Laserfiche WebLink
<br />[DRAFT] Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. <br />County Road E at Snelling Ave N (CR 76) 7 November 30, 2021 <br />Analysis of Alternatives <br />The evaluation of intersection control alternatives included warrant, traffic operations, safety <br />performance, and planning-level cost analyses. Opening Year 2023 and Forecast Year 2043 volumes <br />were used in the analysis. The following alternatives were considered: <br />· All-Way Stop Control (No Build) <br />· Traffic Signal Control <br />o Assumed that existing geometry would remain under traffic signal control with <br />potentially minor revisions. <br />· Roundabout Control (single-lane) <br />o An initial planning-level analysis was performed for the roundabout control <br />alternative, which indicates that a signal entry lane on all approaches would provide <br />acceptable traffic operations. <br />Warrant Analysis <br />The September 2020 Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) provides <br />guidance on when it may appropriate to use all-way stop or traffic signal control at an intersection. <br />This guidance is provided in the form of “warrants”, or criteria, and engineering analysis of the <br />intersection’s design factors, to determine when all-way stop or traffic signal control may be justified. <br />All-way stop or traffic signal control should not be installed at an intersection unless a MnMUTCD <br />warrant is met but meeting a warrant does not itself require the installation of a control. The control <br />type also needs an engineering analysis of the intersection’s design for it to be justified. Under the <br />MnDOT ICE process, roundabouts are considered warranted if traffic volumes meet the warrant <br />requirements for either all-way stop or traffic signal control. <br />For this ICE, analysis of signal Warrants 1-3 was conducted for Opening Year 2023 and Forecast Year <br />2043 volumes. Signal warrants 4-9 were investigated and were determined to be not applicable for the <br />study intersection. The lane geometry and approach speeds assumed for the warrant analysis are <br />shown in Table 5. The combined approaches of County Road E have a higher entering volume than <br />the combined approaches of Snelling Avenue N. Therefore, County Road E was considered the major <br />roadway for this analysis. <br />Table 5. Warrant Analysis Assumptions <br />Approach Geometry Speed Limit <br />Northbound Snelling Avenue N (South Leg) Two approach lanes 40 mph <br />Southbound Snelling Avenue N (North Leg) Two approach lanes 45 mph <br />Eastbound County Road E (West Leg) Two approach lanes 30 mph <br />Westbound County Road E (East Leg) Two approach lanes 35 mph <br />