7. 212/101 Intersection: Plans & Specs for Traffic Signal.I MEMORANDUM
1
1
CITY OF �
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 &t1o7i N Cfty Act las
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
klod
R*do
D —f -
IDale Submitted to Commission
FROM: Charles Folch, Director of Public Works Date Submitted to Council
DATE: June 18, 1996
SUBJ: Approve Plans for Traffic Signal Installation and Lane Channelization
Improvements on T.H. 212 at East and West Junction with T.H. 101 (MnDOT
Project), S.P. No. 1013 -63, City File,No. PW290C
City staff has been notified by MnDOT officials cif the impending improvement project to the east
and west intersection junctions of Trunk Highways 211ind 101 in Chanhassen. The primary
project elements consist of the installation of a new traffic signal at both the east and west
intersection junctions, the construction of left and right turnlanes for both east and westbound
directions, and the relocation of a residential driveway, on'the south side of Trunk Highway 212,
to the west junction intersection with Trunk Highway 101. In addition, MnDOT will be replacing
the controller cabinets, repainting the signal poles, and interconnecting the two existing signals on
Trunk Highways 101 and 212 with the two new signals to provide timing and operation
coordination. MnDOT will also be providing emergency vehicle preemption (Opticom) for the
signals.
Based on the MnDOT project i
increase of daily traffic` by new
geometrics, high speed, and no
accidents, particularly rearend,,
the efficiency and safety of the
;t is based primarily on an
the combination of restricted
d raisin€ the probability of
left turn accidents. The project is being undertaken to improve
rsection and-reduce congestion. &, "w- '
The construction of this project will be funded w. oU-'by the National Highway System (ISTEA)
"
and State Matching Funds. MnDOT will also bjta� .. onsible for the maintenance of the signals
including controller cabinets, painting of poles, and relmping. As is common with all of the
traffic signals along Trunk Highways 5 and 212 within this community, MnDOT asks that the City
be responsible for paying the monthly electrical service charge for the signals.
Don Ashworth
June 18, 1996
Page 2
A copy of the project memorandum for this project is attached and provides more detailed
information regarding this project. Representatives from MnDOT will be present at the Council
meeting to provide an overview presentation of this project, its history, primary elements, timing
schedule, and answer any other questions that may arise.
It is therefore recommended that the City Council approve the plans for the traffic signals
installation and lane channelization on Trunk Highway 212 at the east and west junctions with
Trunk Highway 101, MnDOT Project No. S.P. 1013 -63, City File No. PW290C with the further
understanding that the City's cost responsibilities will be limited to the monthly electric charges
for the two new signals.
Jms
Attachment: 1. Location map.
2. Project memorandum.
c: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
Mike Wegler, Street Superintendent
Anita Benson, Project Engineer
g:\eng',charles`cc\signals.212
1
1
1
a
OF
PROJECT MEMORANDUM
S.P. 1013 -63
State of Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113
OF TO)
PROJECT MEMORANDUM
Final
S.P. 1013 -63
Minnesota Project NH 012 - 2(068)
Widening, Signal and Channelization
Trunk Highway 212 at East and West Junctions of Trunk Highway 101
Letting Date: May 24, 1996
Project Manager: Evan Green
(612) 582 -1303
'96 2 98 STP Sequence # 1653
Prepared by: Lise Walter
(612) 582 -1592
X1 Z�( q S
Date
Approved by:
C
Date
r01 Iq
Design exceptions approved by:
y�
Delbert W. Gerdes, Project Development Engineer
Date
i lip
1 A
1 a
1 �
1 �
1 �
1�
1 A
1�
1�
1�
1�
1
10*
1n"
1
110
1 A
I x
1,
1
�t
P 50
16
i
AREA MAP
I
Twin City Metro Area
Minnesota
u !1
0
I
I
0
F- l
U I
� I
c� I
I
Q I /
I
I
I
_ I
- Sp
F-'
U
E-'
Q
DISTRICT 6
® INTERSTATE ROUTE
169 UNITED STATES NUMBERED HIGHWAY
Q STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM
-- — COUNTY LINE
I I
I �
I I
z
1
f �
z
1
> Q
l
J
� U
1
1 cn
I
f
i
1
1
t_J �
i
I
I
I
I
I
Ag"Op MINNESOTA
S ,Pe f- DEPARTMENT 1013 63 TH 212 )
OF TRANSPORTATION
I
I
I
I
I r
/ l
91
61
/ 101
J 191
/
/ ss
I
I
I
12
391
INDEX MAP
ti
Cr WAY
a
O
S UUFAJ
93 °3I '30
9.3 2 "30 "" �� i0i
; &I
CHANHASSEN
N
a
e
r�
N
W y1 N
N
1 ,
s 1
STATE's N
ZEFORM.
N
SCALE
2000 0 2000 4000 FEET
609.6 M 609.6 M 1219.2 M
SP 1013 -63 PROJECT LOCATION
Ano.L.mc
v i
� Rt«
' I V
1 '
�z
a
AM- s�
��i ® ...
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I REPORT PURPOSE ............... ............................... Page 1
II COST AND FUNDING SOURCES ... ............................... Page 1
III SCHEDULE AND PROJECT MANAGER ............................. Page 1
IV PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
A. Existing Conditions ................. . ........................... Page 1
B. Proposed Improvements .......... ............................... Page 2
V NEED FOR PROJECT ............. ............................... Page 2
VI ALTERNATIVES ................. ............................... Page 3
VII DESIGN CRITERIA ............... ............................... Page
VIII SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............. Page 6
IX MITIGATION OF ADVERSE IMPACTS
A. Construction ................... ............................... Page 9
B. Endangered Species ............. ............................... Page 9
C. Erosion and Ground Cover ........ ............................... Page 9
D. Excess Material ................. ............................... Page
E. Floodplain ..................... ............................... Page 9
F. Historical, Archaeological, Cultural . ............................... Page 10
G. Right of Way .................. ............................... Page 10
H. Traffic ....................... ............................... Page 10
I. Transit ....................... ............................... Page 10
J. Wetlands ..................... ............................... Page II
X PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT ........................... Page 11
XI LEVEL OF ACTION .............. ............................... Page 12
FINAL REPORT DISTRIBUTION CHECKLIST ............................. Page 13
I. REPORT PURPOSE I
The Project Memorandum for this Class H (Categorical Exclusion) action documents the location as ,
well as the social, economic and environmental impacts and design of the project. Funding
information, project description, anticipated schedule, and project manager are also discussed. The
need for the project is documented as well. The Project Memorandum is part of the broader Highway '
Project Development Process in Mn/DOT.
H. COST AND FUNDING SOURCES ,
Program Est.: $435,000 R/W Est.: $ 5,000 Total Est.: $435,000 '
Funding Program: NH, SM Source: 80% Federal, 20% State Matching
The project will be funded by the National 14iighway System and State Matching funds. A copy of the '
project funding screen is in the appendix.
III. SCHEDULE AND PROJECT MANAGER
Proposed letting date: 5 -24 -96 '
Estimated construction starting date: 7 -15 -96
Estimated construction completion date: 7 -15 -97 '
See Artemis page in the appendix.
The o'ect manager is: Evan Green '
P J g
1500 West Co. Rd. B2,
Roseville MN 55113 ,
(612) 582 -1303
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
S.P. 10 13 -63 is located at the east and west junction of T.H. 101 and T.H. 212 in Carver County. '
A. Existing Conditions: U.S. 212 crosses Minnesota from the South Dakota state line at Lac '
Qui Parle County to the Twin Cities. In the project area, T.H. 212 is a two -lane undivided
principal arterial. This section of T.H. 212 was constructed in 1923 as a graded gravel road.
It was paved with concrete in 1928 and overlaid with 3" of bituminous in 1966. It was '
widened, and resurfaced; right turn lanes on east and west bound T.H. 212 at the east and
west junctions of T.H. 101, and 6' bituminous shoulders were added in 1983 (S.P. 1013-
39). It was milled and overlaid in 1993 (S.P. 1013 -57). On the east side of T.H. 101 there is '
1
J
i7
a motel/trailer park, and on the west side there is a garden center. On the South side of T.H.
212, towards the T.H. 101 junction of the wye there are two driveways leading to farmsteads.
South of T.H. 212 and to the west and south of the farmsteads there are wetlands. North of
T.H. 212 the topography rises to form the bluffs of the Minnesota River Valley.
B. Proposed Improvements: The reconditioning is being done to provide adequate traffic
lanes and capacity. T.H. 212 will be widened 4 - 6 m on the south side from west of Bluff
Creek Drive to the east junction of T.H. 101. The work will include modifying the eastbound
by -pass lane at Bluff creek Drive. At the west junction of T.H. 101. the work includes adding
a left turn lane, and modifying the through and right turn/by -pass lanes on eastbound T.H.
212. There will be painted channelization leading into the left turn lanes. Southbound T.H.
101 will be widened and channelized to include a right turn onto westbound T.H. 212, and
a combination left turn/through lane to the east and south. The driveway located 50 m east
of the west junction of T.H. 101 will be realigned directly south of T.H. 101. The Park -and
Ride lot in the wye will be graded, paved, and striped. Signals will be installed at the east and
west junctions of T.H. 101 and T.H. 212 (see layout in the appendix).
The project limits will be as follows: The west limit will be approximately at station 5+073,
which is at nearest the intersection of Bluff Creek Drive and T.H. 212. The east limit is at
station 0+175 just beyond the east junction of T.H. 101. The project length is approximately
600 m, (there is an equation adjusting the station to 0 +000 west of T.H. 101).
V. NEED FOR PROJECT
In addition to high traffic volumes (an increase of traffic by 18.6% over the last seven years); the
combination of restricted geometrics, high speed, and no left turn lane causes congestion and raises
the probability of accidents, particularly rear -end and left -turn accidents. Traffic signals are warranted.
The volume of traffic on T.H. 212 the major arterial is high and continuous enough to cause excessive
delays or hazards to any vehicles entering or crossing T.H. 212 from T.H. 101. These delays are even
longer during the peak hours. This information will be presented more thoroughly in the Signal
Justification Report which is being prepared by Gabriel Guevara of Traffic Studies, and expected to
be completed by March 1996. From Jan. 1, 1992 through Dec 31, 1994 the combined accident rate
of the east and west junction is 1.6 per million vehicle approaches, the severity rate is 3.1. The benefit
/cost of this project is 0.89 (see appendix). The Metro average for this type of intersection is an
accident rate of 0.4 per million vehicle approaches, and a severity rate of 0.8. This project is being
undertaken in order to improve the efficiency and safety of the intersection, and reduce congestion.
An accident summary table and Hazard Elimination Safety Benefit Cost Calculation (HES) is in the
appendix.
W
VI. ALTERNATIVES
Do- Nothing: This would allow the present conditions of this section of T.H. 212 to remain '
unchanged. Currently this section of T.H. 212 has restricted geometrics, no left turn lane,
uncontrolled intersections, is congested, and has a higher than average probability of accidents. '
Build: This is the preferred and recommended option as described in section IV B. Upgrading this
section of the roadway will reduce congestion and improve safety and operating efficiency '
of the existing intersections.
VII. DESIGN CRITERIA I
A. Existing Typical Section: Rural: One 3.6 m (12') through lane in each direction; a right '
turn/bypass lane on the south side, and 1.8 m (6) outside shoulders. A diagram is in the
appendix. '
B. Planned Typical Section: Conversion of eastbound travel lane into a left turn
lane, conversion of eastbound right turn lane into through lane, and construction of new '
eastbound right turn/bypass lane. A layout and typical section are in the appendix.
C.
Given factors on which geometric design standards depend: Two -lane undivided principal
,
arterial flat terrain, design speed 100 kph (60 mph); posted speed 90 kph (55 mph). Year
2010 projected ADT 27700 at T.H. 101 and T.H. 212 intersection.
'
D.
Design Standards to be used: Mn/DOT 2 -lane rural reconditioning standards will be used.
Due to wetlands on the south side, side slopes of 1:3 will be used to reduce wetland impact.
'
E.
Mai o g es in basic road g
r Design Criteria Conditions and Standards: There will be no changes
or roadside geometry or construction, therefore there will be no changes in any of the
conditions relating to applicable design criteria. All designs standards presently met will
'
continue to be met.
F.
Other Relevant information:
'
Most recently (1993) recorded traffic count (T.H. 212 at T.H. 101)- -
ADT: 14000 HCADT: 2010 Transit: 860 persons per day
,
G.
Design Exceptions requested:
An exception is requested for the horizontal alignment. The minimum radius for a design
,
speed of 100 km/h is 435 m. At the west end of the job (approximately STA 4 +930 to STA
5 +165), there is a proposed radius of 411 m. The inplace curve has a 436 m radius.
3
' If the horizontal alignment standards were to be maintained the length of the job would
increase by approximately 66 m and the width at the west end by 1.5 m. This would increase
the cost of construction by approximately $25,000. Presently the proposed cost is $435,321.
' Increasing the width of the road in this area will adversely affect the wetland.
'
To avoid the impacting the area of wetland at the west end of the job, and minimize impacts
in the central area 1:3 side slopes will be used. Using 1:6 slopes would increase
wetland
impacts by approximately 676 m (0. 167 ac.) at a cost of approximately $19,000 for
'
mitigation and construction.
An accident summary table and Hazard Elimination Benefit -Cost Study for the T.H. 101
'
junctions can be found in the appendix.
The design speed on the abutting sections of the highway is 100 km/h. The west end curve
'
will have a design speed of 96 km/h and is currently posted for 55 mph (88 km/h). It is not
known if there will be any future Federal Aid projects on this segment of highway, but if they
are the design exception will be compatible with future work.
'
Building to the level requested is the only practical alternative, as it will save $44,000 in
construction and mitigation costs which is quite extensive for a 600 m long project.
'
H.
Safety Enhancements: The construction of painted channelized left turn lanes, and
installation of signals at the intersections are in themselves enhancements.
'
I.
Traffic Handling During Construction: per MMUTCD
g g P
'
J.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Considerations: none
'
K.
Other multi -modal considerations (Airports, Park - and -Ride lots, High Occupancy
Vehicles, Public Transit, Van- Car- There is the "wye"
pools, pools, etc): a park and ride within
which will be surfaced as a part of this project.
'
L.
Layout Status: Layout No. 1 staff approved 7/18/95, see appendix.
I M. Units of measure: This project will be designed and built in Metric.
J
J
r, I
Design Criteria
Existing
Proposed
Mn/DOT
Reference in Mn/DOT
Conditions
Conditions
Standards
Road Design Manual
Design speed
100 km/h (60 mph)
100 km/h
110 km/h (70 mph)
Table 2 5.04A, p 2 5.0(5)
desirable
100 km/h (60 mph) min
Lane width
3.66 in (12')
4.2 in turn lane
3.6 m (12')
Table 2- 5.04A, p 2- 5.0(5)
3.6 in through lane
Shoulder width right
1.8 in (6')
no change
if less than 1.8 in (6�,
Table 2 5.04A, p 2 5.0(5)
widen to a min of 2.4 in
(8'), 0.6 in (27 paved;
3.0 in (10'), 0.6 in (27
paved is desirable
Grades, maximum
0.64%
no change
5% for 80 km/h (50
Table 3- 3.02A, p 3- 3.0(2)
mph) on rolling
terrain
Horizontal alignment:
min. in place curve
no change
New construction
Table 3 -1.04 A
min radius for stopping
is 436 m.
min. radius for 100
sight distance
km/h is 435 m.
Vertical alignment: min
min slope of 0.5%
no change
See Road Design
3- 3(10),(13)
K value (ft/deg) for min
min K of 438
Manual
stopping sight distance
Reconditioning
Stopping sight distance
>205 in
no change
Horiz: 205 in (650') min,
Fig 3 -1.05A for horizontal stopping
desirable
sight distance
Vert: 205 in (650') min,
desirable
Figs 3 -3.04A and 3 -3.04B for
vertical stopping sight distance
Normal crown Cross
0.015
0.015 overall
.010 to .020,
Table. 4- 3.03A, p. 4- 3.0(1)
Slope, mainline, ft/ft
.015 normally
Superelevation
unknown
will match existing
0.06 m/m max
Fig. 3- 2.02A, p.3- 2.0(3)
maximum, ft/ft
with 0.06 max.
In slopes
variable; 1:4
1:6 i
1:3 reconditioning
Table 2- 5.04.2 item K,
steepest
1:3 in wetland area
See VII D.
p 2- 5.0(8)
7