Intersection Control Evaluation Trunk Highway 33 at Interstate 35 Ramps Cloquet, Carlton County, Minnesota S.P. 98-5 Minnesota Department of Transportation District June 27 SRF. 6 934
Table of Contents Intersection Characteristics... 4 Existing Conditions... 4 Crash History... 4 Future Conditions... 7 Traffic Volumes... 8 nalysis of lternatives... Warrant nalysis... Operations nalysis... 2 Safety nalysis... 3 Planning-Level Cost nalysis... 5 lternatives ssessment... 6 Right-of-Way Considerations... 6 Transportation System Considerations... 6 Pedestrian Considerations... 6 Local cceptance... 6 Conclusions... 7 Recommendation... 8 ppendix... 9 H:\Projects\9\934\SD\ICE\Report\934_TH33 & I-35 Ramps_REVISED_7623.docx Intersection Control Evaluation ii SRF Consulting Group, Inc. TH 33 at I-35 Ramps June 27
Introduction This report comprises the intersection control evaluation (ICE) for the Trunk Highway 33 (TH 33) at Interstate 35 (I-35) Ramps intersection in Cloquet, Carlton County, Minnesota (see Figure ) and is part of the I-35 Mobility Study in Carlton County. The purpose of the I-35 Mobility Study in Carlton County is to identify existing geometric, safety, and operational/mobility issues, inventory infrastructure condition, develop improvement concepts, and generate a plan for MnDOT that will serve as a guide for planning and programming future projects along the I-35 corridor. The primary goal of the safety analysis for the I-35 Mobility Study in Carlton County is to identify locations where geometric and/or traffic control improvements can be implemented to improve the safety of the corridor and evaluate the safety impacts of various concept designs. The purpose of this evaluation was to analyze various traffic control alternatives for the TH 33 at I-35 Ramps intersection under existing and future conditions to identify a preferred alternative. It should be noted that the TH 33 at I-35 Ramps intersection was studied as part of the Highway 33 Corridor Study & ccess Management Plan (prepared by SEH in February 26). In this study, the following potential improvements at the TH 33 at I-35 Ramps intersection were identified: Install a Rural Intersection Conflict Warning System (RICWS) Close the Frontage Road ccess (west intersection leg) o Reroute the Frontage Road along TH 33 north to meet Gillette Road However, the potential Frontage Road rerouting is no longer considered feasible due to conflicts with a designated trout stream along the proposed Frontage Road alignment. dditional intersection alternatives were previously considered as part of the I-35 Mobility Study in Carlton County (see Concept Evaluation Matrix in the ppendix): Build Modified Side-Street Stop Control (Narrows median and removes existing two-stage crossing) Roundabout Control TH 33 rthbound Bridge Frontage Road Right-In/Right-Out The Build, TH 33 rthbound Bridge, and Frontage Road Right-In/Right-Out alternatives were subsequently eliminated from further consideration due to safety, cost, and access concerns (see Concept Evaluation Matrix in the ppendix). Consequently, this ICE has been requested and will consider the following remaining and additional traffic control alternatives: Modified Side-Street Stop Control (Narrows median and removes existing two-stage crossing) ll-way Stop Control Traffic Signal Control Roundabout Control Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. TH 33 at I-35 Ramps June 27
H:\Projects\9\934\SD\ICE\Figures\Fig_Study Intersection.cdr rth NORTH Cloquet 3 3 I N T E R S TT E 3 5 Study Intersection I N T E R S TT E 3 5 6934 June 27 Study Intersection Intersection Control Evaluation - TH 33 at I-35 Ramps Cloquet, Carlton County, Minnesota Figure
Detailed warrant, operations, crash, and planning-level cost analyses were performed to determine a preferred intersection control alternative that most effectively addresses the significant safety concern at the subject intersection. In addition to the analyses, other factors considered for this evaluation that were applicable to determining the long-term preferred intersection control included: Right-of-Way Considerations Transportation System Considerations Pedestrian Considerations Local cceptance Intersection Control Evaluation 3 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. TH 33 at I-35 Ramps June 27
Intersection Characteristics Existing Conditions The TH 33 at I-35 Ramps intersection is currently a four-leg intersection with side-street stop control. The TH 33 north leg is a four-lane divided roadway with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. It should be noted that the north/south intersection median is atypically wide and causes many side-street thru and left-turn maneuvers to be completed in two stages. The Frontage Road west leg is a two-lane undivided roadway with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. The I-35 South Ramps comprise the south leg while the I-35 rth Ramps comprise the east leg. Both TH 33 and I-35 are functionally classified as principal arterials. The area adjacent to the study intersection is comprised primarily of undeveloped wetlands/woodlands. Current intersection geometrics are listed in Table and shown in Figure 2. Existing peak hour traffic volumes, also shown in Figure 2, were collected by SRF Consulting Group in September 26. Table. Existing Conditions pproach Southbound TH 33 (rth Leg) Lane Configurations One left-turn lane, two thru lanes, and one right-turn lane I-35 rthbound Off-ramp (South Leg) One left-turn lane and one shared thru/right-turn lane I-35 Southbound Off-ramp (East Leg) One shared left-turn/thru lane and one channelized right-turn lane Eastbound Frontage Road (West Leg) One shared left-turn/thru/right-turn lane Crash History Crash data was obtained from the MnDOT Crash Mapping nalysis Tool (MnCMT) for a five year period from 2 through 25. pproximately 2 total crashes were reported during the analysis period at the TH 33 at I-35 Ramps intersection. This results in a crash rate of.73 crashes per Million Entering Vehicles (MEV). This is significantly greater than the statewide average crash rate of.25 crashes per MEV for a rural thru/stop intersection. It is also above the critical crash rate of.52 crashes per MEV. dditionally, there were two fatal and incapacitating injury crashes reported at this location. This leads to an observed rate of 7.27 fatal & serious injury crashes per MEV, which is above the critical rate of 5.37 crashes per MEV. The 2 intersection crashes are summarized as follows: Crash Severity: o Fatal (type K) crash o Incapacitating injury (type ) crash o n-incapacitating injury (type B) crash o 9 Possible injury (type C) crashes o 8 Property damage only crashes Intersection Control Evaluation 4 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. TH 33 at I-35 Ramps June 27
Crash Type: o 3 Right-angle crashes o Rear-end crash o Run-off-road crash o 5 Other crashes Due to the significant number of crashes at the intersection, ten years of crash data were analyzed further, for the period between 25-25. Over this period, 37 total crashes were reported at the intersection, which results in a crash rate of.67 crashes per Million Entering Vehicles (MEV). This is above the critical crash rate of.46 crashes per MEV. There was also 7 fatal and incapacitating injury crashes observed at the location over the analysis period. This leads to an observed rate of 2.7 fatal & serious injury crashes per MEV, which is above the critical rate of 3.98 crashes per MEV. For details, see the ppendix. The crash severities are summarized as follows: 2 Fatal (type K) crash 5 Incapacitating injury (type ) crash 3 n-incapacitating injury (type B) crash 3 Possible injury (type C) crashes 4 Property damage only crashes For both observed sets of crash data (2-25 and 25-25), the observed crash rates were above the critical crash rates. This indicates that a statistically significant crash issue has been observed at this location and that there is a safety problem that needs to be corrected. dditionally, the observed fatal and serious injury crash rates were above the critical rates for both time periods, indicating that a notable problem with severe crash types has been observed. nalysis of the 2-25 data also indicated that the majority of crashes were right-angle crashes. Based on these factors, it is critical that the proposed traffic control alternative at this location addresses the safety issues, particularly with regards to severe and fatal crashes. Intersection Control Evaluation 5 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. TH 33 at I-35 Ramps June 27
H:\Projects\9\934\SD\ICE\Figures\Fig2_Existing Conditions.cdr rth NORTH 3 3 XX (XX) LEGEND -.M. Peak Hour Volumes - P.M. Peak Hour Volumes - Side-Street Stop Control Frontage Rd (52) 55 (7) 34 () 4 (8) 8 (475) 2 (2) I-35 South Ramps TH 33 () (356) 295 () 73 (248) 8 (33) () I-35 rth Ramps S T O P S T O P S T O P S T O P Frontage Rd I N T E R S TT E 3 5 6 9 3 4 June 27 Existing Conditions Intersection Control Evaluation - TH 33 at I-35 Ramps Cloquet, Carlton County, Minnesota Figure 2
Future Conditions Opening Day Year 28 and Forecast Year 24 intersection lane configurations were used for the traffic operations and signal warrant analyses. The lane configurations analyzed were determined based on the needs of the intersection and represent the minimum number of lanes needed to construct each alternative. summary of the assumed lane configurations for the study intersection under Opening Day Year 28 conditions is shown in Table 2. Table 2. Opening Day Year 28 Conditions pproach Southbound TH 33 (rth Leg) I-35 rthbound Off-ramp (South Leg) I-35 Southbound Off-ramp (East Leg) Eastbound Frontage Road (West Leg) Side-Street Stop/ Traffic Signal Control One left-turn lane, two thru lanes, and one right-turn lane One left-turn lane and one shared thru/right-turn lane One shared left-turn/thru lane and one right-turn lane bypass One shared left-turn/thru/right-turn lane ll-way Stop/ Roundabout Control One left-turn lane and one shared thru/right-turn lane One shared left-turn/thru/right-turn lane One shared left-turn/thru lane and one right-turn lane bypass One shared left-turn/thru/right-turn lane The Forecast Year 24 intersection geometrics assumed the inclusion of an additional thru lane in the northbound direction. summary of the assumed lane configurations for the study intersection under Forecast Year 24 conditions is shown in Table 3. Table 3. Forecast Year 24 Conditions pproach Southbound TH 33 (rth Leg) I-35 rthbound Off-ramp (South Leg) I-35 Southbound Off-ramp (East Leg) Eastbound Frontage Road (West Leg) Side-Street Stop/ Traffic Signal Control One left-turn lane, two thru lanes, and one right-turn lane One left-turn lane, one thru lane, and one shared thru/right-turn lane One shared left-turn/thru lane and one right-turn lane One shared left-turn/thru/right-turn lane ll-way Stop/ Roundabout Control One left-turn lane and one shared thru/right-turn lane One shared left-turn/thru lane and one shared thru/right-turn lane One shared left-turn/thru lane and one right-turn lane One shared left-turn/thru/right-turn lane Intersection Control Evaluation 7 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. TH 33 at I-35 Ramps June 27
Traffic Volumes Existing peak hour intersection turning movement counts were collected at the TH 33 at I-35 Ramps intersection by SRF Consulting Group in September 26 and are shown in Figure 2. It should be noted that the TH 33 at I-35 Ramps intersection can experience significant recreational traffic peaks outside the typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Therefore, intersection turning movement counts were also collected on the Friday and Monday of Labor Day Weekend 26. cursory review of the data collected indicates that traffic volumes during the recreational peaks can exceed those of the typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours. However, due to the relatively infrequent occurrence of recreational peak traffic, the typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours will be considered for the remainder of this ICE. To evaluate future conditions, forecast year 24 a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes were developed for the TH 33 at I-35 Ramps intersection. The forecasts were based on published MnDOT average annual daily traffic (DT) volumes and existing peak hour turning movement counts. In addition to existing data, the following plans were reviewed to better understand existing and future land use: Carlton County Community-Based Comprehensive Plan 2 City of Carlton, Minnesota Comprehensive Plan 25 City of Cloquet, Minnesota Comprehensive Plan 27 City of Scanlon, Minnesota Comprehensive Plan 25 review of the comprehensive plans identifies that Carlton County, the City of Cloquet, and the Town of Thomson are expected to see an increase in population over the next ten years. review of historical population data indicates that population within Carlton County has increased by approximately one percent annually between 99 and 2. Historical MnDOT DTs were used to complete a trend analysis. verage annual growth was first calculated and graphed using data from 994 to 24, and then projected out to the year 24. Once this data was graphed, it was apparent that growth within the study area has significantly slowed since 2. Therefore, average annual growth was also calculated and graphed using data from 2 to 24, and then projected out to the year 24. It is anticipated that improvements to the TH 33 at I-35 Ramps intersection would be completed in the year 28. Therefore, Opening Day Year 28 forecasts were developed using linear interpolation between existing traffic volumes and the Year 24 traffic forecasts. The resultant Opening Day Year 28 and Forecast Year 24 peak hour intersection turning movement volumes are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. Intersection Control Evaluation 8 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. TH 33 at I-35 Ramps June 27
H:\Projects\9\934\SD\ICE\Figures\Fig3_Opening Day Year 28 Conditions.cdr rth NORTH 3 3 XX (XX) LEGEND -.M. Peak Hour Volumes - P.M. Peak Hour Volumes - Side-Street Stop Control - ll-way Stop Control - Traffic Signal Control - Roundabout Control Frontage Rd (55) 6 (2) 35 (5) 5 45 (25) 85 (49) 22 (22) I-35 South Ramps TH 33 or (5) 5 (37) 35 () 8 (255) (35) () I-35 rth Ramps Frontage Rd Frontage Rd (55) 6 (2) 35 (5) 5 45 (25) 85 (49) 22 (22) I-35 South Ramps TH 33 or (5) 5 (37) 35 () 8 (255) (35) () I-35 rth Ramps I N T E R S TT E 3 5 6934 June 27 Opening Day Year 28 Conditions Intersection Control Evaluation - TH 33 at I-35 Ramps Cloquet, Carlton County, Minnesota Figure 3
H:\Projects\9\934\SD\ICE\Figures\Fig4_Forecast Year 24 Conditions.cdr rth NORTH 3 3 XX (XX) LEGEND -.M. Peak Hour Volumes - P.M. Peak Hour Volumes - Side-Street Stop Control - ll-way Stop Control - Traffic Signal Control - Roundabout Control Frontage Rd (7) 75 (25) 45 (5) 5 55 (6) 245 (645) 29 (29) I-35 South Ramps TH 33 or (5) 5 (485) 45 () 235 (34) (45) () I-35 rth Ramps Frontage Rd Frontage Rd (7) 75 (25) 45 (5) 5 55 (6) 245 (645) 29 (29) I-35 South Ramps TH 33 or (5) 5 (485) 45 () 235 (34) (45) () I-35 rth Ramps I N T E R S TT E 3 5 6934 June 27 Forecast Year 24 Conditions Intersection Control Evaluation - TH 33 at I-35 Ramps Cloquet, Carlton County, Minnesota Figure 4
nalysis of lternatives The evaluation of intersection control alternatives included warrant, operations, crash, and planning-level cost analyses. Opening Day Year 28 and Forecast Year 24 volumes and lane configurations were used in the analysis. The following alternatives were considered: Side-Street Stop Control ll-way Stop Control Traffic Signal Control Roundabout Control Warrant nalysis warrant analysis was performed for the traffic signal control alternative as outlined in the February 25 Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD). Signal warrants -3 were evaluated for the analysis. Signal warrants 4-9 were investigated and were determined to be not applicable for the study intersection. The warrant analysis was performed utilizing the Opening Day Year 28 and Forecast Year 24 volumes. The lane geometry and approach speeds assumed for the warrant analysis are shown in Table 4. Table 4. Warrant nalysis ssumptions pproach Geometry Speed Limit Southbound TH 33 (rth Leg) (Major) Two or more approach lanes 55 mph I-35 rthbound Off-ramp (South Leg) (Major) Two or more approach lanes 55 mph I-35 Southbound Off-ramp (East Leg) (Minor) One approach lane () 35 mph Eastbound Frontage Road (West Leg) (Minor) One approach lane 45 mph () Exclusive right-turn lane and associated traffic volumes not included in the warrant analysis. Right-turn volumes on the minor street approaches are typically excluded from a warrant analysis when there is an exclusive right-turn lane because these turns can be easily made and would not benefit from the addition of a signal. Therefore, the I-35 southbound off-ramp approach was considered to be a single lane approach due to the presence of an exclusive right-turn lane. It should also be noted that the 7 percent traffic volume factor was used for the warrant analysis, as proposed conditions meet the necessary criteria (major roadway speed limits are expected to remain greater than 4 mph). Since only forecasted a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement counts were available, the 8th highest traffic volume hour was estimated at 5 percent of the p.m. peak hour. Table 5 provides a warrant analysis summary, while the detailed volume-based analysis is shown in the ppendix. Intersection Control Evaluation SRF Consulting Group, Inc. TH 33 at I-35 Ramps June 27
Table 5. Signal Warrant nalysis Summary MnMUTCD Signal Warrant Hours Required Opening Day Year 28 Volumes Hours Met () Warrant Met? Forecast Year 24 Volumes Hours Met () Warrant Met? Warrant : Minimum Vehicular Volume 8 Warrant B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic 8 2 2 Warrant C: Combination of Warrants 8 2 Warrant 2: Four Hour Volume 4 2 2 Warrant 3B: Peak Hour Volume 2 Yes Warrants 4-9 t pplicable () Forecasted turning movement counts were available for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The 8th highest traffic volume hour was estimated at 5% of the p.m. peak hour. The results of the signal warrant analysis indicate that no signal warrants are expected to be met under Opening Day Year 28 volumes. However, peak hour volume warrant 3B is expected to be met under Forecast Year 24 volumes. Operations nalysis The operational analysis of the side-street stop, all-way stop, and traffic signal control alternatives was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic software, while the operational analysis of the roundabout control alternative was performed using Vistro software. The operational analysis identified a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection is operating based on the delay per vehicle measure of effectiveness. Delay is calculated based on procedures outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Intersections are given a ranking from LOS to LOS F. LOS indicates the best traffic operation and LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Table 6 provides a summary of the Opening Day Year 28 operational analysis. Results of the operational analysis indicate that the all-way stop control alternative is expected to perform at an overall LOS E during the p.m. peak hour under Opening Day Year 28 traffic volumes and proposed lane configurations. The side-street stop, traffic signal, and roundabout control alternatives are expected to perform at an overall LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under Opening Day Year 28 traffic volumes and proposed lane configurations. The Opening Day Year 28 detailed operational analysis results are shown in the ppendix. Intersection Control Evaluation 2 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. TH 33 at I-35 Ramps June 27
Table 6. Opening Day Year 28 Operations nalysis Results lternative nalysis Tool LOS () M Peak Hour Delay (2) (sec/veh) LOS () PM Peak Hour Delay (2) (sec/veh) Side-Street Stop Control /D 5/26 /E 5/42 ll-way Stop Control Synchro/ SimTraffic C/C 6/8 E/E 39/49 Traffic Signal Control B/C 5/26 B/C 2/3 Roundabout Control Vistro / 4/8 / 5/8 () Overall intersection Level of Service (LOS) shown followed by the worst approach LOS. (2) Overall intersection delay shown followed by the worst approach delay. Table 7 provides a summary of the Forecast Year 24 operational analysis. Results of the operational analysis indicate that the all-way stop control alternative is expected to perform at an overall LOS D during the a.m. peak hour and overall LOS F during the p.m. peak hour under Forecast Year 24 traffic volumes and proposed lane configurations. The side-street stop, traffic signal, and roundabout control alternatives are expected to perform at an overall LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under Forecast Year 24 traffic volumes and proposed lane configurations. However, significant side-street delays (LOS F) are anticipated under the side-street stop control alternative. The Forecast Year 24 detailed operational analysis results are shown in the ppendix. Table 7. Forecast Year 24 Operations nalysis Results lternative nalysis Tool LOS () M Peak Hour Delay (2) (sec/veh) LOS () PM Peak Hour Delay (2) (sec/veh) Side-Street Stop Control B/F 4/6 B/F 2/49 ll-way Stop Control Synchro/ SimTraffic D/E 26/38 F/F 4/88 Traffic Signal Control B/C 6/3 B/C 4/32 Roundabout Control Vistro / 6/7 /B 8/ () Overall intersection Level of Service (LOS) shown followed by the worst approach LOS. (2) Overall intersection delay shown followed by the worst approach delay. Safety nalysis safety analysis was performed to estimate the number of crashes per year for each traffic control alternative for the Opening Day Year 28 and Forecast Year 24 conditions for the study intersection. For the side-street stop control alternative, crash rates were expected to match the existing observed crash rate. To analyze the crash rates for the all-way stop, traffic signal, and roundabout alternatives, Crash Modification Factors (CMF) were taken from the CMF Clearinghouse. The CMF clearinghouse is a database sponsored by the Federal Highway dministration and contains CMFs determined through research studies. These CMFs can be used to estimate the impact that a Intersection Control Evaluation 3 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. TH 33 at I-35 Ramps June 27
road or intersection improvement will have on the expected crash rate for that location. summary of the projected crashes per intersection alternative is shown in Table 8. Table 8. Projected Crashes per Intersection lternative lternative Side-Street Stop Control Intersection DT Opening Day Year 28 Forecast Year 24 Crash Modification Factor verage Crash Rate () Projected Crashes/Year Opening Day Year 28 Forecast Year 24 N/.73 (2) 4. 5.3 ll-way Stop Control.52.38 (3) 2. 2.8 5, 2, Traffic Signal Control.56.4 (3) 2.2 3. Roundabout Control.29.2 (3)..5 () Per million entering vehicles (2-25 data). (2) ssumed to match the observed crash rate. (3) Based on adjusting the observed crash rate with a crash modification factor. safety analysis was also performed to estimate the number of serious injury and fatal crashes per year for each traffic control alternative for the Opening Day Year 28 and Forecast Year 24 conditions for the study intersection. For the side-street stop control alternative, fatal and serious crash rates were expected to match the existing observed crash rate. The severe crash rates for the allway stop and traffic signal controls were determined using the same CMFs as were used for the overall crash rates. For the roundabout control alternative, a separate CMF for injury crashes was available and so was utilized in the analysis. summary of the projected crashes per intersection alternative is shown in Table 9. Table 9. Projected Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes per Intersection lternative lternative Side-Street Stop Control Intersection DT Opening Day Year 28 Forecast Year 24 Crash Modification Factor verage Crash Rate () Projected Crashes/Year Opening Day Year 28 Forecast Year 24 N/ 7.27 (2).4.5 ll-way Stop Control.52 3.78 (3).2.3 5, 2, Traffic Signal Control.56 4.7 (3).2.3 Roundabout Control.3.95 (3).. () Per million entering vehicles (2-25 data). (2) ssumed to match the observed crash rate. (3) Based on adjusting the observed crash rate with a crash modification factor. Based on the crash analysis, roundabouts are expected to best address the safety concern at this location, while all-way stop and traffic signal controls are expected to have fewer crashes than the side-street stop control alternative. Roundabouts typically have fewer conflict points than conventional intersections and the geometry of a roundabout induces lower speeds for vehicles approaching and traversing an intersection. With lower speeds, the severity of the crashes is decreased. Intersection Control Evaluation 4 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. TH 33 at I-35 Ramps June 27
roundabout should eliminate almost all right-angle and left-turn type crashes. Studies have shown the frequency of injury crashes is reduced more than property damage only crashes and that roundabout control significantly reduces the frequency of severe and fatal crashes. Conversely, because all-way stop and traffic signal controls do not impact roadway geometry, they provide limited benefits to specifically address severe crashes. Planning-Level Cost nalysis Capital Costs Because the study intersection currently exists as a side-street stop-controlled intersection, construction costs, excluding engineering and right-of-way costs, associated with the side-street stop, all-way stop, and traffic signal control alternatives would likely be less than the costs of a roundabout. Generally, roundabouts require more right-of-way than traditional intersections. However, the roadway cross section upstream from a roundabout in some cases can be narrower with the lack of turn lanes. Furthermore, the large footprint of the existing side-street stop controlled intersection may limit the need for additional right-of-way if considering the construction of a roundabout. Operation and Maintenance Cost Traffic signals typically have higher operation and maintenance costs because of the electricity required to operate the signal and routine maintenance required to keep the signal in operation. Operation and maintenance costs associated with a roundabout can vary depending on the amount of illumination required or landscaping alternatives used for the center island. Intersection Control Evaluation 5 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. TH 33 at I-35 Ramps June 27
lternatives ssessment Right-of-Way Considerations Due to the large footprint of the existing side-street stop-controlled intersection, no additional right-of-way should be necessary to implement a modified side-street stop, all-way stop, or traffic signal controlled intersection. Furthermore, the large intersection footprint may minimize the need for additional right-of-way to accommodate a 5 to 2 foot inscribed circle diameter for a multi-lane roundabout. Transportation System Considerations Currently, the number of signalized and other traditional intersections in Carlton County far outnumber roundabout controlled intersections. The side-street stop, all-way stop, and traffic signal control alternatives would, therefore, be an expected form of traffic control. Pedestrian Considerations There are no existing sidewalks, trails, or marked pedestrian crossings at the TH 33 at I-35 Ramps intersection. However, pedestrian/bicyclist accommodations could be included in any of the considered traffic control alternatives. The design of signalized intersections can create a safer environment for pedestrian crossings with the use of pedestrian signal phasing. This phasing allows pedestrians to safely cross an intersection while vehicular movements are served. The design of a roundabout allows pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time on each leg of the roundabout. Their route is slightly longer since they are kept to the outside of the inscribed circle. lthough signalized intersections can provide indications showing pedestrian right-of-way, potential conflicts can come from red-light running thru vehicles and permissive turning traffic. Local cceptance Roundabouts are currently an uncommon form of traffic control in Carlton County. However, given the severe right-angle crash history at the existing side-street stop-controlled intersection, the safety benefits of a roundabout may be appealing to local drivers and will provide benefits to the driving public. Drivers are already familiar with traveling through side-street stop, all-way stop, and signalized intersections since the majority of nearby intersections are of these types of traffic control. Intersection Control Evaluation 6 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. TH 33 at I-35 Ramps June 27
Conclusions The following intersection control evaluation (ICE) conclusions and recommendations are provided for the TH 33 at I-35 Ramps intersection in Cloquet, Carlton County, Minnesota: Warrants nalysis The results of the signal warrant analysis indicate that no signal warrants are expected to be met under Opening Day Year 28 volumes. However, peak hour volume warrant 3B is expected to be met under Forecast Year 24 volumes. Operations nalysis Results of the operational analysis indicate that the all-way stop control alternative is expected to perform at an overall LOS E during the p.m. peak hour under Opening Day Year 28 traffic volumes and proposed lane configurations. The side-street stop, traffic signal, and roundabout control alternatives are expected to perform at an overall LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under Opening Day Year 28 traffic volumes and proposed lane configurations. Results of the operational analysis indicate that the all-way stop control alternative is expected to perform at an overall LOS D during the a.m. peak hour and overall LOS F during the p.m. peak hour under Forecast Year 24 traffic volumes and proposed lane configurations. The side-street stop, traffic signal, and roundabout control alternatives are expected to perform at an overall LOS B or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under Forecast Year 24 traffic volumes and proposed lane configurations. However, significant side-street delays (LOS F) are anticipated under the side-street stop control alternative. Safety nalysis Based on utilizing crash modification factors to evaluate the impact control alternatives will have on the existing observed crash rate, both all-way stop and traffic signal controls are expected to improve safety at the subject intersection. However, a roundabout is expected to provide the greatest benefit in terms of reducing crashes. Roundabout control would also be the best alternative to reduce the rate of fatal and serious injury crashes by reducing speeds and virtually eliminating right-angle crashes. Planning-Level Cost nalysis Both traffic signal and roundabout controls require large capital investments. Traffic signals typically have higher operation and maintenance costs because of the electricity required to operate the signal and routine maintenance required to keep the signal in operation. Operation and maintenance costs associated with a roundabout can vary depending on the amount of illumination required or landscaping alternatives used for the center island. Right-of-Way Considerations Due to the large footprint of the existing side-street stop-controlled intersection, no additional right-of-way should be necessary to implement a modified side-street stop, all-way stop, or traffic signal controlled intersection. Furthermore, the large intersection footprint may minimize the need Intersection Control Evaluation 7 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. TH 33 at I-35 Ramps June 27
for additional right-of-way to accommodate a 5 to 2 foot inscribed circle diameter for a multi-lane roundabout. Transportation System Considerations Currently, the number of signalized and other traditional intersections in Carlton County far outnumber roundabout controlled intersections. The side-street stop, all-way stop, and traffic signal control alternatives would, therefore, be an expected form of traffic control. Pedestrian Considerations There are no existing sidewalks, trails, or marked pedestrian crossings at the TH 33 at I-35 Ramps intersection. However, pedestrian/bicyclist accommodations could be included in any of the considered traffic control alternatives. Recommendation Both the traffic signal and roundabout control alternatives are expected to operate well in the long-term from a capacity standpoint, while both stop-controlled alternatives are expected to operate with failing levels of service under Forecast Year 24 volume conditions. traffic signal at this location would fail to be warranted under Opening Day 28 volume conditions. While a traffic signal is a more traditional form of traffic control in Carlton County, roundabout control is expected to produce significant safety benefits compared to traffic signal control. Due to the significant number of crashes observed at this intersection, it is imperative that the proposed traffic control alternative addresses safety issues. Based on the safety analysis roundabout control is expected to best improve safety at this location. In particular, roundabout control at the intersection is expected to significantly reduce or eliminate the high number of observed severe crashes at the intersection by lowering speeds and virtually eliminating opportunities for rightangle crashes. Thus, roundabout control is recommended as it will operate at acceptable levels of service and is expected to best address safety issues at the intersection. Intersection Control Evaluation 8 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. TH 33 at I-35 Ramps June 27
ppendix Concept Evaluation Matrix Crash Data Opening Day Year 28 Signal Warrant nalysis Forecast Year 24 Signal Warrant nalysis Opening Day Year 28 Detailed Operations nalysis Forecast Year 24 Detailed Operations nalysis Intersection Control Evaluation 9 SRF Consulting Group, Inc. TH 33 at I-35 Ramps June 27
Concept Evaluation Matrix
I-35 Planning Study Carlton County I-35 and Highway 33 Interchange Concept Evaluation Matrix - /8/27 Interchange lternative Year 24 Intersection Operations (verage Delay at Worst pproach) Safety Considerations Highway 33 Traffic Mobility Maintains ccess Heavy Truck Considerations Bridge Needs ROW Impact (cres) ROW Impact (Parcels) ROW Impact (Other) Environmental Impact Construction/ Traffic Impacts Construction Costs tes Build M Peak EB >3 Minutes PM Peak rthbound Recreational Peak EB >3 Minutes WB > 3 Minutes EB >3 Minutes WB > 3 Minutes Does not address current safety issue - Large Median -Two-stage crossing Maintains traffic flow on TH 33 Yes Change ne ne ne ne ne ne ne Dismissed since it does not address the safety issue Southbound Recreational Peak EB >3 Minutes WB > 3 Minutes Concept West Frontage Road M Peak PM Peak rthbound Recreational Peak SB - 6 Seconds SB - 3 Seconds SB - 4 Seconds Improves safety -Removes west leg -Removes westbound through movement -Reconfigures median Maintains traffic flow on TH 33 Yes West leg is moved 2,64 feet (.5 mile) north Change ne 6. 5. 9 Billboards 3.7 acres of trees Trout stream impacts Minimal temporary traffic impacts during construction $.2 M Trout stream will be routed through culverts. Stream could be relocated/restored as an option. dditional infrastructure and maintenance, more traffic on the Frontage Road to the north (Gillette Road). Less efficient traffic operations at TH 33 and Gillette Road are expected. Southbound Recreational Peak SB - 2 Seconds Concept B Tight West Frontage Road M Peak PM Peak rthbound Recreational Peak SB - 6 Seconds SB - 3 Seconds SB - 4 Seconds Improves safety -Removes west leg -Removes westbound through movement -Reconfigures median Maintains traffic flow on TH 33 Yes West leg is moved 2,64 feet (.5 mile) north Change ne 3.9 4. 9 Billboards 2. acres of trees Trout stream impacts Minimal temporary traffic impacts during construction $.4 M Does not fully avoid trout stream. Will need to be relocated/restored which is not included in the construction cost. dditional infrastructure and maintenance, more traffic on the Frontage Road to the north (Gillette Road). Less efficient traffic operations at TH 33 and Gillette Road are expected. Southbound Recreational Peak SB - 2 Seconds Concept C Tight Intersection M Peak EB >3 Minutes PM Peak rthbound Recreational Peak EB >3 Minutes WB > 3 Minutes EB >3 Minutes WB > 3 Minutes Improves safety -Reconfigures median -Improves sight lines Maintains traffic flow on TH 33 Yes Substantial temporary Change ne ne ne ne 3.6 acres of wetlands impacts during $.5 M Significant amount of earthwork. Wetland will need to be relocated. construction Concept D Roundabout Southbound Recreational Peak M Peak EB >3 Minutes WB > 3 Minutes NB - Seconds PM Peak rthbound Recreational Peak NB - 2 Seconds NB - 75 Seconds * Improves safety -Reduction in rightangle and severe crashes Slows all traffic on Hwy 33 Yes Designed to accommodate a WB-62 ne ne ne ne ne Substantial temporary impacts during construction $. M May need to have two northbound through lanes to accommodate recreational traffic. Will increase construction costs. Concept E TH 33 NB Bridge Southbound Recreational Peak M Peak SB - 2 Seconds EB - 36 Seconds PM Peak rthbound Recreational Peak EB - 9 seconds EB - 6 seconds Improves safety -Removes conflict with northbound vehicles Maintains traffic flow on TH 33 Yes Change Bridge.2. Substantial temporary 7 Billboards ne impacts during $6.6 M construction Most expensive option. ll other options are within one million dollars. Still has the potential for right-angle crashes with Frontage Road traffic crossing southbound TH 33. Southbound Recreational Peak EB > 3 Minutes Concept F Frontage Road Right-In/Right-Out Was previously evaluated. Dismissed due to strong opposition from the local communities due to restricted access to/from frontage road. tes: * Expanding the northbound movement from a single lane to two lanes will reduce delay to seconds. H:\Projects\9\934\TS\TH 33 Concept Evaluation Matrix.xlsx /8/27 SRF Consulting Group
Crash Data
Opening Day Year 28 Signal Warrant nalysis
Background Information WRRNTS NLYSIS Year 28 TH 33 @ I-35 Ramps I-35 Mobility Study in Carlton County Cloquet, MN Location : Cloquet, MN Speed (mph) Lanes Date: 2//27 55 2 or more Major pproach : nalysis Prepared By: Jordan Schwarze 55 2 or more Major pproach 3: Population Less than,: 45 Minor pproach 2: Seventy Percent Factor Used: Yes 35 Minor pproach 4: pproach Southbound TH 33 rthbound I-35 NB Off-ramp Eastbound Frontage Rd Westbound I-35 SB Off-ramp Warrants nalysis: Warrants, B and C Major Major Total Warrant Met Minor Minor Largest Warrant Met Met Same Hours Combination Hour pproach pproach 3 + 3 42 63 pproach 2 pproach 4 Minor pp. 5 53 Condition Condition B B 7-8 M 444 35 749 X X 92 8 92 X X X X Estimated 8th Highest Hour 44 84 598 X 37 7 37 (5% of PM Peak Hour) 4-5 PM 828 368 96 X X 73 34 73 X X X Warrant and Description Warrant : Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant C: Combination of Warrants Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3B: Peak Hour *Based on estimating the 8th highest traffic volume hour Warrant Summary 2 2 Hours Met* Hours Required Met/t Met 8 t Met 2 8 t Met 8 t Met 2 4 t Met t Met
WRRNTS NLYSIS Year 28 TH 33 @ I-35 Ramps I-35 Mobility Study in Carlton County Cloquet, MN WRRNT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULR VOLUME Warrants nalysis: Warrant 2 MINOR STREET HIGH VOLUME PPROCH -- VPH 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 2 22 23 MJOR STREET -- TOTL OF BOTH PPROCHES -- VPH Number of Hours Satisfying Requirements: 2 tes:. 8 VPH PPLIES S THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREET PPROCH WITH TWO OR MORE LNES ND 6 VPH PPLIES S THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREET PPROCHING WITH ONE LNE. 2. INTERSECTION IS EITHER () WITHIN COMMUNITY LESS THN, POPULTION OR (2) HS SPEEDS BOVE 4 MPH ON MJOR STREET.
WRRNTS NLYSIS Year 28 TH 33 @ I-35 Ramps I-35 Mobility Study in Carlton County Cloquet, MN WRRNT 3 - PEK HOUR Warrants nalysis: Warrant 3 MINOR STREET HIGH VOLUME PPROCH -- VPH 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 2 22 23 MJOR STREET -- TOTL OF BOTH PPROCHES -- VPH Number of Hours Satisfying Requirements: tes:. VPH PPLIES S THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREET PPROCH WITH TWO OR MORE LNES ND 75 VPH PPLIES S THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREET PPROCHING WITH ONE LNE. 2. INTERSECTION IS EITHER () WITHIN COMMUNITY LESS THN, POPULTION OR (2) HS SPEEDS BOVE 4 MPH ON MJOR STREET.
Forecast Year 24 Signal Warrant nalysis
Background Information WRRNTS NLYSIS Year 24 TH 33 @ I-35 Ramps I-35 Mobility Study in Carlton County Cloquet, MN Location : Cloquet, MN Speed (mph) Lanes Date: 2//27 55 2 or more Major pproach : nalysis Prepared By: Jordan Schwarze 55 2 or more Major pproach 3: Population Less than,: 45 Minor pproach 2: Seventy Percent Factor Used: Yes 35 Minor pproach 4: pproach Southbound TH 33 rthbound I-35 NB Off-ramp Eastbound Frontage Rd Westbound I-35 SB Off-ramp Warrants nalysis: Warrants, B and C Major Major Total Warrant Met Minor Minor Largest Warrant Met Met Same Hours Combination Hour pproach pproach 3 + 3 42 63 pproach 2 pproach 4 Minor pp. 5 53 Condition Condition B B 7-8 M 588 44 992 X X 2 2 X X X X X X Estimated 8th Highest Hour 547 243 79 X X 48 23 48 X (5% of PM Peak Hour) 4-5 PM 94 486 58 X X 95 45 95 X X X X Warrant and Description Warrant : Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant C: Combination of Warrants Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3B: Peak Hour *Based on estimating the 8th highest traffic volume hour Warrant Summary 2 2 3 Hours Met* Hours Required Met/t Met 8 t Met 2 8 t Met 2 8 t Met 2 4 t Met 2 Met - Warrant 3B Satisfied
WRRNTS NLYSIS Year 24 TH 33 @ I-35 Ramps I-35 Mobility Study in Carlton County Cloquet, MN WRRNT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULR VOLUME Warrants nalysis: Warrant 2 MINOR STREET HIGH VOLUME PPROCH -- VPH 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 2 22 23 MJOR STREET -- TOTL OF BOTH PPROCHES -- VPH Number of Hours Satisfying Requirements: 2 tes:. 8 VPH PPLIES S THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREET PPROCH WITH TWO OR MORE LNES ND 6 VPH PPLIES S THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREET PPROCHING WITH ONE LNE. 2. INTERSECTION IS EITHER () WITHIN COMMUNITY LESS THN, POPULTION OR (2) HS SPEEDS BOVE 4 MPH ON MJOR STREET.
WRRNTS NLYSIS Year 24 TH 33 @ I-35 Ramps I-35 Mobility Study in Carlton County Cloquet, MN WRRNT 3 - PEK HOUR Warrants nalysis: Warrant 3 MINOR STREET HIGH VOLUME PPROCH -- VPH 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 2 22 23 MJOR STREET -- TOTL OF BOTH PPROCHES -- VPH Number of Hours Satisfying Requirements: 2 tes:. VPH PPLIES S THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREET PPROCH WITH TWO OR MORE LNES ND 75 VPH PPLIES S THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR MINOR STREET PPROCHING WITH ONE LNE. 2. INTERSECTION IS EITHER () WITHIN COMMUNITY LESS THN, POPULTION OR (2) HS SPEEDS BOVE 4 MPH ON MJOR STREET.
Opening Day Year 28 Detailed Operations nalysis
28 M Peak Period 2//27 Side-Street Stop 9: I-35 South Ramps/TH 33 & Frontage Road/I-35 rth Ramps Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 35 8 78 34 27 86 4 Future Vol, veh/h 57 35 8 78 34 27 86 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - ne - - Free - - ne - - ne Storage Length - - - - - 8 225 - - 25-25 Veh in Median Storage, # - - - - - - - - Grade, % - - - - - - - - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 62 38 9 93 33 236 22 45 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor Major Major2 Conflicting Flow ll 7 925 7-22 33 Stage 674 674-333 333 - - - - - - - Stage 2 337 333-592 674 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.33 6.53 6.93 7.33 6.53-4.3 - - 4.3 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 6.53 5.53-6.3 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.3 5.53-6.53 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.59 4.9 3.39 3.59 4.9-2.29 - - 2.29 - - Pot Cap- Maneuver 26 24 935 236 24 369 - - 228 - - Stage 4 453-68 643 - - - - - - Stage 2 676 643-46 453 - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap- Maneuver 72 94 935 8 94-369 - - 228 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 27 264-27 29 - - - - - - - Stage 4 366-68 643 - - - - - - - Stage 2 666 643-333 366 - - - - - - - pproach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 26.2 7.8 4.2 HCM LOS D C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnWBLnWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 369 - - 268 29-228 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio. - -.373.3 -.92 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 - - 26.2 7.8 8.6 - - HCM Lane LOS - - D C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - -.7. -.7 - - H:\Projects\9\934\TS\Operations nalysis\synchro\28 lternatives\side-street Stop\28 Side-Street Stop M.syn Synchro 9 Report Page
28 PM Peak Period 2//27 Side-Street Stop 9: I-35 South Ramps/TH 33 & Frontage Road/I-35 rth Ramps Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 54 8 34 256 367 27 489 22 Future Vol, veh/h 54 8 34 256 367 27 489 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - ne - - Free - - ne - - ne Storage Length - - - - - 8 225 - - 25-25 Veh in Median Storage, # - - - - - - - - Grade, % - - - - - - - - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 59 2 37 278 399 236 532 33 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor Major Major2 Conflicting Flow ll 423 44 266 48 44-532 399 Stage 3 3-4 4 - - - - - - - Stage 2 42 4-747 3 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.33 6.53 6.93 7.33 6.53-4.3 - - 4.3 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 6.53 5.53-6.3 5.53 - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.3 5.53-6.53 5.53 - - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.59 4.9 3.39 3.59 4.9-2.29 - - 2.29 - - Pot Cap- Maneuver 5 39 733 64 39 34 - - 58 - - Stage 26 39-625 6 - - - - - - Stage 2 6 6-372 39 - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap- Maneuver 76 733 27-34 - - 58 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 68 85-28 22 - - - - - - - Stage 26 254-624 599 - - - - - - - Stage 2 572 599-273 254 - - - - - - - pproach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 42 26.8 2.3 HCM LOS E D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnWBLnWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 34 - - 74 22-58 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio. - -.456.83 -.24 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 42 26.8 8.9 - - HCM Lane LOS - - E D - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 2..7 -.8 - - H:\Projects\9\934\TS\Operations nalysis\synchro\28 lternatives\side-street Stop\28 Side-Street Stop PM.syn Synchro 9 Report Page
28 M Peak Period 2//27 ll-way Stop 9: I-35 South Ramps/TH 33 & Frontage Road/I-35 rth Ramps Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 5.6 Intersection LOS C Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 35 8 78 34 Future Vol, veh/h 57 35 8 78 34 Peak Hour Factor.92.92.92.92.92.92.92.92.92.92.92.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 62 38 9 93 33 Number of Lanes pproach EB WB NB Opposing pproach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 2 2 Conflicting pproach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 Conflicting pproach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 HCM Control Delay 2.5 2.3 7.8 HCM LOS B B C Lane NBLn EBLn WBLn WBLn2 SBLn SBLn2 Vol Left, % % 62% % % 7% % Vol Thru, % % 38% % % 3% 69% Vol Right, % % % % % % 3% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 35 92 8 78 3 34 LT Vol 57 27 Through Vol 34 35 8 93 93 RT Vol 78 4 Lane Flow Rate 332 9 93 337 46 Geometry Grp 6 6 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X).58.26.7.34.6.237 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.3 7.428 7.48 6.333 6.425 5.852 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 57 48 55 565 559 6 Service Time 4.38 5.528 4.83 4.5 4.93 3.62 HCM Lane V/C Ratio.582.28.8.342.63.239 HCM Control Delay 7.8 2.5 2.4 8.5.4 HCM Lane LOS C B B C B HCM 95th-tile Q 3.7.8..5 4.9 H:\Projects\9\934\TS\Operations nalysis\synchro\28 lternatives\ll-way Stop\28 ll-way Stop M.syn Synchro 9 Report Page
28 M Peak Period 2//27 ll-way Stop 9: I-35 South Ramps/TH 33 & Frontage Road/I-35 rth Ramps Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 27 86 4 Future Vol, veh/h 27 86 4 Peak Hour Factor.92.92.92.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 236 22 45 Number of Lanes 2 pproach SB Opposing pproach NB Opposing Lanes Conflicting pproach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 Conflicting pproach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right HCM Control Delay 6. HCM LOS C H:\Projects\9\934\TS\Operations nalysis\synchro\28 lternatives\ll-way Stop\28 ll-way Stop M.syn Synchro 9 Report Page 2
28 PM Peak Period 2//27 ll-way Stop 9: I-35 South Ramps/TH 33 & Frontage Road/I-35 rth Ramps Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 38.5 Intersection LOS E Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 54 8 34 256 367 Future Vol, veh/h 54 8 34 256 367 Peak Hour Factor.92.92.92.92.92.92.92.92.92.92.92.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 59 2 37 278 399 Number of Lanes pproach EB WB NB Opposing pproach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 2 2 Conflicting pproach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 Conflicting pproach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 HCM Control Delay 4.4 8.6 35 HCM LOS B C D Lane NBLn EBLn WBLn WBLn2 SBLn SBLn2 Vol Left, % % 74% % % 47% % Vol Thru, % % 25% % % 53% 67% Vol Right, % % % % % % 33% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 368 73 34 256 462 367 LT Vol 54 27 Through Vol 367 8 34 245 245 RT Vol 256 22 Lane Flow Rate 4 79 37 278 52 398 Geometry Grp 6 6 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X).83.97.82.57..742 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.34 9.74 8.28 7.373 7.8 6.72 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 496 394 443 49 57 542 Service Time 5.34 7.74 5.828 5.5 4.98 4.439 HCM Lane V/C Ratio.86.2.84.567.99.734 HCM Control Delay 35 4.4.6 9.5 67.2 26.4 HCM Lane LOS D B B C F D HCM 95th-tile Q 7.8.7.3 3.5 3.7 6.3 H:\Projects\9\934\TS\Operations nalysis\synchro\28 lternatives\ll-way Stop\28 ll-way Stop PM.syn Synchro 9 Report Page