Welcome. Elk River to Zimmerman. Highway 169 Interchange & Frontage Road Study:

Transcription

1 Welcome Chamber of Commerce Meeting 3:30-4:30 p.m. Public Open House 4:30-7:30 p.m.

2 Dorothea Study Background 136th Street Livonia Township 277th Ave Future High School 273rd Ave 269th Ave Huntington Proposed New Development Fremont Lake Gardenia Grams Regional 1. Why do we need a study? Traffic volumes in the Highway corridor are growing and are expected to continue growing. This growth combined with the presence of at-grade intersections and a mix of vehicle types (commuter, trucks, SUVs pulling boats/campers, RVs) results in delay, longer travel times, and an increasing number of crashes. The study will identify improvements for the Highway corridor that will improve safety and mobility. 2. Where is the study focused? The Highway Zimmerman Interchange and Frontage Road Study is focused on the Highway corridor from County Highway 25/19 at the south end to 277th Avenue at the north end. ST 46 Elem. School ST 46 Freemont WMA UV 4 253rd Ave Fireman s Junior High/ High School ST 45 Lions Main Street Street 249th Ave Future Business 117th Ave ** The study area was recently extended to Highway 10 in Elk River. Watch for more information soon! 3. What improvements will the study recommend? The study will recommend ways to convert Highway to a safer, more mobile freeway. That means the study will recommend a system of grade-separated interchanges and frontage/backage roads to provide access, eliminating the need for less safe at-grade access to Highway. 4. When will the Preferred Alternative be built? The Highway interchange at County Highway 4 is currently scheduled for construction in However, adequate funding is not available for this project based on cost estimates. The timing of construction is dependent on resolving funding issues. Other recommended improvements will be constructed in phases after 2014, as additional funding becomes available. DNR Wildlife Management s UV 19 Wetlands Boundary of Planned Future UV Feet Air Photo: USDA, Farm Service Agency, th Ave

3 What Does the Study Include and When Will Tasks be Completed? Apr 2006 Feb 2007 Zimmerman Alternative Identification and Evaluation Overall Process Traffic Analysis/Forecast Review Previous Data & Assemble Additional Data Develop Project Purpose & Need Identify Key Project Goals & Objectives Identify Range of Alternatives and Evaluate Identify Key Social, Environmental, and Economic Issues of Concern Nov 2006 Aug 2007 Elk River Alternative Identification and Evaluation Sep 2007 March 2008 Project Evaluation and Environmental Documentation - Can a Preferred Alternative be Identified without Extensive Study? Determine Appropriate Environmental Process Refine Design for Alternative(s) Complete Environmental Documentation Traffic Analysis/Forecast Review Previous Data & Assemble Additional Data Develop Project Purpose & Need Identify Key Project Goals & Objectives Identify Range of Alternatives and Evaluate Identify Key Social, Environmental, and Economic Issues of Concern

4 Who is Advising the Study Process? Group Members (Zimmerman) Members (Elk River) Purpose Project Management Team Local Advisory Committee (LAC) Local Stakeholder Contacts - MnDOT Representatives - SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Staff - MnDOT Representatives - Sherburne County Engineer, Traffic Engineer, and Planner - Administrator, Planner/Coordinator, and Engineer - Livonia Township Clerk - Baldwin Township Representatives - SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Staff Important stakeholders from the study area with direct interest in corridor planning results: - Sherburne County Commissioners - Zimmerman City Council - Livonia Township Board - Baldwin Township Board - Zimmerman Chamber of Commerce Same - MnDOT Representatives - Sherburne, Engineer, Traffic Engineer, and Planner - City of Elk River Engineer and Community Development Director - Livonia Township Clerk - SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Staff Important stakeholders from the study area with direct interest in corridor planning results: - Sherburne County Commissioners - Elk River City Council - Livonia Township Board - Elk River Chamber of Commerce - Elk River Neighborhood Groups and Schools Provide contract administration and review - Guide the overall study process - Digest input; - Participate in technical analysis; - Make study recommendations - Provide direct stakeholder input on study issues and opportunities - Provide feedback on alternative evaluation process Zimmerman Local Advisory Committee Craig Robinson, MnDOT Jim Hallgren, MnDOT Rhonda Lewis, Sherburne County Engineer Dick Corbin, Sherburne County Traffic Engineer Jon Sevald, Sherburne County Planner Greg LaFond, Zimmerman City Administrator Randy Piasecki, Zimmerman City Planner/Coordinator Scott Young, Zimmerman City Engineer (EarthTech) Lila Spencer, Livonia Township Clerk Jess Hall, Baldwin Township Board Member Agency Stakeholder Contacts Open House Meetings Federal and State Permitting Agencies and Major Local Stakeholders: - Department of Natural Resources (DNR) - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) - Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - MnDOT - State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) - Affected property owners - General public Same Same - Establish project understanding and support among review agencies - Provide an opportunity for the public to participate in the corridor planning process, and for specific interest groups and review agencies to further their involvement. Open house input will be recorded and provided to the LAC at critical study milestones Project Management Team (PMT) Questions or Comments? Contact Us! Jim Hallgren, MnDOT District james.hallgren@dot.state.mn.us Open House Meetings Local Advisory Committee (LAC) Agency Stakeholder Contacts Local Stakeholder Contacts

5 How Will Decisions be Made? TH Zimmerman Interchange Study Decision Making Process Identify Goals and Objectives Plans and Development Pressure Forecast Growth Multi-Modal Local Road Conditions TH Conditions Document Issues and Needs TH is a principal arterial and High Priority Interregional Corridor that carries substantial volumes of regional traffic 145 crashes occurred on TH from CSAH 25 to 273rd Avenue from 2003 to 2005; 4 involved fatalities, 39 involved injuries Segment crash rate and severity rate on TH from CSAH 25 to 273rd Avenue is higher than statewide average Intersection crash rate and severity rate at TH /CSAH 4 junction is significantly higher than statewide average TH /CSAH 4 intersection volumes are nearing capacity during weekday peak hours and exceeds capacity during weekend/holiday peak hours, which compromises access to/from Zimmerman Study area includes 21 at-grade access points in 4.5 mile section of roadway, including signalized TH /CSAH 4 intersection TH traffic volumes have been growing at a rate of 3.3 percent per year; this trend is anticipated to continue CSAH 4 is an important regional route connecting eastern Sherburne County and TH to Interstate 35 at CSAH 17 in Chisago County West of TH many driveways and roadways intersect CSAH 4 at close intervals; on-street parking is also allowed and there is little building set back The area has few local east-west roadways complementing CSAH 4; Main Street and CSAH 25/19 serve as important alternate routes CSAH 25/19 currently lacks east-west continuity Few opportunities exist to develop additional, continuous east-west local roadways because of extensive wetlands and public land 2004 traffic counts show trucks make up 6 percent of daily TH traffic volumes (approximately 2,000 trucks per day) TH is a key aggregate hauling corridor TH is a key recreational travel corridor with many vehicles and motor homes pulling trailers Abandoned Burlington Northern railroad runs parallel to TH through study area and has been identified as a future transit and/or bicycle/pedestrian trail corridor A park-and-pool lot is located in the southwest quadrant of the TH /CSAH 4 intersection. This lot should be maintained and access to it preserved. TH presents a barrier to safe bicycle/pedestrian movement between east and west Zimmerman and Livonia Township. Forecasting done for the Sherburne County Transportation Plan shows the following growth anticipated by 2030: 200 percent increase in population 240 percent increase in employment 105 percent increase in travel demand By 2030, Livonia Township and the together anticipate: 300 percent increase in population 190 percent increase in employment 150 percent increase in travel demand The TH 101/TH Corridor Management Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Livonia Township Transportation Plan identify TH as a future freeway Zimmerman plans to continue developing a commercial area contiguous to TH Zimmerman plans to redevelop its existing downtown along CSAH 4 located just west of TH With the forecast growth, TH will become more congested and existing traffic problems are projected to grow considerably worse if no improvements are made. Develop Purpose and Need Statement The purpose of the TH Zimmerman Interchange Project is to provide safe, reliable, and efficient mobility for both motorized and non-motorized travel along TH in and around the Zimmerman area. Primary needs supporting this project include TH safety, existing and future regional mobility, and consistency with state and local highway plans. The project aims to improve the transportation system in a cost-efficient manner while avoiding or minimizing and mitigating unavoidable impacts to the area s social, economic, cultural, and natural environment. 1. ENHANCE SAFETY AND MOBILITY ON TH. Eliminate all direct private access to TH Replace at-grade TH access with full access interchanges and a frontage/backage road system. Plan interchanges with adequate capacity to accommodate forecast 2030 traffic volumes. Space the first local road intersection a minimum of 750 feet from any interchange ramp intersection. 2. ENSURE SAFE AND EFFICIENT MOBILITY FOR THE TRAVELING PUBLIC IN AREAS SURROUNDING TH. Place interchanges at areas of high local economic activity to better serve traffic desiring to access TH and to decrease potential impacts to local roadway system due to increased circuity. Minimize overloading of transportation system elements and balance demand through capacity, access, and facility spacing. Plan interchanges that accommodate multi-modal transportation (e.g., freight, transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel) Plan for reasonable traffic circulation to current and future land uses (e.g., frontage/backage road systems. The location of these systems will be, as much as possible, consistent with associated Township and City Plans.) Utilize existing and future roadway system continuity and connectivity throughout Sherburne County. 3. AVOID OR MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, IDENTIFY ANY REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES, AND POSSIBLY ENHANCE CURRENT ELEMENTS, INCLUDING: High and adverse effects on minority or low income populations (Environmental Justice) Threatened & Endangered Species Section 106 Cultural Resources (archeological and historical) Section 404 Wetlands Section 4(f) s, Recreation s, Historic Sites, or Wildlife/Waterfowl Refuge s Section 6(f) Recreation s Other Unique Environmental Resources 4. MINIMIZE SOCIAL COSTS OR EXPECTED FUTURE PUBLIC EXPENDITURES FOR ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT. Minimize property impacts, severances, and relocations Minimize right-of-way and construction costs Utilize other infrastructure improvements (utilities, bicycle/pedestrian facilities) 5. COORDINATE STUDY DECISIONS WITH LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND STATE PLANS. Plan route to be compatible with future land use. Consider recommendations in regional and local plans TH Corridor Management Plan, Sherburne County Transportation Plan, City of Zimmerman Comprehensive Plan, Livonia Township Transportation Plan 6. ENCOURAGE STRONG AGENCY AND INTERJURISDICTIONAL PARTICIPATION AND SEEK CONSENSUS ON PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE. Coordinate with regulatory agencies including: Mn/DOT Environmental Services and Cultural Resource Divisions Department of Natural Resources (DNR) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Sherburne County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) Coordinate with jurisdictions including: Sherburne County Livonia Township Baldwin Township Mn/DOT Develop Access Alternatives Identify access alternatives for further analysis (including no-build option) that generally satisfy purpose and need and study goals and objectives. Identify Evaluation Criteria and Evaluate Alternatives To the extent appropriate for the level of study, quantify the impacts/enhancements of each proposed alternative alignment in terms of the following: 1.Environment Criteria Threatened & Endangered Species (in vicinity) Section 106 Cultural Resources (no. of sites) Section 404 Wetlands (acres) Section 4(f) Properties (acres) Other Environmental Issues (in vicinity) 2.Transportation Criteria Specific Criteria To Be Determined 3.Social Criteria Specific Criteria To Be Determined 4.Public and Agency Input Identify Preferred Access Alternative Select preferred access alternative (along with no-build option) for further environmental analysis. Complete Environmental Documentation Based on the preferred access alternative, determine the appropriate environmental review and documentation (e.g., Environmental Assessment - EA - or Environmental Impact Statement - EIS).

6 Dorothea What Has Been Done to Date? Identified Issues and Needs 21, th Ave Boundary of Planned, Future Livonia Township Proposed New Development 273rd Ave 136th Street Future High School Many Driveway and Road Access Points Identified Native Plant Community (Oak Forest) Fremont Lake 269th Ave Site of High Biodiversity Huntington Many Driveway and Road Access Points, Safety and Congestion Problems Grams Regional Gardenia Existing Downtown Zimmerman Part of Important Regional Route Connecting TH / East Sherburne County to I-35 at I-35 / Chisago CSAH 17 Interchange (Under Construction) Fireman s 4 V U 13,920 Freemont WMA Boundary of Planned, Future American Legion Memorial Lions 2,040 Key Alternate Route, Safety Problem, Unsignalized Intersection Boundary of Planned, Future Future Business T S rd Ave Vision of as a Freeway 249th Ave 0,90 29 Majority of Severe TH Crashes Related to At-Grade Access Growing Traffic Volumes 117th Ave 46 Safety Problem, Signalized Intersection t Stree Junior High/ High School T S 4,570 Main Elem. School Large Recreational Traffic Volumes Key Gravel Hauling Corridor Limited Number of Supporting Local Roadways S T 46 2 Business 3 Residential Driveways Large Amounts of Wetlands Large Amount of Public Land and s Identified Threatened and/or Endangered Species Habitat (Bald Eagle and Blanding s Turtle) Abandoned Railroad Corridor 2,370 Key Alternate Routes, Roads Lack East-West Continuity CSAH/County Road Access Local Road Access Private Access (Business or Residence) Planned Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail Crossing V U 25 V U 19 1,860 DNR Wildlife Management s Wetlands Boundary of Planned Future 239th Ave Developing Business District x,xxx Daily Traffic Volumes (2006, Unadjusted) Feet Air Photo: USDA, Farm Service Agency, 2003 T S 74

7 What Has Been Done To Date? Identified & Evaluated System Concepts Dorothea ST 45 ST 39 The Local Advisory Committee used a high-level screening process to evaluate potential highway and interchange location alternatives (i.e., system concepts). Based on results from the screening and input from your local elected officials, the Local Advisory Committee advanced or dismissed the following alternatives: 136th Street Livonia Township 277th Ave Future High School 273rd Ave 269th Ave Proposed New Development Fremont Lake Alternative Advanced (1) Dismissed Notes (1) Alternative advanced for further design development and additional evaluation. ST 46 Elem. School ST 46 Freemont WMA UV 4 253rd Ave Fireman s Huntington Junior High/ High School ST 45 DNR Wildlife Management s Wetlands Boundary of Planned Future Lions Main Street Street 249th Ave Gardenia Future Business Grams Regional 117th Ave Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Zimmerman Access Interchange Highway 25/19 Access Interchange* *All Alternatives include an interchange at Highway 25/19 Key Benefits of Alternatives 1 and 3: - Consistent with regional and local transportation plans - Provide connectivity and continuity between key transportation corridors - Include a system of local arterial and collector routes that provide reasonable access to existing and future land uses - Place the Zimmerman interchange at an existing location of heavy economic activity - Roadway alignments minimize impacts on the community and environment Rationale for Dismissing Alternatives 2, 4, and 5: - Alternative is not consistent with the Highway 101/ Corridor Management Plan (published 2002) which calls for improvements largely on the existing Highway alignment - Alternative does not enhance connectivity and continuity of existing, key transportation corridors - Interchange location proposed in alternative is not an existing area of heavy local economic activity - Roadway alignments impact large areas of the community and environment Feet Air Photo: USDA, Farm Service Agency, 2003 UV 19 UV th Ave

8 What Has Been Done To Date? Identified & Evaluated County Highway 4 Concepts The Local Advisory Committee used a more detailed screening process to evaluate interchange and frontage road sub-alternatives. Based on results from the screening and input from your local elected officials, the Local Advisory Committee advanced or dismissed the following alternatives from each grouping: Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Sub-Alternative Advanced (1) Dismissed Sub-Alternative 1A 1B 3A 3B 3C Notes: (1) Alternative advanced for further design development and additional evaluation. Advanced (1) Dismissed Alternative 1A (DISMISSED) Alternative 1B (ADVANCED) Key Benefits of Alternatives 1B and 3B: - Provide a range of distinct alternatives for additional evaluation - Provides more transportation benefit as compared to subalternatives in its group and minimizes impacts. Examples of minimized impacts include requiring less right-of-way, having lower construction cost, having lower impacts on wetlands, and/or requiring fewer relocations. Rationale for Dismissing Alternatives 1A, 3A, and 3C: The Local Advisory Committee dismissed these alternatives because they do not provide additional transportation benefit compared to subalternatives in its group and they involve slightly higher impacts. Examples of higher impacts include requiring more right-of-way, having a higher construction cost, having higher impacts on wetlands, and requiring more relocations. Alternative 3A (DISMISSED) Alternative 3B (ADVANCED) Alternative 3C: Fly-Over Ramps (DISMISSED)

9 What Has Been Done To Date? Refinement & Evaluation of County Highway 4 Concepts The Local Advisory Committee performed a Technical Evaluation based on 36 factors, including: Legend Mainline Ramps Local Roads Access Closed Bridge Right-In/Right-Out Transportation Factors Safety Roadway and interchange capacity Connections to existing local road system Traffic impacts during construction Affects on transit, freight, bicycling, and pedestrians Amount of right-of-way needed (acres) Construction cost Construction staging Environmental Factors Affects on threatened and endangered species Wetland impacts Affects on woodlands, streams and designated biodiversity areas Affects on historic properties Affects on archaeological resources Affects on parks Social Factors Maintenance of a cohesive business district in Zimmerman Degree of residential relocation Degree of business relocation Degree of access disruption (residential and business) Affect on local traffic circulation during construction Farmland impacts Visual impacts Affect on low income or minority populations Alternative 1B: Compressed Diamond Interchange on Existing Alignment Comments? Alternative 3B: Hybrid Diamond Interchange with Shifted TH Alignment MnDOT has not selected a Preferred Alternative. Is there something we didn't consider? Please tell us or fill out a comment form. The Local Advisory Committee will consider your comments along with the technical findings as it advises MnDOT in the selection of a Preferred Alternative. Key Findings from the Technical Evaluation Alternative 1B: Compressed Diamond Interchange System - Greater impacts to businesses and existing downtown - More difficult to stage construction - Highway would be raised over 20 feet above County Highway 4-40 to 50% higher construction cost than the Hybrid Diamond (Alt. 3B) Alternative 3B: Hybrid Diamond Interchange System - Greater impacts to residential area - Shifts Highway closer to some residents - Requires more right-of-way (acres) - Creates potential to turn back some existing MnDOT right-of-way - May include larger impact to wetlands needs more study - County Highway 4 would be raised over 20 feet above Highway Alternatives are comparable in other areas considered

10 What Has Been Done To Date? Refinement & Evaluation of County Highway 25/19 Concepts Like the process used for County Highway 4 alternatives, the Local Advisory Committee evaluated the County Highway 25/19 interchange and frontage road concepts based on 33 specific factors. Based on results from the evaluation and input from your local elected officials, the Local Advisory Committee proposes advancing or dismissing the following alternatives: 25 Alternative A: Diamond Interchange 19 Alternative A B C D Advance (1) Dismiss Notes: (1) Alternative advanced for further design development and additional evaluation. Key Benefits of Alternative D: - Provides best frontage road connectivity - Minimizes the amount of right-of-way needed - Minimizes the number of residential relocations - Comparable in other areas considered Alternative B: Folded Diamond Interchange with Ramps to the North Rationale for Dismissing Alternatives A, B, and C: - Does not enhance connectivity between the interchange and frontage road system - Higher right-of-way needs (acres) - Higher social costs due to property acquisitions COMMENTS? MnDOT has not officially selected a Preferred Alternative. Is there something we didn't consider? Please tell us or fill out a comment form. The Local Advisory Committee will consider your comments along with the technical findings as it advises MnDOT in the selection of a Preferred Alternative. Alternative C: Folded Diamond Interchange with Ramps to the South Alternative D: Folded Diamond Interchange with Ramps in the Northwest and Southeast Quadrants

11 What is Left to Do in the Study? Select a Preferred Alternative Your Feedback Matters! Fill out a comment sheet and drop it in the box below. Perform the Elk River Portion of the Study and Select a Preferred Alternative Complete a more detailed evaluation of the Preferred Alternative as part of the official environmental documentation process. (Highway 10 in Elk River to north of Lake Fremont in Zimmerman) Apr 2006 Feb 2007 Zimmerman Alternative Identification and Evaluation Overall Process Traffic Analysis/Forecast Review Previous Data & Assemble Additional Data Develop Project Purpose & Need Identify Key Project Goals & Objectives Identify Range of Alternatives and Evaluate Identify Key Social, Environmental, and Economic Issues of Concern Nov 2006 Aug 2007 Elk River Alternative Identification and Evaluation Sep 2007 March 2008 Project Evaluation and Environmental Documentation - Can a Preferred Alternative be Identified without Extensive Study? Determine Appropriate Environmental Process Refine Design for Alternative(s) Complete Environmental Documentation Traffic Analysis/Forecast Review Previous Data & Assemble Additional Data Develop Project Purpose & Need Identify Key Project Goals & Objectives Identify Range of Alternatives and Evaluate Identify Key Social, Environmental, and Economic Issues of Concern