10.9. SR 05-06-2019
Request for Action
To Item Number
Mayor and City Council 10.9
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
Work Session May 6, 2019 Justin Femrite, P.E., Public Works Director
Item Description Reviewed by
Technology Enhanced Traffic Control Policy Cal Portner, City Administrator
Reviewed by
Action Requested
Provide input on draft policy.
Background/Discussion
Staff has developed a policy to aid in our evaluation of technology-enhanced traffic control devices as
requests for these signs continue to grow.
The proposed policy will help explain selection criteria and funding for these systems.
Financial Impact
NA
Attachments
Draft Technology Enhanced Traffic Control Policy
Technology Enhanced Traffic Control – Location Evaluation
The Elk River Vision
A welcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional
service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity
Technology
Enhanced Traffic
Control Policy
1
Technology Enhanced Traffic Control Policy
Purpose
The City of Elk River seeks to optimize its existing traffic control measures in locations
where unique situations exist. With evolving Technology Enhanced Traffic Control devices,
it is crucial to analyze the effectiveness of each device and determine whether their use
factually increases the safety and well-being of the public.
This policy defines how devices are evaluated and recommended for application. Devices
failing to meet the guidelines established by this policy will not be considered for installation
unless they are a replacement to a previously installed, older technology system (standard
flashing beacons, etc.).
Policy
Devices considered for use include: flashing LED regulatory (stop and yield) and warning
(curve ahead, etc.) signs, digital speed feedback signs, and rectangular rapid-flashing beacons
at pedestrian crosswalks. New devices, as developed, will be considered for addition to the
policy.
The city will follow guidance for appropriate use as provided by the Minnesota Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD).
Flashing LED Signs (Regulatory and Warning)
Light Emitting Diode (LED) units may be used individually within the legend of a sign
and/or the border of a sign to improve the conspicuity or to increase the legibility of sign
legends and borders.
Prior to implementing a flashing LED sign, the following conspicuity improvement
alternatives shall first be considered:
Install an advanced warning sign on approach to the intersection or warning
condition.
Increase the size of the existing signage.
Install a second sign of equal or lesser size on the left-hand side of the road (if
allowed by MN MUTCD).
Add one or more red or orange flags (cloth or retroreflective sheeting) above a
standard sign, with flags oriented at 45 degrees to the vertical.
Add a strip of retroreflective material to the sign support.
Flashing regulatory and warning signs shall only be considered for installation in situations
necessitating enhanced visibility of the sign not accomplished by the above treatment
techniques. The city will follow the MnDOT Traffic Engineering Manual to create premises
for use. For local road situations the manual provides instruction that use of these devices
should be limited to locations where both of the following conditions exist:
2
Limited visibility on approach to an intersection or roadway condition requiring
warning, as determined by the sight distance criteria for Warrant 1 in Section 9-
4.02.012 in the Traffic Engineering Manual.
A history of crashes documented to be caused by a failure to stop or adherence to
warning, and deemed preventable by implementation of conspicuity improvements.
Speed Feedback Signs
These signs provide a real-time dynamic display of the driver’s vehicular speed at the
location where speeding and safety has been documented as a problem. When considering
use of these signs, at least four (4) of the following conditions must be met:
th
The 85 percentile speed exceeds the posted speed limit by at least 5 MPH during
the time period of concern.
A speed transition area exists.
The area of interest is within the vicinity of a school or other high pedestrian traffic
area.
The posted speed is 40 MPH or less.
The road is under city jurisdiction.
Installation may be considered when three (3) of the above five (5) conditions are met, and
crash data and documented repeat lane departures can clearly be linked to excessive speed in
the area of interest.
Speed Feedback Signs shall also meet the following technical specifications when
implemented:
Installation must be used in conjunction with the traditional speed limit sign.
When activated, the sign display shall give drivers immediate feedback on their
individual driving speed.
When traveling above the posted speed limit, the sign shall rapidly flash or have
other dynamic elements.
When installed in association with school speed zones, the Speed Feedback Signs
shall operate only when the school speed zone is in effect.
The installation shall not interfere with the visibility and general effectiveness of any
other signs in the area.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
RRFBs are user-actuated LEDs that supplement warning signs to increase awareness of a
pedestrian crossing location. They are activated by a push button which triggers the LEDs to
display an irregular flash pattern which can help alert drivers of the approaching crosswalk.
Prior to implementing RRFBs, the following conspicuity improvement alternatives shall first
be considered:
Add crosswalk pavement markings.
Install an advanced warning sign on approach to the crosswalk.
Increase the size of the existing signage.
Install a second sign of equal or lesser size on the left-hand side of the road (if
allowed by MN MUTCD).
3
Add one or more red or orange flags (cloth or retroreflective sheeting) above a
standard sign, with flags oriented at 45 degrees to the vertical.
Add a strip of retroreflective material to the sign support.
Add an In-street Pedestrian Crossing sign.
RRFBs shall only be considered for installation in situations necessitating enhanced visibility
of the crosswalk not accomplished by the above treatment techniques.
The analysis for determining if RRFBs shall be used includes the number of pedestrians
crossing at a location, the volume and speed of crossing vehicular traffic and the length of
the crosswalk. RRFBs shall be limited in use to crosswalk locations that exist at non-
controlled intersections or other midblock locations where vehicular traffic would otherwise
not be required to stop.
Costs
Annual budgets are prepared without including installation of any new Technology
Enhanced Traffic Control devices due to the large and variable costs for each individual
system.
Requests for Technology Enhanced Traffic Control devices, found to meet the guidelines
established in this policy, shall be considered for inclusion in the following year’s budget or
Capital Improvement Plan.
Requests for installation within the current budget year found to meet the guidelines
established by this policy may be considered if they are accompanied with a donation of all
costs associated with the purchase, installation and maintenance of the system. Acceptance
of the donation will be by the City Council and shall not obligate the city to future
replacement costs.
Technology Enhanced Traffic Control Policy
Policy History
Adopted by: On (date) Item #
4
Technology Enhanced Traffic Control - Location Evaluation
Flashing LED Signs (Regulatory and Warning)
1) Stop Signs at intersection of Highland and Proctor Road – Warranted and Installed (2014)
th
Two LED enhanced stop signs alerting traffic entering Proctor Rd NW from either 194
Ave NW or Highland Rd NW. Because of its limited visibility on the approaches to the
stop signs alongside the accident history in the area, these LED enhanced stop signs are
justified per policy.
st
2) Trail Crossing Ahead signs at intersection of GNT and 221 Ave NW – Installed (2011)
st
221 Ave NW has a speed limit of 45 MPH, traffic count of approximately 50 VPH, peak
pedestrian count of approximately 75 PPH, and a crosswalk length of 26 feet. Limited
visibility and the unexpectedness of pedestrian crossings in a higher-speed rural area
served as justification for the sign installation prior to policy development. This was
further aided by a grant for the costs of the signage.
rd
3) Curve Ahead signs on 193 Ave NW just east of Xavier St NW. – Not Warranted (2018 review)
The eastbound curve has had several lane departures. While the design meets
specifications, the curve presents a situation where negligence can result in departing
the roadway. An LED flashing warning sign has been considered, but has not been
justified per policy. Typically, a sign that states “Curve Ahead” would require that curve
to have a dedicated speed limit if it did not meet the design for a posted limit. This
particular section has been designed to maintain the speed limit of 30 MPH throughout
the entirety of the curve. Other means of mitigation shall be evaluated.
4) Next Request– Warranted or Not-Warranted (Date of Review)
Warrant analysis and description
Speed Feedback Signs
1) Speed feedback sign on Proctor Ave NW by PW entrance – Warranted and Installed (2012)
This location is in a speed transition area, is within the vicinity of a school, the roadway
th
is posted at 40 MPH or less, and also shows the 85 percentile of traffic exceeding the
speed limit by 5 MPH or more. Although this is not a city street, it meets 4/5 criteria
needed to warrant its placement.
2) Speed feedback signs (2) on School St NW – Warranted and Installed (2012)
These signs are within the vicinity of a school, the roadway is posted at 40 MPH or less,
th
are located on a city street, and also shows the 85 percentile of traffic exceeding the
speed limit by 5 MPH or more. Although not in a speed transition zone, they meet 4/5
criteria needed to warrant placement.
3) Speed feedback signs (2) on Twin Lakes Road at Industrial Cir – Warranted and Installed (2014)
These signs are within the vicinity of a school, the roadway is posted at 40 MPH or less,
th
are located on a city street, and also sees the 85 percentile of traffic exceeding the
speed limit by 5 MPH or more. Although not in a speed transition zone, they meet 4/5
criteria needed to warrant placement.
4) Speed feedback sign on Jackson Ave NW north of School St – Warranted and Installed (2014)
These signs are within the vicinity of a school, have a posted speed limit of 40 MPH or
th
less, are located on a city street, and also see the 85 percentile of traffic exceeding the
speed limit by 5 MPH or more. Although not in a speed transition zone, they meet 4/5
criteria needed to warrant placement.
rd
5) Evaluate 193 Ave NW just east of Xavier St NW – Not Warranted (2018 Review)
th
This area sees the 85 percentile exceeding the speed limit by at least 5 MPH, is a city
street, and also is in a zone posted less than 40 MPH. Although it only meets three of
the five criteria needed to justify placement of the sign, the policy also states installation
may be considered for locations where 3 of 5 conditions are met, but crash data and
documented repeat lane departures can be linked to excessive speed. The requesting
land owner was asked to report all instances of lane departures to help satisfy this
condition.
th
6) Evaluate 196 Ave NW by Meadowvale Park – Not Warranted (2016 Review)
Brought by concerned residents, this location has been evaluated based on the criteria
of the policy. In this location the roadway is a city street, is posted at 40 MPH or less,
th
and MAY see the 85 percentile of traffic exceeding the speed limit by 5 MPH or more.
It is not in a speed transition area, nor in the vicinity of a school. It MAY meet 3/5
criteria needed to warrant its placement. Assuming it did, it would further need to have
a history of crash data and documented repeat lane departures linked to excessive
speed. It does not.
7) Evaluate Mississippi Road between Joplin and Orono - Not Warranted (2019 Review)
An area of Mississippi Rd NW has been considered for placement of a speed feedback
th
sign. The area is considered to have the 85 percentile speed exceeding the speed limit
by at least 5 MPH during the time of concern, and also has a speed limit of 40 MPH or
less. It is not a city street, not in the vicinity of a school and not in a speed transition
area. This satisfied only 2 of the 5 criteria needed to justify placement. It will not be
evaluated further for accident history based on failing to meet 3 of 5 required
conditions.
8) Next Request – Warranted or Not-Warranted (Date of Review)
Warrant analysis and description
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
1) Twin Lakes Road at Industrial Cir – Warranted and Installed (2018)
Policy designates using the MN MUTCD to determine viability based on vehicular speed
limit and traffic volume, pedestrian volume, and crosswalk length. Data suggests a
posted speed limit of 40 MPH, vehicle traffic volume of approximately 340 VPH,
pedestrian count at the time of interest of approximately 150 PPH, and a crosswalk
length of approximately 72 feet. These parameters met conditions of the MN MUTCD
chart reinforcing the use of this device in the location served.
2) School Street Beacons at Parker and Lincoln – Would not meet warrants of policy for RRFBs
Several standard beacons are present on School St NW at both Lincoln and Parker
Elementary schools. The area presents a speed limit of 30 MPH (20-mph school zone),
traffic count of approximately 435 VPH (Peak Hour), pedestrian count of approximately
150 PPH, and a crosswalk length of 52 feet. These parameters do not meet conditions
of the MN MUTCD chart for use of this device in the location served.
3) Next Request – Warranted or Not-Warranted (Date of Review)
Warrant analysis and description