Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08October 4, 2013 Tal�F!V[ �1iir■ air Item No. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT DAKOTA COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 CORRIDOR STUDY October 7, 2013 City Council Meeting Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve a resolution of support for the Dakota County Highway 5o Corridor Study, City Pro,�ct Passage of this motion will establish the City's support for the study as prepared subject to the positions and clarifications contained in the resolution. Overview Dakota County entered into a contract with CH2MHill, Inc. to conduct a transportation study to identify transportation needs and develop improvement options along the Kenwood Trail (CSAH -50) corridor between 3.$5 Street (CSAH -6o) and Dodd Boulevard (CSAH -g). The study's primary objectives were to determine: 3.) W hat : Impact will the proposed CSAH 5o /6o roundabout have on traffic operations along the corridor; 2) What short and long -term improvement options are necessary to improve traffic operations along the corridor. Preliminary results of the study were presented at the September 23, 203.3 City Council Work Session. Brian Sorenson, Dakota County Assistant County Engineer, will present the study and its recommendations. Primary Issues to Consider • What were the key outcomes of the study? • Did the study include a public involvement process? Will business owners located along the CSAH -5o corridor remain involved during the planning of future improvements along the CSAH -5o corridor? Supporting Information • Staff analysis of primary issues 0 A copy of the draft report is attached 1 � Financial Impact: $0 Budgeted: N/A Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: Staff Analysis of Primary Issues • What were the key outcomes of the study? The study recommended the following next steps: 1. Continue planning and construction of the roundabout at the intersection of Kenwood Trail (CSAH -5o) and 185 Street (CSAH -6o). z. Conduct a Gap Analysis Study following construction of the Kenwood Trail (CSAH -5o) and 185 Street (CSAH -6o) roundabout to verify results of the model. 3. Construct a designated right -turn lane along Jaguar Avenue at Kenwood Trail (CSAH -5o). 4. Consider the expansion of Kenwood Trail (CSAH -5o) to a 4 -lane divided highway. S. Use the Access and Traffic Control Plan as a guide in planning future improvements along the Kenwood Trail (CSAH -5o) corridor. • Did the study include a public involvement process? There were various meetings with residents, business owners and Kenwood Trail Middle School representatives throughout development of the study in an effort to engage the community and gather public input. The public input was used to evaluate improvement options and develop an access and traffic control plan. A series of neighborhood meetings with residents and business owners located along the corridor were held in November, 2012. A series of meetings with business owners located along the corridor were held in February, 2013. A public open house was held on March 21, 2013. • Will business owners located along the CSAH -5o corridor remain involved during the planning of future improvements along the CSAH -5o corridor? A series of meetings were held with business owners located along the corridor, including those between Ipava Avenue and Icenic Trail, in November, 2012 and February, 2013. The primary concerns expressed by business owners were in relation to the potential impacts future improvements to the CSAH -50 may have on both their property and driveway access. County and City staff will continue to discuss and evaluate options with business owners located along the corridor throughout the duration of the planning of future CSAH -5o improvements, specifically in relation to right -of -way impacts and access control options. CITY OF LAKEVILLE RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT DAKOTA COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 CORRIDOR STUDY WHEREAS, the Dakota County Highway 50 Corridor Study is a transportation study to develop short and long -term recommendations for County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 50 ( Kenwood Trail) from CSAH -60 (185' Street) to just west of CSAH -9 (Dodd Boulevard) and the surrounding transportation system in Lakeville; and WHEREAS, Dakota County and the City of Lakeville entered into a Joint Powers Agreement to participate in conducting the Dakota County Highway 50 Corridor Study in October, 2012; and WHEREAS, representatives of Dakota County, the City of Lakeville, Kenwood Trail Middle School, business owners located along the corridor and the general public have participated in identifying transportation needs in the area of the CSAH -50 corridor and evaluating improvement options to address those needs; and WHEREAS, the City of Lakeville further supports the following position or clarification regarding the study conclusions and recommendations: • Dakota County and the City of Lakeville will continue planning for improvements to CSAH -50, including consideration of expansion to a 4 -lane divided highway, that address congestion, accommodate future traffic volumes and improve roadway safety. The City of Lakeville emphasizes the importance in continuing to involve both the Jaguar Avenue neighborhoods and the business owners located along the corridor between Ipava Avenue and Icenic Trail throughout the planning and design process to ensure that challenges regarding roadway connections, access control and right -of- way impacts are addressed and suitable solutions are found; and • Dakota County and the City of Lakeville will continue planning and construction for a roundabout at the intersection of CSAH -50 and CSAH -60. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Lakeville supports the Dakota County Highway 50 Corridor Study as prepared subject to the positions and clarifications contained in this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7 day of October, 2013. CITY OF LAKEVILLE Matt Little, Mayor ATTEST: Charlene Friedges, City Clerk i_ County Highway 50 Kenwood Trail Corridor Sti.Jdy Iran s orCatior t COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY Contents Background ...................................................................................... ............................... 2 Roundabout at County Highway 60 ....................................... ............................... 3 C orridor Characteristics .................................................................. ............................... 3 RoadwayAccess .................................................................... ............................... 3 Current and Future Traffic Volumes ....................................... ............................... 4 KenwoodTrail Middle School ................................................. ............................... 5 CorridorCrash History ........................................................... ....... ......................... 6 PublicOutreach ............................................................................... ............................... 6 AlternativeDevelopment ................................................................. ............................... 8 Intersection Control Alternatives ............................................ ............................... 9 Future Access and Traffic Control .............................. •........... .............................10 Roadway Connection Alternatives ......................................... ............................. Roadway Geometry Alternatives ........................................... ............................. CorridorSpeeds ..................................................................... ............................. Resultsof Alternative Analysis ...................................................... ............................. Model Characteristics ............................................. ............................... •............ 15 TrafficVolumes... ......... ....... ....... ­­ ........ I ........ ............. .................. ............. 15 GapAnalysis ............................................... ............................... .................... 16 Intersection Delay Analysis .................................................... ............................. AnalysisResults ..................................................................... .............................20 Conclusions ..................................................................................... ............................. Recommendations ......................................................................... ............................... 24 Appendix A — Traffic Counts Appendix B — Public Involvement Information Appendix C — Existing Model Calibration Appendix D — Modeled Intersection Turning Volumes Appendix E — Detailed VISSIM Results A. W.. COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY Background This study was developed to provide Dakota County and the City of Lakeville a better understanding of the existing and future traffic operations along the County Highway (CH) 50 (Kenwood Trail) corridor. The main questions to be answered by this study include: • What changes in traffic operations can be expected from the implementation of a roundabout at the CH 50/60 intersection? • What other corridor improvements may be necessary along the corridor to provide acceptable traffic operations both near -term and long -term? Dakota County is currently developing a project to replace the existing traffic signal at the intersection of CH 50 and CH 60 (185 Street) with a multi -lane roundabout to address operational and safety deficiencies at the i ^tersection. The project also includes expanding the existing three -lane - I 50 to a four -lane divided facility from south of CH 60 to the current transition at Jurel Way. ., During public outreach for the project, a number of comments were provided by area residents and the Lakeville City Council requesting additional information about how a roundabout at the intersection of CH 50/60 would affect the availability of gaps in traffic along CH 50, which in turn affects driver's ability to turn on and off the highway. This study provides information on how CH 50 is expected to operate with a roundabout at CH 60, including the influence it would have on gaps downstream of the roundabout that allow side street traffic to enter the highway. In addition, the goal of this study was to develop short-term and long -term vision for the corridor, including potential improvement needs such as changes to intersection traffic control, access, and potential new local street connections. The study included the CH 50 corridor from CH 60 to Dodd Boulevard (see Figure 1 CH 50 Corridor Study Area Figure 1). SEPTEMBER r+ COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY 11oundabout at County Highway 60 The decision to implement a roundabout at the CH 50/60 intersection was based on the analysis completed in July, 2011 and documented in the CSAH 50 1Kenwood Trail and CSAH 601185' Street Intersection Study. This analysis included a comparison of multiple intersection control alternatives including cost, operations, right -of -way impacts, and safety considerations. The final recommendation was the implementation of a roundabout based on these factors: — Less delav is expected at the CH 50/60 intersection with the implementation of a roundabout instead of a signal — Roundabouts have lower expected crash rates and less severe crashes — There would be an expected decrease in pedestrian conflicts with less exposure to traffic and lower vehicle speeds in a roundabout — The roundabout alternative was expected to cost less than a signalized intersection — There were less right -of -way impacts in the area of the intersection with a roundabout alternative Corridor Characteristics As part of understanding the current operations of CH 50 and to assist in the development of potential corridor improvements, existing characteristics of the corridor were documented including roadway geometry, access locations, traffic control, current and forecasted traffic volumes and crash history. Roadway Access The CH 50 corridor, between CH 60 and CH 9 (Dodd Road), is a three -lane roadway with one lane of travel in each direction and a continuous center two way turn lane (see Figure 21 . It is classified as an A Minor Arterial in the Dakota County Transportation Plan, based on its important connections between Interstate 35 and locations further east in Lakeville and connections to Farmington. Along with the continuous left -turn lane there are also right -turn lanes at all major intersections including: • 188 Street Jaguar Avenue • Jordan Circle • Ipava Avenue • 192 Street • Icenic Trail • 194 Street • Dodd Road (CH 9) SEPTEMBER 2113 XW, Figure 2 CH 50 Roadway Geometry — Three -Lane Cross - Section COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY In addition to local Table i street access, the CH 50 Number and Type of Access Summary corridor also , provides access to the Kenwood Trail ' Middle School, CH 60 /185` 188` St 0.25 miles 2 4 located near the ` 192 " Street 188 St to Jordan Ct 0.4 miles 3 2 intersection, and Jordan Ct to 192 St 0.4 miles 3 1 various commercial 192 St to Jaguar Ave 0.4 miles 3 0 and private Jaguar Ave to Ipava Ave 0.5 miles 3 6 properties adjacent to the corridor. A Ipava Ave to Dodd Rd /CH 9 0.5 miles 3 5 summary of local street, private residences and commercial /school access is included in Table 1. There are currently three traffic signals along the corridor (CH 60, Ipava Avenue and Dodd Road). All other local street M accesses are thru STOP controlled, with STOP signs on the local street approaches as shown in Figure 4. Current and Future Traffic Volumes The CH 50 corridor within the study area currently carries on average between 13,500- 15,000 vehicles per day. The volumes vary between the northern part of the corridor, from CH 60 to 192 "d Legend Street and the southern part, from 192nd Traffic Control tom Street to Dodd Road (CH 9), as shown in 50 Traffic Signal Table 2. Traffic counts, counting all Roundabout 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 vehicles entering an intersection and Thru -STOP the direction they travel, were also collected in December 2012 at all major i& intersections. The counts went from 6 AM to 8 PM to document the hours during the day when the highest volume of vehicles were using each intersection. Figure These "Peak Hours" were then used to 4 analyze the entire corridor during both Existing Local Street Access and Traffic Control Type the morning (7:00 to 8:00 AM) and evening peak (4:30 to 5:30 PM) hours. JULY 2113 - __ 4 COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY, The AM peak hour for the corridor includes the peak traffic leaving Kenwood Trail Middle School in the morning. The school's afternoon peak occurs when CH 50 traffic is not at its peak in the afternoon. The counts are included in Appendix A and were input into the traffic model used to analyze potential alternatives. Table 2 County Highway 50 Average Daily Traffic Volumes Future Traffic Volumes The Dakota County 2030 ' " ProjectJon Transportation Plan includes CH 60 to 192 "d St 15,000 17,800 27,000 forecasts for all County highways based on the Dakota County 192 St to CH 9 13,500 N/A 19,000 Travel Demand Model. This model takes into account future land use, local travel patterns based on the future roadway system and regional traffic demand. Based on this model, the forecast volumes for the corridor are between 19,000 and 27,000 vehicles per day in the year 2030. The typical capacity of a three -lane roadway is around 18,000 vehicles per stay. With future traffic volumes of 27,000 vehicles per day, capacity improvements will be required on the corridor to accommodate this traffic growth. Kenwood Trail Middle School Kenwood Trail Middle School (KTMS), part of the Lakeville School District (ISD 194), is located along the west side of the corridor, between Lake Marion and CH 50. The school houses grades 6 -8. One of the main transportation challenges with the KTMS site is that the only public street available to serve the school is CH 50. It currently has 2 accesses that serve the site: one lining up with 192 Street, and the other approximately 250' south of 194 Street. The 2 accesses are approximately 1150' apart. Buses use only the south access to dropoff and pickup students on the west side of the building. Staff and parents use both accesses to park in the east lot and for student dropoff/pickup. 192 Street to the east of CH 50 is a collector street. The access spacing between the south access and 194 Street (250') and the spacing between the south access and Jaguar Avenue (850') are both less than the County's access spacing guideline of % mile. The school currently provides busing for all students east of CH 50 because CH 50 is considered a barrier for kids walking to school. 5 SEPTEMBER 2013 COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY Corridor Crash History 2 crashes A review of crashes from 2012 showed a total of 21 reported Table 3 crashes on CH 50 with a majority of these crashes (14 crashes) 2012 County Highway 50 occurring at the CH 60 intersection (see Table 3). In addition to All Reported Crashes the single year of data, five -years of injury and fatal crashes Ipava Avenue and CH 50 intersection were reviewed (2007 -2011) and are shown in Table 4. Within 2 rear end,1 Right angle these five years, there was one fatal crash and eight injury CH 60 14 crashes crashes, with most of the crashes intersection- related. The fatal 188 Street 1 crash crash was a head -on where a vehicle crossed the centerline of " CH 50 between Jaguar Avenue and Ipava Avenue. Four out of 192 Street None the eight injury crashes were southbound rear end crashes at 194 Street 1 crash intersections. Three of the injury crashes involved vehicles Jaguar Ave 2 crashes turning left out of 188 192 and Jaguar Avenue and being hit Ipava Avenue 3 crashes by a southbound vehicle on CH 50. Icenic Trail None TOTAL 21 crashes Table 4 2007 -2011 Fatal and Injury Crash Summary 188 Street and CH 50 Intersection 2 crashes 1 Left turn out, 1 rear end 192 Street and CH 50 intersection 1 crash Left turn out Jaguar Ave and CH 50 intersection 1 crash Left turn out with bicycle Ipava Avenue and CH 50 intersection 3 crashes 2 rear end,1 Right angle Icenic Trail and CH 50 Intersection 1 crashes Rear End Non - Intersection 1 crash Fatal head -on crash Public Outreach There were various meetings with local residents and business owners throughout the study process in order to share study progress, analysis results and to obtain public input into the process and final recommendations. Neighbarhood Meetines, Noverriber 2012 Meetings were held in November to allow residents along the corridor to learn about the planned scope of the study, provide input on their individual concerns and give suggestions for the direction of the study. There were four separate meetings for different neighborhoods within the study area. The separate meeting provided for each neighborhood to focus on their unique situations and experiences within the CH 50 corridor. Kenwood Trail Middle School officials were also invited to attend all meetings. The neighborhoods were separated as follows: SEPTEMBER 1111 6 COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY ■ North Neighborhood - Between CH 60 and 192 Street • Jaguar Neighborhood - All residents that have access to CH 50 from Jaguar Avenue • East Neighborhood - All residents located on the east side of CH 50 across from Kenwood Trail Middle between CH 50 and Ipava Avenue. + Corridor Businesses - Local businesses along CH 50, mainly around Ipava Avenue and Dodd Road /CH 9 At these meetings, residents expressed concerns about the impact of the roundabout on the ability to access CH 50 at access locations further south. With these concerns, they also suggested potential improvements, such as: • Lower the speed limit of CH 50 • P= ide. -other access for the Jaguar Avenue neighborhood • Install traffic signals at additional locations along the corridor to improve gaps These suggestions and comments were used by the study team to develop potential alternative scenarios to model and review to be sure the analysis addressed concerns and questions posed by meeting participants. Business Owners Meetings - February 2013 County and City staff met directly with representatives of businesses that border CH 50 along the northeast side of the roadway between Ipava Avenue and Icenic Trail. One -on -one meetings were held with representatives from Lakeville Dental, White Funeral Homes, McDonald Eye Care, Farmshow Publishing, and Kindernook Preschool. The goal of the meetings was to ensure the businesses understood the study intent and process, and to ensure County and City staff understood any pertinent issues the businesses may have that should be addressed by the study. The main issue discussed was the proximity of the existing roadway to the commercial buildings and the potential implications of expanding the roadway, and building a divided roadway. Because a divided roadway would convert all existing driveway access to right -in /right -out access, the potential for alternative access locations was also discussed. Public Open House - March 2013 On March 21, 2013 a public open house was held at the Kenwood Trail Middle School. At this meeting, results of the alternative analysis were shared along with proposed next steps. Participants were encouraged to provide comments. The information shared at the open house was posted on the County's website prior to the meeting to allow time for interested citizens to review the information before attending the meeting, and to make it available for those who were not able to attend the meeting. Appendix B includes the information shared with the residents on the website and at the meeting and comments received. Many of the comments expressed continued concerns about operations and safety at Jaguar Avenue. 7 SEPTEMBER 1111 COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY Alternative Development Alternative corridor and intersection improvement scenarios were developed based on the need to answer key questions about the operations of the CH 50 corridor, with a total of six alternatives analyzed. Table 5 provides a summary of the alternatives analyzed along with the purpose or question to be answered by the alternative. More information on the development of alternatives, such as the assumed traffic control, local street connections and roadway geometry are discussed further in the following sections. Akennative 1- Existing Conditions - this scenario used the existing roadway and current traffic volume. The results were compared with actual video of the corridor to calibrate the model. Atternative 2 - Existing vyi h an Improved Signal at CH 60 - existing roadway but additional capacity at the signal at CH 60 and current traffic volumes Alternative 3 - Existing with Roundabout at CH 60 - existing roadway but with a roLndabout at CH 60 and current traffic volumes Alternative i1- Exiisting with Roundabout at CH 60 & Signal at 192" Street - this scenario used existing roadway with a roundabout at CH 6V anid a signal at 192 Street and current traffic volumes Alternative 5 - Existing with Four -Lane & Roundabout at CH 60- current traffic volumes are used in this scenario with a four -lane divided roadway. This scenario does not include any changes in access except the roundabout at CH 60. Alternative 6 - future (2030) - the future scenario included a four - lane dMded roadway, the roundabout at CH 60, signals at Jordan Trail/19& Street, 192 Street, Ipava Avenue and Dodd Road and other access changes with future traffic volumes. SEPTEMBER 1111 8 Table 5 Corridor Alternatives Analyzed COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY Intersection Control Alternatives The traffic control assumed for each alternative is shown in Figure 5. For Alternatives 1 through 5, the traffic control was changed in order to answer specific questions about operations on the existing system. For these alternatives there were one or two changes to traffic control types (Le, change a signal to a roundabout). The access types and traffic control for Alternative 6 was based on providing full access only at signalized intersections along the corridor, with all other access restricted to either % access (left turns allowed from CH 50, but no left turns or through movements from the cross street) or right -in /right -out. The assumption in the model was that all vehicles at the partial access intersections wanting to make a restricted movement (such as turning left and going south on CH 50 at a right -in /right -out intersection) would have to divert (turn right, head north to the next signal and complete a U -turn in order to head south). This created a "worst case" scenario in terms of traffic volumes at the signals and an understanding of the overall operations of the corridor with the most restrictions on access. In order for such a scenario to work, local street connections, such as a connections for the Jaguar neighborhood to Ipava Avenue and a connection of 198` Way to Ipava Avenue, shown in Figure 6 (see also the Roadway Connection Alternatives section for more information on these new roadway connections). Alternative 1 & 2 3 -lane Roadway I "w Alternative 3 34ane Roadway Alternative 5 4 -lane Roadt: ay cNSO,aes � -- Ls Y' 71 Lid Traftic Control TrafficSignat Roundabout Tir - STOP Right -in /Out M Access - - - -- Future Roadway Cmections Alternative q 3 -acre Road;eav AlternatNe 6 4- a , ieDvded Roaderay 4 I� z 9 1 l � sr w Figure 5 Access and Traffic Control for Alternatives Modeled in VISSIM SEPTEMBER 1111 COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY While the decision was made to model Alternative 6 with the most restrictions in access along the corridor, this access and traffic control scenarios did not provide a balance between the access needs of the corridor and traffic operations of CH 50. Based on discussions between the County and City staff and the future plans for roadway connections (see next section), a Future Access and Traffic Control Plan was developed (see Figure 6). Future Access and Traffic Control The Future Access and Traffic Control Plan presented in Figure 6 should be used as a blue print for access along the corridor as new access is required to support future development, as improvements are made to CH 50, or as safety /operational issues are experienced. The Future Access and Traffic Control Plan was developed closely with the Kenwood Trail Middle School representatives since the school's two access points and internal circulation of school vehicles would be impacted. The school uses their two access points to help separate bus traffic (using the south access) and student drop- off /pick -up traffic (using the 192 Street access). The proposed access and traffic control plan would maintain the existing full access with STOP control. However, if safety or operational issues occur, the 192 Street access would be considered for a traffic signal and the south access may change to a % access. The Future Access and Traffic Control Plan includes the following elements: 0 188 Street should be left as a side- street stop. If safety or operational issues are experienced in the future, conversion to a % access intersection should be considered. 0 190 Street /Jordan Trail should be left as a side - street stop. If safety or operational issues are experienced in the future, conversion to a signalized intersection should be considered due to 190 Street's future functionality as a City east -west collector street. o Both accesses of Kenwood Way should be converted to right -in /right -out intersections at the time CH 50 is improved to a divided roadway. 0 192 Street /North KTMS access should be left as a side- street stop. There are some delays currently experienced in the morning peak hour for traffic exiting the school, but they are short- lived, and the intersection has minimal reported crashes. Expanding CH 50 to 4 -lanes is the most effective way to reduce delays at this intersection. If safety or operational issues arise in the future at the intersection, the implications of the horizontal and vertical curvature of CH 50 should be taken into account before installing a signal. 0 194 Street should be converted to a right -in /right -out intersection at the time CH 50 is improved to a divided roadway. o The south KTMS access should be left as a side - street stop. Although the Dakota County Access Spacing guidelines recommend 1320' between full- movement intersections along divided roadways, this is not a typical intersection. This is a "T" intersection serving only the school (with low volumes), and restricting movements here would require more traffic to use the north entrance when exiting KTMS. With the two SEPTEMBER 2113 10 COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY accesses operating well today, there is no tangible benefit to making such a change. If safety or operational issues are experienced in the future, movement restrictions should be considered at that time. o Jaguar Avenue should be left as a side- street stop. An alternative connection from the neighborhood to Ipava Avenue is recommended. If safety or operational issues are experienced in the future, conversion to a % access intersection should be considered. 0 198 Way should be constructed as a % intersection with a future CH 50 improvement project. o Ipava Avenue should continue as a signalized intersection. o A potential new access to future developable area northeast of CH 50 should be considered between Ipava Avenue and Icenic Trail with a future CH 50 improvement project. Allowing for more efficient connection to existing parcels via this access should be provided if the access can be constructed safety and feasibly. o Icenic Trail should be constructed as a % intersection with a future CH 50 improvement project due to its close proximity to Dodd Road and its connectivity to Dodd Road north of CH 50. SEPTEMBER 1111 1 COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY County Highway 50 Kenmod Trail Corridor Study a tOrdan K�nwoad way ;!rah Kenwood Trait Middrr ScfiOPt The Fccess plan as shown is „ttended �k to provide a blueprint as the County south acccss ::nv' City consider making roadway improvements in the next 5 years. In the long term, further changes may be ?'£ -ij UirAil 05 ^QLeC1 �1c'IOi�. a-; 7flWhen safety or operational issues `. occur, restriction of left turns onto CH t ti i 50 should be considered. t �' s d i 'If /When traffic conditions dictate, t a signalizotion c;:could be conzi-dercd. i s Segment Distance CH 60/185 to 18Vh St 0.25 miies 188 St to Jordan Ct 0.4 miles Jordan Trail to 192 "d St 0.4 miles 192 St to Jaguar Ave 0.4 miles Jaguar Ave to Ipava Ave 0.5 miles Ipava Ave to Dodd Rd /CR 9 0.5 miles Access and Traffic Control Plan L egend Traffic Control 19 Traffic Signal Roundabout Thru -STOP Right -in /Out • Y. Access Future Roadway Connections t t lel � Figure 6 Future Access and Traffic Control Plan SEPTEMBER 2013 M 12 WWII� COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY Roadway Connect-ion Alternatives The City of Lakeville has plans for future roadway connections throughout the study area. These roadway connections are planned to be implemented in conjunction with future development where possible. Two local street connections are already part of the City of Lakeville's Transportation Plan in the northern half of the study (188 Street and 190 Street); these will be implemented as the large undeveloped parcels on the east side of CH 50 are developed. These new roadways include extending both 188 Street and 190th Street from their r..urrent termini just west of Ipava Avenue to new access locations on CH 50. The Jaguar Avenue access to CH 50 is the only connection into the Jaguar neighborhood of over 180 homes. The neighborhood's location on the west side of CH 50, between Lake Marion and the railroad, limit the ability to provide additional access. Based on review of the current roadway network and potential future development in the northwest quadrant of CH 50 and Ipava Avenue intersection, a new connection that provides access to Ipava Avenue via Itasca Lane and 201 Street should be incorporated into future development of this area. Figure 7 provides the currently proposed area for this connection. SEPTEMBER 2111 13 Figure 7 Potential New Connection to Ipava Avenue from Jaguar Neighborhood COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY Roadway Geometry Alternatives As discussed in the Current and Future Traffic Volumes section of this report, the current traffic volumes are approaching the capacity of a three -lane roadway configuration. With CH 50 just to the north and south of the corridor currently four -lane divided roadway configuration, and with the additional expected capacity of this configuration (up to 40,000 vehicles per day) the conversion, from three -lane to four -lane divided, makes sense. The four -lane geometry was assumed for Alternatives 5 and 6. However, there are real constraints, especially between Ipava Avenue and Dodd Road /CH 9, in implementing the four -lane divided roadway. At this location, CH 50 is between the railroad on the west side and a number of local businesses on the east side. As designs for the roadway continue to be developed, this constraint will need to be addressed in greater detail to determine the actual impacts to adjacent parcels. Corridor Speeds A suggestion provided by a Neighborhood Meeting participant was to lower the speed on CH 50 from its current 50 mph. Minnesota has laws regarding the establishment of speed limits and speed zones. By statute, the speed limit is 30 miles per hour (mph) on urban roads and streets, and 55 mph on 2 -lane rural roads. Where state and local authorities think that the statutory limits would not be effective, the statute goes on to say that a speed zone may be established, but only after a study has been conducted and the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation has approved the change. CH 50's speed of 50 mph was authorized by the Commissioner of Transportation through this process. This process of setting speeds based on speed studies is consistent with what is considered to be a best practice approach that basically-says that the majority of drivers along a section of road will select a travel speed that is both reasonable and proper given the actual roadway conditions and traffic characteristics of that road. The result has been a high level of consistency in the establishment of speed limits among roads that have similar characteristics and in most cases a very high level of compliance by road users, because the speed limit matches their expectations. This best practice approach to setting speed limits has been demonstrated to result in the most uniform vehicle operating speeds, and the uniform operating speeds have resulted in the overall safest conditions with fewer crashes. When CH 50 is reconstructed to a 4 -lane facility, Dakota County should request the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation to conduct a new speed study to ensure the posted speed is appropriate for the new roadway. SEPTEMBER 2013 14 COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY ^< - Results of Alternative Analysis Model Characteristics The VISSIM model simulates operations on the roadway by accounting for each individual vehicle. Each vehicle is unique and has various driver - behavior characteristics such as how aggressive the driver is, how fast they drive, or how closely the driver will follow the next vehicle. Individual vehicles also have unique vehicle characteristics. For example, the model accounts for slower acceleration and deceleration of larger vehicles. A model "run" estimates traffic conditions for an hour and records the results of both individual vehicles and the system as a whole. The model was run 10 times for each alternative and the average of the results is what is reported. The model was calibrated by comparing real -world information collected through the traffic counts and gap analysis completed in December 2012 and included: Volume at Intersections- the amount of volume served during the peak hour in the model was 90% or more compared to the actual count for all intersections. This confirmed that the same amount of traffic was being modeled as was on the corridor during both peak hours. Delay at Intersections —the average delay of vehicles was also collected during the traffic counts and compared to the delays modeled. The delays were usually within a few seconds of the actual measured delay confirming that the amount of congestion and delay was comparable to actual roadway conditions. Gaps Available at Intersections- the final calibration comparison was in the number of gaps at the key intersections. This comparison allowed the driver behavior's in the model to be adjusted to better represent actual driver decisions on the actual roadway, specifically when and how they chose their gaps to make turning maneuvers. More information on the calibration factors and results of the Existing Alternative VISSIM model runs can be found in Appendix C. Traffic Volumes The traffic volumes used in the VISSIM model are based on the actual traffic counts collected in December 2012 (see Appendix A). These same volumes were applicable to Alternatives 1 through 5 for all of the intersections modeled. The future scenario (Alternative 6) required growing the turning counts to match expected 2030 traffic volumes. This included using the forecasted volumes assumed in the CSAH 50 1Kenwood Trail and CSAH 601185` Street intersection Study for the roundabout at CH 50/60 intersection, information provided by the Dakota County Travel Demand Model and balancing the entire corridor using the method outlined in NCHRP -365. The Alternative 6 volumes also include changes in travel patterns due to the assumed changes in access. Some of the access changes, shown in Figure 5, require diverting vehicles along the corridor to other signalized intersections in order to complete their maneuvers. These diversions are included in the volumes and are.summarized in Appendix D. SEPTEMBER 1113 15 JW COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY Gap Analysis A gap is the amount of time available for a vehicle on a side street to make a left turn onto CH 50. In the case of a left -turn maneuver, gaps in traffic for both southbound and northbound traffic need to be considered and there needs to be enough overlap of these two gaps to provide time to complete the left turn (see Figure 8). The number and length of gaps on the roadway can be affected by the following: • Volume — the more vehicles, the less gaps that will be available on the main roadway. This changes along a corridor because traffic is random in speed and constantly turning on to and off of the corridor. . • Lanes —the more lanes (includes through lanes and turn lanes), the more gaps that will be available. • Traffic control device and type — signals and roundabouts can create gaps, however, the further from the traffic control device, the less effect it has. Left- turning All -way stops can also have a metering effect. Vehicle `i • Driver behavior— variability in speed can change the — number and duration of gaps. For this analysis, a gap of 8 seconds or more was considered an acceptable length to complete the left -turn maneuver. The length of a gap also defines how many vehicles can make a left onto CH 50. For example, a 12 second gap allows for 2 vehicles to turn left onto CH 50. The number of vehicles reported that can access CH 50 is conservative since the minimum acceptable gap works for left- turning vehicles. Vehicles turning right only need a gap in one direction. F E Figure 8 Gap for Left - Turning Vehicles The gap analysis provided the following output for each alternative analyzed (summarized in Table 6 with details of the analysis in Appendix E): • Vehicle Demand - the number of vehicles needing gaps to access CH 50. This number is based on the current traffic counts for existing alternatives, and the forecast traffic volumes in the future alternative. • Average Number of Gaps -the average number of gaps that were 8 seconds or longer. The number of gaps from the ten model runs was averaged for each location. • Vehicles Served — the average number of vehicles that were allowed to turn onto CH 50 in ten model runs. The result of the analysis show minor differences between all of the existing alternatives (Alternatives 1 through 5) for both the average number of gaps and vehicles served. As expected, the roundabout has the most influence at the 188 Street access, which is also the closest intersection to the roundabout. All intersections still have enough gaps to serve the demand of vehicles wanting to access CH 50 during the peak hours in all scenarios. Also, adding traffic signals at 192 Street (Alternative 4) did not significantly change the number of gaps for Jaguar Avenue. SEPTEMBER 1111 16 COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY Table 6 Summary of Gap Analysis Results Alt.1 Alt. Z I Alt. 3 1 Alt, 4 Alt. 5 1 Alt. 6 1 17 SEPTEMBER 1013 Vehicle Demand 45 45 45 45 45 55* a m Average Number of Gaps 83 86 73 85 118 53* L 00 00 Vehicles Served 174 181 140 199 262 102* Vehicle Demand 140 140 140 140 140 300 a� H Average Number of Gaps 93 98 92 Signal 98 Signal 1 2 N W4 Vehicles Served 225 242 199 NA 215 NA Vehicle Demand 120 120 120 120 120 75* L W o Average Number of Gaps 115 116 117 116 152 114* a ro > a Vehicles Served 320 311 303 324 418 334" a Vehicle Demand 20 20 20 20 20 25* a� Ln Average Number of Gaps 59 70 44 50 72 36* ME 00 1-1 Vehicles Served 147 161 78 99 134 63* m Vehicle Demand 110 110 110 110 110 215 P Average Number of Gaps 67 71 59 Signal 62 Signal N � Vehicles Served 162 173 107 NA 114 NA Vehicle Demand 70 70 70 70 70 50* d Average Number of Gaps 75 71 68 77 92 89* Vehicles Served 192 177 135 199 187 254* *Intersection geometry was assumed % Access in the future scenario 17 SEPTEMBER 1013 COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY Some questions that were addressed during the public open houses include: Why are the delays in the AM peak hour so different between 192 and Jaguar when they have similar volumes? 192 Street is a 4 -leg intersection while Jaguar Ave is a T- intersection. So when turning (especially when turning left) at 192 Street from one of the side streets, the vehicles may have to not only wait for an appropriate gap, but yield to an opposing vehicle turning left or going straight. For example, there are 90 southbound vehicles turning left at 192 Street in the peak hour, and vehicles turning left from the school driveway have to yield to these vehicles. Why are the delays at Jaguar generally the same with and without a signal at 192 " when the gapping data shows differences? There are two measures associated with gaps. First, how many are there. Second, how many vehicles can be served. While the number of gaps changes as well as the number of vehicles that can be served, the vehicles that can be served is well above the demand volume. The videos of the model runs illustrate that there is a difference in delay for some vehicles. However, some vehicles wait less, others have to wait more. So by the time these differences are averaged over 10 model runs, the intersections operate about the same for the two scenarios. Based on the modeling, the roundabout at CH 60 should have little effect on the current number of gaps and the delays experienced at local roads throughout the corridor. The modeling also indicates that forecast increases in traffic along the CH 50 corridor will likely have a greater effect on accessing the highway than converting the CH 50 /CH 60 intersection to a roundabout. SEPTEMBER 2013 - 18 COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY Intell section Delay Analysis Roadway operations are estimated using a Level of Service (LOS) measure based on the amount of delay experienced by motorists. Delay is rated from A to F, with LOS A representing little to no delay and LOS F representing high levels of congestion with very long delays. Traffic volumes, intersection control (signalized or STOP sign controlled), and roadway geometry (number of turn or through lanes at each approach) were used to develop an average delay at each intersection within the VISSIM model. The results of the side street delay analysis is included in Table 7. Table 7 Side Street Delay and Level of Service Summary Alt.5 AlIt.6' 188 Street LOS C LOS C LOS C LOS C LOS B LOS B (16 sec) (15 sec) (16 sec) (17 sec) (13 sec) (10 sec) 192 Street LOS D LOS C LOS D LOS C * LOS C LOS B 4, (28 sec) (24 sec) (31 sec) (18 see) (18 sec) (21 sec) Jaguar Avenue LOS C LOS B LOS B LOS C LOS B LOS A (16 sec) (15 sec) (14 sec) (16 sec) (11 sec) (7 sec) 188 Street LOS D LOS B LOS C LOS C LOS C LOS B (29 sec) (13 sec) (22 sec) (24 sec) (17 sec) (10 sec) 192 "d Street LOS D LOS C LOS D LOS C * LOS C LOS B * (29 sec) (24 sec) (28 sec) (20 sec) (22 sec) (20 sec) Jaguar Avenue LOS C LOS C LOS C LOS C LOS B LOS A (25 sec) (25 sec) (22 sec) (22 sec) (15 sec) (9 sec) *Signalized intersection. Delay and Level of Service reported is for side- street approaches only. Delays for traffic along CH 50 are reported here. The delay results illustrate that the only way to substantially reduce delay at all of the intersections along the corridor is to convert CH 50 to a 4 -lane facility. It should be noted that adding a signal at 192 "d Street (Alternative 4) does result in side - street delays very similar to improving CH 50 to a 4 -lane facility (Alternative 5), but it results in additional impacts not listed in Table 7. These include: 1. Safety: Crash rates are generally higher at signalized intersections than at non - signalized intersections. The crash history forthe corridor reported on Page 6 reflects this. In addition, adding a signal at the current 192 " Street intersection would involve additional risk factors for 19 SEPTEMBER 1111 - COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY crashes, including the horizontal and vertical curves on CH 50 that reduce sight lines to the intersection. 2. CH 50 Delays: Under Alternative 5, no signal is added at 192 " Street, so delay for CH 50 traffic is minimal. Under Alternative 4, where a signal is added at 192 Street, average delays for CH 50 northbound and southbound approaches are summarized in Table 8 and Table 9. This would be a substantial impact to CH 50 that does not occur with Alternative 5. Table 8 Average Delay and Level of Service Summary — CSAH 50 NORTH & SOUTH APPROACHES 192 " LOS A LOS A LOS A Street (i sec) (9 sec)* (9 sec)` *Signalized intersection. Table 9 Average Delay and Level of Service Summary —CSAH 50 LEFT TURNS ONLY ].92 LOS A. Street (5 sec) 192 LOS A Street (4 sec) *Signalized intersection. LOS C (26 sec)* LOS C (35 sec)* .Analysts Results All the alternatives were summarized with the following evaluation criteria to compare the operations and driver experience between each alternative: (1) Average Corridor Speed, (2) Average Travel Time, (3) Safety Performance vs. Existing, and (4) Cost. These factors along with the gap and delay analyses summarized in the previous section provide an overall comparison of the alternatives. Table 8 provides the summary of each alternative. For all existing scenarios (Alternatives 2 through 5), the average corridor speeds are higher than existing and varied between 41 mph and 45 mph. The SEPTEMBER 2013 m'- __ . Z. _ - . 20: 192 LOS A LOS B LOS B Street (1 sec) (11 sec)* (13 sec)* LOS, C LAS C (25 See? (35 sec)* COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY future alternative (Alternative 6) does have lower speeds, even with a 4 -lane cross section, however it also has a large increase in traffic volumes and adds another signal at 190 Street that together increases congestion and slows speeds. The speeds directly correlate with the average travel times that decrease in the existing scenarios. The safety performance is based on the change in traffic control and roadway geometry. The roundabout configuration has a lower crash rate than a signalized intersection, so an improvement in safety is expected with any alternative that replaces the signal with a roundabout. The conversion of the roadway to a four -lane divided roadway would also be considered a safety improvement since it provides the opportunity to minimize certain crash types (head -on crashes) and implement access restrictions (3/4 or right -in /out access). The final evaluation criteria was the overall cost of construction of the alternatives ranging from $3.5 million for the construction of just the roundabout at CH 60, to a concept level estimate of $12 million for the conversion of CH 50 to a 4 -lane divided roadway. Table 10 Alternative Analysis Results y M E g a d Alternative 1 EXISTING Alternative 2 EXISTING (improved signal at CH 60) Alternative 3 EXISTING (roundabout at CH 60) Alternative 4 EXISTING (roundabout at CH 60 & signal at 192' Alternative 5 EXISTING: (roundabout at CH 60 & four - lanes) Alternative 6 FUTURE 41 mph 43 mph 44 mph 42 mph 45 mph 37 mph Average (NB AM Peak) (NB AM Peak) (NB AM Peak) (NB AM Peak) (NB AM Peak) (NB AM Peak) Corridor Speed 35 mph 40 mph 41 mph 40 mph 43 mph 32 mph (SB PM Peak) (SB PM Peak) (SB PM Peak) (SB PM Peak) (SB PM Peak) (SB PM Peak) 4.0 min 3.8 min 3.7 min 3.9 min 3.6 min 4.4 min Average Travel (NB AM Peak) (NB AM Peak) (NB AM Peak) (NB AM Peak) (NB AM Peak) (NB AM Peak) Time 4.7 min 4.1 min 4.0 min 4.1 min 3.8 min 5.2 min (SB PM Peak) (SB PM Peak) (SB PM Peak) (SB PM Peak) (SB PM Peak) (SB PM Peak) 2012 Crash Rate Same safety Reduction in Reduction in Reduction in Reduction in =1.4 crashes performance as severity of crashes severity of crashes severity of crashes severity of crashes per million existing— no with roundabout with roundabout with roundabout at with roundabout vehicle miles reduction in at CH 60 at CH 60 CH 60 at CH 60 Safety Lower than the crashes expected Increase in crashes Reduction in head- Reduction in head - Performance vs. expected rate expected with on crashes with 4- on crashes with 4- Existing of 2.5 crashes signal at 192"" lane roadway lane roadway per million Street Reduction in right- Reduction In right - vehicle miles angle crashes with angle crashes with reduced - access reduced- access intersections intersections $12 million $12 million Additional (based on $4.5 (based on $4.5 Cost NA $8.3 million* $3.5 million* $250,000 million /mile million /mile for signal reconstruction reconstruction installation costs) costs) SEPTEMBER 2111 COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY Condusions The key objectives of this study included documenting the likely effects on access to the corridor associated with converting the signalized intersection of CH 50/60 to a roundabout and conducting a comprehensive review of access based on consistency with Dakota County guidelines and best safety practices. Modeling Results - Based on the modeling, the roundabout at CH 60 should have little effect on the current number of gaps and the delays experienced at local roads throughout the corridor. o Modeling indicates there will be a change in the nature of the gaps during the peak hours with a roundabout at CH 60, but the change in gaps does not affect the delays that will be experienced along the CH 50 corridor. o Modeling also indicates that forecast increases in traffic along the CH 50 corridor will likely have a greater effect on accessing the highway than converting the CH 50 /CH 60 intersection to a roundabout. o Modeling also indicates that adding a traffic signal to intersections with major collectors (190 Street /Jordan Trail and 192 Street) will not significantly improve the number of gaps on CH 50 from the minor street and the addition of traffic signals would adversely affect overall operations and safety along the corridor. • Corridor Safety - Most of the reported crashes (66 %) occurred at the intersection of CH 50 /CH 60. Each of the unsignalized intersections between CH 60 and Ipava Avenue averaged about one reported crash per year. • Access —The Future Access and Traffic Control Plan presented in Figure 6 should be used as a blue print for access along the corridor as new access is required to support future development, as improvements are made to CH 50, or as safety /operational issues are experienced. The Future Access and Traffic Control Plan includes the following elements: • 188 Street should be left as a side- street stop. If safety or operational issues are experienced in the future, conversion to a % access intersection should be considered. • 190 Street /Jordan Trail should be left as a side- street stop. If safety or operational issues are experienced in the future, conversion to a signalized intersection should be considered due to 190 Street's future functionality as a City east -west collector street. • Both accesses of Kenwood Way should be converted to right -in /right -out intersections at the time CH 50 is improved to a divided roadway. • 192 Street /North KTMS access should be left as a side - street stop. There are some delays currently experienced in the morning peak hour for traffic exiting the school, but they are short- lived, and the intersection has minimal reported crashes. Expanding CH 50 to 4 -lanes is the most effective way to reduce delays at this intersection. If safety or operational issues arise in the future at the intersection, the implications of the horizontal and vertical curvature of CH 50 should be taken into account before installing a signal. • 194 Street should be converted to a right -in /right -out intersection at the time CH 50 is improved to a divided roadway. SEPTEMBER 1111 22 COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY o The south KTMS access should be left as a side - street stop. Although the Dakota County Access Spacing guidelines recommend 1320' between full- movement intersections along divided roadways, this is not a typical intersection. This is a "T" intersection serving only the school (with low volumes), and restricting movements here would require more traffic to use the north entrance when exiting KTMS. With the two accesses operating well today, there is no tangible benefit to making such a change. If safety or operational issues are experienced in the future, movement restrictions should be considered at that time. • Jaguar Avenue should be left as a side - street stop. If safety or operational issues are experienced in the future, conversion to a % access intersection should be considered together with an alternative connection from the neighborhood to Ipava Avenue. • 198 Way should be constructed as a % intersection with a future CH 50 improvement project. • Ipava Avenue should continue as a signalized intersection. • A potential new access to future developable area northeast of CH 50 should be considered between Ipava Avenue and Icenic Trail with a future CH 50 improvement project. Allowing for more efficient connection to existing parcels via this access should be provided if the access can be constructed safety and feasibly. o Icenic Trail should be constructed as a % intersection with a future CH 50 improvement project due to its close proximity to Dodd Road and its connectivity to Dodd Road north of CH 50. Jaguar Avenue —The intersection currently has more than one acceptable gap per minute during the peak hours suggesting adequate access to CH 50. Modeling indicates that a roundabout at CH 50 /CH 60 would reduce the number of acceptable gaps by 10% in the PM peak hour, but there would still be more than one per minute during the peak traffic periods, so average delays are not significantly affected. However, for fire /life /safety concerns, an additional access to the neighborhood would also provide a connection to a signal controlled intersection for access to CH 50. The suggested location would be between Itasca Lane and 201 Street. A second approach lane for Jaguar Avenue will also help to reduce delays at the CH 50 intersection by allowing right turns to enter onto CH 50 without having to wait for left- turning vehicles. 23 SEPTEMBER 2011 COUNTY HIGHWAY 50 (KENWOOD TRAIL) CORRIDOR STUDY Recommendations The following are recommended next steps based on the analysis completed as part of this study: • Planning and construction should continue for the roundabout at CH 60. The modeling did not suggest that there would be significant impact to operations along the CH 50 corridor due to the change from a signalized intersection to a roundabout. The modeling did indicate that the nature of the gaps during the peak hours would change, but it would not significantly affect the delay experienced by traffic entering CH 50 from the sidestreets. • A follow -up Gap Analysis Study should be performed after construction of the roundabout to verify the results of the modeling. • Dakota County and City of Lakeville should consider improving CH 50 to a four -lane roadway to reduce delays along the corridor and to address the challenges related to growth and development in the area. As the design moves forward, the potential right -of -way impacts and access control options should be examined in more detail. Jaguar Avenue's approach to CH 50 should be widened to provide separate left and right turn lanes. • The Future Access and Traffic Control Plan developed as part of this project should be used to guide future decisions on the CH 50 corridor. SEPTEMBER 1011 24