina — implementation
costs are in the range of $500,000 to $750,000 and a preliminary crash analysis
• found a 100% reduction in angle crashes and a 90% reduction in total crashes.
• The partial interchange is an interesting concept for "T" intersections along divided
roadways — the construction of one bridge on the "near-side" of the intersection
eliminates all crossing maneuvers. This concept is being considered for several
locations in Minnesota, but deployment has not been sufficiently wide spread to be
able to identify typical implementation costs or document crash reductions.
Indirect Turns 0,111(
cern—m=— —211 .11n11n11"
Source: NCHRP 15-30
Intersections (6 of 8)
Partial T-Interchange
-ad 111n,_•.i,
Traffic Si 1 nal 0 erations
Highlights
• Installing traffic signals is NOT considered to be a High Priority Intersection Safety Strategy because of the results of studies done at both the national level and in
Minnesota. At most intersections, the installation of a traffic signal will increase the number of crashes, along with increasing crash and severity rates. Also, as a
category signalized intersections have a higher average crash density, crash rate and severity rate than the average for STOP controlled intersections.
• However, if a traffic signal must be installed to address intersection delay and congestion, there are several suggested High Priority strategies to reduce frequency
and severity of intersection crashes. These include:
- Use of multiphase signal operation combined with left turn lanes. - Provide dilemma zone protection and optimize clearance intervals
- Provide a coordinated signal system along urban arterials - Use advance warning flashers to supplement static signs where a signal
- Use overhead indications—one per through lane mounted at the center of
may be unexpected.
each lane - Pedestrian indications including the use of count down timers.
Intersections (5 of,?)
S,Iletv I ,;1,41,rem5l,
1 fa,ulbook--2008 C-18
14% Left-Turn Signalized 16% Rear End
22% Other
48% Right Angle
Red Light Enforcement
5% Rear End
10% Left-Turn
60% Right Angle
Other - Sideswipe (Passing/Opposing), Runoff Road, Right Turn, and
Head-On Crashes
Intersections (6 of 8)
Highlights
• The most common type of severe crash at signalized intersections is a Right
Angle. Even though signals are intended as a mitigation for angle crashes they
have proven to be only marginally effective. In the Minneapolis-Saint Paul
Metropolitan area, the annual number of severe angle crashes at signalized
intersections (160) exceeds the number at STOP controlled intersections (120),
even though the number of STOP controlled intersections exceeds the number of
signalized intersections by a factor of 4.
.• Crash analysis indicates that most angle crashes at signalized intersections are
caused by red light violations.
• As a result, one of Minnesota's adopted High Priority Safety Strategies involves
enhancing the enforcement of red-light violations.
• A number of states are using technology to supplement traditional enforcement of
red light violations. This involves the use of Red Light Camera Systems in states
with enabling legislation (Not Minnesota).
• Studies of RLC systems (including Safety Evaluation of Red Light Cameras, FHWA-
HRT-05-048) have documented 40% reductions in red light violations, 25%
• reductions in angle crashes and a 15% overall reduction in total intersection
• crashes. The studies also noted a modest increase in rear end crashes, but these
• tended to be less severe so the average value of crash reduction approached
• $50,000 per site per year.
• Florida is a state that does not allow RLC systems, so they developed a strategy
• that uses confirmation lights mounted on the signal mast arms combined with a
partnership with local law enforcement. The confirmation light allows one officer
▪ to safely observe and pursue red light violators (instead of one officer to observe
and an additional officer to pursue). Confirmation lights are inexpensive ($500
to $1,000 per mast arm) and a preliminary evaluation of installations in Florida
found a 50% decrease in violations and a 10% overall decrease in crashes.
• For more information see www.stopredlightrunning.com
Thru-Stop or Yield Controlled
25% Other
Tree &fitly Fundamental,
F-14: ndbook-2008
004E8%
/ C-19
Safety Effects of Street Lighting
at Rural Intersections
System -M Wide Comparativ, Al
Intersections
- ..-; merse ons-wil , u
Street Lights
Intersections
with Street Lights , Reduction_
Statistical
Significance
3236 259
Night Crashes 34% 26% 26% Yes
Night Crash Rate 0.63 0.47 25% Yes
Night Single Vehicle Crashes 23% 15% 34% Yes
Night Single Vehicle Crash Rate 0.15 0.07 53% Yes
Before vs. After Crash Analysis
11111.11/1=1111".....E.,___,,__ter _Reduction Significance
Intersections 12 12
Number of Night Crashes 47 28 40% Yes
Night Crashes/Intersection/Year 1.31 0.78 40%
Total Crashes/Intersection/Year 2.44 2.08 15%
Night Crash Rate 6.06 3.61 40% Yes
Total Crash Rate 2.63 2.24 15% Yes
Severity Index 43% 32% 26% Yes
Night Single Vehicle Crash Rate 4.0 2.84 29% Yes
Night Multiple Vehicle Crash Rate 2.06 0.77 63% Yes
Highlights
• The installation of street lights is considered to be a "Proven"
effective strategy for reducing crashes.
• Research has found that the installation of street lights at rural
• intersections reduced:
•
-
Night Crashes by 26% to 40%
•
-
Night Crash Rate by 25% to 40%
- Night Single Vehicle Crashes by 29% to 53% •
- Night Multiple Vehicle Crashes by 63% •
- Night Crash Severity by 26%
• A Benefit versus Cost analysis found that the crash reduction
• benefits of street lighting at rural intersections outweigh costs
by a wide margin. The average B:C ratio was about 15:1.
• • The results of recent case study research suggests that the use
of street lighting is more effective at reducing night crashes
than either rumble strips or overhead flashers.
• A survey of practice among Minnesota counties found typical
lighting installation costs along county facilities in the range
of $1,000 to $5,000 per intersection and annual operations
maintenance costs in the range of $100 to $600 per light.
7Mffic Sufety Fundamentals
1-fandbook-2008 C-20
11111111111111N,
Flashin Beacons at
'Rural Intersections
Source: Warning Flashers at Rural Intersection, Minnesota Department of Transportation Final Report No. 1996-01. 1997
Highlights
• A review of historic crash data indicated that STOP controlled rural intersections with overhead flashers had higher average
crash rates than comparable intersections without overhead warning flashers.
• Anecdotal information that surfaced during the investigation of several fatal crashes indicated that some drivers were
mistaking Yellow/Red warning flashers for Red/Red flashers that would indicate an All-Way STOP condition.
• In order to address the issue of effectiveness, Mn/DOT commissioned a study by the University of Minnesota's Human Factors
Research Lab. The study resulted in the following conclusion:
- About one-half of drivers surveyed understood the warning intended by the flasher, but most did not adjust their behavior.
- About 45% of the drivers misunderstood the intended message and thought it indicated an All-Way STOP condition.
- The change in crash frequency at a sample of intersections was NOT statistically significant.
- In response to this research, Mn/DOT has begun removing
overhead flashers.
• Where there is evidence that additional intersection warning is necessary options include—use of red flashers on STOP signs
or advance warning flashers on STOP AHEAD signs (but there are no studies documenting effectiveness).
0 0E804
Safity bnittlowntal,
I lanclbook--2008
Before Installation of Rumble Strips
7 After Installation of Rumble Strips
2t- "•27 59
Number of Crashes (3-Year Period)
Total
Right Angle Fatal & Personal
Injury
Before vs. After Change
Total Crashes Right Angle Crashes Fatal & Personal
Injury Crashes Number of Accidents 30%
25%
20%
cu 15%
,14) 10%
c 5%
(...) 0%
cu -5%
-10%
-15%
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Transverse Rumble Stri s s
at Rural Intersections
Source: Mn/DOT1. 7i.ansportsttion Synthesis Report, TRS 0701, August 2007
Highlights
• The use of transverse rumble strips to address safety issues at rural intersections
has been part of the traffic engineers tool box for many years. However, there
• are no definitive studies documenting their actual effectiveness.
• • Mn/DOT took the opportunity to perform a thorough study of transverse rumble
• strips as part of preparing their defense in a lawsuit alleging negligence on the
• state's part for not having rumble strips at a particular intersection. The study
resulted in the following conclusions:
- Based on a search of previous research, no one has ever documented
statistically significant crash reductions attributed to the installation of • • transverse rumble strips on the approach to stop controlled intersections.
•
-
A Before versus After analysis of 25 rural intersections in Minnesota found
that total intersection crashes and right angle crashes actually increased after
• installing rumble strips. The number of fatal plus injury crashes declined
slightly; however, none of the changes was statistically significant.
•. • Recent work by the University of Minnesota's Human Factors Research Lab
found that rumble strips had a minor effect on driver behavior relative to speed
reduction and breaking patterns. However, there was no evidence of crash
reduction.
• For more information, see Mn/DOT's Transportation Synthesis Report, TRS 0701.
www.Irrb.org/trs0701.pdf
- • Strategies that been proven effective at improving safety at improving safety at
rural Thru/STOP intersections include enhanced signs, markings (C-14) and street
lights (C-20).
rinffic Safety Fundamentals
Handbook-2008 C-22
9.1 Al Implement Road Narrowing Measures
9.1 A2 Install Traffic Calming—Road Sections
9.1 A3 Install Traffic Calming—Intersections
9.1 A4 Provide School Route Improvements
9.1 A Reduce Vehicle Speed
9.1 B Improve Sight
Distance and/or Visibility
between Motor Vehicles and
Pedestrians
9.1 B1 Implement Lighting/Crosswalk Illumination Measures
9.1 B2 Provide Crosswalk Enhancements
9.1 83 Improve Reflectorization/Conspicuousness of Pedestrians
9.1 Cl Provide Vehicle Restriction/Diversion Measures
9.1 C2 Construct Pedestrian Refuge Islands and Raised Medians
9.1 C3 Install or Upgrade Traffic and Pedestrian Signals
9.1 C4 Provide Sidewalks/VValkways and Curb Ramps
9.1 C5 Install Overpass/Underpass
9.1 C Reduce Pedestrian
Exposure to Vehicular Traffic
9.1 D Improve Pedestrian and
Motorist Safety Awareness and
Behavior
Som-te: NCHRP Series 500 (Volume 10)
9.1 D1 Provide Education, Outreach, and Training
9.1 D2 Implement Enforcement Campaigns
_
Pedestrian Safet
Strategies
Ena • hasis Area Oliectives and Strate!ies
Pedestrian Safety Strategies (1 of3)
Highlights
• Fatal crashes involving pedestrians are one of AASHTO's
Safety Emphasis Areas. In the U.S., there are about 5,000
pedestrians killed each year, which represents about 11%
of all traffic fatalities.
• Minnesota averages about 45 pedestrian fatalities
annually (about 8% of total traffic fatalities) and our
involvement rate (0.4 pedestrian fatalities per 100,000
population) ranks 47th – only Rhode Island, New
Hampshire, and Idaho have a lower rate.
• Fatal pedestrian crashes most often occur in urban areas
(17%), away from intersections (78%), during good
weather (64%). Over two-thirds of the pedestrians killed
are male.
• The most common pedestrian activities associated
with fatal crashes are walking/working in the road and
crossing the roadway.
• The pedestrian was coded for a contributing factor
(running into the road – 15%, Failure to yield – 12%, and
Alcohol – 10%) in 66% of the crashes vs. 55% for the
motorist (Hit & Run – 16% and Failure to yield – 15%).
• The safety strategies in NCHRP Series 500, Vol. 10 are
focused on reducing vehicle speeds, improving sight
lines, reducing exposure to traffic, plus education and
enforcement activities.
"liztflic Safety Iiindamental,
Handbook--2008 "U, C-23
Crosswalk Type
4;e0 M = Marked
u = Unmarked
Sig. = Significant Difference
N.S. = No Significant Difference
Sig 1.4
W.)
0 • 12
rtfc'
C
ft ad
•L" -5, 0.6
• ‘. CU (7.5
C 0.
co)
'0 • 0.2
0—
.10
.08
No Median All ADT's
2 lanes
(514 Sites)
No Raised No Raised No Raised
Median Median Median
12.000 ADT 12.000-15.000 ADT >15.000 ADT
3-8 Lanes 3-8 Lanes 3-8 Lanes
(260 Sites) (149 Sites) (417 Sites)
Type of Crossing
Raised Median 15.000 ADT 3-8 Lanes
(87 Sites)
Raised Median >151100 ADT 3-8 Lanes
(173 Sites)
Source: Charles V. Zegecr, Safety Effects Of Marked Vs. tin/snaked Grossuoas At Uncontrolled
Locations: acclaim. Summary And Recommended Guidelines, 1996-2001.
httplinnino.undkinginfo.orglpclfIrdrd/crossualk_021302.pdf
Pedestrian Crash Rates vs.
Crossing Features
Highlights
• Three of the more common strategies intended to address pedestrian crashes include
reducing vehicle speeds, providing a marked crosswalk, and installing a traffic signal.
• The research is abundantly clear—merely changing the posted speed limit has never
reduced vehicle speeds, painting cross-walks at unsignalized intersections is actually
associated with higher frequencies of pedestrian crashes, and installing a traffic signal
has never been proven effective at reducing pedestrian crashes.
• Reducing vehicle speeds is associated with reducing the severity of a pedestrian crash,
but actually reducing speeds requires changing driver behavior and that requires
changing the roadway environment. Strategies that have demonstrated an effect on
driver behavior include vertical elements (speed bumps and speed tables), narrowing
the roadway (converting from a rural to an urban section) and extraordinary levels of
enforcement).
• A cross-sectional study of 2,000 intersections in 30 cities across the U.S. found that
marked cross-walks at unsignalized intersections are NOT safety devices. The pedestrian
crash rate was higher at the marked cross-walks and this effect is greatest for multi-lane
arterials with volumes over 15,000 vehicles per day.
• A Before versus After study at over 500 intersections in San Diego and Los Angeles found
a 70% reduction in pedestrian crashes following the removal of marked cross-walks at
uncontrolled intersections.
• Traffic signals have not proven to be effective at reducing pedestrian crashes — the highest
pedestrian crash frequency locations in most urban areas are signalized intersections.
• Observations of pedestrian behavior at traffic signals suggests that there is a low level of
understanding of the meaning of the pedestrian indications and a high level of pedestrian
violations—very few push the call button and fewer yet wait for the walk indication.
Pedestrian Sakty Strategies (2 o13)
Tsrtifie Safety Funda nir ,,t.,
HandbOOk2008
00.4Esok4
.14
C-24
Highlights
• Pedestrian strategies that have proven to be
effective include the following:
- Overpass (in order to be effective,
crossing the roadway at-grade must be
physically prevented)
- Street Lighting
- Refuge/Median Islands — Reduces
vehicle speeds at pedestrian crossing
locations or intersections.
Median Refuge
Near Intersection
- Curb Extensions — Reduces potential
vehicle conflicts by reducing pedestrian
crossing distance and time. Also,
improves lines of sight.
— Sidewalks
Curb Extensions
and Medians
Nei • hborhood Traffic Qoj
Control Measures
1081110411...--
a;eswrinlastl-, nar"Irf
enve. e•orr, csir.5
cos.4.Ys
.inst`..• ... :•elt.' *. e• .- ..;:::_..,..1.37,;,•".•-"' .... ,..-- -- -;.-0- ..-..•
...:::_ ---_..--
•:,:,;";;;;...11.,;,...,1:',..;;;;:....0 ,. .
'7•••'''_.,.:•":::;",`.:1",.?„`;,:,•„.17•:, 7-'1.--7-#",-.7.%-r..•,—..-...__ ''',..,":15,.:.',' -'1'..r."' ..."',..-,....,"':"- -,-,.•...- o" ..... ,,er,...:,....:„.. .„,.........•
11''''''''',11:-C-1°..-..' ......‹..•:•-• 7...,._ -
.• ....‘ ,...
.„,.0:t.,„<er ..„.„,,,,........,,,,.. ' ."-..-....*— ,
, ..„...
...
Orh
l'i-:-.,::::",".--....!,;•,1.0 „„„,•.
...i.l...-A,0 ,„,...
....•
•
Source: ITETialfic Calming Seminar •
Table 8.3. General Warrants. (Sarasota. FL)
Wanant
Major
Collette('
Minor
Collector'
local
Residential Streets
1. Minimum traffic volume
2. Anticipated cist-tio ouult haulm
3. 85th percentile Teed
4. Pedestrian crossing volume
5. Accidents per year
,8.000vpd or 800 volt
50%
10 niph , speed lirnit
>100 per hour
6
>4.000 vpd or 400 vph
40%
10 mph , speed limit
'50 per hour
6
..1.000 vpd or 100 vph
25%
,. speed knit
>25 per hour
3
upd-vehicles per clay vph whides [WI Scan
Source: Engineering Depart writ. City or Sarasota. FL
Table 84. Speed Hump Warrants. (Montgomery Coun y, MD)
Criterion Original Interim Present
Minimuni volume 60 opts 100 vph 100 vph
Minimum 85th percentile speed
Secondary street
Primary street
31 mph
34 mph
31 mph
31 or 36 mph
(depending on speed limit)
32 mph
34 or 39 mph
(depending on speed limit)
Minimum length of
segment
None 1.000 feet 1.000 feet
Resident concurrence 67% 80% on treated street 80% on treated street
50%. on side streets
epic. vehicle, per hour: mph - nriir.a per how
Scarce: Dept Intellt ci PUbliC W13110 alllftfdle9to tali., Mut Itguttl,tv C tam ty.
Traffic Safety Fundamentals
!-landbook--2008 s<=.• C-26
noree,""°
Source: ITE, Mnflic Calming -
State of the Practice
Highlights
• Neighborhood traffic control (traffic calming) usually involves
• applying design techniques and devices on local streets in order to
• modify driver behavior and traffic characteristics.
. • The application of these devices are usually limited to residential
streets, have been infrequently used on residential collectors and
should not be considered on arterials due to the presence of transit
vehicles, trucks and emergency responders.
• Typical techniques involve the use of signs, markings, road narrowing
or diverters, vertical elements and the use of technology to increase
the enforcement presence.
• • A few studies of the effectiveness of these devices have been
• conducted — the general conclusions are:
- Speed humps/bumps are moderately effective at lowering speeds
in the range of 3 to 7 mph (in the immediate vicinity of the
device).
- Adding STOP signs lowers speeds by about 2 mph, in the vicinity
of the STOP sign, but also reduces compliance — a greater
number of drivers completely disregard the sign than come to
a complete stop. In addition, speeds in the segments between
STOP signs have been observed to increas drivers attempting to
make up for lost time.
- Changing speed limit signs has never changed driver behavior.
- Enforcement does change driver behavior — only when present.
https://wvvw.ite.org/tratfic/tcstate.htm
50000
ix 10000
E • )
1000 c
100
--8—Nighttim
—G— Daytime
- Freeway
e (rural)
(rural)
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Deviation from Average Speed, mi/h
Source: Solomon, 1964, and Cirillo. 1968
T.H. 65 0 -10
SPEED
40
T.H. 65 +1 -10 '4407
Anoka
CSAH 1 +2 -5
Sgr
40 M45
Anoka
CSAH 24 +1 +15
SPEED Use 45
Anoka
CSAH 51 +1 +5 VIP 45 40
45
46
+1 +5 Miss. St YiLIP
35
SPEED use
30
85%
Before
After
Sign
Change
After +1- MPH
ttf? 30
SPUD eMIt 50
48
50
7.,UP 30
49
50
52
51
37
40
37
37
39
40
Study
Location Before
Change
MPH
Hennepin
CSAH 4
SPEED
50
SPEED
40 -10
N730
SPEED
LIMIT
35 +5
Tirif 35 '30f -5 0
34
34
44
45
Noble Ave +3
62nd Ave N
Speed Zoning Studies
Source: Mn/DOT UnPublishcd
185 Segments
4.30 7028 Crashes
178 Mites
3.94 , -1-37--
Statewide Average = 4.0
- -)-Z-38----Z-32-
Speed Zoning
o
'ra > c c
U
57,
10
8
6
2
0
Segments
59 Miles
3750 Crashes
Highlights
• There are two basic types of speed zones in Minnesota:
1. Statutory speed limits established by the legislature —30 mph on
City Streets, 55 mph on Rural Roads, 65 mph on Rural Expressways, and
70 mph on Rural Interstates.
2. Speed zones established based on the results of an engineering study
of a particular roadway. The legislature has assigned the responsibility
• for setting the speed limits in the zones to the Commissioner of
Transportation.
•
▪
The premise underlying the establishment of speed limits is that most drivers
• will select a safe and reasonable speed based on their perception of the
roadway's condition and environment. This has lead to the practice of
• conducting a statistical analysis of a sample of actual vehicle speeds as part
of a comprehensive engineering investigation.
. • The two primary performance measures are:
▪ 1 85th percentile speed —The speed below which 85% of the vehicles are
• traveling.
• 2. 10 mph Pace— the 10 mph range that contains the greatest number of
vehicles.
•
-
Experience has shown that the most effective speed limits are those that
• are close to the 85'h percentile speed and in the upper part of the 10
• mph pace.
• There are three important safety—related messages related to vehicle speeds
and speed limits:
• 1. Research demonstrates that roads with speed limits near the 8.5th
percentile speed have the lowest crash rates.
• 2. On urban roadways, crash rates have an inverse relationship with speed
limits (crash rates go down as speed limits increase). Crash rates have a
direct relationship with the number of access points along a road.
3. Artificially established speed limits have NEVER been successful at
changing behavior or reducing crashes.
18 Segments 20 Segments 23 Segments 15 Segments 10 Segments
8 Miles 24 Milos 12 Miles 12 Miles
496 Crashes 1470 Crashes 403 Crashes 395 Crashes :
Source: "Statistical
relationship between
pehicuthr cnuhes
and highway access"
Report: MN!
RC-1998-27 30 35 40 45 50 55
Speed Limit on Urban Conventional Roadways (UC)
(Includes 2, 4, and 6 Lane Roads)
Thaflic Safety Fundamentals
114ndbook-2008
t
0,00nEsot,
1>OcTse° / C-27
Dynamic Mainline Warning Sign
Technology Applications
Highlights
• The Federal Highway Administration and Mn/DOT have invested in a
considerable amount of research regarding the use of new technology to
address traffic operations and safety deficiencies.
• Advanced technologies have been successfully deployed to address
freeway traffic management, and a new generation of traffic signal
controllers and optical detectors are improving traffic flow on urban
arterials.
• Research is currently underway at several universities, including the
University of Minnesota, to better understand factors contributing to
intersection crashes in order to develop new devices for assisting drivers
in selecting safe gaps at uncontrolled intersections, making safer turns at
controlled intersections, and providing additional warning when drivers
violate the intersection control.
The following examples of new devices have already been deployed:
- Missouri and North Carolina Department of Transportation's use of
Dynamic Mainline warning signs—Instead of a static intersection
warning sign, loop detectors on the stop controlled approaches
activate flashers on the mainline only when vehicles are present.
An initial safety review of two or more expressway intersections
found a 30 to 50% reduction in angle crashes following installation.
- Dakota, Ramsey, and Washington Counties have deployed Dynamic
Speed Monitoring Display Signs in five speed transition zones in the
Minneapolis — St. Paul Metropolitan Area. Before vs. After studies
have documented statistically significant speed reductions in the
range of 5 to 10 mph following installation.
TheTechnology
Display
Actual Speed
Dynamic Speed
Monitoring (DSMD)
Sign
Static
— Regulatory
Sign
Flashes if
Over Limit
Permanently
Mounted
MOE- Sajky Fundamormls Iletabook-
2008
01,,sot,
''47.0Pritee C-28
Work Zones
Objectives Strategies
19.1 D Improve driver
compliance with work
zone traffic controls
19.1 D1 Enhance enforcement of traffic laws in work zones (T)
19.1 D2 Improve credibility of signs (E)
19.1 D3 Improve application of increased driver penalties in work zones (T)
Emphasis Area Objectives and Strategies
Wan , IraplOt
st,ss eitt
V001817: A G
Reducing*liCione CO D'cO
19.1 E Increase
knowledge and 19.1 El Disseminate work zone safety information to road users (T)
awareness of work zones 19.1 E2 Provide work zone training programs and manuals for designers and field staff (T)
19.1 F Develop 19.1 Fl Develop or enhance agency-level work zone crash data system (T)
procedures to effectively 19.1 F2 Improve coordination, planning, and scheduling of work activities (T)
manage work zones 19.1 F3 Use incentive to create and operate safer work zones (T)
19.1 F4 Implement work zone quality assurance procedures (i.e., safety inspections or audits (T)
(P) = Proven; (T) =Tried; (E) = Experimental. A detailed explanation of (P), (T), and (E) appears in Section V. Several have
substrategies with different ratings.
Source: NCHRP Series 500 Reports, Vol. 1711 Guide for Reducing Work Zone Collisions
Highlights
• Addressing crashes in work zones is one of AASHTO's Safety Emphasis Areas based on the fact that these crashes result in 1,000 fatalities and 40,000 injuries each year.
• Minnesota averages around 1,600 crashes in work zones annually, with approximately 10 fatalities and over 700 injuries.
• These statistics support the conclusion that crashes in work zones are over represented and that driving conditions in work zones differ from normal driving conditions.
• Work zones can be a challenge for drivers because of a variety of unexpected conditions — distractions, congestion, a greater demand for more precise navigation, etc.
• A review of Minnesota's work zone crashes found that the most frequent type is a Rear End, the most severe type is a road departure (often involving an edge drop or uneven
pavement) and that hours of darkness are most at risk.
• The strategies suggested in the NCHRP Series 500 Report, Volume 17 represent a comprehensive approach — a coordinated effort by engineers, law enforcement
and educators.
• From a highway agency perspective the key strategies involve design of work zones (have a plan consistent with the MNMUTCD and Field Manual), regular inspection and
maintenance of the devices (to make sure the are placed correctly and still relevant) and worker safety (adequately trained and wearing high visibility garments).
• Concerns about traffic operations and safety has resulted in a new Federal rule on work zone safety and mobility, which Mn/DOT has also adopted as policy for all projects
on the State system and for State Aid projects that include Federal Funds. Basically, this new policy requires the preparation of a Work Zone Mobility Impact Assessment
(http://www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsup/tmemo/active/tm07/16t05.pdf) and the work zone management strategies (including traffic control, travel demand management and
public information) to mitigate impacts.
Alf& Safity Fun4mentalc
tualbook-2008
EOM tt_vrj -.mob C-29
Desktop Reference
for
Crash Reduction Factors
0 'Upon No. FHWASA-07415
U.S. Department of Tronaporlallon
Fate's, Mellway AdmInletrallen S.plernbar 2007
Crash Reduction Factors
Crash Countermeasui Os) Type
Crash Area Road
Severity Type Type
Daily Traffic
Volume (veh/ Ref.
day)
Effectiveness
Study Type Crash
Reduction
Factor/
Function
Std.
Error
Range
Low High
SIGNS
Implement sign
corrections to
MUTCD standards
All Injury Urban Local 5 15 10 Meta Analysis
All PDO Urban Local 5 7 6 Meta Analysis
Install chevron
signs on horizontal
curves
All Fatal/
Injury Rural 2-lane 38 20
All All 15 35
All All Urban Arterial
(Urban) 5 64 Simple 49 Before-After
All All 20 15
All All 15 35
All All 15 50
Install curve
advance warning
signs
All Fatal/
Injury Rural 2-lane 38 10
All Injury 5 30 71 Meta Analysis
All PDO 5 8 16 Meta Analysis
All All 15 30
All Fatal 15 55
All All 15 30
All All 15 23
All Injury 15 20
Head-on All 15 29
ROR All 15 30
ROR All All All 1 30
Install curve
advance warning
signs (advisory
speed)
All Injury 5 13 9 Meta Analysis
All PDO 5 29 23 Meta Analysis
All All 15 29
All All 20 15
Source: FHWA-SA-07-015, &pie nber 2007
Highlights
• The Federal Highway
Administration has
published the most
comprehensive set of
crash reduction factors —
"Desktop Reference for
Crash Reduction Factors."
• This document provides estimates of the crash reduction that
might be expected if a specific countermeasure is implemented,
based on the results contained in published research.
• Crash reduction factors (CRFs) are provided for intersection
• treatments, roadway departure strategies, and pedestrian
• amenities.
• In many cases, the Desktop Reference includes multiple CRFs
• for the same countermeasure in order to suggest a range of
• potential effectiveness. For example, installing chevron signs
on horizontal curves is expected to reduce all crashes by 20 to
• 64 percent.
•
▪
These CRFs are a useful guide, but it remains necessary to
• apply engineering judgment and to consider site—specific
• environmental, traffic volume, traffic mix, geometric
conditions, and operational conditions that will affect the
actual safety impact of any countermeasure.
• In Minnesota, these CRFs are considered a supplement to
estimates of safety effectiveness derived from analyses of our
own crash records.
• www.transportation.org/sites/safetymanagement/docs/
desktop°/020referenc0/020complete.pdf
Tittffic Safety Fundamentals
Handbook-2008 C-30
Per FATAL Crash
Per SEVERITY A Crash
— Incapacitating Injury
Per SEVERITY B Crash
— Nonincapacitating Injury
Per SEVERITY C Crash
— Possible Injury
Average Crash Costs
)21. 6,001j)
$390,000
$ 121 AO I
75 000
Highlights
• Mn/DOT uses the following comprehensive crash
costs when computing the expected benefits
• associated with roadway and traffic control
improvements.
• The costs shown were developed in 2008 by
Mn/DOT on a per crash basis for use in calculating
benefit/cost comparisons only. The costs include
economic cost factors and a measure of the value
of lost quality of life that society is willing to pay to
prevent deaths and injuries associated with motor
vehicle crashes. Costs originally published by the
FHWA on a per injury (and fatality) basis, were
utilized in the development.
te • Due to the very high cost for fatal crashes and the
effect this can have on the outcome of benefit/cost
analyses, it is the practice in Minnesota to value
fatal crashes as 2x"Severity A Crash" ($780,000
per crash) unless there is a high frequency of fatal
crashes of a type susceptible to correction by the
proposed action.
111,1, Per PROPERTY
' I "I. DAMAGE ONLY Crash
Source: Developed by 11,1n/DOT Office of 7i.affic. Safely and Technology
000NES
"hal& Fignalainentalc
I fanclbook--2008 C-31
11111 111111 MI MI INN OW =II ill 1111111
Crash Reduction "Benefit/
Cost" (B/C) Ratio Worksheet
B/C
worksheet
,.......... Secthm ,.., Ruadnay Location
Ilegsraling
ReE Pi.
Ending
141. Pl
SIM, Counts, , 'h,.
or Ton nshlp
Phu15 Period
Bridnn
Stud.
',Moil PrIlls
1-1,, I Poalund Ave to Nicollel Are 1 n (0) 548 4 ,00 157 Co I I 5,01
0r7rxip11 in of
1,1x.rd Murk (A0roniel Westhotind nuldints Inne hntween Pordand and Nordlel
Mildew 00rere I 5.0000 7 ...^,... ' L........ LM. nBudsl Anal. n IR. on ne.0 s
_
n
-
5..
p
_
..
.
2
....
0
..t
.
Pcd0511inn Oiher l,
____
Study
Prrioxl:
Number of
1 rashes
%
li
i I 3
iln 7 3 10
5. (1ninpe
In ( rashes
•lie. mum, niunt Sbdr27,
pi
%
B
I. -2576
P0 -25% -25%
F
Chan0e in
Cr..,
i
'
.,
0
-0.75
.t.4., P0 -1.75 -11.75 -2.50
Year Is.ae, im,....,n Con0n00011 2013
Pm/B.11 twat innohnleMplOof Wen / S h00,000
1 ype of
Cno.11
Pcrlo0:
CluinEe
hr. In
ermt
.%nnual
ClunEe in
( rathen C00 per Crush tnrinsl Ihnieln
BIC= 047
ftlehl of .., C0.0“nrinssol, F S 6,1100.000 L'AIng pnwtri nrorrIl value,.
Traffic Grnnili Parlor Y. A S 390.000 B= $ 283,990
B S 121.000 C= S 600,000 (.2014 Ryon en
1. Bison. Kok .155A C -105 -025 S 75.000 S 7,750
Sre l'altirlamucv".thro firr
onnorice f Ina
2. Project Sen Ice fdre fn) Pll -150 -083 5 12.0110 S 3.133
Tnial 11.503 0Mcc of Traffic Safely and Opentions November 2007
Highlights
• Comparing the expected crash reduction benefits of a particular
safety countermeasure to the estimated cost of implementation is
an accepted analytical tool used in evaluating alternatives at one
location or to aid in the prioritization of projects across a system.
• The basic concept is to give preference to the project(s) that
produced the greatest benefit for the least amount of investment.
• The worksheet calculates benefits as the expected reduction in
crash costs on an annual basis and compares this value to the
annualized value of the estimated construction cost.
• The methodology only accounts for benefits associated with
• crash reduction. However, the process could be revised to also
account for other benefits such as improved traffic operations
(reduced delay and travel times).
• It should be noted that benefit/cost analysis does not attempt to
account for all potential benefits associated with any particular
project since some economic and social benefits are very
difficult to quantify.
Note: The Excel" Spreadsheet File may be Downloaded _fronz ItInIDOT's Website
Safetyhtudomentals
I landbook-2008 C-32
AMR
IIMM•
T s ical "Benefit/Cost" Ratios
1111 for Various Im rovements
Rank
1
Construction Classification B/C Ratio
21.0 Illumination
2 Relocated Breakaway Utility Poles 17.2
3 Traffic Signs 16.3
4 Upgrade Median Barrier 13.7
5 New Traffic Signals 8.3
6 New Median Barrier 8.3
7 Remove Obstacles 8.3
8 Impact Attenuators 7.8
9 Upgrade Guardrail 7.6
10 Upgraded Traffic Signals 7.4
11 Upgraded Bridge Rail 7.1
12 Sight Distance Improvements 7.0
13 Groove Pavement for Skid Resistance 5.6
14 Replace or Improve Minor Structure 5.2
15 Turning Lanes and Traffic Separation 4.4
16 New Rail Road Crossing Gates 3.9
17 Construct Median for Traffic Separation 3.3
18 New Rail Road Crossing Flashing Lights 3.2
19 New Rail Road Flashing Lights and Gates 3.0
20 Upgrade Rail Road Flashing Lights 2.9
21 Pavement Marking and Delineations 2.6
22 Flatten Side Slopes 2.5
23 New Bridge 2.2
24 Widen or Improve Shoulder 2.1
25 Widen or Modify Bridge 2.0
26 Realign Roadway 2.0
27 Overlay for Skid Treatment 1.9
I
;:ndainentaln 1
,094E20,41,
)
OP TRO
Toffic Softly
Handbook-2008
Highlights
• The Federal Highway Administration has
documented the benefit/cost ratios for a variety of
typical safety—related roadway improvements.
. • Typical benefits/costs ranged from 1.9 for skid
overlays to 21.0 for illumination.
• These benefits/costs should only be used as a guide
and not as the definitive expected value at any
• particular location in Minnesota.
• Benefits/costs in the range of 2 to 21 would likely
only be achieved at locations with crash frequencies
significantly higher than the expected values.
. • Mn/DOT funded safety research has documented
benefits/costs for a variety of safety projects,
• including:
- Street lighting at rural intersections (21:1)
- Cable median barrier along freeways (10:1)
- Access management (in the range of 3:1 to 1:1)
Lessons Learned Contents
D-1 Lessons Learned: Crash Characteristics
D-2 Lessons Learned: Safety Improvement Process
D-3 Lessons Learned: Traffic Safety Tool Box
Crash Characteristics
• At the National level the number of traffic related fatalities during the past 10 years is relatively flat - averaging between 42,000 and 43,000 deaths per year.
• Over this same 10 year period, the trend in Minnesota is decidedly better — the number of traffic related fatalities has declined at a rate approaching 3% per year and the
interim safety goal of getting under 500 traffic fatalities was achieved in 2006 (when 494 Minnesotans died in traffic crashes).
• In 2006 the National fatality rate was 1.4 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled and the range was from 0.8 to 2.3. Minnesota's fatal crash rate was 0.9, which
was the second lowest in the country and the lowest of any state not in the northeast.
• Fatal crashes in Minnesota are not distributed evenly across the State — 70% of fatal crashes are in rural areas and the fatality rate on rural roads is more than 2.5 times the
rate in urban areas.
• AASHTO's Strategic Highway Safety Plan suggested and the Federal Highway Administration has adopted a new national safety performance measure — the number of
traffic fatalities.
• Crashes are typically caused by a variety of factors, but the primary factor is driver behavior followed by roadway features and vehicle equipment failures.
• The adoption of the new safety performance measure — a focus on traffic fatalities — has resulted in a better understanding of the fact that fatal crashes are different than
other less severe crashes. The most common type of crash is a rear end (28% of all crashes), however, the most common types of fatal crashes include; Run-off-road (34%),
Angle crashes (23%) and Head-on crashes (17%).
• Fatal crashes are not evenly distributed across the population of drivers — young drivers (under 20) represent about 7% of all drivers but are involved in almost 14% of fatal
crashes.
• Most crashes occur on dry roads in good weather and during daylight conditions — it's a function of exposure. However, nighttime hours present a greater risk for severe
crashes — 11% of all crashes occur during dark conditions but 26% of fatal crashes occur during hours of darkness.
• Contrary to popular opinion, signalized intersections are only rarely safety devices. The average crash rate, severity rate and crash density is higher at signalized
intersections compared to the statistics for STOP controlled locations.
• The most common types of intersection related crashes are Rear End and Right Angle. The installation of a traffic signal changes the crash type distribution — increasing
Rear End crashes and reducing (but not eliminating) Right Angle crashes.
• Crash rates on roadway segments are a function of location (rural vs. urban), design (conventional vs. expressway vs. freeway) and the degree to which access is managed.
Rural freeways and 2-lane roads have the lowest crash rates, urban minor arterials have the highest crash rates and rural county highways and township roads have the
highest fatal crash rates.
• Urban crashes are predominantly two vehicle (Rear End and Right Angle) and rural crashes are predominantly single vehicle (Run-Off-Road and Deer Hits).
• Within design categories of roads (rural 2-lane, urban 4-lane, expressway, etc.) the density of access can be used to predict crash rates — segments with higher access
densities have higher crash rates in both rural and urban areas. •
Safety Improveme"* Procecc
• Mn/DOT's current Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) was approved in September, 2007. The Plan was data driven, comprehensive (addressed the four Safety E's),
systematic (considered all roads), identified a new safety performance measure (fatal and severe injury crashes) and established a new interim safety goal (400 or fewer
fatalities by 2010).
• The SHSP identified seven Safety Emphasis Areas for Minnesota in two categories — Driver Behavior (safety belts, alcohol, speeding and young drivers) and Infrastructure
(intersection, run-off-road and head-on crashes).
• In urban areas the primary factors associated with fatal crashes are intersections and speeding and rural areas the primary factors are safety belts, alcohol and
road departures.
• A comprehensive safety improvement process includes both a "Black Spot" analysis focused on reactive implementation of safety strategies and a system wide analysis
focused on proactively implementing generally low cost safety strategies broadly across an agencies system of roads.
• Three alternative methods are suggested for identifying "Black Spots" — the annual number of crashes at a given location, the crash rate or the critical crash rate. Each
method has advantages and disadvantages. Documenting the number of crashes annually is the easiest from a data gathering perspective; however, it has no ability to
account for differences in expected crash values based on type of intersection control or roadway design. The critical crash rate method is the most challenging to use
because of the need for comprehensive crash statistics for both individual locations and the entire system; however, it effectively accounts for random nature of crashes
and is the most statistically reliable.
• The recommended analytical method for conducting a detailed study of an individual location involves comparing the Actual crash characteristics to the Expected
characteristics and then evaluating the differences. It is important to note that the expected crash frequency of any given location is never zero.
• Of the three traditional methods for identifying hazardous locations (number of crashes, crash rate and critical crash rate), the Critical Crash Rate is the most statistically
reliable, but this is also the most data intensive method. However, the use of any method is better than not conducting a periodic safety inventory.
• The single most important practice to support improving safety at the local level is for agencies to dedicate a portion of their annual capital improvement program to
implementing low-cost safety strategies on their system.
(to)
4.'0F mg,
1;41'4 Ettwkimental,
I landbook —2008
ons Learned:
Traffic Safety low " "
• Current traffic safety tool boxes are better stocked and include a more comprehensive set of safety strategies as a result of recent efforts by NCHRP (the Series 500 Reports-
Implementation of AASHTO's Strategic Highway Safety Plan) and FHWA (Report No. FHWA-SA-07-015 Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors).
• The NCHRP Reports include 22 volumes documenting over 600 safety strategies dealing with all four safety E's – Education, Enforcement, Engineering and Emergency
Services. The NCHRP Reports categorize strategies as Proven (effective at reducing crashes), Tried or Experimental. Examples of Proven strategies include:
- Street Lights
- Access Management
- Roadside Safety Initiatives
- Roundabouts
– Cable Median Barrier
- Left turn Lanes (on urban arterials)
- Traffic Signal Optimization
• A variety of traditional strategies that were once thought to be effective are considered to be Tried, because there are no statistically reliable studies documenting
effectiveness. These Tried strategies include; Installing Traffic Signals, Overhead Flashers (at rural intersections) and the installation of Transverse Rumble Strips (on the
approach to STOP controlled intersections).
• Match the magnitude of the solution to the magnitude of the problem.
• Consider interim measures when implementation of the ultimate solution would take years to implement.
• The most effective safety strategies usually include elements from each of the four safety Es—Education, Enforcement, Engineering and Emergency Services.
Traffic Impact Analysis Report for
Edina Gateway, LLC
Pentagon Park Redevelopment
Mixed-Use Community
Edina, Minnesota
Phase 1 Final Development Plan
Aloft Edina Hotel
October 2008
Prepared for:
Mortenson Development
II °Bed
sisifieuv pedwi oyjea ueid Neuidoienea ieuld eseqd
ifguntuivoo esn pexrpv — pewdoienepey Ned uoBelued — 01/ ifememo eupg
! °Bed
sisifieuv pedwi oyjea ueid petudoienea lewd j. eseqd
Apunwilloo esn pew] —luewdolenepea )ped uoBelued — 977 ifemeleo eulfe
It
It
OZ
simamianomITAI aaaNia1111410Dall
INHIAlaDVNIVIAT aNIVIATaa ganvai
8311171DVA WIDADIff (INV mvflusaaaa
001
06
08
6 VIllasLRID aDIAHOS I0 /anal A,LIDV,IVD AVMHDIH '1 311110I.1 61 SllJ1DVd JASNVMI O'L
61 SWOLLM1d0 CINV OND1211/d.
SNOLLVDLLIN GINV SIL71-18,721 SI8A7VNV JO A2IVPIIIIDS 179
Sall99IA AO ISIT Z1 SNOUT/20W (17112E1 gSVHc1600Z 19
11 SNOLLPI3cl0 a7111£1.-ON I 2EVIld. 600Z Z.9
0! SNOLLV2I3c10 DNIISIXg LOW' 1'9
8 SISAIVNIV ID Vd WI DIA3VIII 0'9
It NVId N0I1V9IIIIAI '8 alEtvi 821N1170A ISV3g210ALNYTINDISSV Z'S
81 9naa111r1O1111011mvaa aaavi 11,1410110 DIA1011 31210181H IS
Sa1A11110A DI4JVUI GaiDarazia o*s
LI DNIflaflO 1111011 nvad wv *9
91 apinuas 40 laAal 1111011 mvad Mid 'S aluvi
O'P
17 tsi0uvuatsia9 (MU WC
sT aamas AO -anal 1111011 'Iva.' NV 'iv' alava,
all[flfr I aSVHd 600Z *£
31:14V211 aNV ENOLLIGNOD ONII,S7X3 I'Z
3811 aNV7 DNI,LSIXg ZZ
SS3193V 2LIS I'Z
VAIIV MIMS 07 9 (1111111-014 I HSVILI 600Z 'z army's".
isa3Tivuama9 (MU. °mama T arittvi
MOILDI1(1011,11i1 O'T
STIIIVI AO IR/ SIMHINOD AO TDIVI
LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES 1
Al EXISTING (2007) KEY INTERSECTIONS
A24 OVERALL SITE PLAN
A2-2 OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PHASING
A2-3 PHASE 1 FINAL DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN
A3 TOWERS SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
A4-1 EXISTING (2007) VEHICULAR VOLUMES
A4-2 EXISTING (2007) VEHICULAR VOLUMES
A4-3 2009 NO BUILD VEHICULAR VOLUMES
A4-4 2009 NO BUILD VEHICULAR VOLUMES
A4-5 2009 BUILD VEHICULAR VOLUMES
A4-6 2009 BUILD VEHICULAR VOLUMES
A5-1 EXISTING (2007) LANE GEOMETRY
A5-2 EXISTING (2007) LANE GEOMETRY
A5-3 2009 NO BUILD LANE GEOMETRY
A5-4 2009 NO BUILD LANE GEOMETRY
A5-5 2009 BUILD LANE GEOMETRY
A5-6 2009 BUILD LANE GEOMETRY
A6 TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN
A7 TRANSIT AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
A8 BICYCLE FACILITIES
Edina Gateway LLC— Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Mixed Use Community Edina Gateway LLC — Pentagon Park Redevelopment— Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page ill Page iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Edina Gateway Pentagon Park Redevelopment Project (Project) is a mixed use development
with office, retail and housing components on two sites along W 77th Street between TH 100 and
France Avenue in the City of Edina. It is expected that the project would be completed by the
year 2017, and would include approximately 820,000 gross square feet (s.f ) of office and retail
space and a 150-room hotel on the Pentagon Towers site, along with 634 residential units and
29,000 gross s.f of retail on the Pentagon Quads site. The study area with key intersections
highlighted is shown in Figure Al and a site plan of the redevelopment is shown in Figure A2-1.
This report encompasses only the Phase 1 analysis, which includes demolition of part of the
Pentagon Towers site and construction of the 150-room Aloft Edina Hotel as shown in Figure
A2-1 and Figure A2-2. The primary objective of this Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIA) is to
determine the expected impacts of the Phase 1 development on nearby intersections and the
roadway network.
This TIA represents a traffic impact analysis of Phase 1 construction, based on land use and site
plan information. It is intended to identify the key traffic issues associated only with Phase 1 — the
Aloft Edina Hotel. This TIA documents the existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site,
estimates the traffic generated by Phase 1 of the Project, distributes and assigns these trips to the
adjacent roadway system, and evaluates the traffic operations of key intersections near the sites
and those providing access to and from the sites. In order to have a basis of comparison, a "No-
Build" analysis was completed that includes the general background growth in the area as well as
traffic expected to be generated by other known developments in the cities of Edina and
Bloomington.
Based on the analysis, the TIA evaluates roadway and/or traffic control mitigation measures to
accommodate future traffic levels in the system for this phase and whether it is triggered by
background growth or by the construction of Phase 1 of the Project.
• Mitigation measures proposed in the Overall Development Plan (ODP) prepared in January 2008
will be reviewed for this phase for their appropriateness. Future phases will each be analyzed as
construction of the development progresses. Measures to improve the transportation network
(e.g., construction of sidewalk and bike facilities) and methods to reduce the number of vehicle
trips to each site will be discussed and recommended in each phase.
The analysis contained in this TIA represents the Final Development Plan level of detail for
Phase 1 only, which does not differ from the ODP in terms of assumed trip generation rates
(hotel), the size of the land use (150 rooms), or phasing of the redevelopment. The year of
completion is one year later (2009) than was assumed in the ODP TIA, which means one
additional year of background traffic growth at 1 percent per year.
Traffic generated by other known planned developments in Edina and Bloomington were
Edina Gateway LLC — Pentagon Park Redevelopment— Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Pagel
assumed in the ODP TIA based on information available in early 2008. The developments that
were assumed in the ODP TIA to be constructed in 2008 (Phase 1 No-Build and all future
phases) that have been completed include:
• Cypress Properties Retail (Edina) — partially open as of September 2008
• Target (Edina)
• Westin Hotel and Restaurant (Edina)
• Westin Condos (Edina) — expected to open October 2008
• Dukes-Weeks Realty Office (Bloomington)
• Ryan Companies Office Phase 2 (Bloomington) — 250,000 s.f.
• Mortenson Hotel and Restaurant (Bloomington)
Developments that were assumed to be constructed in 2008 (Phase 1 No-Build and all future
phases) that have not been completed include:
• Burgandy Place Retail/Restaurant and Condos (Edina)
• United Properties Medical Office (Bloomington)
• Ryan Companies Office Phase 3 (Bloomington) — 207,000 s.f.
The traffic analysis presented for the Phase 1 Build scenario is therefore conservative because it
includes additional traffic generated by developments that have not been completed. Therefore,
the actual traffic operations in the study area at the time that Phase 1 of the Project is completed
would be expected to be better than those in the analysis.
2.0 STUDY AREA
The traffic impact analysis area for all phases of the Project is generally bounded by Bush Lake
Road to the west, 1-494 to the south, France Avenue to the east, and W 76th Street to the north.
This area allows the model to include the consideration of traffic operations on adjacent corridors
to the proposed sites. The land uses in the traffic operations area currently consist of a mix of
light industrial/warehouse, commercial, office, and residential uses that are 60 to 100 percent
occupied, with the exception of Pentagon Tower SE, which is currently unoccupied. Phase 1
includes redevelopment of a portion of the Pentagon Towers site, in the southeast quadrant of W
77th Street and TH 100, to construct a 150-room hotel.
The study area for this analysis includes the following key intersections, as shown in Figure Al:
• E Bush Lake Road/I494 EB
• E Bush Lake Road/I-494 WB
• E Bush Lake Road/W 78th Street
• Edina Industrial Boulevard/Metro Boulevard
• Edina Industrial Boulevard/TH 100 SB
• W 77th Street/TH 100 NB
• W 77th Street/Pentagon Towers access
Edina Gateway LLC — Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 2
were conducted by Kimley-Horn in November 2007. The key intersections analyzed are shown in
Figure Al.
Table 1. Existing Trio Generation.
Existing Tri Generation
Name Address
ITE Land
Use Size Units Occupancy
Time of
Day Trip Rate
Tnp Generation
Total
In Out
% Trips % Trips
Pentagon
Tower
4960 Viking Dr 710 11,648 sf 69.3%
Daily 11.01 89 50 45 50 45
AM Peak 1.55 13 88 11 12 2
PM Peak 1.49 12 17 2 83 10
7701 Normandale Rd 710 10,342 sf 69.3%
Daily 11.01 79 50 40 50 40
AM Peak 1.55 11 88 10 12 1
PM Peak 1.49 11 17 2 83 9
4900 Viking Or 710 18,404 sf 69.3%
Daily 11.01 140 50 70 50 70
AM Peak 1.55 20 88 18 12 2
PM Peak 1.49 19 17 3 83 16
4901 W 77th St 710 19,273 sf 69.3%
Daily 11.01 147 50 74 50 74
AM Peak 1.55 21 88 18 12 3
PM Peak 1.49 20 17 3 83 17
4940 W 77th St 710 66,628 sf 69.3%
Daily 11.01 508 50 254 50 254
AM Peak 1.55 72 88 63 12 9
PM Peak 1.49 69 17 12 83 57
4815 W 77th St 710 14,581 sf 69.3%
Daily 11.01 111 50 56 50 56
AM Peak 1.55 16 88 14 12 2
PM Peak 1.49 15 17 3 83 12
Total 710 140,876 sf 69.3%
Daily 11.01 1075 50 538 50 538
AM Peak 1.55 151 88 133 12 18
PM Peak 1.49 145 17 25 83 120
Pentagon
Tower SE 7710 Computer Ave 710 25,620 at 0.0%
Daily 11.01 0 50 0 50 0
AM Peak 1.55 0 88 0 12 0
PM Peak 1.49 0 17 0 83 0
Towers Site Total Trips
Daily 1,075 531 538
AM Peak 151 133 18
PM Peak 145_. 25 120
3.0 TRIP GENERATION
Traffic generation for the project was determined using information provided by Miller
Dunwiddie Architecture that documents the planned land uses for Phase 1 of the overall
redevelopment.
The Project will occur in five phases, which are shown on Figure A2-2. Phase 1 consists of the
Aloft Edina Hotel, and is expected to be completed in 2009. The ODP TIA assumed that the hotel
would be completed in 2008.
• W 77th Street/Computer Avenue
• Viking Drive/TH 100 Frontage Road
• Viking Drive/Computer Avenue
• Viking Drive/Pentagon Towers access
• TH 100 Frontage Road/North Hotel access
• TH 100 Frontage Road/South Hotel access
• Computer Avenue/Pentagon Towers access
• Three internal intersections on the Pentagon Towers site
• W 77th Street/West Pentagon Quads access
• W 77' Street/East Pentagon Quads access
• W 77th Street/Parklawn Avenue
• Parklawn Avenue/Pentagon Quads access
• W 77th Street/Minnesota Avenue/Johnson Avenue
• France Avenue/W 76th Street
• France Avenue/Minnesota Drive/Old 77th Street
• France Avenue/W 78th Street/I-494 WB
• France Avenue/I-494 EB
Freeway operations were not analyzed as part of this TIA. The freeways were analyzed as part of
the Gateway AUAR study, and the mitigation of any freeway capacity or operations issues would
be outside the scope of this project.
2.1 SITE ACCESS
The primary access to the hotel site will be provided by a horseshoe-shaped driveway which
allows access at two points along the TH 100 Frontage Road. A site plan of the redevelopment is
shown in Figure A2-1.
2.2 EXISTING LAND USE
The existing land uses on the Pentagon Park site currently include a mixture of office uses, which
were constructed in the 1960s. The existing trip generation, land use, square footage, and trip
generation rates of Phase 1 of the Pentagon Towers site, as included in the ODP and the AUAR,
are shown in Table 1. The existing conditions analysis also used the same building occupancy
and trip generation assumptions that were contained in the ODP and the AUAR.
2.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRAFFIC
Existing traffic counts were collected for the traffic operations analysis conducted for the
Gateway Study Area AUAR between January and May 2007. Additional counts on Viking Drive
Expected pre- and post-development traffic volumes were determined for Phase 1 for the AM and
PM peak hours at each of the key intersections, considering both demolition and new
construction on the hotel site. The future year traffic volumes were developed using the 2007
traffic counts, assuming a background growth rate of 1 percent per year for through volumes,
which was the same background growth methodology that was applied in the AUAR analysis.
The Phase 1 No-Build scenarios also assumed the build-out and full occupancy of Burgundy
Place, a mixed use development located across W 77th Street from the Pentagon Towers site,
which was previously approved by the City of Edina. However, this development has not yet
been constructed. The traffic generated by other known developments in Edina and Bloomington
were assumed to be included in the Phase I Build and No-Build scenarios, which is discussed
further in section 5.2.
Edina Gateway LLC- Pentagon Park Redevelopment- Mixed Use Community
Phase I Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 3
Edina Gateway LLC - Pentagon Park Redevelopment- Mixed Use Community
Phase .1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 4
Table 2. 2009 Phase 1 No-Build.
Land Use ITE Land
Use Size Units Occupancy Time of Day Trip Rate
Tr p Generation
Total In Out
% Trips % Trips
Burgundy Place -
Retail/Restaurant 15,000 at 100.0%
Daily 85.80 1287 50 645 50 645
AM Peak 14.27 214 51 110 49 104
PM Peak 13.87 208 53 111 47 97
Burgundy Place -
Condos 230 36 DU 100.0%
Daily 5.86 211 50 106 50 106
AM Peak 0.44 16 17 3 83 13
PM Peak 0.52 19 67 13 33 6
Burgundy Place Trip Gene ation
Daily 1,498 751 751
AM Peak 230 113 117
PM Peak 227 124 103
Dukes-Weeks
Realty Office
(Bloomington)
710 332,000 sf 100.0%
Daily 11.01 3,655 50 1,828 50 1,828
AM Peak 1.55 515 88 453 12 62
PM Peak 1.49 495 17 84 83 411
United Properties
Medical Office
(Bloomington)
720 200,000 at 100.0%
Daily 36.13 7,226 50 3,613 50 3,613
AM Peak 2.48 496 79 392 21 104
PM Peak 3.72 744 27 201 73 543
Ryan Companies
Office
(Bloomington)
710 457,000 sf 100.0%
Daily 11.01 5,032 50 2,516 50 2,516
AM Peak 1.55 708 88 623 12 85
PM Peak , 1.49 681 17 116 83 565
Mortenson Hotel
(Bloomington) 310 256 Rooms 100.0%
Daily 8.17 2,092 50 1,046 50 1,046
AM Peak 0.52 133 61 81 39 52
PM Peak , 0.61 156 53 83 47 73
Mortenson
Restaurant
(Bloomington)
932 4,500 at 100.0%
Daily 127.15 572 50 286 50 286
AM Peak 13.53 61 52 32 48 29
PM Peak 18.8 85 55 47 45 38
Bloomington Trip Generation
_
Daily 18,577 9,289 9,289
AM Peak 1,913 1,581 332
PM Peak 2,161 531 1,630
Cypress
Properties Retail
(Edina)
820 86,000 sf 100.0%
Daily 42.94 3,693 50 1,847 50 1,847
AM Peak 1.03 89 61 54 39 35
PM Peak 3.75 323 48 155 52 168
Target (Edina) 815 42,500 sf 100.0%
Daily 56.02 2,381 50 1,191 50 1,191
AM Peak 0.84 36 68 24 32 12
PM Peak 5.06 215 50 108 50 108
Westin Condos
(Edina) 232 79 Units 100.0%
Daily 4.18 330 50 165 50 165
AM Peak 0.34 27 19 5 81 22
PM Peak 0.38 30 62 19 38 11
Westin Hotel
(Edina) 310 225 Rooms 100.0%
Daily 8.17 1,838 50 919 50 919
AM Peak 0.52 117 61 71 39 46
PM Peak 0.61 137 53 73 47 64
Westin Restaurant
(Edina) 932 7,000 sf 100.0%
Daily 127.15 890 50 445 50 445
AM Peak 11.52 81 52 42 48 39
PM Peak 10.92 76 61 46 39 30
Edina Trip Generation
Daily 9,132 4,567 4,567
AM Peak 350 196 154
--PM Peak 781 401 381
Traffic generated by the hotel was estimated using trip generation rates from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual'. The ITE Trip Generation Manual also
provides directional trip distributions that give the percentages of vehicles entering and exiting
the site based on the proposed land use and the peak hour of interest. No reductions in trip
generation were assumed for internal capture, pass-by trips, transit use, carpooling, or other
Travel Demand Management strategies, resulting in a worst-case analysis from a traffic volume
standpoint.
The estimated existing trip generation for the Pentagon Towers site was shown in Table 1. The
estimated net trip generation for Phase 1 of the proposed redevelopment is shown in Table 2 and
Table 3. These tables show the trips eliminated by demolition of two of the existing buildings on
the Pentagon Towers site, followed by the traffic generated by the new use. All other buildings on
the site are assumed to remain at their current occupancies and uses. Both a No-Build and a Build
analysis were prepared for Phase 1 to differentiate the traffic impact of the project development
from the impacts of background traffic growth and other proposed developments.
All other known developments in Edina and Bloomington that had been assumed to be completed
in 2008 were included in the Phase I No-Build analysis, even though some have not been
completed to date. This results in a more conservative analysis because the actual traffic volumes
would be expected to be less than the calculated traffic volumes. The developments that were
assumed in the Phase 1 No-Build and Build analyses that have been completed include:
• Cypress Properties Retail (Edina) - partially open as of September 2008
• .Target (Edina)
Westin Hotel and Restaurant (Edina)
• Westin Condos (Edina) - expected to open October 2008
• Dukes-Weeks Realty Office (Bloomington) •
• Ryan Companies Office Phase 2 (Bloomington) - 250,000 s.f.
• Mortenson Hotel and Restaurant (Bloomington)
Edina Gateway LLC - Pentagon Park Redevelopment - Mixed Use Community
Phase I Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 6
Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D. C., 2003
Edina Gateway LLC- Pentagon Park Redevelopment- Mixed Use Community
Phase I Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 5
Developments that were assumed to be completed in the Phase 1 No-Build and Build analyses
that have not been completed include:
• Burgandy Place Retail/Restaurant and Condos (Edina)
• United Properties Medical Office (Bloomington)
• Ryan Companies Office Phase 3 (Bloomington) — 207,000 s.f.
Table 3. 2009 Phase 1 Build.
Land Use
ITE Land
Use Size Units Occupancy Time of Day Trip Rate
Trip Generation
Total
In Out
% Trips % I Trips
BUILDING DEMOLITION
4960 Viking Dr
7701 Normandale Rd 710 21,990 sf 69.3%
Daily 11.01 -168 50 -84 50 -84
AM Peak 1.55 -24 88 -21 12 -3
PM Peak 1.49 -23 17 -4 83 -19
Phase 1 Trips Removed from Existing (Building Demolition)
Daily -168 -84 -84
AM Peak -24 -21 -3
PM Peak -23 -4 -19
NEW CONSTRUCTION
A-Loft Hotel 310 150 Rooms 100.0%
Daily 8.17 1,226 50 613 50 613
AM Peak 0.52 78 61 48 39 30
PM Peak 0.61 92 53 49 47 43
Phase 1 Trip Generation (New Construction)
Daily 1,226 613 613
AM Peak 78 48 30
PM Peak 92 49 43
Phase 1 Net Trip Generation
Daily 1,058 529 529
AM Peak 54 27 27
PM Peak 69 45 24
4.0 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
The directional distribution of trips generated by the Project and trips removed by the existing
land uses were assumed to be the same as those developed for the Gateway Area AUAR and the
Overall Development Plan using the 2000 Metropolitan Travel Demand Model. The overall trip
distribution for the study area is shown in Figure A3.
5.0 PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
5.1 HISTORIC TRAFFIC GROWTH
Historic traffic growth is the increase in the volume of traffic due to usage increases and non-
specific growth throughout an area. The Gateway Area AUAR used a background growth rate of
through volumes of 1 percent per year, which is appropriate for an inner-ring suburb that is fully
built out. The same 1 percent per year background growth rate was applied in this analysis.
includes the No-Build traffic volumes, trips generated by Phase 1, but subtracts trips generated by
land uses that were removed by Phase 1.
The final step of the traffic forecasting process was to assign the estimated new external site-
generated trips to the surrounding roadway system based on the directional trip distribution of
traffic. A manual assignment of the estimated trips was performed for each intersection turn
movement within the study area. This method assigns the future vehicle trips to the most logical
travel route, for both arriving and departing directions, and takes into account the following:
• Directional access to local and regional roadways
• Intersection control
• Roadway characteristics
Applying the new development trips to the background traffic produced the estimated post-
development traffic volumes.
6.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Capacity analyses for the intersections within the study area were performed for the weekday AM
and weekday PM peak hours for the following scenarios:
• Existing (2007)
• 2009 Phase 1 No-Build
• 2009 Phase 1 Build
Existing AM and PM peak hour volumes for the entire traffic impact analysis area are shown in
Figures A4-1 and A4-2. Existing lane geometry and intersection traffic controls are shown in
Figures A5-1 and A5-2. The turning movement volumes for the Phase 1 No-Build and Build
scenarios are shown in Figures A4-3 to A4-6. The lane geometries and intersection traffic
controls for the Phase 1 No-Build and Build scenario are shown in Figures A5-3 to A5-6. Note
that the geometric figures include the improvement measures identified to be needed for that
scenario. Otherwise, the geometries of the previous scenario were assumed to be inplace. There
were no roadway improvements already programmed within the analysis area during Phase 1 of
the redevelopment.
In order to determine the impacts of Phase 1 of the Project on the transportation network, a traffic
operations analysis was performed on the internal and surrounding roadway networks. The
analysis process included determining level of service and queue lengths at each of the key
intersections for existing, No-Build, and Build conditions.
5.2 TRIP ASSIGNMENT/FORECAST VOLUMES
The 2009 No-Build and Build scenarios assumed non-specific background growth of 1 percent
per year and traffic generated by known developments in Edina and Bloomington. Any identified
improvements in the No-Build scenario were carried into the Build scenario. The Build analysis
Edina Gateway LLC— Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 7
The approach to the traffic operations analysis is derived from the established methodologies
documented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The HCM contains a series of analysis
techniques that are used to evaluate the operations of transportation facilities under specified
Edina Gateway LLC — Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 8
conditions. The Gateway AUAR traffic models developed in Synchro, a software package that
implements the HCM methodologies, were also used for this TIA to be consistent with the It was assumed that an intersection with failing operations should be addressed through signal
previous analyses. The inputs into the Synchro model include lane geometrics, turn movement timing, or if that was not possible, through implementation of a roadway improvement.
volumes, traffic control, and signal timing characteristics in the study area.
6.1 2007 EXISTING OPERATIONS
This information was then transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation component of Synchro,
to produce the analysis results for each intersection. SimTraffic is a microscopic computer model
that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and behavior in response to traffic
volumes, signal operations, turning movements, pedestrians, and intersection configuration. The
model can simulate drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as
different vehicle types and speeds. It can reasonably estimate vehicle delay and queue lengths at
intersections and can create visual animations of the traffic operations. In this study, as in the
Gateway AUAR, SimTraffic was used to report results for all intersections in the study. By
simulating the individual vehicles, SimTraffic is able to most closely approximate the impacts of
queuing at adjacent intersections.
One of the primary measures of effectiveness used to evaluate intersection traffic operations, as
defined in the HCM, is level of service (LOS)—a qualitative letter grade (A-F) based on seconds
of vehicle delay due to the traffic control device at an intersection. By definition, LOS A
conditions represent high-quality operations (i.e., motorists experience very little delay or
interference) and LOS F conditions represent very poor operations (i.e., extreme delay or severe
congestion). This study used the LOS DIE boundary as an indicator of acceptable traffic
operations.
Figure 1 displays the LOS thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Average Delay (secondsfvehicle) e• P.
'" ' .• ., . ,e, ,;":..,,: ::: ';',' .P.
: •• ...., 10, 0. •• , •••• . • ;I: 1 •• 4 ;
LOS F
:I ••• ''; ' .."
.. .. • ;'' •::!::',1.:;; . ::;::: ...
•', • OS F:•::1 •••
•:: ." • • ' .: l•
., .
....' , ; •••••• ...;
LOS E
LOS D . 1 iiifiti LOS E
1 11111
1
1
"LOS C/
.::-::.• :.:•:::•::.::•::-: . ..... ...: LOS 0 ....'.../.****. .:.. :.:.: ..... , . :,:.: ;•::.:,
4OS C ..,, L
OSB LOSB:;;:::::
u
Signalized Unsignalized
Figure 1. Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Criteria.
Edina Gateway LLC– Pentagon Park Redevelopment– Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 9
In the AM peak hour, the existing conditions analysis showed that all intersections and
movements in the study area operated at LOS D or better. However, it was noted that the W 76th
Street/France Avenue and W 78th Street/France Avenue intersections had NB left-turn movements
that operated at LOS E. This appeared to be primarily due to the long cycle length at the
intersections, the protected-only left-turn phase, and the relatively low volume of the NB left-turn
movements. That is, the NB left-turn vehicles are likely to arrive during the red left-turn phase
and wait for the signal to cycle through to the green left-turn phase. Therefore, the LOS E does
not represent an operational deficiency that should be addressed through a roadway improvement,
as it does not impact the overall operations of the intersections.
In the PM peak hour, the existing conditions analysis showed that the EB through and right-turn
movements at the W 77t Street/TH 100 SB intersection and the EB left-turn and through
movements at the W 77th Street/TH 100 NB intersection operate at LOS F. This is due primarily
to the heavy volumes of traffic destined to TH 100 NB or TH 100 SB. For the commercial area
focused around TH 100 and 1-494, this interchange is the most convenient access to the freeway
system. The operational issues at W 77th Street/TH 100 NB and W 77t Street/TH 100 SB were
identified in the AUAR build scenarios (scenario 3 for the W 77t Street/TH 100 SB movements
and scenarios 2 and 3 for the W 77th Street/TH 100 NB movements).
Also, several intersections adjacent to the study area had poor operations in the existing
conditions. The Minnesota Drive/France Avenue intersection, which is approximately 1,290 feet
east of the W 77th Street/Minnesota Drive/Johnson Avenue intersection, was shown to operate at
LOS F, with the EB, WB, and SB movements operating at LOS F. The WB through movements
had 95th percentile queues' of close to 1,500 feet and the EB through movements had 95th
percentile queues of more than 600 feet. This congestion on Minnesota Drive was due to the
significant congestion and queuing on France Avenue, which received the majority of the signal
green time but still operated with significant congestion and queuing due to the very high volume
of vehicles on France Avenue in the peak hours. By observation, these issues do exist in the
current conditions, but mitigations were not identified in any AUAR scenarios.
i The 95th percentile queue is a statistical measure that indicates the maximum queue that would ever be expected,
given variability in the arrival of traffic. It is important to note that because it is a statistical calculation, the 95th
percentile queue may never actually occur.
Edina Gateway LLC – Pentagon Park Redevelopment – Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 10
6.2 2009 PHASE I NO-BUILD OPERATIONS
As shown in Table 2, approximately 27,700 trips (not including background growth) were
assumed to be added to the local roadway network in the 2009 Phase 1 No-Build scenario due to
other known developments in Edina and Bloomington. Of these, approximately 8,700 trips are
located such that they would potentially impact W 77th Street or Parklawn Avenue near the
Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads sites (Ryan Companies site at W 78th Street/Johnson
Avenue and Cypress Properties site at France Avenue/Gallagher Drive).
In the 2009 Phase 1 AM No-Build operations it was noted that the W 76th Street/France Avenue
intersection would be expected to operate at LOS E, primarily due to re-timing of the signals to
give more green time to the movements on France Avenue, which consequently increased delays
on W 76th Street. With the exception of the WB through and left-turn movements, the volumes on
W 76th Street were significantly less than the volumes on France Avenue, so it was decided to
optimize the France Avenue movements to prevent the traffic operations on France Avenue from
breaking down as traffic volumes increase in future years. No queuing issues were observed in
the model except along France Avenue.
In the 2009 Phase 1 No-Build PM peak hour, there were several operational issues identified in
the model.
The intersection of W 76th Street/France Avenue was shown to operate at LOS F. At the W 76th
Street/France Avenue intersection, the SB through movement in the PM peak was shown to have
long queues and delays. The AUAR identified this issue in all development scenarios, and the
recommended mitigation was to add a SB through lane north of W 76th Street. After running the
PM peak 2009 No-Build model and observing the results, this improvement was added to the
model, but it was noted that this improvement did not mitigate the congestion issues on France
Avenue. The intersection LOS remained F (improved from 1-77.3 seconds/vehicle average delay
to 176.0 seconds average delay/vehicle), while the SB through-movement also remained LOS F
(improved from 199.2 seconds/vehicle average delay to 125.9 seconds/vehicle average delay).
These issues appeared throughout all the scenarios, and additional analysis of France Avenue for
necessary improvements would be needed to fully understand and address the operational issues.
As the volumes that are being added to France Avenue by the Pentagon Park redevelopment are
small compared to the overall traffic on this facility, the analysis of the necessary improvements
was beyond the scope of this project and was not pursued.
The WB right-turn movement at the W 77th Street/TH 100 NB intersection showed queuing past
the west Pentagon Quads access, which blocked several intersections and driveways on W 77th
Street. The AUAR identified this issue in all development scenarios, as this is an issue that occurs
in the existing conditions, and the recommended mitigation was to build a second WB right-turn
lane at TH 100 NB. This mitigation measure improved the intersection from LOS D to LOS C,
while the WB right-turn movement improved from LOS C to LOS B.
Edina Gateway LLC — Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 11
At the W 78th Street/France Avenue intersection, queuing was also observed beyond the storage
length in the EB right-turn lane. The AUAR identified this issue in all development scenarios,
and the recommended mitigation was to build a second EB right-turn lane. This improved the
intersection from LOS D to LOS C, and improved the EB right-turn movement from LOS D to
LOS B.
Excessive queuing was also observed to occur for EB traffic at Edina Industrial Boulevard/Metro
Boulevard. This issue was identified by the AUAR in all development scenarios and the
recommended mitigation was to build an EB left-turn lane at the intersection. The
implementation of this improvement improved the overall intersection from LOS E to LOS C,
while the EB left-turn movement improved from LOS F to LOS D.
At the W 77th Street/TH 100 SB and W 77th Street/TH 100 NB intersection, signal re-timing
improved the overall intersection operations from LOS D to LOS C and improved a number of
individual movements from LOS E/F to LOS D or better. In the 2008 No-Build scenario, the WB
left-turn and NB through movements had low volumes, so LOS B/F for those movements do not
represent operational deficiencies given the long cycle length, split phasing of the signal, and the
significantly greater volumes on the EB and WB approaches.
To summarize, the four improvement measures found to be needed in the 2009 Phase 1 No-Build
scenario were:
• Add SB through lane on France Avenue, north of W 76th Street (AUAR
scenarios 1-4)
• Add second WB right-turn lane at W 77th Street/TH 100 NB (AUAR scenarios
1-4)
• Add second EB right-turn lane at W 78th Street/France Avenue (AUAR
Scenarios 1-4)
• Add EB left-turn lane at Edina Industrial Boulevard/Metro Boulevard (AUAR
Scenarios 1-4)
These improvements are included the Phase 1 Build scenario.
6.3 2009 PHASE I BUILD OPERATIONS
The 2009 Phase 1 Build analysis assumed the construction of the Aloft Edina Hotel containing
150 rooms and the removal of approximately 21,990 s.f. of office space, resulting in a small net
increase in trips in the AM and PM peak hours.
The 2009 Phase 1 Build operations assumed that signal timing optimization would be necessary
at most intersections within the study area to accommodate background traffic growth and traffic
pattern changes.
Edina Gateway LLC — Pentagon Park Redevelopment— Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 12
The same issues identified in the 2009 Phase 1 No-Build AM and PM peak hours also occurred
in the 2009 Phase 1 Build scenario. All other intersections operated at LOS D or better. No
additional improvements were recommended in the 2009 Phase 1 Build scenario.
6.4 SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS RESULTS AND MITIGATIONS
The level of service summaries for each scenario described in the previous sections are shown in
Table 4 for the AM peak hour and Table 5 for the PM peak hour. The queuing summaries for
each scenario described in the previous sections are shown in Table 6 for the AM peak hour and
Table 7 for the PM peak hour. The proposed mitigations by scenario are shown in Figure A6,
and are summarized below:
• 2009 Phase 1 No-Build
o Add SB through lane on France Avenue, north of W 76th Street (AUAR
scenarios 1-4)
o Add second WB right-turn lane at W 77th Street/TH 100 NB (AUAR
scenarios 1-4)
o Add second EB right-turn lane at W 781h Street/France Avenue (AUAR
Scenarios 1-4)
o Add EB left-turn lane at Edina Industrial Boulevard/Metro Boulevard
(AUAR Scenarios 1-4)
No improvements were recommended for the 2009 Phase 1 Build as part of the traffic impact
analysis.
Edina Gateway LLC— Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Mixed Use Community Edina Gateway LLC — Pentagon Park Redevelopment— Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 13 Page 14
Table 4. AM Peak Hour Level of Service
Intersection
Traffic
Control
2007 Existing 2009 No Build 2009 No Build (Improved) 2009 Build
LOS Delay Notes LOS Delay Notes LOS Delay Notes LOS Delay Notes
France Avenue /
W 76th Street
Traffic
Signal c 30.9 NBL LOS E E 59.9
EBL, WBL, LOSE
EBT, WBT, WBR,
NBL LOS F E 62.1
EBL, WBL, WBR LOS
E
EBT, WBT, NBL LOS F E 62.2
WBL, WBR LOSE
EBT, WBT, NBL LOS
F
Edina Industrial
Boulevard /
W 78th Street
Traffic
Signal C 27.8 C 31.6 NBL LOS E C 31.7 EBL LOS F C 32.3
NBL LOSE
EBL LOS F
Edina Industrial
Boulevard!
Metro Boulevard
Traffic
Signal 13 11.5 B 14.4 B 11.9 B 12.2
W 77th Street /
TH 100 SB
Traffic
Signal c 26.3 C 29.3 C 30.7 EBL LOS E C 31.0 EBL LOS F
W 77th Street!
TH 100 NB
Traffic
Signal c 22.1 e 16.4 B 16.9 B 16.9
W 77th Street /
Towers Site Access
Traffic
Signal A 5.0 A 5.9 A 5.3 A 4.6
W 77th Street!
Computer Avenue
Traffic
Signal c 20.6 A 6.4 A 4.5 A 4.4
W 77th Street /
Parklawn Avenue
Traffic
Signal c 20.9 B 19.8 B 10.5 NBL LOS E B 12.3
W 77th Street!
Minnesota Drive!
Johnson Avenue
Traffic
Signal B 11.7 B 12.2 B 12.2 B 12.1 EBT LOS E
France Avenue!
Minnesota Drive
Traffic
Signal c 25.2 D 42.1
EBL, NBL, SBL LOS
E
EB, WBT LOS F D 39.3 EBT, WBT LOS F D 39.0 EBT, WBT LOS F
E Bush Lake Road /
I-494 WB
Traffic
Signal B 16.5 C 21.1 B 18.4 B 18.2
E Bush Lake Road!
1-494 EB
Traffic
Signal B 14.6 B 16.8 C 26.5 WBL LOS F D 35.1 WBL LOS F
France Avenue!
W 78th Street!
1-494 WB
Traffic
Signal C 24.7 D 37.4
NBL, EBL LOS E
WBL, WBT LOS F C 25.8
WBL, NBL LOS E
WBT LOS F C 25.1
NBL, WBL LOS E
WBT LOS F
France Avenue /
1-494 EB
Traffic
Signal c 21.3 NBL LOSE C 29.2 EBR LOSE D 41.6 NBT LOS F D 41.1 NBT LOS F
Viking Drive! TH 100
NB Frontage Road
All Way
Stop A 5.0 A 5.1 A 5.1
Computer Avenue!
Viking Drive
All Way
Stop A 5.4 A 5.4 A 5.4
Frontage Road!
North Hotel Access
E Leg
Stop A 0.5 E LEG LOS A
Frontage Road /
South Hotel Access
E Leg
Stop A 0.8 E LEG LOS A
Edina Gateway LLC - Pentagon Park Redevelopment- Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 15
Table 5. PM Peak Hour Level of Service
Intersection
Traffic
Control
Existing 2009 No Build 2009 No Build (Improved) 2009 Build
LOS Delay Notes LOS Delay Notes LOS Delay Notes LOS Delay Notes
France Avenue /
W 76th Street
Traffic
Signal c 32.2 F 177.3
EBL, EBT, EBR, WBL,
WBT, NBL, SBL, SBT,
SBR LOS F F 176.0
SBL LOS E
EBL, EBT, EBR, WBL,
WBT, SBT, SBR LOS F F 112.6
SBL LOS E
EBL, EBT, EBR, WBL, WBT,
NBL, SBT, SBR LOS F
Edina Industrial
Boulevard /
W 78th Street
Traffic
Signal c 29.7 C 31.8 WBL, SBL LOS E C 32.6 WBL, SBL LOS E C 30.4
Edina Industrial
Boulevard /
Metro Boulevard
Traffic
Signal E 71.3 E 56.0
EBR, NBT LOS E
EBL, EBT LOS F C 26.3 C 25.0 WBL LOS E
W 77th Street /
TM 100 SB
Traffic
Signal D 48.2 EBT LOS F D 48.2
NBL, NBT, NOR, SBT
LOS E
WBL, SBL LOS F C 29.1 WBL LOS E C 29.2 SBL LOSE
W 77th Street/
TM 100 NB
Traffic
Signal D 50.6 EBL LOS F D 37.4
SBL LOS E
EBL, NBT, SBT LOS F C 20.9
NBR LOS E
NOT LOS F C 24.0 NOT LOS E
W 77th Street /
Towers Site Access
Traffic
Signal c 26.6 B 12.5
EBL, SBR LOS E
NBL LOS F B 11.3 A 9.9 NBL LOSE
W 77th Street /
Computer Avenue
Traffic
Signal c 23.4 B 10.1 A 9.3 A 9.4
W 77th Street!
Parklawn Avenue
Traffic
Signal c 32.4 B 18.1 B 16.5 B 16.6
W 77th Street /
Minnesota Drive /
Johnson Avenue
Traffic
Signal C 29.5 C 23.1
EBL, EBT, WBL, WBT,
NBL LOS E C 22.7 EBT LOS E C 21.9 EBL, WBT LOS E
France Avenue /
Minnesota Drive
Traffic
Signal E 67.6 WBL LOS F F 188.5
EBL, WBL, NBL LOS E
EBT, WBT, SBL, SBT,
SBR LOS F F 182.7
EBL, WBL LOS E
EBT, WBT, NBL, SBL,
SBT, SBR LOS F F 165.9
EBL, WBL LOS E
EBT, WBT, NBL, SBL, SBT,
SBR LOS F
E Bush Lake Road /
1-494 WB
Traffic
Signal B 11.2 B 11.7 B 11.5 B 11.8
E Bush Lake Road /
1-494 EB
Traffic
Signal c 22.2 C 21.8 C 22.3 C 22.2
France Avenue!
W 78th Street!
1-494 WB
Traffic
Signal D 44.0 D 41.2 EBL, SBT LOSE C 33.9 SBT, EBL LOSE D 35.8
SBT LOSE
EBL LOS F
France Avenue /
1-494 EB
Traffic
Signal B 17.7 C 25.9 C 26.6 C 28.3
Viking Drive! TM 100
NB Frontage Road
All Way
Stop A 4.9 A 4.9 A 4.8
Computer Avenue!
Viking Drive
All Way
Stop A 5.6 A 5.6 A 5.6
Frontage Road /
North Hotel Access
E Leg
Stop A 0.5 E LEG LOS A
Frontage Road /
South Hotel Access
E Leg
Stop A 0.9 E LEG LOS A
Edina Gateway LLC- Pentagon Park Redevelopment- Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 16
Table 6. AM Peak Hour Queuing
Intersection
Traffic 2007 Existing 2009 No Build 2009 No Build (Improved) 2009 Phase 1 Build
Control Queue Length Notes Queue Length Notes Queue Length Notes Queue Length Notes
France Avenue /
' W 76th Street
Traffic
Signal WBL - 248/200
WBR - 103/100
Two WB LT lanes -
queues of 114/200
and 248/200
WBL - 246/200
WBR -129/100
Two WB LT lanes -
queues of 112/200
and 246/200
WBL - 237/200
WBR - 115/100
Two WB LT lanes -
queues of 106/200
and 237/200
Edina Industrial
Boulevard /
W 78th Street
Traffic
Signal
NBL - 347/280 NBL - 346/280
Edina Industrial
Boulevard!
Metro Boulevard
Traffic
Signal
W 77th Street /
TH 100 SB
Traffic
Signal
W 77th Street!
TH 100 NB
Traffic
Signal
,
W 77th Street /
Towers Site Access
Traffic
Signal
W 77th Street /
Computer Avenue
Traffic
Signal.
W 77th Street /
Parklawn Avenue
Traffic
Signal
W 77th Street /
Minnesota Drive /
Johnson Avenue
Traffic
Signal
France Avenue /
Minnesota Drive
Traffic
Signal
NBL - 285/240
E Bush Lake Road /
1-494 WB
Traffic
Signal
E Bush Lake Road /
1-494 EB
Traffic
Signal
.
France Avenue /
W 78th Street /
1-494 WB
Traffic Signal
France Avenue /
1-494 EB
Traffic
Signal
Viking Drive / TH 100
NB Frontage Road
All Way
Stop
Computer Avenue!
Viking Drive
All Way
Stop
Frontage Road /
North Hotel Access
E Leg
Stop
Frontage Road /
South Hotel Access
E Leg
Stop
Viking Drive /
Towers Site Access
N Leg
Stop
Computer Avenue!
East Ramp
W Leg
Stop
W 77th Street!
West Senior Access
N Leg
Stop
W 77th Street /
East Senior Access
N Leg
Stop
Edina Gateway LLC— Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 17
Table 7. PM Peak Hour Queuing
Intersection
Traffic 2007 Existing 2009 No Build 2009 No Build (Improved) 2009 Phase 1 Build
Control Queue Length Notes Queue Length Notes Queue Length Notes Queue Length Notes
France Avenue!
W 76th Street
Traffic
Signal
EBL - 260/200
EBR -3501240
WBL - 250/200
WBL - 271/200
SBL - 513/460
Two EB LT lanes -
queues of 143/200
and 260/200
EBL - 251/200
EBR - 369/240
WBL - 231/200
WBL - 263/200
Two EB LT lanes -
queues of 152/200
and 251/200
EBL - 242/200
EBR - 352/240
WBL - 232/200
WBL - 260/200
Two EB LT lanes -
queues of 150/200
and 242/200 Edina Industrial
Boulevard /
W 78th Street
Traffic
Signal
Edina Industrial
Boulevard /
Metro Boulevard
Traffic
Signal
W 77th Street /
TH 100 SB
Traffic
Signal EBT - 553/468
EBTR - 541/468
EBT & EBTR queue
past upstream
intersections NBR - 271/200
W 77th Street)
TH 100 NB
.
Traffic
Signal
EBL - 425/335 EBL -411/335
W 77th Street /
Towers Site Access
Traffic
Signal EBL - 107/70
W 77th Street /
Computer Avenue
Traffic
Signal
W 77th Street /
Parklawn Avenue
Traffic
Signal
W 77th Street!
Minnesota Drive /
Johnson Avenue
Traffic
Signal
France Avenue!
Minnesota Drive
Traffic
Signal
'
WBL -518/400
EBL - 249/200
SBL - 227/150
SBT - 1563/1215
SBT - 1540/1215
SBT - 1570/1215
SBT - 1094/900
SBR - 1164/900
SBT queues past
upstream
intersections
EBL - 263/200
SBL - 223/150
SBT - 1512/1215
SBT - 1509/1215
SBT - 1519/1215
SBT - 1576/1215
SBR - 1181/900
SBT queues past
upstream
intersections
EBL - 248/200
WBL - 405/400
SBL -217/150
SBT- 1498/1215
SBT- 1463/1215
SBT - 1489/1215
SBT - 1530/1215
SBR - 1122/900
SBT queues past
upstream
intersections
E Bush Lake Road /
1-494 WB
Traffic
Sighal
E Bush Lake Road /
1-494 EB
Traffic
Signal
France Avenue /
W 78th Street /
1-494 WB
Tra ffic
Signal
SBT - 513/386
SBT - 494/386
SBT - 444/386
SBT - 468/386
SBT queues past
upstream
intersections
SBT - 453/386
SBT - 528/386
SBT - 471/386
SBT - 485/386
SBT queues past
upstream
intersections
SBT - 463/386
SBT - 514/386
SBT - 467/386
SBT - 494/386
SBT queues past
upstream
intersections
France Avenue /
1-494 EB
Traffic
Signal
Viking Drive / TH 100
NB Frontage Road
All Way
Stop
Computer Avenue /
Viking Drive
All Way
Stop
Frontage Road /
North Hotel Access
E Leg
Stop
Frontage Road /
South Hotel Access
E Leg
Stop
Edina Gateway LLC — Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 18
passenger waiting area for the bus stop on westbound W 77th Street at Computer Avenue.
6.5 PARKING SUPPLY AND OPERATIONS
An analysis of the parking demand and available surface or ramp parking in Phase 1 of the
development, accounting for demolition, as well as continuing and future land uses was
completed.
There are 626 existing spaces on the Pentagon Towers site. During demolition and construction,
approximately 587 spaces will be provided for the remaining office uses. Upon completion of the
hotel, 168 spaces will be provided for the Aloft Edina Hotel, leaving 487 spaces for the remaining
office space, which is less than 70 percent occupied.
7.0 TRANSIT FACILITIES
There are no existing bus turn-outs or park and ride lots near the Pentagon Park sites.
Metro Transit has several bus stops on W 77th Street and Parklawn Avenue adjacent to the
Pentagon Towers and Quads sites, as listed below and shown on Figure A7.
19-22
Westbound
• W 77' Street- Mid-block stop, directly in front of Quads site.
• W 77th Street- Mid-block stop, on west end of Quads site.
• W 77th Street/Computer Ave- Farside stop
Eastbound
• W 77th Street/Computer Ave- Nearside stop, bench provided at stop.
• W 77th Street- Mid-block stop, across from west end of Quads site, bench
provided at stop
• W 77th Street- Mid-block stop, directly across from Quads site
• W 77" Street- Mid-block stop, across from site entry to east parking of Quads
site, bench provided near stop.
Southbound
• Parklawn Avenue- Mid-block stop, next to Quads site.
Northbound
• Parklawn Avenue- Mid-block stop, just south of W 76" Street.
None of the existing bus stops have transit shelters or other amenities, and some do not even have
adjacent sidewalk to access the stop. There is sidewalk along the south side of W 77" Street, but
there is no sidewalk on the north side of W 77" Street. However, there is a paved concrete
Edina Gateway LLC— Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 19
There are currently three bus routes that serve W 77th Street and pass by both the Pentagon
Towers and Pentagon Quads sites. Route 6 connects Edina to downtown Minneapolis and the
University of Minnesota, but has only limited service on the segment of W 77th Street between
Parklawn Avenue and TH 100, with only six to seven trips in each direction (northbound and
southbound) per weekday, and only one trip in each direction per day on Saturdays, Sundays, and
holidays.
Route 540 is a local crosstown bus connecting Edina, Richfield, Bloomington, and the Mall of
America. Service on W 77th Street is approximately every 15-60 minutes in each direction from
6:00 am to 11:00 pm weekdays, and once each hour in each direction from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm
weekends and holidays.
Route 578 is an express bus connecting Edina and Bloomington to downtown Minneapolis via
I-35W. Service on W 77th Street includes two northbound buses from 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM, and
two southbound buses from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM, with no service on weekends or holidays.
The Pentagon Park redevelopment intends to provide improved transit shelters either on W 77th
Street or on-site, but this will occur in a later phase of the project when the office and residential
land uses are being constructed. Metro Transit's service policy provides that a bus will not leave
the main street to enter a private site unless the proposed ridership from the site is greater than
what would have been served on the main street. The development team will work with Metro
Transit on this issue to request that a ridership study be conducted to determine the feasibility of
providing bus stops on the Pentagon Towers and/or Pentagon Quads site.
8.0 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
As previously noted, no sidewalk exists on the south side of W 77" Street between TH 100 SB
and Parklawn Avenue, nor on the west side of Parklawn Avenue between W 76th Street and W
'77th Street. The existing sidewalk is generally less than six feet wide and is attached to the curb,
with no boulevard between the street and sidewalk. None of the other streets adjacent to the
Pentagon Towers site have pedestrian facilities on either side of the roadway. No pedestrian
facilities are currently provided on-site at the Pentagon Towers property. Existing sidewalk
adjacent to the site is shown on Figure A7.
At the Towers site, in Phase 1 new sidewalk is proposed to be constructed on the east side of the
TH 100 NB Frontage Road. In addition, sidewalks for internal pedestrian circulation will be
provided around the hotel site.
There are currently no bicycle paths, bicycle lanes, or designated bicycle routes in the study area.
The Bike Edina Task Force has recommended in the City of Edina Comprehensive Bicycle Plan
Edina Gateway LLC — Pentagon Park Redevelopment— Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 20
that W 77th Street be designated as a primary route in the City's bicycle network, as shown in
Figure A8, but also notes that the existing facilities and lack of right-of-way currently do not
make W 77' Street a bicycle friendly corridor. No bicycle parking is currently provided at the
Pentagon Towers site.
As noted in the next section, bicycle racks or lockers will be integrated into the Pentagon Park
redevelopment to facilitate bicycling to the sites. These amenities will be constructed with the
office and residential uses, which have the greatest potential for multi-modal trips.
Add EB left-turn lane at Edina Industrial
Boulevard/Metro Boulevard (AUAR Scenarios 1-4).
2009
Build
Phase 1 No improvements recommended. Construct sidewalk on east
side of TH 100 NB Frontage
Road.
Construct sidewalk on hotel
site.
9.0 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Travel demand management plan strategies will be necessary to accommodate the peak hour
traffic demands on the roadway network with the full redevelopment of the Project. The focus of
the Travel Demand Management Plan is to outline measures to encourage residents, employees,
and visitors of the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads redevelopments to use alternative
modes of transportation and to make trips outside the peak hours.
Strategies that the developer and any subsequent owners of Phase 1 commit to as part of the
Travel Demand Management Plan are:
• Restrict large delivery vehicles to accessing the sites outside the AM and PM
peak traffic periods.
• Support and promote car and vanpooling by employees by providing preferred
parking locations on the sites.
10.0 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Recommended roadway improvements, and the year that they will be necessary are presented in
Figure A6, based on the findings of this analysis. The roadway and other recommended
improvements are summarized again in Table 8.
Table 8. Mitigation Plan.
Phase Recommended Infrasturcture Improvements Other Proposed
Improvements
2009 Phase 1
No-Build
Add SB through lane on France Avenue, north of W
76th Street (AUAR scenarios 1-4).
No proposed improvements.
Add second WB right-turn lane at W 77th Street/TH
100 NB (AUAR scenarios 1-4).
Add second EB right-turn lane at W 78th
Street/France Avenue (AUAR Scenarios 1-4).
Edina Gateway LLC— Pentagon Park Redevelopment— Mixed Use Community Edina Gateway LLC — Pentagon Park Redevelopment — Mixed Use Community
Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Phase 1 Final Development Plan Traffic Impact Analysis
Page 21 Page 22
2008 - 5:35pm •
'47 '
KmlepHorn
and Associates, Inc.
FIGURE Al
KEY INTERSECTIONS
PHASE I PENTAGON PARK RED EVELOPKENT
-t, • -c .4. •
-- ws
t in*
it 'n • ;ietelek
•
- 11. • • • .4. , • ; - ' 4;-/ .41C, 421. ""
. 1/'
xi • -
." DUN fNiri*S-
• I, "1-1;
,
'VIEW
ts• 10..."` Al•
. "T.
— "-01--42-
; • Awl 'Tt t... •
ari
ask
A INJ IA !Nay Ts*,
." " • • t a t•••••
911-"'•-7- ••••,--
4.1.Vn14•19: 1.0%
n• • • • n• ." ,
•n••,
•
=
STREET
INTERS TARE
:
- .a.
LEGEND
KEY INTERSECTIONS
• SITE ACCESS
() SERVICE ACCESS -r•
N.,
IrMINNESOTA 44'1
-
:Kc4? ,3'" 4,
.4!
SS IL -411r Niffi
(15:1
71111.
-eleirridrwrsonsinijcioratvt-
1,. .tir (1
0 I2`.-) 250 PROPOSE() BUILDING III EXISTING BUILDING 11•Wm1.
SCALE IN FT. N
low I p p G-1111111 -'114—'—'21161111111MINIMINIM
ACTIVE PHASE Tor tifft.CP'`.11.
-
•
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
FIGURE A2-1
OVERALL SITE PLAN
PHASE 1 PENTAGON PARK REDEVELOPMENT
0 0 • •
Z — — — --- —
1,\\1111111111111IIIMMIT1111111111111111111111111111111111111
(0. 111111111
501 I
rwanionwonormniirocal
•—•
1111111111111111111111111111111111111 ,1111111111111
PHASE 3 PHASE 5
• •
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
FIGURE A2-2
OVERALL PHASING PLAN
PHASE 1 PENTAGON PARK REDEVELOPMENT
\ / Far:
— FAN
1. t.Y.Cf
vez /1.1 I I I I I I I I I
77TH STREET
0.0,00 'Ica")
th. P"Atil t
109M-m•n•n,__.n
8a#
° WV= C.
f
r'srArt 117.10
Faft
-14 ILImaiti
-
I 5-11)1Y BRICK RAMO FrE P.23.00
War
• \
lamletHorn
and Associates, Inc.
FIGURE A2-3
PHASE 'I SITE PLAN
PHASE 'I PENTAGON PARK REDEVELOPMENT
G: \MILLER_DUN\EDINA_GAIE\DWG\EXHIBITS\TRAFFIC\GATE—EXST-1.thvg November 14, N
8
•
• raWNWit ••.
,
LEGEND
' A 00 [x] AM% (PM%) TRIP DISTRIBUTION
-1 4,r1, • 0.., ,r1:' .t...i'' 1 ) -
;T:`S. • -
• a&, • II 1.5111e
-
441. (6) [3]
(5) [5] •.+
Iftszzattftt.
'7;fizit• - - 1111};4340, , ,
, •
,
4.• • .
I
7F` itt-f
- Lit hp.. r (
- Olt
u
:J.:4,i • (Mt
a .... - ,,,,. n ---7-is -' . Is l' „:,,,.:•.'111'-' 0 ' : . ; '1..
.. ;MA ‘..._ , • ; 1...1
/1
CV
...to
•
Ak.?311:111.4-. 4:
, • A
SWIY-sit P 0, pp —
7.17.-'7-1',.,-,;717;.`•,--,44,,
. I • 5:
44.n (26) [6]
•
FIGURE A3
TOWERS SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
PHASE I PENTAGON PARK REDEVELOPMENT
•I ; 't Att. fr..7.;
Si -
i
lamley-Horn
and Associates Inc.
,
4_(3) [1]
(300) [905]
(65) [37] 420
1....111/11 '114
INTER!TATE
• •
10mlepHorn
and Assodates, Inc.
FIGURE A4-1
EXISTING (2007) VEHICULAR VOLUMES
PHASE 1 PENTAGON PARK REDEVELOPMENT
• tilLIM•lir '
-
ces' 0.1
maw or,,,,44t,*
' P _
EbiNA INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD
4-11,1*AL 91) [671)
4H285) [582]
(1137) [931]—*
(124) [52414 €.4 2) [4]
(103) [102]–+
.*114 CD OD
&TIE
VIY.*4041/".
R 0,1k
4_ €4 .---03111641] 0) gm frA 0. • Ifr-(93) [101]
tr_ . (9) [34] -+ r
l; kiii'. .0i• tA1A1* •>/)*. 1 1 1 - - •'. (1.4\
• , - .....,7,77_,, ------.)-, a z_. ,- , • rfi35,-,
.-, 10 - „411411' , -
„J„,,,, , 1.1 It
..1 I l
-
'
,
—
1
w
":7.4
:
""
1%
-
ll
r
'I'
t-
i
'
J
L
11_14) i.!p
• 1
4•Itttiqlitt ' : '
II 1111 !Lip it. , . . "V ti 44111 ik".11.1-.4:1.
411".11111.b.7 71001-1.1i2i4;;;:- .
1.1
(8-5)[1 O. ---+ (1078) 919 —
it
[ '14-1411
_(1581[21
FEE
(23) 54] V 4_(7) 411 (1309) 931]-0. 321 110] a
(78) [102J
for1,92rillOPI
Poo • • • zt•
NINNESO IS
INIt
•
LEGEND
4--fa p0,0g1 (AM )[PM] PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
iii,maisik 'V&
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
ICI co.
cL.'t.:str•••r-; i •
- • • t
i :460 WEST 76TH STREET
w ' D ,, -,.:,_ •3 '
>
z < .;k
C.... .0 1 i
Z r-'- : n'±y._ • , ,- • LLI
ilz. I ,.• • : ? . .. .
): --,-e
4
I • 1 , , < , I •,..
r---, •_._ • riltE)._, H17. . • •
,,. .
r 0.1
'4
4- ,...„.
11....'
rarArixig' arit4,_.401111,,,V:='
. IL c 18) [17] • '''15 1 6 .
Ai 171) 30 , 4 , .. ' . oilr
3 . e",, ' • • u • ,t t ft,
v.‘ie..1:% 1 .
.:-.,,t,"
:l ,
WEST 78TH STREET
LEGEND
.
I
,...ty
. en • • rn ,_,
1- 6 ta-4,1
, k e . ' : , 47 : : " . . ' . ,
, . .
411,,LP 4
40
(21 DI; .--
+-13T EV•3]
(134 [340 -7-0'
74
50 MINNESOTA DRIVE RI(83 3°° —+ 41,--- 1f1 Ngi
:-A '§2-4-11÷ -,., ......... TF,..-:.'
,i ---- -
.._...,... -,-, _
A tf?, .41E 2.8489/ !7276V
D ,,nrk.l. ,:' :- .. - L'"- 'N 005) [673]-7.
(55) [119] _I` IT 333 236]
Ir+,* '
<'..' :-..‘'..-- !
, - , 1, ....II., ,,:.. iii777,411111
'''
1 110k14 4." . ' .
.. ,.. . P C. • " , . ' , r•-•
0 :?-4:1-7":
CO li 1 .
A - •""7 -" TI," ,.1
W. ' • I
:
.7
Fr,
-...-.. 4
z t7... o ,
I _
o .24:44
-, —._ •
rwl 10 (AM )[PM] PEAK HOUR
+-66.66 DON1 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
€4 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION (696) [338] 11.4
(736) [483]-4,
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 7PLTATAI >to
• .01 -
FIGURE A4-2
EXISTING (2007) VEHICULAR VOLUMES
PHASE I PENTAGON PARK REDEVELOPMENT
• main
lamley-Horn
and Associabs, Inc.
o41°
o'S
•
PSC=
1142) [974 44--- (334) [954]
(85) [1 _4 €4 4_ (3) [1]
\ (156) [21 —+ +_(55) [37]
441*
FL3-71,
28) [3i] 323)11175]
7) [1] ION 4.1417 411
I ge' I"r4r*IteliarPIWA * -•
-,<34e:17/\44 -I I- “hi' k 1-11'r• of,b-1 ,1, Fali' 021. i-fo, a, ‘ts19& ..._, ..17.-----..•, .... ._..., or
o•• CD VP - • '—'
..'t. '1'-'
nii•' .- , .eirAnk '' ' n '4'.7% tiiNtrterr ''Ottl-,
4_(410) [135]
1—(684) [393]
(33) [13]
fg÷
+162) [418] 44___ 706) [361] (124) [524]
[101]0200 [loos] f—(93) (103) Elo2]—+,
E(MINUESOM
r*.
[7172. 41#
11:11-'
441-1 ,;14`
+— 1 — (BO [91-4 44-- (1335) [94-O.
(71) [11
(I) Col
Ti
4-1 11,141., +—{105 q 169, — 330 637
IF 2) 4
<VICA.
1017n13,11
\494
TO,
EDINA INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD
91 SI II IS .11111, 11. IJI Ii _
f • SI Ib I dA",_0:;,,rii,'
I u L.' I) t • 1-11-1
• t— Ilfv n 'taro vo
• •
lamley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
FIGURE A4-3
2009 NO BUILD VEHICULAR VOLUMES
PHASE 1 PENTAGON PARK REDEVELOPMENT
LEGEND
xxx
xxx} [x« '<x) Jo TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
(AM )[PM] PEAK HOUR
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 1,1
'ritXtrilkl°*' • .`
,
_.*Iipor ,x4rilitel !
i
:76TH STRtET--:"..,41::.„:nropro7,
„ : 24; , c. cO cli, .., . co N. N ' , •.
I j —OP' IF
l _4A v?/
'240116-
] —+
.48— 282) 1157]
168) [262]
31) [141]
4." rie 01/01414,Wle, to,
, n
_
LU
(
(55)
[67
[119] 411--- 289 77]
491 r77]
Alw
<
•
111
,4.1,..05)
lr
_ 384 246]
.imillaaartgl6.-',
-
HO-
1P-140 r
'1Y11'
'01011
14-
3 n11,
LEGEND
+11 riod (AM )[PM] PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
1.1.14•nn• • la
,
•
10mley-Horn
and Associates Inc.
FIGURE A4-4
2009 NO BUILD VEHICULAR VOLUMES
PHASE I PENTAGON PARK REDEVELOPMENT
_
t VP
=Zit .'„4,./101,04617.14
1,NZ 'A *IT [fr.
(9) [34]—ji I OM ri
.iiq2.114N
.4v- °3 ?"42,-;17-,47,7iw Flwif
tzo s-
;11;111
,! -111 - 1113. I' 10, 01-
'‘, 1:1
(4.0 T_ 410) [135] .
11
13R? A
iv -''- 1-(393) [396]
*--(33) [13] 4— OM [423] '-_ I
1I— (715) [364] (1z4) [51_4 Doi] (1201) [1006 --App.
•••n.S. cz,
or Ask-41U ft- [4]'6'' 1—(341) [065]
IF (55) [31
Th
'1.14
szg r
Lt.,.
mrm,
•
71_
4-t8) [34 I (85) [81 Ai 4- 334)111 :
(1345) [950 —4. )111131110k,or..7 (To m
I.• 0.f.,etx,'
;slop! ,K,`VA
.111111". Viier"911 " 'If. •
1"1*-4 'rt-tt
E
MINNESOTA
4_-_-(26)[37]
LEGEND
(AM )[PM] PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
014 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
1),;•.%
FIGURE A4-5
2009 BUILD VEHICULAR VOLUMES
PHASE I PENTAGON PARK REDEVELOPMENT 10mley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
FIGURE A4-6
2009 BUILD VEHICULAR VOLUMES
PHASE 'I PENTAGON PARK REDEVELOPMENT Mmley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
.41$04,11P• • 44
"1-•
1
578] -n •
) 114r' 117 IWO VI • s
II:11 11
5 50
=1:17-11:7
277]
384 248]
y.4-•
0 1_, mr-i-ert•ffr--.
_ LEGEND
INTERSTATE
(AM )[PM] PEAK HOUR
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
kaki: • •
114111i •
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
_
!41
_
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
7,1,8:95