Loading...
9.8. SR 12-16-1996;ity of iver ITEI'I 9.8. MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor & City Council Pat Klaers, City Administrator December 16, 1996 CSAH I Pedestrian Crossing Since the reconstruction of CSAH 1 is being discussed for 1997, the pedestrian crossing of this county road at the railroad trail location has also been discussed. An underground passage and an overhead bridge have been the focus of the discussion for safely crossing County Road 1. Please see the attached report from the city engineer on this pedestrian crossing issue. Please note that staff is opposed to an underground passage and also that an overhead bridge can be constructed at any time and does not need to be constructed at the same time as the reconstruction of County Road 1. Staff strongly supports the third option listed at the end of the city engineer's memo whereby additional signage and striping at the CSAH I crossing takes place and a new additional crossing be established at County Road 77. Attachments City Engineer Report XcouncilXcsahl.doc 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 1 CON~ULTINGENGINEER~ 1326 Energy Park Drive St. Paul, MN 55108 612-644-4389 1-800-888-2923 Fax: 612-644-9446 December 11, 1996 File: 230-213-21 Mr. Patrick Klaers City Administrator City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330 RE: CSAH 1 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING Dear Mr. Klaers: CIVIL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL 'xUNICIPAL ~,NNiNG SOLD WASTE STRUCTURAL SURVEYING TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL ENGINEERING HVAC POWER DISTRIBUTION SCADA SYSTEM CONTROLS -r)FFICES IN: .,INNEAPOLIS PRIOR LAKE ST. PAUL WASECA At the direction of the City Council based on a request from the Park and Recreation Commission, we have analyzed options for grade-separated crossings of CSAH 1 at the Meadowvale Commercial Park and Elk River Industrial Park. There is a 12-foot wide gravel City Trail which runs north and south crossing CSAH 1 at this location. CSAH 1 is currently a 2-lane rural section road with the City Trail crossing up to at-grade and is proposed to be reconstructed to an urban section 4-lane road at a width of up to 72 feet. Due to increased traffic, the safety of an at-grade crossing has been questioned. With the pending reconstruction of CSAH 1, now would be the time to consider an underpass. PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OPTIONS Two options for a grade-separated crossing of CSAH 1 have been analyzed and are as follows: 1. Pedestrian Overpass The first option to provide a grade-separated crossing of CSAH 1 is a pedestrian overpass. A variety of styles and types of pre-manufactured pedestrian overpasses are available, ranging from prestressed concrete and steel overpasses to wood timber structures. Information from various manufacturers was obtained and is enclosed for your review. Two options are available for providing access to a proposed overpass. The first option is the use of structural ramps, and the second option is to provide embankment on both sides of the overpass to provide access to the structure. 230/213-0917.dec An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Patrick Klaers December 11, 1996 Page Two 2. Pedestrian Underpass The second option to provide a grade-separated crossing of CSAH 1 is a pedestrian underpass. A 12-foot wide by 8-foot high box culvert was used to establish a pedestrian underpass of CSAH 1. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS It is recommended that any proposed construction comply with standards included in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ADA Standards require that for ramps with slopes of 12:1 or greater, that 5-foot landings be provided for every 30-inches of rise, or for every 30-feet of ramp. This standard would be applicable for both overpass ramps and underpass ramps. 1. Pedestrian Overpass For the construction of an overpass, AASHTO requires a vertical clear space of 17' - 4" between an overpass and road surface. With a proposed road width of up to 72 feet, it has been estimated that the length of an overpass would be approximately 90 feet. Based on the proposed centerline elevation of CSAH 1, and existing elevations on the north and south side of CSAH 1, ramp lengths would need to be approximately 245 feet and 280 feet in length to meet ADA Standards. As stated before, two options are available to provide access to a proposed overpass. A structural ramp could be constructed directly over the existing City Trail, with no additional right-of-way being required. To construct a ramp with embankment, maximum side slopes of 4:1 would need to be maintained to provide for the stability of the embankment. The width of the embankment at ground level would be approximately 150 feet, exceeding the 100 feet of right-of-way width that is presently available. Due to the limited right-of-way available, retaining walls would need to be constructed on both sides of the embankment to accommodate construction of the ramps within the 100 feet of right-of-way. Retaining walls, approximately 17 feet in heights, would also be required to serve as abutments at each end of the overpass. 2. Pedestrian Underpass It is assumed that a 12-foot wide by 8-foot high box culvert would be used to construct a pedestrian underpass crossing of CSAH 1. Approach ramp lengths, based on existing elevations, would need to be 175-feet and 125-feet in length on 230/213-0917.dec Mr. Patrick Klaers December 10, 1996 Page Three the north and south side of CSAH 1 respectively. Retaining walls and head walls would be required on both sides of the underpass to a point where 4:1 side slopes could be constructed. The required underpass length is approximately 130 feet. Due to the required length of a proposed underpass, safety is an important issue. Police Chief Tom Zerwas, expressed concern over the safety and security of an underpass. An underpass would provide an area for potential crime, loitering, and harassment of pedestrians that would be difficult to monitor by the police department. Adequate lighting would be required to ensure that a user of the structure could see completely through it before entering. For these reasons, Chief Zerwas said he would be strongly opposed to an underpass. Another issue to address is that of drainage within the underpass. Drain grates would be required within the structure to collect runoff from the surrounding area. A lift station would be required to pump collected runoff to a ditch or nearby storm sewer system. A soils investigation has been performed to determine the soil conditions present. Due to the fill material that is present from the construction of trunk sanitary sewer, sub-cutting and recompaction of existing material would be required to provide the necessary stability and support. Dewatering of trenches may also be required, depending on the seasonal level of the groundwater table. ESTIMATED COSTS Below is a breakdown of estimated costs associated with the construction of a grade-separated crossing of CSAH 1: Pedestrian Overpass with Structural Ramps Construction Cost $525,000.00 Overhead (28 %) $147.000.00 Project Cost $672,000.00 Pedestrian Overpass with Embankments Construction Cost $298,500.00 Overhead (28 %) $83,580.00 Project Cost $382,080.00 Pedestrian Underpass Construction Cost Overhead (28 %) Project Cost $286,150.00 $80.122.00 $366,272.00 230/213 -0917. dec Mr. Patrick Klaers December 10, 1996 Page Four A large percentage of the cost associated with the construction of a pedestrian overpass with structural ramps, is the cost of the ramps themselves. As can be seen from the above cost breakdown, the cost for a pedestrian overpass with embankments and a pedestrian underpass are comparable. Both pedestrian crossings are feasible from an engineering standpoint. However, several issues would need to be resolved prior to deciding on a style or type of grade-separated pedestrian crossing. Aesthetics become an issue when considering a pedestrian overpass as well as cost. Safety and drainage issues become a concern when considering a pedestrian underpass. A third option would be to redefine the at-grade crossing of CSAH 1. It is unlikely that at-grade pedestrian crossings of CSAH 1 at the trail location could ever be eliminated; therefore, with the reconstruction of CSAH 1, proper signing and striping could be installed to warn motor vehicles of the potential hazard. In addition, trails could be built alongside CSAH 1 to allow crossing at the intersection of CSAH 1 and County Road 77. This is an intersection that we believe will warrant signalization within the foreseeable future. This may afford a safe means for at-grade crossings of CSAH 1. Please let me know if you would like us to do any additional work on this issue. Sincerely, MSA, CONSULTING ENGINEERS Terry ~.. Maurer, P.E. TJM:pd Enclosures 230/213-0917.dec ,ity of iver ITEM 9.8. MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor & City Council Pat Klaers, City Administr~fl~t,/ December 16, 1996 169 Pedestrian Crossing Attached for your information is a memo from the city engineer on the test that MnDOT conducted for pedestrians crossing at the Highway 169 crosswalks. Also attached is a newspaper article regarding this test and a letter from the School District which expresses their concern over the safety of Highway 169. council\169crsg.doc 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 CONSULTING ENGI~EER~ 1326 Energy Park Drive St. Paul, MN 55108 612-644-4389 1-800-888-2923 Fax: 612-644-9446 December 6, 1996 File: 230-347-80 Mr. Pat Klaers City Administrator City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330 RE: TRUNK HIGHWAY 169 PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TEST Dear Mr. Klaers: C[V!L ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ~.UNiCIPAL ~NNING SOL!D WASTE STRUCTURAL SURVEYING TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL ENGINEERING HVAC POWER D',STRIBUTION SCADA SYSTEN~ CONTROLS As you are aware, the pedestrian crossing test at the intersection of School Street and TH 169 was conducted on Wednesday, November 27, at 2:00 p.m. MnDOT was represented by Tom Davidson, Traffic Operations Technician, and Mike Travis, Public Information Officer. Phil Hals from your staff was present and video taped the proceedings. Keli Olin from the Deerfield Third neighborhood organized a group of her neighbors for testing purposes. The test was conducted with three different groups. The first group consisted of a mother and father and six small children. The second group consisted of three children who were slightly older and able to cross the highway by themselves. The third group was made up of Keli and Ross Olin, Mike Twaddle, and another neighbor. An older gentleman from the neighborhood had planned to also attend but decided not to because of the weather conditions on Wednesday afternoon. The test was conducted by having each group separately walk from the east side of TH 169 to the west side and then, on a second green cycle, do a return trip. All three of the groups had enough time to make their crossing. This is demonstrated on the video tape prepared by Phil. It was the consensus of the citizens in attendance and the MnDOT personnel that there was adequate time to cross the highway, but there is generally a lack of knowledge of what the "Walk" and "Don't Walk" mean. This is shown very vividly on the tape Phil made, with the first group that crossed the highway. The "Don't Walk" was flashing by the time they got to the center median and they automatically stopped there. Just for your information, the correct way to follow the pedestrian signals is as follows: Signal Description "Walk" The walk signal is for you to look both ways and then begin your trip across the intersection. Flashing Under this signal, if you have already started your trip across the intersection, you "Don't Walk" should continue to finish the trip. If you have not left the curb at this point, you should not begin your trip. You should wait until the next "Walk" cycle. "Don't Walk" When the "Don't Walk" signal glows solid, it is a signal for pedestrians to clear the crosswalk. The traffic signal is about to turn green for opposing traffic. -OFFICES IN: ,,INNEAPOLIS PRIOR LAKE ST. PAUL WASECA An Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Pat Klaers December 6, 1996 Page Two Another issue that is evident from the video tape is that motor vehicles do not know where to stop and often block the pedestrian's path. Apparently MnDOT feels it is the local government's responsibility to maintain the painted cross-walk and stop bar once they are originally installed by MnDOT. This is because it is virtually impossible for MnDOT to repaint these in a timely fashion because of their vast number. Neither Phil Hals nor I were aware of this policy. Given this policy of MnDOT, I would recommend the City undertake a restriping project of all necessary highway intersections as early as possible in the spring and then routinely thereafter. Mike Travis from MnDOT provided some promotional information to the citizens' group that explains how a crosswalk is supposed to be used. He also provided newspaper articles that indicate the problem with vehicles running red lights is metro-wide or possibly a state-wide problem. I have made copies of the information Mike provided and attached it for your information. Just to let you know, I have scheduled a meeting with MnDOT in their St. Cloud office on Thursday, December 12, 1996, to discuss the process the City should undertake for a fencing and/or lighting improvement in their right-of-way. This is in anticipation of the outcome of MnDOT's annual safety program sometime after the first of the year. If you have any questions regarding any of this information or questions regarding the pedestrian crossing test, please let me know. Sincerely, MSA, CONSULTING ENGINEERS T e~ure~r, P.E~~. TJM:tw Enclosures 347-0403 .dec Davidson (right) talked With residents at the Highway 169-School Street intersection. From .left to right are Mike Twaddle, Ross Olin,· Elk River City' Engineer Terry Maurer. '.'~: ~:i'..:'v:; '-":-, -~ Light lengthened .for pedestrians' .,. by Joni Astrup - Associate editor TratTzc lights at School Street and Highway' 169 in Elk River will not be adjusted to allow' pedestrians more time to cross the highway, fol- lowing an informal test last week. A group of local children and adults checked the length of time it took them to cross the highway on Wednesday, Nov. 27. Overseeing the experiment were' Tom' 'Davidson, a senior signal technician with the Minnesota Depar'.ment. of Transportation (MnDOT), and .' Mike Travis, a Mr, DOT public affairs coordina:~ tor. Pedestrians currently' have 43' seconds'to cross the intersection, Which some people have ;'~aid is not enough' time; ..... · At a recent Elk River City CoUncil meetin~i' MnDOT representative offered to meet resi' 'dents at the intersection to check the length of Safety continued to page 10 Tom.! Davldson of the Minnesota'Department' of Transportation walked across Highway 169 with a group of youth during .an Informal test last week. With him are: left to right: Micka Hatanpa, Andy Pouliot and Matt Hatanpa. ~ . ~ . Wednesday, December 4, 1996 -'Safety Continued from page ! ~me it takes to cross. · MnDOT kas maintained t~t · %he issue is more one ofeduca- ;, tion, rather than impro~er , t~mlng of the lights (see tips on crossing safely). Mike Twaddle, who has been pressing to improve the high- way's safety ai%er his son was · ]~l]ed crossing it in October, said the timing is fine under ideal circumstances. ~But we all understand that ideal circumstances usually don'~ exist, because you're of%eh dealing with kids," he told Travis and Davidson.' He still feels there needs to be more Hme for children to cross the 'intersection. Keli Olin, another parent who has been involved in the · issue, agreed that the current fimlng works under ideal con- ' ditions. "Best case scenario is yes,' you can get across," she said Monday. "But there's a lot of' what ifs." · ~rm somewhat diasppointed ~hat ifs not going to be as safe as possible," she added. "I know that MnDOT feels it is really safe." ~ Mn_DOT has stressed the importan~-.e of understanHin~, what the walk and flash~-g don't walk signals mean. The walk is just intended to get people off the curb. The flashing don't walk is intended to get pedestrians all the way across the intersection prior to the steady don't walk indica- tion. Twaddle said the flashing don't walk is confusing, partic- ularly for kids. "I understand how it works," he told TraMs and Davidson. "I would say 95 percent of the people don't." Travis said they could do an educational show for public access cable TV. He suggested educating people through school newsletters and other meon$ as wen. He also said MnDOT could put in the new pedestrian crossing lights which have symbols rather than the words walk and don't walk. "We're not required to retro- fit all our signals with this new version, but if they (local residents) felt that that would be more helpful, we could do it," he said. Twaddle and Olin,. mean- while, are researching the i...de_a of pedestrian safety edu: How to cross a street or road safely.:. Always follow these steps when crossing a street · Before crossing, stop at the curb, edge of the road, or corner before proceeding, · Look le~-righb-le~ and if ifs clear, begin crossing, look- ing over your shoulder for turning vehicles. ' · Continue to check for txaffic while crossing. '" Traffic signal messages and their meanings · At intersections with traffic lights and pedestrian sig- nals, it's important to follow the signals carefully. Wait until you see the WALK sign-]~ following, again, the basic rules for crossing. ' ~ · A flashing DON'T WALK signal indicates you shouldn't start to cross the street. However, if you are in the middle of the street ond the DON'T WALK signal starts flashing, continue w~l~-g. You have ~me to complete the crossing. ~ · If you see a steady DON'T WALK signal, don't begin to cross the stxeet~ Wait for the next WALK signal. · The WALK signal and the green txsffic light indicate that it's your turn to cross the stxeet, but they do not mean it is safe to cress. The WALK signal and the green light mean look, and then, if it's safe, go. Sources: Minnesota; U.S. departments of transportation cation for Elk River area ele- 'mentary and junior high school students. ~ In other Highway 169 safety issues: ' ' · 1Red light running: Travis ' noted that running red lights is not just an Elk River prob- lem. '. ~That's not to say we're not · going to do what we can to minimize it~' he said. However, it clearly is a wide- spread problem. Travis pro- duced a Nov. 23 St. Paul Pioneer Press story which said that a new test camera set up to catch motorists runn~n~ red lights at one intersectio~n in St. Paul recorded about 250 violations in less ~.h_,n a day - far more than officials expect- ed. · Inadequate highway light- lng: Twaddle said the ligh~ng along Highway 169 in Elk Riveris inadequate and should be improved. Travis said that is one of the city's requests which MnDOTis -looking at for possible fund- ing. · Fencing along Highway 169: Twaddle said fencing and ligh~ng should be done right away, followed later by a pedestrian bridge.. "Do this thing incrementally," he sug- gested. · Pedestxian bridge: A pet/- tion drive asldn~, for a pedes- trian walkway ~ver Highway !69 is in its fin,] stages. Olin asks that people return the petitions to Sandy at the Elk River City Hall, 13065 Orono Parkway. ~The sooner we get those in, the better," Olin said. Copies will be sent to MnDOT. Independent School District ADMINISTRATION OFFICES 400 School Street DAVID M. FLANNERY Elk River, MN 55330 Superintendent of Schools (612) 241-3400 Fax (612) 241-3407 = __- __- _ December 6, 1996 Mr. Tom Dumont Minnesota Department of Transportation P.O. Box 370 St. Cloud, MN 56302 Dear Mr. Dumont: School District administrators, along with countless others, are concerned about the hazards of crossing Highway #! 69 in Elk River. The recent traffic deaths in Elk River, more poignantly than our words, underscore the need for action. A concerted effort to improve pedestrian crossings for our children is a crucial first step. We propose the following: 1. Install eight foot fencing bordering both sides of #169 from Main Street to 193rd. Make the crosswalk at Main Street, School Street, Jackson Street more pedestrian friendly. A study should be conducted that would examine how safe those crosswalks are for children. Are the signals regulated for pedestrians? Are there safety islands for foot traffic? Are the crosswalks signed properly? Are sidewalks constructed for proper student traffic? After the study the recommendations need to be implemented. Finally, traffic goes too fast on the #169 corridor. Reducing the speed limit north of School Street to 45 might help. in addition, flashing yellow warning lights prior to each intersection timed to the change might help. Thank you for listening. I would be willing to meet with you at any time if we could help with any safety issue. Sincerely, David Flannery \ Superintendent of Schools c: Pat Klaers, Administrator City of Elk River ity of ITEM 9.8. iver FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Steve Ach, City Planne~~.~ December 16, 1996 Verbal Update on Development Projects Attached is a map identifying 15 development projects that Terry Maurer and myself will update the Council on Monday night. As the construction season has come to closure, we thought it would be worthwhile for the Council to be informed as to where these projects are in their development process. If there are other projects the Council would be interested in hearing about that are not on this list, please contact me prior to Monday night's meeting so Terry or I can obtain the information for the Council. 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 1 - Joplin/185th 2 - 171st Ave. 3 - Hillside Crossing II 4 - Hillside Estates 5th 5 - Country Crossing 3rd 6 - Country crossing Townhomes 3rd 7 - Lafayette Woods 8 - Nordic Woods 9 - Ridgewood Hills 10 - Renner Addition 11 - Mississippi Oaks 2nd 12 - Pheasant Run 13 - Cottage Homesteads 14 - Menards 15 - Lefebvre City of Elk River I It ii II il I