INTERSECTION CONTROLEVALUATION

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION Trunk Highway 22 and CSAH 21 (E Hill Street/Shanaska Creek Road)

Kasota, Le Sueur County, Minnesota

November 2018

ICE Report – TH 22 and Le Sueur CSAH 21 i

Trunk Highway 22 and Le Sueur CSAH 21 (E Hill Street/Shanaska Creek Road)

Intersection Control Evaluation

Kasota, Le Sueur County, Minnesota

I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.

Mike Bittner, PE, PTOE Date: 11/28/2018 License No: 51576

Approved: MnDOT District 7 Traffic Engineer Date MnDOT District 7 State Aid Engineer Date

ICE Report – TH 22 and Le Sueur CSAH 21 ii

Contents Background and Study Area ................................................................................................................................................. 1

Roadway Characteristics ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Study Intersection Configuration ................................................................................................................................. 1

Access Spacing .............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Directional Traffic Distribution ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Major Approach Versus Minor Approach Volumes .................................................................................................... 3

Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................................................................. 3

No Build: Two-Way Stop Control ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Signal Control .................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Roundabout Control ......................................................................................................................................................... 5

Truck Considerations .................................................................................................................................................... 5

Reduced Conflict Intersection .......................................................................................................................................... 6

Rural Intersection Conflict Warning System .................................................................................................................... 7

Queue Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Crash History ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Summary and Recommendation ......................................................................................................................................... 8

ICE Report – TH 22 and Le Sueur CSAH 21 1

Background and Study Area As part of the Trunk Highway (TH) 22 Corridor Study, intersection control revisions are being considered at the intersection of TH 22 and Le Sueur County State Aid Highway 21/ E Hill Street/Shanaska Creek Road (to be referred to as CSAH 21) in Kasota. The objective of this Intersection Control Evaluation report is to determine the optimal intersection control to improve future traffic capacity and reduce crash potential.

When identifying potential traffic control options, consideration was also given to factors such as traffic control consistency along the corridor and planned corridor-wide improvements.

For the study intersection, the following intersection control options were evaluated:

» Two-way stop control (existing control) » Traffic signal » Hybrid Roundabout » Reduced conflict intersection

The study area can be seen in Figure 1.

Roadway Characteristics TH 22 is functionally classified as a principal arterial and CSAH 21 is classified as a major collector. At the intersection, each roadway has a posted speed limit of 55 mph.

STUDY INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION

The intersection of TH 22 and CSAH 21 currently is stop controlled on the CSAH 21 approaches. The lane configuration is:

» Southbound: Two through lanes (truck climbing area), dedicated right- and left-turn lanes » Northbound: One through lane, dedicated right- and left-turn lanes » Eastbound: Dedicated right-turn lane, shared through/left-turn lane » Westbound: Dedicated right-turn lane, shared through/left-turn lane

ACCESS SPACING

North of CSAH 21, the closest access points are a sand/gravel pit access 1,360 feet (0.25 miles) to the north and Le Sueur County Road 45 3,340 feet (0.6 miles) to the north. South of CSAH 21, the closet access is Pearl Street, 1680 feet (0.32 miles) to the south. All of these adjacent access points are stop controlled on the minor approaches.

Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) access spacing guidelines for rural principal arterials (Mn/DOT Access Management Manual [2008]) recommends 1-mile access spacing for primary full-movement intersections, and 1/2-mile access spacing for secondary intersections. Access spacing and associated access recommendations are being developed with the larger TH 22 Corridor Study.

Traffic Volumes Existing and projected average daily traffic volumes (ADT) and peak hour turning movements at the study intersection can be seen in Figure 1. Existing volumes are 2017 traffic volumes that were collected for the TH 22 Corridor Study. Traffic projections for 2045 were developed through a review of historic traffic patterns and land use changes in the area. 2045 average annual growth rates and 2030 ADT estimates were calculated based on 2017 daily intersection counts and assumed 0.8 percent to the north, 1.8 percent to the south, and 1.0 percent for both minor approaches.


Figure 1 – Study Area Details


Based on discussions with the TH 22 corridor study Technical Advisory Committee, it has been established that 2045 traffic projections documented in this report reflect an aggressive growth scenario. As such, if less intense development occurs in the area than assumed for the 2045 traffic projections, 2030 traffic projections presented in this document could approximate 2045 projections in a more moderate growth scenario.

DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION

Under AM peak hour conditions, a roughly even split between northbound and southbound vehicles is expected through 2045. A slightly more unbalanced distribution is expected in the PM peak hour, with 2017 volumes indicating 55 percent of traffic traveling northbound, lowering to 53 percent travelling northbound by 2045.

MAJOR APPROACH VERSUS MINOR APPROACH VOLUMES

Daily mainline volumes on TH 22 exceed side street volumes on CSAH 21 by an approximate five-to-one ratio. During 2030 and 2045 AM peak hours, major approach volumes exceed minor approach left-turning/through movements by a ratio of around eight-to-one, increasing to an approximate 14-to-one ratio in the 2030 and 2045 PM peak hours.

Traff i c Operat ions Intersection level of service was evaluated for existing and future traffic conditions under each considered traffic control option. For two-way stop control and signal control, the Synchro 9/Simtraffic software was used and for roundabout control the HCS7 software was used. Each of these implement a level of service analysis methodology based on the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. Control delay thresholds for each level of service can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1 – Highway Capacity Manual Intersection Level of Service Thresholds

Control Delay Level of Service (LOS)

Unsignalized Signalized ≤ 10 ≤ 10 A

> 10-15 > 10-20 B > 15-25 > 20-35 C > 25-35 > 35-55 D > 35-50 > 55-80 E

> 50 > 80 F

Per MnDOT Access Management Manual and FHWA guidance, LOS “E” or worse will be considered an operational deficiency where mitigation should be discussed.

No Build: Two-Way Stop Control Under existing conditions, eastbound approach LOS “C” is experienced in the PM peak hour, which is within acceptable limits per MnDOT design standards. Minor approach LOS “C” is expected under 2030 conditions, lowering to LOS “D” on both minor approaches by 2045.

Table 2 – Two-Way Stop Control Delay and Level of Service

Note: Delay presented in terms of seconds per vehicle

2017 3 A 3 A 12 B 11 B 5 A 3 A 3 A 16 C 12 B 4 A2030 4 A 3 A 15 C 15 C 5 A 4 A 3 A 20 C 16 C 5 A2045 4 A 4 A 30 D 28 D 9 A 4 A 5 A 29 D 27 D 7 A

YearAM Peak PM Peak

NB SB EB WB Total NB SB EB WB Total


Signal Control Traffic signal warrants from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices were evaluated under existing and projected traffic volumes. Minor approach right-turns were omitted from this analysis given the presence of eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes on CSAH 21.

A traffic signal is not warranted under existing conditions; however, one is expected to be warranted by 2030. It is typical for a traffic signal or roundabout to be considered for MnDOT roadways when Warrant 1 is met (Scott Thompson MnDOT D7), which is expected to be at the study intersection under 2030 traffic volumes.

Table 3 -Signal Warrant Analysis (2017 Volumes)

Criteria Hours Met

Hours Required

Warrants Met

Warrant 1a: Minimum Vehicular Volume 0 8 Not Met Warrant 1b: Interruption of Continuous Traffic 6 8 Not Met

Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 2 4 Not Met Warrant 3: Peak Hour 0 1 Not Met

Warrant 7: Crash Experience 0* 8 Not Met Multi-way Stop Applications (MWSA) 0 8 Not Met

*Hours meeting traffic volume component for Warrant 7 Table 4 -Signal Warrant Analysis (2030 Volumes)

Criteria Hours Met

Hours Required

Warrants Met

Warrant 1a: Minimum Vehicular Volume 2 8 Not Met Warrant 1b: Interruption of Continuous Traffic 12 8 Met

Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 8 4 Met Warrant 3: Peak Hour 3 1 Met

Warrant 7: Crash Experience 2* 8 Not Met Multi-way Stop Applications (MWSA) 3 8 Not Met

*Hours meeting traffic volume component for Warrant 7

Under signal control with the existing lane configuration, intersection LOS “B” is expected through 2045, with all approaches operating at LOS “B” or better.

Table 5 – Signal Control Delay and Level of Service


2030 9 A 6 A 13 B 13 B 9 A 9 A 7 A 12 B 12 B 9 A2045 11 B 8 A 15 B 16 B 11 B 10 A 10 B 13 B 15 B 11 B

YearAM Peak PM Peak



Roundabout Control It is MnDOT’s typical practice to consider roundabouts and signals when warrant 1 is met, and a signal is expected to be warranted by 2030.

Under roundabout control, intersection LOS “B” is expected through 2045, with the lowest approach level of service being northbound LOS “C” during the 2045 PM peak hour.

The assumed lane geometry for a roundabout is shown in Figure 2. Note the unique configuration with two southbound through lanes given the cross-section design at the study intersection.

Figure 2 – Assumed Roundabout Geometry

Table 6 – Roundabout Delay and Level of Service


TRUCK CONSIDERATIONS

Roundabouts have been successfully constructed on many Minnesota trunk highways, including two on the TH 22 corridor in Mankato. With proper roundabout design characteristics such as a sufficient inscribed circle diameter and truck aprons with curbs designed to prevent load shifting, trucks can navigate roundabouts without issue. According to information from MnDOT’s Right of Way Mapping and Monitoring web application, an inscribed circle diameter of over 300 feet could be accommodated, with typical rural 2-lane entry roundabouts having diameters of 165 to 220 feet (MnDOT Road Design Manual Table 12-3.04A [2009]).

2030 9 A 6 A 7 A 10 A 8 A 12 B 5 A 6 A 7 A 8 A2045 9 A 16 C 11 B 8 A 11 B 19 C 6 A 8 A 8 A 12 B

YearAM Peak PM Peak



Reduced Conflict Intersection Reduced conflict intersections (sometimes referred to as restricted crossing U-turn intersections) displace minor approach left-turns and through movements, instead having these movements turn right, then make a downstream U-turn to continue in the desired travel direction. Since there is no existing median and current recommendations identified in the TH 22 Corridor Study indicate resurfacing without major roadway expansion, a reduced conflict intersection may not be applicable at this location.

Figure 3 – Reduced Conflict Intersection

Source: MnDOT

While an atypical configuration, spot widening at the intersection could be an option to accommodate a median and a reduced conflict intersection. Such a configuration would vary from typical MnDOT designs since a reduced conflict at this intersection would have one through lane in each direction.

Calculating total delays for each intersection movement under a reduced conflict configuration, westbound 2045 a.m. peak operations are expected to experience 21 seconds of additional delay compared to standard two-way stop control, lowering minor approach operations from LOS D to LOS E. Minor delay benefits are expected on the eastbound approach under a reduced conflict configuration, but eastbound LOS D is still expected in the 2045 p.m. peak hour.

Given that a reduced conflict configuration is not expected to improve operations, this configuration was discarded from further analysis. If a decision is made to expand this section of TH 22 to four lanes, further analysis of a reduced conflict configuration may indicate improved operations.

Table 7 – Reduced Conflict Intersection Delay and Level of Service


2030 2 A 2 A 12 B 13 B 4 A 2 A 3 A 13 B 11 B 4 A2045 4 A 3 A 21 C 49 E 11 B 3 A 5 A 25 D 22 C 7 A

YearAM Peak PM Peak



Rural Intersection Conflict Warning System Rural intersection conflict warning systems (RICWS) are supplementary warning devices to alert drivers on both the major and minor roadway approaches of potential intersection conflicts, with the primary goal to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes at these locations. The system can be placed on both the major and minor approaches or only on the major roadway.

MnDOT research found that crash potential was reduced at low-volume rural intersections after RICWS implementation, however intersections with cross-products (minor approach daily entering volumes multiplied by major approach daily entering volumes) greater than 12 million were found to have increased crash frequencies with RICWS implementation. The existing cross product is over 20 million, therefore a RICWS is not an appropriate long-term solution at the intersection and was discarded from further analysis.

Major Approach shown on the left, minor approach shown on the right (Source: MnDOT)

Queue Analys is Queue lengths were analyzed for standard two-way stop control, signal control, and roundabout control.

A review of 95th percentile queues under 2030 and 2045 conditions does not indicate that existing queue storage in turn lanes will be exceeded under two-way stop control or signal control.

Roundabout control is expected to introduce more queuing on TH 22 than signal control, with a 95th percentile northbound queue of 130 feet under 2030 PM peak conditions and almost 250 feet under 2045 PM peak conditions.

Table 8 – 95th Percentile Queues

2030 AM

2030 PM

2045 AM

2045 PM

2030 AM

2030 PM

2045 AM

2045 PM

2030 AM

2030 PM

2045 AM

2045 PM

Left 230 31 23 45 32 39 29 61 40 3 3 5 3Thru - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Right 230 2 46 2 3 147 130 178 174Left 210 11 2 40 12 24 34 26 36 33 28 48 38

Thru - 35 0 6 0 55 0 61 0

Right 210 2 0 0 85 78 83 100 133Left -

Thru -

Right 250 42 44 43 50 31 40 43 45 3 5 10 8Left -

Thru -

Right 230 69 46 125 51 71 53 91 53

Westbound

No Build Signal

Northbound

Southbound

Eastbound

4056

Roundabout

80 128

20

Approach DirectionExisting Storage

248

45

13

130

58

13

88

33

8

13

40

1059 67 72

87 55 142 89 80 53 125

59 77 103 102 63

Figure 4 – Rural Intersection Conflict Warning System


Crash History Crash data was obtained from MnDOT for the time period between January 2011 and December 2015. In the five-year period, five crashes were reported. Three head-on crashes, one right-angle crash, and one other type of crash (not specified) were reported in the study period. No crashes had reported injuries or fatalities.

Using the critical crash analysis methodology which applies statistical analysis to determine if the difference in observed and typical crash rates for similar intersections is statistically significant, the intersection crash rate is not above the critical crash rate, but is above the statewide average.

Based on research-supported crash modification factors, the following safety impacts are expected from traffic control revisions:

» Signal control

Total crash reduction of 44 percent Angle crash reduction of 77 percent Left-turn crash reduction of 60 percent Rear-end crash increase of 58 percent

o Source: Harkey, et al. National Cooperative Highway Research Report 617: Accident Modification Factors for Traffic Engineering and ITS Improvements (2008)

» Roundabout control

Total crash reduction of 34 percent Injury crash reduction of 50 percent

o Quin, et. al. Evaluation of Roundabout Safety (2013) Signal control is expected to reduce overall crash potential, including potential for angle and left-turn crashes since signalization reduces the need for potentially high-risk gap selection, especially given the 55 mph speed limit on TH 22. Intermittent red-phases for the major approaches will however increase rear-end crash potential. Rear end crash potential would be more significant for northbound vehicles since the closest signal to the south is seven miles away at CSAH 26 (227th Street) in Mankato. Roundabout control is also expected to reduce overall crashes, with a more significant reduction in injury crashes due to eliminating high-speed angle crash potential. Roundabouts also mitigate head-on collision potential, which was the most common crash type observed at the intersection. This is significant since across rural Minnesota trunk highways, head-on collisions make up only eight percent of total crashes but 20 percent of fatal crashes. While crash history does not indicate an issue with angle crashes, as traffic volumes increase gap acceptance will become more difficult, potentially resulting in more risky decision making for vehicles on the minor approaches. This is significant because across Minnesota two-way stop-controlled intersections, right-angle crashes contribute to around 55 percent of injury crashes, with no other crash type representing more than 10 percent of injury crashes.

Summary and Recommendat ion All forms of traffic control that were carried through all analyses (two-way stop control, signal control, or roundabout control) are expected to provide acceptable operations through 2045, however signal control and roundabout control will provide better minor approach operations (LOS “B” or better) through 2045. Multimodal operations are expected to be similar under each scenario due to the rural nature of the intersection.


Both a traffic signal or roundabout are also expected to reduce crash potential, but a roundabout is expected to have a more significant reduction in crash potential. A roundabout will also mitigate head-on crash potential unlike a signal, and head-on crashes were most common reported crash type at the intersection.

Since a roundabout provides the lowest amount of delay, provides the greatest safety benefit, and can fit within available right-of-way, a roundabout is recommended for the future traffic control at the intersection of TH 22 and Le Sueur CSAH 21.

Table 9 – Summary of Analysis

Year Peak LO S*

AM B

PM C

AM C

PM C

AM D

PM D

AM A

PM A

AM B

PM B

AM A

PM A

AM A

PM B

$1.2 - $1.4 M

2030

Existing

Alternative Assessment – TH 22 and Le Sueur County Road 21

Traff ic O perations

Traffic Signal

Traff ic Signal Warrants MetWarrant 1 (8-Hour) - 2030Warrant 2 (4-Hour) - 2030Warrant 3 (Peak-Hour) - 2030

Total Crash Reduction of 44%Angle Crash Reduction of 77%

Left-Turn Crash Reduction of 60%Rear-End Crash Inc rease of 58%

$200 - $400 K

Alternative Lane Configuration Traff ic Control Warrants Safety AssessmentPrel iminary Cost

Estimate

2030

2045

Do Nothing (TWSC)

*Lowest approach LOS for TWSC, overall intersection LOS for all other traffic control

No Expected Change in Crash Patterns Without Traffic Control

Revisions

n/a $0

Roundabout

MnDOT Protocol is to Only Install Roundabouts If Signal Warrants or AWSC Warrants are Met

2045

Crash rate above statewide average 5 crashes in 5 years (no injuries)3 head-on, 1 right-angle, 1 other

2030

2045

Total Crash Reduction of 34%Injury Crash Reduction of 50%

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION Trunk Highway 22 and County Road 101 (480th Street)

Le Sueur County, Minnesota

November 2018

ICE Report – TH 22 and Le Sueur County Road 101 i

Trunk Highway 22 and Le Sueur County Road 101 (480th Street)


Le Sueur County, Minnesota




ICE Report – TH 22 and Le Sueur County Road 101 ii




Access Spacing .............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................................................. 1


Major approach Versus Minor Approach Volumes..................................................................................................... 3


Crash History ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Queue Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Potential Traffic Control Options ......................................................................................................................................... 4

Signal Control .................................................................................................................................................................... 4


Reduced Conflict Intersection .......................................................................................................................................... 6

Rural Intersection Conflict Warning System .................................................................................................................... 6

Summary and Recommendation ......................................................................................................................................... 7

ICE Report – TH 22 and Le Sueur County Road 101 1

Background and Study Area As part of the Trunk Highway (TH) 22 Corridor Study, intersection control revisions are being considered at the intersection of TH 22 and Le Sueur County Road 101/480th Street (to be referred to as CR 101) between Kasota and Mankato. The objective of this Intersection Control Evaluation report is to determine the optimal intersection control to improve future traffic capacity and reduce crash potential.

When identifying potential traffic control options, consideration was also given to factors such as traffic control consistency along the corridor and planned corridor-wide improvements.

The following intersection control options were considered:

» Two-way stop control (existing control) » Traffic signal » Roundabout » Reduced conflict intersection » Rural conflict warning system


Roadway Characteristics TH 22 is functionally classified as a principal arterial and CR 101 is classified as a minor collector. At the intersection, each roadway has a posted speed limit of 55 mph.


The intersection of TH 22 and CR 101 currently is stop controlled on the CR 101 approaches. The lane configuration is:

» Southbound: One through lane, dedicated right- and left-turn lanes » Northbound: One through lane, dedicated right- and left-turn lanes » Eastbound: One lane for all movements (no turn lanes) » Westbound: One lane for all movements (no turn lanes)

ACCESS SPACING

North of CR 101, the closest public access point is Midway Court which is 2,200 feet (0.4 miles) away. Township Road 140/470th Street is one mile north of CR 101. South of CR 101, the closest public access point is Blue Earth County Road 2 (243rd Street) one mile away. All of these adjacent public access points are stop controlled on the minor approaches.

MnDOT access spacing guidelines for rural principal arterials (Mn/DOT Access Management Manual [2008]) recommends 1-mile access spacing for primary full-movement intersections, and 1/2-mile access spacing for secondary intersections. Access spacing and associated access recommendations are being developed with the larger TH 22 Corridor Study.

Traffic Volumes Existing and projected average daily traffic volumes (ADT) and peak hour turning movements at the study intersection can be seen in Figure 1. Existing volumes are 2017 traffic volumes that were collected for the TH 22 Corridor Study. Traffic projections for 2045 were developed through a review of historic traffic patterns and land use changes in the area. 2045 average annual growth rates and 2030 ADT estimates were calculated based on 2017 daily intersection counts and assumed 1.8 percent to the north and to the south, 2.5 percent to the east, and 1.5 percent to the west.


Based on discussions with the TH 22 corridor study Technical Advisory Committee, it has been established that 2045 traffic projections documented in this report reflect an aggressive growth scenario. As such, if less intense development occurs in the area than assumed for the 2045 traffic projections, 2030 traffic projections presented in this document could approximate 2045 projections in a more moderate growth scenario.


Under AM peak hour conditions, more TH 22 traffic is travelling southbound, with 61 percent of traffic travelling southbound in 2017, gradually becoming more balanced with 56 percent of AM peak traffic travelling southbound by 2045. Conversely, PM peak hour traffic is predominantly northbound, with approximately 54 percent of TH 22 travelling northbound under 2017, 2030, and 2045 conditions.

MAJOR APPROACH VERSUS MINOR APPROACH VOLUMES

Daily mainline volumes in 2030 and 2045 on TH 22 are expected to exceed minor approach volumes on CR 101 by an approximate 12-to-one ratio. During 2030 and 2045 AM peak hours, major approach volumes exceed minor approach left-turning/through movements by a ratio of around 10-to-one, increasing to an approximate 20-to-one ratio in the 2030 and 2045 PM peak hours.

Traff i c Operat ions Intersection level of service was evaluated for existing and future traffic conditions under two-way stop control using the Synchro 9/Simtraffic. Control delay thresholds for each level of service can be seen in Table 1.



Unsignalized Signalized ≤ 10 ≤ 10 A > 10-15 > 10-20 B > 15-25 > 20-35 C > 25-35 > 35-55 D > 35-50 > 55-80 E > 50 > 80 F

Per MnDOT Access Management Manual and FHWA guidance, LOS “E” or worse will be considered an operational deficiency where mitigation should be discussed.

Under existing conditions approach LOS “A” is expected on the minor approaches. With no intersection geometry revisions minor approach LOS “C” is expected under 2030 conditions, lowering to LOS “D” in the PM peak hour by 2045, however this is still within acceptable limits.



2017 5 A 7 A 7 A 9 A 7 A 7 A 7 A 9 A 10 A 7 A2030 7 A 8 A 15 C 15 C 8 A 8 A 8 A 14 B 20 C 8 A2045 8 A 9 A 20 C 24 C 10 B 9 A 9 A 30 D 34 D 10 B

YearAM Peak PM Peak



Crash History Crash data was obtained from MnDOT for the time period between January 2011 and December 2015. In the five-year period, nine crashes were reported. Six rear-end crashes, one sideswipe crash, and two run-off-the-road crashes were reported in the study period. Four crashes resulted in possible injuries and one crash resulted in a non-incapacitating injury.

While six rear-end crashes were reported on TH 22, northbound and southbound left-turn lanes were installed at the intersection in 2015, which will mitigate rear-end crash potential.

Queue Analys is A review of 95th percentile queues under 2030 and 2045 conditions does not indicate that existing queue storage in turn lanes will be exceeded under two-way stop control or signal control.


Potent ia l Traf f i c Control Opt ions Signal Control Traffic signal warrants from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices were evaluated under existing and projected traffic volumes. Half of minor approach right-turns were considered in this analysis given the absence of eastbound and westbound right-turn lanes on CR 101.

A traffic signal is not warranted under existing conditions or 2030 conditions per guidance in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, but the peak hour warrant is expected to be met by 2045. It is typical for a traffic signal or roundabout to be considered for MnDOT roadways when Warrant 1 is met (Scott Thompson MnDOT D7), which is not expected through 2045. As such, a traffic signal should not be considered unless future traffic volumes exceed what is currently projected through 2045.

2030 AM

2030 PM

2045 AM

2045 PM

Left 220 10 34 12 42Thru - 0 0 0 0

Right 220 0 0 0 0Left 230 3 19 9 23

Thru - 3 0 9 0

Right 230 8 3 0 3Left -

Thru -

Right -Left -

Thru -

Right -

Northbound

Southbound


No Build

Eastbound

Westbound

75 52 85 92

75 58 87 83


Table 4 -Signal Warrant Analysis (2017 Volumes)

Criteria Hours Met

Hours Required

Warrants Met

Warrant 1a: Minimum Vehicular Volume 0 8 Not Met Warrant 1b: Interruption of Continuous Traffic 0 8 Not Met Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 0 4 Not Met Warrant 3: Peak Hour 0 1 Not Met Warrant 7: Crash Experience 0* 8 Not Met Multi-Way Stop Applications (MWSA) 0 8 Not Met


Criteria Hours Met

Hours Required

Warrants Met

Warrant 1a: Minimum Vehicular Volume 0 8 Not Met Warrant 1b: Interruption of Continuous Traffic 2 8 Not Met Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 1 4 Not Met Warrant 3: Peak Hour 0 1 Not Met Warrant 7: Crash Experience 1* 8 Not Met Multi-Way Stop Applications (MWSA) 0 8 Not Met


Criteria Hours Met

Hours Required

Warrants Met

Warrant 1a: Minimum Vehicular Volume 0 8 Not Met Warrant 1b: Interruption of Continuous Traffic 4 8 Not Met Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 2 4 Not Met Warrant 3: Peak Hour 1 1 Met Warrant 7: Crash Experience 2* 8 Not Met Multi-Way Stop Applications (MWSA) 1 8 Not Met


Roundabout Control It is MnDOT’s typical practice to consider roundabouts if a signal is warranted, but since the eight-hour (Warrant 1) signal warrant is not expected to be met through 2045, a roundabout should not be considered at this time.


Reduced Conflict Intersection Reduced conflict intersections (sometimes referred to as restricted crossing U-turn intersections) displace minor approach left-turns and through movements, instead having these movements turn right, then make a downstream U-turn to continue in the desired travel direction. Since there is no existing median and current recommendations identified in the TH 22 Corridor Study indicate future expansion to a three-lane section with a continuous left turn lane, a reduced conflict intersection may not be applicable at this location.

Figure 2 – Reduced Conflict Intersection

Source: MnDOT

While an atypical configuration, spot widening at the intersection could be an option to accommodate a reduced conflict intersection. Such a configuration would vary from typical MnDOT designs since a reduced conflict at this intersection would have one through lane in each direction.

Calculating total delays for each intersection movement under a reduced conflict configuration, some improvements are expected, with eastbound 2045 p.m. peak operations improved from LOS D to LOS C.

Table 7 – Reduced Conflict Intersection Control Delay and Level of Service


From a safety perspective, MnDOT has found that reduced conflict intersections show a 42 percent reduction in injury crashes and a 70 percent reduction in fatalities. Data published by the FHWA shows smaller reduction in injury crashes of 22 percent and an overall crash reduction of 15 percent. It should be noted that most reduced conflict intersections are on four-lane median divided sections, so the crash benefits of a reduced conflict configuration on a two/three lane roadway section could be different.

Rural Intersection Conflict Warning System Rural intersection conflict warning systems (RICWS) are supplementary warning devices to alert drivers on both the major and minor roadway approaches of potential intersection conflicts, with the primary goal to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes at these locations. The system can be placed on both the major and minor approaches or only on the major roadway.

2030 1 A 0 A 12 B 13 B 2 A 1 A 1 A 12 B 11 B 2 A2045 2 A 2 A 20 C 18 C 4 A 2 A 2 A 19 C 17 C 3 A

WB Total NB SB EB WB TotalYear

AM Peak PM PeakNB SB EB


MnDOT research found that crash potential was reduced at low-volume rural intersections after RICWS implementation, however intersections with cross-products (minor approach daily entering volumes multiplied by major approach daily entering volumes) greater than 12 million were found to have increased crash frequencies with RICWS implementation. By 2030 the volume cross product is expected to be nearly 14 million, therefore a RICWS is not an appropriate long-term solution at the intersection.

Major Approach shown on the left, minor approach shown on the right (Source: MnDOT)

Summary and Recommendat ion Existing two-way stop control is expected to provide acceptable operations at the intersection of TH 22 and CR 101 through 2045, and the recent construction of left-turn lanes on TH 22 mitigates rear-end crash potential at the intersection. Multimodal operations are expected to be similar under each scenario due to the rural nature of the intersection. As such, no traffic control revisions are recommended unless a safety concern is identified in the future.

Figure 3 – Rural Intersection Conflict Warning System

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION Trunk Highway 22 and Blue Earth CSAH 57 (North Riverfront Drive)

Mankato, Minnesota

November 2018

ICE Report – TH 22 and Blue Earth CSAH 57 (North Riverfront Drive) i

Trunk Highway 22 and Blue Earth CSAH 57 (North Riverfront Drive)


Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minnesota




ICE Report – TH 22 and Blue Earth CSAH 57 (North Riverfront Drive) ii




Access Spacing .............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................................................. 1


Major Versus Minor Volumes ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Warrant Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................... 3


No Build: Two-Way Stop Control ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Continuous T Intersection ................................................................................................................................................ 4

Private Access Impacts ................................................................................................................................................. 5


Truck Considerations .................................................................................................................................................... 7

Queue Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Crash History ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Benefit-Cost Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................ 9

Summary and Recommendation ....................................................................................................................................... 10

Appendix A. Benefit/Cost Analysis Worksheets

ICE Report – TH 22 and Blue Earth CSAH 57 (North Riverfront Drive) 1

Background and Study Area As part of the Trunk Highway (TH) 22 Corridor Study, intersection control revisions are being considered at the intersection of TH 22 and Blue Earth County State Aid Highway 57/North Riverfront Drive (to be referred to as CSAH 57) just north of Mankato. The objective of this Intersection Control Evaluation report is to determine the optimal intersection that improves future traffic capacity and reduce crash potential.

The following intersection control options were evaluated:

» Two-way stop control (existing control) » Traffic signal » Continuous T-intersection » Single Lane Roundabout


Roadway Characteristics TH 22 is functionally classified as a principal arterial and CSAH 57 is classified as a major collector. At the intersection, each roadway has a posted speed limit of 55 mph.

The intersection is a four-legged intersection, with a private driveway to a single residence aligned with CSAH 57 being the east approach. Since this is a very low volume driveway, the intersection was evaluated as a T-intersection for intersection capacity analysis while considering the driveway access as a final consideration.


The intersection is currently stop controlled on the CSAH 57 approach. The lane configuration is:

» Southbound: One through lane, dedicated right- and left-turn lanes » Northbound: Shared through/right-turn lane, dedicated left-turn lane » Eastbound: Shared through/left-turn lane, dedicated right-turn lane » Westbound: Driveway with no turn lanes

ACCESS SPACING

North of CSAH 57, the closest public access point is 238th Street which is 2,800 feet (0.54 miles) away. South of CSAH 57, the closest public access point is 583rd Avenue which is 3,450 feet (0.65 miles) away. These adjacent public access points are stop controlled on the minor approaches.

MnDOT access spacing guidelines for rural principal arterials (Mn/DOT Access Management Manual [2008]) recommends 1-mile access spacing for primary full-movement intersections, and 1/2-mile access spacing for secondary intersections. Access and spacing recommendations are being developed with the TH 22 Corridor Study.

Traffic Volumes Existing and projected average daily traffic volumes (ADT) and peak hour turning movements at the study intersection can be seen in Figure 1. Existing volumes are 2017 traffic volumes that were collected for the TH 22 Corridor Study. Based on discussions with the TH 22 corridor study Technical Advisory Committee, it has been established that 2045 traffic projections documented in this report reflect an aggressive growth scenario. Traffic projections for 2045 were developed through a review of historic traffic patterns and land use changes in the area. 2045 average annual growth rates and 2030 ADT estimates were calculated based on 2017 daily intersection counts and assumed 1.8 percent to the north, 2.6 percent to the south, and 2.5 percent to the west. As such, if less intense development occurs in the area than assumed for the 2045 traffic projections, 2030 traffic projections presented in this document could approximate 2045 projections in a more moderate growth scenario.



Under AM peak hour conditions, a roughly even split between northbound and southbound vehicles is expected with both 2030 and 2045 traffic projections. A more unbalanced distribution is expected in the PM peak hour, with around 60 percent of traffic travelling northbound in both 2030 and 2045.

MAJOR VERSUS MINOR VOLUMES

Daily mainline volumes on TH 22 are expected to exceed minor approach volumes on CSAH 57 by an approximate six-to-one ratio in both 2030 and 2045. During the 2030 and 2045 AM peak hours, major approach volumes exceed minor approach left-turning movements by a ratio of around 17-to-one and 19-to-one, respectively. The PM peak hour ratio of major approach movements to minor approach left-turning movements is more balanced, but is around a seven-to-one ratio in both 2030 and 2045.

Warrant Analys is Traffic signal warrants from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices were evaluated under existing and projected traffic volumes. Minor approach right-turns were omitted from this analysis given the presence of an eastbound right-turn lane on CSAH 57.

Under existing traffic volumes Warrant 1b: Interruption of Continuous Traffic is met, and by 2030 Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicle Volume and Warrant 3: Peak Hour are also expected to be met. It is typical for a traffic signal or roundabout to be considered for MnDOT roadways when Warrant 1 is met (Scott Thompson MnDOT D7), which currently is met at the study intersection. By 2030, the volume threshold for Warrant 7: Crash Experience is met, however crash patterns (described more below) do not indicate a safety issue that would be mitigated with a traffic signal.

Table 3 – Signal Warrant Analysis (2017)

Criteria Hours Met

Hours Required Warrants Met

Warrant 1a: Minimum Vehicular Volume 2 8 Not Met Warrant 1b: Interruption of Continuous Traffic 8 8 Met Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 3 4 Not Met Warrant 3: Peak Hour 1 1 Met Warrant 7: Crash Experience 3* 8 Not Met Multi-way Stop Applications (MWSA) 0 8 Not Met

*Hours meeting traffic volume component for Warrant 7 Table 4 – Signal Warrant Analysis (2030)

Criteria Hours Met

Hours Required Warrants Met

Warrant 1a: Minimum Vehicular Volume 5 8 Not Met Warrant 1b: Interruption of Continuous Traffic 12 8 Met Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 10 4 Met Warrant 3: Peak Hour 4 1 Met

Warrant 7: Crash Experience 11* 8 Met – Check Crash History

Multi-way Stop Applications (MWSA) 3 8 Not Met *Hours meeting traffic volume component for Warrant 7


Traff i c Operat ions Intersection level of service was evaluated for existing and future traffic conditions under each considered traffic control option. For two-way stop control and signal control, the Synchro 9/Simtraffic software was used and for roundabout control the HCS7 software was used. Each of these implement a level of service analysis methodology based on the Highway Capacity Manual methodology. Per MnDOT Access Management Manual and FHWA guidance, LOS “E” or worse will be considered an operational deficiency where mitigation should be discussed. Control delay thresholds for each level of service can be seen in Table 1.




> 10-15 > 10-20 B > 15-25 > 20-35 C > 25-35 > 35-55 D > 35-50 > 55-80 E

> 50 > 80 F

No Build: Two-Way Stop Control Under existing conditions, approach LOS “B” or better is expected on the eastbound approach. The minor approach is expected to operate at LOS “F” by 2030, with delays becoming so high (over 600 seconds per vehicle) that overall intersection LOS “F” is expected by 2045.



Under signal control, the intersection is expected to operate at intersection LOS “B” through 2045, with all approaches operating at LOS “C” or better.

Table 3 – Signal Control Delay and Level of Service


Continuous T Intersection A continuous T intersection is a variant of the continuous green T intersection except it is unsignalized. This would add a dedicated receiving/acceleration lane for eastbound left-turns, which then merges with the northbound through lane downstream of the intersection. For modelling purposes, a 1,000 foot acceleration lane was assumed based on guidance in the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.

2017 1 A 4 A 9 A 4 A 2 A 4 A 15 B 5 A2030 2 A 4 A 11 B 3 A 3 A 3 A 69 F 14 B2045 3 A 5 A 23 C 5 A 4 A 3 A 667 F 101 F

YearNB SB EB Total NB SB EB Total

AM Peak PM Peak

2030 5 A 7 A 11 B 7 A 9 A 9 A 19 B 11 B2045 7 A 8 A 13 B 8 A 14 B 11 B 22 C 14 B

EB TotalYear

AM Peak PM PeakNB SB EB Total NB SB


A continuous T intersection is expected to operate with minor approach LOS “B” or better under 2030 conditions and LOS “C” under 2040 conditions.

Table 4 – Continuous T Intersection Control Delay and Level of Service


PRIVATE ACCESS IMPACTS

Conversion to a continuous T intersection would require the relocation of the private access that makes up the fourth leg of the intersection. Given the proximity to 583rd Avenue, access could potentially be relocated to this roadway.

Figure 2 – Private Access Impacts with Continuous T Intersection

2030 1 A 1 A 8 A 2 A 2 A 1 A 12 B 3 A2045 2 A 2 A 12 B 3 A 2 A 1 A 23 C 5 A


AM Peak PM Peak

CSAH 57

583rd Ave

Private Access


Figure 3 – Continuous T Intersection Configuration

North


Roundabout Control Roundabout level of service was calculated using the HCS 7 software, which implements the roundabout capacity analysis methodology from the sixth edition of the Highway Capacity Manual.

The assumed lane geometry for a roundabout is shown in Figure 4. A single lane was assumed on all approaches except the southbound approach, where a right-turn bypass lane was assumed.

Figure 4 – Assumed Roundabout Geometry

Under roundabout control, intersection LOS “A” is expected through 2030. Through 2045, intersection LOS “C” or better is expected, with the lowest approach level of service being northbound LOS “C” during the 2045 PM peak hour.

Table 5 – Roundabout Delay and Level of Service


TRUCK CONSIDERATIONS

Roundabouts have been successfully constructed on many Minnesota trunk highways, including two on the TH 22 corridor in Mankato. With proper roundabout design characteristics such as a sufficient inscribed circle diameter and truck aprons with curbs designed to prevent load shifting, trucks can navigate roundabouts without issue. MnDOT roundabout design guidelines recommend an inscribed circle diameter of 120 feet to 150 feet for single lane rural roundabouts (MnDOT Road Design Manual Table 12-3.04A [2009]), and information from MnDOT’s Right-of-Way Mapping and Monitoring web application indicates available right-of-way for such design.

2030 8 A 7 A 7 A 7 A 13 B 6 A 9 A 9 A2045 11 B 8 A 9 A 9 A 24 C 8 A 12 B 16 C


AM Peak PM Peak


Queue Analys is A review of 95th percentile queue indicates that significant queueing is expected on the minor approach under two-way stop control, with the 2045 PM peak queue exceeding 500 feet in length.

If converted to a signalized intersection or continuous T intersection, queue lengths are expected to significantly improve compared to two-way stop control, with no queues exceeding existing storage lengths through 2045.

Longer queues are expected on TH 22 under roundabout control than signal control or a continuous T configuration, with the longest expected 2045 queue under roundabout control being a 280 foot queue on the northbound approach in the PM peak hour.


Crash History Crash data was obtained from MnDOT for the time period between January 2011 and December 2015. In the five-year period, seven crashes were reported. Six run-off-the-road crashes and one other non-specified crash were reported. Two crashes resulted in non-incapacitating injuries. Four of six run-off-the-road crashes occurred when it was dark outside, which could be attributable to the horizontal roadway curvature just north of the intersection.

Using the critical crash analysis methodology which applies statistical analysis to determine if the difference in observed and typical crash rates is statistically significant, the intersection crash rate is not above the critical crash rate but is above the statewide average.

Based on research-supported crash modification factors, the following safety impacts are expected from traffic control revisions:

» Signal Control

Total crash reduction of 44 percent Angle crash reduction of 77 percent Left-turn crash reduction of 60 percent Rear-end crash increase of 58 percent

o Source: Harkey, et al. National Cooperative Highway Research Report 617: Accident Modification Factors for Traffic Engineering and ITS Improvements (2008)

» Signalized Continuous T Intersection

Total crash reduction of 60 percent Injury crash reduction of 70 percent Angle crash reduction of 97 percent

o FHWA case study – FHWA-SA-09-016 (2010)

2030 AM

2030 PM

2045 AM

2045 PM

2030 AM

2030 PM

2045 AM

2045 PM

2030 AM

2030 PM

2045 AM

2045 PM

2030 AM

2030 PM

2045 AM

2045 PM

Left 240 34 29 51 44 8 4 6 7 32 32 44 43

Thru - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Thru - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 53 85 83

Right 380 7 0 18 11 43 44 63 61 10 12 16 6 28 8 40 10Left - 58 338 84 508 67 123 77 140 55 95 64 185

Right 230 33 130 42 217 31 54 43 56 28 44 37 46

Continuous T Roundabout

Southbound


No Build

Northbound 58 128 105 283

Traffic Signal

Eastbound 15 40 23 60


» Roundabout control

Total crash reduction of 71 percent Injury crash reduction of 82 percent

o Rodegerdts, et al. National Cooperative Highway Research Report 572: Applying Roundabouts in the United States (2007)

While data was only available for a signalized continuous green T intersection, minor approach left-turning unsignalized movements would simplify gap acceptance since drivers would not have to evaluate gap acceptability for northbound through vehicles.

Roundabout control is expected to significantly reduce overall crash potential, especially for injury crashes due to eliminating high-speed angle crash potential. Run-off-the-road crashes were the most common crash type at the intersection, and a properly designed and signed roundabout with expanded roadway lighting (lighting only currently exists at the intersection) could potentially reduce this crash type by slowing vehicle speeds near the roadway curvature on the north intersection approach.

Benef i t -Cost Analys is Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) provides an indication of the economic desirability of an alternative, by comparing the benefits along with the assessment of other effects and impacts. Projects are considered cost-effective if the benefit-cost ratio is greater than 1.0. The larger the ratio number, the greater the benefits per unit cost.

A BCA was performed for the three intersection alternatives compared to the existing two-way stop intersection. The analysis was based on MnDOT Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidelines (SFY2019) to compare to similar projects throughout the region. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and crash reduction savings were quantified to evaluate operational and safety benefits. Construction costs, maintenance costs, and remaining capitol value were quantified to represent the total user costs for the project. The benefits and costs of each alternative were compared for a 20-year timeframe assumed between 2021-2040. Based on the actual construction year, these results may increase or decrease slightly from the assumptions used for the current analysis.

For the purposes of this ICE report, economic desirability of the concept was compared between intersection alternatives. Table 7 shows a summary of the BCA results for traffic signal, roundabout, and continuous T alternatives. Both the Traffic Signal and Continuous T alternatives provide an economic improvement to the intersection with the Continuous T providing over four times the benefit of a traffic signal but also being four times the cost. Although the roundabout alternative had a high safety benefit, the reduction of speed along an existing two-lane highway caused a negative net benefit due to traffic operations.

Table 7 – 20 Year BCA Analysis Results

Traffic Signal Roundabout Continuous T

Net Cost of Project ($M) $0.22 $0.74 $1.13 Present Value of Benefits ($M)

$0.84 -$0.09 $4.03

Net Present Value ($M) $0.62 -$0.84 $2.90 Benefit / Cost Ratio 3.78 -0.13 3.55


Summary and Recommendat ion The existing two-way stop control is expected to result in deficient operations on the eastbound approach by 2030. A traffic signal, continuous T intersection, or a roundabout are all expected to improve intersection operations, all providing LOS “C” or better. Multimodal operations are expected to be similar under each scenario due to the rural nature of the intersection. A trail on the east side of TH 22 would have significantly lower vehicle crossing volumes than a trail on the west side.

From a safety perspective, a traffic signal would reduce angle crash potential, but has the potential to increase rear-end crash potential, especially given the rural high-speed design of TH 22 at the intersection. A roundabout is expected to provide the greatest safety benefit, especially for run-off-the-road crashes (most common crash type at this location), but the imbalanced major-to-minor approach volume ratios could result in rear-end crash potential on TH 22. A continuous T intersection is expected to have significant safety and operational improvements, but it is important to note that available safety data is for a signalized continuous T intersection rather than a stop-controlled configuration.

A traffic signal is not recommended at this time due to the rural roadway characteristics and associated rear-end crash potential, and acceptable operations can be provided with a continuous T intersection or roundabout. The economic desirability of a Continuous T far outweighs that of a roundabout even with a higher price tag. This is due to allowing TH 22 through traffic to be free from intersection delay caused by the traffic signal and roundabout control types. A Continuous T design also allows the ability to signalize the design in the future for additional capacity for CSAH 57 movements.

Given the highest benefits (and high BCA ratio) with a continuous T intersection compared to a roundabout (see Table 8) as well as the similar expected safety benefits, a continuous T is recommended at CSAH 57. It is also recommended that traffic operations and safety are monitored, with conversion to a signalized continuous T or a roundabout being a potential long-term solution if side street volumes continue to increase as the TH 22 corridor continues to build out toward CSAH 57.



Year Peak LO S*

AM A

PM B

AM C

PM E

AM C

PM F

AM A

PM B

AM A

PM B

AM A

PM B

AM A

PM C

AM A

PM A

AM A

PM C

Traffic Signal

2030 Total Crash Reduction of 44%Angle Crash Reduction of 77%

Left-Turn Crash Reduction of 60%Rear-End Crash Inc rease of 58%

Alternative Assessment – TH 22 and Blue Earth CSAH 57

Lane Configuration Safety AssessmentPrel iminary Cost

EstimateAlternative

Continuous T Intersection (Stop

Control)

Roundabout

Traff ic O perations

$250 - $450 K

2045

2030

2045

*Lowest approach LOS for TWSC and continuous T, overall intersection LOS for traffic signal and roundabout

Do Nothing (TWSC)

Total Crash Reduction of 60%Injury crash reduction of 70%Angle crash reduction of 97%

Note: Available safety assumes signal controlled continuous T configuration

$1.5 - $1.7 M

Total Crash Reduction of 71%Injury Crash Reduction of 82%

2030

2045

Existing

2030

2045

$1.0 - $1.2 M

Crash rate above statewide average 7 crashes in 5 years (2 injury crashes)

6 run-off-the-road crashes

No Expected Change in Crash Patterns Without Traffic Control Revisions

$0

Merge

Appendix A Benefit/Cost Analysis Worksheets

Benefit Cost Analysis Workbook

Weekday

$1.13

$4.03

$2.90

2040 3.55

Year

2019 - $0 $0 $0 -$

2020 - $1,630,435 $0 $0 1,630,435$

2021 1 $53,231 $26,960 $52,020 132,211$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2022 2 $60,526 $26,953 $53,254 140,733$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2023 3 $67,640 $26,942 $54,452 149,034$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2024 4 $74,577 $26,928 $55,614 157,119$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2025 5 $81,340 $26,910 $56,741 164,991$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2026 6 $87,932 $26,889 $57,833 172,654$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2027 7 $94,357 $26,864 $58,891 180,112$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2028 8 $100,616 $26,837 $59,916 187,369$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2029 9 $106,714 $26,806 $60,909 194,429$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2030 10 $112,654 $26,772 $61,869 201,295$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2031 11 $118,437 $26,735 $62,798 207,970$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2032 12 $124,067 $26,695 $63,697 214,459$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2033 13 $129,547 $26,653 $64,565 220,765$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2034 14 $134,880 $26,608 $65,404 226,892$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2035 15 $140,068 $26,560 $66,214 232,841$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2036 16 $145,114 $26,509 $66,995 238,618$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2037 17 $150,021 $26,456 $67,748 244,226$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2038 18 $154,791 $26,400 $68,475 249,666$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2039 19 $159,427 $26,342 $69,174 254,943$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2040 20 $163,931 $26,282 $69,847 260,060$ $0 $0 -$496,627 (496,627)$

$2,259,871 $534,100 $1,236,418 $4,030,389 $1,630,435 $0 -$496,627 $1,133,808

Summary of Results

Total for Project Life

Project Name:

Alternative:

BCA Base Year: 2021

TH 22 Corridor Study

Present Value of Benefits ($M)

Net Cost of Project ($M)

CSAH 57 Continuous T

Present Value of

Total User Costs ($)

Benefit / Cost Ratio:

Net Present Value ($M)

PRESENT VALUE OF USER BENEFITS

Construction Costs

Maintenance Costs

Remaining Capital Value

PRESENT VALUE OF USER Costs

Crash Reduction Savings

VHTBenefits VMT Benefits

Present Value of

Total User Benefits ($)

BCA Future Year:

BCA Workbook ‐ CSAH 57 Green T Page 1 of 5


Project Name: TH 22 Corridor Study

Alternative CSAH 57 Continuous T

BCA Base Year: 2021

BCA Future Year: 2040

Years of Construction Base Build

First Year of Construction 2020 2020Duration of Construction 1 1

Length of B/C Analysis Period 20 years

Benefit-cost First Year of Benefit: 2021Benefit-cost Final Year of Analysis/Year of Remaining Capital Value: 2040

Length of Traffic Analysis Period 13 years

First Year of Traffic Analysis: 2018Final Year of Traffic Analysis: 2030

Intersection/Corridor AADT Base Build

Existing AADT 11,300 11,300Future AADT 16,775 16,775

Truck Percentage Base Build

Percent Autos 95.2% 95.2%Percent Trucks 4.8% 4.8%

Average Vehicle Occupancy Ratios Base Build

Automobile 1.64 1.64Truck 1.04 1.04

Traffic - Daily VMT and VHT Base Build

Year 1 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 2018 2,369 2,181Year 13 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 2030 3,205 2,989Year 1 Daily Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) 2018 28 24Year 13 Daily Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) 2030 53 36

General Economic ParametersYear of Analysis 2018Number of Days in a Year (Assumed) 260Real Discount Rate 1.2%

Costs per Hour Value Units

Automobile $18.90 $/hrTruck $30.30 $/hr

Costs per Mile Value Units

Automobile $0.32 $/mileTruck $0.99 $/mile

Composite Cost per Hour $31.02 $/hrComposite Cost per Mile $0.55 $/mileMnDOT Crash Costs Value # of Crashes

Fatal $11,100,000 0Injury Type A $600,000 0Injury Type B $180,000 2Injury Type C $87,000 0Property damage only $7,200 5Build Crash Reduction 2018 60%Build Crash Reduction 2030 60%

GLOBAL ASSUMPTIONS AND FACTORS

NETWORK ASSUMPTIONS

ANALYSIS TIMEFRAME



Remaining Useful

Life (Yr)

Remaining Useful

Life (Yr)

20 20 Cost Per Lane-Mi ($) Total ($) $0 0% $310,000 0% Trunk Highway 1.0 10,500.00$ 10,500.00$

$0 80% $100,000 80% CSAH 1.0 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$

$0 67% $0 67% -$

$0 0% $0 0%

$0 60% $310,000 60% 18,500.00$

$0 50% $620,000 50%

$0 20% $310,000 20% Cost Per Lane-Mi ($) Total ($) $0 $1,550,000 Trunk Highway 1.0 10,500.00$ 10,500.00$

$0 $0 Frontage Road 1.0 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$

$1,650,000 $638,000 -$

18,500.00$

2019 - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02020 - $0 $1,630,435 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,630,4352021 1 $0 $0 $18,064 $18,064 $0 $0 $0

2022 2 $0 $0 $17,850 $17,850 $0 $0 $0

2023 3 $0 $0 $17,638 $17,638 $0 $0 $0

2024 4 $0 $0 $17,429 $17,429 $0 $0 $0

2025 5 $0 $0 $17,222 $17,222 $0 $0 $0

2026 6 $0 $0 $17,018 $17,018 $0 $0 $0

2027 7 $0 $0 $16,816 $16,816 $0 $0 $0

2028 8 $0 $0 $16,617 $16,617 $0 $0 $0

2029 9 $0 $0 $16,420 $16,420 $0 $0 $0

2030 10 $0 $0 $16,225 $16,225 $0 $0 $0

2031 11 $0 $0 $16,033 $16,033 $0 $0 $0

2032 12 $0 $0 $15,843 $15,843 $0 $0 $0

2033 13 $0 $0 $15,655 $15,655 $0 $0 $0

2034 14 $0 $0 $15,469 $15,469 $0 $0 $0

2035 15 $0 $0 $15,286 $15,286 $0 $0 $0

2036 16 $0 $0 $15,104 $15,104 $0 $0 $0

2037 17 $0 $0 $14,925 $14,925 $0 $0 $0

2038 18 $0 $0 $14,748 $14,748 $0 $0 $0

2039 19 $0 $0 $14,573 $14,573 $0 $0 $02040 20 $0 $0 $14,401 $14,401 $0 $496,627 -$496,627

Total Project Life Benefit $0 $1,630,435 $323,335 $323,335 $0 $496,627 $1,133,808

Remaining Capital Value Maintenance Costs

Construction Calculations

Grading and Drainage

Sub-Base and BaseSurface

Base

Build

Preliminary Engineering

Right of WayMajor Structures

Removal

Year

Build CostBase CostAnnual Maintenance

Annual MaintenanceNew Roadway Facility

Roadway FacilityTotal Roadway Length

(lane-mi)

Total Roadway Length (lane-mi)

Present Value of Net Annual Costs

($)Base Build Base Build

Present Value of Remaining Capital Value

Base

Present Value of Capital CostPresent Value of Maintenance

Cost

Build

Bas

e

Annual Maintenance Costs:

Bu

ild




First year of traffic analysis 2018 7366.7 6138.9 1227.8 $38,087 $38,087 First year of traffic

analysis 2018 616,056 566,944 49,111 $26,963 $26,963

2019 7896.3 6403.7 1492.6 $46,301 $45,752 2019 634,159 584,458 49,701 $27,287 $26,964

First year of benefit-cost analysis 2020

8425.9 6668.5 1757.4 $54,516 $53,231 First year of benefit-cost analysis 2020

652,263 601,972 50,291 $27,611 $26,960

2021 8955.6 6933.3 2022.2 $62,731 $60,526 2021 670,367 619,486 50,881 $27,935 $26,9532022 9485.2 7198.1 2287.0 $70,946 $67,640 2022 688,470 637,000 51,470 $28,259 $26,9422023 10014.8 7463.0 2551.9 $79,160 $74,577 2023 706,574 654,514 52,060 $28,583 $26,9282024 10544.4 7727.8 2816.7 $87,375 $81,340 2024 724,678 672,028 52,650 $28,906 $26,9102025 11074.1 7992.6 3081.5 $95,590 $87,932 2025 742,781 689,542 53,240 $29,230 $26,8892026 11603.7 8257.4 3346.3 $103,805 $94,357 2026 760,885 707,056 53,830 $29,554 $26,8642027 12133.3 8522.2 3611.1 $112,019 $100,616 2027 778,989 724,569 54,419 $29,878 $26,8372028 12663.0 8787.0 3875.9 $120,234 $106,714 2028 797,093 742,083 55,009 $30,202 $26,8062029 13192.6 9051.9 4140.7 $128,449 $112,654 2029 815,196 759,597 55,599 $30,526 $26,7722030 13722.2 9316.7 4405.6 $136,664 $118,437 2030 833,300 777,111 56,189 $30,849 $26,7352031 14251.9 9581.5 4670.4 $144,878 $124,067 2031 851,404 794,625 56,779 $31,173 $26,6952032 14781.5 9846.3 4935.2 $153,093 $129,547 2032 869,507 812,139 57,369 $31,497 $26,6532033 15311.1 10111.1 5200.0 $161,308 $134,880 2033 887,611 829,653 57,958 $31,821 $26,6082034 15840.7 10375.9 5464.8 $169,523 $140,068 2034 905,715 847,167 58,548 $32,145 $26,5602035 16370.4 10640.7 5729.6 $177,738 $145,114 2035 923,819 864,681 59,138 $32,469 $26,5092036 16900.0 10905.6 5994.4 $185,952 $150,021 2036 941,922 882,194 59,728 $32,792 $26,456

Last year of traffic analysis 2037 17429.6 11170.4 6259.3 $194,167 $154,791 Last year of traffic

analysis 2037 960,026 899,708 60,318 $33,116 $26,400

2038 17959.3 11435.2 6524.1 $202,382 $159,427 2038 978,130 917,222 60,907 $33,440 $26,342Last year of benefit-cost analysis 2039 18488.9 11700.0 6788.9 $210,597 $163,931 Last year of benefit-

cost analysis 2039 996,233 934,736 61,497 $33,764 $26,282

85463.0 $2,651,127 $2,259,871 1,117,880 $613,750 $534,100Total Project Life Benefit

Year Benefit (miles)

Total Project Life Benefit

Base (hrs)

Build (hrs)

Base (miles)

Build (miles)

VHT VMTConstant Benefit

($)

Present Value of Savings

($)

Constant Benefit

($)

VHT Calcs VMT Calcs


($)

Benefit (hrs)

Year



Base Base Build11,300 11,300 16,775 16,775 ($ per crash)

60% 60%Fatal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11,100,000$

A 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600,000$ B 2 0.8 3.0 1.2 180,000$ C 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87,000$

PDO 5 2.0 7.4 3.0 7,200$

1.4 79,200$ 0.6 31,680$ 2.1 117,573$ 0.8 47,029$

Annual Forecast Annual ForecastNumber of Crashes Estimated Cost Number of Crashes Estimated Cost

First year of traffic analysis 2019 1.5 $82,398 0.6 32,959$ 49,439$ 49,439$

2020 1.5 $85,596 0.6 34,238$ 51,357$ 50,748$ First year of benefit-cost analysis 2021 1.6 $88,793 0.6 35,517$ 53,276$ 52,020$

2022 1.6 $91,991 0.7 36,796$ 55,195$ 53,254$ 2023 1.7 $95,189 0.7 38,076$ 57,113$ 54,452$ 2024 1.7 $98,387 0.7 39,355$ 59,032$ 55,614$ 2025 1.8 $101,585 0.7 40,634$ 60,951$ 56,741$ 2026 1.9 $104,782 0.7 41,913$ 62,869$ 57,833$ 2027 1.9 $107,980 0.8 43,192$ 64,788$ 58,891$ 2028 2.0 $111,178 0.8 44,471$ 66,707$ 59,916$ 2029 2.0 $114,376 0.8 45,750$ 68,625$ 60,909$ 2030 2.1 $117,573 0.8 47,029$ 70,544$ 61,869$ 2031 2.1 $120,771 0.9 48,308$ 72,463$ 62,798$ 2032 2.2 $123,969 0.9 49,588$ 74,381$ 63,697$ 2033 2.2 $127,167 0.9 50,867$ 76,300$ 64,565$ 2034 2.3 $130,365 0.9 52,146$ 78,219$ 65,404$ 2035 2.4 $133,562 0.9 53,425$ 80,137$ 66,214$ 2036 2.4 $136,760 1.0 54,704$ 82,056$ 66,995$ 2037 2.5 $139,958 1.0 55,983$ 83,975$ 67,748$

Last year of traffic analysis 2038 2.5 $143,156 1.0 57,262$ 85,893$ 68,475$

2039 2.6 $146,354 1.0 58,541$ 87,812$ 69,174$ Last year of benefit-cost analysis 2040 2.6 $149,551 1.1 59,821$ 89,731$ 69,847$

1,430,068$ 1,236,418$ Total Project Life Benefit

Present Value of Savings ($)

CrashValues

Corridor AADT

Reduction

YearConstant Benefit ($)

Crash Analysis2018 2030

Crash Severity(5 year data)

Base Build

Crash Data

Crash Calculations

20182030



Weekday

$0.74

‐$0.09

‐$0.84

2040 ‐0.13

Year

2019 - $0 $0 $0 -$

2020 - $1,086,957 $0 $0 1,086,957$

2021 1 -$94,066 $21,243 $61,557 (11,266)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2022 2 -$95,112 $21,616 $63,018 (10,478)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2023 3 -$96,120 $21,977 $64,435 (9,708)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2024 4 -$97,091 $22,327 $65,810 (8,954)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2025 5 -$98,025 $22,665 $67,143 (8,217)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2026 6 -$98,924 $22,992 $68,436 (7,496)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2027 7 -$99,787 $23,308 $69,688 (6,791)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2028 8 -$100,616 $23,613 $70,901 (6,102)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2029 9 -$101,412 $23,908 $72,075 (5,428)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2030 10 -$102,174 $24,193 $73,212 (4,770)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2031 11 -$102,904 $24,467 $74,311 (4,126)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2032 12 -$103,603 $24,732 $75,375 (3,496)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2033 13 -$104,270 $24,986 $76,402 (2,882)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2034 14 -$104,907 $25,232 $77,395 (2,281)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2035 15 -$105,514 $25,468 $78,353 (1,694)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2036 16 -$106,092 $25,694 $79,277 (1,120)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2037 17 -$106,641 $25,912 $80,169 (560)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2038 18 -$107,163 $26,121 $81,028 (13)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2039 19 -$107,657 $26,322 $81,856 521$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2040 20 -$108,125 $26,514 $82,653 1,042$ $0 $0 -$342,501 (342,501)$

-$2,040,203 $483,288 $1,463,095 -$93,820 $1,086,957 $0 -$342,501 $744,455

Summary of Results


Project Name:

Alternative:

BCA Base Year: 2021




CSAH 57 RAB

Present Value of





Construction Costs

Maintenance Costs





Present Value of


BCA Future Year:

BCA Workbook ‐ CSAH 57 RAB Page 1 of 5



Alternative CSAH 57 RAB

BCA Base Year: 2021
























NETWORK ASSUMPTIONS

ANALYSIS TIMEFRAME



Remaining Useful

Life (Yr)

Remaining Useful

Life (Yr)


$0 80% $100,000 80% CSAH 1.0 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$

$0 67% $0 67% -$

$0 0% $0 0%

$0 60% $200,000 60% 18,500.00$

$0 50% $400,000 50%


$0 $0 Frontage Road 1.0 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$

$1,100,000 $440,000 -$

18,500.00$

2019 - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02020 - $0 $1,086,957 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,086,9572021 1 $0 $0 $18,064 $18,064 $0 $0 $0

2022 2 $0 $0 $17,850 $17,850 $0 $0 $0

2023 3 $0 $0 $17,638 $17,638 $0 $0 $0

2024 4 $0 $0 $17,429 $17,429 $0 $0 $0

2025 5 $0 $0 $17,222 $17,222 $0 $0 $0

2026 6 $0 $0 $17,018 $17,018 $0 $0 $0

2027 7 $0 $0 $16,816 $16,816 $0 $0 $0

2028 8 $0 $0 $16,617 $16,617 $0 $0 $0

2029 9 $0 $0 $16,420 $16,420 $0 $0 $0

2030 10 $0 $0 $16,225 $16,225 $0 $0 $0

2031 11 $0 $0 $16,033 $16,033 $0 $0 $0

2032 12 $0 $0 $15,843 $15,843 $0 $0 $0

2033 13 $0 $0 $15,655 $15,655 $0 $0 $0

2034 14 $0 $0 $15,469 $15,469 $0 $0 $0

2035 15 $0 $0 $15,286 $15,286 $0 $0 $0

2036 16 $0 $0 $15,104 $15,104 $0 $0 $0

2037 17 $0 $0 $14,925 $14,925 $0 $0 $0

2038 18 $0 $0 $14,748 $14,748 $0 $0 $0

2039 19 $0 $0 $14,573 $14,573 $0 $0 $02040 20 $0 $0 $14,401 $14,401 $0 $342,501 -$342,501

Total Project Life Benefit $0 $1,086,957 $323,335 $323,335 $0 $342,501 $744,455





Base

Build



Removal

Year




(lane-mi)





Base


Cost

Build

Bas

e


Bu

ild




First year of traffic analysis 2018 7366.7 10327.8 -2961.1 -$91,856 -$91,856 First year of traffic

analysis 2018 616,056 578,789 37,267 $20,461 $20,461

2019 7896.3 10929.6 -3033.3 -$94,096 -$92,981 2019 634,159 595,713 38,446 $21,108 $20,858


8425.9 11531.5 -3105.6 -$96,337 -$94,066 First year of benefit-cost analysis 2020

652,263 612,637 39,626 $21,756 $21,243

2021 8955.6 12133.3 -3177.8 -$98,577 -$95,112 2021 670,367 629,561 40,806 $22,403 $21,6162022 9485.2 12735.2 -3250.0 -$100,817 -$96,120 2022 688,470 646,485 41,985 $23,051 $21,9772023 10014.8 13337.0 -3322.2 -$103,058 -$97,091 2023 706,574 663,409 43,165 $23,699 $22,3272024 10544.4 13938.9 -3394.4 -$105,298 -$98,025 2024 724,678 680,333 44,344 $24,346 $22,6652025 11074.1 14540.7 -3466.7 -$107,539 -$98,924 2025 742,781 697,257 45,524 $24,994 $22,9922026 11603.7 15142.6 -3538.9 -$109,779 -$99,787 2026 760,885 714,181 46,704 $25,642 $23,3082027 12133.3 15744.4 -3611.1 -$112,019 -$100,616 2027 778,989 731,106 47,883 $26,289 $23,6132028 12663.0 16346.3 -3683.3 -$114,260 -$101,412 2028 797,093 748,030 49,063 $26,937 $23,9082029 13192.6 16948.1 -3755.6 -$116,500 -$102,174 2029 815,196 764,954 50,243 $27,585 $24,1932030 13722.2 17550.0 -3827.8 -$118,741 -$102,904 2030 833,300 781,878 51,422 $28,232 $24,4672031 14251.9 18151.9 -3900.0 -$120,981 -$103,603 2031 851,404 798,802 52,602 $28,880 $24,7322032 14781.5 18753.7 -3972.2 -$123,221 -$104,270 2032 869,507 815,726 53,781 $29,528 $24,9862033 15311.1 19355.6 -4044.4 -$125,462 -$104,907 2033 887,611 832,650 54,961 $30,175 $25,2322034 15840.7 19957.4 -4116.7 -$127,702 -$105,514 2034 905,715 849,574 56,141 $30,823 $25,4682035 16370.4 20559.3 -4188.9 -$129,943 -$106,092 2035 923,819 866,498 57,320 $31,471 $25,6942036 16900.0 21161.1 -4261.1 -$132,183 -$106,641 2036 941,922 883,422 58,500 $32,118 $25,912

Last year of traffic analysis 2037 17429.6 21763.0 -4333.3 -$134,423 -$107,163 Last year of traffic

analysis 2037 960,026 900,346 59,680 $32,766 $26,121

2038 17959.3 22364.8 -4405.6 -$136,664 -$107,657 2038 978,130 917,270 60,859 $33,414 $26,322Last year of benefit-cost analysis 2039 18488.9 22966.7 -4477.8 -$138,904 -$108,125 Last year of benefit-

cost analysis 2039 996,233 934,194 62,039 $34,061 $26,514

-75833.3 -$2,352,408 -$2,040,203 1,016,648 $558,171 $483,288Total Project Life Benefit



Base (hrs)

Build (hrs)

Base (miles)

Build (miles)


($)


($)

Constant Benefit

($)

VHT Calcs VMT Calcs


($)

Benefit (hrs)

Year




71% 71%Fatal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11,100,000$

A 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600,000$ B 2 0.6 3.0 0.9 180,000$ C 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87,000$

PDO 5 1.5 7.4 2.2 7,200$

1.4 79,200$ 0.4 22,968$ 2.1 117,573$ 0.6 34,096$




2022 1.6 $91,991 0.5 26,677$ 65,314$ 63,018$ 2023 1.7 $95,189 0.5 27,605$ 67,584$ 64,435$ 2024 1.7 $98,387 0.5 28,532$ 69,855$ 65,810$ 2025 1.8 $101,585 0.5 29,460$ 72,125$ 67,143$ 2026 1.9 $104,782 0.5 30,387$ 74,395$ 68,436$ 2027 1.9 $107,980 0.6 31,314$ 76,666$ 69,688$ 2028 2.0 $111,178 0.6 32,242$ 78,936$ 70,901$ 2029 2.0 $114,376 0.6 33,169$ 81,207$ 72,075$ 2030 2.1 $117,573 0.6 34,096$ 83,477$ 73,212$ 2031 2.1 $120,771 0.6 35,024$ 85,748$ 74,311$ 2032 2.2 $123,969 0.6 35,951$ 88,018$ 75,375$ 2033 2.2 $127,167 0.7 36,878$ 90,288$ 76,402$ 2034 2.3 $130,365 0.7 37,806$ 92,559$ 77,395$ 2035 2.4 $133,562 0.7 38,733$ 94,829$ 78,353$ 2036 2.4 $136,760 0.7 39,660$ 97,100$ 79,277$ 2037 2.5 $139,958 0.7 40,588$ 99,370$ 80,169$



1,692,247$ 1,463,095$ Total Project Life Benefit


CrashValues

Corridor AADT

Reduction




Base Build

Crash Data

Crash Calculations

20182030



Weekday

$0.22

$0.84

$0.62

2040 3.78

Year

2019 - $0 $0 $0 -$

2020 - $326,087 $0 $0 326,087$

2021 1 -$41,928 $168 $38,148 (3,613)$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2022 2 -$37,288 $172 $39,053 1,937$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2023 3 -$32,752 $176 $39,932 7,356$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2024 4 -$28,318 $181 $40,784 12,646$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2025 5 -$23,985 $185 $41,610 17,810$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2026 6 -$19,750 $188 $42,411 22,849$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2027 7 -$15,613 $192 $43,187 27,766$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2028 8 -$11,571 $196 $43,939 32,564$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2029 9 -$7,622 $199 $44,666 37,243$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2030 10 -$3,766 $203 $45,371 41,808$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2031 11 $0 $206 $46,052 46,258$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2032 12 $3,677 $209 $46,711 50,598$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2033 13 $7,267 $213 $47,348 54,828$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2034 14 $10,772 $216 $47,963 58,950$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2035 15 $14,192 $218 $48,557 62,967$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2036 16 $17,530 $221 $49,130 66,880$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2037 17 $20,786 $224 $49,682 70,692$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2038 18 $23,963 $227 $50,215 74,404$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2039 19 $27,061 $229 $50,728 78,018$ $0 $0 $0 -$

2040 20 $30,083 $231 $51,221 81,536$ $0 $0 -$102,750 (102,750)$

-$67,263 $4,055 $906,706 $843,498 $326,087 $0 -$102,750 $223,337

Summary of Results


Project Name:

Alternative:

BCA Base Year: 2021




CSAH 57 Traffic Signal

Present Value of





Construction Costs

Maintenance Costs





Present Value of


BCA Future Year:

BCA Workbook ‐ CSAH 57 Signal Page 1 of 5



Alternative CSAH 57 Traffic Signal

BCA Base Year: 2021
























NETWORK ASSUMPTIONS

ANALYSIS TIMEFRAME



Remaining Useful

Life (Yr)

Remaining Useful

Life (Yr)


$0 80% $30,000 80% CSAH 1.0 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$

$0 67% $0 67% -$

$0 0% $0 0%

$0 60% $60,000 60% 18,500.00$

$0 50% $120,000 50%

$0 20% $60,000 20% Cost Per Lane-Mi ($) Total ($) $0 $300,000 Trunk Highway 1.0 10,500.00$ 10,500.00$

$0 $0 Frontage Road 1.0 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$

$330,000 $132,000 -$

18,500.00$

2019 - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $02020 - $0 $326,087 $0 $0 $0 $0 $326,0872021 1 $0 $0 $18,064 $18,064 $0 $0 $0

2022 2 $0 $0 $17,850 $17,850 $0 $0 $0

2023 3 $0 $0 $17,638 $17,638 $0 $0 $0

2024 4 $0 $0 $17,429 $17,429 $0 $0 $0

2025 5 $0 $0 $17,222 $17,222 $0 $0 $0

2026 6 $0 $0 $17,018 $17,018 $0 $0 $0

2027 7 $0 $0 $16,816 $16,816 $0 $0 $0

2028 8 $0 $0 $16,617 $16,617 $0 $0 $0

2029 9 $0 $0 $16,420 $16,420 $0 $0 $0

2030 10 $0 $0 $16,225 $16,225 $0 $0 $0

2031 11 $0 $0 $16,033 $16,033 $0 $0 $0

2032 12 $0 $0 $15,843 $15,843 $0 $0 $0

2033 13 $0 $0 $15,655 $15,655 $0 $0 $0

2034 14 $0 $0 $15,469 $15,469 $0 $0 $0

2035 15 $0 $0 $15,286 $15,286 $0 $0 $0

2036 16 $0 $0 $15,104 $15,104 $0 $0 $0

2037 17 $0 $0 $14,925 $14,925 $0 $0 $0

2038 18 $0 $0 $14,748 $14,748 $0 $0 $0

2039 19 $0 $0 $14,573 $14,573 $0 $0 $02040 20 $0 $0 $14,401 $14,401 $0 $102,750 -$102,750

Total Project Life Benefit $0 $326,087 $323,335 $323,335 $0 $102,750 $223,337





Base

Build



Removal

Year




(lane-mi)





Base


Cost

Build

Bas

e


Bu

ild




First year of traffic analysis 2018 7366.7 9027.8 -1661.1 -$51,529 -$51,529 First year of traffic

analysis 2018 616,056 615,767 289 $159 $159

2019 7896.3 9419.0 -1522.7 -$47,235 -$46,675 2019 634,159 633,858 301 $165 $163


8425.9 9810.2 -1384.3 -$42,941 -$41,928 First year of benefit-cost analysis 2020

652,263 651,950 313 $172 $168

2021 8955.6 10201.4 -1245.8 -$38,647 -$37,288 2021 670,367 670,042 325 $178 $1722022 9485.2 10592.6 -1107.4 -$34,353 -$32,752 2022 688,470 688,133 337 $185 $1762023 10014.8 10983.8 -969.0 -$30,059 -$28,318 2023 706,574 706,225 349 $192 $1812024 10544.4 11375.0 -830.6 -$25,764 -$23,985 2024 724,678 724,317 361 $198 $1852025 11074.1 11766.2 -692.1 -$21,470 -$19,750 2025 742,781 742,408 373 $205 $1882026 11603.7 12157.4 -553.7 -$17,176 -$15,613 2026 760,885 760,500 385 $211 $1922027 12133.3 12548.6 -415.3 -$12,882 -$11,571 2027 778,989 778,592 397 $218 $1962028 12663.0 12939.8 -276.9 -$8,588 -$7,622 2028 797,093 796,683 409 $225 $1992029 13192.6 13331.0 -138.4 -$4,294 -$3,766 2029 815,196 814,775 421 $231 $2032030 13722.2 13722.2 0.0 $0 $0 2030 833,300 832,867 433 $238 $2062031 14251.9 14113.4 138.4 $4,294 $3,677 2031 851,404 850,958 445 $245 $2092032 14781.5 14504.6 276.9 $8,588 $7,267 2032 869,507 869,050 457 $251 $2132033 15311.1 14895.8 415.3 $12,882 $10,772 2033 887,611 887,142 469 $258 $2162034 15840.7 15287.0 553.7 $17,176 $14,192 2034 905,715 905,233 481 $264 $2182035 16370.4 15678.2 692.1 $21,470 $17,530 2035 923,819 923,325 494 $271 $2212036 16900.0 16069.4 830.6 $25,764 $20,786 2036 941,922 941,417 506 $278 $224


analysis 2037 960,026 959,508 518 $284 $227

2038 17959.3 16851.9 1107.4 $34,353 $27,061 2038 978,130 977,600 530 $291 $229Last year of benefit-cost analysis 2039 18488.9 17243.1 1245.8 $38,647 $30,083 Last year of benefit-

cost analysis 2039 996,233 995,692 542 $297 $231

-1384.3 -$42,941 -$67,263 8,546 $4,692 $4,055Total Project Life Benefit



Base (hrs)

Build (hrs)

Base (miles)

Build (miles)


($)


($)

Constant Benefit

($)

VHT Calcs VMT Calcs


($)

Benefit (hrs)

Year




44% 44%Fatal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11,100,000$

A 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 600,000$ B 2 1.1 3.0 1.7 180,000$ C 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87,000$

PDO 5 2.8 7.4 4.2 7,200$

1.4 79,200$ 0.8 44,352$ 2.1 117,573$ 1.2 65,841$




2022 1.6 $91,991 0.9 51,515$ 40,476$ 39,053$ 2023 1.7 $95,189 0.9 53,306$ 41,883$ 39,932$ 2024 1.7 $98,387 1.0 55,097$ 43,290$ 40,784$ 2025 1.8 $101,585 1.0 56,887$ 44,697$ 41,610$ 2026 1.9 $104,782 1.0 58,678$ 46,104$ 42,411$ 2027 1.9 $107,980 1.1 60,469$ 47,511$ 43,187$ 2028 2.0 $111,178 1.1 62,260$ 48,918$ 43,939$ 2029 2.0 $114,376 1.1 64,050$ 50,325$ 44,666$ 2030 2.1 $117,573 1.2 65,841$ 51,732$ 45,371$ 2031 2.1 $120,771 1.2 67,632$ 53,139$ 46,052$ 2032 2.2 $123,969 1.2 69,423$ 54,546$ 46,711$ 2033 2.2 $127,167 1.3 71,213$ 55,953$ 47,348$ 2034 2.3 $130,365 1.3 73,004$ 57,360$ 47,963$ 2035 2.4 $133,562 1.3 74,795$ 58,767$ 48,557$ 2036 2.4 $136,760 1.4 76,586$ 60,174$ 49,130$ 2037 2.5 $139,958 1.4 78,376$ 61,582$ 49,682$



1,048,717$ 906,706$ Total Project Life Benefit


CrashValues

Corridor AADT

Reduction




Base Build

Crash Data

Crash Calculations

20182030


INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION Trunk Highway 22 and Blue Earth CSAH 26 (227th Street)

Mankato, Minnesota

November 2018

ICE Report – TH 22 and CSAH 3 (North Victory Drive) i

Trunk Highway 22 and Blue Earth CSAH 26 (227th Street)






ICE Report – TH 22 and CSAH 3 (North Victory Drive) ii

Contents Background and Study Area .............................................................................................................................................. 1

Roadway Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................... 1

Study Intersection Configuration .............................................................................................................................. 1

Access Spacing ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Warrant Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

Traffic Operations .............................................................................................................................................................. 3

Existing Conditions Traffic Operations .......................................................................................................................... 3

Future Conditions Traffic Operations ............................................................................................................................ 4

Queue Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Multimodal Roundabout Considerations .......................................................................................................................... 5

Truck Considerations ......................................................................................................................................................... 5

Crash History ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Corridor Vision ................................................................................................................................................................... 6


Appendix A. PM Peak Hour Traffic Simulation Results

ICE Report – TH 22 and Blue Earth CSAH 26 (227th Street) 1

Background and Study Area As part of the Trunk Highway (TH) 22 Corridor Study, intersection control revisions are being considered at the intersection of TH 22 and Blue Earth County State Aid Highway 26/227th Street (to be referred to as CSAH 26) just north of Mankato. The objective of this Intersection Control Evaluation report is to determine the optimal intersection control to improve future traffic capacity and reduce crash potential. The following intersection control options were evaluated:

» Traffic signal (existing control) » Hybrid 2x1 Roundabout with minor right turn lanes


Roadway Characteristics TH 22 is functionally classified as a principal arterial and CSAH 26 is classified as a major collector. At the intersection, TH 22 has a 55 mph posted speed limit and CSAH 26 has a 40 mph posted speed limit.


The intersection is signal controlled. The lane configuration is:

» Southbound: Two through lanes, dedicated right‐ and left‐turn lanes » Northbound: Two through lanes, dedicated right‐ and left‐turn lanes » Eastbound: One through lane, dedicated right‐ and left‐turn lanes » Westbound: One through lane, dedicated right‐ and left‐turn lanes

ACCESS SPACING

North of CSAH 26, the closest public access point is 583rd Avenue which is 4,800 feet (0.90 miles) away. South of CSAH 26, the closest public access point is Augusta Drive which is 2,640 feet (0.5 miles) away. These adjacent public access points are stop controlled on the minor approaches, however a future roundabout is planned at Augusta Drive.

MnDOT access spacing guidelines for urban/urbanizing principal arterials (Mn/DOT Access Management Manual [2008]) recommends 1/2‐mile access spacing primary full‐movement intersections, and 1/4‐mile access spacing for secondary. Hensonshire Drive is approximately 250 feet to the west of the intersection (660 feet full access spacing recommendation) and should be considered for reduced access as traffic volumes increase along CSAH 26. Access spacing and associated access recommendations are being developed with the larger TH 22 Corridor Study.

Traffic Volumes Existing and projected average daily traffic volumes (ADT) and peak hour turning movements at the study intersection can be seen in Figure 1. Existing volumes are 2017 traffic volumes that were collected for the TH 22 Corridor Study. Traffic projections for 2030 and 2045 were developed in the corridor study through a review of historic traffic patterns and growth rates as well as expected land use changes in the area. Traffic volumes on TH 22 are four to five times more than CSAH 26 volumes causing an unbalanced intersection, which is important when considering alternatives.

Based on discussions with the TH 22 corridor study Technical Advisory Committee, it has been established that 2045 traffic projections documented in this report reflect an aggressive growth scenario. 2045 average annual growth rates and 2030 ADT estimates were calculated from 2017 daily intersection counts and assumed 2.6 percent to the north and south, 2.9 percent to the east, and 1.4 percent to the west. As such, if less intense development occurs in the area than assumed for the 2045 traffic projections, 2030 traffic projections presented in this document could approximate 2045 projections in a more moderate growth scenario.


Warrant Analys is Traffic signal warrants from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices were evaluated under existing and projected traffic volumes. Minor approach right‐turns were omitted from this analysis given the presence of eastbound and westbound right‐turn lanes on CSAH 26.

It is typical for a traffic signal or roundabout to be considered for MnDOT roadways when Warrant 1 is met (Scott Thompson MnDOT D7). Under existing volumes, Warrant 2: Four‐Hour Vehicular Volume and Warrant 3: Peak Hour are met. By 2030, Warrant 1b: Interruption of Continuous Traffic is also expected to be met.


Criteria Hours Met

Hours Required

Warrants Met

Warrant 1a: Minimum Vehicular Volume 1 8 Not Met

Warrant 1b: Interruption of Continuous Traffic 6 8 Not Met

Warrant 2: Four‐Hour Vehicular Volume 4 4 Met

Warrant 3: Peak Hour 1 1 Met

Warrant 7: Crash Experience 1* 8 Not Met

Multi‐way Stop Applications (MWSA) 2 8 Not Met



Criteria Hours Met

Hours Required

Warrants Met

Warrant 1a: Minimum Vehicular Volume 1 8 Not Met

Warrant 1b: Interruption of Continuous Traffic 11 8 Met



Warrant 7: Crash Experience 6* 8 Not Met

Multi‐way Stop Applications (MWSA) 4 8 Not Met


Traff ic Operat ions

Existing Conditions Traffic Operations Intersection operations for both signal control and roundabout control were evaluated using the Vissim software. Control delay for each level of service threshold can be seen in Table 3. Per MnDOT Access Management Manual and FHWA guidance, LOS “E” or worse will be considered an operational deficiency where mitigation should be discussed.




> 10‐15 > 10‐20 B > 15‐25 > 20‐35 C > 25‐35 > 35‐55 D > 35‐50 > 55‐80 E > 50 > 80 F


Under existing traffic volumes, intersection geometry, and signal control, the intersection operates at LOS “C” in the AM peak hour and LOS “B” in the PM peak hour, with no approach operating worse than LOS “D”. The existing signalized intersection would benefit from connection/interoperability of traffic signals throughout the corridor.

Future Conditions Traffic Operations Vissim models were developed for a 24‐hour time period under projected 2030 and 2045 traffic volumes. Roundabout simulation assumes a 2x1 hybrid roundabout at CSAH 26 with minor right turn lanes and no right‐turn bypass lanes. This alternative helped to balance out the 5:1 major to minor approach volume discrepancy, but minor approach delay times will likely be longer than major approach delay times. Minor approaches are expected to operate at LOS D or better for future conditions. Configurations for both future alternatives can be seen in Table 7.

Simulation results indicate that a roundabout will operate with less control delay than a traffic signal during all hours of the day under both 2030 and 2045 traffic conditions. Both traffic control options are expected to operate at LOS C or better through 2045.

In 2030, a roundabout is expected to operate with less than 10 seconds of control delay throughout the day, while a signal is expected to operate with around 20 seconds of control delay between 8 am and 5 pm. Similar delays are expected under 2045 traffic volumes.

As part of a larger network‐wide modelling effort the impact that placing meters on roundabout approaches to assign right‐of‐way was studied for 2045 conditions, but it was found to have negligible impacts at the study intersection. As such, subsequent analysis presented in this ICE report assumes no roundabout metering is present.

Figure 2 – 2030 and 2045 Modelled Intersection Delays at CSAH 26

Note: LOS thresholds on this graphic are for unsignalized intersections. See Table 1 for signalized LOS thresholds.

Table 4 – Average Intersection Delays at CSAH 26 (24‐hour Average)

Traffic Control 2030 Average Delay (24‐Hour

Average) 2045 Average Delay (24‐Hour

Average) Traffic Signal 13.8 seconds 15.4 seconds Roundabout 2.8 seconds 4.2 seconds

P.M. peak hour traffic operations by approach for each traffic control option can be seen in Appendix A.

2030 2045


Queue Analysis Average PM peak hour simulated queue lengths were evaluated, with neither a signal nor a roundabout expected to have major queuing issues through 2045.

Table 5 – Average 2030 and 2045 Queue Lengths

Approach 2030 2045

Signal* Roundabout Signal* Roundabout Northbound 39 1 59 3 Southbound 34 6 51 21 Eastbound 19 3 25 7 Westbound 12 8 23 34

Queue lengths shown in feet *Reflects longest average queue on each approach under signal control

Mult imodal Roundabout Considerat ions Reduced vehicle speeds associated with roundabout control allow more time for drivers and pedestrians to interact with each other, and the presence of raised splitter islands also simplifies the task of pedestrian crossings by allow pedestrians to consider one direction of conflicting traffic at a time. On‐street bicycle facilities are not in place nor are they planned, so most cyclists will use a roundabout like pedestrians.

Note that pedestrian crossings are being evaluated on a corridor level as part of the TH 22 corridor study, with recommendations being made related to potential dedicated pedestrian crossings at appropriate locations.

Truck Considerat ions Roundabouts have been successfully constructed on many Minnesota trunk highways, including two on the TH 22 corridor at Adams Street and Madison Avenue. With proper roundabout design characteristics such as a sufficient inscribed circle diameter and truck aprons with curbs designed to prevent load shifting, trucks can navigate roundabouts without issue. Information from MnDOT’s Right‐of‐Way Mapping and Monitoring web application indicates approximately 280 feet of right‐of‐way at CSAH 26, with MnDOT recommending roundabout diameters of 150 to 200 feet for urban two‐lane roundabouts (MnDOT Road Design Manual Table 12‐3.04A [2009]).

Crash History Crash data was obtained from MnDOT for the time period between January 2011 and December 2015. In the five‐year period, two crashes were reported. Both crashes were right‐angle crashes that did not result in injuries.

To evaluate the expected safety impact from conversion from signal control to roundabout control, the FHWA Surrogate Safety Assessment Model (SSAM) was used. The SSAM uses vehicle trajectory information from Vissim simulation models to identify the number of rear‐end, lane change, and crossing conflicts. Simulation results from a full 24‐hour Vissim model were used for this analysis.

Under 2030 traffic volumes, the total number of conflicts is expected to be reduced by 29 percent and rear end conflicts are expected to be reduced by 20 percent. By 2045, the change in conflicts is less pronounced, however under roundabout control the total number of conflicts is still expected to be reduced by seven percent. Lane change and crossing conflicts are also expected to be reduced under both 2030 and 2045 conditions. In addition to the overall conflict reduction, MnDOT data in the Traffic Safety Fundamentals Handbook (2015) indicates a 60 to 70 percent reduction in severe crashes (injury or fatal crashes) with a hybrid roundabout compared to a signal.


Table 6 – Conflict Comparison Between Traffic Signal and Roundabout

Corr idor Vis ion Throughout the TH 22 corridor study, it has been established that the future vision for the TH 22 corridor through urbanized Mankato is a roundabout corridor.

As part of a larger traffic simulation effort as part of the corridor study it was found that corridor‐wide operations (CSAH 26 to Hoffman Road) are improved with a roundabout corridor compared to a signal corridor (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). Under 2030 traffic conditions, network‐wide delay is lower with a roundabout corridor for every hour of the day, and under 2045 conditions roundabout operations are better than signal operations for most of the day except between 3 pm and 7 pm. Metered roundabouts can however be used in the future at congested locations, and simulation results indicate operations much closer to a signal corridor in 2045 if metering is used, however delays still are expected to exceed signal operations between 4 pm and 6 pm.

More specific details related to the corridor‐wide modelling effort and results can be seen in the Vissim Urban Analysis

Report which is part of the TH 22 Corridor Study.

Figure 3 – 2030 Network Delay Comparison

Rear

End

Lane

ChangeCrossing Total

Rear

End

Lane


Signal 757 157 8 921 771 131 8 910

Roundabout 603 49 0 652 764 82 1 847

% Chg. W/ Roundabout ‐20% ‐69% ‐95% ‐29% ‐1% ‐38% ‐83% ‐7%

Alternative

Conflicts

2030 2045


Figure 4 ‐ 2045 Network Delay Comparison

Summary and Recommendation A multilane roundabout is expected to operate with fewer delays and conflicts than a traffic signal through 2045 (see Figure 2) and is also expected to reduce the potential for severe crashes. A future roundabout will align with the future corridor vision of a roundabout corridor, is consistent with recently constructed roundabouts at both Adams Street and Madison Avenue, and can fit within available right‐of‐way. As such, a multilane roundabout is recommended at the intersection of TH 22 and CSAH 26.

Given the acceptable future operations under signal control and a low crash frequency, a 2x1 roundabout with eastbound and westbound right turn lanes can be a long‐term improvement, focusing corridor improvements on locations with more imminent operations and safety issues that need to be resolved.

Table 7 – Analysis Summary

Appendix A PM Peak Hour Traffic Simulation Results

TH 22 VISSIM Analysis

MnDOT District 7

_2030_Build Traffic Signals_24 Hours

VISSIM Arterial MOE Results

TH 22 and Blue Earth CSAH 26 (Signal)

Direction Node Volume Avg Queue Max QueueMovement

Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection

LOSTarget Modeled Difference

Left 10 199 39 267 35.2 D 194 199 5Thru 10 839 18 249 9.0 A 852 839 ‐13Right 10 32 1 106 4.3 A 32 32 0Left 10 0 0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0Thru 10 541 34 191 20.8 C 541 541 0Right 10 28 1 79 3.9 A 28 28 0Left 10 14 1 28 18.7 B 18 14 ‐4Thru 10 55 12 91 42.5 D 55 55 0Right 10 239 19 157 9.0 A 234 239 5Left 10 69 8 86 25.5 C 61 69 8Thru 10 68 12 112 32.8 C 75 68 ‐7Right 10 8 1 55 6.9 A 9 8 ‐1

TH 22 and Augusta Drive (Signal)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 20 118 30 161 45.0 D 133 118 ‐15Thru 20 714 33 374 15.4 B 731 714 ‐17Right 20 83 33 415 6.6 A 85 83 ‐2Left 20 17 5 68 47.9 D 17 17 0Thru 20 752 38 276 17.7 B 736 752 16Right 20 77 58 325 5.2 A 75 77 2Left 20 265 50 348 32.1 C 261 265 4Thru 20 62 14 143 30.7 C 52 62 10Right 20 259 6 127 6.6 A 266 259 ‐7Left 20 151 22 210 27.0 C 153 151 ‐2Thru 20 95 24 140 43.2 D 108 95 ‐13Right 20 95 24 185 7.7 A 87 95 8

TH 22 and North Victory Drive (Signal)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 30 281 40 200 39.6 D 298 281 ‐17Thru 30 668 71 346 31.9 C 695 668 ‐27Right 30 96 79 410 7.0 A 110 96 ‐14Left 30 49 19 151 65.6 E 58 49 ‐9Thru 30 842 77 477 27.6 C 843 842 ‐1Right 30 253 100 518 10.2 B 254 253 ‐1Left 30 178 36 201 37.3 D 191 178 ‐13Thru 30 140 28 117 51.8 D 149 140 ‐9Right 30 284 32 197 13.2 B 257 284 27Left 30 256 65 378 43.5 D 245 256 11Thru 30 245 42 171 47.8 D 256 245 ‐11Right 30 67 5 114 8.0 A 63 67 4

TH 22 and TH 14 North Ramps (Signal)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 40 465 47 264 27.0 C 431 465 34Thru 40 958 8 134 2.8 A 1006 958 ‐48Thru 40 1217 109 517 25.8 C 1201 1217 16Right 40 159 0 0 0.8 A 148 159 11Left 40 207 39 179 50.6 D 185 207 22Right 40 95 11 121 14.1 B 100 95 ‐5

TH 22 and TH 14 South Ramps (Signal)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Thru 50 1297 34 352 10.0 B 1294 1297 3Right 50 250 0 0 1.1 A 265 250 ‐15Left 50 126 43 126 84.7 F 125 126 1Thru 50 1317 57 516 11.9 B 1261 1317 56Left 50 135 28 166 54.8 D 143 135 ‐8Right 50 497 0 0 1.6 A 527 497 ‐30

TH 22 and Adams Street (Signal)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 60 130 64 213 77.9 E 147 130 ‐17Thru 60 833 58 290 21.5 C 859 833 ‐26Right 60 103 7 118 9.5 A 124 103 ‐21Left 60 357 38 202 31.3 C 358 357 ‐1Thru 60 993 39 249 12.9 B 1001 993 ‐8Right 60 458 16 319 11.1 B 429 458 29Left 60 287 41 196 37.2 D 298 287 ‐11Thru 60 236 72 321 47.9 D 238 236 ‐2Right 60 141 13 174 11.8 B 126 141 15Left 60 154 38 283 42.1 D 167 154 ‐13Thru 60 204 77 563 55.2 E 197 204 7Right 60 424 0 0 3.3 A 402 424 22

Start Time:

16:00

19.5 B

Northbound

Southbound 17.2 B

Eastbound 20.7 C

Westbound 26.1 C

16.6 B

Westbound

Northbound

Southbound

Eastbound

13.7 B

19.9 B

15.4 B

18.4 B

27.9 C

Northbound 8.6 A

13.2 BSouthbound 18.3 B

Eastbound 13.0 B

Northbound 27.2 C

23.3 C

Southbound 16.1 B

Eastbound 35.6 D

Westbound 24.4 C

Northbound 31.7 C

30.7 C

Southbound 25.4 C

Eastbound 29.3 C

Westbound 41.2 D

Northbound 10.7 B

18.9 BSouthbound 22.9 C

Westbound 39.1 D


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00

TH 22 and Madison Avenue (Signal)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 70 182 52 361 47.9 D 184 182 ‐2Thru 70 637 25 318 13.8 B 645 637 ‐8Right 70 94 3 121 4.6 A 101 94 ‐7Left 70 136 45 210 53.8 D 142 136 ‐6Thru 70 712 138 508 53.6 D 751 712 ‐39Right 70 417 84 487 25.6 C 401 417 16Left 70 331 39 222 33.0 C 354 331 ‐23Thru 70 409 63 339 44.3 D 413 409 ‐4Right 70 253 17 159 9.8 A 216 253 37Left 70 133 23 212 33.3 C 114 133 19Thru 70 333 52 221 46.5 D 325 333 8Right 70 118 7 114 8.1 A 131 118 ‐13

TH 22 and Bassett Drive (Signal)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 80 148 59 242 68.1 E 137 148 11Thru 80 649 52 227 25.1 C 646 649 3Right 80 176 7 124 5.8 A 186 176 ‐10Left 80 234 96 422 65.4 E 216 234 18Thru 80 736 82 325 34.2 C 757 736 ‐21Right 80 128 14 171 14.0 B 108 128 20Left 80 67 9 73 31.1 C 67 67 0Thru 80 214 69 434 49.5 D 195 214 19Right 80 196 17 193 11.6 B 214 196 ‐18Left 80 227 70 426 48.4 D 202 227 25Thru 80 282 91 428 44.8 D 279 282 3Right 80 191 13 269 8.6 A 209 191 ‐18

TH 22 and Hoffman Road (Signal)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 90 17 6 66 75.3 E 20 17 ‐3Thru 90 589 43 227 23.9 C 589 589 0Right 90 50 1 44 3.7 A 39 50 11Left 90 80 22 186 50.3 D 82 80 ‐2Thru 90 892 90 493 31.8 C 915 892 ‐23Right 90 182 0 0 2.3 A 176 182 6Left 90 205 48 334 42.6 D 200 205 5Thru 90 85 24 139 52.4 D 90 85 ‐5Right 90 17 0 49 3.7 A 22 17 ‐5Left 90 164 32 370 34.8 C 180 164 ‐16Thru 90 188 47 245 41.5 D 180 188 8Right 90 192 13 138 7.2 A 190 192 2

Adams Street and Haefner Drive (Roundabout)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 160 141 7 167 7.7 A 135 141 6Thru 160 63 7 167 4.2 A 75 63 ‐12Right 160 92 1 70 2.3 A 90 92 2Left 160 36 2 112 5.2 A 42 36 ‐6Thru 160 70 2 112 6.2 A 71 70 ‐1Right 160 178 2 74 3.8 A 169 178 9Left 160 236 5 197 6.1 A 238 236 ‐2Thru 160 379 5 197 3.9 A 396 379 ‐17Right 160 78 5 197 3.5 A 86 78 ‐8Left 160 79 19 274 7.6 A 85 79 ‐6Thru 160 465 19 274 8.5 A 454 465 11Right 160 19 19 274 6.9 A 28 19 ‐9

Madison Avenue and Haefner Drive (Roundabout)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 170 110 5 102 7.3 A 108 110 2Thru 170 70 5 102 8.2 A 75 70 ‐5Right 170 31 0 21 1.8 A 32 31 ‐1Left 170 69 2 109 4.8 A 72 69 ‐3Thru 170 45 2 109 5.5 A 48 45 ‐3Right 170 124 0 46 1.5 A 120 124 4Left 170 124 6 313 6.0 A 131 124 ‐7Thru 170 379 6 313 4.8 A 394 379 ‐15Right 170 127 6 313 4.3 A 131 127 ‐4Left 170 24 4 73 4.5 A 21 24 3Thru 170 350 4 73 4.0 A 342 350 8Right 170 54 4 73 4.0 A 64 54 ‐10

Northbound 23.7 C

28.7 C

Southbound 28.4 C

Eastbound 43.1 D

Westbound 27.4 C

Northbound 5.3 A

5.8 A

Southbound 4.6 A

Eastbound 4.6 A

Westbound 8.3 A

Northbound 19.7 B

33.7 C

Southbound 44.4 D

Eastbound 31.7 C

Westbound 35.7 D

Northbound 28.1 C

33.8 C

Southbound 38.5 D

Eastbound 31.3 C

Westbound 36.1 D

Northbound 6.8 A

4.7 A

Southbound 3.2 A

Eastbound 5.0 A

Westbound 4.0 A


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00

VISSIM Network Results


Avg Delay (s)Avg Speed

(MPH)Vehicles Distance (mi)

TRAVTMTOT

(ALL)

DELAYTOT

(ALL)

DEMAND

LATENT

1 18.9 44.4 759 1253 101744 14894 0

2 19.8 43.9 766 1274 104417 15604 0

3 17.6 44.5 766 1241 100410 13964 0

4 18.9 44.2 770 1252 101901 14945 0

5 19.9 43.9 766 1287 105559 15787 0

Avg 19 44.2 765 1262 102806 15039 0

St Dev 0.9 0.3 4.0 19 2113 718 0

VISSIM Travel Time Results

_2030_Build Traffic Signals_24 HoursRun # 1 Run # 2 Run # 3 Run # 4 Run # 5 AVG

386.12 377.47 381.01 379.07 382.59 381.25

181.33 178.56 177.46 179.49 178.99 179.17

401.49 400.24 398.97 405.24 399.45 401.08

180.36 183.69 181.82 180.51 180.81 181.44SB TH 22 to US Hwy 14

NB TH 22 to US Hwy 14

SB TH 22 to SB TH 22

Travel Times

NB TH 22 to NB TH 22


MnDOT District 7

_2030_Roundabouts_24 hours 2x2


TH 22 and Blue Earth CSAH 26 (Roundabout)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 10 199 1 176 3.8 A 194 199 5Thru 10 840 1 176 2.9 A 852 840 ‐12Right 10 32 1 176 3.4 A 32 32 0Left 10 0 6 86 0.0 A 0 0 0Thru 10 540 6 86 5.4 A 541 540 ‐1Right 10 28 6 86 6.1 A 28 28 0Left 10 14 3 106 9.0 A 18 14 ‐4Thru 10 55 3 106 6.2 A 55 55 0Right 10 239 3 106 6.8 A 234 239 5Left 10 69 8 135 13.1 B 61 69 8Thru 10 68 8 135 13.3 B 75 68 ‐7Right 10 8 8 135 5.4 A 9 8 ‐1

TH 22 and Augusta Drive (Roundabout)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 20 122 10 192 5.9 A 133 122 ‐11Thru 20 714 10 192 4.9 A 731 714 ‐17Right 20 85 0 0 1.7 A 85 85 0Left 20 18 6 123 6.6 A 17 18 1Thru 20 752 6 123 4.3 A 736 752 16Right 20 77 0 0 1.0 A 75 77 2Left 20 257 137 1107 65.0 F 261 257 ‐4Thru 20 61 137 1107 19.3 C 52 61 9Right 20 259 0 0 16.2 C 266 259 ‐7Left 20 151 44 302 48.1 E 153 151 ‐2Thru 20 96 44 302 5.3 A 108 96 ‐12Right 20 95 0 0 6.3 A 87 95 8

TH 22 and North Victory Drive (Roundabout)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 30 280 10 204 7.3 A 298 280 ‐18Thru 30 679 10 204 5.7 A 695 679 ‐16Right 30 95 0 0 2.7 A 110 95 ‐15Left 30 47 90 562 32.3 D 58 47 ‐11Thru 30 851 90 562 24.4 C 843 851 8Right 30 250 3 178 6.9 A 254 250 ‐4Left 30 177 19 178 16.3 C 191 177 ‐14Thru 30 138 19 178 10.2 B 149 138 ‐11Right 30 284 7 169 4.7 A 257 284 27Left 30 247 84 493 39.2 E 245 247 2Thru 30 242 84 493 20.2 C 256 242 ‐14Right 30 67 2 73 4.7 A 63 67 4



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Thru 50 1295 40 380 9.9 A 1294 1295 1Right 50 249 0 0 0.7 A 265 249 ‐16Left 50 128 44 133 88.1 F 125 128 3Thru 50 1312 83 521 15.0 B 1261 1312 51Left 50 135 29 166 54.6 D 143 135 ‐8Right 50 497 0 0 1.6 A 527 497 ‐30

TH 22 and Adams Street (Roundabout)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 60 135 79 365 20.5 C 147 135 ‐12Thru 60 829 79 365 19.7 C 859 829 ‐30Right 60 106 3 123 7.6 A 124 106 ‐18Left 60 347 116 518 22.5 C 358 347 ‐11Thru 60 984 116 518 21.9 C 1001 984 ‐17Right 60 457 4 460 5.2 A 429 457 28Left 60 286 89 803 32.6 D 298 286 ‐12Thru 60 237 89 803 38.5 E 238 237 ‐1Right 60 140 1 64 14.5 B 126 140 14Left 60 157 14 165 15.8 C 167 157 ‐10Thru 60 206 14 165 11.5 B 197 206 9Right 60 424 0 0 2.0 A 402 424 22

Northbound 14.2 B

23.2 CSouthbound 28.6 C

Westbound 41.1 D

Northbound 5.8 A

15.1 C

Southbound 20.9 C

Eastbound 9.4 A

Westbound 26.8 D

Northbound 18.6 C

18.1 C

Southbound 17.7 C

Eastbound 30.9 D

Westbound 7.3 A

Northbound 8.4 A


Eastbound 12.9 B

6.8 A

4.7 A

12.8 B

Start Time:

16:00

14.2 B

Northbound

Southbound 4.1 A

Eastbound 38.2 E

Westbound 24.5 C

4.9 A

Westbound

Northbound

Southbound

Eastbound

3.1 A

5.4 A


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00

TH 22 and Madison Avenue (Roundabout)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 70 180 33 211 13.1 B 184 180 ‐4Thru 70 634 33 211 11.9 B 645 634 ‐11Right 70 94 0 24 3.4 A 101 94 ‐7Left 70 138 23 282 10.1 B 142 138 ‐4Thru 70 724 23 282 9.3 A 751 724 ‐27Right 70 413 4 128 4.3 A 401 413 12Left 70 328 52 344 19.9 C 354 328 ‐26Thru 70 406 52 344 11.1 B 413 406 ‐7Right 70 253 4 90 5.2 A 216 253 37Left 70 133 27 227 17.4 C 114 133 19Thru 70 331 27 227 14.8 B 325 331 6Right 70 117 2 78 4.6 A 131 117 ‐14

TH 22 and Bassett Drive (Roundabout)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 80 144 15 169 8.0 A 137 144 7Thru 80 657 15 169 6.5 A 646 657 11Right 80 179 0 0 1.4 A 186 179 ‐7Left 80 235 41 319 13.7 B 216 235 19Thru 80 740 41 319 10.9 B 757 740 ‐17Right 80 127 0 0 2.0 A 108 127 19Left 80 66 15 92 13.9 B 67 66 ‐1Thru 80 212 15 92 10.1 B 195 212 17Right 80 197 0 0 0.7 A 214 197 ‐17Left 80 227 12 239 8.4 A 202 227 25Thru 80 281 12 239 6.4 A 279 281 2Right 80 191 0 0 1.0 A 209 191 ‐18

TH 22 and Hoffman Road (Roundabout)


Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 90 17 4 91 2.9 A 20 17 ‐3Thru 90 586 4 91 3.4 A 589 586 ‐3Right 90 50 0 0 0.7 A 39 50 11Left 90 79 7 138 5.6 A 82 79 ‐3Thru 90 886 7 138 4.5 A 915 886 ‐29Right 90 182 0 0 1.6 A 176 182 6Left 90 206 36 280 26.5 D 200 206 6Thru 90 86 36 280 14.0 B 90 86 ‐4Right 90 17 0 0 0.5 A 22 17 ‐5Left 90 163 15 275 12.6 B 180 163 ‐17Thru 90 188 15 275 8.1 A 180 188 8Right 90 192 0 0 0.6 A 190 192 2



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 160 141 4 100 5.5 A 135 141 6Thru 160 65 4 100 4.8 A 75 65 ‐10Right 160 92 0 23 1.4 A 90 92 2Left 160 36 2 65 5.1 A 42 36 ‐6Thru 160 71 2 65 5.2 A 71 71 0Right 160 178 1 44 2.3 A 169 178 9Left 160 238 2 71 3.0 A 238 238 0Thru 160 373 2 71 2.2 A 396 373 ‐23Right 160 76 2 71 1.7 A 86 76 ‐10Left 160 79 10 167 5.0 A 85 79 ‐6Thru 160 465 10 167 5.4 A 454 465 11Right 160 19 10 167 6.9 A 28 19 ‐9



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 170 111 3 98 5.2 A 108 111 3Thru 170 70 3 98 5.7 A 75 70 ‐5Right 170 31 0 26 2.3 A 32 31 ‐1Left 170 69 2 103 4.5 A 72 69 ‐3Thru 170 45 2 103 5.0 A 48 45 ‐3Right 170 124 0 40 1.6 A 120 124 4Left 170 126 1 113 3.2 A 131 126 ‐5Thru 170 380 1 113 2.2 A 394 380 ‐14Right 170 131 1 113 1.8 A 131 131 0Left 170 24 2 73 3.2 A 21 24 3Thru 170 350 2 73 3.2 A 342 350 8Right 170 54 2 73 3.5 A 64 54 ‐10

Northbound 4.9 A

3.1 A

Southbound 3.1 A

Eastbound 2.3 A

Westbound 3.3 A

Northbound 5.8 A

7.4 A

Southbound 10.4 B

Eastbound 6.7 A

Westbound 5.6 A

Northbound 11.2 B

10.7 B

Southbound 7.7 A

Eastbound 12.5 B

Westbound 13.4 B

Northbound 4.1 A

3.8 A

Southbound 3.4 A

Eastbound 2.4 A

Westbound 5.4 A

Northbound 3.2 A

6.5 A

Southbound 4.1 A

Eastbound 21.6 C

Westbound 6.8 A


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00





TRAVTMTOT

(ALL)

DELAYTOT

(ALL)

DEMAND

LATENT

1 8.9 44.8 757 1261 101313 6966 0

2 8.5 44.7 769 1285 103460 6691 0

3 8.4 44.9 765 1248 100085 6659 0

4 8.4 45 768 1258 100707 6627 0

5 8.8 44.6 765 1300 104925 6967 0

Avg 8.6 44.8 765 1271 102098 6782 0

St Dev 0.2 0.2 4.7 21 2028 170 0


_2030_Roundabouts_24 hours 2x2Run # 1 Run # 2 Run # 3 Run # 4 Run # 5 AVG

367.01 386.97 375.96 371.03 378.8 375.95

178.59 185.12 184.45 181.25 182.61 182.4

413.03 381.21 377.66 371.32 #REF! 381.19

181.53 177.46 178.03 179.16 #REF! 178.8SB TH 22 to US Hwy 14



Travel Times



MnDOT District 7





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 10 244 59 374 43.2 D 237 244 7Thru 10 1051 45 400 14.7 B 1040 1051 11Right 10 31 1 63 3.8 A 40 31 ‐9Left 10 0 0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0Thru 10 664 51 260 24.9 C 661 664 3Right 10 31 1 59 4.7 A 35 31 ‐4Left 10 23 4 68 38.8 D 22 23 1Thru 10 66 13 122 39.3 D 65 66 1Right 10 273 25 157 10.0 A 275 273 ‐2Left 10 98 18 119 35.3 D 92 98 6Thru 10 113 23 145 37.7 D 114 113 ‐1Right 10 9 0 51 6.3 A 13 9 ‐4



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 20 161 43 217 46.6 D 157 161 4Thru 20 891 54 368 19.5 B 862 891 29Right 20 106 51 408 5.8 A 101 106 5Left 20 16 4 47 50.7 D 21 16 ‐5Thru 20 937 109 409 36.6 D 905 937 32Right 20 79 137 458 11.4 B 93 79 ‐14Left 20 339 69 299 35.2 D 338 339 1Thru 20 64 19 180 32.9 C 68 64 ‐4Right 20 351 10 164 8.0 A 345 351 6Left 20 214 36 296 29.5 C 206 214 8Thru 20 136 40 239 46.1 D 145 136 ‐9Right 20 109 48 285 7.8 A 117 109 ‐8



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 30 324 48 233 41.9 D 349 324 ‐25Thru 30 825 95 434 33.5 C 815 825 10Right 30 125 95 497 6.8 A 129 125 ‐4Left 30 79 27 137 67.2 E 73 79 6Thru 30 1064 134 864 33.4 C 1063 1064 1Right 30 320 159 905 13.8 B 320 320 0Left 30 245 81 352 57.6 E 236 245 9Thru 30 178 31 151 50.2 D 185 178 ‐7Right 30 324 49 362 18.5 B 317 324 7Left 30 276 81 439 49.4 D 269 276 7Thru 30 277 44 208 45.5 D 281 277 ‐4Right 30 72 6 121 8.6 A 69 72 3



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 40 481 39 245 23.6 C 514 481 ‐33Thru 40 1214 13 194 4.0 A 1198 1214 16Thru 40 1410 421 1055 51.3 D 1469 1410 ‐59Right 40 198 0 0 6.7 A 182 198 16Left 40 207 41 152 53.5 D 185 207 22Right 40 87 8 148 11.2 B 100 87 ‐13



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Thru 50 1578 38 419 9.7 A 1569 1578 9Right 50 301 0 0 1.4 A 321 301 ‐20Left 50 132 45 132 84.0 F 149 132 ‐17Thru 50 1510 96 558 14.0 B 1505 1510 5Left 50 122 27 112 53.8 D 143 122 ‐21Right 50 513 0 0 1.6 A 527 513 ‐14



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 60 194 198 575 150.5 F 189 194 5Thru 60 1080 118 521 32.3 C 1105 1080 ‐25Right 60 165 15 167 13.4 B 160 165 5Left 60 384 48 300 35.0 C 406 384 ‐22Thru 60 1149 56 341 15.8 B 1138 1149 11Right 60 477 13 178 9.8 A 488 477 ‐11Left 60 364 54 219 42.0 D 344 364 20Thru 60 242 84 686 49.6 D 275 242 ‐33Right 60 160 16 217 13.2 B 145 160 15Left 60 193 64 313 54.4 D 183 193 10Thru 60 208 78 397 58.0 E 216 208 ‐8Right 60 421 0 0 2.8 A 441 421 ‐20

Start Time:

16:00

27.0 C

Northbound

Southbound 34.9 C

Eastbound 22.3 C

Westbound 29.3 C

21.8 C

Westbound

Northbound

Southbound

Eastbound

19.7 B

24.0 C

17.2 B

22.0 C

35.3 D

Northbound 8.4 A


Eastbound 11.6 B

Northbound 46.0 D

30.9 C

Southbound 18.0 B

Eastbound 38.4 D

Westbound 28.9 C

Northbound 33.0 C

34.9 C

Southbound 31.0 C

Eastbound 38.9 D

Westbound 43.0 D

Northbound 9.6 A

28.3 CSouthbound 45.8 D

Westbound 41.0 D


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 70 236 50 255 36.7 D 248 236 ‐12Thru 70 888 40 388 15.1 B 869 888 19Right 70 136 2 78 3.9 A 137 136 ‐1Left 70 166 66 349 66.5 E 161 166 5Thru 70 873 201 639 60.7 E 850 873 23Right 70 427 91 328 28.8 C 454 427 ‐27Left 70 424 53 276 37.1 D 418 424 6Thru 70 464 64 321 40.0 D 488 464 ‐24Right 70 284 27 172 13.6 B 255 284 29Left 70 162 30 200 34.0 C 145 162 17Thru 70 402 64 213 47.8 D 413 402 ‐11Right 70 150 9 93 9.0 A 167 150 ‐17



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 80 198 84 404 70.8 E 187 198 11Thru 80 896 86 356 30.1 C 883 896 13Right 80 235 14 160 8.9 A 254 235 ‐19Left 80 261 105 369 65.2 E 250 261 11Thru 80 913 151 437 47.1 D 875 913 38Right 80 137 16 179 15.5 B 125 137 12Left 80 90 12 108 30.2 C 83 90 7Thru 80 238 73 361 47.4 D 243 238 ‐5Right 80 267 25 151 11.3 B 267 267 0Left 80 275 124 495 56.4 E 267 275 8Thru 80 404 138 497 44.6 D 368 404 36Right 80 248 46 498 18.0 B 276 248 ‐28



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 90 25 9 67 70.5 E 26 25 ‐1Thru 90 770 68 325 27.3 C 779 770 ‐9Right 90 50 2 65 5.1 A 52 50 ‐2Left 90 95 29 191 57.2 E 99 95 ‐4Thru 90 1165 162 727 40.0 D 1099 1165 66Right 90 204 0 0 5.0 A 211 204 ‐7Left 90 243 59 260 45.9 D 244 243 ‐1Thru 90 111 36 197 52.2 D 110 111 1Right 90 25 2 96 8.0 A 27 25 ‐2Left 90 288 65 689 38.0 D 297 288 ‐9Thru 90 294 97 782 49.3 D 297 294 ‐3Right 90 320 38 245 14.4 B 315 320 5



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 160 138 8 146 8.5 A 135 138 3Thru 160 68 8 146 7.4 A 75 68 ‐7Right 160 92 0 49 1.7 A 90 92 2Left 160 39 3 71 6.8 A 42 39 ‐3Thru 160 82 3 71 5.6 A 71 82 11Right 160 163 2 63 3.4 A 169 163 ‐6Left 160 254 11 293 7.7 A 278 254 ‐24Thru 160 424 11 293 5.2 A 463 424 ‐39Right 160 103 11 293 4.9 A 101 103 2Left 160 93 24 208 7.4 A 99 93 ‐6Thru 160 519 24 208 8.8 A 528 519 ‐9Right 160 42 24 208 11.9 B 33 42 9



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 170 149 12 143 11.6 B 151 149 ‐2Thru 170 106 12 143 9.3 A 105 106 1Right 170 43 0 44 3.2 A 45 43 ‐2Left 170 107 2 84 5.3 A 105 107 2Thru 170 60 2 84 4.9 A 70 60 ‐10Right 170 183 1 69 2.2 A 176 183 7Left 170 155 7 262 5.5 A 157 155 ‐2Thru 170 445 7 262 4.8 A 472 445 ‐27Right 170 156 7 262 5.4 A 157 156 ‐1Left 170 26 7 113 5.3 A 25 26 1Thru 170 376 7 113 4.9 A 398 376 ‐22Right 170 96 7 113 5.4 A 75 96 21

Northbound 27.2 C

34.3 C

Southbound 36.3 D

Eastbound 45.3 D

Westbound 33.3 C

Northbound 6.1 A

6.7 A

Southbound 4.5 A

Eastbound 6.0 A

Westbound 8.8 A

Northbound 17.9 B

35.4 D

Southbound 52.1 D

Eastbound 32.6 C

Westbound 36.5 D

Northbound 32.4 C

38.5 D

Southbound 47.4 D

Eastbound 28.6 C

Westbound 41.0 D

Northbound 9.6 A

5.5 A

Southbound 3.6 A

Eastbound 5.1 A

Westbound 5.0 A


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00





TRAVTMTOT

(ALL)

DELAYTOT

(ALL)

DEMAND

LATENT

1 21 43 839 1379 115354 18521 0

2 20.6 43.1 857 1398 116831 18117 0

3 20.3 43 852 1364 114289 18017 0

4 20 43.2 855 1368 114086 17715 0

5 21.3 42.9 860 1411 118521 18902 0

Avg 20.7 43 853 1384 115816 18255 0

St Dev 0.5 0.1 8.1 20 1863 463 0



295.54 336.3 0 304.68 309.2 311.43

140.48 147.98 146.72 143.2 143.51 144.38

308.54 317.71 320.28 318.42 312.26 315.44

151.66 150.04 150.8 146.78 147.93 149.44SB TH 22 to US Hwy 14



Travel Times



MnDOT District 7





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 10 210 3 271 4.6 A 237 210 ‐27Thru 10 916 3 271 3.4 A 1040 916 ‐124Right 10 29 3 271 2.6 A 40 29 ‐11Left 10 0 21 174 0.0 A 0 0 0Thru 10 672 21 174 10.6 B 661 672 11Right 10 31 21 174 9.9 A 35 31 ‐4Left 10 23 7 129 6.2 A 22 23 1Thru 10 66 7 129 6.5 A 65 66 1Right 10 273 7 129 8.5 A 275 273 ‐2Left 10 98 34 241 24.2 C 92 98 6Thru 10 114 34 241 28.9 D 114 114 0Right 10 9 34 241 5.7 A 13 9 ‐4



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 20 151 17 216 8.7 A 157 151 ‐6Thru 20 808 17 216 6.3 A 862 808 ‐54Right 20 93 0 0 1.5 A 101 93 ‐8Left 20 17 19 256 6.1 A 21 17 ‐4Thru 20 941 19 256 7.4 A 905 941 36Right 20 81 0 0 1.3 A 93 81 ‐12Left 20 255 737 1143 250.5 F 338 255 ‐83Thru 20 53 737 1143 83.4 F 68 53 ‐15Right 20 271 0 0 97.3 F 345 271 ‐74Left 20 181 889 1400 397.0 F 206 181 ‐25Thru 20 131 889 1400 168.8 F 145 131 ‐14Right 20 95 0 0 154.0 F 117 95 ‐22



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 30 276 26 329 11.3 B 349 276 ‐73Thru 30 747 26 329 7.8 A 815 747 ‐68Right 30 115 0 0 3.2 A 129 115 ‐14Left 30 71 228 931 41.8 E 73 71 ‐2Thru 30 1016 228 931 43.0 E 1063 1016 ‐47Right 30 308 5 152 19.5 C 320 308 ‐12Left 30 237 77 440 42.2 E 236 237 1Thru 30 172 77 440 19.9 C 185 172 ‐13Right 30 322 29 467 12.9 B 317 322 5Left 30 271 172 440 79.1 F 269 271 2Thru 30 273 172 440 44.6 E 281 273 ‐8Right 30 72 2 80 5.0 A 69 72 3



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 40 429 48 226 32.6 C 514 429 ‐85Thru 40 1053 10 173 4.0 A 1198 1053 ‐145Thru 40 1386 233 889 35.4 D 1469 1386 ‐83Right 40 190 0 0 2.9 A 182 190 8Left 40 207 41 152 53.3 D 185 207 22Right 40 87 6 149 17.9 B 100 87 ‐13



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Thru 50 1369 47 396 10.8 B 1569 1369 ‐200Right 50 250 0 0 0.8 A 321 250 ‐71Left 50 130 40 112 76.2 E 149 130 ‐19Thru 50 1491 111 524 15.8 B 1505 1491 ‐14Left 50 122 27 114 55.2 E 143 122 ‐21Right 50 513 0 0 1.6 A 527 513 ‐14



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 60 184 190 766 34.8 D 189 184 ‐5Thru 60 1008 190 766 33.8 D 1105 1008 ‐97Right 60 153 5 144 10.6 B 160 153 ‐7Left 60 370 177 791 28.3 D 406 370 ‐36Thru 60 1123 177 791 25.7 D 1138 1123 ‐15Right 60 473 17 637 6.5 A 488 473 ‐15Left 60 284 853 1357 221.4 F 344 284 ‐60Thru 60 185 853 1357 221.5 F 275 185 ‐90Right 60 119 512 1331 157.2 F 145 119 ‐26Left 60 129 591 845 259.5 F 183 129 ‐54Thru 60 159 591 845 220.2 F 216 159 ‐57Right 60 318 0 0 55.2 F 441 318 ‐123

Northbound 12.3 B


Westbound 42.8 D

Northbound 8.2 A

29.3 D

Southbound 37.8 E

Eastbound 24.0 C

Westbound 55.2 F

Northbound 31.3 D

65.1 F

Southbound 21.6 C

Eastbound 208.4 F

Westbound 142.0 F

Northbound 9.3 A


Eastbound 11.9 B

8.0 A

6.2 A

25.9 D

Start Time:

16:00

70.5 F

Northbound

Southbound 6.9 A

Eastbound 163.5 F

Westbound 266.8 F

8.3 A

Westbound

Northbound

Southbound

Eastbound

3.6 A

10.6 B


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 70 231 232 772 57.3 F 248 231 ‐17Thru 70 856 232 772 45.9 E 869 856 ‐13Right 70 135 1 123 12.8 B 137 135 ‐2Left 70 158 28 231 11.2 B 161 158 ‐3Thru 70 818 28 231 9.7 A 850 818 ‐32Right 70 395 4 142 5.0 A 454 395 ‐59Left 70 383 677 1779 178.1 F 418 383 ‐35Thru 70 416 677 1779 97.1 F 488 416 ‐72Right 70 265 290 1824 60.2 F 255 265 10Left 70 133 443 906 193.5 F 145 133 ‐12Thru 70 339 443 906 167.1 F 413 339 ‐74Right 70 136 4 119 40.1 E 167 136 ‐31



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 80 192 41 270 14.5 B 187 192 5Thru 80 915 41 270 11.5 B 883 915 32Right 80 238 0 0 3.2 A 254 238 ‐16Left 80 236 122 488 29.1 D 250 236 ‐14Thru 80 853 122 488 24.9 C 875 853 ‐22Right 80 128 0 0 12.9 B 125 128 3Left 80 90 31 196 18.5 C 83 90 7Thru 80 235 31 196 17.5 C 243 235 ‐8Right 80 267 0 0 0.7 A 267 267 0Left 80 273 68 309 30.2 D 267 273 6Thru 80 402 68 309 17.7 C 368 402 34Right 80 246 0 0 2.0 A 276 246 ‐30



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 90 25 8 162 4.5 A 26 25 ‐1Thru 90 787 8 162 4.3 A 779 787 8Right 90 50 0 0 0.8 A 52 50 ‐2Left 90 87 37 386 11.9 B 99 87 ‐12Thru 90 1098 37 386 9.5 A 1099 1098 ‐1Right 90 193 0 0 2.8 A 211 193 ‐18Left 90 230 369 624 231.3 F 244 230 ‐14Thru 90 111 369 624 66.3 F 110 111 1Right 90 25 0 0 13.8 B 27 25 ‐2Left 90 276 147 585 53.4 F 297 276 ‐21Thru 90 285 147 585 27.5 D 297 285 ‐12Right 90 319 0 0 5.5 A 315 319 4



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 160 139 191 614 188.6 F 135 139 4Thru 160 69 191 614 114.9 F 75 69 ‐6Right 160 92 0 25 37.8 E 90 92 2Left 160 39 111 471 162.0 F 42 39 ‐3Thru 160 80 111 471 130.4 F 71 80 9Right 160 163 40 186 56.0 F 169 163 ‐6Left 160 227 22 253 32.9 D 278 227 ‐51Thru 160 385 22 253 6.4 A 463 385 ‐78Right 160 94 22 253 4.5 A 101 94 ‐7Left 160 53 787 971 509.8 F 99 53 ‐46Thru 160 324 787 971 507.6 F 528 324 ‐204Right 160 23 787 971 570.9 F 33 23 ‐10



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 170 145 10 141 42.0 E 151 145 ‐6Thru 170 105 10 141 12.4 B 105 105 0Right 170 43 0 23 2.5 A 45 43 ‐2Left 170 88 73 256 42.7 E 105 88 ‐17Thru 170 48 73 256 49.3 E 70 48 ‐22Right 170 149 27 251 25.7 D 176 149 ‐27Left 170 141 3 91 5.7 A 157 141 ‐16Thru 170 420 3 91 2.6 A 472 420 ‐52Right 170 149 3 91 2.5 A 157 149 ‐8Left 170 22 27 273 23.8 C 25 22 ‐3Thru 170 355 27 273 26.2 D 398 355 ‐43Right 170 91 27 273 9.4 A 75 91 16

Northbound 25.6 D

17.3 C

Southbound 34.9 D

Eastbound 3.2 A

Westbound 22.8 C

Northbound 10.4 B

16.1 C

Southbound 24.5 C

Eastbound 10.1 B

Westbound 17.2 C

Northbound 44.4 E

65.3 F

Southbound 8.5 A

Eastbound 117.1 F

Westbound 144.5 F

Northbound 125.4 F

165.0 F

Southbound 91.8 F

Eastbound 14.7 B

Westbound 511.5 F

Northbound 4.1 A

28.9 D

Southbound 8.7 A

Eastbound 166.4 F

Westbound 27.6 D


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00





TRAVTMTOT

(ALL)

DELAYTOT

(ALL)

DEMAND

LATENT

1 9.4 43.8 836 1391 114356 8251 0

2 8.9 43.8 853 1409 115796 7868 0

3 9.1 43.9 849 1375 112656 8003 0

4 9 44 857 1375 112583 7952 0

5 9.4 43.7 860 1422 117318 8289 0

Avg 9.1 43.8 851 1395 114542 8073 0

St Dev 0.2 0.1 9.4 21 2044 187 0



385.04 423.2 372.1 378.96 377.57 387.38

178.5 186.99 182.11 180.12 181.4 181.82

378.11 373.07 375.98 385.72 #REF! 379.86

179.38 179.51 178.04 179.14 #REF! 178.97SB TH 22 to US Hwy 14



Travel Times



MnDOT District 7

_2045_Roundabouts Metered_24 hours 2x2




Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 10 235 2 133 5.7 A 237 235 ‐2Thru 10 1008 2 133 4.2 A 1040 1008 ‐32Right 10 29 2 133 4.3 A 40 29 ‐11Left 10 0 24 308 0.0 A 0 0 0Thru 10 667 24 308 11.3 B 661 667 6Right 10 31 24 308 10.8 B 35 31 ‐4Left 10 23 6 96 8.2 A 22 23 1Thru 10 66 6 96 8.2 A 65 66 1Right 10 272 6 96 8.2 A 275 272 ‐3Left 10 98 46 280 34.7 D 92 98 6Thru 10 112 46 280 35.5 E 114 112 ‐2Right 10 9 46 280 4.4 A 13 9 ‐4



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 20 160 33 338 12.3 B 157 160 3Thru 20 865 33 338 9.4 A 862 865 3Right 20 103 0 0 2.2 A 101 103 2Left 20 17 43 528 8.9 A 21 17 ‐4Thru 20 936 43 528 11.9 B 905 936 31Right 20 80 0 0 2.1 A 93 80 ‐13Left 20 287 373 1092 107.8 F 338 287 ‐51Thru 20 60 373 1092 43.3 E 68 60 ‐8Right 20 315 0 0 41.8 E 345 315 ‐30Left 20 206 237 960 133.6 F 206 206 0Thru 20 140 237 960 21.7 C 145 140 ‐5Right 20 109 0 0 25.0 D 117 109 ‐8



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 30 310 54 518 15.2 C 349 310 ‐39Thru 30 822 54 518 13.1 B 815 822 7Right 30 123 0 0 3.3 A 129 123 ‐6Left 30 74 262 1232 45.2 E 73 74 1Thru 30 1042 262 1232 46.8 E 1063 1042 ‐21Right 30 316 3 206 21.7 C 320 316 ‐4Left 30 243 21 232 15.4 C 236 243 7Thru 30 174 21 232 10.0 A 185 174 ‐11Right 30 322 16 268 8.2 A 317 322 5Left 30 271 62 340 25.7 D 269 271 2Thru 30 272 62 340 20.4 C 281 272 ‐9Right 30 72 2 72 5.5 A 69 72 3



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 40 467 58 287 35.8 D 514 467 ‐47Thru 40 1173 18 230 5.6 A 1198 1173 ‐25Thru 40 1406 335 1048 40.8 D 1469 1406 ‐63Right 40 193 0 0 3.1 A 182 193 11Left 40 207 40 152 52.2 D 185 207 22Right 40 87 6 149 18.0 B 100 87 ‐13



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Thru 50 1525 53 506 10.5 B 1569 1525 ‐44Right 50 291 0 0 1.2 A 321 291 ‐30Left 50 132 45 127 83.2 F 149 132 ‐17Thru 50 1508 113 549 15.4 B 1505 1508 3Left 50 122 27 113 55.3 E 143 122 ‐21Right 50 513 0 0 1.6 A 527 513 ‐14



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 60 193 222 655 39.2 E 189 193 4Thru 60 1047 222 655 40.9 E 1105 1047 ‐58Right 60 161 4 108 10.8 B 160 161 1Left 60 371 175 840 30.3 D 406 371 ‐35Thru 60 1127 175 840 27.4 D 1138 1127 ‐11Right 60 471 21 685 7.8 A 488 471 ‐17Left 60 343 234 1355 56.2 F 344 343 ‐1Thru 60 233 234 1355 67.1 F 275 233 ‐42Right 60 152 2 150 35.1 E 145 152 7Left 60 184 428 758 147.4 F 183 184 1Thru 60 202 428 758 133.5 F 216 202 ‐14Right 60 421 0 0 28.8 D 441 421 ‐20

Northbound 14.2 B


Westbound 42.1 D

Northbound 12.6 B

23.7 C

Southbound 41.2 E

Eastbound 11.0 B

Westbound 21.0 C

Northbound 37.2 E

41.6 E

Southbound 23.2 C

Eastbound 55.3 F

Westbound 82.1 F

Northbound 9.0 A


Eastbound 11.9 B

8.2 A

9.2 A

33.9 D

Start Time:

16:00

31.0 D

Northbound

Southbound 11.1 B

Eastbound 70.5 F

Westbound 73.1 F

9.4 A

Westbound

Northbound

Southbound

Eastbound

4.5 A

11.3 B


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 70 231 277 1067 62.4 F 248 231 ‐17Thru 70 861 277 1067 58.0 F 869 861 ‐8Right 70 134 2 69 14.1 B 137 134 ‐3Left 70 162 102 820 27.7 D 161 162 1Thru 70 854 102 820 24.2 C 850 854 4Right 70 420 9 240 7.9 A 454 420 ‐34Left 70 423 167 716 46.6 E 418 423 5Thru 70 460 167 716 24.8 C 488 460 ‐28Right 70 282 10 201 10.5 B 255 282 27Left 70 151 148 803 66.8 F 145 151 6Thru 70 382 148 803 58.8 F 413 382 ‐31Right 70 146 3 114 12.8 B 167 146 ‐21



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 80 193 47 394 13.9 B 187 193 6Thru 80 915 47 394 13.2 B 883 915 32Right 80 238 0 0 4.3 A 254 238 ‐16Left 80 251 131 585 33.6 D 250 251 1Thru 80 906 131 585 25.9 D 875 906 31Right 80 135 0 0 11.0 B 125 135 10Left 80 90 30 196 20.5 C 83 90 7Thru 80 236 30 196 16.9 C 243 236 ‐7Right 80 267 0 0 0.7 A 267 267 0Left 80 272 45 260 20.0 C 267 272 5Thru 80 402 45 260 13.8 B 368 402 34Right 80 247 0 0 2.1 A 276 247 ‐29



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 90 25 26 311 5.0 A 26 25 ‐1Thru 90 790 26 311 9.3 A 779 790 11Right 90 50 0 0 0.9 A 52 50 ‐2Left 90 92 93 1131 21.9 C 99 92 ‐7Thru 90 1150 93 1131 17.4 C 1099 1150 51Right 90 201 0 0 8.0 A 211 201 ‐10Left 90 240 96 400 54.9 F 244 240 ‐4Thru 90 109 96 400 37.5 E 110 109 ‐1Right 90 25 0 0 0.5 A 27 25 ‐2Left 90 280 71 491 26.1 D 297 280 ‐17Thru 90 290 71 491 15.2 C 297 290 ‐7Right 90 319 0 0 3.2 A 315 319 4



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 160 138 14 266 40.8 E 135 138 3Thru 160 67 14 266 17.0 C 75 67 ‐8Right 160 92 0 42 1.5 A 90 92 2Left 160 39 156 456 177.9 F 42 39 ‐3Thru 160 83 156 456 153.1 F 71 83 12Right 160 163 26 390 57.2 F 169 163 ‐6Left 160 250 11 182 10.6 B 278 250 ‐28Thru 160 414 11 182 4.6 A 463 414 ‐49Right 160 100 11 182 4.3 A 101 100 ‐1Left 160 93 195 672 92.6 F 99 93 ‐6Thru 160 519 195 672 85.9 F 528 519 ‐9Right 160 42 195 672 82.0 F 33 42 9



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection


Left 170 148 10 162 10.7 B 151 148 ‐3Thru 170 106 10 162 9.5 A 105 106 1Right 170 43 0 23 2.2 A 45 43 ‐2Left 170 107 4 118 7.9 A 105 107 2Thru 170 60 4 118 5.8 A 70 60 ‐10Right 170 183 1 68 4.2 A 176 183 7Left 170 158 2 109 3.4 A 157 158 1Thru 170 444 2 109 2.8 A 472 444 ‐28Right 170 155 2 109 2.4 A 157 155 ‐2Left 170 26 6 141 5.5 A 25 26 1Thru 170 375 6 141 6.8 A 398 375 ‐23Right 170 95 6 141 4.9 A 75 95 20

Northbound 9.0 A

5.2 A

Southbound 5.6 A

Eastbound 2.8 A

Westbound 6.3 A

Northbound 11.7 B

16.1 C

Southbound 25.8 D

Eastbound 10.1 B

Westbound 12.5 B

Northbound 54.0 F

36.2 E

Southbound 19.8 C

Eastbound 29.3 D

Westbound 50.7 F

Northbound 23.2 C

48.7 E

Southbound 101.7 F

Eastbound 6.5 A

Westbound 86.6 F

Northbound 8.7 A

17.1 C

Southbound 16.4 C

Eastbound 46.2 E

Westbound 14.3 B


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00





TRAVTMTOT

(ALL)

DELAYTOT

(ALL)

DEMAND

LATENT

1 13.5 42.5 831 1383 117241 11896 0

2 16.5 41.4 847 1395 121170 14579 0

3 18.9 40.7 860 1389 122896 16929 0

4 19.6 40.6 857 1378 122255 17410 0

5 16.4 41.5 858 1421 123432 14495 0

Avg 17 41.3 851 1393 121399 15062 0

St Dev 2.4 0.8 12.1 17 2472 2212 0


_2045_Roundabouts Metered_24 hours 2x2Run # 1 Run # 2 Run # 3 Run # 4 Run # 5 AVG

408.05 445.6 416.63 408.58 466.75 429.12

178.47 186.94 182.13 184.22 185.5 183.45

378.08 408.93 432.53 467.95 #REF! 428.58

183.84 221.32 241.05 232.71 #REF! 217.98SB TH 22 to US Hwy 14



Travel Times


INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION Trunk Highway 22 and Blue Earth CSAH 3 (North Victory Drive)

Mankato, Minnesota

November 2018

ICE Report – TH 22 and Blue Earth CSAH 3 (N Victory Drive) i

Trunk Highway 22 and Blue Earth CSAH 3 (North Victory Drive)






ICE Report – TH 22 and Blue Earth CSAH 3 (N Victory Drive) ii




Access Spacing ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................................................................................. 1





Queue Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................. 4



Crash History ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Corridor Vision ................................................................................................................................................................... 6


Appendices A. PM Peak Hour Traffic Simulation Results

ICE Report – TH 22 and Blue Earth CSAH 3 (N Victory Drive) 1

Background and Study Area As part of the Trunk Highway (TH) 22 Corridor Study, intersection control revisions are being considered at the intersection of TH 22 and CSAH 3/North Victory Drive (to be referred to as CSAH 3) in Mankato. The objective of this Intersection Control Evaluation report is to determine the optimal intersection control to improve future traffic capacity and reduce crash potential.


» Traffic signal (existing control) » Multilane Roundabout with bypasses


Roadway Characteristics TH 22 is functionally classified as a principal arterial and CSAH 3 is classified as a minor arterial west of TH 22 and a major collector east of TH 22. At the intersection, TH 22 has a 45 mph posted speed limit and CSAH 3 has a posted speed limit of 40 mph.



» Southbound: Two through lanes, dedicated right‐ and left‐turn lanes » Northbound: Two through lanes, dedicated right‐turn lane and double left‐turn lane » Eastbound: Two through lanes, dedicated right‐ and left‐turn lanes » Westbound: Two through lanes, dedicated right‐ and left‐turn lanes

ACCESS SPACING

North of Victory Drive, the closest public access point is two‐way stop‐controlled Augusta Drive which is 2,640 feet (0.5 miles) away. South of Victory Drive, the closest public access point is stop controlled Premier Drive, which is a right‐in/right‐out access that is 1,330 feet (0.25 miles) away. The signalized US 14 north ramps are 2000 feet (0.38 miles) south of Victory drive.

MnDOT access spacing guidelines for urban/urbanizing principal arterials (Mn/DOT Access Management Manual [2008]) recommend 1/2‐mile access spacing for primary full‐movement intersections, and 1/4‐mile access spacing for secondary intersections. Access spacing and associated access recommendations are being developed with the larger TH 22 Corridor Study.

Traffic Volumes Existing and projected average daily traffic volumes (ADT) and peak hour turning movements at the study intersection can be seen in Figure 1. Existing volumes are 2017 traffic volumes that were collected for the TH 22 Corridor Study. Traffic projections for 2030 and 2045 were developed in the corridor study through a review of historic traffic patterns and growth rates as well as expected land use changes in the area.

Based on discussions with the TH 22 corridor study Technical Advisory Committee, it has been established that 2045 traffic projections documented in this report reflect an aggressive growth scenario. 2045 average annual growth rates and 2030 ADT estimates were calculated from 2017 daily intersection counts and assumed 2.6 percent to the north and to the south, 2.5 percent to the east, and 2.1 percent to the west. As such, if less intense development occurs in the area than assumed for the 2045 traffic projections, 2030 traffic projections presented in this document could approximate 2045 projections in a more moderate growth scenario.


Warrant Analys is Traffic signal warrants from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices were evaluated under existing and projected traffic volumes. Minor approach right‐turns were omitted from this analysis given the presence of eastbound and westbound right‐turn lanes on CSAH 3.

It is typical for a traffic signal or roundabout to be considered for MnDOT roadways when Warrant 1 is met (Scott Thompson MnDOT D7). Under existing volumes Warrants 1, 2, and 3 are all met.


Criteria Hours Met

Hours Required

Warrants Met

Warrant 1a: Minimum Vehicular Volume 14 8 Met









> 10‐15 > 10‐20 B > 15‐25 > 20‐35 C > 25‐35 > 35‐55 D > 35‐50 > 55‐80 E > 50 > 80 F

Under existing traffic volumes, intersection geometry, and signal control, the intersection operates at LOS “C” during both the AM and PM peak hours, with no approach operating worse than LOS “D”. The existing signalized intersection would benefit from connection/interoperability of traffic signals throughout the corridor.

Future Conditions Traffic Operations Vissim models were developed for a 24‐hour time period under projected 2030 and 2045 traffic volumes. Roundabout simulation assumes a multilane roundabout at CSAH 3, with right‐turn bypass lanes on all intersection approaches. Bypass lanes were assumed in both 2030 and 2045 simulations since modelled operations without them resulted in major delays and queue spillback issues. Configurations for both future alternatives can be seen in Table 6.

Simulation results indicate that a roundabout will operate with less control delay than a traffic signal during all hours of the day under 2030 conditions, and for most hours (beside the PM peak) under 2045 conditions.

In 2030, a traffic signal is expected to reach LOS “D” in the PM peak hour, while a roundabout is expected to operate with less than 20 seconds per vehicle throughout the day (LOS “C” or better). By 2045 the roundabout operates at LOS “E” during the PM peak period, however implementing roundabout metering to assign right‐of‐way to traffic is


expected to improve 2045 PM roundabout operations to LOS “D” which is less delay than the signalized alternative. Outside of the 2045 PM peak hour, roundabout metering has a negligible impact on intersection delay.

Figure 2 – 2030 and 2045 Modelled Intersection Delays

Note: LOS thresholds on this graphic are for unsignalized intersections. See Table 2 for signalized LOS thresholds.

Table 3 – Average Control Delays (24‐hour Average)

Traffic Control 2030 Average Delay (24‐Hour

Average) 2045 Average Delay (24‐Hour

Average) Traffic Signal 22.2 seconds 22.9 seconds Roundabout 4.5 seconds 8.4 seconds

Metered Roundabout ‐ 5.9 seconds


Queue Analysis Average PM peak hour simulated queue lengths were evaluated. This analysis assumes no roundabout metering is in place.

Under 2030 traffic volumes a signal and roundabout are expected to have average queues at or under 100 feet in length. By 2045 average roundabout queues are expected to exceed average signal queues on the southbound and westbound approaches, with average roundabout queue lengths of 228 and 172 feet, respectively.

While some longer peak hour queues are expected under roundabout control by 2045, average queues throughout the day are expected to be less under roundabout control given the significantly reduced amount of delay during off‐peak hours.

2030 2045


Table 4 – Average 2030 and 2045 Queue Lengths

Approach 2030 2045



Mult imodal Roundabout Considerat ions Reduced vehicle speeds associated with roundabout control allow more time for drivers and pedestrians to interact with each other, and the presence of raised splitter islands also simplifies the task of pedestrian crossings by allow pedestrians to consider one direction of conflicting traffic at a time. On‐street bicycle facilities are not in place nor are they planned, so most cyclists will use a roundabout like pedestrians.


Truck Considerat ions Roundabouts have been successfully constructed on many Minnesota trunk highways, including two on the TH 22 corridor at Adams Street and Madison Avenue. With proper roundabout design characteristics such as a sufficient inscribed circle diameter and truck aprons with curbs designed to prevent load shifting, trucks can navigate roundabouts without issue. Information from MnDOT’s Right‐of‐Way Mapping and Monitoring web application indicates 270 to 280 feet of right‐of‐way at CSAH 3, with MnDOT recommending roundabout diameters of 150 to 200 feet for urban two‐lane roundabouts (MnDOT Road Design Manual Table 12‐3.04A [2009]).

Crash History Crash data was obtained from MnDOT for the time period between January 2011 and December 2015. In the five‐year period, 27 crashes were reported. Three crashes resulted in non‐incapacitating injuries and four crashes resulted in possible injuries. The crash distribution is as follows:

» 11 rear‐end » 7 right‐angle » 3 sideswipe » 3 left‐turn » 1 head‐on » 1 run‐off‐the‐road » 1 other (not specified)

Using the critical crash analysis methodology which applies statistical analysis to determine if the difference in observed and typical crash rates is statistically significant, the intersection crash rate is not above the critical crash rate, but is above the statewide average.

To evaluate the expected safety impact from conversion from signal control to roundabout control (no roundabout metering), the FHWA Surrogate Safety Assessment Model (SSAM) was used. The SSAM uses vehicle trajectory


information from Vissim simulation models to identify the number of rear‐end, lane change, and crossing conflicts. Simulation results from a full 24‐hour Vissim model were used for this analysis.

Under 2030 traffic volumes and roundabout control, the total number of conflicts is expected to be reduced by seven percent and rear end conflicts are expected to be reduced by 18 percent compared to a traffic signal. Due to increased congestion under roundabout control by 2045, an 18 percent increase in the total number of conflicts is expected in 2045, with rear‐end conflicts also expected to increase by four percent. While rear‐end conflicts are expected to increase, roundabout control results in more predictable rear‐end conflicts since there is no yellow signal phase that can cause drivers to abruptly stop. Lane change conflicts are expected to increase significantly under both 2030 and 2045 volumes, however these conflicts have a low potential to be severe. Reducing the crossing conflict rate is the biggest indicator of reducing severe crashes. MnDOT data in the Traffic Safety Fundamentals Handbook (2015)

indicates a 60 to 70 percent reduction in severe crashes (injury or fatal crashes) with a multilane roundabout compared to a signal.


Note: Roundabout conflicts were evaluated with no roundabout metering





Rear

End

Lane


Rear

End

Lane


Signal 1894 207 20 2122 1898 203 18 2120

Roundabout 1549 408 7 1964 1982 508 12 2502

% Chg. W/ Roundabout ‐18% 97% ‐65% ‐7% 4% 150% ‐35% 18%

Alternative

Conflicts

2030 2045


Summary and Recommendation A multilane roundabout is expected to operate with fewer delays than a traffic signal for all hours of the day through 2030, and for most the day through 2045 (except the PM peak hour – see Figure 2). With roundabout metering in 2045, roundabout delays will be less than signal delays throughout the entire day. The roundabout will also significantly reduce injury and severe crash types. The application of roundabout metering under 2045 volumes is however expected to result in a roundabout operating with less delay than a traffic signal. Intersection conflicts are expected to be reduced with roundabout control through 2030, however roundabout conflicts are expected to exceed signal conflicts by 2045. While 2045 conflicts may be higher than signal conflicts, roundabouts reduce the potential for severe crashes and also result in more predictable rear‐end type conflicts given the removal of a yellow signal phase that can cause drivers to abruptly stop.

The future construction of a roundabout will align with the future corridor vision of a roundabout corridor, is consistent with recently constructed roundabouts at both Adams Street and Madison Avenue, and can fit within available right‐of‐way.

Based on the analysis presented in this report, a multilane roundabout with right turn bypass lanes is recommended at the intersection of TH 22 and CSAH 3.



MnDOT District 7





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection



Start Time:

16:00

19.5 B

Northbound

Southbound 17.2 B

Eastbound 20.7 C

Westbound 26.1 C

16.6 B

Westbound

Northbound

Southbound

Eastbound

13.7 B

19.9 B

15.4 B

18.4 B

27.9 C

Northbound 8.6 A


Eastbound 13.0 B

Northbound 27.2 C

23.3 C

Southbound 16.1 B

Eastbound 35.6 D

Westbound 24.4 C

Northbound 31.7 C

30.7 C

Southbound 25.4 C

Eastbound 29.3 C

Westbound 41.2 D

Northbound 10.7 B


Westbound 39.1 D


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection



Northbound 23.7 C

28.7 C

Southbound 28.4 C

Eastbound 43.1 D

Westbound 27.4 C

Northbound 5.3 A

5.8 A

Southbound 4.6 A

Eastbound 4.6 A

Westbound 8.3 A

Northbound 19.7 B

33.7 C

Southbound 44.4 D

Eastbound 31.7 C

Westbound 35.7 D

Northbound 28.1 C

33.8 C

Southbound 38.5 D

Eastbound 31.3 C

Westbound 36.1 D

Northbound 6.8 A

4.7 A

Southbound 3.2 A

Eastbound 5.0 A

Westbound 4.0 A


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00





TRAVTMTOT

(ALL)

DELAYTOT

(ALL)

DEMAND

LATENT

1 18.9 44.4 759 1253 101744 14894 0

2 19.8 43.9 766 1274 104417 15604 0

3 17.6 44.5 766 1241 100410 13964 0

4 18.9 44.2 770 1252 101901 14945 0

5 19.9 43.9 766 1287 105559 15787 0

Avg 19 44.2 765 1262 102806 15039 0

St Dev 0.9 0.3 4.0 19 2113 718 0



386.12 377.47 381.01 379.07 382.59 381.25

181.33 178.56 177.46 179.49 178.99 179.17

401.49 400.24 398.97 405.24 399.45 401.08

180.36 183.69 181.82 180.51 180.81 181.44SB TH 22 to US Hwy 14



Travel Times



MnDOT District 7





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection



Northbound 14.2 B


Westbound 41.1 D

Northbound 5.8 A

15.1 C

Southbound 20.9 C

Eastbound 9.4 A

Westbound 26.8 D

Northbound 18.6 C

18.1 C

Southbound 17.7 C

Eastbound 30.9 D

Westbound 7.3 A

Northbound 8.4 A


Eastbound 12.9 B

6.8 A

4.7 A

12.8 B

Start Time:

16:00

14.2 B

Northbound

Southbound 4.1 A

Eastbound 38.2 E

Westbound 24.5 C

4.9 A

Westbound

Northbound

Southbound

Eastbound

3.1 A

5.4 A


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection



Northbound 4.9 A

3.1 A

Southbound 3.1 A

Eastbound 2.3 A

Westbound 3.3 A

Northbound 5.8 A

7.4 A

Southbound 10.4 B

Eastbound 6.7 A

Westbound 5.6 A

Northbound 11.2 B

10.7 B

Southbound 7.7 A

Eastbound 12.5 B

Westbound 13.4 B

Northbound 4.1 A

3.8 A

Southbound 3.4 A

Eastbound 2.4 A

Westbound 5.4 A

Northbound 3.2 A

6.5 A

Southbound 4.1 A

Eastbound 21.6 C

Westbound 6.8 A


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00





TRAVTMTOT

(ALL)

DELAYTOT

(ALL)

DEMAND

LATENT

1 8.9 44.8 757 1261 101313 6966 0

2 8.5 44.7 769 1285 103460 6691 0

3 8.4 44.9 765 1248 100085 6659 0

4 8.4 45 768 1258 100707 6627 0

5 8.8 44.6 765 1300 104925 6967 0

Avg 8.6 44.8 765 1271 102098 6782 0

St Dev 0.2 0.2 4.7 21 2028 170 0



367.01 386.97 375.96 371.03 378.8 375.95

178.59 185.12 184.45 181.25 182.61 182.4

413.03 381.21 377.66 371.32 #REF! 381.19

181.53 177.46 178.03 179.16 #REF! 178.8SB TH 22 to US Hwy 14



Travel Times



MnDOT District 7





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection



Start Time:

16:00

27.0 C

Northbound

Southbound 34.9 C

Eastbound 22.3 C

Westbound 29.3 C

21.8 C

Westbound

Northbound

Southbound

Eastbound

19.7 B

24.0 C

17.2 B

22.0 C

35.3 D

Northbound 8.4 A


Eastbound 11.6 B

Northbound 46.0 D

30.9 C

Southbound 18.0 B

Eastbound 38.4 D

Westbound 28.9 C

Northbound 33.0 C

34.9 C

Southbound 31.0 C

Eastbound 38.9 D

Westbound 43.0 D

Northbound 9.6 A


Westbound 41.0 D


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection



Northbound 27.2 C

34.3 C

Southbound 36.3 D

Eastbound 45.3 D

Westbound 33.3 C

Northbound 6.1 A

6.7 A

Southbound 4.5 A

Eastbound 6.0 A

Westbound 8.8 A

Northbound 17.9 B

35.4 D

Southbound 52.1 D

Eastbound 32.6 C

Westbound 36.5 D

Northbound 32.4 C

38.5 D

Southbound 47.4 D

Eastbound 28.6 C

Westbound 41.0 D

Northbound 9.6 A

5.5 A

Southbound 3.6 A

Eastbound 5.1 A

Westbound 5.0 A


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00





TRAVTMTOT

(ALL)

DELAYTOT

(ALL)

DEMAND

LATENT

1 21 43 839 1379 115354 18521 0

2 20.6 43.1 857 1398 116831 18117 0

3 20.3 43 852 1364 114289 18017 0

4 20 43.2 855 1368 114086 17715 0

5 21.3 42.9 860 1411 118521 18902 0

Avg 20.7 43 853 1384 115816 18255 0

St Dev 0.5 0.1 8.1 20 1863 463 0



295.54 336.3 0 304.68 309.2 311.43

140.48 147.98 146.72 143.2 143.51 144.38

308.54 317.71 320.28 318.42 312.26 315.44

151.66 150.04 150.8 146.78 147.93 149.44SB TH 22 to US Hwy 14



Travel Times



MnDOT District 7





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection



Northbound 12.3 B


Westbound 42.8 D

Northbound 8.2 A

29.3 D

Southbound 37.8 E

Eastbound 24.0 C

Westbound 55.2 F

Northbound 31.3 D

65.1 F

Southbound 21.6 C

Eastbound 208.4 F

Westbound 142.0 F

Northbound 9.3 A


Eastbound 11.9 B

8.0 A

6.2 A

25.9 D

Start Time:

16:00

70.5 F

Northbound

Southbound 6.9 A

Eastbound 163.5 F

Westbound 266.8 F

8.3 A

Westbound

Northbound

Southbound

Eastbound

3.6 A

10.6 B


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection



Northbound 25.6 D

17.3 C

Southbound 34.9 D

Eastbound 3.2 A

Westbound 22.8 C

Northbound 10.4 B

16.1 C

Southbound 24.5 C

Eastbound 10.1 B

Westbound 17.2 C

Northbound 44.4 E

65.3 F

Southbound 8.5 A

Eastbound 117.1 F

Westbound 144.5 F

Northbound 125.4 F

165.0 F

Southbound 91.8 F

Eastbound 14.7 B

Westbound 511.5 F

Northbound 4.1 A

28.9 D

Southbound 8.7 A

Eastbound 166.4 F

Westbound 27.6 D


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00





TRAVTMTOT

(ALL)

DELAYTOT

(ALL)

DEMAND

LATENT

1 9.4 43.8 836 1391 114356 8251 0

2 8.9 43.8 853 1409 115796 7868 0

3 9.1 43.9 849 1375 112656 8003 0

4 9 44 857 1375 112583 7952 0

5 9.4 43.7 860 1422 117318 8289 0

Avg 9.1 43.8 851 1395 114542 8073 0

St Dev 0.2 0.1 9.4 21 2044 187 0



385.04 423.2 372.1 378.96 377.57 387.38

178.5 186.99 182.11 180.12 181.4 181.82

378.11 373.07 375.98 385.72 #REF! 379.86

179.38 179.51 178.04 179.14 #REF! 178.97SB TH 22 to US Hwy 14



Travel Times



MnDOT District 7





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection



Northbound 14.2 B


Westbound 42.1 D

Northbound 12.6 B

23.7 C

Southbound 41.2 E

Eastbound 11.0 B

Westbound 21.0 C

Northbound 37.2 E

41.6 E

Southbound 23.2 C

Eastbound 55.3 F

Westbound 82.1 F

Northbound 9.0 A


Eastbound 11.9 B

8.2 A

9.2 A

33.9 D

Start Time:

16:00

31.0 D

Northbound

Southbound 11.1 B

Eastbound 70.5 F

Westbound 73.1 F

9.4 A

Westbound

Northbound

Southbound

Eastbound

4.5 A

11.3 B


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00



Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection





Delay

Movement

LOS

Approach

DelayApproach LOS

Intersection

Delay

Intersection



Northbound 9.0 A

5.2 A

Southbound 5.6 A

Eastbound 2.8 A

Westbound 6.3 A

Northbound 11.7 B

16.1 C

Southbound 25.8 D

Eastbound 10.1 B

Westbound 12.5 B

Northbound 54.0 F

36.2 E

Southbound 19.8 C

Eastbound 29.3 D

Westbound 50.7 F

Northbound 23.2 C

48.7 E

Southbound 101.7 F

Eastbound 6.5 A

Westbound 86.6 F

Northbound 8.7 A

17.1 C

Southbound 16.4 C

Eastbound 46.2 E

Westbound 14.3 B


MnDOT District 7



Start Time:

16:00





TRAVTMTOT

(ALL)

DELAYTOT

(ALL)

DEMAND

LATENT

1 13.5 42.5 831 1383 117241 11896 0

2 16.5 41.4 847 1395 121170 14579 0

3 18.9 40.7 860 1389 122896 16929 0

4 19.6 40.6 857 1378 122255 17410 0

5 16.4 41.5 858 1421 123432 14495 0

Avg 17 41.3 851 1393 121399 15062 0

St Dev 2.4 0.8 12.1 17 2472 2212 0



408.05 445.6 416.63 408.58 466.75 429.12

178.47 186.94 182.13 184.22 185.5 183.45

378.08 408.93 432.53 467.95 #REF! 428.58

183.84 221.32 241.05 232.71 #REF! 217.98SB TH 22 to US Hwy 14



Travel Times


INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION Trunk Highway 22 and Bassett Drive

Mankato, Minnesota

November 2018

ICE Report – TH 22 and Bassett Drive i

Trunk Highway 22 and Bassett Drive






ICE Report – TH 22 and Bassett Drive ii




Access Spacing ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................................................................................. 2





Queue Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................. 5



Crash History ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Corridor Vision ................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Benefit‐Cost Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 8


Appendices A . P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Simulation Results B . Benefit/Cost Analysis Worksheets

ICE Report – TH 22 and Bassett Drive 1

Background and Study Area As part of the Trunk Highway (TH) 22 Corridor Study, intersection control revisions are being considered at the intersection of TH 22 and Bassett Drive in Mankato. The objective of this Intersection Control Evaluation report is to determine the optimal intersection control to improve future traffic capacity and reduce crash potential.


» Traffic signal (existing control) » Multilane Roundabout with bypasses


Roadway Characteristics TH 22 is functionally classified as a minor arterial and Bassett Drive is classified as a major collector west of TH 22 and a minor collector east of TH 22. At the intersection, TH 22 has a 45 mph posted speed limit and Bassett Drive has a posted speed limit of 30 mph.



» Southbound: Two through lanes, dedicated right‐ and left‐turn lanes » Northbound: Two through lanes, dedicated right‐ and left‐turn lanes » Eastbound: One through lane, dedicated right‐ and left‐turn lanes » Westbound: One through lane, dedicated right‐ and left‐turn lanes

ACCESS SPACING

North of Bassett Drive, the closest access point is roundabout controlled CSAH 17 (Madison Avenue) which is 1,330 feet (0.25 miles) away. South of Bassett Drive, the closest access point is signal controlled Hoffman Road which is 2,600 feet (0.5 miles) away. Note that a previous Intersection Control Evaluation recommended a future roundabout at Hoffman Road.

MnDOT access spacing guidelines for urban/urbanizing minor arterials (Mn/DOT Access Management Manual [2008]) recommends 1/4‐mile access spacing for primary full‐movement intersections, and 1/8‐mile access spacing for secondary intersections. Access spacing and associated access recommendations are being developed with the larger TH 22 Corridor Study.

On Bassett Drive itself, there are commercial accesses within 300 feet of the intersection on both the eastbound and westbound approaches. These accesses could be converted to restricted access configurations to improve traffic flow and reduce crash potential.


Traffic Volumes Existing and projected average daily traffic volumes (ADT) and peak hour turning movements at the study intersection can be seen in Figure 1. Existing volumes are 2017 traffic volumes that were collected for the TH 22 Corridor Study. Traffic projections for 2030 and 2045 were developed in the corridor study through a review of historic traffic patterns and growth rates as well as expected land use changes in the area.

Based on discussions with the TH 22 corridor study Technical Advisory Committee, it has been established that 2045 traffic projections documented in this report reflect an aggressive growth scenario. 2045 average annual growth rates and 2030 ADT estimates were calculated from 2017 daily intersection counts and assumed 2.5 percent to the north, south, and east, and 1.4 percent to the west. As such, if less intense development occurs in the area than assumed for the 2045 traffic projections, 2030 traffic projections presented in this document could approximate 2045 projections in a more moderate growth scenario.


Warrant Analys is Traffic signal warrants from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices were evaluated under existing and projected traffic volumes. Minor approach right‐turns were omitted from this analysis given the presence of eastbound and westbound right‐turn lanes on Bassett Drive.

It is typical for a traffic signal or roundabout to be considered for MnDOT roadways when Warrant 1 is met (Scott Thompson MnDOT D7). Under existing volumes Warrants 1, 2, and 3 are all met.


Criteria Hours Met

Hours Required

Warrants Met

Warrant 1a: Minimum Vehicular Volume 12 8 Met









> 10‐15 > 10‐20 B > 15‐25 > 20‐35 C > 25‐35 > 35‐55 D > 35‐50 > 55‐80 E > 50 > 80 F

Under existing traffic volumes, intersection geometry, and signal control, the intersection operates at LOS “C” during both the AM and PM peak hours, with no approach operating worse than LOS “C”. The existing signalized intersection would benefit from connection/interoperability of traffic signals throughout the corridor.

Future Conditions Traffic Operations Vissim models were developed for a 24‐hour time period under projected 2030 and 2045 traffic volumes. Roundabout simulation assumes a multilane roundabout at Bassett Drive, with right‐turn bypass lanes on all intersection approaches. Bypass lanes were assumed in both 2030 and 2045 simulations since modelled operations without them resulted in major delays and queue spillback issues.

Simulation results indicate that a roundabout will operate with less control delay than a traffic signal during all hours of the day under both 2030 and 2045 traffic conditions. Configurations for both future alternatives can be seen in Table 7 at the end of this report.


In 2030, a roundabout is expected to operate with less than 10 seconds of control delay per vehicle throughout the day, while a signal is expected to operate with over 25 seconds of control delay between 8 am and 7 pm, with delays approaching 35 seconds per vehicle during the PM peak hour.

Under 2045 traffic volumes, roundabout control delay is expected to be under 15 seconds of delay per vehicle throughout most of the day, however delays increase in the PM peak hour to around 30 seconds per vehicle. Signal control is expected to have delays of over 30 seconds per vehicle between 8 am and 7 pm, with PM peak delays approaching 50 seconds per vehicle under 2045 conditions. As part of a larger network‐wide modelling effort the impact that placing meters on roundabout approaches to assign right‐of‐way was studied for 2045 conditions, but it was found to have negligible impacts at the study intersection. As such, subsequent analysis presented in this ICE report assumes no roundabout metering is present.

Figure 2 – 2030 and 2045 Modelled Intersection Delays at Bassett Drive

Note: LOS thresholds on this graphic are for unsignalized intersection

Table 3 – Average Control Delays (24‐hour Average) at Bassett Drive

Traffic Control 2030 Average Delay (24‐Hour Average)

2045 Average Delay (24‐Hour Average)

Traffic Signal 20.5 seconds 22.9 seconds Roundabout 3.2 seconds 5.7 seconds


Queue Analysis Average PM peak hour simulated queue lengths were evaluated. Average queue lengths are expected to be reduced with roundabout control on all approaches under both 2030 and 2045 conditions.

Table 4 – Average 2030 and 2045 Queue Lengths at Bassett Drive

Approach 2030 2045



2030 2045


Mult imodal Roundabout Considerat ions Reduced vehicle speeds associated with roundabout control allow more time for drivers and pedestrians to interact with each other, and the presence of raised splitter islands also simplifies the task of pedestrian crossings by allowing pedestrians to consider one direction of conflicting traffic at a time. On‐street bicycle facilities are not in place nor are they planned, so most cyclists will use a roundabout like pedestrians.


Truck Considerat ions Roundabouts have been successfully constructed on many Minnesota trunk highways, including two on the TH 22 corridor at Adams Street and Madison Avenue. With proper roundabout design characteristics such as a sufficient inscribed circle diameter and truck aprons with curbs designed to prevent load shifting, trucks can navigate roundabouts without issue. Information from MnDOT’s Right‐of‐Way Mapping and Monitoring web application indicates approximately 210 feet of right‐of‐way at Bassett Drive, with MnDOT recommending roundabout diameters (MnDOT Road Design Manual Table 12‐3.04A [2009]) of 150 to 200 feet for urban two‐lane roundabouts.

Crash History Crash data was obtained from MnDOT for the time period between January 2011 and December 2015. In the five‐year period, 46 crashes were reported. Three crashes resulted in non‐incapacitating injuries and six crashes resulted in possible injuries. The crash distribution is as follows:

» 21 rear‐end » 9 right‐angle » 6 sideswipe » 3 run‐off‐the‐road » 2 left‐turn » 1 right‐turn » 4 other (not specified)

Using the critical crash analysis methodology which applies statistical analysis to determine if the difference in observed and typical crash rates is statistically significant, the intersection crash rate is above the critical crash rate. As such, the existing intersection configuration is likely contributing to the elevated crash rates that have been observed.

To evaluate the expected safety impact from conversion from signal control to roundabout control, the FHWA Surrogate Safety Assessment Model (SSAM) was used. The SSAM uses vehicle trajectory information from Vissim simulation models to identify the number of rear‐end, lane change, and crossing conflicts. Simulation results from a full 24‐hour Vissim model were used for this analysis.

Under 2030 traffic volumes and roundabout control, the total number of conflicts is expected to be reduced by 14 percent and rear end conflicts are expected to be reduced by 25 percent compared to a traffic signal. Due to increased congestion under roundabout control by 2045, a 12 percent increase in the total number of conflicts is expected in 2045, with rear‐end conflicts being comparable to signal control. Roundabout control however results in more predictable rear‐end conflicts since there is no yellow signal phase that can cause drivers to abruptly stop. Lane change conflicts are expected to increase significantly under both 2030 and 2045 volumes, however these conflicts have a low potential to be severe. Reducing the crossing conflict rate is the biggest indicator of reducing severe crashes. MnDOT data in the Traffic Safety Fundamentals Handbook (2015) indicates a 60 to 70 percent reduction in severe crashes (injury or fatal crashes) with a multilane roundabout compared to a signal.



Note: Roundabout conflicts were evaluated with no roundabout metering






Rear

End

Lane


Rear

End

Lane


Signal 2069 305 8 2381 2246 290 15 2551

Roundabout 1552 497 6 2055 2217 637 11 2865

% Chg. W/ Roundabout ‐25% 63% ‐26% ‐14% ‐1% 120% ‐28% 12%

Alternative

Conflicts

2030 2045



Benef i t ‐Cost Analys is Benefit‐Cost Analysis (BCA) provides an indication of the economic desirability of an alternative, by comparing the benefits along with the assessment of other effects and impacts. Projects are considered cost‐effective if the benefit‐cost ratio is greater than 1.0. The larger the ratio number, the greater the benefits per unit cost.

A BCA was performed for the roundabout alternative compared to the existing traffic signal control. The analysis was based on MnDOT Benefit‐Cost Analysis Guidelines (SFY2019) to compare to similar projects throughout the region. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT), and crash reduction savings were quantified to show operational and safety benefits. Construction costs, maintenance costs, and remaining capitol value were quantified to represent the total user costs for the project. The benefits and costs of each alternative were compared for a 20‐year timeframe assumed between 2021‐2040. Based on the actual construction year, these results may increase or decrease slightly from the assumptions used for the current analysis.

For the purposes of this ICE report, economic desirability of the concept was compared between intersection alternatives. Table 6 shows a summary of the BCA results for the roundabout alternative versus the existing traffic signal. The roundabout shows a very high operational benefit even with deceleration time approaching the roundabout added into the control delay. Combined with the safety benefit, a roundabout is a very economically desirable alternative compared to the existing signal for the next 20 years.

Table 6 – 20 Year BCA Analysis Results

Roundabout

Net Cost of Project ($M) $0.94 Present Value of Benefits ($M)

$9.04

Net Present Value ($M) $8.10 Benefit / Cost Ratio 9.58


Summary and Recommendation A multilane roundabout is expected to operate with fewer delays than a traffic signal for all hours of the day through 2045 (see Figure 2). Intersection conflicts are expected to be reduced with roundabout control through 2030, however roundabout conflicts are expected to exceed signal conflicts by 2045. While total 2045 roundabout conflicts may be higher than signal conflicts, roundabouts reduce the potential for severe crashes and also result in more predictable rear‐end type conflicts given the removal of a yellow signal phase that can cause drivers to abruptly stop.

The future construction of a roundabout will align with the future corridor vision of a roundabout corridor, is consistent with recently constructed roundabouts at both Adams Street and Madison Avenue, is economically desirable, and can fit within available right‐of‐way.

Based on analysis presented in this report, a multilane roundabout with bypass lanes is recommended at the intersection of TH 22 and Bassett Drive.
