My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1998-08-26 Packet
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2025
>
1998
>
1998-08-26 Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/23/2011 1:08:12 PM
Creation date
8/23/2011 1:07:58 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
202
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
IV - CROSSING ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS <br /> Each alternative outlined in the previous section was analyzed and is discussed below. <br /> 1. Flashing Beacon System <br /> Flashing beacon systems are installed to help identify hazardous locations and conditions or <br /> draw attention to warning or regulatory signs. Flashing beacons are warranted based on four <br /> reasons. <br /> a. Limited Visibility <br /> If the site distance of an intersection is limited based on obstructions or <br /> curvature of the roadway, this warrant would apply. A 30mph approach <br /> would require a visibility of approximately 200 feet. Approximately 400 feet <br /> of site distance is available for westbound traffic, therefore, this intersection <br /> does not meet site distance requirements. <br /> b. Accident Rate <br /> A flashing beacon may be warranted if high safety improvement criteria are <br /> met or there have been 4 or more left turn accidents, right angle accidents, or <br /> accidents of a type being preventable in a period of one year. This <br /> intersection does not meet the accident rate requirements. <br /> C. School Crossing <br /> A flashing beacon may be warranted if school crossing is desigrrated across <br /> any of the approaches of the intersection and there are more than 500 vehicles <br /> per hour crossing the crosswalk during heavy pedestrian usage periods and <br /> there are insufficient usable gaps for pedestrians using the crosswalk. Based <br /> on the analysis conducted by Anoka County Highway Department there are <br /> sufficient gaps for pedestrians crossing CSAH 14, therefore, this warrant is <br /> not met. <br /> d. Rural Trunk Highway Junctions <br /> If both roadways are rural trunk highways, a flashing beacon maybe required. <br /> This does not apply to this project. <br /> Based on the pedestrian and traffic volume data, this intersection would not justify a flashing <br /> beacon system. However, if state aid dollars are not used and it is determined that a flashing <br /> beacon should be installed, further analysis should be conducted of the location of the <br /> flashing beacons. <br /> School Crossing Study <br /> Anoka County <br /> WSB Project No. 1044.08 Page 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.