Loading...
09/19/2023 - City Council Public Works Committee AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING September 19, 2023 5:00 – 6:00 PM Eagan Training Room I. ADOPT AGENDA II. APPROVE MINUTES – March 21, 2023 III. WATER METER & AMI PROGRAM - SURCHARGE APPEALS IV. FOG EXEMPTIONS V. DUCKWOOD DRIVE/WIDGEON WAY – INTERSECTION ANALYSIS VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT Agenda Memo September 19, 2023 Public Works Committee Meeting II. Approve Minutes Direction to be Considered: Approve the Public Works Committee meeting minutes as presented for the meeting on March 21, 2023. Background: • On March 21, 2023, the Public Works Committee held a meeting. Attachments: (1) II-1 March 21, 2023, Public Works Committee Minutes PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2023 EAGAN CITY HALL TRAINING ROOM MEETING NOTES The Public Works Committee of the City Council consisting of Councilmembers Paul Bakken and Cyndee Fields convened the meeting at 5:00 p.m. before the regular Council meeting. Also in attendance were City Administrator Dianne Miller, Public Works Director Russ Matthys, Public Works Deputy Director Tim Plath, Director of Finance Josh Feldman, and Assistant City Engineer Aaron Nelson. Councilmembers Bakken and Fields called the meeting to order and adopted the agenda as presented. I. Adopt Agenda II. Approve Minutes The committee approved the minutes from the October 18, 2022, Public Works Committee meeting. III. Surcharge Appeals Director Matthys reviewed the ordinance and presented a list of property owners wishing to appeal their surcharges. Public Works Committee Recommendation: After reviewing the surcharges, the Committee recommended to waive all $150 and $500 surcharges presented and forward to the City Council for formal action at the April 4, 2023, regular Council meeting. IV. Special Assessment Process/Policy Director Matthys reviewed the assessment question from the public hearing for Project 1488, Coachman Road/ Four Oaks Road/ Coachman Oaks Street Improvements held on February 7, 2023. During the hearing, the resident/property owner of 1655 Four Oaks Road addressed the City Council with a concern that his proposed R1 property assessment was disproportionate to that of the other residential property types. o Staff had found details for the past mill and overlay improvements including this property. The City had previously assessed the same property and property owner $250 twenty years ago in error. Staff assumed that the newly proposed assessment of $4,435 was a surprise due to its significant difference. o Staff confirmed that the calculations for the newly proposed assessments for Project 1488 were correct, in accordance with the City’s Assessment Policy, and supported by State Statute 429. Public Works Committee Recommendation: After reviewing the assessment details, the Committee took no action. Public Works staff will continue to calculate all future special assessments on public improvements similarly to Project 1488 and all the other 2023 Street Improvements. Calculations will include the separating of the R1, R2, and R3 properties, as warranted. V. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)/Budget Amendments – Construction Cost Overruns Director Matthys reviewed the recent history of public improvement contract awards and the apparent impacts to the bid costs creating differences from the original CIP cost estimates. He presented options to address the remainder of 2023 CIP contract awards and options to address the cost estimates for the Public Works CIP (2024-2028). o Recent contract bid awards have occurred with amendments to the Public Works CIP (2023-2027) specifying cost difference, the year of improvement, and the funding source. o This allows public improvements that are determined to be needed to be completed without impacts to level of service or coordination with other improvements. o This incurs costs more than what was anticipated from the present funding source, but improvement costs likely won’t get cheaper in the future. o Such contract awards concur with the Finance Director’s recommendation to utilize present cash reserves. o The preparation of 5-year CIP cost estimates with inflationary factors, focusing on the first two years, utilizing the most recent bid history of similar projects, current economic impacts and material availability, and regional experience with comparable public improvements provides: • More accurate estimates over the initial 12-24 months after the CIP approval. Continue history of conservative estimates. • Continued transparency with two estimates, the second being a higher potential cost due to more extreme factor impacts. • Continuation of option to bring CIP amendments as needed to the Council (with Finance Department set aside funding for future adjustments) with reduced anticipation as compared to past present value cost estimates. o Reduction of inflationary factors for years 3 through 5, keeping it consistent, to reduce over inflation of cash reserves. Public Works Committee Recommendation: After reviewing the contract award details and discussing the present and anticipated construction cost impacts, the Committee selected Option 4 for addressing the remainder of 2023 CIP contract awards and selected Option 2 for addressing the cost estimates for the Public Works CIP (2024-2028). These recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council as formal action for future 2023 contract awards at upcoming regular Council meeting and as part of the presentation of the 2024-2028 Public Works CIP. o 2023 CIP contract awards with low or best value bids that are above the cost estimate provided in the PW CIP (2023-2027) – Option 4: Award all contract bids with amendments to the Public Works CIP (2023-2027), specifying cost difference, the year of improvement, and the funding source. o Cost estimates for the Public Works CIP (2024-2028) – Option 2: Prepare cost estimates with inflationary factors, focusing on the first two years, utilizing the most recent bid history of similar projects, current economic impacts and material availability, and regional experience with comparable public improvements. Reduce inflationary factor for years 3 through 5, keeping it consistent. VI. TINA Update Director Matthys provided a summary of the most current update of the Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis (TINA) and City staff information supporting an earlier than typical future update. He included recent history of public improvement contract awards and increases to the bid costs. He is expecting the significant cost increases to be a long-term situation, creating noteworthy differences from the current TINA update cost estimates. Discussion also occurred on the plans to coordinate Pavement Management Program schedules and methods with utility infrastructure repairs and replacement. The synchronized effort between pavement and utility rehabilitation will impact the current TINA schedule, as well. Public Works Committee Recommendation: After comparing the current TINA estimates and schedule with the provided information, the Committee recommended forwarding to the City Council for formal action at a future regular Council meeting that City staff update the current TINA version and the Council authorize any associated funding for completion. VII. Other Business - none The committee adjourned the meeting at 5:36 p.m. Agenda Memo September 19, 2023 Public Works Committee Meeting III. Water Meter Replacement and Advanced Metering Infrastructure Programs Surcharge Appeals Direction to be Considered: Provide direction to City staff regarding the final disposition of the Water Meter Replacement/Repair (R/R) and Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Programs (City Code 3.05 Subd 6.B) surcharges for the identified properties in accordance with the related City Ordinance. Background: • On May 15, 2012, the City Council adopted an amendment to City Ordinance 3.05 regarding the Rules and Regulations relating to Municipal Utilities that requires all properties connected to the municipal water utility to permit the city's designated utility employee onto the property and within the structure for purposes of the inspection, repair or replacement of the water meter. This action, in essence, implemented the Water Meter Replacement/Repair (R/R) Program to ensure accurate water use measurement and payment. • On February 16, 2021, the City Council awarded a contract for the Automated Metering Infrastructure (AMI), Water Meter Reading Radio Installation for all residential municipal water customers. The AMI system replaced the City’s previous water meter reading service. The City had been notified that its meter reading services for Eagan’s 19,000+ residential water meters would no longer be offered after December 31, 2021. • Part of the ordinance amendment incorporated a fee schedule that provided for a surcharge to be placed against utility billing accounts for those properties that either didn't schedule an inspection or did not bring the identified deficiency into compliance within the prescribed time frame. • The Surcharge Fee is $150 per month for Single Family properties and $500 per month for all others. • In anticipation of appeals, the Council directed the Public Works Committee to review any appeals and provide their recommendations back to the Council under the Consent Agenda. Staff has recently heard from the following property owners who want to appeal a related surcharge. • The surcharge appeals (in the attachment) are being presented to the Public Works Committee for the purpose of the corresponding recommendation for future Council action. The properties have been found to be in compliance with City Code. As a result of the individual reviews, the related surcharge appeals should be recommended to be supported (waive surcharge) or denied. Attachments (1) III-1 Surcharge Appeals List Name Address Type Request STEVEN MCCOMBS 4704 LENORE LANE Meter Exchange 150.00$ ALYSSA DYKSTRA 3831 HEATHER DR Meter Exchange 150.00$ JOSE CASTILLO 3837 LAUREL CT Meter Exchange 150.00$ NICK FENTON 3879 DOLOMITE DR Meter Exchange 150.00$ RENTAL AGREEMENT 1989 GOLD TR Meter Exchange 150.00$ LOUANNE MCDONNELL 1598B CLEMSON DR Meter Exchange 150.00$ DR BABU 3923 DENMARK AVE AMI 150.00$ RENTAL AGREEMENT 1350 EASTER LANE AMI 150.00$ The following surcharge appeals are being presented to the Public Works Committee for the purpose of the corresponding recommendation for future Council action. The properties have been found to be in compliance with City Code. As a result of the individual reviews, the related surcharge appeals should be recommended to be supported (waive surcharge) or denied. Customer Information Name STEVEN MCCOMBS Account 0012814604 Address 4704 LENORE LANE Customer 00079579 CSZ EAGAN, MN 55122-3619 Type Meter Exchange Email 0 Phone 0 Surcharge Information Initial Notice October 8, 2021 Final Notice November 5, 2021 Subsequent Notices Sent: Utility Billing Surcharge Entry Initial Date Levied November 22, 2021 Rate $150.00 Surcharges 3 Amount $450.00 Last Date Levied January 22, 2022 UB Entry JBoelter Surcharge Waiver Request Information Date August 29, 2023 Compliance Method Email Date February 14, 2022 WO #98973229 Initial Surcharge Abatement Public Works Director UB Initial Removal Approval Date August 29, 2023 Date August 29, 2023 Adjustment $300.00 Name Ahammes Final Surcharge Abatement PWC Date September 19, 2023 UB Final Removal Council Date September 19, 2023 Date Adjustment $150.00 Name Comments Archive 0 Entry 274 City of Eagan Utility Surcharge Summary Information 11/22/2021, 12/22/2021, 1/21/2022 0 Customer Information Name ALYSSA DYKSTRA Account 0025014804 Address 3831 HEATHER DR Customer 00085337 CSZ EAGAN, MN 55122-1624 Type Meter Exchange Email 0 Phone 0 Surcharge Information Initial Notice October 8, 2021 Final Notice November 5, 2021 Subsequent Notices Sent: Utility Billing Surcharge Entry Initial Date Levied November 22, 2021 Rate $150.00 Surcharges 5 Amount $750.00 Last Date Levied March 22, 2022 UB Entry JBoelter Surcharge Waiver Request Information Date July 10, 2023 Compliance Method Email Date March 30, 2022 WO #98975142 Initial Surcharge Abatement Public Works Director UB Initial Removal Approval Date July 17, 2023 Date Adjustment $600.00 Name Final Surcharge Abatement PWC Date September 19, 2023 UB Final Removal Council Date September 19, 2023 Date Adjustment $150.00 Name Comments Archive 0 Entry 306 City of Eagan Utility Surcharge Summary Information 11/22/2021, 12/22/2021, 1/21/2022, 2/22/22, 3/22/2022 0 Customer Information Name JOSE CASTILLO Account 0025003609 Address 3837 LAUREL CT Customer 00085327 CSZ EAGAN, MN 55122-1622 Type Meter Exchange Email 0 Phone 0 Surcharge Information Initial Notice October 8, 2021 Final Notice November 5, 2021 Subsequent Notices Sent: Utility Billing Surcharge Entry Initial Date Levied November 22, 2021 Rate $150.00 Surcharges 18 Amount $2,700.00 Last Date Levied April 24, 2023 UB Entry 0 Surcharge Waiver Request Information Date June 22, 2023 Compliance Method Email Date May 15, 2023 WO #398982417 Initial Surcharge Abatement Public Works Director UB Initial Removal Approval Date June 22, 2023 Date June 22, 2023 Adjustment $2,550.00 Name Ahammes Final Surcharge Abatement PWC Date September 19, 2023 UB Final Removal Council Date September 19, 2023 Date Adjustment $150.00 Name Comments Archive 0 Entry 313 City of Eagan Utility Surcharge Summary Information 2/22/22, 3/22/2022, 4/22/22, 5/22/22, 6/22/22, 7/22/22, 8/22/22, 9/22/22, 10/22/22, 11/22/22, 12/22/22, 1/23/23, 2/22/23, 3/22/23, 4/21/23 0 Customer Information Name NICK FENTON Account 0025004805 Address 3879 DOLOMITE DR Customer 00084990 CSZ EAGAN, MN 55122-1617 Type Meter Exchange Email 0 Phone 0 Surcharge Information Initial Notice October 8, 2021 Final Notice November 5, 2021 Subsequent Notices Sent: Utility Billing Surcharge Entry Initial Date Levied November 22, 2021 Rate $150.00 Surcharges 17 Amount $2,550.00 Last Date Levied March 27, 2023 UB Entry AHammes Surcharge Waiver Request Information Date April 10, 2023 Compliance Method Email Date April 4, 2023 WO #398981139 Initial Surcharge Abatement Public Works Director UB Initial Removal Approval Date April 11, 2023 Date April 12, 2023 Adjustment $2,400.00 Name Ahammes Final Surcharge Abatement PWC Date September 19, 2023 UB Final Removal Council Date September 19, 2023 Date Adjustment $150.00 Name Comments Archive 0 Entry 315 City of Eagan Utility Surcharge Summary Information 11/22/2021, 12/22/2021, 1/21/2022, 2/22/22, 3/22/2022, 4/22/22, 5/22/22, 6/22/22, 7/22/22, 8/22/22, 9/22/22, 10/22/22, 11/22/22, 12/22/22, 1/23/23, 2/22/23 0 Customer Information Name RENTAL AGREEMENT Account 0023408602 Address 1989 GOLD TR Customer 00080900 CSZ EAGAN, MN 55122-1589 Type Meter Exchange Email 0 Phone 0 Surcharge Information Initial Notice October 8, 2021 Final Notice November 5, 2021 Subsequent Notices Sent: Utility Billing Surcharge Entry Initial Date Levied November 22, 2021 Rate $150.00 Surcharges 17 Amount $2,550.00 Last Date Levied March 27, 2023 UB Entry AHammes Surcharge Waiver Request Information Date April 12, 2023 Compliance Method Email Date April 6, 2023 WO #398981128 Initial Surcharge Abatement Public Works Director UB Initial Removal Approval Date April 12, 2023 Date April 12, 2023 Adjustment $2,400.00 Name Ahammes Final Surcharge Abatement PWC Date September 19, 2023 UB Final Removal Council Date September 19, 2023 Date Adjustment $150.00 Name Comments Archive 0 Entry 316 City of Eagan Utility Surcharge Summary Information 2/22/22, 3/22/2022, 4/22/22, 5/22/22, 6/22/22, 7/22/22, 8/22/22, 9/22/22, 10/22/22, 11/22/22, 12/22/22, 1/23/23, 2/22/23 0 Customer Information Name LOUANNE MCDONNELL Account 0012519609 Address 1598B CLEMSON DR Customer 00051993 CSZ EAGAN, MN 55122-1867 Type Meter Exchange Email jmcdnell@comcast.net Phone 0 Surcharge Information Initial Notice October 8, 2021 Final Notice November 5, 2021 Subsequent Notices Sent: Utility Billing Surcharge Entry Initial Date Levied March 22, 2022 Rate $150.00 Surcharges 4 Amount $600.00 Last Date Levied June 22, 2022 UB Entry JBoelter Surcharge Waiver Request Information Date March 28, 2023 Compliance Method Phone Date June 28, 2022 WO #98976595 Initial Surcharge Abatement Public Works Director UB Initial Removal Approval Date March 28, 2023 Date March 25, 1901 Adjustment $450.00 Name Ahammes Final Surcharge Abatement PWC Date September 19, 2023 UB Final Removal Council Date September 19, 2023 Date Adjustment $150.00 Name Comments Archive 0 Entry 386 City of Eagan Utility Surcharge Summary Information 3/22/2022, 4/22/22, 5/22/22, 6/22/22 3/29/23: Resident is in Hospice and her brother is taking care of her finances now. Customer Information Name DR BABU Account 24460545 Address 3923 DENMARK AVE Customer 24820 CSZ EAGAN, MN 55123-1474 Type AMI Email sharada babu <docbabu@hotmail.com> Phone 0 Surcharge Information Initial Notice December 22, 2022 Final Notice January 22, 2023 Subsequent Notices Sent: Utility Billing Surcharge Entry Initial Date Levied February 22, 2023 Rate $150.00 Surcharges 2 Amount $300.00 Last Date Levied March 27, 2023 UB Entry 0 Surcharge Waiver Request Information Date April 26, 2023 Compliance Method Email Date April 17, 2023 WO #398981296 Initial Surcharge Abatement Public Works Director UB Initial Removal Approval Date April 25, 2023 Date April 26, 2023 Adjustment May 29, 1900 Name DR BABU Final Surcharge Abatement PWC Date September 19, 2023 UB Final Removal Council Date September 19, 2023 Date April 26, 2023 Adjustment $150.00 Name DR BABU Comments Archive #N/A Entry #N/A City of Eagan Utility Surcharge Summary Information 2/22/2023, 3/22/23 #N/A Customer Information Name RENTAL AGREEMENT Account 10905008 Address 1350 EASTER LANE Customer 86466 CSZ EAGAN, MN 55123-1732 Type AMI Email 0 Phone 0 Surcharge Information Initial Notice May 22, 2023 Final Notice June 22, 2023 Subsequent Notices Sent: Utility Billing Surcharge Entry Initial Date Levied July 25, 2023 Rate $150.00 Surcharges 2 Amount $300.00 Last Date Levied August 25, 2023 UB Entry 0 Surcharge Waiver Request Information Date September 12, 2023 Compliance Method Phone Date August 28, 2023 WO #398984253 Initial Surcharge Abatement Public Works Director UB Initial Removal Approval Date September 12, 2023 Date September 12, 2023 Adjustment May 29, 1900 Name RENTAL AGREEMENT Final Surcharge Abatement PWC Date September 19, 2023 UB Final Removal Council Date September 19, 2023 Date September 12, 2023 Adjustment $150.00 Name RENTAL AGREEMENT Comments Archive #N/A Entry #N/A City of Eagan Utility Surcharge Summary Information 7/22/2023, 8/22/23 #N/A Agenda Memo September 19, 2023 Public Works Committee Meeting IV. Fats, Oils, Grease (FOG) Program Exemptions Direction to be Considered: Provide direction to City staff regarding the inclusion of the draft exemptions to the Fats, Oils & Grease (“FOG”) Discharge Prevention and Prohibitions program (City Code 3.40) for the identified Food Service Establishments (FSEs) and a corresponding amendment of the related City Ordinance. Background: • On November 4, 2020, the City Council adopted an amendment to Chapter 3 – Municipal and Public Utilities, Section 3.40, Fats, Oils & Grease (“FOG”) Discharge Prevention and Prohibitions. Section 3.40 requires all food service establishments (FSE) that discharge its wastewater into the City of Eagan’s sanitary sewer system to have a FOG disposal system installed and maintained in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Minnesota State Plumbing Code and Minnesota Rules. • An FSE is defined as any facility in which food is prepared or served for commercial or institutional purposes. Food preparation or service includes cutting/processing, preparing, handling, cleaning, cooking, or packaging food items of any kind. FSEs include restaurant, cafe, lunch counter cafeterias, bars and clubs, hotel with food service, hospital, long-term care or convalescent home/facility, factory or school kitchen, catering kitchen, bakery, meat packing facility, or other establishment where FOG may be introduced into the drainage/sewer system. Individual dwelling units which are not otherwise private living quarters within a long-term care or convalescent home/facility are not food service establishments. • Part of the ordinance amendment incorporated a fee schedule that provided for a surcharge to be placed against utility billing accounts for those properties that failed to install a complying FOG disposal system. The Surcharge Fee is $500 per month per food service establishment. • Staff has worked with all FSEs within the city to ensure they have a proper FOG disposal system installed and maintained as warranted. As part of this effort, staff has recognized that it may be appropriate to consider some FSEs exempt from the program due to the lack of FOG produced as part of their operations. The potential of a FOG program exemption exists for 40+ businesses. • Staff compiled a list of the businesses with a summary of practices and recommendations for each one. There are many businesses that are similar, with only minor differences. For consistency and equity, it may be appropriate to treat all similar businesses similarly regarding exemptions. • Staff have broken down the businesses into five specific groups: 1) Commercial daycare facilities, 2) Schools, 3) Hotels, 4) Gas stations, 5) Assisted living facilities. Generally, the businesses in each of these groups should be treated similarly under the following described Agenda Memo September 19, 2023 Public Works Committee Meeting scenarios regarding food preparation. There may be exceptions to this guidance in unique circumstances. o Commercial daycare facilities  Meals prepared on site – No Exemption  No meals prepared on site – Exemption o Schools  Meals prepared on site – No Exemption  No meals prepared on site – Exemption o Hotels  Meals prepared on site – No Exemption  No meals prepared on site – Exemption o Gas stations  Meals prepared on site – No Exemption  No meals prepared on site – Exemption o Assisted living facilities  Meals prepared on site – No Exemption  No meals prepared on site – Exemption • These draft FOG program exemptions are being presented to the Public Works Committee for the consideration of a corresponding recommendation for an ordinance amendment through future Council action. Attachments (1) IV-1 FOG Program Exemption List Potential FOG Program Exemptions Commercial Daycare Facilities Exemption Primrose School of Eagan - Convection/warming kitchen to warm off-site prepared food. Becks Montessori - All food is catered in. Wash some dishes on site. televising exemption All Saints Lutheran Church and Luminary Montessori - Kitchen, but don’t prepare meals as a business or facility. Kids bring their own meals. Kindercare locations - All food is catered in. Wash some dishes on site. televising exemption YMCA - All food is catered in. Wash some dishes on site. televising exemption New Horizon Academy - Convection/warming kitchen to warm off-site prepared food. Hour Kids Walk-In Childcare - All food is catered in/pre-packaged. Creative Wonders - All food is catered in/pre-packaged. Easter Preschool - Kitchen, but don’t prepare meals as a business or facility. Kids bring their own meals. Day By Day Child Development Center- All food is pre-packaged or kids bring their own meals. Especially for Children - Convection/warming kitchen to warm off-site prepared food. No Exemption Prestige Academy (Everbrook Academy) - Kitchen that prepares meals from scratch. Schools Exemption Trinity School at River Ridge - They have a kitchen, but they don’t prepare meals as a business or facility. They warm off-site prepared food or kids bring their own meals in. Trinity Lone Oak Lutheran Church and School - All food is catered in. They wash some dishes on site. televising exemption Minnesota Autism Center - Kitchen, but don’t prepare meals as a business or facility. Kids bring their own meals. Hotels/Motels Exemption Country Inn and Suites by Radisson - All food is pre-packaged. Springhill Suites - Convection/warming kitchen to warm off-site prepared food. Other food is pre- packaged. Towneplace Suites - Convection/warming kitchen to warm off-site prepared food. Other food is pre- packaged. Home2Suites - Convection/warming kitchen to warm off-site prepared food. Other food is pre- packaged. Sonesta ES Suites - The community space only offers cold breakfast options. Best Western Dakota Ridge - Microwave to warm off-site prepared food. Other food is pre-packaged. Days Inn by Wyndham - Convection/warming kitchen to warm off-site prepared food. Other food is pre-packaged. Extended Stay America- Northwest and Denmark - All food is pre-packaged. Gas Station/Other Exemption Marathon Gas (New Mart) - Kitchen to bake off-site prepared food. Repair Rite Automotive (Marathon Gas Station) - All food is pre-packaged. Holiday and Speedway Gas Stations - Microwave to warm off-site prepared food. Other food is pre- packaged. Eagan Community Center - All food is catered in. No Exemption Ecolab - Kitchen that prepares 40 meals a day from scratch. Assisted Living/Senior Living Facilities Exemption Affinity at Eagan (Independent senior living) - Kitchen that residents can use, but don’t prepare meals as a business or facility. O’Leary Manor and Lakeside Point (Senior Living facilities) - Kitchen that residents can use, but don’t prepare meals as a business or facility. Oakwoods of Eagan and Oakwoods East Apartments (Senior Housing) - Kitchen that residents can use, but don’t prepare meals as a business or facility. Applewood Point - Do not offer food service and don’t have a kitchen. No Exemption Clare Bridge Brookdale - Kitchen that prepares 130 meals a day from scratch. Agenda Memo September 19, 2023 Public Works Committee Meeting V. Duckwood Drive/Widgeon Way – Intersection Study Direction To Be Considered: Receive the intersection study for Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way, provide staff confirmation of the study recommendations OR direction for any modifications, and direct staff to forward recommendations to the City Council. Background:  On January 9, 2023, City staff received a petition from Juliet Parisi, 1236 Tananger Court, with 56 signatures representing 32 Eagan properties and 5 signers with residence outside of Eagan requesting an engineering study be conducted to consider an enhancement of pedestrian safety at the intersection of Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way, in central Eagan.  For at least 35 years, vehicle traffic at the intersection of Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way has been controlled by stop signs on all four legs. Duckwood Drive is classified as a collector street, and accordingly has significantly higher volumes of traffic than the two side streets of Widgeon Way. Past Eagan City Council action had established the traffic control at this intersection in this manner.  For many years, City staff have received numerous inquiries from neighborhood residents regarding the current intersection, primarily regarding pedestrian safety and lack of vehicle compliance with current traffic control signage, similar to the concerns stated in the current petition.  In 2018, City Police and Public Works staffs led a public engagement meeting and survey on alternatives to stop signs on Duckwood Drive. Public input did not indicate a clear consensus on modifications to the intersection.  On February 5, 2023, the City Council received the public petition and authorized the preparation of an intersection safety study at Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way by a consultant engineer. One of the City’s traffic engineering consultants, SRF Consulting, was contracted to perform the current study.  Communication and engagement with neighbors and the walking public incorporated much of 2023’s typical walking season, with field data collection and evaluations,  As was done previously, public engagement, specifically with the neighborhood, but open as well to all that travel through this intersection, was included as part of the intersection evaluation. Engagement included two public meetings (May 24 and June 27) to receive input on concerns and feedback on improvement options. On-site signage with QR code linking to a website for feedback and comments from the traveling public was also provided.  The intersection study report includes existing conditions, public engagement information and input received, data collection and evaluation of current and anticipated pedestrian and vehicle volumes and movements, and options for traffic control modifications. Agenda Memo September 19, 2023 Public Works Committee Meeting  The evaluation and study has been completed and is being presented to the Public Works Committee for their consideration.  Based on the results of the intersection analysis, the study recommends converting the intersection to a side-street stop control intersection and remove the stop signs along Duckwood Drive. This will improve both pedestrian and driver expectations at the intersection by reducing driver/pedestrian confusion of whether a conflicting vehicle will stop or not by setting clearer expectations of the vehicles along the roadway.  To help address residents’ concerns about crossing safety, consideration may be given to geometric improvements that may act to reduce the crossing distance that pedestrians are in a travel lane. The geometric improvements could be constructed easily using paint.  Public Works staff will present study details and address any questions the Committee may have on this item to assist their confirmation or modification of the study recommendations.  The timeline for the placement of any geometric improvements to the intersection could likely occur in 2024. Attachments (2) V-1 Intersection Study V-2 PowerPoint Presentation www.srfconsulting.com 3701 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 100 | Minneapolis, MN 55416-3791 | 763.475.0010 Fax: 1.866.440.6364 An Equal Opportunity Employer Memorandum SRF No. 16574 To: John Gorder City of Eagan From: Tom Sachi, PE, Project Manager John Maczko, PE, PTOE, Traffic Studies Lead Chris Brown, AICP, PTP, Transportation Planning Lead Date: August 27, 2023 Subject: Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study Introduction SRF has completed an intersection study at the Duckwood Drive/Widgeon Way intersection in the City of Eagan (see Figure 1: Project Location). There have been concerns from residents that live near the existing intersection regarding stop compliance, speeds, and pedestrian crossing safety. The main objectives of the intersection study are to review the past history and existing conditions at the intersection and determine appropriate traffic control, pedestrian crossing, and traffic calming alternatives. The following information provides the assumptions, analysis, and study findings offered for consideration. History In reviewing past history of the intersection and discussion with City Staff it was found that the intersection has been a concern going back decades. The intersection was originally controlled with side-street stops. However, in response to concerns of speeding, a previous City Council decided to modify the intersection to an all-way stop. After changing to an all-way stop control, there have been sign compliance issues. The City has responded by installing oversized stop signs (48 inch), installing reflective materials on the sign posts, and installed Stop Ahead advance warning signs and reflective posts to raise attention to the stop signs in an attempt to improve compliance. In 2018, responding to concerns from residents about intersection safety the City hired a consultant to review the intersection and make recommendations. Upon completion of study the previous consultant recommended removal of the all-way stop condition and modification back to a side-street stop condition. However, after deliberation, the Council opted to leave the intersection as is as an all- way stop control. NORTHNorthDuckwood DrWidgeon Way35E Yankee Doodle Rd Lexington Ave SDenmark AvePilot Knob Rd02316574 July 2023 Project Location Figure 1Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study City of Eagan Study Intersection Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study August 27, 2023 Page 3 Existing Conditions Existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline to identify any potential issues and opportunities, as well as compare alternatives. The evaluation of existing conditions includes a review of traffic volumes, crash history and stop compliance, roadway characteristics, an all-way stop warrant analysis and an intersection capacity analysis, which are summarized in the following sections. Data Collection Intersection turning movement and pedestrian/bicycle counts were collected by SRF for a 14-hour period (6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.) during both a typical weekday and weekend day during the week of May 15th, 2023, at the intersection of Duckwood Drive/Widgeon Way. Vehicle speed data, daily traffic volumes along Duckwood Drive, and stop sign compliance of the all-way stop control at the intersection were also collected. The collected speeds indicate the average speeds are 35 to 37 miles per hour (mph) while 85th percentile speeds are 39 to 42 mph. These speed ranges are not uncommon for a roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Existing geometrics, traffic and pedestrian/bicycle volumes, and travel speeds in the study area are shown in Figure 2. Roadway Characteristics A field assessment was completed to identify various roadway characteristics at the study location, such as functional classification, general configuration, and posted speed limit, along with signing, striping, and lighting. A summary of these roadway characteristics is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Existing Roadway Characteristics (1) Functional Classification based on the City of Eagan 2040 Comprehensive Plan. (2) Roadway width measured from curb face to curb face. (3) Duckwood Drive is not marked in the field as having a designated on-street biking facility, however, there is presently an on-road 7 foot “safety shoulder” in both directions. From a traffic control perspective, the study intersection of Duckwood Drive/Widgeon Way is all- way stop controlled. Note that the eastbound and westbound stop signs are 48 inch stop signs that are larger than a standard 30 inch MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) regulation-sized stop sign, and have red reflectors on both sign posts to increase visibility of the stop sign. The study intersection currently has lighting, but there is no segment lighting within the study area along either Duckwood Drive or Widgeon Way. Within the study area, Duckwood Drive is served by local Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) bus route 446. There are no marked bus stops at the intersection, however transit users can get on and off at Widgeon Way. Additionally, school buses stop at the study intersection, and schoolchildren cross Duckwood Drive in both directions. Roadway Functional Classification (1) General Configuration Roadway Width (2) Posted Speed On-Street Bike Lanes Duckwood Drive Minor Collector 2-lane undivided 40 feet 35 Yes (3) Widgeon Way Local Road 2-lane undivided 30 feet 30 No NORTHNorth12 [3] (10) 2 [1] (0)2 [2] (5) (17) [9] 3 (329) [208] 133 (21) [17] 16 1 [1] (2) 183 [163] (297) 7 [9] (5) 8 [4] (9) (20) [25] 23 (0) [1] 1(8) [7] 4 1 [1] (1) 6 [1] (0) 1 [1] (1) Widgeon Way Duckwood Dr Duckwood DrWi dg e on W a y XX [XX] (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Volume - Midday Peak Hour Volume - P.M. Peak Hour Volume - All Way Stop Control - Existing Average Daily Traffic - Pedestrian/Bicycle Volume LEGEND X,XXX Speed Limit: 35 mph Avg Speed: 35 mph 85th %ile Speed: 39 mph 6 Speed Limit: 35 mph Avg Speed: 37 mph 85th %ile Speed: 42 mph 133 25186,600 6,050 80035 0 02316574 July 2023 Existing Conditions Figure 2Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study City of Eagan X [X] (X) Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study August 27, 2023 Page 5 Public Involvement As part of the existing conditions analysis, a detailed community survey was completed to understand the issues facing the everyday users of the intersection. The survey was targeted toward residents of Widgeon Way and community members who walk, bike, or roll along the sidewalk or on-road bike facility on Duckwood Drive. The survey was aimed at understanding the priorities of the community when it comes to solving their issues. The following survey summary is provided, which is a sample of the key questions from the survey. The full detailed survey responses are provided in the Appendix. In addition to completing a survey, two (2) community meetings were held where members of the community could interact with the project team, learn about this study, and provide feedback. Summaries of the meetings and the presentations are also provided in the Appendix. Key Survey Information Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study August 27, 2023 Page 6 Top Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study August 27, 2023 Page 7 The key takeaway from the survey information is that users of the intersection have noticed a concerning trend regarding a perception of speeding vehicles, poor driving behavior, vehicles not stopping at the stop signs, and vehicles not stopping for pedestrians. This has led to major concerns for residents trying to cross the roadway or simply pull out onto Duckwood Drive from Widgeon Way. Because of these conditions, this can lead to the intersection being unsafe and presenting itself as a barrier to users. The following sections detail the reported crash history, stop sign compliance, traffic operations, and warrant analysis which will be used in conjunction with the survey information in informing the decision on a recommendation for the intersection control and configuration. Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study August 27, 2023 Page 8 Intersection Crash Analysis Based on reported crashes within the Minnesota Crash Mapping and Analysis Tool (MnCMAT2) for the 10-year period of 2013-2022, there were a total three (3) crashes at the study intersection. There was one (1) possible injury and two (2) property damage only crashes. (see Appendix). All three (3) crashes were rear end collisions caused by a following vehicle failing to stop for the lead vehicle at the stop signs located along Duckwood Drive at the study intersection. No additional crashes were reported by the City of Eagan Police Department. Intersection Stop Compliance Video footage was used to observe stopping compliance at the study intersection. Stopping compliance was defined as the vehicle approaching the intersection coming to a complete full stop, rather than a rolling stop, slowing to a yield, or completely disregarding the stop sign. Traffic cameras recorded vehicle movements at the intersection on Tuesday, May 16, 2023. Video footage was reviewed for the following time periods:  7:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.  10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.  4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. Table 2, along with the inset photo, summarizes the percentage of stopping compliance of vehicles for each approach on the day of observations. Based on the observed data, there is approximately 40 to 45 percent of vehicles stopping at the stop signs on Widgeon Way, while only 20 to 25 percent of vehicles stop along Duckwood Drive. Overall, the majority of vehicles at the intersection do not come to a complete stop at the intersection, regardless of which roadway they are on. This non-compliance leads to uncertain driver expectations and unsafe conditions for pedestrians. Table 2. Approach Movement Stop Sign Compliance Movement Compliant Non-Compliant Southbound Widgeon Way 43% 57% Northbound Widgeon Way 42% 58% Westbound Duckwood Dr. 25% 75% Eastbound Duckwood Dr 21% 79% RIGHT: Photo showing stopping compliance at the intersection approaches Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study August 27, 2023 Page 9 Warrants Analysis A review of the multiway stop warrant was completed to understand if the study intersection currently meets the traffic volume thresholds to warrant an all-way stop control. A review of the hourly volumes at the intersection that were collected in May 2023 indicate that the study intersection currently does not meet multiway stop application requirements based on the guidelines outlined in the MnMUTCD for either a typical weekday or weekend day. The warrants analysis are shown in the Appendix. Intersection Capacity Analysis An intersection capacity analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software to establish a baseline condition to which potential alternatives could be compared. The analysis was completed for the weekday a.m., midday, and p.m. peak hours along with the Saturday midday peak hour. Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an intersection is operating. Intersections are graded from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in Table 3. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, while LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Overall intersection LOS A though LOS D is generally considered acceptable within the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Table 3. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS Designation Signalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) A ≤ 10 ≤ 10 B > 10 - 20 > 10 - 15 C > 20 - 35 > 15 - 25 D > 35 - 55 > 25 - 35 E > 55 - 80 > 35 - 50 F > 80 > 50 For side-street stop/yield-controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the side-street approach. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop/yield control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority of delay is attributed to the side-street approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience high-levels of delay (i.e., poor levels of service) on the side-street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service. An intersection capacity analysis was completed not only for the existing all-way stop control but for potential alternatives including side-street stop control, side-street stop control with a three-lane section along Duckwood Drive (center left-turn lane), and a single-lane roundabout. The alternative traffic control and lane geometry options were developed based on a high level review of the existing turning movement volumes. Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study August 27, 2023 Page 10 Results of the existing capacity analysis, shown in Table 4, indicate that all intersection alternatives are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS B or better during all four (4) peak hours. The existing all-way stop control operates at an overall LOS A during all the weekday a.m. and midday peak hours, and an overall LOS B during the weekday p.m. and Saturday midday peak hours. Note, while the overall LOS is a B or better, with a side-street stop control there may be delays reaching up to 17 seconds (LOS C) on Widgeon Way during the p.m. peak hour. These delays are considered acceptable and typical of an intersection with this control type in the City of Eagan. With a roundabout control, average delays at the intersection are expected to be six (6) seconds or less during the peak hours. Table 4. Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis Duckwood Drive/Widgeon Way Intersection Control Alternatives Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday Midday Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Saturday Midday Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay All-Way Stop (Existing) A 9 sec. A 9 sec. B 12 sec. B 10 sec. Side-Street Stop (SSSC) A/B 12 sec. A/B 13 sec. A/C 17 sec. A/B 13 sec. SSSC w/ Left-Turn Lane A/B 12 sec. A/B 13 sec. A/C 17 sec. A/B 13 sec. Single Lane Roundabout A 4 sec. A 4 sec. A 6 sec. A 5 sec. There is not expected to be any queuing issues with either the existing traffic control or potential alternatives. All average and 95th percentile queuing is expected to be less than two (2) vehicles during the peak hours for all control options. Based on the existing operations analysis, any of the potential traffic control alternatives would be expected to allow for acceptable operations with minimal queuing impacts. Year 2040 Conditions When evaluating infrastructure, it is important to understand future operations to help protect the infrastructure investment. Therefore, year 2040 conditions were reviewed to understand the future operations associated with the potential alternatives. The following information summarizes the year 2040 conditions. Traffic Forecasts To account for general background growth in the area, 2040 traffic forecasts were developed based on historical traffic growth and the City of Eagan 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Based on this information, an annual growth rate of one-half percent was applied to the existing traffic volumes at the study intersection. A summary of the year 2040 traffic forecasts is provided in Figure 3. 02316574 July 2023 Year 2040 Conditions Figure 3Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study City of EaganNORTHNorth 15 [5] (15) 5 [5] (0)5 [5] (10) (17) [9] 3 (329) [208] 133 (21) [17] 16 5 [5] (5) 200 [180] (325) 10 [10] (10) 10 [5] (10) (25) [30] 30 (0) [5] 5(10) [10] 5 5 [5] (5) 10 [5] (0) 5 [5] (5) Widgeon Way Duckwood Dr Duckwood DrWi dg e o n W a y XX [XX] (XX) - A.M. Peak Hour Volume - Midday Peak Hour Volume - P.M. Peak Hour Volume - Side-Street Stop Control - Estimated Average Daily Traffic - Pedestrian/Bicycle Volume LEGEND X,XXX 10 145 30207,200 6,600 87538 5 X [X] (X) Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study August 27, 2023 Page 12 Year 2040 Intersection Capacity Analysis Year 2040 conditions were reviewed to understand how the study intersection would operate with potential intersection controls in the future. Results of the year 2040 intersection capacity analysis, shown in Table 5, indicate that all intersection alternatives are expected to continue to operate at an acceptable overall LOS A during all four (4) peak hours, except the all-way stop control alternative. An all-way stop control is expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS B during the weekday a.m. and midday and Saturday midday peak hours, and its expected to operate at a LOS C during the p.m. peak hour. Additionally, the side-street stop control alternatives are expected to have acceptable side- street delays of 20 seconds or less during the peak hours. Roundabout delays are expected to continue to be less than 10 seconds on average during the peak hours. Average and 95th percentile queuing is expected to remain similar to existing conditions, with queues between two (2) to three (3) vehicles during the peak hours. Table 5. Duckwood Drive/Widgeon Way Year 2040 Intersection Capacity Analysis Duckwood Drive/Widgeon Way Intersection Control Alternatives Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday Midday Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Saturday Midday Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay All-Way Stop (Existing) B 10 sec. B 10 sec. C 15 sec. B 10 sec. Side-Street Stop (SSSC) A/B 14 sec. A/C 15 sec. A/C 20 sec. A/B 13 sec. SSSC w/ Left-Turn Lane A/B 14 sec. A/C 15 sec. A/C 20 sec. A/B 13 sec. Single Lane Roundabout A 4 sec. A 5 sec. A 6 sec. A 5 sec. Pedestrian Crossing Review In addition to reviewing the traffic volume, crash and operational information, a review of the pedestrian crossing was also completed. The recently adopted City of Eagan pedestrian crossing guidelines (see Appendix) were reviewed to determine if the crossing should be marked and if any enhancements should be considered for the intersection. Following the guidance, the following items are noted:  The posted speed is 35 mph, there are two (2) lanes, and the AADT is between 4,000 and 9,000.  The crossing currently does not meet the minimum multimodal user volume threshold outlined in the guidelines and the intersection has not experienced a crash within the last 10 years involving a multimodal user.  The study intersection serves as an active transportation facility due to the existing MVTA and school bus route stops at the study intersection.  The intersection meets sight distance requirements  The south side of the roadway does not currently have a pedestrian facility along Duckwood Drive or Widgeon Way, and there is not an accessible landing on either southern quadrant. Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study August 27, 2023 Page 13 Based on this information, the crossing qualifies for consideration of the following potential enhancements:  Crosswalk markings, crossing and warning signage, parking restrictions, adequate nighttime lighting levels, and in-street pedestrian crossing signage  Potential geometric enhancements such as a curb extension or median refuge island Given that the intersection currently does not have a pedestrian facility on the south side of the intersection along either Duckwood Drive or Widgeon Way, and similar intersections (to the east and west) in the area do not have crosswalk markings, is not recommended to mark the crosswalk. This is to keep consistency along the corridor and with standard practice in Eagan. Although the crossings wouldn’t be marked, they are still crosswalks by State law and pedestrians are allowed to cross. Additionally, it should be noted that the majority of pedestrian crossings are made by kids getting on/off the school bus when the stop arms and flashing lights are in use. Based on the past history of the intersection geometric modifications of either curb extensions or a median refuge island are worth consideration. With the available roadway width, curb extensions, a median refuge island, or a combination of both could be installed while maintaining two (2) lanes of traffic. These geometric improvements will improved visibility of pedestrians and based on past research may have a traffic calming effect on travel speeds along Duckwood Drive. Concepts of these options are shown in the Appendix. Summary and Findings Based on the results of the crash review, stop compliance observations, and warrant analysis for multiway stop applications, it is recommended to convert the intersection to a side-street stop control intersection and remove the stop signs along Duckwood Drive. This will improve both pedestrian and driver expectations at the intersection by reducing driver/pedestrian confusion of whether a conflicting vehicle will stop or not by setting clearer expectations of the vehicles along the roadway. In addition, section 2B.06 of the MUTCD states that “safety concerns associated with multi-way stops included pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multi-way stop control is used where the volume on the intersecting roads is approximately equal.” Based on the current vehicle counts, the volumes along Widgeon Way are only approximately 10 percent of the vehicles along Duckwood Drive. It is not recommended to place all-way stop control at intersections where the cross street has low volumes, as road users become conditioned to not stopping as vehicles are rarely present at the cross street. This is reflected in the current driver behavior at the intersection, where less than 50 percent of all entering vehicles are compliant with the stop sign. Note, no sight distance issues are currently present that necessitate the current all-way stop control. Results of the intersection capacity analysis also show that the existing and year 2040 traffic volumes would be expected to operate acceptably with a side-street stop control. Side-street delays are expected to be within acceptable ranges and no queueing issues are expected. To help address residents’ concerns about crossing safety and speed the city may want to consider one of the geometric improvements that would reduce the crossing distance that pedestrians are in a Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study August 27, 2023 Page 14 travel lane. Research shows that geometric improvements similar to those presented as part of this Pedestrian Crossing Review report are worth considering to improve pedestrian comfort with crossing as well as helping to calm traffic speeds. The geometric improvements could be constructed quickly using paint/bollards on a trial basis to determine effectiveness and/or need if funding for permanent construction is not available in the near future. Residents present at the second public meeting seemed to slightly favor a median and had very little interest in the roundabout for consideration. While a roundabout would allow for acceptable vehicle operations, residents raised concerns that a roundabout would have too large of an impact on adjacent homeowners and the expected costs of construction far greater than the other proposed geometric options. Appendix Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 1 / 21 82.61%76 11.96%11 2.17%2 2.17%2 1.09%1 Q1 How frequently do you cross Duckwood Drive? Answered: 92 Sk ipped: 0 TOTAL 92 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Dail y Weekly At l east mont hl y A few times per year or... I've never cr oss ed... ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Daily Weekly At least monthly A few times per y ear or less I'v e nev er crossed Duc k wood driv e before Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 2 / 21 92.39%85 73.91%68 30.43%28 0.00%0 2.17%2 Q2 How do you typically cross Duckwood Drive? (Select all that apply) Answered: 92 Sk ipped: 0 Total Respondents : 92 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 run 5/27/2023 5:23 PM 2 School bus 5/18/2023 9:56 PM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Drive Wal k Bike Use a mobility device Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Drive Walk Bik e Use a mobility dev ice Other (please s pecify) Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 3 / 21 Q3 Please rank your top three concerns about the intersection (rank only three) Answered: 92 Sk ipped: 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Speeding Vehicles Reckless/Car ele s s Driving Car s not stopping at ... Cars not sto pping for... No sidew alks on south sid... Cars not sto pping for... Sun bl inds you at cert ain... Intersect ion is no t visib... Crossing is not visibl e ... Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 4 / 21 18.48% 17 14.13% 13 22.83% 21 29.35% 27 9.78% 9 3.26% 3 1.09% 1 0.00% 0 1.09% 1 92 6 8.70% 8 9.78% 9 19.57% 18 23.91% 22 28.26% 26 5.43% 5 2.17% 2 1.09% 1 1.09% 1 92 6 41.30% 38 23.91% 22 16.30% 15 8.70% 8 6.52% 6 1.09% 1 2.17% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 92 7 15.22% 14 20.65% 19 13.04% 12 15.22% 14 15.22% 14 15.22% 14 3.26% 3 2.17% 2 0.00% 0 92 6 7.61% 7 8.70% 8 8.70% 8 9.78% 9 19.57% 18 27.17% 25 14.13% 13 1.09% 1 3.26% 3 92 5 3.26% 3 10.87% 10 8.70% 8 9.78% 9 7.61% 7 31.52% 29 14.13% 13 7.61% 7 6.52% 6 92 4 2.17% 2 1.09% 1 3.26% 3 3.26% 3 3.26% 3 11.96% 11 39.13% 36 25.00% 23 10.87% 10 92 3 2.17% 2 3.26% 3 3.26% 3 0.00% 0 2.17% 2 2.17% 2 13.04% 12 55.43% 51 18.48% 17 92 2 1.09% 1 7.61% 7 4.35% 4 0.00% 0 7.61% 7 2.17% 2 10.87% 10 7.61% 7 58.70% 54 92 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TOTAL SCO Speeding Vehicles Reck less/Careles s Driving Cars not st opping at t he Stop Signs Cars not st opping for Pedes trians No sidewalk s on south s ide of Duck wood Cars not st opping for s chool bus s es with flashing lights Sun blinds you at certain times of the day Intersect ion is not vis ible t o drivers Crossing is not vis ible t o drivers Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 5 / 21 6.74%6 44.94%40 30.34%27 16.85%15 1.12%1 Q4 How often do vehicles stop at the stop signs on Duckwood Drive? Answered: 89 Sk ipped: 3 TOTAL 89 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Always (100% of the time) Usual l y (75 % of the time) So metimes (50% of the time) Rarely (25 % of the time) Never ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Always (100% of the time) Usually (75% of the time) Sometimes (50% of the time) Rarely (25% of the time) Never Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 6 / 21 20.22%18 34.83%31 75.28%67 8.99%8 32.58%29 Q5 What would improve your crossing experience? (Please choose up to two) Answered: 89 Sk ipped: 3 Total Respondents : 89 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 Paint t he s treet : put flashing lights on the st op s ign 6/15/2023 7:44 AM 2 Better signs . Flashing lights 6/1/2023 4:52 AM 3 Enforc ement of s top signs 5/29/2023 4:58 PM 4 Flahing larger s top signs; v isibility at inters ection is sometimes impaired by snow piles and greenery. Als o, ic y c onditions make it hard to gain trac tion on Widgeon Way turning left on Duc k wood Driv e from the Wes c ott s ide. 5/27/2023 6:51 AM 5 Flas hing stop s igns 5/24/2023 3:43 PM 6 Radar/Camera to catc h v iolators blowing the s top sign 5/24/2023 3:26 PM 7 Flas hing stop s igns 5/24/2023 11:35 AM 8 flashing lights around the stop sign - more v isible signage 5/24/2023 8:31 AM 9 Flas hing red lights 5/23/2023 9:39 PM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Slow er vehicl e speeds Drivers stopping for me Impr oved cr o ssing saf... Better lighting Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Slower v ehicle s peeds Drivers stopping f or me Improved cros sing safet y features (e.g., cros swalk, medians, short er crossing dist ances, s igns , etc .) Better lighting Other (please s pecify) Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 7 / 21 10 Automated c apture of photo or video with fine by mail.5/23/2023 5:47 PM 11 North-South crosswalk across Duc k wood Dr, on wes t (highest) side of intersection 5/22/2023 8:14 PM 12 Signage. There us ed to be 'stop ahead' signs and pav ement painting 5/18/2023 12:58 PM 13 Nothing 5/18/2023 7:55 AM 14 Taking out the s top signs on Duckwood 5/16/2023 9:06 PM 15 Flas hing stop s igns . Des ignated gathering off the street.5/16/2023 7:19 PM 16 What about something like rumble s trips or a visual on the pav ement?5/16/2023 8:54 AM 17 Sidewalks on both sides 5/15/2023 8:37 PM 18 greatly increased police ticketing v iolators 5/12/2023 10:34 AM 19 Don't allow school buses to make stops on Duckwood Dr.5/11/2023 7:34 PM 20 Eliminate the s c hool bus stop on Duckwood. Simply redirect the bus to driv e t he Widgeway loop on the north and the cul-de-sac s on the s outh. 5/11/2023 9:04 AM 21 Driv ers stopping at the st op s ign 5/10/2023 7:44 PM 22 Fine the drivers who speed and fail to s top 5/10/2023 2:12 PM 23 Flas hing Stop Sign 5/10/2023 8:19 AM 24 35 is a perfect s peed limit for Duc k wood however driv ers continue to drive 10 to 20 miles per hours above the speed limit 5/9/2023 8:31 PM 25 A sout hern s idewalk would addres s mos t of my c oncerns for pedestrian s afety.5/9/2023 6:40 PM 26 Blinking s top signs or stop writ ten in huge letters on highway or crosswalks 5/9/2023 3:04 PM 27 Flas hing stop s igns 5/9/2023 8:25 AM 28 Unk nown 5/9/2023 12:41 AM 29 A squad parked there; drivers blow that sign more than any other in town!5/8/2023 2:41 PM Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 8 / 21 Q6 Do you have other comments about the safety of crossings at Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way? Answered: 60 Sk ipped: 32 #RESPONSES DATE 1 When people stop, most people do a “rolling s top” and don’t s top all the way 6/11/2023 6:53 PM 2 I feel like some driv ers don’t see t he s ign due to tree branc hes in the way and the s trong sun reflection at certain times of the day. 6/2/2023 9:24 PM 3 There are people who don’t even slow down for the s top sign.5/29/2023 4:58 PM 4 The lac k of people stopping is terrifying. I nev er see traf fic enforcement at that intersection. I have nearly been t-boned 3 t imes by drivers who don’t s top. 5/29/2023 2:24 PM 5 My son was almost hit twic e while getting off the bus. Also one of my children was almost hit while driving his car bec ause a person failed to st op at st op s ign. I see people daily not stopping. 5/28/2023 9:20 AM 6 This intersec tion has gotten worse sinc e we moved here in 1987.5/27/2023 6:51 AM 7 Better mark ed c rosswalk s on all s ides . A lot of kids are walking to the bus stop that’s on t he sout h s ide and they walk on the s ide of t he road. 5/26/2023 8:08 PM 8 I see people blow through that stop s ign at least 3 times a week 5/24/2023 3:43 PM 9 This intersec tion is terrible -- s omething has to be done and c an't be ignored 5/24/2023 3:26 PM 10 All along Duckwood from Pilot knob is a rac eway and needs more traffic policing.5/24/2023 12:56 PM 11 There are problems all over the area. Unfortunately, t his part of Eagan is not pedest rian friendly at all. I have almost been hit multiple t imes at Lex ingt on and Wes c ott as well. 5/24/2023 9:26 AM 12 I didn't k now it was unsaf e 5/24/2023 8:31 AM 13 I’ve driven this road oft en and only a few times have a seen cars that don’t mak e a complete stop. The few that I’ve witnes s ed s low way down and slowly roll though wit h no pedestrians pres ent. 5/24/2023 8:27 AM 14 First of all I don’t understand why we are s pending money on this as they just did a study a few y ears ago. Sec ond I c an tell you it’s loc als that don’t I obey this s top sign!! Third I really worry about the k ids at this bus st op c orner. High schoolers are there in the dark before 7am many months of the y ear. There are many middle sc hoolers and elementary at this s top morning and afternoon. I k now res ourc es are in short s upply but if law enforc ement was there some times and citations issued maybe word would get out and the city could make some money too. In my opinion this isn’t about a poorly c onstructed and s igned intersec tion it’s about personal res ponsibility of drivers. Don’t ev en think about making is a 2 stop s ign intersection-it will be a rac eway from Lexington to Denmark . A few y ears ago a young girl biker was serious ly injured just feet away at Spoonbill Court and Duckwood Drive. Please, please watch out for our c hildren-of which I don’t have any but am concerned! Thanks for your consideration of my opinions! 5/23/2023 9:39 PM 15 I've liv ed on Widgeon Way for 40 y ears and this has always been a problem. I don't want financial res ourc es wasted on c onsultants who were unable to solv e this problem in the past. It is a waste of time and money. Als o, t here are students and parents who do not live in t he Widgeon Way or Duckwood Estates area and are in-fact residents of other school districts . They have applied f or "false res idenc y in Dis trict 196 for their children and they transport their kids to the neighborhood in order t o c atc h t he s chool bus . I would like to see the bus s tops to be plac ed deeper into the neighborhoods and not on the street corners of the busiest intersections . I don't want s tudents who liv e in Burns ville driving to Eagan to catc h a bus so that they c an att end a better sc hool. It is unfair to the taxpayers of Eagan and District 196. 5/23/2023 5:47 PM Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 9 / 21 16 ?4 how often do they s top? Luc k y if it's a rolling stop!5/23/2023 12:29 PM 17 People are TOO quick to st op, ev en when I don't want to cross the street. Inters ection would be greatly improv ed if t here were some kind of bike path on the sout h s ide of the street, like a tar/asphalt sidewalk s outh of the curb, in a better-mowed southern s ide of Duckwood Drive. Keep t he 4-way s top. Periodically have police ticket s peeders on Duckwood Drive --- s lows traf fic for s afety AND mak es people stop for s top signs more completely. Although, most of the time, c ars do stop for the stopsigns --- except may be after dark. It might be worth putting double s tops igns, one on eac h side (N & S) of Duckwood, f or inc reas ed East-Wes t vis ibility of the 4-way stop... partic ularly to fight sun glare near the equinoxes . 5/22/2023 8:14 PM 18 May be warning lights around the stop s igns would help??? I honestly think t hat careles s drivers don't s ee the sign 5/22/2023 6:56 PM 19 It’s a dangerous place for element ary children to go get on a bus .5/22/2023 4:03 PM 20 The speeds on Duc k wood are too high for this residential area. Doesnt s eem t o be much enforc ement. Would reques t enhanc ements to this road that would require lower speeds or more frequent st ops 5/21/2023 11:02 AM 21 I'm a Widgeon Way resident. Walk daily. Problem is a majority of driv ers roll through the s top signs . They t reat it lik e a yield sign. Although they don't yield to pedestrians c ros s ing either, so they treat it more like a s uggest ed y ield inters ec tion. 5/20/2023 6:57 PM 22 No 5/19/2023 2:55 PM 23 There are little to NO s igns about the school bus s top that happens at that intersection! The school bus s tops there about half a dozen times a day and how many kids get off the bus , and how many driver don't care about the "no passing sc hool bus" law & and just dri e right pas t. It is a mirac le one of those children haven't been hit or killed yet! Paint a frick en crosswalk already, before it's too late. Or do s omething better that will slow people down and mak e them see this inters ection, and the people & c hildren who liv e here. 5/18/2023 9:56 PM 24 Many times driv ers don't stop or they barely y ield. My c onc erns are for all, but s pecific ally my children and other c hildren in the neighborhood. It's not safe to cross. 5/18/2023 8:54 PM 25 This s et stop s igns was put in when Duc kwood bec ame t he only cross s treet between Yankee Doodle and County 30. It is a bus stop for multiple bus es . Our neighborhood has been changing ov er and we hav e new families wit h c hildren moving in to it. We need to k eep them safe and those of us who walk in the area also. I use to see bold cross walk markings and there are none. The polic e use t o prov ide a presenc e to stop those going through the intersection. I know they have many duties but in our current c limate stopping at s top signs and stop lights seem to be a mere s uggest ion and not requirement. I suggest repaint the cros s walk, provide s ome add police presence and do an all Eagan program of traffic safety f or t he citiz ens. 5/18/2023 7:01 PM 26 For s ome reason the nex t intersect ion wes t get s more res pec t than ours does , despite being a schoolbus pick up s pot. 5/18/2023 12:58 PM 27 Same concerns at Duc kwood and Denmark 5/18/2023 12:33 PM 28 It s eems fine 5/18/2023 7:55 AM 29 No 5/17/2023 7:40 PM 30 Driv ers run this stop sign cons tantly 5/17/2023 4:36 PM 31 I think most of the people who blow through the s top sign are coming from Lexington and don’t expect the intersection to be there. Better s treet des ign would indicate the res idential nature of the area. 5/17/2023 7:21 AM 32 Driv ers often jus t roll through the stop sign when they are the only c ar at the inters ection. Tak e out the s top sign on Duckwood. It serves no purpose. The driv ers on bot h Widgeon Ways will still be able to t urn onto Duc k wood when it is clear. It's not worth guess ing if thos e driv ers on Duc k wood see the stop sign and actually stop. 5/16/2023 9:06 PM 33 I have lived on Widgeon Way for 2 years and if I’m not in my c ar, I walk, run or bik e and hav e witnes s ed on a daily basis c ars blowing right through Duckwood inters ec tion at Widgeon Way. Look forward to the City of Eagan doing what’s right to improve the safet y of the children, their parents , while waiting for the s c hool bus, and all others who c ome and go on a daily basis . 5/16/2023 7:19 PM Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 10 / 21 34 There are cons tantly vehicles that race up to t he s top sign and the sometimes s top, but c ome to a screeching s top and sometime s c reec hing st art 5/16/2023 6:04 PM 35 Bik es frequently fail to stop at the stop signs 5/16/2023 9:36 AM 36 This needs to be addressed and not t abled as we hav e s c hool aged children that cros s there everyday. Safety is of the utmos t concern for them when crossing this s treet. 5/16/2023 9:20 AM 37 This is going to be my son's school bus s top beginning in the f all and I have talked to my neighbors about the c onc erns about school bus and s tudent safety t here. That s aid, I think speeds are generally in line wit h s imilar roads - I just think greater awareness needs to be plac ed on the s top sign it self. I worry about adding ex tra lighting (suc h as a blinking red) particularly in the winter time - it's a v ery tree-dens e neighborhood and t here isn't muc h in the way of lights like that. 5/16/2023 8:54 AM 38 Feels v ery safe, just t he s un c an be blinding sometimes 5/16/2023 7:03 AM 39 If s top signs are going to st ay, maybe a flashing s ign to make it more v isible. If s top signs get pulled, how c an it be improved as it’s a bus stop. 5/15/2023 9:56 PM 40 I wouldn’t need t o c ros s if sidewalk s were on both sides of the st reet.5/15/2023 8:37 PM 41 Speed limit s hould not be reduc ed.5/13/2023 9:13 AM 42 My top 3 c oncerns above are in order: 1, 2, 3. (not sure how to c orrectly answer this question). I've liv ed in area for 26 years. Problem is drivers not obeying rules, otherwise I don't see a problem, Ex cept : Bus es s hould not be allowed to STOP on Duckwood Dr. Why not turn onto Widgeon Way and STOP the bus s o traffic can flow? 5/11/2023 7:34 PM 43 Ins talling s idewalk s on the s outh side of Duc k wood would probably help as well as narrowing the intersec tion for motorist s on both Widgeon Way & Duckwood Dr. Sidewalk s on both sides of Duc kwood would giv e MORE visibility to pedest rians & kids getting on & off the bus . 5/11/2023 12:58 PM 44 Just this morning while waiting for the school bus I witness ed a car driv ing f ast enough that a father and s on c ros s ing to t he bus s top paus e bec ause it looked as though the car wasn't going to s top, then while 2 s isters were crossing a car drive through the inters ec tion between the 2 of them instead of wait ing an ext ra 10 seconds , then while the bus was loading s tudents a c ar turned from south widgeon right onto duck wood. This s ame driver has been s topped by parents sev eral times and yelled at but he c ontinues t o do it. Every time I am at the bus s top at least 1 car rolls through without completely stopping. Several c ars are c learly drive ng well over the speed limit . I hav e been nearly t-boned Turning onto duck wood at least 5 times in the 8 y ears I hav e liv ed here by someone blowing t he s top sign. 5/11/2023 12:51 PM 45 Driv ers speeding and not st opping at the stop sign is the main concern. I don’t k now what are the bes t way s t o mak e driv ers obey the laws . 5/11/2023 11:40 AM 46 Not the safety of the crossing. However there is a growing problem in the neighborhood with uncontrolled dog barking. At this meeting , can you pleas e remind ev eryone that unc ontrolled dog bark ing is against c ity ordinance. Thank y ou. 5/11/2023 9:04 AM 47 I have never seen complete dis regard for a s top sign before on my life. It’s ridiculous. Me and everyone I know in this neighborhood hav e almos t been hit at that inters ec tion (as drivers, not pedestrians). 5/10/2023 7:44 PM 48 Many c lose calls with vehicles not stopping for car and when walking.5/10/2023 9:58 AM 49 Somet imes cars nev er st op just eit her cruis e thru or blow by 5/10/2023 8:19 AM 50 Serious ly, we have a running “joke” about the c reativ e non-stopping that tak es place at t he intersection. We only c ros s when it ’s 1000% clear that the c ars have seen us and have stopped, or when there are no c ars anywhere. Bec ause we see c ars roll through (or blow through) that intersect ion all. the. time. And it’s terrify ing. At a minimum, there s hould be a flashing light. I don’t know if it would help, but it c an’t be muc h wors e than it is now. 5/9/2023 9:13 PM 51 People just don't c are becaus e it's not their neighborhood.5/9/2023 8:31 PM 52 I go for runs a f ew times a week and almost ev ery time I encounter a driv er who either doesn't stop, or DOES but then cont inues going almost directly into me bec aus e they 're still staring at their phone or whatever. 5/9/2023 6:40 PM Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 11 / 21 53 I used to watc h my grandson. I was going to cros s duckwood to go to play ground. I thought the car that was coming from Denmark and down widgeon was going too fast. If I would have trusted thos e hok ey s top signs, I would not be here t o tell this story. Blew right through and I know he was going at least 60mph. People driv e at leas t 50-60 mph down duc kwood and blow through t he s top signs. I tell all of my relatives to not trust ANY car. When I am out walking I do not cross duckwood. Also people walk on duck wood ins tead of s idewalks. What is up with that? When we moved here in 2013 there was always a policeman posted up t here. I would be interested in finding out the number of tickets issued for speeding and not s topping at stop signs . For the record we do not walk to the park with our grandk ids for any reason. Far too dangerous. Noone stops at those s igns t hey might s low down but never a c omplete stop. 5/9/2023 3:04 PM 54 It's scary every time I hav e to enter this inters ection, whether I'm walk ing, biking, or driving. It is not ev en remotely safe. 5/9/2023 1:15 PM 55 Enforc ement is the main problem. The s top sign is necessary to control traf fic, speed and pedestrian safety 5/9/2023 12:30 PM 56 My son has been almos t 2 times try to c ros s for his bus.5/9/2023 6:47 AM 57 We OK as is . Change unnec essary alt hough sidewalk s would be nic e, if maintained.5/9/2023 12:41 AM 58 Someone is going to get hit and hurt or killed at s ome point. I hav e had people almost hit me several times. And I'm an adult. If a kid does n't hav e his head const antly going bac k they are at risk . 5/8/2023 10:01 PM 59 I’d lik e a balance of identified cross walk and respec t for bright or excessive flashing light.5/8/2023 7:50 PM 60 I was almos t t-boned by a teenage girl on her c ell phone- she completely ignored the stop sign 5/8/2023 2:41 PM Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 12 / 21 24.72%22 39.33%35 22.47%20 4.49%4 22.47%20 11.24%10 Q7 Do you.... (select all that apply) Answered: 89 Sk ipped: 3 Total Respondents : 89 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 North of Duckwood on Town Centre 5/27/2023 5:23 PM 2 I shop in the area 5/24/2023 8:27 AM 3 I like to bike in the ev enings & weekends. I als o walk to around the neighborhood.5/18/2023 9:56 PM 4 walk or bik e to town c entre area 5/18/2023 8:54 PM 5 Retired cros s int ers ec tion multiple times a day running errands , bik ing and walking dog 5/18/2023 7:01 PM 6 Liv e on widgeon way 5/17/2023 7:40 PM 7 walk dog ac ros s duc k wood 5/17/2023 5:02 PM 8 Former Widgeon Way (south of Duck wood) homeowner 5/11/2023 12:58 PM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Live on Widgeon Way... Live on Widgeon Way... Live East of Widgeon Way... Live West of Widgeon Way... Commute to w ork o r scho... Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Liv e on Widgeon Way North of Duc k wood Driv e (Toward Yank ee Doodle Road) Liv e on Widgeon Way South of Duckwood Drive (Toward Wes cott Road) Liv e Eas t of Widgeon Way (Toward Lex ington) Liv e West of Widgeon Way (Toward Town Center Shopping Center) Commute t o work or school along Duc k wood Driv e Other (please s pecify) Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 13 / 21 9 On mourning Dov e and widgeon 5/9/2023 3:04 PM 10 Actually live on Woodthrush Ct whic h is c onnected to Widgeon Way South of Duckwood.5/9/2023 12:41 AM Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 14 / 21 Q8 What is your ZIP code? Answered: 90 Sk ipped: 2 #RESPONSES DATE 1 55123 6/15/2023 2:01 PM 2 55123 6/15/2023 7:44 AM 3 55123 6/11/2023 6:53 PM 4 55123 6/5/2023 6:07 PM 5 55123 6/2/2023 9:24 PM 6 55123 6/1/2023 4:52 AM 7 55123 5/29/2023 4:58 PM 8 55123 5/29/2023 2:24 PM 9 55123 5/29/2023 12:52 PM 10 55123 5/29/2023 7:01 AM 11 55123 5/28/2023 9:20 AM 12 55123 5/27/2023 5:23 PM 13 55123 5/27/2023 6:51 AM 14 55123 5/26/2023 8:08 PM 15 55123 5/25/2023 8:56 AM 16 55123 5/24/2023 7:54 PM 17 55123 5/24/2023 3:43 PM 18 55123 5/24/2023 3:26 PM 19 55122 5/24/2023 12:56 PM 20 55123 5/24/2023 12:43 PM 21 55122 5/24/2023 11:35 AM 22 55123 5/24/2023 10:20 AM 23 55123 5/24/2023 9:26 AM 24 55123 5/24/2023 8:31 AM 25 55123 5/24/2023 8:27 AM 26 55123 5/23/2023 9:39 PM 27 55123 5/23/2023 5:47 PM 28 55123 5/23/2023 12:29 PM 29 55123 5/22/2023 8:14 PM 30 55123 5/22/2023 6:56 PM 31 55123 5/22/2023 4:11 PM 32 55124 5/22/2023 4:03 PM 33 55123 5/21/2023 11:02 AM Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 15 / 21 34 55123 5/20/2023 6:57 PM 35 55123 5/20/2023 10:19 AM 36 55123 5/19/2023 2:55 PM 37 55123 5/18/2023 9:56 PM 38 55123 5/18/2023 8:54 PM 39 55123 5/18/2023 7:01 PM 40 55123 5/18/2023 12:58 PM 41 55123 5/18/2023 12:33 PM 42 55123 5/18/2023 7:55 AM 43 55123 5/17/2023 7:40 PM 44 55123 5/17/2023 6:17 PM 45 55123 5/17/2023 5:02 PM 46 55123 5/17/2023 4:36 PM 47 55123 5/17/2023 7:21 AM 48 55123 5/16/2023 9:06 PM 49 55123 5/16/2023 7:19 PM 50 55123 5/16/2023 7:04 PM 51 55123 5/16/2023 6:04 PM 52 55123 5/16/2023 9:36 AM 53 55123 5/16/2023 9:23 AM 54 55123 5/16/2023 9:20 AM 55 55123 5/16/2023 8:54 AM 56 55123 5/16/2023 7:03 AM 57 55123 5/15/2023 9:56 PM 58 55123 5/15/2023 8:37 PM 59 55123 5/15/2023 7:59 PM 60 55123 5/15/2023 4:31 PM 61 55123 5/13/2023 9:13 AM 62 55123 5/12/2023 10:34 AM 63 55123 5/11/2023 7:34 PM 64 55122 5/11/2023 12:58 PM 65 55123 5/11/2023 12:51 PM 66 55123 5/11/2023 11:40 AM 67 55123 5/11/2023 9:04 AM 68 55123 5/10/2023 7:44 PM 69 6 5/10/2023 2:12 PM 70 55123 5/10/2023 9:58 AM 71 55123 5/10/2023 8:19 AM Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 16 / 21 72 55123 5/10/2023 6:55 AM 73 55123 5/10/2023 6:30 AM 74 55123 5/9/2023 9:13 PM 75 55123 5/9/2023 9:10 PM 76 55123 5/9/2023 8:31 PM 77 55123 5/9/2023 6:40 PM 78 55123 5/9/2023 4:05 PM 79 55123 5/9/2023 3:04 PM 80 55123 5/9/2023 1:15 PM 81 55123 5/9/2023 1:07 PM 82 55123 5/9/2023 12:30 PM 83 55123 5/9/2023 10:38 AM 84 55123 5/9/2023 8:25 AM 85 55123 5/9/2023 6:47 AM 86 55123 5/9/2023 12:41 AM 87 55123 5/8/2023 10:01 PM 88 55123 5/8/2023 9:39 PM 89 55123 5/8/2023 7:50 PM 90 55123 5/8/2023 2:41 PM Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 17 / 21 3.33%3 3.33%3 48.89%44 16.67%15 27.78%25 0.00%0 Q9 What category contains your age? Answered: 90 Sk ipped: 2 TOTAL 90 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Under 1 6 1 6-24 25-5 4 55-64 65-84 85 + ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Under 16 16-24 25-54 55-64 65-84 85+ Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 18 / 21 56.67%51 36.67%33 0.00%0 6.67%6 Q10 Which gender do you identify with? Answered: 90 Sk ipped: 2 TOTAL 90 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Female Mal e Non-binary Prefer not to say ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Female Male Non-binary Prefer not to s ay Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 19 / 21 100.00%86 0.00%0 Q11 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Answered: 86 Sk ipped: 6 TOTAL 86 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% No, I am not Spanish,... Yes, I consider mys... ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES No, I am not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino Yes, I c onsider myself to be Spanish, His panic or Latino Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 20 / 21 1.14%1 4.55%4 1.14%1 81.82%72 11.36%10 3.41%3 Q12 How do you describe your race? (Select all that apply) Answered: 88 Sk ipped: 4 Total Respondents : 88 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 A consultant is a pers on who asks to borrow your watc h and then charges you when you ask "What time is it ?" But t hey c an't be abs olutely sure that the time is correct, because af ter all, it is your watc h. --The s ame is true in this s it uation when it was discussed previously. The c ore problem is that the people who run through t he s top sign are not s trangers to the neighborhood. They are YOUR FRIENDS and neighbors. The c it y's original lay out of the retail in Town Centre was flawed from the beginning and they City s hould ac c ept the respons ibility of fix ing the problem using "their nickel". There should not be a s ide drive-in at the Walmart st ore on Duc k wood Driv e. And t he path f rom Lexington to Denmark is too smoot h and eas y to drive. It should be curved and annoy ing to driv e so that the s peed is automatically retarded by the lay out and design of the street. Als o, automated tic k eting tied to camera's and s ensors for all the people who violate the law, would not only generat e enforcement revenue, but it would reduce the amount of travel on Duckwood Drive. The City with traffic problems is a City who 5/23/2023 5:47 PM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Amer ican Indian or... Asian, Asian Indian or... Bl ack or African... White Prefer not to say Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES American Indian or Alas k a Native Asian, As ian Indian or Pacific Islander Blac k or African Americ an Whit e Prefer not to s ay Other (please s pecify) Duc kwood Drive and Widgeon Way Survey 21 / 21 has flawed des ign iss ues with their street grid system and all the rules and s ignage t hat goes along wit h it. 2 This s urvey has nothing to do with rac e. It’s all about keeping ev ery one s afe espec ially the children. 5/16/2023 7:19 PM 3 Jewish 5/11/2023 12:58 PM DUCKWOOD DRIVE AND WIDGEON WAY INTERSECTION Eagan, MN Agenda ▪Introduction/Background ▪Study Process ▪Current Status ▪Discussion/Agreement of Issues ▪Brainstorm Options Intersection Background Petition ▪Introduction/Background ▪Study Process ▪Current Status ▪Discussion/Agreement of Issues ▪Tools Available ▪Brainstorm Options School Bus Routes High School Middle School Elementary School Study Process Study Process ▪Review Past Intersection Studies o Last studied in 2018 o Intersection did not meet “warrants” for a four way Stop intersection o Adequate number of gaps in traffic for pedestrians to safely cross o Recommended removal of STOP signs on Duckwood Drive o After much discussion City decision was to leave as is. ▪Collect New Data –May 2023 o Vehicle and Pedestrian/Bicycle Volumes o Traffic Speeds on Duckwood Drive o Gaps in Traffic o Stop Compliance o 10 year Crash History ▪School District 196 Input ▪Resident Survey/Discussion Current Status Current Status of Study ▪Traffic Data is being collected (not yet analyzed) ▪Resident Survey and Meeting Invites sent o Survey results coming in ▪Reached out to School District ▪Resident Discussion (Today) Preliminary Survey Results Preliminary Survey Results (May 23, 2023) Preliminary Survey Results (May 23, 2023) Preliminary Survey Results (May 23, 2023) Preliminary Survey Results (May 23, 2023) Top Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked Preliminary Survey Results (May 23, 2023) Preliminary Survey Results (May 23, 2023) Discussion Why did the goose cross the road?Pedestrian Crossing Safety Design Options How do we Improve Safety ▪Use the correct tools ▪Follow Research and Standards ▪Consistency is the KEY to safety ▪Good Street Design ▪Reduce Crossing Distance RRFB Growing an Encouragement Campaign For operations plans and details on how to set up crossing events for this highly successful program contact Senior Commander Kathleen Brown at: Kathleen.Brown@ci.stpaul.mn.us Next Steps Crossing Evaluation Process 1. Field Review & Preliminary Data Collection 2. Data Collection & Analysis 3. Evaluate Candidate Locations 4. Engineering Review We are here! Completing in June 2023 July 2023 after Open House #2 Next Community Meeting Next Meeting June 27, 2023 4:30 p.m. Eagan Room Thank You!! Russ Matthys, PE Director of Public Works 651-675-5646 John Gorder, PE City Engineer 651-675-5645 John Maczko, PE, PTOE SRF Consulting Group 651-333-4127 DUCKWOOD DRIVE AND WIDGEON WAY INTERSECTION Eagan, MN Agenda INTRODUCTION WHAT WE HEARD STUDY PROCESS STUDY RESULTS PUBLIC FEEDBACK OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION NEXT STEPS Study Process ▪Reviewed Past Intersection Studies o Last studied in 2018 o Intersection did not meet “warrants” for a four way Stop intersection o Adequate number of gaps in traffic for pedestrians to safely cross o Recommended removal of STOP signs on Duckwood Drive o After much discussion City decision was to leave as is. ▪Collected New Data –May 2023 o Vehicle and Pedestrian/Bicycle Volumes o Traffic Speeds on Duckwood Drive o Gaps in Traffic o Stop Compliance o 10-year Crash History ▪School District 196 Input ▪Resident Survey/Discussion Petition What we Heard Survey Results (June 16, 2023) Survey Results (June 16, 2023) Survey Results (June 16, 2023) Survey Results (June 16, 2023) Top Ranked Second Ranked Third Ranked Survey Results (June 16, 2023) Survey Results (June 16, 2023) Data Results Data Collected Reported Crash History (2013-2022) 1.Feb 2014: Property Damage, Angle, Icy Road 2.Nov 2016: Property Damage, Rear End, Distracted Driving 3.Oct 2022: Possible Injury, Rear End, Medical Condition School Bus Routes (High School)Potential Students (2022 –23) 14 on South 4 on North Potential Students (2022 –23) 5 on South 33 on North School Bus Routes (Middle School) Potential Students (2022-23) 4 on South 3 on North School Bus Routes (Elementary)Potential Students (2022 -23) 8 students Potential Students (2022 -23) 16 on South 5 on North School District Observations/Report ▪Intersection has been observed by Safety Specialist several times ▪Sight distance more than 300 yards in both directions ▪Traffic was light during drop-off times ▪Some vehicles made rolling stops in the morning to beat the bus ▪Once bus stopped and deployed stop arms all traffic stopped ▪Bus Drivers report all stop arm violations (none reported for 2022-23) ▪Roadway does not meet hazardous crossing criteria set by district as only two criteria met •Street Width •35MPH Speed Stop Compliance –Duckwood Drive ▪Percentage of all drivers that came to a complete stop. Stop Compliance – Widgeon Way ▪Percentage of all drivers that came to a complete stop. Suggestions from Public for Improvement ▪Increase enforcement of the stop signs ▪STOP AHEAD signs (currently exist) ▪Larger stop signs ▪STOP markings in the street ▪Remove the stop signs on Duckwood Drive ▪Flashing lights on the stop signs ▪Mark crosswalks ▪Flashing lights for crossing ▪Roundabout ▪Narrow the roadway ▪Cameras for enforcement of violators (not allowed under current state law) ▪Park a police car near intersection (unstaffed) ▪Add rumble strips ▪Move school bus stops off Duckwood Drive. ▪Add a sidewalk or trail on south side of Duckwood Drive ▪Trim trees so signs are more visible School District Glacier Hills Elementary Route •Stop -Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way •For students residing south of Duckwood Drive •Stop -North end of Widgeon Way at the cut - out •Add a Stop •Widgeon Way and Widgeon Way T •No changes for Black Hawk MS & Eagan HS •students remain on the side of the road they reside on and cross only when the bus deploys it’s stop arm and the driver signals them to cross. Add a bus stop Options for Consideration Safety can be improved by… ▪Using the correct tools ▪Following research, best practices, and standards ▪Providing consistent expectations through good roadway design Stop Signs ▪A STOP sign is used to assign right of way at an intersection and to make sure that traffic flows smoothly and predictably. ▪All-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. ▪A STOP sign should not be used as a speed control device. Do STOP Signs Reduce Speeding? ▪MnMUTCD -YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control. ▪Research shows that where stop signs are installed as “deterrents” or “speed breakers,” there are high incidences of intentional violations. ▪When vehicles must stop, the speed reduction is only near the stop sign, and drivers tend to speed up between stop signs. ▪When not required to stop by cross street traffic: o 5 to 20% of all drivers come to a complete stop o 40 to 60% will come to a rolling stop below 5 mph o 20 to 40% will pass through at higher speeds. ▪Signs placed for the purpose of speed reduction are the most flagrantly violated. Geometric Options for Consideration Median Curb Extension Combined Median and Curb Extension Roundabout Community-wide Project For operations plans and details on how to set up crossing events for this highly successful program contact Senior Commander Kathleen Brown at: Kathleen.Brown@ci.stpaul.mn.us Next Steps Next Steps ▪Report to the City in the next few weeks ▪City staff to discuss and determine next steps with the findings of the report ▪City Council consideration -Workshop or Public Works Committee Thank You!! Russ Matthys, PE Director of Public Works 651-675-5646 John Gorder, PE City Engineer 651-675-5645 John Maczko, PE, PTOE SRF Consulting Group 651-333-4127 May 24th Community Meeting Summary Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Safety Present: John Gorder (City Engineer), John Maczko (SRF), Tom Sachi (SRF), approximately – 25-30 residents Overview: John Gorder provided an overview of the intersection history. Stop signs were installed decades ago in response to concerns about speeding along Duckwood Drive. The intersection has been studied several times in the last decade related to concerns about safety. The most recent study was completed in 2018 and recommended removal of the stop signs. After much discussion the final result was to leave the intersection as is. Current petition cites the following concerns: • Vehicles not stopping at the STOP sign while students are crossing • Pedestrians not safe in current crossing area • Vehicles not adhering to the flashing lights of school buses • Very low visibility of crosswalk/no crosswalk – High danger Data Collection: John and Tom shared the study process that involves collecting current data and obtaining community input and discussion. Data to be collected includes: • Traffic Volumes • Traffic Speeds on Duckwood Drive • Intersection Turn Counts (Cars, Bikes, Pedestrians) • Gaps in Traffic • Stop Compliance • 10 year Crash History • Community feedback and survey Data collection is currently underway including tonight’s meeting and a community survey. John (SRF) shared survey results received to date. 64 responses received with the top three issues identified: • Vehicles not stopping for stop signs • Cars not stopping for pedestrians • Careless Driving/Speeding Discussion of issues and thoughts for improvements: Those in attendance agreed that the issues identified so far in the survey are the top concerns. Discussion then moved to ideas for improvements. These included: • Increase enforcement of the signs – There is none • Mark the crosswalks • STOP ahead signs • Round-a-bout • Narrow the street • Flashing lights on the stop signs • Flashing lights for crossing • Larger stop signs • Cameras for enforcement and mail the ticket • Park a police car near intersection (unstaffed) • Rumble strips • Take the signs out • Move school bus stops off Duckwood Drive. • Sidewalk or trail on south side of Duckwood Drive so you don’t have to cross • Markings in the street that say Stop • Trim trees so signs are more visible John (SRF) also shared information related to the “Stop for Me Campaign” that had been utilized in Saint Paul prior to COVID with great success. The program is a community lead program that partners with Police and Public works to improve both driver and pedestrian knowledge and responsibilities related to pedestrian crossings. This is a great way to be involved - raise awareness – be successful. Next Steps: John, John and Tom thanked everyone for their time and input. As next steps, they will be processing the data that is being collected and developing some options for consideration. There will be a follow-up meeting on June 27th at 4:30pm at this same meeting location (City Hall -Eagan Room) to report back to the community the results of the data collection and thoughts for improvements at the intersection. June 27th Community Meeting Minutes Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Safety Present: John Gorder (City Engineer), Luke Nelson (EPD Traffic Enforcement), John Maczko (SRF), Tom Sachi (SRF), approximately – 15-20 residents Overview: John (SRF) presented with the use of a powerpoint presentation. The presentation started with a summary review of the May 24th meeting and why we were here. Petition cites the following concerns: • Vehicles not stopping at the STOP sign while students are crossing • Pedestrians not safe in current crossing area • Vehicles not adhering to the flashing lights of school buses • Very low visibility of crosswalk/no crosswalk – High danger What We Heard: (92 survey respondents and 25-30 meeting attendees Top 3 Concerns: • Vehicles are not stopping for stop signs • Cars are not stopping for pedestrians • Careless Driving/Speeding Data Collection Results: John and Tom shared the results of the data collection. Traffic Volumes: Duckwood Drive: 6,050 - 6,600 Vehicles per day Widgeon Way: 350 – 800 Vehicles per day Speed Limit: Average: 35-37 mph 85%ile Speed: 39-42 mph Pedestrian/Bike: Crossing Duckwood: 43 Crossings Widgeon Way :139 Crossings Reported Crashes (10 Years): Three (3) - 2 rear end and 1 Right Angle Crash EPD did not have any additional crashes to report Stop sign Compliance: (Percentage of all Drivers that came to a complete stop) Duckwood Drive: 21-25% Widgeon Way: 42-43% School District Observations: Good sight distance, traffic was light at drop-off times, some vehicles made rolling stops, once bus stopped and deployed stop arms vehicles stopped, bus drivers reported no Stop arm violations in 2022-23 and the roadway does not meet hazardous crossing criteria (meets only 2 criteria: 35mph and street width) School district provided potential 2022-23 student pick up numbers for the Duckwood/Widgeon Way stop: 21 Elementary school, 7 Middle School and 18 High School) for comparison at Duckwood and Duckwood Trail there were 38 High School and 0 Middle school students. (elementary were unreported) Improved Crossing safety Ideas: • Increase enforcement of the signs • Mark the crosswalks • STOP ahead signs • Roundabout • Narrow the street • Flashing lights on the stop signs • Flashing lights for crossing • Larger stop signs • Cameras for enforcement and mail the ticket • Park a police car near intersection (unstaffed) • Rumble strips • Take the signs out • Move school bus stops off Duckwood Drive. • Sidewalk or trail on south side of Duckwood Drive so you don’t have to cross • Markings in the street that say STOP • Trim trees so signs are more visible John (SRF) shared some comments on some of the suggested ideas for clarification. Stop ahead signs currently exist; Existing STOP signs are 48” with reflective posts (standard is 30” Like at Denmark and Duckwood); camera enforcement of STOP sign violations is currently not permitted in Minnesota; Rumble strips are noisy for adjacent residents. Officer Luke Nelson provided information related to his experience in doing traffic enforcement in Eagan for the past 7 years. He explained the difficulties in enforcing stop sign violations. State law says that you must come to a complete stop at a stop sign or you are in violation of the law. He agreed with the data that was shared that there is a high violation rate of the law but if he wrote tickets to 80% of the drivers on Duckwood Drive they would likely get thrown out in court and the validity of a stop sign being at that location would also likely be challenged. Good discussion followed with those present and it comes down to a police officer doing what is “reasonable”. That is tough to determine as it is a person’s individual belief, but it is a reality in how a judge rules. Options for Consideration John (SRF) said that the School District has indicated that they will add a stop for the Elementary School children for the 2023-24 school year on Widgeon Way north of Duckwood Drive so that Elementary aged children will not have to cross Duckwood Drive to get to the bus. Other options include: John indicated that following research, best practices, and standards provide for consistent expectations of ALL users (pedestrian, biker and driver) and make situations safer for all. One needs to ask the question: What makes this intersection different than many others in Eagan? (Duckwood Trail and Duckwood Drive for instance) Option 1 - Removing the Stop Signs on Duckwood Drive. • The original stop signs were put in to manage speed. National studies as well as the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices state that stop signs should not be used for speed control. • Stop signs are used to assign right of way at an intersection to assure smooth and predictable traffic flow. • Four-way stops should be used where the volume of traffic is approximately equal. (Not the case at this intersection) • Only 1 in 5 vehicles is currently stopping – there is no consistency. • Research shows where STOP signs are installed as “speed deterrents” there are high incidences for intentional violations. • Signs placed for the purpose of speed reduction are the most flagrantly violated. Not everyone was in agreement this was a good solution, but most people agreed that people are not stopping for stop signs and that it is hard to tell who will stop and who won’t. One resident said she keeps small stones in her pocket and throws them at cars that don’t stop. Some thought adding lights around the signs would help or paint in the road. While there is some minor tree trimming that should occur, the Stop signs are oversized, have reflective poles and advance warning signs with reflective poles in place. The bottom line is the signs are visible and people aren’t stopping, and this is consistent with research of un-warranted stop signs. Removing the stop signs would improve driver expectations and make the intersection more predictable of what other drivers are going to do. Roadway narrowing options. Research has shown roadway narrowing has been shown to reduce speed and improve pedestrian safety. Ther are several ways to accomplish this narrowing as indicated below. The cost to implement can vary depending on option chosen and the construction methodology, concrete and asphalt or paint or tape. Option 1: Median with Refuge Area • Narrows the street • Provides for two stage pedestrian crossing (i.e. pedestrian only crosses one lane at a time with a refuge area between lanes) • Least expensive construction if permanent as it does not affect drainage • Can be done with paint, though raised infrastructure is more effective and safer. Option 2: Curb Extension • Narrows the street • Allows pedestrians to be more visible • More costly to construct as it affects drainage design • Can be done with paint, though raised infrastructure is more effective Option 3: Combined median and curb extension • Narrows the street • Allows pedestrians to be more visible • Allows for two stage pedestrian crossing • More expensive to construct as it affects drainage design and includes a median • Can be done with paint, though raised infrastructure is more effective Option 4: Roundabout • Slows traffic • Requires additional ROW • Costly to construct • Mixed research on pedestrian safety for roundabouts Someone asked if the Stop Sign would be removed if any of the above were implemented. John (SRF) stated that data would show that they should be as the stop signs are not warranted based on the MnMUTCD. People in attendance appeared open to roadway narrowing options 1-3 but were overwhelming against the roundabout as drivers don’t need to stop making it harder on pedestrians and it would take additional ROW and be expensive. One resident asked about a mini roundabout as an option but that too received little support. People asked about simply marking crosswalks. Officer Nelson asked why folks thought painting something probably not visible to a driver like it is to a pedestrian would make a driver STOP when they are not stopping now. John (SRF) reminded those in attendance that state law is very clear that the driver of a vehicle shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk. John also asked what made this intersection any different than many other intersections in the city (ie Duckwood Drive and Duckwood Trail). Following research and standards and maintaining consistency is important to maintain safety. Some suggested the flashing crossing lights when a pedestrian is present (an RRFB). While those are effective in the right circumstances this location does not meet the criteria established for installation. John (SRF) also shared information related to the “Stop for Me Campaign” that had been utilized in Saint Paul prior to COVID with great success. The program is a community lead program that partners with Police and Public works to improve both driver and pedestrian knowledge and responsibilities related to pedestrian crossings. This is a great way to be involved - raise awareness – be successful. A resident asked if more could be done to educate and promote crossing safety and driver awareness in the city via newsletters and other communications means. John (Eagan) said that this was a good suggestion and he would look into it. Next Steps: John, John and Tom thanked everyone for their time and input. As next steps: • SRF will be producing a report to the city in the next few weeks • City staff will discuss and determine next steps with the findings • The report will likely go to a workshop of Public Works committee for discussion and ultimately to the city council. Crash Detail Report - Long Form Report Version 1.0 February 2020 INCIDENT ID 10943348 ROUTE SYS 05-MSAS ROUTE NUM 114 MEASURE 0.368 ROUTE NAME Duckwood Dr COUNTY 19-Dakota CITY Eagan TOWNSHIP MNDOT DISTRICT D-METRO RELATION TO INT Four-Way Intersection LOCAL ID 14001036 CRASH SEVERITY N - Prop Damage Only DATE 02/23/14 TIME 15:35 DAY OF WEEK Sun INTERSECT WITH BASIC TYPE Angle MANNER OF COLLISION Angle NUM VEH 2 NUM KILLED 0 DIV RDWY DIR East FIRST HARMFUL Motor Vehicle In Transport ROADWAY SURF Ice/Frost LIGHT CONDITION Daylight WEATHER PRIMARY Clear WEATHER SECONDARY Clear HIT & RUN No PUBLIC PRIVATE CODE YES WORK ZONE TYPE NOT APPLICABLE WORK ZONE LOC NOT APPLICABLE WORKERS PRES Not Applicable (Not in Work Zone) LAW ENF PRES ON/OFF TRAFFICWAY RELATIVE LOC TRAFFICWAY On Roadway (including alley, ON BRIDGE? No ROAD CONTRIB CIRCUM 1 ROAD CONTRIB CIRCUM 2 Unit 1 - 0 UNIT TYPE 0 VEH TYPE VAN OR MINIVAN DL STATUS Valid PERSON TYPE Driver AGE 48 SEX Male INJURY SEVERITY N - Prop Dmg Only ZIP 55123 DL STATE MN DL CLASS D The Normal (Not Commercial) Driver License DL ENDORSEMENTS DL RESTRICTIONS None RECOMMENDATIONS? None PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Apparently Normal (Including No Drugs/Alcoh VIOLATIONS No Unit 1 - Vehicle Information VEH USE Normal EMERGENCY VEH USE TOWED? Not Towed INITIAL CONTACT MOST HARMFUL Motor Vehicle In Transpor TRAILERS No SEQUENCE OF EVENTS Motor Vehicle In Transport Motor Vehicle In Transport Motor Vehicle In Transport Motor Vehicle In Transport MANEUVER BK SLG/STPG/STNG VEHICLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Unit 1 - Person Information CONTRIB FACTORS No Clear Contributing Action No Clear Contributing Action DRIVER DISTRACTED BY SPEEDING RELATED NON-MOTORIST MANEUVER BK SLG/STPG/STNG NON-MOTORIST LOCATION LE SUSPECTS ALCOHOL LE SUSPECTS DRUG ALCOHOL TEST GIVEN No, Test Not Given ALCOHOL TEST TYPE NOT APPLICABLE ALCOHOL TEST RESULT DRUG TEST GIVEN No, Test Not Given DRUG TEST TYPE Not Applicable DRUG TEST RESULT Unit 1 - Roadway Characteristics DIRECTION Eastbound ALIGNMENT CURVE (pre 2016) GRADE Level SPEED LIMIT 35 ROADWAY DESIGN 2-LANES 1-ECH-WY NUM LANES TRAFFIC CONTROL STOP SIGN ALL WAY TRAF CONTRL WORKING CODE NOT APPLICABLE Unit 2 - 0 UNIT TYPE 0 VEH TYPE Passenger Car DL STATUS Valid PERSON TYPE Driver AGE 57 SEX Female INJURY SEVERITY N - Prop Dmg Only ZIP 55123 DL STATE MN DL CLASS D The Normal (Not Commercial) Driver License DL ENDORSEMENTS DL RESTRICTIONS None RECOMMENDATIONS? None PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Apparently Normal (Including No Drugs/Alcoh VIOLATIONS Yes Unit 2 - Vehicle Information VEH USE Normal EMERGENCY VEH USE TOWED? Not Towed INITIAL CONTACT MOST HARMFUL Motor Vehicle In Transpor TRAILERS No SEQUENCE OF EVENTS Motor Vehicle In Transport Motor Vehicle In Transport Motor Vehicle In Transport Motor Vehicle In Transport MANEUVER BK SLG/STPG/STNG VEHICLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Unit 2 - Person Information CONTRIB FACTORS No Clear Contributing Action No Clear Contributing Action DRIVER DISTRACTED BY SPEEDING RELATED NON-MOTORIST MANEUVER BK SLG/STPG/STNG NON-MOTORIST LOCATION LE SUSPECTS ALCOHOL LE SUSPECTS DRUG ALCOHOL TEST GIVEN No, Test Not Given ALCOHOL TEST TYPE NOT APPLICABLE ALCOHOL TEST RESULT DRUG TEST GIVEN No, Test Not Given DRUG TEST TYPE Not Applicable DRUG TEST RESULT Unit 2 - Roadway Characteristics DIRECTION Eastbound ALIGNMENT CURVE (pre 2016) GRADE Level SPEED LIMIT 35 ROADWAY DESIGN 2-LANES 1-ECH-WY NUM LANES TRAFFIC CONTROL STOP SIGN ALL WAY TRAF CONTRL WORKING CODE NOT APPLICABLE ROUTE ID 0500023945860114-I LATITUDE 44.826286 LONGITUDE -93.154406 UTM X 487794.3 UTM Y 4963664.0 Report Generated 05/15/2023 MnCMAT 2.0.0 Page 1 of 7 Crash Detail Report - Long Form Report Version 1.0 February 2020 Unit 3 UNIT TYPE VEH TYPE DL STATUS PERSON TYPE AGE SEX INJURY SEVERITY ZIP DL STATE DL CLASS DL ENDORSEMENTS DL RESTRICTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS? PHYSICAL CONDITIONS VIOLATIONS Unit 3 - Vehicle Information VEH USE EMERGENCY VEH USE TOWED? INITIAL CONTACT MOST HARMFUL TRAILERS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS MANEUVER VEHICLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Unit 3 - Person Information CONTRIB FACTORS DRIVER DISTRACTED BY SPEEDING RELATED NON-MOTORIST MANEUVER NON-MOTORIST LOCATION LE SUSPECTS ALCOHOL LE SUSPECTS DRUG ALCOHOL TEST GIVEN ALCOHOL TEST TYPE ALCOHOL TEST RESULT DRUG TEST GIVEN DRUG TEST TYPE DRUG TEST RESULT Unit 4 UNIT TYPE VEH TYPE DL STATUS PERSON TYPE AGE SEX INJURY SEVERITY ZIP DL STATE DL CLASS DL ENDORSEMENTS DL RESTRICTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS? PHYSICAL CONDITIONS VIOLATIONS Unit 4 - Vehicle Information VEH USE EMERGENCY VEH USE TOWED? INITIAL CONTACT MOST HARMFUL TRAILERS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS MANEUVER VEHICLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Unit 4 - Person Information CONTRIB FACTORS DRIVER DISTRACTED BY SPEEDING RELATED NON-MOTORIST MANEUVER NON-MOTORIST LOCATION LE SUSPECTS ALCOHOL LE SUSPECTS DRUG ALCOHOL TEST GIVEN ALCOHOL TEST TYPE ALCOHOL TEST RESULT DRUG TEST GIVEN DRUG TEST TYPE DRUG TEST RESULT OFFICER SKETCH NO OFFICER SKETCH WAS FOUND. NARRATIVE BOTH VEHICLES WERE TRAVELING EAST ON DUCKWOOD DR APPROACHING THE INTERSECTION OF DUCKWOOD DR AND WIDGEON WAY. VEHICLE ONE WAS BEHIND VEHICLE TWO. VEHICLE TWO LOST CONTROL WHILE ATTEMPTING TO STOP ON THE ICY ROAD AND SPUN AROUND. VEHICLE ONE ALSO LOST CONTROL WHILE ATTEMPTING TO STOP ON THE ICY ROAD AND SPUN OUT AS WELL. THE REAR PASSENGER BUMPER OF VEHICLE ONE STRUCK THE PASSENGER SIDE OF VEHICLE TWO. NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED. Report Generated 05/15/2023 MnCMAT 2.0.0 Page 2 of 7 Crash Detail Report - Long Form Report Version 1.0 February 2020 INCIDENT ID 01052405 ROUTE SYS 05-MSAS ROUTE NUM 114 MEASURE 0.403 ROUTE NAME DUCKWOOD DR COUNTY 19-Dakota CITY Eagan TOWNSHIP MNDOT DISTRICT RELATION TO INT Four-Way Intersection LOCAL ID 22005843 CRASH SEVERITY C - Possible Injury DATE 10/18/22 TIME 15:55 DAY OF WEEK Tue INTERSECT WITH WIDGEON WAY BASIC TYPE Rear End MANNER OF COLLISION Front to Rear NUM VEH 2 NUM KILLED 0 DIV RDWY DIR FIRST HARMFUL Motor Vehicle In Transport ROADWAY SURF Dry LIGHT CONDITION Daylight WEATHER PRIMARY Clear WEATHER SECONDARY HIT & RUN No PUBLIC PRIVATE CODE No WORK ZONE TYPE NOT APPLICABLE WORK ZONE LOC WORKERS PRES LAW ENF PRES ON/OFF TRAFFICWAY Trafficway, On Road RELATIVE LOC TRAFFICWAY On Roadway (including alley, ON BRIDGE? No ROAD CONTRIB CIRCUM 1 None ROAD CONTRIB CIRCUM 2 Unit 1 - Motor Vehicle in Transport UNIT TYPE Motor Vehicle in Transport VEH TYPE Passenger Car DL STATUS Valid PERSON TYPE Driver AGE 41 SEX Female INJURY SEVERITY N - Prop Dmg Only ZIP 551231082 DL STATE MN DL CLASS D The Normal (Not Commercial) Driver License DL ENDORSEMENTS None DL RESTRICTIONS Corrective Lenses RECOMMENDATIONS? None PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Apparently Normal (Including No Drugs/Alcoh VIOLATIONS No Unit 1 - Vehicle Information VEH USE Normal EMERGENCY VEH USE TOWED? Towed Due to Disabling D INITIAL CONTACT Rear MOST HARMFUL Motor Vehicle In Transpor TRAILERS No SEQUENCE OF EVENTS Motor Vehicle In Transport MANEUVER Vehicle Stopped or Stalled in Roadway VEHICLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS VSN OBSCRD-WNDSH Unit 1 - Person Information CONTRIB FACTORS No Clear Contributing Action DRIVER DISTRACTED BY Not Distracted SPEEDING RELATED Not Speeding NON-MOTORIST MANEUVER NON-MOTORIST LOCATION LE SUSPECTS ALCOHOL No LE SUSPECTS DRUG No ALCOHOL TEST GIVEN No, Test Not Given ALCOHOL TEST TYPE ALCOHOL TEST RESULT DRUG TEST GIVEN No, Test Not Given DRUG TEST TYPE DRUG TEST RESULT Unit 1 - Roadway Characteristics DIRECTION Westbound ALIGNMENT Straight GRADE Level SPEED LIMIT 35 ROADWAY DESIGN Two-Way, Not Divided NUM LANES 1 TRAFFIC CONTROL Stop Sign TRAF CONTRL WORKING CODE Operational Unit 2 - Motor Vehicle in Transport UNIT TYPE Motor Vehicle in Transport VEH TYPE Passenger Van (Se DL STATUS Valid PERSON TYPE Driver AGE 59 SEX Female INJURY SEVERITY C - Possible Injury ZIP 55123 DL STATE MN DL CLASS D The Normal (Not Commercial) Driver License DL ENDORSEMENTS None DL RESTRICTIONS None RECOMMENDATIONS? None PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Apparently Normal (Including No Drugs/Alcoh VIOLATIONS No Unit 2 - Vehicle Information VEH USE Normal EMERGENCY VEH USE TOWED? Not Towed INITIAL CONTACT Front MOST HARMFUL Motor Vehicle In Transpor TRAILERS No SEQUENCE OF EVENTS Motor Vehicle In Transport MANEUVER Moving Forward VEHICLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Unit 2 - Person Information CONTRIB FACTORS Driver Distracted DRIVER DISTRACTED BY Other Activity, Electronic Device SPEEDING RELATED Unknown NON-MOTORIST MANEUVER NON-MOTORIST LOCATION LE SUSPECTS ALCOHOL No LE SUSPECTS DRUG No ALCOHOL TEST GIVEN No, Test Not Given ALCOHOL TEST TYPE ALCOHOL TEST RESULT DRUG TEST GIVEN No, Test Not Given DRUG TEST TYPE DRUG TEST RESULT Unit 2 - Roadway Characteristics DIRECTION Westbound ALIGNMENT Straight GRADE Level SPEED LIMIT 35 ROADWAY DESIGN Two-Way, Not Divided NUM LANES 1 TRAFFIC CONTROL Stop Sign TRAF CONTRL WORKING CODE Operational ROUTE ID 0500023945860114-I LATITUDE 44.826282 LONGITUDE -93.155115 UTM X 487737.7 UTM Y 4963664.6 Report Generated 05/15/2023 MnCMAT 2.0.0 Page 3 of 7 Crash Detail Report - Long Form Report Version 1.0 February 2020 Unit 3 UNIT TYPE VEH TYPE DL STATUS PERSON TYPE AGE SEX INJURY SEVERITY ZIP DL STATE DL CLASS DL ENDORSEMENTS DL RESTRICTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS? PHYSICAL CONDITIONS VIOLATIONS Unit 3 - Vehicle Information VEH USE EMERGENCY VEH USE TOWED? INITIAL CONTACT MOST HARMFUL TRAILERS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS MANEUVER VEHICLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Unit 3 - Person Information CONTRIB FACTORS DRIVER DISTRACTED BY SPEEDING RELATED NON-MOTORIST MANEUVER NON-MOTORIST LOCATION LE SUSPECTS ALCOHOL LE SUSPECTS DRUG ALCOHOL TEST GIVEN ALCOHOL TEST TYPE ALCOHOL TEST RESULT DRUG TEST GIVEN DRUG TEST TYPE DRUG TEST RESULT Unit 4 UNIT TYPE VEH TYPE DL STATUS PERSON TYPE AGE SEX INJURY SEVERITY ZIP DL STATE DL CLASS DL ENDORSEMENTS DL RESTRICTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS? PHYSICAL CONDITIONS VIOLATIONS Unit 4 - Vehicle Information VEH USE EMERGENCY VEH USE TOWED? INITIAL CONTACT MOST HARMFUL TRAILERS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS MANEUVER VEHICLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Unit 4 - Person Information CONTRIB FACTORS DRIVER DISTRACTED BY SPEEDING RELATED NON-MOTORIST MANEUVER NON-MOTORIST LOCATION LE SUSPECTS ALCOHOL LE SUSPECTS DRUG ALCOHOL TEST GIVEN ALCOHOL TEST TYPE ALCOHOL TEST RESULT DRUG TEST GIVEN DRUG TEST TYPE DRUG TEST RESULT OFFICER SKETCH NARRATIVE UNIT 1 WAS TRAVELING WESTBOUND ON DEERWOOD DR FROM THE INTERSECTION OF DEERWOOD/LEXINGTON. UNIT 1 APPROACHED THE INTERSECTION OF DEERWOOD DR/WIDGEON WAY AND STOPPED AT THE INTERSECTION. UNIT 2 WAS TRAVELING WESTBOUND ON DEERWOOD BEHIND UNIT 1 AND DID NOT NOTICE UNIT 1 STOPPED AT THE INTERSECTION DUE TO BEING DISTRACTED. UNIT 2 COLLIDED WITH THE REAR END OF UNIT 1 AT THE INTERSECTION OF DEERWOOD DR/WIDGEON WAY. UNIT 1 SUSTAINED MODERATE DISABLING DAMAGE TO THE REAR LEFT CORNER OF THE VEHICLE. UNIT 2 SUSTAINED MINOR DAMAGE TO THE FRONT RIGHT CORNER OF THE VEHICLE. UNIT 1 WAS TOWED FROM THE SCENE AND UNIT 2 DROVE AWAY FROM THE SCENE. Report Generated 05/15/2023 MnCMAT 2.0.0 Page 4 of 7 Crash Detail Report - Long Form Report Version 1.0 February 2020 INCIDENT ID 00398275 ROUTE SYS 05-MSAS ROUTE NUM 114 MEASURE 0.404 ROUTE NAME DUCKWOOD DR COUNTY 19-Dakota CITY Eagan TOWNSHIP MNDOT DISTRICT D-METRO RELATION TO INT Four-Way Intersection LOCAL ID 16008912 CRASH SEVERITY N - Prop Damage Only DATE 11/27/16 TIME 14:10 DAY OF WEEK Sun INTERSECT WITH BASIC TYPE Rear End MANNER OF COLLISION Front to Rear NUM VEH 2 NUM KILLED 0 DIV RDWY DIR Not Applicable FIRST HARMFUL Motor Vehicle In Transport ROADWAY SURF Dry LIGHT CONDITION Daylight WEATHER PRIMARY Clear WEATHER SECONDARY HIT & RUN No PUBLIC PRIVATE CODE No WORK ZONE TYPE NOT APPLICABLE WORK ZONE LOC WORKERS PRES LAW ENF PRES ON/OFF TRAFFICWAY Trafficway, On Road RELATIVE LOC TRAFFICWAY On Roadway (including alley, ON BRIDGE? No ROAD CONTRIB CIRCUM 1 None ROAD CONTRIB CIRCUM 2 Unit 1 - Motor Vehicle in Transport UNIT TYPE Motor Vehicle in Transport VEH TYPE Passenger Car DL STATUS Valid PERSON TYPE Driver AGE 59 SEX Female INJURY SEVERITY N - Prop Dmg Only ZIP 551230000 DL STATE MN DL CLASS D The Normal (Not Commercial) Driver License DL ENDORSEMENTS None DL RESTRICTIONS Corrective Lenses RECOMMENDATIONS? Physical Exam PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Physical Disability (Short Term or Long Term) VIOLATIONS No Unit 1 - Vehicle Information VEH USE Normal EMERGENCY VEH USE TOWED? Towed Due to Disabling D INITIAL CONTACT Front Right Quarter Panel MOST HARMFUL Motor Vehicle In Transpor TRAILERS No SEQUENCE OF EVENTS Motor Vehicle In Transport MANEUVER Moving Forward VEHICLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS VSN OBSCD-SUN/LTl Unit 1 - Person Information CONTRIB FACTORS Failure to Yield Right-of-Way DRIVER DISTRACTED BY Unknown SPEEDING RELATED Unknown NON-MOTORIST MANEUVER NON-MOTORIST LOCATION LE SUSPECTS ALCOHOL No LE SUSPECTS DRUG No ALCOHOL TEST GIVEN No, Test Not Given ALCOHOL TEST TYPE ALCOHOL TEST RESULT DRUG TEST GIVEN No, Test Not Given DRUG TEST TYPE DRUG TEST RESULT Unit 1 - Roadway Characteristics DIRECTION Westbound ALIGNMENT Straight GRADE Level SPEED LIMIT 35 ROADWAY DESIGN Two-Way, Not Divided NUM LANES 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL Stop Sign TRAF CONTRL WORKING CODE Operational Unit 2 - Motor Vehicle in Transport UNIT TYPE Motor Vehicle in Transport VEH TYPE Passenger Car DL STATUS Valid PERSON TYPE Driver AGE 21 SEX Female INJURY SEVERITY N - Prop Dmg Only ZIP 55123 DL STATE MN DL CLASS D The Normal (Not Commercial) Driver License DL ENDORSEMENTS None DL RESTRICTIONS None RECOMMENDATIONS? None PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Apparently Normal (Including No Drugs/Alcoh VIOLATIONS No Unit 2 - Vehicle Information VEH USE Normal EMERGENCY VEH USE TOWED? Not Towed INITIAL CONTACT Rear Left Quarter Panel MOST HARMFUL Motor Vehicle In Transpor TRAILERS No SEQUENCE OF EVENTS Motor Vehicle In Transport MANEUVER Vehicle Stopped or Stalled in Roadway VEHICLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS VSN OBSCRD-WNDSH Unit 2 - Person Information CONTRIB FACTORS No Clear Contributing Action DRIVER DISTRACTED BY Not Distracted SPEEDING RELATED Not Speeding NON-MOTORIST MANEUVER NON-MOTORIST LOCATION LE SUSPECTS ALCOHOL No LE SUSPECTS DRUG No ALCOHOL TEST GIVEN No, Test Not Given ALCOHOL TEST TYPE ALCOHOL TEST RESULT DRUG TEST GIVEN No, Test Not Given DRUG TEST TYPE DRUG TEST RESULT Unit 2 - Roadway Characteristics DIRECTION Westbound ALIGNMENT Straight GRADE Level SPEED LIMIT 35 ROADWAY DESIGN Two-Way, Not Divided NUM LANES 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL Stop Sign TRAF CONTRL WORKING CODE Operational ROUTE ID 0500023945860114-I LATITUDE 44.826285 LONGITUDE -93.155144 UTM X 487736.0 UTM Y 4963664.0 Report Generated 05/15/2023 MnCMAT 2.0.0 Page 5 of 7 Crash Detail Report - Long Form Report Version 1.0 February 2020 Unit 3 UNIT TYPE VEH TYPE DL STATUS PERSON TYPE AGE SEX INJURY SEVERITY ZIP DL STATE DL CLASS DL ENDORSEMENTS DL RESTRICTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS? PHYSICAL CONDITIONS VIOLATIONS Unit 3 - Vehicle Information VEH USE EMERGENCY VEH USE TOWED? INITIAL CONTACT MOST HARMFUL TRAILERS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS MANEUVER VEHICLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Unit 3 - Person Information CONTRIB FACTORS DRIVER DISTRACTED BY SPEEDING RELATED NON-MOTORIST MANEUVER NON-MOTORIST LOCATION LE SUSPECTS ALCOHOL LE SUSPECTS DRUG ALCOHOL TEST GIVEN ALCOHOL TEST TYPE ALCOHOL TEST RESULT DRUG TEST GIVEN DRUG TEST TYPE DRUG TEST RESULT Unit 4 UNIT TYPE VEH TYPE DL STATUS PERSON TYPE AGE SEX INJURY SEVERITY ZIP DL STATE DL CLASS DL ENDORSEMENTS DL RESTRICTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS? PHYSICAL CONDITIONS VIOLATIONS Unit 4 - Vehicle Information VEH USE EMERGENCY VEH USE TOWED? INITIAL CONTACT MOST HARMFUL TRAILERS SEQUENCE OF EVENTS MANEUVER VEHICLE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS Unit 4 - Person Information CONTRIB FACTORS DRIVER DISTRACTED BY SPEEDING RELATED NON-MOTORIST MANEUVER NON-MOTORIST LOCATION LE SUSPECTS ALCOHOL LE SUSPECTS DRUG ALCOHOL TEST GIVEN ALCOHOL TEST TYPE ALCOHOL TEST RESULT DRUG TEST GIVEN DRUG TEST TYPE DRUG TEST RESULT OFFICER SKETCH NARRATIVE VEHICLE 2 WAS STOPPED AT THE STOP SIGN WESTBOUND ON DUCKWOOD DR AT WIDGEON WAY. VEHICLE 1 WAS ALSO WESTBOUND ON DUCKWOOD DR APPROACHING WIDGEON WAY. DRIVER 1 FAILED TO STOP AND REAR ENDED VEHICLE 2. DRIVER 2 SAID IT LOOKED LIKE VEHICLE 1 WAS GOING TOO FAST. DRIVER 1 SAID SHE SUFFERS FROM SPINAL STENOSIS AND APPEARED TO HAVE VERY SLOW REACTION TIMES AND MOVEMENTS. A DRIVER EVALUATION FOR WAS COMPLETED AND SENT TO THE STATE FOR A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION. Report Generated 05/15/2023 MnCMAT 2.0.0 Page 6 of 7 Crash Detail Report - Long Form Report Version 1.0 February 2020 Selection Filter: WORK AREA: County('659464') - SPATIAL FILTER APPLIED Analyst: Tom Sachi Notes: Report Generated 05/15/2023 MnCMAT 2.0.0 Page 7 of 7 Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - 14 Hour Count - TMCDuckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - 14 Hour Count - TMC Tue May 16, 2023 Full Length (6 AM-8 PM) All Classes (Lights, Articulated Trucks, Buses and Single-Unit Trucks, Pedestrians, Bicycles on Crosswalk) All Movements ID: 1070874, Location: 44.826267, -93.155262 Provided by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, US Leg Duckwood Dr Duckwood Dr Widgeon Way Widgeon Way Direction Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Time R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*IntInt 2023-05-16 6:00AM 2 5 1 0 88 0 0 15 0 0 1515 0 1 0 1 0 22 0 2 0 0 0 22 1 2727 6:15AM 1 9 0 0 1010 0 1 12 0 0 1313 0 0 0 2 0 22 0 1 0 0 0 11 1 2626 6:30AM 5 15 2 0 2222 0 0 28 1 0 2929 0 0 0 6 0 66 0 2 0 0 0 22 3 5959 6:45AM 2 17 1 0 2020 1 0 31 0 0 3131 0 1 0 6 0 77 0 3 0 0 0 33 2 6161 Hourly Total 10 46 4 0 6060 1 1 86 1 0 8888 0 2 0 15 0 1717 0 8 0 0 0 88 7 173173 7:00AM 2 24 1 0 2727 1 0 42 0 0 4242 0 2 0 5 0 77 0 0 0 1 0 11 3 7777 7:15AM 1 27 1 0 2929 2 0 36 1 0 3737 0 4 0 11 0 1515 0 5 0 2 0 77 2 8888 7:30AM 7 25 1 0 3333 0 1 37 2 0 4040 0 1 0 7 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 00 1 8181 7:45AM 2 36 2 0 4040 2 2 37 0 0 3939 1 4 0 5 0 99 0 1 0 3 0 44 9 9292 Hourly Total 12 112 5 0 129129 5 3 152 3 0 158158 1 11 0 28 0 3939 0 6 0 6 0 1212 15 338338 8:00AM 5 32 3 0 4040 0 1 50 2 0 5353 0 2 0 4 0 66 0 3 0 1 0 44 2 103103 8:15AM 2 29 0 0 3131 1 0 45 1 0 4646 0 2 0 5 0 77 2 2 0 1 0 33 4 8787 8:30AM 1 29 2 0 3232 0 1 36 2 0 3939 0 4 0 7 0 1111 0 3 0 0 0 33 4 8585 8:45AM 7 37 0 0 4444 1 0 42 0 0 4242 0 1 0 6 0 77 0 2 0 1 0 33 2 9696 Hourly Total 15 127 5 0 147147 2 2 173 5 0 180180 0 9 0 22 0 3131 2 10 0 3 0 1313 12 371371 9:00AM 2 30 1 0 3333 5 1 41 3 0 4545 0 0 1 7 0 88 1 3 2 0 0 55 0 9191 9:15AM 4 27 1 0 3232 0 0 54 2 0 5656 1 0 0 4 0 44 0 5 0 1 0 66 1 9898 9:30AM 3 39 1 0 4343 0 0 46 2 1 4949 0 3 0 6 0 99 0 2 0 0 0 22 5 103103 9:45AM 1 36 0 0 3737 0 0 34 0 0 3434 0 1 0 5 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 00 1 7777 Hourly Total 10 132 3 0 145145 5 1 175 7 1 184184 1 4 1 22 0 2727 1 10 2 1 0 1313 7 369369 10:00AM 2 30 0 0 3232 0 0 37 1 0 3838 0 0 1 2 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 00 1 7373 10:15AM 1 34 1 1 3737 0 0 29 1 0 3030 0 0 0 6 0 66 0 2 0 0 0 22 0 7575 10:30AM 2 30 2 0 3434 0 0 45 0 0 4545 0 0 0 6 0 66 0 1 0 0 0 11 1 8686 10:45AM 6 36 1 0 4343 0 0 34 0 0 3434 0 0 0 2 0 22 0 2 0 0 0 22 0 8181 Hourly Total 11 130 4 1 146146 0 0 145 2 0 147147 0 0 1 16 0 1717 0 5 0 0 0 55 2 315315 11:00AM 7 37 0 0 4444 0 0 45 3 0 4848 0 1 0 6 0 77 1 1 0 0 0 11 1 100100 11:15AM 8 40 3 0 5151 0 1 46 3 0 5050 0 1 0 1 0 22 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 104104 11:30AM 4 47 3 0 5454 1 1 42 1 0 4444 0 1 0 3 0 44 0 2 0 0 0 22 1 104104 11:45AM 5 35 2 0 4242 0 0 50 1 0 5151 0 0 1 5 0 66 0 3 0 1 0 44 1 103103 Hourly Total 24 159 8 0 191191 1 2 183 8 0 193193 0 3 1 15 0 1919 1 6 0 2 0 88 3 411411 12:00PM 6 47 1 0 5454 0 0 49 0 0 4949 0 1 0 7 0 88 0 1 0 0 0 11 2 112112 12:15PM 5 37 2 0 4444 0 0 40 3 0 4343 1 2 1 6 0 99 0 3 0 0 0 33 3 9999 12:30PM 2 54 0 0 5656 1 0 39 0 0 3939 0 0 0 4 0 44 0 1 0 0 0 11 1 100100 12:45PM 5 41 2 0 4848 0 0 45 4 0 4949 0 0 0 8 0 88 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 106106 Hourly Total 18 179 5 0 202202 1 0 173 7 0 180180 1 3 1 25 0 2929 0 6 0 0 0 66 6 417417 1:00PM 5 57 1 0 6363 0 1 45 0 0 4646 1 1 0 6 0 77 1 1 0 0 0 11 0 117117 1:15PM 2 48 2 0 5252 1 0 38 3 0 4141 0 3 1 8 0 1212 0 1 1 1 0 33 4 108108 1:30PM 5 62 4 0 7171 0 0 35 2 0 3737 0 3 0 3 0 66 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 115115 1:45PM 4 46 2 0 5252 2 0 36 3 0 3939 0 1 0 2 0 33 0 2 0 0 0 22 2 9696 Hourly Total 16 213 9 0 238238 3 1 154 8 0 163163 1 8 1 19 0 2828 1 4 1 2 0 77 6 436436 2:00PM 10 61 2 0 7373 0 1 44 3 0 4848 0 0 0 5 0 55 0 4 0 0 0 44 2 130130 2:15PM 5 37 1 0 4343 0 1 35 1 0 3737 0 3 0 3 0 66 0 2 1 0 0 33 1 8989 2:30PM 5 65 1 0 7171 0 2 68 3 0 7373 0 0 0 7 0 77 0 2 0 0 0 22 0 153153 2:45PM 6 57 0 0 6363 0 1 59 4 0 6464 2 2 0 3 0 55 0 1 0 1 0 22 5 134134 Hourly Total 26 220 4 0 250250 0 5 206 11 0 222222 2 5 0 18 0 2323 0 9 1 1 0 1111 8 506506 3:00PM 5 55 3 0 6363 0 1 36 0 0 3737 0 4 0 4 0 88 0 2 0 1 0 33 1 111111 3:15PM 11 66 1 0 7878 0 1 46 4 0 5151 0 1 0 4 0 55 0 0 0 1 1 22 7 136136 3:30PM 8 80 1 0 8989 0 1 66 1 0 6868 0 0 0 2 0 22 0 2 0 0 0 22 0 161161 3:45PM 9 74 2 0 8585 0 1 68 2 0 7171 1 4 0 5 0 99 0 4 0 1 0 55 1 170170 Hourly Total 33 275 7 0 315315 0 4 216 7 0 227227 1 9 0 15 0 2424 0 8 0 3 1 1212 9 578578 4:00PM 6 50 3 0 5959 0 2 55 2 0 5959 0 4 0 5 0 99 0 2 0 1 0 33 5 130130 4:15PM 7 72 1 0 8080 0 0 77 3 0 8080 0 5 0 7 0 1212 0 1 0 0 0 11 2 173173 4:30PM 6 75 5 0 8686 0 0 72 0 0 7272 1 2 0 4 0 66 0 2 0 2 0 44 4 168168 4:45PM 4 85 6 0 9595 0 1 90 0 0 9191 0 1 0 7 0 88 0 4 0 1 0 55 2 199199 Hourly Total 23 282 15 0 320320 0 3 294 5 0 302302 1 12 0 23 0 3535 0 9 0 4 0 1313 13 670670 5:00PM 4 97 5 0 106106 0 1 58 2 0 6161 0 0 0 2 0 22 1 3 0 2 0 55 1 174174 5:15PM 6 71 3 0 8080 0 2 64 0 0 6666 0 1 0 8 0 99 0 3 2 0 0 55 4 160160 5:30PM 6 73 3 0 8282 2 1 57 2 0 6060 0 3 1 5 0 99 0 1 0 1 0 22 2 153153 5:45PM 11 66 3 0 8080 2 1 49 4 0 5454 0 0 0 6 0 66 0 4 0 0 0 44 1 144144 Hourly Total 27 307 14 0 348348 4 5 228 8 0 241241 0 4 1 21 0 2626 1 11 2 3 0 1616 8 631631 6:00PM 3 71 2 0 7676 0 0 53 4 0 5757 0 1 0 1 0 22 0 0 0 2 0 22 1 137137 6:15PM 3 42 3 0 4848 1 1 45 1 0 4747 0 2 1 6 0 99 0 1 2 0 0 33 4 107107 1 of 9 6:30PM 2 53 1 0 5656 0 2 50 1 0 5353 1 0 0 2 0 22 0 1 0 1 0 22 4 113113 6:45PM 3 61 0 0 6464 0 2 34 2 0 3838 4 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 00 7 103103 Hourly Total 11 227 6 0 244244 1 5 182 8 0 195195 5 3 1 10 0 1414 0 2 2 3 0 77 16 460460 7:00PM 4 40 3 0 4747 2 0 29 0 0 2929 2 1 0 3 0 44 0 0 0 3 0 33 6 8383 7:15PM 6 36 1 0 4343 0 0 33 3 0 3636 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 2 0 1 0 33 5 8383 7:30PM 4 43 6 0 5353 0 1 26 2 0 2929 0 1 0 2 0 33 0 2 0 0 0 22 3 8787 7:45PM 4 45 1 0 5050 0 0 28 3 0 3131 3 0 0 2 0 22 0 1 0 0 0 11 7 8484 Hourly Total 18 164 11 0 193193 2 1 116 8 0 125125 5 2 0 8 0 1010 0 5 0 4 0 99 21 337337 TotalTotal 254 2573 100 1 29282928 25 33 2483 88 1 26052605 18 75 7 257 0 339339 6 99 8 32 1 140140 133 60126012 % Approach% Approach 8.7%87.9%3.4%0%---1.3%95.3%3.4%0%---22.1%2.1%75.8%0%---70.7%5.7%22.9%0.7%---- % Total% Total 4.2%42.8%1.7%0%48.7%48.7%-0.5%41.3%1.5%0%43.3%43.3%-1.2%0.1%4.3%0%5.6%5.6%-1.6%0.1%0.5%0%2.3%2.3%-- LightsLights 250 2515 95 1 28612861 -32 2433 83 1 25492549 -71 7 252 0 330330 -95 7 31 1 134134 -5874 % Lights% Lights 98.4%97.7%95.0%100%97.7%97.7%-97.0%98.0%94.3%100%97.9%97.9%-94.7%100%98.1%0%97.3%97.3%-96.0%87.5%96.9%100%95.7%95.7%-97.7% Articulated TrucksArticulated Trucks 0 9 0 0 99 -0 4 0 0 44 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -13 % Articulated Trucks% Articulated Trucks 0%0.3%0%0%0.3%0.3%-0%0.2%0%0%0.2%0.2%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0.2% Buses and Single-UnitBuses and Single-Unit TrucksTrucks 4 49 5 0 5858 -1 46 5 0 5252 -4 0 5 0 99 -4 1 1 0 66 -125 % Buses and Single-Unit% Buses and Single-Unit TrucksTrucks 1.6%1.9%5.0%0%2.0%2.0%-3.0%1.9%5.7%0%2.0%2.0%-5.3%0%1.9%0%2.7%2.7%-4.0%12.5%3.1%0%4.3%4.3%-2.1% Pedestrians -----25 -----18 -----4 -----121 % Pedestrians -----100%-----100%-----66.7%-----91.0%- Bicycles on Crosswalk -----0 -----0 -----2 -----12 % Bicycles on Crosswalk -----0%-----0%-----33.3%-----9.0%- Leg Duckwood Dr Duckwood Dr Widgeon Way Widgeon Way Direction Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Time R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*IntInt *Pedestrians and Bicycles on Crosswalk. L: Left, R: Right, T: Thru, U: U-Turn 2 of 9 Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - 14 Hour Count - TMCDuckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - 14 Hour Count - TMC Tue May 16, 2023 Full Length (6 AM-8 PM) All Classes (Lights, Articulated Trucks, Buses and Single-Unit Trucks, Pedestrians, Bicycles on Crosswalk) All Movements ID: 1070874, Location: 44.826267, -93.155262 Provided by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, US [N] Widgeon Way [E] Duckwood Dr[S] Widgeon Way[W] Duckwood DrTotal: 281 Total: 689 Total: 5286Total: 5768Out: 141 Out: 350 Out: 2681Out: 2840In: 140 In: 339 In: 2605In: 2928 8 2483 7 2573 1 32 99 33 1 88 75 257 100 254 1 60 73 513241015 3 of 9 Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - 14 Hour Count - TMCDuckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - 14 Hour Count - TMC Tue May 16, 2023 AM Peak (8:45 AM - 9:45 AM) All Classes (Lights, Articulated Trucks, Buses and Single-Unit Trucks, Pedestrians, Bicycles on Crosswalk) All Movements ID: 1070874, Location: 44.826267, -93.155262 Provided by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, US Leg Duckwood Dr Duckwood Dr Widgeon Way Widgeon Way Direction Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Time R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*IntInt 2023-05-16 8:45AM 7 37 0 0 4444 1 0 42 0 0 4242 0 1 0 6 0 77 0 2 0 1 0 33 2 9696 9:00AM 2 30 1 0 3333 5 1 41 3 0 4545 0 0 1 7 0 88 1 3 2 0 0 55 0 9191 9:15AM 4 27 1 0 3232 0 0 54 2 0 5656 1 0 0 4 0 44 0 5 0 1 0 66 1 9898 9:30AM 3 39 1 0 4343 0 0 46 2 1 4949 0 3 0 6 0 99 0 2 0 0 0 22 5 103103 TotalTotal 16 133 3 0 152152 6 1 183 7 1 192192 1 4 1 23 0 2828 1 12 2 2 0 1616 8 388388 % Approach% Approach 10.5%87.5%2.0%0%---0.5%95.3%3.6%0.5%---14.3%3.6%82.1%0%---75.0%12.5%12.5%0%---- % Total% Total 4.1%34.3%0.8%0%39.2%39.2%-0.3%47.2%1.8%0.3%49.5%49.5%-1.0%0.3%5.9%0%7.2%7.2%-3.1%0.5%0.5%0%4.1%4.1%-- PHFPHF 0.571 0.853 0.750 -0.8640.864 -0.250 0.847 0.583 0.250 0.8570.857 -0.333 0.250 0.821 -0.7780.778 -0.600 0.250 0.500 -0.6670.667 -0.942 LightsLights 16 129 2 0 147147 -1 179 6 1 187187 -4 1 22 0 2727 -11 2 2 0 1515 -376 % Lights% Lights 100%97.0%66.7%0%96.7%96.7%-100%97.8%85.7%100%97.4%97.4%-100%100%95.7%0%96.4%96.4%-91.7%100%100%0%93.8%93.8%-96.9% Articulated TrucksArticulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 % Articulated Trucks% Articulated Trucks 0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0% Buses and Single-UnitBuses and Single-Unit TrucksTrucks 0 4 1 0 55 -0 4 1 0 55 -0 0 1 0 11 -1 0 0 0 11 -12 % Buses and Single-Unit% Buses and Single-Unit TrucksTrucks 0%3.0%33.3%0%3.3%3.3%-0%2.2%14.3%0%2.6%2.6%-0%0%4.3%0%3.6%3.6%-8.3%0%0%0%6.3%6.3%-3.1% Pedestrians -----6 -----1 -----1 -----8 % Pedestrians -----100%-----100%-----100%-----100%- Bicycles on Crosswalk -----0 -----0 -----0 -----0 % Bicycles on Crosswalk -----0%-----0%-----0%-----0%- *Pedestrians and Bicycles on Crosswalk. L: Left, R: Right, T: Thru, U: U-Turn 4 of 9 Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - 14 Hour Count - TMCDuckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - 14 Hour Count - TMC Tue May 16, 2023 AM Peak (8:45 AM - 9:45 AM) All Classes (Lights, Articulated Trucks, Buses and Single-Unit Trucks, Pedestrians, Bicycles on Crosswalk) All Movements ID: 1070874, Location: 44.826267, -93.155262 Provided by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, US [N] Widgeon Way [E] Duckwood Dr[S] Widgeon Way[W] Duckwood DrTotal: 21 Total: 53 Total: 332Total: 370Out: 5 Out: 25 Out: 140Out: 218In: 16 In: 28 In: 192In: 152 2 183 1 133 2 12 1 1 7 4 23 3 16 3 5 1142 5 of 9 Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - 14 Hour Count - TMCDuckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - 14 Hour Count - TMC Tue May 16, 2023 Midday Peak (12:45 PM - 1:45 PM) All Classes (Lights, Articulated Trucks, Buses and Single-Unit Trucks, Pedestrians, Bicycles on Crosswalk) All Movements ID: 1070874, Location: 44.826267, -93.155262 Provided by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, US Leg Duckwood Dr Duckwood Dr Widgeon Way Widgeon Way Direction Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Time R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*IntInt 2023-05-16 12:45PM 5 41 2 0 4848 0 0 45 4 0 4949 0 0 0 8 0 88 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 106106 1:00PM 5 57 1 0 6363 0 1 45 0 0 4646 1 1 0 6 0 77 1 1 0 0 0 11 0 117117 1:15PM 2 48 2 0 5252 1 0 38 3 0 4141 0 3 1 8 0 1212 0 1 1 1 0 33 4 108108 1:30PM 5 62 4 0 7171 0 0 35 2 0 3737 0 3 0 3 0 66 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 115115 TotalTotal 17 208 9 0 234234 1 1 163 9 0 173173 1 7 1 25 0 3333 1 3 1 2 0 66 4 446446 % Approach% Approach 7.3%88.9%3.8%0%---0.6%94.2%5.2%0%---21.2%3.0%75.8%0%---50.0%16.7%33.3%0%---- % Total% Total 3.8%46.6%2.0%0%52.5%52.5%-0.2%36.5%2.0%0%38.8%38.8%-1.6%0.2%5.6%0%7.4%7.4%-0.7%0.2%0.4%0%1.3%1.3%-- PHFPHF 0.850 0.839 0.563 -0.8240.824 -0.250 0.906 0.563 -0.8830.883 -0.583 0.250 0.781 -0.6880.688 -0.750 0.250 0.500 -0.5000.500 -0.953 LightsLights 17 205 8 0 230230 -1 159 8 0 168168 -7 1 24 0 3232 -2 1 2 0 55 -435 % Lights% Lights 100%98.6%88.9%0%98.3%98.3%-100%97.5%88.9%0%97.1%97.1%-100%100%96.0%0%97.0%97.0%-66.7%100%100%0%83.3%83.3%-97.5% Articulated TrucksArticulated Trucks 0 1 0 0 11 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -1 % Articulated Trucks% Articulated Trucks 0%0.5%0%0%0.4%0.4%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0.2% Buses and Single-UnitBuses and Single-Unit TrucksTrucks 0 2 1 0 33 -0 4 1 0 55 -0 0 1 0 11 -1 0 0 0 11 -10 % Buses and Single-Unit% Buses and Single-Unit TrucksTrucks 0%1.0%11.1%0%1.3%1.3%-0%2.5%11.1%0%2.9%2.9%-0%0%4.0%0%3.0%3.0%-33.3%0%0%0%16.7%16.7%-2.2% Pedestrians -----1 -----1 -----0 -----4 % Pedestrians -----100%-----100%-----0%-----100%- Bicycles on Crosswalk -----0 -----0 -----1 -----0 % Bicycles on Crosswalk -----0%-----0%-----100%-----0%- *Pedestrians and Bicycles on Crosswalk. L: Left, R: Right, T: Thru, U: U-Turn 6 of 9 Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - 14 Hour Count - TMCDuckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - 14 Hour Count - TMC Tue May 16, 2023 Midday Peak (12:45 PM - 1:45 PM) All Classes (Lights, Articulated Trucks, Buses and Single-Unit Trucks, Pedestrians, Bicycles on Crosswalk) All Movements ID: 1070874, Location: 44.826267, -93.155262 Provided by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, US [N] Widgeon Way [E] Duckwood Dr[S] Widgeon Way[W] Duckwood DrTotal: 17 Total: 60 Total: 390Total: 425Out: 11 Out: 27 Out: 217Out: 191In: 6 In: 33 In: 173In: 234 1 163 1 208 2 3 1 9 7 25 9 17 1 3 111 7 of 9 Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - 14 Hour Count - TMCDuckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - 14 Hour Count - TMC Tue May 16, 2023 PM Peak (4:15 PM - 5:15 PM) - Overall Peak Hour All Classes (Lights, Articulated Trucks, Buses and Single-Unit Trucks, Pedestrians, Bicycles on Crosswalk) All Movements ID: 1070874, Location: 44.826267, -93.155262 Provided by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, US Leg Duckwood Dr Duckwood Dr Widgeon Way Widgeon Way Direction Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Time R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*IntInt 2023-05-16 4:15PM 7 72 1 0 8080 0 0 77 3 0 8080 0 5 0 7 0 1212 0 1 0 0 0 11 2 173173 4:30PM 6 75 5 0 8686 0 0 72 0 0 7272 1 2 0 4 0 66 0 2 0 2 0 44 4 168168 4:45PM 4 85 6 0 9595 0 1 90 0 0 9191 0 1 0 7 0 88 0 4 0 1 0 55 2 199199 5:00PM 4 97 5 0 106106 0 1 58 2 0 6161 0 0 0 2 0 22 1 3 0 2 0 55 1 174174 TotalTotal 21 329 17 0 367367 0 2 297 5 0 304304 1 8 0 20 0 2828 1 10 0 5 0 1515 9 714714 % Approach% Approach 5.7%89.6%4.6%0%---0.7%97.7%1.6%0%---28.6%0%71.4%0%---66.7%0%33.3%0%---- % Total% Total 2.9%46.1%2.4%0%51.4%51.4%-0.3%41.6%0.7%0%42.6%42.6%-1.1%0%2.8%0%3.9%3.9%-1.4%0%0.7%0%2.1%2.1%-- PHFPHF 0.750 0.848 0.708 -0.8660.866 -0.500 0.825 0.417 -0.8350.835 -0.400 -0.714 -0.5830.583 -0.625 -0.625 -0.7500.750 -0.897 LightsLights 21 323 17 0 361361 -2 295 5 0 302302 -8 0 20 0 2828 -10 0 5 0 1515 -706 % Lights% Lights 100%98.2%100%0%98.4%98.4%-100%99.3%100%0%99.3%99.3%-100%0%100%0%100%100%-100%0%100%0%100%100%-98.9% Articulated TrucksArticulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 % Articulated Trucks% Articulated Trucks 0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0% Buses and Single-UnitBuses and Single-Unit TrucksTrucks 0 6 0 0 66 -0 2 0 0 22 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -8 % Buses and Single-Unit% Buses and Single-Unit TrucksTrucks 0%1.8%0%0%1.6%1.6%-0%0.7%0%0%0.7%0.7%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-1.1% Pedestrians -----0 -----1 -----0 -----9 % Pedestrians -----------100%-----0%-----100%- Bicycles on Crosswalk -----0 -----0 -----1 -----0 % Bicycles on Crosswalk -----------0%-----100%-----0%- *Pedestrians and Bicycles on Crosswalk. L: Left, R: Right, T: Thru, U: U-Turn 8 of 9 Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - 14 Hour Count - TMCDuckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - 14 Hour Count - TMC Tue May 16, 2023 PM Peak (4:15 PM - 5:15 PM) - Overall Peak Hour All Classes (Lights, Articulated Trucks, Buses and Single-Unit Trucks, Pedestrians, Bicycles on Crosswalk) All Movements ID: 1070874, Location: 44.826267, -93.155262 Provided by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, US [N] Widgeon Way [E] Duckwood Dr[S] Widgeon Way[W] Duckwood DrTotal: 646Total: 694Total: 34 Total: 54 Out: 342Out: 327Out: 19 Out: 26 In: 304In: 367In: 15 In: 28 297 329 5 10 2 5 8 20 17 21 4 5 11 9 of 9 Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - Weekend 14 Ho… - TMCDuckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - Weekend 14 Ho… - TMC Sat May 20, 2023 Full Length (6 AM-8 PM) All Classes (Lights, Articulated Trucks, Buses and Single-Unit Trucks, Pedestrians, Bicycles on Crosswalk) All Movements ID: 1072924, Location: 44.826267, -93.155262 Provided by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, US Leg Duckwood Dr Duckwood Dr Widgeon Way Widgeon Way Direction Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Time R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*IntInt 2023-05-20 6:00AM 1 4 0 0 55 0 0 3 1 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 1 99 6:15AM 0 5 0 0 55 0 0 8 0 0 88 0 0 0 2 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 1515 6:30AM 1 6 0 0 77 0 0 9 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 1616 6:45AM 0 5 0 0 55 0 1 18 1 0 2020 0 1 0 1 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 2727 Hourly Total 2 20 0 0 2222 0 1 38 2 0 4141 0 1 0 3 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 00 1 6767 7:00AM 0 12 0 0 1212 0 0 19 0 0 1919 0 1 0 5 0 66 1 1 1 1 0 33 0 4040 7:15AM 1 13 1 0 1515 0 0 16 0 0 1616 0 0 0 2 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 3333 7:30AM 1 7 0 0 88 1 0 19 1 0 2020 0 1 0 3 0 44 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 3333 7:45AM 1 19 0 0 2020 0 0 33 0 0 3333 0 1 0 5 0 66 0 2 0 0 0 22 2 6161 Hourly Total 3 51 1 0 5555 1 0 87 1 0 8888 0 3 0 15 0 1818 1 4 1 1 0 66 2 167167 8:00AM 1 10 1 1 1313 0 0 37 0 0 3737 0 3 0 5 0 88 0 0 0 1 0 11 1 5959 8:15AM 1 24 1 0 2626 2 1 35 4 0 4040 1 1 0 3 0 44 0 0 0 1 0 11 1 7171 8:30AM 1 31 0 1 3333 0 0 39 0 0 3939 0 2 0 5 0 77 0 1 0 1 0 22 0 8181 8:45AM 5 29 1 0 3535 0 0 49 0 0 4949 0 2 0 6 0 88 1 3 0 1 0 44 4 9696 Hourly Total 8 94 3 2 107107 2 1 160 4 0 165165 1 8 0 19 0 2727 1 4 0 4 0 88 6 307307 9:00AM 0 22 0 0 2222 0 1 42 0 0 4343 0 2 0 4 0 66 0 3 0 0 0 33 0 7474 9:15AM 4 37 1 0 4242 0 3 45 0 0 4848 0 1 0 2 0 33 0 3 0 0 0 33 0 9696 9:30AM 3 45 1 0 4949 0 0 53 0 0 5353 0 0 0 5 0 55 0 5 0 1 0 66 0 113113 9:45AM 5 39 2 0 4646 0 0 57 2 0 5959 0 3 0 4 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 112112 Hourly Total 12 143 4 0 159159 0 4 197 2 0 203203 0 6 0 15 0 2121 0 11 0 1 0 1212 0 395395 10:00AM 0 40 3 0 4343 0 1 51 1 0 5353 0 1 0 4 0 55 0 1 0 1 0 22 3 103103 10:15AM 4 60 1 0 6565 0 0 58 0 0 5858 0 2 0 3 0 55 0 1 1 1 0 33 0 131131 10:30AM 1 42 2 0 4545 0 2 55 0 0 5757 0 0 0 2 0 22 0 1 0 1 0 22 5 106106 10:45AM 2 50 2 0 5454 0 1 59 1 0 6161 0 0 0 2 0 22 0 2 0 1 0 33 3 120120 Hourly Total 7 192 8 0 207207 0 4 223 2 0 229229 0 3 0 11 0 1414 0 5 1 4 0 1010 11 460460 11:00AM 4 47 1 0 5252 2 0 60 1 0 6161 0 2 0 6 0 88 0 5 0 1 0 66 6 127127 11:15AM 7 50 2 0 5959 0 2 57 1 0 6060 0 1 0 7 0 88 0 5 0 0 0 55 10 132132 11:30AM 6 41 2 0 4949 0 2 54 1 0 5757 0 0 0 7 0 77 0 1 0 1 0 22 2 115115 11:45AM 5 66 0 0 7171 0 2 59 2 0 6363 0 0 0 2 0 22 0 4 0 1 0 55 3 141141 Hourly Total 22 204 5 0 231231 2 6 230 5 0 241241 0 3 0 22 0 2525 0 15 0 3 0 1818 21 515515 12:00PM 1 67 0 0 6868 0 2 42 1 0 4545 0 3 0 3 0 66 1 2 0 1 0 33 4 122122 12:15PM 4 56 5 0 6565 0 0 53 1 0 5454 0 1 0 2 0 33 0 1 0 2 0 33 3 125125 12:30PM 3 66 2 0 7171 0 0 59 2 0 6161 0 1 0 4 0 55 1 4 0 2 0 66 1 143143 12:45PM 6 56 3 0 6565 0 1 41 1 0 4343 0 1 0 3 0 44 0 3 0 1 0 44 9 116116 Hourly Total 14 245 10 0 269269 0 3 195 5 0 203203 0 6 0 12 0 1818 2 10 0 6 0 1616 17 506506 1:00PM 2 43 4 0 4949 1 0 34 0 0 3434 0 3 0 5 0 88 2 2 2 2 0 66 4 9797 1:15PM 5 63 4 0 7272 0 0 62 2 0 6464 1 5 0 2 0 77 0 4 0 0 0 44 5 147147 1:30PM 4 62 0 0 6666 0 0 54 6 0 6060 0 2 0 5 0 77 0 2 0 1 0 33 4 136136 1:45PM 2 51 5 0 5858 0 0 49 3 0 5252 0 5 0 5 0 1010 0 2 0 1 0 33 3 123123 Hourly Total 13 219 13 0 245245 1 0 199 11 0 210210 1 15 0 17 0 3232 2 10 2 4 0 1616 16 503503 2:00PM 2 51 1 0 5454 0 1 39 3 0 4343 0 2 0 3 0 55 2 5 0 0 0 55 2 107107 2:15PM 4 50 3 0 5757 0 1 64 1 0 6666 0 1 0 2 0 33 0 2 0 0 0 22 0 128128 2:30PM 3 46 4 0 5353 0 2 43 2 0 4747 0 1 0 3 0 44 0 3 0 2 0 55 3 109109 2:45PM 3 63 2 0 6868 0 2 47 0 0 4949 0 1 0 4 0 55 0 4 0 0 0 44 5 126126 Hourly Total 12 210 10 0 232232 0 6 193 6 0 205205 0 5 0 12 0 1717 2 14 0 2 0 1616 10 470470 3:00PM 2 42 1 0 4545 0 0 43 2 0 4545 0 0 0 4 0 44 0 2 0 0 1 33 3 9797 3:15PM 6 61 2 0 6969 0 0 46 1 0 4747 0 1 0 5 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 00 2 122122 3:30PM 4 49 1 0 5454 0 5 52 0 0 5757 0 0 0 3 0 33 0 2 0 0 0 22 1 116116 3:45PM 7 45 0 0 5252 0 3 46 0 0 4949 0 1 0 8 0 99 0 1 0 2 0 33 4 113113 Hourly Total 19 197 4 0 220220 0 8 187 3 0 198198 0 2 0 20 0 2222 0 5 0 2 1 88 10 448448 4:00PM 11 55 0 0 6666 0 1 46 0 0 4747 0 1 0 5 0 66 0 3 0 0 0 33 3 122122 4:15PM 4 43 0 0 4747 0 2 44 2 0 4848 0 2 0 5 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 00 1 102102 4:30PM 4 50 3 0 5757 0 0 51 2 0 5353 0 2 0 4 0 66 0 1 0 0 0 11 2 117117 4:45PM 8 44 1 0 5353 0 0 41 1 0 4242 0 1 0 5 0 66 0 6 0 0 0 66 3 107107 Hourly Total 27 192 4 0 223223 0 3 182 5 0 190190 0 6 0 19 0 2525 0 10 0 0 0 1010 9 448448 5:00PM 4 58 2 0 6464 0 1 51 5 0 5757 0 0 0 2 0 22 0 1 0 0 0 11 10 124124 5:15PM 10 41 2 0 5353 0 1 39 2 0 4242 0 2 0 3 0 55 0 2 0 0 0 22 1 102102 5:30PM 6 49 6 0 6161 0 0 56 1 0 5757 0 4 0 6 0 1010 0 4 0 0 0 44 3 132132 5:45PM 3 49 3 0 5555 0 1 45 0 0 4646 0 4 0 0 0 44 0 2 0 0 0 22 3 107107 1 of 9 Hourly Total 23 197 13 0 233233 0 3 191 8 0 202202 0 10 0 11 0 2121 0 9 0 0 0 99 17 465465 6:00PM 5 44 2 0 5151 0 0 40 0 0 4040 0 2 0 6 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 00 1 9999 6:15PM 0 62 2 0 6464 0 0 40 2 0 4242 0 0 0 5 0 55 0 3 0 1 0 44 0 115115 6:30PM 5 41 0 0 4646 0 0 37 2 0 3939 0 2 0 1 0 33 0 4 0 0 0 44 3 9292 6:45PM 0 50 1 0 5151 0 0 30 0 0 3030 0 1 0 2 0 33 0 4 0 0 0 44 2 8888 Hourly Total 10 197 5 0 212212 0 0 147 4 0 151151 0 5 0 14 0 1919 0 11 0 1 0 1212 6 394394 7:00PM 5 37 3 0 4545 0 0 37 4 0 4141 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 3 8686 7:15PM 1 43 3 0 4747 0 0 29 0 0 2929 0 0 0 4 0 44 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 8181 7:30PM 4 40 0 0 4444 0 0 28 0 0 2828 0 0 0 3 0 33 0 0 0 1 0 11 5 7676 7:45PM 4 41 0 0 4545 0 0 30 2 0 3232 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 0 0 11 2 7979 Hourly Total 14 161 6 0 181181 0 0 124 6 0 130130 0 0 0 8 0 88 0 2 0 1 0 33 10 322322 TotalTotal 186 2322 86 2 25962596 6 39 2353 64 0 24562456 2 73 0 198 0 271271 8 110 4 29 1 144144 136 54675467 % Approach% Approach 7.2%89.4%3.3%0.1%---1.6%95.8%2.6%0%---26.9%0%73.1%0%---76.4%2.8%20.1%0.7%---- % Total% Total 3.4%42.5%1.6%0%47.5%47.5%-0.7%43.0%1.2%0%44.9%44.9%-1.3%0%3.6%0%5.0%5.0%-2.0%0.1%0.5%0%2.6%2.6%-- LightsLights 185 2317 86 2 25902590 -37 2344 63 0 24442444 -72 0 197 0 269269 -109 3 29 1 142142 -5445 % Lights% Lights 99.5%99.8%100%100%99.8%99.8%-94.9%99.6%98.4%0%99.5%99.5%-98.6%0%99.5%0%99.3%99.3%-99.1%75.0%100%100%98.6%98.6%-99.6% Articulated TrucksArticulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 00 -0 2 0 0 22 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -2 % Articulated Trucks% Articulated Trucks 0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0.1%0%0%0.1%0.1%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0% Buses and Single-UnitBuses and Single-Unit TrucksTrucks 1 5 0 0 66 -2 7 1 0 1010 -1 0 1 0 22 -1 1 0 0 22 -20 % Buses and Single-Unit% Buses and Single-Unit TrucksTrucks 0.5%0.2%0%0%0.2%0.2%-5.1%0.3%1.6%0%0.4%0.4%-1.4%0%0.5%0%0.7%0.7%-0.9%25.0%0%0%1.4%1.4%-0.4% Pedestrians -----6 -----2 -----3 -----101 % Pedestrians -----100%-----100%-----37.5%-----74.3%- Bicycles on Crosswalk -----0 -----0 -----5 -----35 % Bicycles on Crosswalk -----0%-----0%-----62.5%-----25.7%- Leg Duckwood Dr Duckwood Dr Widgeon Way Widgeon Way Direction Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Time R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*IntInt *Pedestrians and Bicycles on Crosswalk. L: Left, R: Right, T: Thru, U: U-Turn 2 of 9 Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - Weekend 14 Ho… - TMCDuckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - Weekend 14 Ho… - TMC Sat May 20, 2023 Full Length (6 AM-8 PM) All Classes (Lights, Articulated Trucks, Buses and Single-Unit Trucks, Pedestrians, Bicycles on Crosswalk) All Movements ID: 1072924, Location: 44.826267, -93.155262 Provided by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, US [N] Widgeon Way [E] Duckwood Dr[S] Widgeon Way[W] Duckwood DrTotal: 270 Total: 525 Total: 4880Total: 5259Out: 126 Out: 254 Out: 2424Out: 2663In: 144 In: 271 In: 2456In: 2596 4 2353 2322 1 29 110 39 64 73 198 86 186 2 66 70 24433 3 of 9 Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - Weekend 14 Ho… - TMCDuckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - Weekend 14 Ho… - TMC Sat May 20, 2023 AM Peak (WKND) (10 AM - 11 AM) All Classes (Lights, Articulated Trucks, Buses and Single-Unit Trucks, Pedestrians, Bicycles on Crosswalk) All Movements ID: 1072924, Location: 44.826267, -93.155262 Provided by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, US Leg Duckwood Dr Duckwood Dr Widgeon Way Widgeon Way Direction Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Time R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*IntInt 2023-05-20 10:00AM 0 40 3 0 4343 0 1 51 1 0 5353 0 1 0 4 0 55 0 1 0 1 0 22 3 103103 10:15AM 4 60 1 0 6565 0 0 58 0 0 5858 0 2 0 3 0 55 0 1 1 1 0 33 0 131131 10:30AM 1 42 2 0 4545 0 2 55 0 0 5757 0 0 0 2 0 22 0 1 0 1 0 22 5 106106 10:45AM 2 50 2 0 5454 0 1 59 1 0 6161 0 0 0 2 0 22 0 2 0 1 0 33 3 120120 TotalTotal 7 192 8 0 207207 0 4 223 2 0 229229 0 3 0 11 0 1414 0 5 1 4 0 1010 11 460460 % Approach% Approach 3.4%92.8%3.9%0%---1.7%97.4%0.9%0%---21.4%0%78.6%0%---50.0%10.0%40.0%0%---- % Total% Total 1.5%41.7%1.7%0%45.0%45.0%-0.9%48.5%0.4%0%49.8%49.8%-0.7%0%2.4%0%3.0%3.0%-1.1%0.2%0.9%0%2.2%2.2%-- PHFPHF 0.438 0.800 0.667 -0.7960.796 -0.500 0.945 0.500 -0.9390.939 -0.375 -0.688 -0.7000.700 -0.625 0.250 1.000 -0.8330.833 -0.878 LightsLights 7 192 8 0 207207 -4 221 2 0 227227 -3 0 11 0 1414 -5 1 4 0 1010 -458 % Lights% Lights 100%100%100%0%100%100%-100%99.1%100%0%99.1%99.1%-100%0%100%0%100%100%-100%100%100%0%100%100%-99.6% Articulated TrucksArticulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 00 -0 1 0 0 11 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -1 % Articulated Trucks% Articulated Trucks 0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0.4%0%0%0.4%0.4%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0.2% Buses and Single-UnitBuses and Single-Unit TrucksTrucks 0 0 0 0 00 -0 1 0 0 11 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -1 % Buses and Single-Unit% Buses and Single-Unit TrucksTrucks 0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0.4%0%0%0.4%0.4%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0.2% Pedestrians -----0 -----0 -----0 -----7 % Pedestrians -----------------------63.6%- Bicycles on Crosswalk -----0 -----0 -----0 -----4 % Bicycles on Crosswalk -----------------------36.4%- *Pedestrians and Bicycles on Crosswalk. L: Left, R: Right, T: Thru, U: U-Turn 4 of 9 Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - Weekend 14 Ho… - TMCDuckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - Weekend 14 Ho… - TMC Sat May 20, 2023 AM Peak (WKND) (10 AM - 11 AM) All Classes (Lights, Articulated Trucks, Buses and Single-Unit Trucks, Pedestrians, Bicycles on Crosswalk) All Movements ID: 1072924, Location: 44.826267, -93.155262 Provided by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, US [N] Widgeon Way [E] Duckwood Dr[S] Widgeon Way[W] Duckwood DrTotal: 22 Total: 24 Total: 428Total: 446Out: 12 Out: 10 Out: 199Out: 239In: 10 In: 14 In: 229In: 207 1 223 192 4 5 4 2 3 11 8 7 7 4 5 of 9 Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - Weekend 14 Ho… - TMCDuckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - Weekend 14 Ho… - TMC Sat May 20, 2023 Midday Peak (WKND) (11:45 AM - 12:45 PM) - Overall Peak Hour All Classes (Lights, Articulated Trucks, Buses and Single-Unit Trucks, Pedestrians, Bicycles on Crosswalk) All Movements ID: 1072924, Location: 44.826267, -93.155262 Provided by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, US Leg Duckwood Dr Duckwood Dr Widgeon Way Widgeon Way Direction Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Time R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*IntInt 2023-05-20 11:45AM 5 66 0 0 7171 0 2 59 2 0 6363 0 0 0 2 0 22 0 4 0 1 0 55 3 141141 12:00PM 1 67 0 0 6868 0 2 42 1 0 4545 0 3 0 3 0 66 1 2 0 1 0 33 4 122122 12:15PM 4 56 5 0 6565 0 0 53 1 0 5454 0 1 0 2 0 33 0 1 0 2 0 33 3 125125 12:30PM 3 66 2 0 7171 0 0 59 2 0 6161 0 1 0 4 0 55 1 4 0 2 0 66 1 143143 TotalTotal 13 255 7 0 275275 0 4 213 6 0 223223 0 5 0 11 0 1616 2 11 0 6 0 1717 11 531531 % Approach% Approach 4.7%92.7%2.5%0%---1.8%95.5%2.7%0%---31.3%0%68.8%0%---64.7%0%35.3%0%---- % Total% Total 2.4%48.0%1.3%0%51.8%51.8%-0.8%40.1%1.1%0%42.0%42.0%-0.9%0%2.1%0%3.0%3.0%-2.1%0%1.1%0%3.2%3.2%-- PHFPHF 0.650 0.951 0.350 -0.9680.968 -0.500 0.903 0.750 -0.8850.885 -0.417 -0.688 -0.6670.667 -0.688 -0.750 -0.7080.708 -0.928 LightsLights 12 254 7 0 273273 -4 212 6 0 222222 -5 0 11 0 1616 -11 0 6 0 1717 -528 % Lights% Lights 92.3%99.6%100%0%99.3%99.3%-100%99.5%100%0%99.6%99.6%-100%0%100%0%100%100%-100%0%100%0%100%100%-99.4% Articulated TrucksArticulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 % Articulated Trucks% Articulated Trucks 0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0% Buses and Single-UnitBuses and Single-Unit TrucksTrucks 1 1 0 0 22 -0 1 0 0 11 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -3 % Buses and Single-Unit% Buses and Single-Unit TrucksTrucks 7.7%0.4%0%0%0.7%0.7%-0%0.5%0%0%0.4%0.4%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0.6% Pedestrians -----0 -----0 -----0 -----6 % Pedestrians -----------------0%-----54.5%- Bicycles on Crosswalk -----0 -----0 -----2 -----5 % Bicycles on Crosswalk -----------------100%-----45.5%- *Pedestrians and Bicycles on Crosswalk. L: Left, R: Right, T: Thru, U: U-Turn 6 of 9 Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - Weekend 14 Ho… - TMCDuckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - Weekend 14 Ho… - TMC Sat May 20, 2023 Midday Peak (WKND) (11:45 AM - 12:45 PM) - Overall Peak Hour All Classes (Lights, Articulated Trucks, Buses and Single-Unit Trucks, Pedestrians, Bicycles on Crosswalk) All Movements ID: 1072924, Location: 44.826267, -93.155262 Provided by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, US [N] Widgeon Way [E] Duckwood Dr[S] Widgeon Way[W] Duckwood DrTotal: 489Total: 510Total: 28 Total: 35 Out: 266Out: 235Out: 11 Out: 19 In: 223In: 275In: 17 In: 16 213 255 6 11 4 6 5 11 7 13 1 10 2 7 of 9 Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - Weekend 14 Ho… - TMCDuckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - Weekend 14 Ho… - TMC Sat May 20, 2023 PM Peak (WKND) (1:15 PM - 2:15 PM) All Classes (Lights, Articulated Trucks, Buses and Single-Unit Trucks, Pedestrians, Bicycles on Crosswalk) All Movements ID: 1072924, Location: 44.826267, -93.155262 Provided by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, US Leg Duckwood Dr Duckwood Dr Widgeon Way Widgeon Way Direction Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Time R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*R T L U AppApp Ped*IntInt 2023-05-20 1:15PM 5 63 4 0 7272 0 0 62 2 0 6464 1 5 0 2 0 77 0 4 0 0 0 44 5 147147 1:30PM 4 62 0 0 6666 0 0 54 6 0 6060 0 2 0 5 0 77 0 2 0 1 0 33 4 136136 1:45PM 2 51 5 0 5858 0 0 49 3 0 5252 0 5 0 5 0 1010 0 2 0 1 0 33 3 123123 2:00PM 2 51 1 0 5454 0 1 39 3 0 4343 0 2 0 3 0 55 2 5 0 0 0 55 2 107107 TotalTotal 13 227 10 0 250250 0 1 204 14 0 219219 1 14 0 15 0 2929 2 13 0 2 0 1515 14 513513 % Approach% Approach 5.2%90.8%4.0%0%---0.5%93.2%6.4%0%---48.3%0%51.7%0%---86.7%0%13.3%0%---- % Total% Total 2.5%44.2%1.9%0%48.7%48.7%-0.2%39.8%2.7%0%42.7%42.7%-2.7%0%2.9%0%5.7%5.7%-2.5%0%0.4%0%2.9%2.9%-- PHFPHF 0.650 0.901 0.500 -0.8680.868 -0.250 0.823 0.583 -0.8550.855 -0.700 -0.750 -0.7250.725 -0.650 -0.500 -0.7500.750 -0.872 LightsLights 13 226 10 0 249249 -1 203 13 0 217217 -13 0 14 0 2727 -13 0 2 0 1515 -508 % Lights% Lights 100%99.6%100%0%99.6%99.6%-100%99.5%92.9%0%99.1%99.1%-92.9%0%93.3%0%93.1%93.1%-100%0%100%0%100%100%-99.0% Articulated TrucksArticulated Trucks 0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 0 0 0 00 -0 % Articulated Trucks% Articulated Trucks 0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-0% Buses and Single-UnitBuses and Single-Unit TrucksTrucks 0 1 0 0 11 -0 1 1 0 22 -1 0 1 0 22 -0 0 0 0 00 -5 % Buses and Single-Unit% Buses and Single-Unit TrucksTrucks 0%0.4%0%0%0.4%0.4%-0%0.5%7.1%0%0.9%0.9%-7.1%0%6.7%0%6.9%6.9%-0%0%0%0%0%0%-1.0% Pedestrians -----0 -----1 -----1 -----9 % Pedestrians -----------100%-----50.0%-----64.3%- Bicycles on Crosswalk -----0 -----0 -----1 -----5 % Bicycles on Crosswalk -----------0%-----50.0%-----35.7%- *Pedestrians and Bicycles on Crosswalk. L: Left, R: Right, T: Thru, U: U-Turn 8 of 9 Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - Weekend 14 Ho… - TMCDuckwood Drive & Widgeon Way - Weekend 14 Ho… - TMC Sat May 20, 2023 PM Peak (WKND) (1:15 PM - 2:15 PM) All Classes (Lights, Articulated Trucks, Buses and Single-Unit Trucks, Pedestrians, Bicycles on Crosswalk) All Movements ID: 1072924, Location: 44.826267, -93.155262 Provided by: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Minneapolis, MN, US [N] Widgeon Way [E] Duckwood Dr[S] Widgeon Way[W] Duckwood DrTotal: 462Total: 482Total: 26 Total: 56 Out: 243Out: 232Out: 11 Out: 27 In: 219In: 250In: 15 In: 29 204 227 2 13 1 14 14 15 10 13 10 4 12 9 of 9 WARRANTS ANALYSIS Existing Year 2023 - Weekday Duckwood Drive at Widgeon Way Duckwood & Widgeon Intersection Study City of Eagan, Dakota County Location : City of Eagan, Dakota County Speed (mph)Lanes Date: 5/16/2023 35 1 Major Approach 1: Zach Toberna 35 1 Major Approach 3: Population Less than 10,000:No 30 1 Minor Approach 2: Seventy Percent Factor Used:No 30 1 Minor Approach 4: Major Major Total Minor Minor Largest Hour Approach 1 Approach 3 1 + 3 500 750 Approach 2 Approach 4 Minor App.150 75 Condition A Condition B A B 300 200 6 - 7 AM 60 88 148 17 8 17 7 - 8 AM 129 158 287 39 12 39 8 - 9 AM 147 180 327 31 13 31 X 9 - 10 AM 145 184 329 27 13 27 X 10 - 11 AM 146 147 293 17 5 17 11 - 12 AM 191 193 384 19 8 19 X 12 - 1 PM 202 180 382 29 6 29 X 1 - 2 PM 238 163 401 28 7 28 X 2 - 3 PM 250 222 472 23 11 23 X 3 - 4 PM 315 227 542 X 24 12 24 X 4 - 5 PM 320 302 622 X 35 13 35 X 5 - 6 PM 348 241 589 X 26 16 26 X 6 - 7 PM 244 195 439 14 7 14 X 7 - 8 PM 193 125 318 10 9 10 X 8 - 9 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 - 10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 - 11 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MWSA (C):Multiway Stop Applications Condition C Warrant 1A:Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant 1B:Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant 1C:Combination of Warrants Warrant 2:Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3B:Peak Hour MWSA (C) 0 8 Not MetBackground InformationApproach Eastbound Duckwood Drive Westbound Duckwood Drive Northbound Widgeon Way Southbound Widgeon Way Analysis Prepared By: Warrants Analysis: Warrants 1A, 1B, and 1CWarrant Met CombinationWarrant Met Met Same Hours Not Met 0 4 Met/Not Met 0 8 Not Met Hours Met Hours Required Warrant SummaryWarrant and Description 0 Not Met 0 8 Not Met 0 8 Not Met 0 1 WARRANTS ANALYSIS Existing Year 2023 - Weekday Duckwood Drive at Widgeon Way Duckwood & Widgeon Intersection Study City of Eagan, Dakota County Number of Hours Satisfying Requirements: Notes:1. 115 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Warrants Analysis: Warrant 20 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000MINOR STREET HIGH VOLUME APPROACH -- VPH MAJOR STREET -- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VPH WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME WARRANTS ANALYSIS Existing Year 2023 - Weekday Duckwood Drive at Widgeon Way Duckwood & Widgeon Intersection Study City of Eagan, Dakota County Number of Hours Satisfying Requirements: Notes:1. 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 0Warrants Analysis: Warrant 30 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000MINOR STREET HIGH VOLUME APPROACH -- VPH MAJOR STREET -- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VPH WARRANT 3 - PEAK HOUR WARRANTS ANALYSIS Existing Year 2023 - Weekend Duckwood Drive at Widgeon Way Duckwood & Widgeon Intersection Study City of Eagan, Dakota County Location : City of Eagan, Dakota County Speed (mph)Lanes Date: 5/16/2023 35 1 Major Approach 1: Zach Toberna 35 1 Major Approach 3: Population Less than 10,000:No 30 1 Minor Approach 2: Seventy Percent Factor Used:No 30 1 Minor Approach 4: Major Major Total Minor Minor Largest Hour Approach 1 Approach 3 1 + 3 500 750 Approach 2 Approach 4 Minor App.150 75 Condition A Condition B A B 300 200 6 - 7 AM 22 41 63 4 0 4 7 - 8 AM 55 88 143 18 6 18 8 - 9 AM 107 165 272 27 8 27 9 - 10 AM 159 203 362 21 12 21 X 10 - 11 AM 207 229 436 14 10 14 X 11 - 12 AM 231 241 472 25 18 25 X 12 - 1 PM 269 203 472 18 16 18 X 1 - 2 PM 245 210 455 32 16 32 X 2 - 3 PM 232 205 437 17 16 17 X 3 - 4 PM 220 198 418 22 8 22 X 4 - 5 PM 223 190 413 25 10 25 X 5 - 6 PM 233 202 435 21 9 21 X 6 - 7 PM 212 151 363 19 12 19 X 7 - 8 PM 181 130 311 8 3 8 X 8 - 9 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 - 10 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 - 11 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MWSA (C):Multiway Stop Applications Condition C Warrant 1A:Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant 1B:Interruption of Continuous Traffic Warrant 1C:Combination of Warrants Warrant 2:Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant 3B:Peak HourWarrant SummaryWarrant and Description 0 Not Met 0 8 Not Met 0 8 Not Met 0 1 Not Met 0 4 Met/Not Met 0 8 Not Met Hours Met Hours Required MWSA (C) 0 8 Not MetBackground InformationApproach Eastbound Duckwood Drive Westbound Duckwood Drive Northbound Widgeon Way Southbound Widgeon Way Analysis Prepared By: Warrants Analysis: Warrants 1A, 1B, and 1CWarrant Met CombinationWarrant Met Met Same Hours WARRANTS ANALYSIS Existing Year 2023 - Weekend Duckwood Drive at Widgeon Way Duckwood & Widgeon Intersection Study City of Eagan, Dakota County Number of Hours Satisfying Requirements: Notes:1. 115 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 80 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. Warrants Analysis: Warrant 20 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000MINOR STREET HIGH VOLUME APPROACH -- VPH MAJOR STREET -- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VPH WARRANT 2 - FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME WARRANTS ANALYSIS Existing Year 2023 - Weekend Duckwood Drive at Widgeon Way Duckwood & Widgeon Intersection Study City of Eagan, Dakota County Number of Hours Satisfying Requirements: Notes:1. 150 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH TWO OR MORE LANES AND 100 VPH APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACHING WITH ONE LANE. 0Warrants Analysis: Warrant 30 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000MINOR STREET HIGH VOLUME APPROACH -- VPH MAJOR STREET -- TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES -- VPH WARRANT 3 - PEAK HOUR CITY OF EAGAN PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK POLICY PREPARED BY: CITY OF EAGAN PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT May 2023 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Minnesota State Statute ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Jurisdictional Authority ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Crossing Guidance ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Field Review and Preliminary Data Collection ........................................................................................... 4 2. Data Collection .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Crossing Identification ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Roadway Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................ 5 Traffic Data ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Multimodal Data ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 3. Evaluate Candidate Locations ......................................................................................................................... 7 Crossing Types ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Crossing Considerations ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Criteria Definitions .................................................................................................................................................. 11 4. Engineering Review ...........................................................................................................................................12 Step 1: Traffic Volume Review ........................................................................................................................... 12 Step 2: Roadway Geometric Treatment Assessment ................................................................................. 14 Step 3: Evaluate Crossing Infrastructure Enhancements ........................................................................... 15 Step 4: Further Analysis of Major Enhancements ........................................................................................ 16 Crossing Infrastructure Treatments ................................................................................................................. 18 Removal of Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... 22 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Eagan encourages multimodal transportation to access destinations in daily life and recreate via the community’s many parks and trails. Eagan continues to receive high citizen survey satisfaction ratings for ease of walking and biking and for the availability of such infrastructure. Eagan strives to provide safe, accessible, and efficient travel for all modes of transportation, while prioritizing the transportation network’s most vulnerable users: people walking, rolling, and bicycling. As the City strives Toward Zero Deaths within the city’s transportation network, a consistent application of pedestrian crossing enhancements is critical to best serve all users. Dakota County began using a pedestrian crossing guidance process developed as a part of the County’s Pedestrian Crossing Safety Assessment in July 2022. As a partner jurisdiction in Dakota County, the City of Eagan has adopted Dakota County’s guidance to maintain a consistent application of crossing enhancements along all city and county roadways. The purpose of this policy is to leverage the County’s process to guide the City in evaluating and implementing a pedestrian crossing program that provides people walking, rolling, and bicycling a safe place to cross while providing motorists reasonable and consistent expectations for where and what that may look like. This consistent process and application are important for the safety of all as it sets reliable expectations while traveling throughout the transportation network. The intent is to ensure a mutual understanding between the City Council, Staff, and residents of Eagan when presented as part of a public improvement project, or by a citizen or City staff request. MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE Minnesota State Statute Chapter 169 defines a crosswalk and pedestrians, as well as the rights of pedestrians and motorists regarding when and where to yield right-of-way. The definitions and legal language detailed in this section provide a foundation for how pedestrian crossings are viewed in Minnesota and considered by this assessment. 169.011 Definitions Subdivision 20. Crosswalk. "Crosswalk" means (1) that portion of a roadway ordinarily included with the prolongation or connection of the lateral lines of sidewalks at intersections; (2) any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the surface. Subdivision 20. Pedestrian. "Pedestrian" means any person afoot or in a wheelchair. 169.21 Pedestrian Subdivision 2. Rights in absence of signal. 2 (a) Where traffic-control signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the conditions as otherwise provided in this subdivision. (b) When any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle. (c) It is unlawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle through a column of school children crossing a street or highway or past a member of a school safety patrol or adult crossing guard, while the member of the school safety patrol or adult crossing guard is directing the movement of children across a street or highway and while the school safety patrol member or adult crossing guard is holding an official signal in the stop position. A peace officer may arrest the driver of a motor vehicle if the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the driver has operated the vehicle in violation of this paragraph within the past four hours. (d) A person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person who violates this subdivision a second or subsequent time within one year of a previous conviction under this subdivision is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Subdivision 3. Crossing between intersections. (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (b) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (c) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. (d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section every driver of a vehicle shall (1) exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway and (2) give an audible signal when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY This policy applies to streets owned and maintained by the City of Eagan, though Dakota County will perform the same assessment for their county facilities. The City and County will coordinate when applicable on projects to ensure proper application of crossing enhancements. 3 CROSSING GUIDANCE This section provides an evaluation process and guidance for when to consider enhancing a crossing at uncontrolled intersections and mid-block crossing locations. Enhanced crossing infrastructure is a key method of improving the safety and comfort of people walking, rolling, and bicycling (herein referred to as “multimodal users”) traveling throughout the transportation network, with research on the safety effects of appropriately enhanced crosswalks expanding in recent years. An uncontrolled crossing refers to a location where no traffic control (i.e., yield or stop sign, traffic signal) exists at the point in which people walking, rolling, or bicycling may cross. Uncontrolled crossings require additional review during planning and design because drivers are not consistently required to stop. Instead, a driver must recognize the presence of a person crossing and stop accordingly as required by Minnesota state law. This lack of consistency can create safety challenges acutely connected to these crossing locations. The FHWA states, “By focusing on uncontrolled crossing locations, local and state agencies can address a significant national safety problem and improve quality of life for pedestrians of all ages and abilities.”1 Uncontrolled crossing locations can be barriers for any multimodal user, notably children, older, and disabled populations, and require special attention to create a safe environment. Higher speed and traffic volume environments with multiple lanes are especially challenging and are locations where simply marking a crosswalk is insufficient. The objective of this section is to document a process for evaluation and design of crossing locations and ensure that anyone who wishes to be informed may understand how, where, and why crossing enhancements are recommended at certain locations based upon a variety of factors and contexts. INTRODUCTION The safety of multimodal users requires a holistic approach that focuses on engineering (implementing infrastructure improvements), education (for all roadway users), evaluation (continually collecting key data metrics to better inform decision-making), and encouragement (of following state laws). Engineering is the first step of this process to ensure the roadway and associated crossing design can effectively accommodate all users as safely and effectively as possible. It is important to focus upon the most vulnerable users of the transportation network throughout the process. Crashes are unacceptable and preventable, and though humans will make mistakes, Safe System of roadway design must always be considered to ensure a person’s mistake does not lead to serious injury or death. 1 Federal Highway Administration. (2018). Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, page ii. 4 Determining the appropriateness of enhanced crossing infrastructure requires a thorough review of the crossing location. The following steps are guidance for using or reviewing this process. Each crossing location requires staff review and engineering judgement beyond the basic guidelines included in this chapter and must include context-specific solutions beyond the scope of this document. Ideally this process is completed during the roadway design process, however, in many cases review occurs after the roadway is built or a new facility is added. This process is intended to help guide the reviewer through a methodical and data driven process such that engineering judgment can be effectively applied. 1. Performing field review and preliminary data collection to understand existing conditions and potential issues. Preliminary data collection includes existing, easily accessible data that is expected to take the reviewer less than 30 minutes and will determine if the crossing is acceptable for additional review performed by steps 2, 3, and 4. 2. Collect data to complete the review using recommended data points included in the Data Collection Form. The process includes the following steps: a. Identify crossing location. b. Collect roadway geometric and configuration data. c. Collect traffic and operational data. d. Collect multimodal data. 3. Evaluate the point of crossing using the flowchart and perform a high-level review to understand if a location is appropriate for consideration of an enhanced crossing. 4. If the flowchart leads to the conclusion that the consideration of an enhanced crossing is appropriate, continue to engineering review which includes the following steps: a. Review traffic volumes to determine proper roadway configuration/number of lanes. b. Determine if roadway geometric treatments are appropriate. c. Evaluate crossing infrastructure enhancements. d. Conduct specific warrant analyses or review of grade separation feasibility if applicable. 1. FIELD REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY DATA COLLECTION Upon identification of a crossing location by preemptive review (e.g., future development, etc.) or reactive evaluation (e.g., community input, recent crash, etc.), initial field review should be completed. This first step will aid in determining if an issue(s) is/are present, if other mitigation measures can be performed external to the process defined by this assessment, or if no additional follow up is necessary. Staff time and capacity is understood to be limited, and this will ensure that only crossings with the highest estimated need are provided the level of review described in the following sections. 5 2. DATA COLLECTION Data collection is a key component of this analysis. The Data Collection Form should be used for each study to collect all required data inputs. It is critical that all data points identified below are collected and properly organized to ensure the crossing location is successfully reviewed for potential improvements. Sometimes the planner or engineer is very familiar with the location and may have a good understanding of operations which may allow some of the data to be “approximated”, though it is important that all data inputs are completed to maintain the integrity of the process. Crossing Identification ▪ Major Street: Name of the street crossed by the location under review. ▪ Minor Street or Crossing Location: The connecting street of an intersection or specific location identified for the mid-block crossing. ▪ Multimodal Generating Land Uses, Destinations, or Activity Centers: Within 660 feet of the crossing, are there land uses, destinations, or activity centers that could generate trips by walking, rolling, or bicycling and list those that are pertinent. These could be existing locations or those planned in the near-term (less than five years). Roadway Characteristics ▪ Cross-section Type: Urban (curb and gutter) or rural (shoulder and ditch) cross-section. ▪ Roadway Configuration: Configuration of the roadway at the point of crossing which includes the total number of lanes and if it is divided or undivided. ▪ Total Number of Lanes to Cross: The total number of lanes present at the point of crossing. ▪ Number of Left-turn Lanes: The total number of left-turn lanes present at the point of crossing. ▪ Number of Right-turn Lanes: The total number of right-turn lanes present at the point of crossing. ▪ Stopping Sight Distance: The stopping sight distance in both directions from the point of crossing based upon guidance found in the AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. ▪ Obstruction: Sight distance obstruction present such as a tree, pole, sign, etc. that directly affects the crossing under review. Traffic Data ▪ Traffic Control: If a crossing under review is at an intersection, identify the traffic control present (side-street stop control, all-way stop, or traffic signal). ▪ Posted Speed Limit: Posted speed limit at the point of crossing. 6 ▪ 85th Percentile Speed: The 85th percentile speed recorded at the point of crossing. ▪ Existing AADT: The most recent average annual daily traffic available at the point of crossing. ▪ Future AADT: The future average annual daily traffic identified at the point of crossing if available. ▪ Existing V/C: The vehicle-to-capacity based upon the number of lanes and existing AADT at the point of crossing ▪ Future V/C: The vehicle-to-capacity based upon the number of lanes and future AADT at the point of crossing ▪ Total Crashes: The total number of crashes (all modes) that are recorded at the point of crossing in the last five years. Highlight serious injury or fatal crashes if present. Multimodal Data ▪ Sidewalk: Identify if a sidewalk directly connects to the crossing under review. ▪ Shared-use Path: Identify if a shared-use path, sidepath, or multiuse trail directly connects to the crossing under review. ▪ Crosswalk Lighting: Identify if lighting is present that would illuminate the crossing and specifically note if that lighting is pedestrian-scale. ▪ Transit Stop: Identify if a bus or transit stop is within 300 feet of the crossing under review. ▪ Multimodal User Volume: Record the three peak hour totals for multimodal users and specifically identify pedestrians versus bicyclists. User types are further defined under the “Criteria Definitions” section. A best practice is collecting data between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. during warmer months (i.e., April-June or September-October) and when school is in session. Collecting both a weekday and weekend count is also recommended. Previously collected count data within two years of this assessment can be applied if location conditions have not changed significantly. ▪ Multimodal User Volume – Vulnerable Population: Record the three peak hour totals for multimodal users that would identify as vulnerable (i.e., young, older, and/or disabled). User types are further defined under the “Criteria Definitions” section. ▪ Pedestrian Crashes: The total number of pedestrian-involved crashes that are recorded at the point of crossing in the last ten years. Highlight serious injury or fatal crashes and remove preventable crashes (e.g., driver impaired, etc.) if present. ▪ Bicycle Crashes: The total number of bicycle-involved crashes that are recorded at the point of crossing in the last ten years. Highlight serious injury or fatal crashes and remove preventable crashes (e.g., driver impaired, etc.) if present. ▪ Distance to Next Marked Crosswalk: The distance (in feet) between the closest marked crosswalk and the crossing under review. 7 ▪ Distance to Next Controlled Crossing: The distance (in feet) between the closest controlled crossing (i.e., traffic/pedestrian signal, all-way stop, PHB, or RRFB) and the crossing under review. ▪ Two-stage Crossing Distance: Total distance to cross (in feet) on either side of the pedestrian refuge island. ▪ Total Crossing Distance: The total crossing distance (in feet) to complete the roadway crossing from curb ramp to curb ramp or curb face to curb face if curb ramps are not present. 3. EVALUATE CANDIDATE LOCATIONS Once data collection is complete, the candidate crossing location should be evaluated using the flowchart. Starting at the top, proceed through each criteria box following the path of whether the data meets that criterion. Progress through the flowchart until reaching one of three boxes at the bottom which include: ▪ No Action Recommended: The crossing location does not meet one or more criteria and is not recommended. Directing users to the nearest marked crosswalk should be considered to reduce risk taking behavior. The nearest marked crosswalk should be consistent with the guidelines defined in this evaluation process or approved following staff review and engineering judgement. ▪ Consider an Unmarked Crossing: An “unmarked crossing” is any treatment that improves a person’s ability to cross a roadway, short of a marked crosswalk with signage or other enhancements detailed in Step 3 at the crossing location. Installation of this type of crossing is subject to staff review and engineering judgement and must include ADA- compliant curb ramps, appropriate pedestrian warning signage in advance of the crossing, and roadway geometric improvements if applicable (list of options found below in step 3, the engineering review process). No markings or additional signage beyond pedestrian warning signage are provided to attract or recommend that nonmotorized users cross at the location. The crossing is intended to operate as an improvement for a low volume pedestrian crossing where nonmotorized users are already crossing and will continue to cross at this location or to provide consistency where enhancements are not warranted. ▪ Consideration of a Crossing Enhancement is Appropriate: The crossing location is appropriate for consideration of infrastructure enhancements. Proceed to the engineering review process to complete context-specific analysis, staff review, and engineering judgement. 8 Crossing Types A pedestrian crossing is the section of the road at an intersection that acts as the prolongation, or extension, of the sidewalk for people walking, rolling, or bicycling to cross from one side of the road to the other and at all legs of any intersection. When no sidewalks exist, the crossing is the portion of the roadway within ten feet of the intersection unless modified by crosswalk markings, signage, or other infrastructure at a different location such as mid-block (i.e., between two intersections). ▪ Unmarked crosswalk: A legal crosswalk that does not feature any crosswalk striping or markings. ▪ Marked crosswalk: A legal crosswalk that features crosswalk striping or markings. ▪ Uncontrolled crossing: A legal crossing of a roadway intersection approach or mid-block crossing of a roadway between two intersections not controlled by a stop sign, traffic signal, pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), or pedestrian signal. ▪ Controlled crossing: A legal crossing of a roadway intersection approach or mid-block crossing of a roadway between two intersections controlled by a stop sign, traffic signal, pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), or pedestrian signal. Typical crosswalk marking implementation and designs are highlighted in the Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) and can include a variety of materials. To improve motorist vision of a crossing, high visibility markings are recommended (e.g., thermoplasti c) when applicable and notably for higher volume crossings. Source: Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (left); National Association of City Transportation Officials (right) Crosswalks that are appropriately marked and enhanced provide pedestrians with convenient opportunities to cross the street, while maintaining safety. Marked crosswalks are valuable as they direct pedestrians to a designated place to cross, alert drivers to the potential presence of pedestrians, and legally establish the crosswalk at non-intersection locations. 9 The MN MUTCD states that a marked crosswalk should not be installed alone without other measures designed to reduce traffic speeds, shorten crossing distances, and/or provide active warning of pedestrian presence if the posted speed limit exceeds 40 mph and: 1. Four or more lanes present with no pedestrian refuge island and >12,000 AADT, or 2. Four or more lanes present with a pedestrian refuge island and >15,000 AADT Crossing Considerations External to crossing infrastructure, other considerations are important to review prior to potentially implementing infrastructure enhancements. Distance Between Crossings Crosswalk spacing criteria should be determined according to the pedestrian network, built environment, and observed desire lines. NACTO identifies that if it takes a person more than a three-minute walk to a crossing, wait to cross the street, and then resume their journey, they may decide to cross along a more direct, but unsafe or unprotected, route based upon perceived time savings. While this behavior depends heavily on the speed and volume of motorists, it is imperative to understand crossing behaviors from a pedestrian’s perspective (i.e., slower travel via a reduced travelshed). Of note, no state or national guidance exists identifying specific measured distances between crosswalks or enhanced crossings. Crossing placement is heavily dependent upon the surrounding context, land use and destinations, network connectivity, block length, and other factors. A high-level analysis of agency best practices in the United States showed typical marked crossing spacing from 200 to 600 feet when warranted. A minimum spacing of 300 feet between signalized crossings is identified in the MN MUTCD (page 4D-1). This spacing could fluctuate based upon engineering judgement and applicability given the roadway design, configuration, and intersection placement. Delay to Cross a Roadway The multimodal network should be designed in such a way where users are not unreasonably forced to wait for a gap in traffic or walk out of their way to access a crossing. The Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition states that when a pedestrian is forced to wait 30 seconds or more, they are highly likely to exhibit risk-taking behavior. NACTO also has guidance regarding delay at signalized and unsignalized crossings. Delays exceeding 40 seconds at signalized crosswalks and 20 seconds at unsignalized, or yield-controlled crosswalks, may cause the pedestrian to exhibit risk- taking behavior. These are important considerations as another metric to proactively determine how a crossing could be made safer. 10 11 Criteria Definitions Additional detail regarding how to navigate each criterion is included by the corresponding number in the flowchart and footnotes. ▪ Meets minimum multimodal volume threshold: The multimodal user crossing demand during a 24-hour period meets one or more of the following criteria. This is the total after the 1.33 volume conversion factor is applied for vulnerable population (i.e., children/young adults (ages 0-17), older adults (60+), and persons with disabilities). o 1 hour (any hour): 20 crossings per hour o 2 hours (any two hours): 15 crossings per hour o 3 hours (any three hours): 10 crossings per hour Of note, the two- or three-hour counts do not need to be consecutive. Multimodal users include a person walking, rolling (e.g., skateboard, scooter, or other nonmotorized or motorized riding device), bicycling (pedal-powered or e-bike), or using a wheelchair, mobility aid, or other battery power-driven mobility device. ▪ Pedestrian or bicycle involved crash in the last ten years: ≥1 crash involving a multimodal user at the existing point crossing under review over the last ten years. A crash not addressable by engineering design (e.g., impaired driver, etc.) does not count. ▪ Location meets the sight distance requirement: The required sight distance for a vehicle to come to a complete stop at the point of crossing per AASHTO’s stopping sight distance outputs using the roadway’s design speed. ▪ Location directly serves a key destination or active transportation facility: Subject to staff review and engineering judgement, examine the surrounding land uses to determine if the proposed crossing directly serves, or is within close proximity, to a key destination or active transportation facility. Key destinations for consideration could include, but are not limited to: school, hospital, senior center, recreation or community center, library, park, bus stop or transit station, or a key activity center, destination, and/or land use subject to staff review. Active transportation facilities may include a multiuse trail, shared use path, sidepath, or greenway adopted by a City of Eagan plan, or other local planning document subject to staff review and approval. ▪ Location from the nearest marked crossing: The NACTO defines an approximate three minute out-of-direction walk as the threshold in which risk-taking behavior by a multimodal user may then occur. Pedestrians naturally desire to travel along the quickest and most direct pathway of travel. Utilizing the MN MUTCD’s 3.5 feet per second calculation for pedestrian travel, that equates to 600 feet total, or 300 feet in either direction from the crosswalk. These distances could vary and are dependent upon the surrounding context (i.e., urban, suburban, or rural) and characteristics of the roadway. The minimum distance allowable is 300 feet between crossings per the MN MUTCD (page 4D-1). 12 Exceptions to Criteria In some cases, it may be reasonable to allow exceptions to the criteria previously described. Any exception may require review, consideration, and discussion from city staff and must be clearly documented including the reason why the criteria exception was required. Examples could include a location that is identified for consideration of a crossing enhancement but does not meet the criteria outlined in this document though it has other factors where crossing enhancements may be applicable. The city may choose not to construct crossings that have a high cost, are not justified by the project’s benefits, or have constraints present that require significant design. Developers should coordinate planning, design, and implementation of all crossings with the City of Eagan’s Public Works Department. 4. ENGINEERING REVIEW If a location is identified as appropriate for consideration of crossing enhancements in the flowchart, then the following process should be completed to determine if additional crossing infrastructure enhancements could be implemented. This is a methodical process that potentially highlights items not previously considered. Step 1: Traffic Volume Review The first step of this process is important as the Potential Crossing Enhancement Matrix relies upon the number of lanes as one of three key inputs. This step ensures that the number of lanes (travel and turn lanes) at the point of crossing is adequate for the traffic volumes. Right sizing the crossing distance is critical to all modes of travel, but particularly important to non-motorized users, as the goal is to minimize their time in the hazard zone. 1. Analyze existing (and future traffic volumes subject to site-specific engineering judgement) using the Dakota County capacity thresholds to determine if the roadway design is appropriate (see Table 1). Table 1. Dakota County Roadway Capacities Roadway Design Capacity Range 110% of Capacity 2-lanes 10,000 11,000 3-lanes 18,000 19,800 4+ lanes 35,000 38,500 Source: Dakota County 2040 Transportation Plan 13 ▪ Four-to-Three Conversion: Often referred to as a “road diet” it reduces the number of travel lanes from four through lanes to two through lanes with a two-way left-turn lane in the center of the roadway. This can both calm traffic, slow speeds, and provide additional roadway space for crossing enhancements such as a pedestrian refuge island. This is an option if the capacity is found to be appropriate for such a conversion based upon county guidance and engineering judgement. ▪ Multilane Threat: Removing lanes can also improve visibility and remove the multilane threat which is when two or more lanes in one direction approach a crossing. When one car stops for a person crossing the roadway, the second car may not be visible to the person crossing nor is that person visible to the second driver. 2. Engineering review of right- and left-turn lanes if applicable at the point of crossing to verify if they are necessary or if they can be removed. 3. If roadway design or turn lanes are appropriate, proceed to Step 2: Roadway Geometric Treatment Options. 4. If roadway design or turn lanes are not appropriate, consider lane reductions or turn lane removal before proceeding. If this is not a near-term option, proceed to Step 2: Roadway Geometric Treatment Options. 14 Step 2: Roadway Geometric Treatment Assessment Marking a crosswalk is one of many tools that can be used to improve pedestrian conditions. Before considering additional signage, markings/striping, signals, etc., staff should evaluate the feasibility of roadway geometric improvements. Minimizing the time that multimodal users are crossing in the travel lane(s) is important as it reduces crossing width/distance, as well as helps manage vehicle speeds by narrowing the cross-section and tightening curb radii. In some cases, moving a crossing away from an intersection to a mid-block location can significantly reduce the number of conflict points between vehicles and multimodal users thereby improving overall safety. The following process reviews opportunities to slow speeds, reduce crossing distance, and improve visibility of people crossing the roadway. 1. Narrow Travel Lanes: MnDOT identifies the following lane width best practices per the Performance-Based Practical Design – Process and Design Guidance. These are superseded by MnDOT’s own design standards though used as an example for consideration by the City of Eagan. Studies have credited tighter lane widths by neutrally or positively impacting safety without affecting traffic operations. ▪ Rural Roadways: 11- or 12-foot-wide lanes ▪ Urban and Suburban Roadways: 10-foot-wide lanes (≤35 mph and turn lanes), 11-foot- wide lanes (suitable for all other typologies), 12-foot-wide lanes (≥50 mph and/or non- motorized traffic is absent). 2. Reduce Conflict Points: Consider moving the crossing to a location with the least number of conflict points depending upon engineering judgement. This could include an intersection leg with lower turning vehicles or overall traffic, as well as moving a crossing entirely out of an intersection and to a mid-block location. 15 3. Crossing Lighting: Ensure lighting is present that illuminates the entire crossing (curb ramp to curb ramp) per state and federal guidance. 4. Traffic Calming: Context-specific traffic calming measures using geometric improvements should always be considered. Each item is further defined in the section below. ▪ Curb Radius: Review the turning curb radius to understand if a reduced radius can be achieved based upon context-specific needs and design vehicles (i.e., if the roadway is a freight or bus route). Reducing the radius to as small as practical can create significant benefits via reduced crossing distance and vehicle turning speeds. Curb radius design should be based upon roadway type, crossing activity, and turning vehicle needs. ▪ Curb Extension: An extension or bump out of the curb into the roadway and typically a minimum of six-feet-wide though design is context specific. This could include removal or narrowing of a roadway shoulder to reduce the crossing distance. Special attention should be given to existing on-street bicycle infrastructure (e.g., bike lane) to ensure it does not remove space at the intersection for that connection. ▪ Pedestrian Refuge Island: A raised median that is a minimum of eight-feet-wide though ten-feet or greater is preferred to ensure it is wide enough to accommodate bikes. ▪ Several more traffic calming infrastructure opportunities are identified in best practice documents and guidance (e.g., NACTO, ITE, FHWA, etc.) and could be implemented based upon staff review and engineering judgement. Step 3: Evaluate Crossing Infrastructure Enhancements Review the crossing enhancement evaluation matrix to determine potential infrastructure improvements at the point of crossing. The improvement options are divided into four options which are further described in the matrix table below. ▪ Consider Lane Reduction: Review the existing and future roadway volumes to determine if a lane reduction can be implemented prior to potential crossing improvements to maximize crossing infrastructure and minimize cost. ▪ Markings and Signage: The most basic treatment for a location that qualifies for enhanced crossing. Two different scenarios for marking and signage (M&S 1 and M&S 2) specify which signs and roadway markings are included. ▪ Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon: Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) are generally designed for locations with higher traffic volumes and pedestrian activity. Three different scenarios for RRFBs (RRFB 1, RRFB 2, and RRFB 3) specify which combination of markings and signs should be used in coordination with the RRFBs. ▪ Further Analysis Required: An engineering assessment is required to determine if a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) or pedestrian signal are warranted per the MN MUTCD (which both require higher pedestrian volumes), as well as pedestrian demand, roadway conditions and context, and available gaps in traffic. The need for, and feasibility of, a grade-separated pedestrian crossing requires a more detailed engineering review to 16 understand the feasibility and cost. They are most applicable for highly used trail or greenway crossings, as well as high demand locations of high speed, multi-lane roadways, expressways, and freeways. Step 4: Further Analysis of Major Enhancements This step considers warrants found in the MN MUTCD for pedestrian hybrid beacons or pedestrian signals subject to engineering judgement and review of applicability. The feasibility of grade- separation may also be studied and is dependent upon context-specific needs. 17 18 Crossing Infrastructure Treatments The following section describes crossing infrastructure to illustrate the universe of opportunities to mark/stripe, sign, and implement geometric improvements to upgrade locations for crossing a roadway by walking, rolling, or bicycling. The list is not exhaustive and only highlights key treatments beyond typical pedestrian crossing and warning signage, or in-street pedestrian signs. Guidance of infrastructure treatments and best practices continues to grow nationally and should be reviewed during some frequency to ensure the latest enhancements are understood (i.e., type, impact, cost, etc.). Of note, construction estimates, and crash reduction percentages are from MnDOT’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (2021) or the FHWA. Lane Reduction A road diet reconfigures the roadway by converting a four-lane (or sometimes more), undivided roadway into a three-lane roadway with two through lanes and a two-way left-turn lane in the center of the roadway. The three-lane configuration provides added space to implement a pedestrian refuge island or landscaped median, bike infrastructure, and other elements for traffic calming. This is a candidate treatment for any undivided road with wide travel lanes or multiple lanes that can be narrowed or repurposed to improve pedestrian crossing safety. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 19 to 47 percent. Typically, a roadway with 20,000 AADT or less is a good candidate for a four- to three-lane conversion, though some examples in the United States have shown successful conversions with traffic volumes as high as 26,000 AADT in addition to lower turning volumes. Average cost of implementation is $25,000 to $40,000 per mile. Curb Radii Source: Federal Highway Administration Source: Federal Highway Administration 19 Tightened curb radii provide several benefits including shortened crossing distance, slowed turning vehicle speeds, and a larger pedestrian-realm. An actual curb radius of five to ten feet should be considered whenever possible, and not to exceed 30 feet.2 The effective curb radius should be minimized whenever possible and increased to accommodate turning buses or large trucks when absolutely required. In most conditions, the roadway has passenger vehicles or smaller trucks and, in some cases, large vehicles overtaking a lane to complete their turn should be acceptable unless specific issues are identified per staff review and engineering judgement. Creative designs can also be employed such as staggered stop bars and/or truck aprons to accommodate larger vehicle turning movements. Curb Extension The impact for driver sight of people crossing with the addition of curb extensions shown at right. Source: National Association of City Transportation Officials. A curb extension is an extension of the sidewalk and curb line into the roadway to reduce pedestrian crossing distance and exposure to vehicles. They also provide visual cues to drivers and improve vision of pedestrians crossing while reducing turning speeds. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 45 percent. Curb extensions can double as a traffic calming device in mid-block locations as pinch points or chicanes. Average cost is $2,000 to $3,500 per corner without storm sewer impacts and $10,000 to $20,000 per corner if storm sewer is impacted. 2 Minnesota Department of Transportation. (January 2016). Infrastructure Reference Guide. https://www.dot.state.mn.us/mnsaferoutes/assets/downloads/MnDOT_SRTS_InfrastrctureReferenceGuide.pdf 20 Pedestrian Refuge Island Source: Federal Highway Administration Crossing Lighting A pedestrian refuge island (i.e., a median) are raised areas that are constructed in the center of the roadway and serve as a place of refuge for people who cross mid-block or at an intersection and shorten the crossing distance. They allow people crossing to concentrate their attention on one direction of traffic at a time and allow users to wait for motorists and find an adequate gap in traffic before crossing the second half of the street. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 46 to 54 percent. Average total costs vary. Crosswalk lighting is a strategy that installs streetlights at, and in advance of, intersections and crosswalks to improve visibility and safety of the person crossing. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 42 percent. The lux (amount of light in lumens per square meter) is recommended at 20 to 40 lux at five feet above the road surface to provide adequate vertical illumination within a crosswalk. Lighting is particularly important at mid-block crossings and should illuminate the entire crossing form curb ramp to curb ramp as illustrated above. Average cost is $10,000 to $40,000 per intersection. Advanced Stop Bar and Signage Source: National Association of Transportation Officials An advanced stop bar is typically striped 20 feet to 50 feet in advance of a marked crosswalk to encourage drivers to stop further back from the crossing which enhances the comfort for those crossing. The stop bar and corresponding sign also provides the key benefit for multilane roadways of removing the multilane threat by improving the visibility of a crossing pedestrian for motorists. Source: National Association of Transportation Officials (left), Federal Highway Administration (right) 21 Source: National Association of Transportation Officials Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) A crossing enhancement that is activated by a pedestrian and uses two rapid and alternate flashing yellow rectangular beacons. RRFBs are applicable on roadways with higher pedestrian demand, traffic volumes, and traffic speeds. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 47 percent. Average cost is $15,000 to $50,000 per crossing or $80,000 to $100,000 for an overhead system. Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) A pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), formerly known as a HAWK, is a beacon installed to warn and control traffic by having vehicles stop with a red light. It consists of two red lenses and one yellow lens and is dark until pedestrian activated. PHBs are applicable on high speed, multilane roadways, with higher traffic volumes and where RRFBs are no longer a viable safety solution, such as when gaps in traffic are not sufficient. If PHBs are not already familiar to a community, agencies should conduct appropriate education and outreach as part of implementation. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 55 percent. Average cost is $100,000 to $170,000 per crossing. Of note, if pedestrian demand is higher, a pedestrian signal should be explored in lieu of a PHB. A pedestrian signal is a traffic signal placed at a pedestrian crossing and does not refer to a signalized intersection. 22 Grade-separated Crossing Vertical separation of a pedestrian crossing (over or under a roadway) are most applicable for high volume and high speed roadways, railroads, and other topographically challenging locations or physical barriers. The overpass or underpass should always try to be conveniently located to reduce out-of-direction travel. It is a proven safety strategy for reducing crashes per the FHWA with a typical crash reduction of 87 percent. Cost is typically significant and can vary wildly and is dependent upon the surrounding context. Removal of Infrastructure Conditions that contribute to the need for a crossing enhancement may change over time, or a crossing may no longer be needed. When a roadway surface is to be impacted by reconstruction or resurfacing, a review should be performed to determine their use and need. If a crosswalk or crossing meets the criteria outlined in this assessment, it should be maintained. If it does not meet the criteria, it should be brought to the City Engineer for consideration of removal. In lieu of a removal, a crossing may also be reviewed for changes to align with the latest guidance or changing conditions. Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation NORTHNorth 9’ 13’ 13’ 9’ 9’ 13’ 13’ 9’ Duckwood Drive Widgeon Way02316574 June 2023 Curb Extension Concept Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study City of Eagan DRAFT Concept Purposes Only NORTHNorth 5’ 11’ 11’ 5’ Duckwood Drive Widgeon Way 12’ 5’ 11’ 11’ 5’ 12’ 02316574 June 2023 Median Concept Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study City of Eagan Median Length: 75 to 100 feet DRAFT Concept Purposes Only NORTHNorth 5’ 13’ 13’ 5’ Duckwood Drive Widgeon Way 8’ 5’ 13’ 13’ 5’ 8’ 02316574 June 2023 Combined Concept Duckwood Drive and Widgeon Way Intersection Study City of Eagan Median Length: 75 to 100 feet DRAFT Concept Purposes Only Duckwood Drive & Widgeon Way Intersection September 19, 2023 Public Works Committee Meeting History/ Existing Conditions 2018 Study/Action No strong public opinion to remove stop signs –Duckwood Drive Council/staff left intersection as is Resident Petition January 2023 Existing Conditions 4-Way Stop Intersection –not warranted Installed at direction of Council 30+ years ago Sidewalk North side only Duckwood Drive –collector street –6,000-6,600 ADT Widgeon Way –local residential street –350-800 ADT No multimodal crashes in past 10 years 3 property damage crashes in past 10 years Existing Conditions Study Process Public Involvement •Petition –Council Approval •Online Survey •Two Neighborhood Meetings (May 24 and June 27) Concerns: Speeding Non-compliance at stop signs Not stopping for pedestrians •Review of Operations with ISD 196 Bus Routes/Stops •Eagan Police Department Input Study Process Public Engagement -Pedestrian and Data Collection/Evaluation Report –Findings Stop Sign Compliance Pedestrian/ Bus Stop Crossing Review ISD 196 –Glacier Hills Elementary School bus stop modifications 2023/2024 year -Eliminates need for elementary students to cross Duckwood Drive Pedestrian Crossing Policy (2023) Ped/Bike Volume thresholds not met No multimodal crashes within past 10 years No pedestrian ramps on south side Future consideration of sidewalk/trail south side (Bike/Ped Transportation Plan 2020) Summary/ Options for Consideration •Leave as is •Remove stop signs on Duckwood Drive •Painted or raised physical improvements –curb extensions or median refuge Title•Does the Public Works Committee support the recommendation for the removal of the stop signs along Duckwood Drive? •Does the Public Works Committee support the placement of painted geometric improvements to reduce the designated travel lane width? Thank you!