CCP 08-21-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TlONS or their size rcduced, a significant reason for closing this portion of Hamline Ave. would be eliminated. e From June 13 to July 4, 2000, vehicle traffic counts were taken on Hamline Ave. south of Ingerson Road, Ingerson Road and Dunlap Ave. Barricades were installed on June 23, 2000 north of the Ingerson Road/Harnline intersection that prevented traffic flow on Hamline Ave. north ofIngerson Road and the vehicle traffic count continued.63 The meters were only operating part ofthe day on June 13 and July 4,2000, so thosc numbers were discounted in our calculations. June 23 was a h'ansition day with the barricades up for less than the complete day, so those numbers were also eliminated from the calculations. Since July I through July 3 were days just prior to the July 4 holiday, we discounted those numbers as well. Then we arbitrarily discarded the numbers for June 21 and June 22 so that we ended up with data for seven sequential days with the street open and seven sequential days with the street closed. The subsequent distilled metering results are as follows: June 14 - 20, 2000 June 24 - June 30, 2000 In erson Road 2755/7 = 393,6 4330/7 = 618.6 Dunla Ave. 694/7 = 99.1 2071/7 = 295.9 Hamline Ave. 4532/7 = 647.4 4391/7 = 627.3 These vehicle metering results indicate that the number of vehicles traveling on Ingerson Road increased by an average of 57% after the barricades were placed on Hamline Ave. The results also indicate that the number of vehicles traveling on Dunlap Ave. increased by an average of 198% after the barricades were placed on Hamline Ave. At the same time, traffic counts taken on Ham line Ave., which counted virtually all vehicles that approached or left the intersection where the closure actually occurred, decreased slightly. In other words, ifHamline Ave. north of Ingerson Road is closed to traffic, traffic will increase substantially on Ingerson Road and especially on Dunlap Ave. where traffic counts nearly tripled. Increased traffic may also equate to increased traffic speeds on the roads in question. . The Review Group aeknowledges that according to Dwayne Stafford, only 4 Ingerson Project residents called the City to complain about the Hamline Ave. closure. The Review Group is concerned that the Ingerson Project residents may not have realized that they needed to contaet the City and voice any concerns about the Hamline Ave. closure. Another concern of some Review Group members is the residents on Dunlap Ave. whcre traffic more than tripled. Nonc ofthe residents on Dunlap Ave. received a notice explaining why the roadway was temporarily closed nor information on who to contact if they had concerns. Before any decision is made about the closure of Hamline Ave., the Review Group recommends that the Council poll the affected residents, both the Ingerson Project residents and the Dunlap Ave. residents, to "In addition to vehicle count, the meters also read vehicle speed. However, because of the placement of the meter readers (e.g, right in front ofa stop sign where one would obviously decrease their vehicle speed), the Review Groups feels that any results from the vehicle speed e meters should be discounted and void. Greg Brown concurs. 26 August 17, 2000