HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 10 Memorandum
ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 | 763.475.0010 | WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM
SRF No. 0138344/024F
To: Zach Johnson, P.E., City Engineer
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
From: Jeff Bednar, TOPS, Senior Traffic Engineering Specialist
Date: December 31, 2014
Subject: FLAGSTAFF AVENUE/179TH STREET INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL EVALUATION
UPDATE AND TRAFFIC SAFETY STUDY
CITY PROJECT 14-20
Introduction
As requested, SRF has completed a Flagstaff Avenue/179th Street Intersection Traffic Control
Evaluation Update and Traffic Safety Study (see Figure 1). The primary purpose and objective of this
study is to update and reevaluate, the Flagstaff Avenue/179th Street Intersection Traffic Control
Evaluation that was completed in December 2010 by SRF (as recommended in the 2010 study) and
review recent traffic safety within the study area in consideration of new development and traffic
safety concerns expressed by residents and as a follow-up to the 2010 study.
Existing Conditions
Intersection Area Characteristics
The area surrounding the subject intersection is primarily low-density residential with some
undeveloped land to the south and east. As was recommended in the 2010 study, the southbound
intersection approach has been improved by restriping the north leg of Flagstaff Avenue to provide
an exclusive southbound left-turn lane and the vegetation related sight distance restriction in the
northeast corner of the subject intersection has been improved. Since the 2010 study, Flagstaff Avenue
(the south leg of the intersection) has now been paved in Farmington and a new Farmington High
School was constructed on Flagstaff Avenue approximately 2.6 miles south of the subject intersection.
Traffic Safety/Intersection Crash Analysis
Crash data provided by MnDOT and the Lakeville Police Department was reviewed as part of this
traffic control evaluation and traffic safety review. Based on the available crash data reported to
MnDOT for the five-year period from October 31, 2009 through October 31, 2014, there were a total
of seven reported crashes at the subject intersection. One crash involved a seriously injured
southbound motorcyclist colliding with a northbound left-turning/failing to yield vehicle on a Friday
evening in July, 2011. Two of the reported crashes involved less serious injuries and four crashes
involved property damage only.
Figure 1
Project Location
H
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
8
3
4
4
/
0
2
4
F
\
T
S
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
F
i
g
0
1
0138344/024F
November 2014
N
Flagstaff Avenue/179th Street Intersection Traffic Control Evaluation Update and Traffic Safety Study
City of Lakeville
Project Location
Zach Johnson, P.E. December 31, 2014
City of Lakeville Page 3
The crash data provided by the Lakeville Police Department includes the most recent 12-month period
from October 15, 2013 to October 15, 2014. The City’s database is a “calls for service” type data base,
and listed six intersection crash-related calls for service at the subject intersection over the past 12-
months. Of the six crash-related calls for service/reportable crashes, four were 179th Street stop
approach rear-end collisions, one involved a construction zone closure of Flagstaff Avenue south of
the intersection/winter weather related U-Turn and one involved an eastbound 179th Street vehicle,
failure to yield right angle collision with a school bus (no student passengers were onboard).
Another crash that involved a serious injury occurred at the subject intersection during the traffic data
collection/video imaging for this study. Although a crash report is not available at this time, it appears
that this crash involved a northbound left-turning/failing to yield vehicle colliding with a southbound
through vehicle on Wednesday, October 22, 2014 just before 5:00 p.m. (see Figure 2).
Two of the Lakeville Police Department reported crashes were included in the MnDOT reported
crashes resulting in a total of 11 reported crashes at the subject intersection for the five year study
period. If the crash that occurred on Wednesday, October 22, 2014 is included, there were 12 crashes
at the subject intersection for the five year study period. In comparison, in the 2010 study there were
five reported crashes during the study period of January 2007 through October 2010.
The rate at which reported crashes are occurring at the subject intersection is 1.15 crashes per million
entering vehicles. This intersection crash rate is above the critical crash rate of 0.63 crashes per million
entering vehicles for similar intersections (four-legged side-street stop-controlled with similar volume
collector roadways). The critical crash rate provides a statistically relevant benchmark for comparison.
With a crash rate above the critical crash rate and two recent significant crashes occurring within a
short time period, a thorough review of traffic safety at the subject intersection is justified.
Since detailed crash reports are not available at his time, the following descriptions for the two most
recent crashes at the subject intersection are based on the best anecdotal information available:
October 15, 2014 – An eastbound vehicle failed to stop at the stop sign and collided with a
southbound school bus. There were no student passengers onboard at the time. The vehicle sustained
significant damage and both driver and passenger of the vehicle were transported to Region’s Hospital
and were later released with minor injuries.
October 22, 2014 – A three vehicle crash occurred at the intersection of Flagstaff and 179th Street
when a northbound left-turning/failing to yield vehicle collided with a southbound through vehicle.
These two vehicles then collided with a third eastbound right-turning vehicle stopped at the stop sign.
One person was transported to HCMC with a possible broken leg and shock and another person was
transported to Fairview Ridges with minor injuries. Note that this traffic control/safety review began
before this crash occurred and it was captured during the data collection/video imaging for this study.
A review of these crash descriptions and other information available related to these two most recent
Flagstaff Avenue/179th Street intersection crashes indicates that a potential contributing factor in
both crashes may be driver inattention/distraction. It does not appear that there were any intersection
design or operational conditions that may have potentially contributed to these crashes.
Figure 2
October 22, 2014 Crash – Traffic Data Collection Video Image Capture
H
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
8
3
4
4
/
0
2
4
F
\
T
S
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
F
i
g
0
1
2
0138344/024F
November 2014
Flagstaff Avenue/179th Street Intersection Traffic Control Evaluation Update and Traffic Safety Study
City of Lakeville
Point of Impact
Zach Johnson, P.E. December 31, 2014
City of Lakeville Page 5
Vehicular Traffic Volumes and Roadway Conditions
During the week of October 20th, 2014, a video camera was placed at the Flagstaff Avenue/179th
Street intersection to capture imaging to be used to conduct vehicular traffic volume counts at the
intersection. These counts focused on the hourly intersection approach volumes (6:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m.) to be used in an intersection traffic control warrants analysis (multi-way stop control and traffic
signal control). The a.m. peak hour was 7:00 to 8:00 a.m., while the p.m. peak hour was generally 5:00
to 6:00 p.m. The intersection approach peak hour traffic volumes are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Existing Flagstaff Avenue/179th Street Intersection Peak Hour Approach Traffic Volumes
Intersection Approach A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Northbound Flagstaff Avenue 332 244
Southbound Flagstaff Avenue 182 213
Eastbound 179th Street 26 98
Westbound 179th Street 23 16
It should be noted that, at this time, the intersection peak hour approach traffic volumes on Flagstaff
Avenue are significantly higher than the volumes on 179th Street. The average daily traffic volumes at
the intersection exhibit this same pattern and are summarized as follows:
Flagstaff Avenue average daily traffic volume north of 179th Street = 2,350
Flagstaff Avenue average daily traffic volume south of 179th Street = 5,900
179th Street average daily traffic volume east of Flagstaff Avenue = 320
179th Street average daily traffic volume west of Flagstaff Avenue = 1,960
In addition to the hourly intersection approach counts, observations were completed to identify
roadway characteristics within the study area (i.e. intersection sight distance, roadway geometry, posted
speed limits, traffic signing, pavement markings and traffic control). Parking is prohibited on Flagstaff
Avenue and 179th Street throughout the study area.
The existing intersection (see Figure 3) is a four-legged, side-street stop-controlled intersection
(currently the east and westbound approaches are required to stop) with multilane approaches on all
four legs. The east and westbound 179th Street approaches are controlled with a single standard stop
sign on the right-side of the approach. With multiple lanes of approach, an optional stop sign on the
left-side of the approach (on the median) often referred to as “gate posted” stop signs, can be
considered to enhance the visibility of the stop control. This is particularly effective if higher profile
vehicles (trucks/buses) are in the right-turn lane and block visibility to the single right-side stop sign.
A preliminary review of the existing intersection revealed a potential sight distance restriction for
westbound traffic on 179th Street that involves vegetation in the northeast corner of the intersection
and the high point of a crest in the vertical alignment on Flagstaff Avenue approximately 450 feet
north of 179th Street.
Figure 3
Existing Intersection Geometrics
H
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
8
3
4
4
/
0
2
4
F
\
T
S
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
F
i
g
0
3
0138344/024F
November 2014
N
Flagstaff Avenue/179th Street Intersection Traffic Control Evaluation Update and Traffic Safety Study
City of Lakeville
Flagstaff Ave
1
7
9
t
h
S
t
Zach Johnson, P.E. December 31, 2014
City of Lakeville Page 7
A time-based intersection sight distance field review was conducted during the week of October 20th,
2014, to determine if there is adequate sight distance for westbound and eastbound vehicles
approaching the intersection of 179th Street. The time-based sight distance is the interval in seconds
from seeing headlamps of a southbound vehicle come up over crest on Flagstaff Avenue north of
179th Street, until that vehicle arrives at center of intersection.
The results of this time-based intersection sight distance field review indicate that there is generally
adequate intersection sight distance available for east and westbound traffic approaching Flagstaff
Avenue on 179th Avenue. However, there were some southbound vehicles on Flagstaff Avenue that
were traveling above the posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour (mph) resulting in some gaps that
were less than acceptable. The results of the time-based intersection sight distance field review are
summarized as follows:
Average time-based sight distance = 8.7 seconds
Minimum time-based sight distance = 6.4 seconds
Maximum time-based sight distance = 10.8 seconds
It should be noted that, based on widely accepted values, in order to be completed safely, an eastbound
or westbound 179th Street left-turn requires 7.5 seconds, an eastbound or westbound 179th Street
right-turn requires 6.6 seconds and a northbound or southbound Flagstaff Avenue left-turn requires
5.5 seconds. Therefore, southbound vehicles traveling at speeds above the posted speed limit may not
provide adequate sight distance for the eastbound/westbound left-turns and eastbound/westbound
right-turns on 179th Street at Flagstaff Avenue, to be completed safely.
The posted speed limit on Flagstaff Avenue is 40 miles per hour (mph) north of 179th Street and 45
mph south of 179th Street. It should be noted that, MnDOT conducted the required speed studies to
establish these posted speed limits. During the week of October 20th, 2014, a spot speed study was
conducted of northbound and southbound vehicles on Flagstaff Avenue through the intersection at
179th Street. The results of this Flagstaff Avenue spot speed study are summarized in Table 2 and
indicate that prevailing speeds are significantly above the posted speed limits.
Table 2. Existing Flagstaff Avenue Approach to 179th Street Spot Speed Study Results
Flagstaff Avenue Posted
Limit
Average
Speed
85th
Percentile
Maximum
Speed
Minimum
Speed
Southbound - North of 179th Street 40 mph 46 mph 54 mph 63 mph 39 mph
Northbound - South of 179th Street 45 mph 56 mph 64 mph 68 mph 39 mph
Zach Johnson, P.E. December 31, 2014
City of Lakeville Page 8
Intersection Traffic Control Evaluation (Warrant Analysis)
A multi-way stop control and traffic signal control warrants analysis for the subject intersection was
completed based on traffic counts conducted during the week of October 20th, 2014, using the
warrants and guidance provided in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MnMUTCD). The results of this analysis (see attached Warrants Analysis table and charts) indicate
that existing volumes at the subject intersection do not satisfy the warrants for either multi-way stop
or traffic signal control. There were no hours that satisfied the multi-way stop control warrants (eight
hours are required to be satisfied) and no hours were satisfied for the traffic signal control warrants
(eight hours are also generally required to be satisfied).
The MnMUTCD allows multi-way stop control to be considered at an intersection of “two residential
neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-
way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics at the intersection”. Ordinarily,
multi-way stop control is best suited where traffic volumes on all approaches to the intersection are
approximately equal. However, since the existing traffic volume on Flagstaff Avenue is significantly
higher than the volume on 179th Street, this optional multi-way stop control criteria from the
MnMUTCD does not apply.
A crash problem, as indicated by five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are
susceptible to correction by installation of multi-way stop or traffic signal control, can be used to
justify installation of such traffic control. Crashes that are susceptible to correction by installation of
multi-way stop or traffic signal control include right and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle
collisions. Since the crash analysis revealed that only the two most recent crashes (October 15 and
October 22, 2014) occurring within the past 12-month period, may be susceptible to correction, the
installation of a multi-way stop or traffic signal control at the Flagstaff Avenue and 179th Street
intersection cannot be justified based on crash history.
Potential Intersection Traffic Safety Improvements
Identified Intersection Traffic Safety Strategies
The candidate strategies identified in Table 3 may reduce the potential for severe crashes at the subject
intersection and may be applicable to the study area. The identified strategies provide a range of actions
contained within the current state of the practice in Minnesota relating to the design and operation of
urban/suburban intersections. These strategies were evaluated as to their applicability to the study
area conditions and City of Lakeville policy/practice.
Zach Johnson, P.E. December 31, 2014
City of Lakeville Page 9
Table 3. Flagstaff Avenue/179th Street Intersection Safety Strategies Applicability/Evaluation
Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety Strategy Applicability Cost/Location Comment High Low
Outreach/Public Information Programs Varies/Low Use City/School newsletters/websites
Enhanced Traffic Law Enforcement Varies/Low Utilize reserve officers/other available
Radar Speed Driver Feedback Signs $10,000 On Flagstaff Ave. N & S of 179th St.
“Gate Post” Stop Signs on 179th St. $1,000 Install Stop Signs on left-side (median)
Flashing Stop Signs on 179th St. $5,000 Flashing Beacon/Border Flashing LEDs
Flashing Stop Ahead Signs on 179th St. $5,000 Flashing Beacon/Border Flashing LEDs
Stop Ahead Pavement Markings on 179th $3,000 Regular special maintenance cost
Multi-Way Stop Controlled Intersection $5,000 Not warranted/justified
Traffic Signal Controlled Intersection $250,000 Not warranted/justified, high cost
Summary of Findings and Conclusions
Based on the Flagstaff Avenue/179th Street Intersection Traffic Control Evaluation Update and
Traffic Safety Study, the following findings and conclusions are offered for consideration:
1. The rate at which reported crashes are occurring at the subject intersection is 1.15 crashes per
million entering vehicles. This intersection crash rate is above the critical crash rate of 0.63 crashes
per million entering vehicles for similar intersections (four-legged side-street stop-controlled with
similar volume collector roadways). The critical crash rate provides a statistically relevant
benchmark for comparison.
2. With a crash rate above the critical crash rate and two recent significant crashes occurring within
a short time period, a thorough review of traffic safety at the subject intersection is justified. A
review of the crash information available related to these two most recent subject intersection
crashes indicates that a potential contributing factor in both crashes may be driver
inattention/distraction. It does not appear that there were any intersection design or operational
conditions that may have potentially contributed to these two recent crashes.
3. Two of the Lakeville Police Department reported crashes were included in the MnDOT reported
crashes resulting in a total of 11 reported crashes at the subject intersection for the five year study
period. If the crash that occurred on Wednesday, October 22, 2014 is included, there were 12
crashes at the subject intersection for the five year study period. In comparison, in the 2010 study
there were five reported crashes during the study period of January 2007 through October 2010.
4. At this time, the intersection peak hour approach traffic volumes on Flagstaff Avenue are
significantly higher than the volumes on 179th Street. The average daily traffic volumes at the
intersection exhibit this same pattern.
Zach Johnson, P.E. December 31, 2014
City of Lakeville Page 10
5. The existing intersection is a four-legged, side-street stop-controlled intersection (currently the
east and westbound approaches are required to stop) with multilane approaches on all four legs.
The east and westbound 179th Street approaches are controlled with a single standard stop sign
on the right-side of the approach. With multiple lanes of approach, an optional stop sign on the
left-side of the approach (on the median) often referred to as “gate posted” stop signs, can be
considered to enhance the visibility of the stop control. This is particularly effective if higher
profile vehicles are often in the right-turn lane and block visibility to the single right-side stop sign.
6. The results of a time-based intersection sight distance field review indicate that, based on posted
speed limit and other physical conditions, there is adequate intersection sight distance available
for east and westbound traffic approaching Flagstaff Avenue on 179th Avenue. However, there
were some southbound vehicles on Flagstaff Avenue that were traveling above the posted spee d
limit of 40 miles per hour (mph) resulting in some gaps that were less than acceptable.
7. The posted speed limit on Flagstaff Avenue is 40 miles per hour (mph) north of 179th Street and
45 mph south of 179th Street (established by MnDOT speed studies). During the week of October
20th, 2014, a spot speed study was conducted of north and southbound vehicles on Flagstaff
Avenue through the intersection at 179th Street. The results of this Flagstaff Avenue spot speed
study indicate that prevailing speeds are significantly above the posted speed limits.
8. The results of a Warrants Analysis indicate that existing volumes at the subject intersection do not
satisfy the warrants for multi-way stop or traffic signal control. There were no hours that satisfied
the multi-way stop control warrants (eight hours are required to be satisfied) and no hours were
satisfied for the traffic signal control warrants (eight hours are also required to be satisfied).
9. The MnMUTCD allows multi-way stop control to be considered at an intersection of “two
residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics
where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics at the
intersection”. Ordinarily, multi-way stop control is best suited where traffic volumes on all
approaches to the intersection are approximately equal. However, since the existing traffic volume
on Flagstaff Avenue is significantly higher than the volume on 179th Street at this time, this
optional multi-way stop control criteria from the MnMUTCD does not apply.
10. A crash problem, indicated by five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period, susceptible to
correction by installation of multi-way stop or traffic signal control, can be used to justify
installation of such traffic control. Crashes that are susceptible to correction by installation of
multi-way stop or traffic signal control include right and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle
collisions. Since only the two most recent crashes occurring within the past 12-month period, may
be susceptible to correction, the installation of a multi-way stop or traffic signal control at the
Flagstaff Avenue/179th Street intersection cannot be justified based on crash history.
11. Candidate intersection safety strategies were identified that may reduce the potential for severe
crashes at the subject intersection and may be applicable to the study area. The identified strategies
provide a range of actions contained within the current state of the practice in Minnesota relating
to the design and operation of urban/suburban intersections. These strategies were evaluated as
to their applicability to the study area conditions and City of Lakeville policy/practice.
Zach Johnson, P.E. December 31, 2014
City of Lakeville Page 11
Summary of Recommendations
Based on the study findings and conclusions the following actions to enhance and improve
intersection safety within the Flagstaff Avenue/179th Street intersection study area are recommended
for your consideration (see Figure 4):
1. Install Radar Speed Driver Feedback Signs on Flagstaff Avenue for southbound drivers north of
179th Street and for northbound drivers south of 179th Street. Radar Speed Driver Feedback
Signs are a proven solution to raise the speed awareness of oncoming drivers. Studies repeatedly
show that when alerted by a radar sign, speeders will reduce speed up to 80 percent of the time.
Radar Speed Feedback Signs can be placed temporarily and relocated to target similar locations
and be more effective due to the random/intermittent feedback provided. Typical average speed
reductions are 10-20 percent and overall compliance with the posted speed limit will increase by
30-60 percent. The total cost of these Radar Speed Driver Feedback Signs is estimated at $10,000.
2. Install stop signs on the left-side of the 179th Street approaches (on the median) often referred to
as “gate posted” stop signs, to enhance the visibility of the stop control. This is particularly
effective if higher profile vehicles (trucks/buses) are in the right-turn lane and block visibility to
the single right-side stop sign. The total cost of these safety improvements is estimated at $1,000.
3. Encourage drivers to comply with traffic laws and safe driving practices (increase driver attention
and awareness) at the Flagstaff Avenue/179th Street intersection and Citywide, through an
outreach/public information program utilizing the City of Lakeville/Lakeville and Farmington
schools periodic newsletters/websites (see attached examples of driver safety programs and
information that could be placed in the City/Schools newsletters or on the City/Schools websites).
4. Consider tasking Lakeville and Farmington Police, with enhanced/stepped-up strict enforcement
of traffic laws, particularly laws related to speed, aggressive driving, failure to yield or stop sign
compliance within the study area.
5. Following implementation or application of these strategies, the City should periodically (i.e. after
new development occurs, roadway system extensions/improvements, new traffic counts are
completed, every two to four years) review, evaluate, and if necessary, modify these strategies to
make them more consistent with actual local conditions and system needs as conditions change
(i.e. significant future traffic volume growth on 179th Street, significant vegetation growth in the
northeast intersection corner).
6. Consider long range future planning and operations strategies to improve traffic operations and
traffic safety at the subject intersection such as; updated Flagstaff Avenue speed study and/or
completion of an Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Report to include future installation of
traffic signal control or reconstruction to a modern roundabout.
H:\Projects\8344\024F_179th and Flagstaff Review\TS\Memo\141231_Flagstaff_179th_8344-F.docx
Figure 4
Recommended Intersection Safety Improvements
H
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
8
3
4
4
/
0
2
4
F
\
T
S
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
s
\
F
i
g
0
4
0138344/024F
November 2014
N
Flagstaff Avenue/179th Street Intersection Traffic Control Evaluation Update and Traffic Safety Study
City of Lakeville
Flagstaff Ave
1
7
9
t
h
S
t
SP
E
E
D
LI
M
I
T
40
YO
U
R
SP
E
E
D
48
S
P
E
E
D
L
I
M
I
T
4
5
Y
O
U
R
S
P
E
E
D
5
6
Radar Speed
Driver Feedback Sign
Radar Speed
Driver Feedback Sign
Gate Post
Stop Sign
Gate Post
Stop Sign
450 FT
650 FT
WA
R
R
A
N
T
S
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
2014
Fl
a
g
s
t
a
f
f
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
1
7
9
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
&
S
a
f
e
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Ci
t
y
o
f
L
a
k
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
M
N
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
Ci
t
y
o
f
L
a
k
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
M
N
Sp
e
e
d
(
m
p
h
)
L
a
n
e
s
Da
t
e
:
10
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
4
4
5
2
o
r
m
o
r
e
M
a
j
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
1
:
Je
f
f
B
e
d
n
a
r
/
T
o
m
S
a
c
h
i
4
0
2
o
r
m
o
r
e
M
a
j
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
3
:
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
L
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
1
0
,
0
0
0
:
No
40
2
o
r
m
o
r
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
2
:
Se
v
e
n
t
y
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
F
a
c
t
o
r
U
s
e
d
:
Ye
s
40
2
o
r
m
o
r
e
M
i
n
o
r
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
4
:
Ma
j
o
r
M
a
j
o
r
T
o
t
a
l
M
i
n
o
r
M
i
n
o
r
L
a
r
g
e
s
t
Ho
u
r
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
1
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
3
1
+
3
4
2
0
6
3
0
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
2
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
4
M
i
n
o
r
A
p
p
.
1
4
0
7
0
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
A
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
B
A
B
2
1
0
1
4
0
6
-
7
A
M
2
8
1
7
0
3
5
1
16
1
5
1
6
X
7
-
8
A
M
3
3
2
1
8
2
5
1
4
X
26
2
3
2
6
X
8
-
9
A
M
2
5
3
1
8
3
4
3
6
X
37
2
2
3
7
X
9
-
1
0
A
M
1
5
7
7
7
2
3
4
28
2
2
2
8
X
10
-
1
1
A
M
9
6
5
9
1
5
5
20
1
9
2
0
11
-
1
2
A
M
1
0
4
6
7
1
7
1
25
1
2
2
5
12
-
1
P
M
1
0
7
7
7
1
8
4
37
2
2
3
7
1
-
2
P
M
1
1
9
7
9
1
9
8
24
1
7
2
4
2
-
3
P
M
1
6
7
1
1
0
2
7
7
39
1
9
3
9
X
3
-
4
P
M
2
3
5
1
3
2
3
6
7
53
1
3
5
3
X
4
-
5
P
M
2
4
0
1
8
5
4
2
5
X
93
1
7
9
3
X
X
5
-
6
P
M
2
4
4
2
1
3
4
5
7
X
98
1
6
9
8
X
X
6
-
7
P
M
2
5
2
1
8
4
4
3
6
X
70
2
8
7
0
X
X
7
-
8
P
M
0
0
0
00
0
8
-
9
P
M
0
0
0
00
0
9
-
1
0
P
M
0
0
0
00
0
10
-
1
1
P
M
0
0
0
00
0
00
0
0
Wa
r
r
a
n
t
1
A
:
M
i
n
i
m
u
m
V
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
V
o
l
u
m
e
Wa
r
r
a
n
t
1
B
:
I
n
t
e
r
r
u
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Wa
r
r
a
n
t
1
C
:
C
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
s
Wa
r
r
a
n
t
2
:
F
o
u
r
-
H
o
u
r
V
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
V
o
l
u
m
e
Wa
r
r
a
n
t
3
B
:
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
MW
S
A
(
C
)
:
M
u
l
t
i
w
a
y
S
t
o
p
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
C
Not Met
4
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Wa
r
r
a
n
t
a
n
d
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
0
Not Met
08
Not Met
08
Not Met
08
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
F
l
a
g
s
t
a
f
f
A
v
e
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
F
l
a
g
s
t
a
f
f
A
v
e
Ea
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
1
7
9
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
We
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
1
7
9
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
B
y
:
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
:
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
s
1
A
,
1
B
a
n
d
1
C
Wa
r
r
a
n
t
M
e
t
Combination
01
Not Met0Met/Not Met
Wa
r
r
a
n
t
M
e
t
M
e
t
S
a
m
e
H
o
u
r
s
08
Not Met
Ho
u
r
s
M
e
t
H
o
u
r
s
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
MWSA (C)
WA
R
R
A
N
T
S
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
2014
Fl
a
g
s
t
a
f
f
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
1
7
9
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
&
S
a
f
e
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Ci
t
y
o
f
L
a
k
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
M
N
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
H
o
u
r
s
S
a
t
i
s
f
y
i
n
g
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
No
t
e
s
:
1
.
8
0
V
P
H
A
P
P
L
I
E
S
A
S
T
H
E
L
O
W
E
R
T
H
R
E
S
H
O
L
D
V
O
L
U
M
E
F
O
R
A
M
I
N
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H
W
I
T
H
T
W
O
O
R
M
O
R
E
L
A
N
E
S
A
N
D
6
0
V
P
H
A
P
P
L
I
E
S
A
S
T
H
E
L
O
W
E
R
T
H
R
E
S
H
O
L
D
V
O
L
U
M
E
F
O
R
A
M
I
N
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
O
N
E
L
A
N
E
.
2.
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
I
S
E
I
T
H
E
R
(
1
)
W
I
T
H
I
N
A
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
L
E
S
S
T
H
A
N
1
0
,
0
0
0
P
O
P
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
O
R
(
2
)
H
A
S
S
P
E
E
D
S
A
B
O
V
E
4
0
M
P
H
O
N
M
A
J
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
.
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
:
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
2
0
0
10
0
20
0
30
0
40
0
50
0
60
0
70
0
80
0
90
0
10
0
0
11
0
0
10
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
5
0
0
1
6
0
0
1
7
0
0
1
8
0
0
1
9
0
0
2
0
0
0
M
I
N
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
H
I
G
H
V
O
L
U
M
E
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H
-
-
V
P
H
MA
J
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
-
-
T
O
T
A
L
O
F
B
O
T
H
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H
E
S
-
-
V
P
H
WA
R
R
A
N
T
2
-
F
O
U
R
-
H
O
U
R
V
E
H
I
C
U
L
A
R
V
O
L
U
M
E
WA
R
R
A
N
T
S
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
2014
Fl
a
g
s
t
a
f
f
A
v
e
n
u
e
a
n
d
1
7
9
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
&
S
a
f
e
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Ci
t
y
o
f
L
a
k
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
M
N
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
H
o
u
r
s
S
a
t
i
s
f
y
i
n
g
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
No
t
e
s
:
1
.
1
0
0
V
P
H
A
P
P
L
I
E
S
A
S
T
H
E
L
O
W
E
R
T
H
R
E
S
H
O
L
D
V
O
L
U
M
E
F
O
R
A
M
I
N
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H
W
I
T
H
T
W
O
O
R
M
O
R
E
L
A
N
E
S
A
N
D
7
5
V
P
H
A
P
P
L
I
E
S
A
S
T
H
E
L
O
W
E
R
T
H
R
E
S
H
O
L
D
V
O
L
U
M
E
F
O
R
A
M
I
N
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H
I
N
G
W
I
T
H
O
N
E
L
A
N
E
.
0
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
:
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
3
0
10
0
20
0
30
0
40
0
50
0
60
0
70
0
80
0
90
0
10
0
0
11
0
0
10
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
5
0
0
1
6
0
0
1
7
0
0
1
8
0
0
1
9
0
0
2
0
0
0
M
I
N
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
H
I
G
H
V
O
L
U
M
E
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H
-
-
V
P
H
MA
J
O
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
-
-
T
O
T
A
L
O
F
B
O
T
H
A
P
P
R
O
A
C
H
E
S
-
-
V
P
H
WA
R
R
A
N
T
3
-
P
E
A
K
H
O
U
R
Driver Safety Outreach
ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 | 763.475.0010 | WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM
A City of Lakeville Driver Safety Outreach and Public Information program may include any of the
following activities or components:
Utilizing the Lakeville and Farmington City and Schools periodic newsletters/websites,
provide residents with driver safety information, flyers/brochures, such as those attached.
Determine the educational needs of local drivers and assemble a list of the most important
driver safety messages (targeting speeding, aggressive driving and driver distraction) and
create a media campaign to get them across. Include the experiences of current local drivers
as a way of personalizing the messages and lending added credibility.
Identify local driver safety advocacy groups and stakeholders to partner with to promote
driver safety at local community events. Consider establishing a traffic safety coalition.
Work with local driver training instructors to identify key driver safety messages for delivery
to new drivers, as well as those required to take remedial driving courses.
A wide range of additional activities can be considered dependent on the level of local
commitment and funding available.
What costs society
$44,193 a minute?
(answer) ... check your
speedometer as you drive home!
Exceeding the posted limit or driving too fast for
conditions is one of the most prevalent factors
contributing to traffic crashes. Speed is a factor in
nearly one-third of all fatal crashes. Speed-related
crashes cost society more than $23 billion a year.*
Too few drivers view speeding as an immediate risk
to their personal safety or the safety of others. Yet,
speeding reduces a driver's ability to steer safely
around curves or objects in the roadway, and it
extends the distance required to stop a vehicle in
emergency situations.
Crash severity increases with the speed of the
vehicle at impact. Inversely, the effectiveness of
restraint devices like air bags and safety belts, and
vehicular construction features such as crumple
zones and side member beams decline as impact
speed increases.
The probability of death, disfigurement, or
debilitating injury grows with higher speed at impact.
Such consequences double for every 10 mph over
50 mph that a vehicle travels.
Many drivers don't consider this. They slow their
speed in residential areas, or when the weather
turns bad.To them, a few miles an hour over the
posted speed limit is an acceptable risk. Their
excuse -- other drivers do it.
They believe the worst that
can happen to them is to
receive a speeding ticket.
Drivers like this are wrong.
Maybe even dead wrong,
because driving too fast for
conditions or exceeding the
posted speed limit can kill
you.
Think Fast...
* in 1994 dollars
Consider These
Speed-Related Facts
Rural roads account for over 60 percent of all speed-
related fatal crashes.
Sixty six percent of speed-related crashes involved a
single vehicle.
Sixty percent of all speed- related fatal crashes occurred
at night (6 pm to 6 am).
Drivers involved in speed-related fatal crashes are more
likely to have a history of traffic violations.
On average, 1,000 Americans are killed every month in
speed-related crashes.
Youth and Speeding
Of all drivers aged 15-24 years of age involved in fatal
crashes, 32 percent were speeding.
Of drivers under age 21 involved in fatal crashes,
38 percent of the male and 24 percent of the female
drivers were speeding.
Economic and
Environmental
Costs of $peeding
Fuel consumption increases steadily above 45 mph with
passenger cars and light trucks using approximately 50
percent more fuel traveling at 75 mph than they do at
55 mph.
U.S. Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
The success of the "Speed Shatters Life"
campaign is directly correlated to the
aggressiveness of individual efforts to
encourage the placement of NHTSA's public
service advertising (PSA) materials. There is
no paid placement of any of these PSAs.
"Speed Shatters Life" is a nationwide,
multimedia PSA campaign designed to:
• Increase awareness with the motoring
public about the dangers of driving too
fast for conditions or exceeding the
posted speed limit;
• Obtain the public's voluntary compliance
with posted speed limits; and
• Provide support for law enforcement
agencies actively involved in enforcement
programs.
Strategies for Marketing
the Campaign Materials
Contact media outlets in your area
(newspapers, magazines, radio, broadcast and
cable television, etc.) and highway safety
advocates that might carry the campaign
message (local businesses,
state and local government
agencies, religious groups,
non-profit or public service
organizations, schools, and
community groups).The following
information applies equally to all.
The Message
There are two points to be stressed with any
media outlet or supportive organization: first,
that today law enforcement faces difficult
challenges with limited resources, increased
demand for services, and frequent
reassignment of police traffic enforcement
assets to fight drugs and crime; secondly,
research shows motorists erroneously believe
that speeding is not a great risk to safety or as
serious as other traffic violations. On the
contrary, the consequences of excessive
speed include:
• Greater potential for loss of vehicle control;
• Reduced effectiveness of occupant
protection equipment;
• Increased stopping distance after the driver
perceives a danger;
• Increased degree of crash severity leading
to more disabling injuries;
• The unexpected economic and even
psychological implications of a speed-
related crash; and
• Increased fuel consumption/cost.
The "Speed Shatters Life"
Campaign is equal in scope to
NHTSA's other major outreach
efforts, like safety belts and
impaired driving.
Strategies for Distributing
"Speed Shatters Life"Campaign
Public Service Advertising Materials
Identifying the Media
Identify media outlets you wish to contact by
checking the local telephone directory’s yellow
pages, consulting a media directory at the
library, reading a publication's masthead, or
watching the credits after a television production.
Read, listen to, or watch the outlet to obtain
further information on format, style, audience
and other public service campaigns they may
already endorse.
Contacting the Media
Localization of the campaign is the key to
successful PSA placement. Be familiar with PSA
materials that you are promoting. Know the
abstract data on speed-related crashes overall
and your state and region in particular so you
can discuss the socioeconomic impact of this
issue at any level. Contact local law
enforcement agencies to determine what they
are doing related to speed enforcement and how
you can support them and localize the issue.
Telephone the media outlet to determine the
name (and correct spelling) of the public service
director or editor responsible for PSAs. Before
telephoning, outline on a single page the key
points you wish to make in your conversation,
tailored to address the particular needs and
interests of the media you are dealing with; for
instance, editorial writers want the social
implications and business editors the economic
side. Remember, the person you will be
speaking with is constantly approached by
spokespersons for other, equally worthy public
service projects requesting limited air time or
print space.This is why you must know your
subject well and make a case for it in the
shortest possible time. Keep the call short and
conclude by suggesting that you will deliver the
campaign materials in person, which is
preferable to mailing them. Such effort
demonstrates a personal commitment to the
issue of speed and will allow you to expand
upon the campaign and the PSAs.It can also
reinforce the campaign’s local aspect.
If you must write, in lieu of a visit, personalize
the pitch letter that accompanies the PSAs with
the person’s name (not "Dear Sir") and title.
Confirm their receipt of the material by
telephone within a few days of the anticipated
delivery.
Follow up on your contact by watching, reading,
or listening to the media to see if they use the
campaign's materials. If they use your PSA,
thank them with a short note or telephone call.
If they do not use the spot, thank them for at
least considering it. If appropriate, ask for
feedback concerning why it was not used so
that you can better plan your future materials
and campaigns.
Continue to monitor the local media for any
speed-related news. Note the name of the
journalist or reporter covering the story and
contact them to suggest a follow-on piece about
the "Speed Shatters Life" Campaign. Be
prepared to offer current NHTSA and state
background materials to assist them in
developing a story.
The media will often adopt one or two public
service campaigns and become closely
associated with them for an extended period. If
you -- with the support of local government,
service organizations, or law enforcement
agencies -- can convince them of the
importance of this issue to the community, they
may become involved, thereby ensuring better
coverage of the "Speed Shatters Life" public
service advertising campaign.
U.S. Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Minnesota Speeding Facts
In 2011–2013 in Minnesota, illegal or unsafe speed was a contributing factor in 212
fatal crashes resulting in 235 deaths.
During the same period, fatalities resulting from speed-related crashes cost Minnesota
over $332 million.
Illegal or unsafe speed is a leading contributing factor in fatal crashes. In 2013, 76
people were killed in speed-related crashes.
In 2011–2013, illegal or unsafe speed was cited in 31 percent of all alcohol-related
fatal crashes.
Over the three-year period, 2011–2013, 62 percent of the speed-related fatal crashes
occurred in rural areas (less than 5,000 population).
In 2011-2013, illegal or unsafe speed accounted for 24 percent of the factors cited in fatal crashes
for drivers under age 30, compared to only 5 percent of the factors cited for drivers
age 65 and older.
NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) reports nearly 60 percent
of all drivers report seeing speeding vehicles all or most of the time when they drive
on residential streets as well as highways.
NHTSA research shows motorists wrongly believe speeding is not a great risk to
safety or as serious as other traffic violations. In reality, the consequences of
excessive speeding include:
o Greater potential for loss of vehicle control
o Increased stopping distance
o Increased crash severity leading to more numerous and severe injuries.
Sources: Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office of Traffic Safety;
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
June 2011
22
Table 8. Summary of driver responses to the countermeasures presented in the focus groups – participants’ views on
how and why countermeasures may be effective or ineffective in reducing speeding.
Counter-
measure
Effective Ineffective Comments
Higher Penalties and Increased Enforcement
Higher
Penalties
Target habitual, deliberate speeders One-time higher bill is paid and then
forgotten
Would be more effective if insurance
rates increased or licenses were lost
Increased
Enforcement
Seeing police officers or police cars
seems to cause speed reductions;
interaction with police officers is very
unpleasant
None Erratic driving around police officers
may increase; could involve a positive
action such as a free license renewal
if they’ve received no tickets
Engineering Countermeasures
Speed
Tables
Cause discomfort; unavoidable; can’t
habituate
Can drive around them in a parking
lane; can find an alternate route; not
always effective at higher speeds
(particularly in an SUV/truck)
May lead to rear-end collisions due to
unnecessary slowing
Pavement
Markings
May make noise so police can hear
that you’re driving too fast
Seem ineffective; may cause speed
increases due to their design
None
Speed
Displays
Very noticeable; more salient than
regular speed limit signs; can lessen
or increase social pressure to reduce
speed; counter inattention
Forgotten soon after passing them;
increase speed after passing them
Could be moved around to be in
unfamiliar locations; should target
specific areas with many hazards
Vehicle-based Countermeasures
Speed
Limiter
Good for target populations such as
teens or habitual speeders
None Perhaps the licenses of habitual
speeders should just be taken away;
sometimes extra speed is needed to
pass or avoid hazards; violates driver
rights and independence
Speed Limit
Display
Is useful and provides positive
reinforcement; informs drivers of the
posted speed when it’s unknown or
when signs are blocked; helps drivers
manage their speed choice risk
GPS locations are sometimes
inaccurate; drivers go with the flow of
traffic anyway; if drivers have decided
to speed then they’ll still speed;
redundant with the roadway signs
Might cause driver distraction;
vehicles could auto-report speeders to
the police with this kind of information
Fuel Economy
Display
Like a game; saves drivers money;
provides real-time driving feedback
Some vehicles just get bad mileage;
wealthy drivers won’t care
Might cause driver distraction
Automated Enforcement
Automatic
Enforcement
Drivers would be unable to anticipate
signs in random locations
The fixed location cameras might just
lead to speed in other areas; the
length of time between the infraction
and the ticket reception is too long
Drivers don’t have a chance to state
their case with a police officer;
cameras are not always accurate
(e.g., red light cameras); may cause
driver distraction; drivers may get
tickets when someone else was
driving their vehicle
Speed Awareness Course
Speed
Awareness
Course
Raises awareness of speeding
behavior
Drivers don’t take the courses
seriously
Need a higher time or monetary cost;
should require mandatory in-person
attendance; should show more
graphic crash footage; educational for
all drivers (not just speeders)
La
k
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
—
Po
s
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
t
o
T
h
r
i
v
e
Fl
a
g
s
t
a
f
f
A
v
e
&
1
7
9
t
h
S
t
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
a
f
e
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
La
k
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
—
Po
s
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
t
o
T
h
r
i
v
e
St
u
d
y
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
•
Up
d
a
t
e
2
0
1
0
S
t
u
d
y
•
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
N
e
w
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
•
Re
v
i
e
w
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
a
f
e
t
y
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
La
k
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
—
Po
s
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
t
o
T
h
r
i
v
e
St
u
d
y
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
•
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
r
a
s
h
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
•
Mn
D
O
T
C
r
a
s
h
D
a
t
a
(
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
4
)
•
La
k
e
v
i
l
l
e
C
r
a
s
h
D
a
t
a
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
4
)
•
Re
v
i
e
w
o
f
C
r
a
s
h
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
La
k
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
—
Po
s
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
t
o
T
h
r
i
v
e
St
u
d
y
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
•
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
•
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
A.
M
.
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
P
.
M
.
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
NB
F
l
a
g
s
t
a
f
f
A
v
e
3
3
2
2
4
4
SB
F
l
a
g
s
t
a
f
f
A
v
e
1
8
2
2
1
3
EB
1
7
9
th
St
2
6
9
8
WB
1
7
9
th
St
2
3
1
6
La
k
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
—
Po
s
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
t
o
T
h
r
i
v
e
St
u
d
y
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
•
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
•
Av
e
r
a
g
e
d
a
i
l
y
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
AA
D
T
Fl
a
g
s
t
a
f
f
A
v
e
(
N
o
f
1
7
9
th
St
)
2
,
3
5
0
Fl
a
g
s
t
a
f
f
A
v
e
(
S
o
f
1
7
9
th
St
)
5
,
9
0
0
17
9
th
St
(
E
o
f
F
l
a
g
s
t
a
f
f
A
v
e
)
3
2
0
17
9
th
St
(
W
o
f
F
l
a
g
s
t
a
f
f
A
v
e
)
1
,
9
6
0
La
k
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
—
Po
s
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
t
o
T
h
r
i
v
e
St
u
d
y
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
•
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
i
g
h
t
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
R
e
v
i
e
w
•
Sp
o
t
S
p
e
e
d
S
t
u
d
y
Fl
a
g
s
t
a
f
f
A
v
e
P
o
s
t
e
d
L
i
m
i
t
A
v
g
S
p
e
e
d
8
5
th
%
SB
:
N
1
7
9
th
St
4
0
m
p
h
4
6
m
p
h
5
4
m
p
h
NB
:
S
1
7
9
th
St
4
5
m
p
h
5
6
m
p
h
6
4
m
p
h
La
k
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
—
Po
s
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
t
o
T
h
r
i
v
e
Fi
n
d
i
n
g
s
•
AW
S
C
o
r
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
l
N
o
t
W
a
r
r
a
n
t
e
d
•
Ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
i
g
h
t
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
•
Sp
e
e
d
s
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
A
b
o
v
e
P
o
s
t
e
d
L
i
m
i
t
s
on
F
l
a
g
s
t
a
f
f
A
v
e
La
k
e
v
i
l
l
e
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
—
Po
s
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
t
o
T
h
r
i
v
e
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
•
In
s
t
a
l
l
D
r
i
v
e
r
F
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
S
i
g
n
s
(
D
F
B
’
s
)
o
n
F
l
a
g
s
t
a
f
f
Av
e
•
In
s
t
a
l
l
“
G
a
t
e
P
o
s
t
e
d
”
S
t
o
p
S
i
g
n
s
o
n
1
7
9
th
St
•
Pu
b
l
i
c
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
•
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
E
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t