Agenda - Council - 02/08/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

.... PW CASE # cONSIDER INTERSECTION MODIFICATIONS ATTH 47 & 142m~ AVENUE By: Steven J. Jankowski, City Engineer Background: : MnDOT is planning to overlay TH 47 througl~ the City of Anoka perform Other slsot improvements along the highway in'2005. Among the additi0na!.improve .m. ents being consideredby M~zDOT for the segment 0fTH 47 within the City of Ramsey are tile following: A' northbound bypass lane at 15.7th Avenue · A fi'ee right turn lane added for eaStbound CHAS 5 to southbound TH 47, . which Will facilitate westboUnd Xkimo Street left tums onto sohthbound TH 47. · Am extension of the raised median t!3rough the intersection at 142',d Avenue. Staff supports the first two impr°vements since they will have only positive, impacts on the highway system. However the closure of the medi.an at t42'~° Avenue, while it will increase the safety of this intersection!Will also have adVerse impacts to area businesses and on access to the adjacent neighborhoods. An open house was held on ThurSday~ December 1'6, 2004 to solicit public input regarding the proposal to close this median. Individttal notices of this meeting were mailed to propertyOwners of adjacent!properties along highway 47 as well as to the residential neighborhoods both east and west of the 1-fighway. Attached to this case is a listing of open hotkse attendants and the' comments submitted by them. :Those who commented cited a concern over the negative impact ~to adj,acent businesses as well as the fact that a median Would not address the safety concerns of pedestrians which cross at this intersection. Most open house attendees requested that the sig-nalization of this · intersection be considered instead of the median. MnDOT has indicated that it will consider traffic signals for an intersection only if one or more of the eight signal warrants outlined in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is met. A signal warrant study was prepared by MnDOT for this intersection in June of 2004-and a smrm~ary of that study is attached to this case. The study shows that tile four warrants which relate to traffic volumes, including the warrant relating to accidents, were not met for this intersection. Three of the remaining watt'ants are not applicable to this inter, section. The warrant relating to pedestrian volta-ne was not analyzed. This warrant requires l;hat 100 or more pedestrian use the crossing for each of any four hours, or that 190 pedestrians use the crossing in any single hour, and that there are fewer than 60 gaps per hour whichlwill allow pedestrians to cross the intersection.