Laserfiche WebLink
CONSIDER REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING YEILD SIGN <br />WITH A STOP SIGN AT MARMOSET AND 154TM LANE <br />By: Steve Jankowski, City Engineer <br /> <br />Casc ~ <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />An email request has been received from Colleen Fischer for the replacement of Yield <br />signs for 154th Lane with Stop signs at its inte~-section with Marmoset Street. The location <br />of this intersection is illustrated on the attached figure. Staff has reviewed the intersection <br />and .offers the following information as background in considering this request. <br /> <br />Accident history A review of the police department records dating back to 2000 <br />show no reported accidents at this intersection. <br /> <br />Traffic Traffic counts were taken between the 24 hour period between Wednesday <br />October 12, 2005, and Thursday, October 13, 2005 The results of this traffic <br />volume study are illustrated on the attached figure which show: 194 vehicles per <br />day on the north leg; 71 vehicles per day on the west leg; 98 vehicles per day on <br />the east leg; and 195 vehicles per day on the south leg. <br /> <br />Sight Distance There is an adequate sight distance for the northbound and <br />eastbound approaches into this intersection. There is a large evergreen tree located <br />on the northeast comer of the intersection which impacts the visibility between <br />approaching southbound and westbound traffic. However, a westbound vehicle <br />slowing reasonably to yield to Marmoset Street has adequate sight distance to <br />yield to southbound traffic. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MNMUTCD) provides <br />guidance on the placement of both Stop and Yield signs. Particularly applicable to this <br />situation the manual advises that a Yield sign may be used instead of a Stop sign when <br />thc ability to see all conflicting traffic is sufficient to allow a road user traveling at the <br />posted speed (30 mph) to travel through the intersection or to stop in a reasonably safe <br />manner. The manual now provides support which states that in many low traffic volume <br />situations with no unusual history of intersection crashes, no control is a cost effective <br />strategy. Fmthermore, it offers that research shows that in most cases increasing the level <br />of intersection control will not improve safety. This intersection can be considered as a <br />low volume intersection as is evidenced by the daily traffic counts referenced above. <br /> <br />-7- <br /> <br /> <br />