NORTH DIVERSION MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Transcription

1 NORTH DIVERSION MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN Fargo Moorhead Metropolitan Area March 2012 FINAL REPORT

2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... I SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS... I BACKGROUND... 1 PURPOSE... 1 PLANNING PROCESS... 3 ROADWAY CONNECTIVITY... 4 BRIDGE CROSSINGS... 7 LAND ACCESSIBILITY MOBILITY TOWNSHIP IMPROVEMENTS EMERGENCY RESPONSE IMPROVEMENTS POSTAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS FURTHER DISCUSSION COST ESTIMATES CONCLUSION APPENDIX A - COST ESTIMATES FIGURES FIGURE I PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT PLAN... III FIGURE 2 STUDY AREA FIGURE... 2 FIGURE 3 PLANNING PROCESS... 3 FIGURE 4 EXISTING CONNECTIVITY... 5 FIGURE 5 CR 31 AND 4 CROSSING ALIGNMENT... 8 FIGURE 6 CR 32 CROSSING ALIGNMENTS... 9 FIGURE 7 CR 20, 22 AND 81 CROSSINGS FIGURE 8 ROADWAY ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 9 ROADWAY SURFACES FIGURE 10 MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 11 PROPOSED BYPASS ROUTES FIGURE 12 OVERALL PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS TABLES TABLE 1 COST ESTIMATES 20 Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report

4

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study is to analyze the disruptions to roadway system continuity for the north section of the Red River diversion alignment (Maple River to the outfall), analyze the resulting impacts these disruptions have on roadway users and formulate recommendations intended to mitigate these impacts. This study employed a public input-centric approach that focused on consensus and relationship building. Input solicited from the following groups guided the development of study goals, deliverables and recommendations: Cass County Engineering and Planning Berlin Township Board Hardwood Township Board Raymond Township Board Wiser Township Board Red River Regional Dispatch Center Cass County Sheriff s Office Harwood Fire Station Mapleton Fire Station Gardner Fire Station Northern Cass School District West Fargo District Harwood Post Office Argusville Fire Station, Mapleton School District and Central Cass School District were solicited for input but did not attend their respective meetings. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS Connectivity: Bridges are required to maintain connectivity across the diversion channel. Based upon the relationship of the proposed diversion alignment with the existing infrastructure, traffic volumes and barriers on the roadway network, bridges are proposed on the following roadways: Combination of County Road 4 and County Road 31 County Road 20 County Road 22 County Road 32 County Road 81 Accessibility: To maintain accessibility to all property adjacent to the proposed diversion channel, a connection between 27 th Street and CR 81 south of the channel is proposed. This section of 27 th Street, located between Interstate 29 and the Sheyenne River, would be inaccessible upon Diversion Channel construction without this connection. It is also recommended that gravel roadway connections are constructed to maintain accessibility to areas land locked due to the proposed diversion channel. This scenario occurs at two (2) parcels in the study area. Additionally a box culvert is recommended where drain 13 crosses 170 th Avenue Southeast to provide access to the area south of Drain 30 between 170 th Avenue Southeast and the diversion channel. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report P age i

6 To maintain farming accessibility it is recommended that all of the existing roadways that have not been identified as proposed crossing locations dead-end at the diversion with the exception of the two sections of roadway that were less than one-fifth of a mile. It is recommended that these sections of roadways less than one-fifth mile in length be removed. Finally, it is recommended that that existing low flow crossing areas be studied during project development to determine structural integrity. Mobility: To account for the increased traffic volumes on ancillary roadways between dead-end township roads and county roads furnished with diversion crossings, 167 th Avenue Southeast was proposed for roadway improvements to operate as a collector adjacent to the diversion channel alignment. These upgrades include upgrading approximately five miles of minimum maintenance earth roadways to gravel and installing two new box culverts. Construction Accommodations: To accommodate traffic during bridge construction on county roadways, it is recommended that temporary construction bypass routes are established. This scenario requires that roadway and bridge construction occur prior to diversion channel construction as planned. At lower volume county roads, circuitous bypass routes are proposed on the surrounding roadways. This type of bypass route is proposed at CR 32 and CR 22. At higher volume locations and where surrounding infrastructure is incomplete or would require unsatisfactorily long detours, new bypass roads offset 200 feet from the existing roadway are proposed. This type of bypass route is proposed at CR 20 and 81. The proposed combination bridge for CR 4 and CR 31 will not be located on the existing roadways. As a result, this bridge does not require a temporary bypass route. It is also recommended that contractors be prohibited from impacting traffic on consecutive county roadway crossings locations to limit roadway user inconvenience. In other words, the contractor shall maintain normal traffic flow on the upstream and downstream diversion channel county road crossings during bridge construction. This does not apply to bridges that are not constructed on the existing roadway alignment. Communication with Stakeholders: To maintain the relationship established during this study, it is recommended that the outlets of communication be maintained as this project transitions from planning into development. All parties involved in this study are affected by the proposed roadway closures to varying degrees, whether it be during a daily commute to work or during an emergency response call. Timely notification of roadway construction, detours and closures allows roadways users to adapt to the changing roadway network landscape prior to facing these impacts in the field. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report P age ii

7 19TH ST SE Drain 23 Maple River Drain 25 20TH ST SE Drain 26 22ND ST SE 23RD ST SE 25TH ST SE Drain TH AVE N E 19 AVE N 19TH AVE N D M 81 Red River Tributary Drain 24C Drain 13 I29 Proposed CR 4/CR 31 Roadway Realignment M 34 W I S E R T O W N S H I P CO RD TH AVE SE G A R D N E R T O W N S H I P 22ND ST SE 23RD ST SE Drain TH AVE I29 SE M 4 -Install Box Culvert ARGUSVILLE Proposed CR 81 Bypass Route: -Constructed as New Gravel Roadway M 4 29 Drain 30 New Gravel Roadway CO RD 81 Sheyenne River Proposed CR 32 Bypass Route: -Use of Exsiting Roadways -Resurface Earth Roadways With Gravel -Box Culvert Installation at Rush River and 167th Ave SE Improvements Established as Part of Mobility Enhancements -New Gravel Roadway M 32 -New Gravel Roadway -Improve Roadway Surface to Gravel -Install Box Culvert at Rush River Crossing 28TH ST SE M 32 H A R W O O D T O W N S H I P 25TH ST SE Proposed CR 32 Roadway Realignment 167TH AVE SE 27TH ST SE Rush River B E R L I N T O W N S H I P M 81 HARWOOD Lower Branch Rush River 30TH ST SE Drain 9 64TH AVE N 25 ST N 81ST ST N Proposed CR 22 Bypass Route: -Use of Existing Roadways M 13 31ST ST SE 52ND AVE N 37TH ST N 45TH ST N 57TH ST N 29 -Improve Roadway Surface to Gravel -Install New Box Culvert at River Crossing M 20 Drain TH ST N OLD US HWY 81 N 32ND AVE N 32ND AVE NW 45TH ST N R E E D T O W N S H I P M 17 57TH ST N Drain 21 14TH ST NW 26TH ST NW 19TH AVE NW Drain 10 Proposed CR 20 Bypass Route: -Constructed as New Gravel Roadway Sheyenne Diversion Drain 45 WEST FARGO Sheyenne River Tributary FARGO 94 15TH ST W 93RD ST N 26TH ST W 34TH ST SE 38TH ST NW R A Y M O N D T O W N S H I P 35TH ST SE 12TH AVE NW 36TH ST SE SHEYENNE DIVERSION RD 37TH ST SE M 28 13TH AVE W 38TH ST SE 21ST AVE W 39TH ST SE 15TH S M 15 M 11 Figure I Proposed Improvement Plan North Red River Diversion Master Transportation Plan Miles 26TH ST SE 4 28TH ST SE 32ND ST SE M 11 M 20 Legend Cutoff Roads Proposed Diversion Crossings Proposed Box Culverts Existing Low Flow Crossings Existing Bridges Construction Bypass Routes Mobility Improvement (Earth Surface to Gravel Surface) 163RD AVE SE Accessibility Improvement Proposed Roadway Realignment Roadway Removal Drains Rivers Interstate Highway Proposed Diversion Alignment Roadway Centerlines Parcels Without Access* Parcel Lines *Does not include property that can be accessed by adjoining parcels with matching owner M 11 37TH ST SE

8 BACKGROUND To reduce flood risk and flood damages in the Fargo-Moorhead metropolitan area, a feasibility study was conducted by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to identify flood risk management measures that could be implemented and developed into a federal project. The results of this feasibility study identified a 36-mile diversion alignment that would start approximately four miles south of the confluence of the Red and Wild Rice Rivers, extend west and north around the cities of Horace, Fargo, West Fargo and Harwood and ultimately re-enter the Red River north of the confluence of the Red River and Sheyenne Rivers near the City of Georgetown, Minnesota. The depth of the proposed diversion channel is approximately 20 feet, with a maximum depth of 35 feet. The channel bottom width varies from 100 to 250 feet. The total footprint of the diversion channel has a maximum width of 2,200 feet including areas for soil disposal piles, leaving an affected acreage of 8,054 acres. PURPOSE Although the diversion channel alignment has been refined since the USACE study, the overall impact to the existing transportation network has remained constant. The limits of this study include all of the roadways within four miles of the proposed diversion channel alignment between the Maple River and the outfall into the Red River (refer to FIGURE 2). This alignment cuts through the existing grid of township, county and state roads in a primarily non-perpendicular fashion. This scenario results in gaps in connectivity to roadways aligned both north and south and east and west. The purpose of this study is to analyze the disruptions to roadway system continuity for this particular section of the diversion alignment, analyze the resulting impacts these disruptions have on roadway users and formulate recommendations intended to mitigate these impacts. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report P age 1

9 19TH ST SE Drain 23 Maple River Drain 25 20TH ST SE Drain 26 22ND ST SE 23RD ST SE Drain 65 40TH AVE N 19 AVE N 19TH AVE N 25 ST N Drain 10 FARGO Drain 9 Red River Tributary Drain 24C Drain 13 M 34 W I S E R T O W N S H I P CO RD TH AVE SE Drain 29 ARGUSVILLE M 81 25TH ST SE M 4 25TH ST SE 29 Drain 30 I29 26TH ST SE I29 CO RD 81 Sheyenne River 27TH ST SE H A R W O O D T O W N S H I P 167TH AVE SE 28TH ST SE 28TH ST SE Rush River B E R L I N T O W N S H I P HARWOOD Lower Branch Rush River M 13 M 81 M 17 64TH AVE N 31ST ST SE 105TH ST N 81ST ST N 52ND AVE N 37TH ST N Drain 67 M 20 OLD US HWY 81 N 32ND AVE N 32ND AVE NW 29 R E E D T O W N S H I P 45TH ST N 57TH ST N 45TH ST N 57TH ST N Drain 21 14TH ST NW 26TH ST NW 38TH ST NW 19TH AVE NW M 10 R A Y M O N D T O W N S H I P 34TH ST SE 36TH ST SE 12TH AVE NW Sheyenne Diversion Drain 45 SHEYENNE DIVERSION RD 37TH ST SE 94 WEST FARGO M 28 Sheyenne River Tributary 13TH AVE W 38TH ST SE 15TH ST W 26TH ST W 21ST AVE W 39TH ST SE M 15 32ND AVE W 38TH ST W 40TH ST SE 2 G A R D N E R T O W N S H I P 22ND ST SE 23RD ST SE M RD AVE SE M 32 30TH ST SE 163RD AVE SE 35TH ST SE M 11 37TH ST SE Figure 2 Study Area North Red River Diversion Transportation Master Plan 4 Legend Rivers Drains Existing Low Flow Crossings Existing Bridges Proposed Diversion Alignment County Roads Other Roads Miles Interstate Highway

10 PLANNING PROCESS Roadway networks can be highly complex and serve a variety of user groups, trip purposes and levels of facilities. This study looks at the network as the sum of its parts and understands the relationship between those parts and the capabilities, impacts and effectiveness of the system as a whole. To study this collaboration of parts, a threephase planning approach was employed. This process included the following steps: data collection, technical analysis and recommendation formulation. The primary outlet for reliable data was from the people who lived and worked in the communities closest to the proposed diversion alignment. As a result, public involvement guided the technical analysis of the project which in turn led to project goals, deliverables and recommendations (refer to FIGURE 3). Public Input Technical Analysis Recommendations Connectivity Accessability Mobility FIGURE 3 Planning Process The primary objective of the public involvement program was to communicate the proposed project and gain feedback on particular needs and concerns of the community. The consensus-building approach was developed to Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report P age 3

11 minimize potential controversy and negative public opinion on the project. This approach also aimed to develop relationships that will offer benefits throughout the entire FM diversion project from development to construction. The project team met with various key stakeholders and decision makers to solicit feedback regarding perceived transportation deficiencies resulting from diversion implementation and desired plan deliverables. Meetings were held prior to conducting detailed technical analysis. Individual meetings were held with the following groups: Cass County Engineering and Planning Berlin Township Board Harwood Township Board Raymond Township Board Wiser Township Board Red River Regional Dispatch Center Cass County Sheriff s Office Harwood Fire Station Mapleton Fire Station Gardner Fire Station Northern Cass School District West Fargo District Harwood Post Office Argusville Fire Station, Mapleton School District and Central Cass School District were solicited for input but did not attend their respective meetings. These meetings not only helped to identify network deficiencies and improvement opportunities but these meetings led to insight regarding the values of the communities in the study area. This insight allowed the study team to develop goals and objectives that met the functional transportation needs of the area without significantly disrupting the existing culture. This community-centric process resulted in recommendations that are formulated based upon the needs of the community as identified by the community. ROADWAY CONNECTIVITY The study area consists of the approximately 13.5-mile section of diversion that stretches from the Maple River to the Red River outfall. This section of diversion channel effectively disconnects 8 east-west and 7 north-south county and township roadways. This section of the diversion also disconnects Interstate-29 and two railway lines. It is important to note that all state maintained roads and railroad lines will remain connected across the proposed diversion channel. As a result, these roadways were not analyzed as part of this report. Bridges are required at specific locations across the diversion channel to maintain an acceptable level of connectivity between the two sides. Financial constraints require that bridge locations be judiciously selected. As a result, bridge locations were selected based upon the traffic needs of the individual townships and the region as a whole. Intuitively, roadways that serve the needs of the region carry more vehicles per day as they are not restricted by existing barriers. Existing barriers within the study limits included rivers, drains and Interstate 29. Barrier crossings were used to identify roadway priority. For example, a roadway with a bridge over a drain holds a higher priority than a roadway with a low flow crossing or no crossing at all. Figure 4 depicts the roadways that are restricted by barriers and the roadways that are unimpeded by barriers within the study area. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report P age 4

12 19TH ST SE Drain 23 Maple River Drain 25 20TH ST SE Drain 26 23RD ST SE 22ND ST SE Drain 65 40TH AVE N T SE 19 AVE N 19TH AVE N 37TH ST SE 25 ST N Drain 10 FARGO M 81 Red River Tributary Drain 24C Drain 13 M 34 W I S E R T O W N S H I P CO RD TH AVE SE G A R D N E R T O W N S H I P I29 I29 22ND ST SE 23RD ST SE ") Drain 29 M 4 ") ARGUSVILLE 29 Drain 30 ") ") I29 ") Sheyenne River CO RD 81 27TH ST SE ") ") 167TH AVE SE M 32 28TH ST SE H A R W O O D T O W N S H I P 25TH ST SE I29 Rush River ") B E R L I N T O W N S H I P 28TH ST SE ") ") HARWOOD Lower Branch Rush River ") ") Drain 9 64TH AVE N 31ST ST SE 105TH ST N M 13 81ST ST N 52ND AVE N ") ") 37TH ST N Drain 67 M 20 OLD US HWY 81 N I29 32ND AVE N 32ND AVE NW ") ") 29 R E E D T O W N S H I P I29 I29 45TH ST N 57TH ST N 45TH ST N 57TH ST N Drain 21 14TH ST NW 26TH ST NW 38TH ST NW 19TH AVE NW R A Y M O N D T O W N S H I P I29 34TH ST SE 35TH ST SE 36TH ST SE 12TH AVE NW Sheyenne Diversion Drain 45 SHEYENNE DIVERSION RD WEST FARGO M 28 Sheyenne River Tributary 13TH AVE W 15TH ST W 26TH ST W 21ST AVE W M 1 30TH ST SE M 20 37TH ST SE 38TH ST SE 94 39TH ST SE 25TH ST SE 26TH ST SE Figure 4 Existing Connectivity M RD AVE SE 4North Red River Diversion Transportation Master Plan 163RD AVE SE Legend M 11 Roadway With Connectivity Not Limited By Existing Barrier Roadway With Connectivity Limited By Existing Barriers ") Proposed Travel Barriers (Diversion Channel) Existing Travel Barriers Existing Low Flow Crossings Existing Bridges Drains Rivers Interstate Highway Miles Roads Outside Study Area Proposed Diversion Alignment

13 Using a buffer of three (3) miles from the center of the diversion channel, the only study roadways that cross the diversion that are not currently impeded by barriers are the county roads (refer to FIGURE 4): County Road 4 County Road 20 County Road 22 County Road 31 County Road th Street Southeast Based upon the analysis of existing roadway barrier restrictions, these six (6) roadways make appropriate diversion crossing candidate locations. It may be impractical to construct bridges on both CR 22 and 30 th Street Southeast due to the proximity of the two roadways (one mile separation). Input indicated that CR 22 currently experiences higher traffic volumes and further analysis indicated that 30 th Street Southeast currently has multiple stretches of earth roadway compared to the constant gravel cross-section on CR 22. As a result, 30 th Street Southeast was eliminated from further analysis. If bridges were built exclusively at the locations denoted above, a large gap in connectivity would be developed between CR 22 and CR 4. At the center of this gap in connectivity is CR 32. The second iteration for the selection of bridge locations was convenience-based. The following data was used to develop a cost-benefit analysis to gauge convenience: Based upon preliminary cost estimates produced by Houston Engineering in Appendix E of the Fargo- Moorhead Metro Feasibility Study, the estimated mean cost of the bridges within the study area is approximately $3 million. Based upon median perceived vehicle type distribution, corresponding mean miles per gallon from the US Department of Energy's publication Fuel Economy Guide 2011 and a $3.50 per gallon price of fuel, the average price of fuel for every mile a vehicle is detoured equates to approximately $0.21 per mile per vehicle. Based upon the median income for Cass County residents and the time required to drive one mile at 55 mph, the equivalent cost of loss productivity for every mile a vehicle is detoured equates to approximately $0.40 per mile per vehicle. Based upon a 2010 NDDOT Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) count, 100 vehicles use CR 32 adjacent to the proposed diversion crossing location. Based upon the data provided above, it would cost these 100 vehicles approximately $131,400 to detour three miles to CR 22 and three miles back. Within 23 years, the cost experienced by the residents would outweigh the cost of the bridge. This does not account for the number of vehicles that will be detoured at the roadways between CR 32, CR 22 and CR 4 that will also be detoured. If a bridge is established at each county road, the maximum detour distance would be one mile (to and from) any roadway without a crossing. This minor detour compounded by the fact that the majority of these remaining roadways experience minimal travel, resulted in cost-benefit numbers that did not favor a new bridge crossing at any township roadway. As a result, it is recommended that a diversion crossing is established at each county road. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report P age 6

14 BRIDGE CROSSINGS Due to the proposed diversion channel alignment, many of the proposed county road bridge crossings would not cross the channel perpendicularly. This is significant because each degree of skew at the bridge location requires additional bridge deck to compensate for the longer crossing. For example, a bridge crossing location that would be 600 feet if perpendicular to the diversion channel would be extended by nearly 250 feet if the bridge was skewed by 45 degrees. It is important to note that this is not a constant rate. For example, a 10 degree skew requires 10 feet of additional bridge length. Using cost estimates derived from Cass County standards, nearly 100 feet of gravel roadway can be built for every foot of bridge deck. As such, all bridges were first designed to perpendicularly cross the diversion. Once roadways have been selected as diversion crossing locations it is necessary to layout the horizontal alignments of the roadways based upon environmental constraints (drains, adjacent roadways, houses, etc.). Preliminary analysis indicated that fitting a bridge across the diversion perpendicularly at both CR 4 and CR 31 would result in crossing locations approximately one mile apart. Based upon input from the County and Townships, the construction of one bridge, shared and located between the two county roads, was selected as the optimal decision in terms of bridge cost and practicability. Refer to FIGURE 5 for an illustration of the proposed crossing and horizontal curvature of the roadways. According to the County and Townships, the primary traffic movements at the current CR4/CR31 intersection corresponds to eastbound motorists on CR 4 turning northbound onto CR 31 toward the Red River Crossing on CR 34 and vice versa. As such, the proposed alignment should save the majority of drivers approximately one mile of commute time and distance. The remaining movements, however, will experience an increase in motorist delay and miles travelled. Due to the skewed crossing angle at CR 32, five crossing alternatives were developed for public and agency review. The options ranged from 55 mph design speed alignment with significant right-of-way (ROW) requirements to a 40 mph design speed alignment with minimal ROW requirements. The input received was varied. Three of the four townships preferred the option with the smallest ROW impacts whereas one of the townships and the Emergency Response and Sherriff s Office representatives preferred the 55 MPH design speed configuration for safety. In order to provide an increased degree of safety without requiring substantial ROW acquisition, a bridge alternative with a minor skew of 15 degrees was developed that utilized the higher design speed but limited ROW impacts. The skew would increase the bridge length by 22 feet or approximately $99,000 equating to a 3.5 percent increase in overall bridge cost. Refer to FIGURE 6 for illustration of the proposed bridge alignment. The final diversion crossings are located on roads that naturally intersect the diversion perpendicularly. As a result, these roadways required zero horizontal curvature considerations. Illustrations of the bridges can be found on FIGURE 7. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report P age 7

15 COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY Insert 23RD STSE 50 Radius All Approaches 55 MPH Curve 2810 Radius 4% Superelevation 580 Bridge 50 Radius All Approaches 25 MPH Curve 511 Radius 4% Superelevation 24TH STSE Install Box Culvert Drain 29 GRAPHIC SCALE (in feet) " = MPH Curve 511 Radius 4% Superelevation (See Insert) 35 MPH Curve 654 Radius 5% Superelevation Proposed Roadway Alignment Typical Cross Section 50 Radius All Approaches 55 MPH Curve 2810 Radius 4% Superelevation 200 ROW CASS 4 CASS 4 55 MPH Curve 2810 Radius 4% Superelevation CASS 31 Figure 5 CR 31 and 4 Crossing Alignments 0 GRAPHIC SCALE (in feet) LEGEND Top of Levee Diversion Earth Side Slope North Red River Diversion Master Transportation Plan 1" = 2000 N Diversion Bench Diversion Channel Bottom Diversion Low Flow Channel Diversion Centerline W ND E Required Roadway ROW Roadway Removal S Drain

16 COUNTY 167TH AVE SE COUNTY Insert Typical Cross Section 27TH STSE 27TH STSE 650 Bridge (Outer Bench to Outer Bench) GRAPHIC SCALE (in feet) " = MPH Curve 1890 Radius 5% Superelevation Proposed Roadway Alignment 55 MPH Curve 2810 Radius 4% Superelevation 200 ROW CASS 32 CASS MPH Curve 2810 Radius 4% Superelevation (See Insert) 55 MPH Curve 1890 Radius 5% Superelevation Figure 6 CR 32 Crossing Alignment 0 GRAPHIC SCALE (in feet) LEGEND Top of Levee Diversion Earth Side Slope North Red River Diversion Master Transportation Plan 1" = 1000 N Diversion Bench Diversion Channel Bottom Diversion Low Flow Channel Diversion Centerline W ND E Required Roadway ROW Roadway Removal S

17 COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY County Road 81 County Road 22 County Road Bridge 580 Bridge CASS Bridge CASS 20 CASS 81 Maple River Figure 7 CR 20, 22 and 81 Crossings 0 GRAPHIC SCALE (in feet) LEGEND Top of Levee Diversion Earth Side Slope 1" = 1000 Diversion Bench North Red River Diversion Master Transportation Plan N Diversion Channel Bottom Diversion Low Flow Channel Diversion Centerline W ND E BNSF Railway S

18 LAND ACCESSIBILITY Where access is already limited, the diversion channel may completely restrict access to a particular section of land. Currently, 27 th Street Southeast between CR 81 and the Sheyenne River is accessed via CR 81 or 170 th Avenue Southeast. The proposed diversion channel alignment would eliminate both connections to this section of 27 th Street Southeast. As a result, a connection between the 27 th Street and CR 81 south of the diversion is recommended to maintain accessibility to the property north of 27 th Street. Additionally a box culvert is recommended where drain 13 crosses 170 th Avenue Southeast to provide access to the area south of Drain 30 between 170 th Avenue Southeast and the diversion channel (refer to FIGURE 7). Two parcels of land remain inaccessible with the proposed improvement plan. All other parcels of land are either directly accessible from existing or proposed roadways or from adjoining property maintained by the same property owner. The first such parcel is owned by William Henry Larson and is located between the diversion channel and the Sheyenne River west of 172 nd Avenue Southeast. A section of gravel roadway connecting this parcel of land to CR 4 is recommended along the diversion channel ROW footprint. The second parcel of land is located between the diversion channel and Interstate I-29 north of CR 32. Similarly, A section of gravel roadway connecting this parcel of land to 169 th Avenue Southeast is recommended along the diversion channel ROW footprint. It is important to note that leasing agreements were not studied as part of this study. Leasing agreements offer the potential for one party to maintain adjoining parcels of land eliminating accessibility restrictions. If it is determined that an existing leasing agreement is in place at either of these locations or a land exchange can be completed, the proposed gravel roadways should be removed from further analysis. It is important to note that the structural integrity of existing low flow crossings vary by location. However, traffic volume increases are anticipated to be minimal at each crossing location. As a result, improvements were not recommended at locations where low flow crossings currently exist. If during final design it is determined that the low flow crossings in the study area require improvements, an additional $250,000 per improved crossing (box culvert) should be allocated for overall project development. The diversion channel will split the township roads at varying points. Based upon input received from county and township officials, maintaining roadways is recommended to maintain farming accessibility on split properties. The roadways would terminate as dead-ends similar to how township roadways currently terminate at I-29. There are, however, two locations that may benefit from roadway removal. The first is 169 th Avenue Southeast between 27 th Street Southeast and the diversion. Removing this one-fifth mile section would allow the 24-acre section of land between the diversion and 169 th Avenue Southeast to be joined with the adjacent 320-acre section of land to the west. The second section of roadway proposed for removal is between the diversion and CR 4 on 172 nd Avenue Southeast. This section of roadway is slightly over one-tenth of a mile and serves minimal access benefits. Refer to FIGURE 8 for an illustration of the proposed roadway removal sections. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report P age 11

19 19TH ST SE Drain 23 Maple River Drain 25 20TH ST SE Drain 26 22ND ST SE 23RD ST SE 25TH ST SE Drain TH AVE N SE 19 AVE N 19TH AVE N D M 81 Red River Tributary Drain 24C Drain 13 I29 M 34 W I S E R T O W N S H I P CO RD 81 -New Gravel Roadway 167TH AVE SE G A R D N E R T O W N S H I P 22ND ST SE -Install Box Culvert -Remove Roadway Section as Part of Accessibility Improvements 23RD ST SE Drain TH AVE I29 SE M 4 ARGUSVILLE M 4 29 Drain 30 26TH ST SE -Remove Roadway Section as Part of Accessibility Improvements Sheyenne River CO RD 81 28TH ST SE M 32 28TH ST SE M 32 H A R W O O D T O W N S H I P 25TH ST SE 27TH ST SE 167TH AVE SE -New Gravel Roadway HARWOOD -New Gravel Roadway Rush River B E R L I N T O W N S H I P M 81 Lower Branch Rush River 30TH ST SE Drain 9 105TH ST N 64TH AVE N 31ST ST SE M ST N 81ST ST N 52ND AVE N Drain 67 37TH ST N 45TH ST N 57TH ST N M OLD US HWY 81 N 32ND AVE N 45TH ST N R E E D T O W N S H I P M 17 57TH ST N Drain 21 14TH ST NW 26TH ST NW 19TH AVE NW Drain 10 Sheyenne Diversion Drain 45 WEST FARGO 94 Sheyenne River Tributary FARGO 15TH ST W 93RD ST N 26TH ST W 34TH ST SE 38TH ST NW R A Y M O N D T O W N S H I P 35TH ST SE 12TH AVE NW 36TH ST SE SHEYENNE DIVERSION RD 37TH ST SE M 28 13TH AVE W 38TH ST SE 21ST AVE W 39TH ST SE 15TH S M 15 1 M 11 Figure 8 Roadway Accessibility Improvements 32ND ST SE M 11 M 20 Legend Dead Ends at Diversion Proposed Box Culverts 163RD AVE SE Accessibility Improvement Proposed Roadway Realignment Roadway Removal M 11 37TH ST SE Existing Low Flow Crossings Existing Bridges Proposed Diversion Crossings Drains Rivers Interstate Highway Proposed Diversion Alignment Roadway Centerlines Miles 4North Red River Diversion Master Transportation Plan Parcels Without Access* Parcel Lines *Does not include property that can be accessed by adjoining parcels with matching owner

20 MOBILITY The county and township roads in the study area are predominantly gravel or minimum maintenance earth roads with intermittent sections of paved roadway at higher volume locations (refer to FIGURE 9). The diversion channel will sever township road connections which will result in a funnel effect of all ancillary roadways onto the county roads to cross the diversion. The scenario will result in earth roadways that typically experience minimal vehicular and farm equipment activity to see increased traffic volumes. Some of these roadways may not be suitable for increased traffic volumes and will require roadway resurfacing to withstand the new loadings. Due to the varying degree of uses and corresponding needs of the existing roadway network, mobility issues are categorized by trip purpose below. TOWNSHIP IMPROVEMENTS During township meetings, three separate sections of 167 th Avenue Southeast were requested for improvement due to anticipated traffic volume growth caused by diversion implementation. 167 th Avenue Southeast represents the north-south roadway directly adjacent to the diversion channel on the west side. These segments included all but one mile of the earth sections of 167 th Avenue Southeast within the study limits. Instead of fragmenting the sections of gravel and earth roadway it may be appropriate to provide a continuous gravel roadway between CR 20 where the roadway terminates before the Maple River and just south of the Leonard s Way addition where the roadway is paved (refer to FIGURE 10). This improvement will address the anticipated increase in traffic volumes on the roadway and also offer a roadway parallel to the diversion that would increase mobility between the township and the county roads adjacent to the diversion channel. A parallel roadway on the east side of the diversion channel does not appear to be necessary due to the presence of existing parallel roadways (CR 17, CR 81 and CR31). It is important to note that there were additional improvement requests from township board members. However, analysis conducted by the study team and approved by County Highway Department staff indicated that these other roadways are not anticipated to experience an increase in traffic due to implementation of the diversion. As such, these requests were noted but not recommended as part of this study. EMERGENCY RESPONSE IMPROVEMENTS Based upon input received from the Cass County Sherriff s Office, Red River Regional Dispatch Center and Harwood, Mapleton and Gardner fire departments, the primary transportation response outlets are county roads. These agencies indicated that as long as bridges were provided at each county road and one combined bridge for CR 4 and CR 31, there would be minimal to no impacts to response routes and times. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report P age 13

21 19TH ST SE Drain 23 Maple River Drain 25 20TH ST SE Drain 26 22ND ST SE 23RD ST SE 25TH ST SE Drain 65 40TH AVE N 19 AVE N 19TH AVE N M 1 Red River Tributary Drain 24C Drain 13 I29 M 34 W I S E R T O W N S H I P CO RD TH AVE SE G A R D N E R T O W N S H I P 22ND ST SE 23RD ST SE Drain TH AVE I29 SE M 4 ARGUSVILLE M 4 29 Drain 30 26TH ST SE CO RD 81 Sheyenne River 28TH ST SE M 32 28TH ST SE M 32 H A R W O O D T O W N S H I P 25TH ST SE 167TH AVE SE 27TH ST SE Rush River B E R L I N T O W N S H I P M 81 HARWOOD Lower Branch Rush River 30TH ST SE Drain 9 64TH AVE N 31ST ST SE M TH ST N 81ST ST N 52ND AVE N Drain 67 37TH ST N 45TH ST N 57TH ST N M 20 32ND AVE NW 29 OLD US HWY 81 N 32ND AVE N 45TH ST N R E E D T O W N S H I P M 17 57TH ST N Drain 21 14TH ST NW 26TH ST NW 19TH AVE NW Drain 10 Sheyenne Diversion Drain 45 WEST FARGO Sheyenne River Tributary FARGO 15TH ST W 93RD ST N 26TH ST W 38TH ST NW R A Y M O N D T O W N S H I P 34TH ST SE 35TH ST SE 12TH AVE NW 36TH ST SE SHEYENNE DIVERSION RD 37TH ST SE 94 M 28 13TH AVE W 38TH ST SE 21ST AVE W 39TH ST SE M 15 15TH ST W 32ND AVE W 38TH 166TH 40TH ST SE M 11 32ND ST SE M 11 M 20 3RD ST SE 163RD AVE SE M 11 37TH ST SE Figure 9 Roadway Surfaces North Red River Diversion Master Transportation Plan 4 Legend Existing Low Flow Crossings Existing Bridges Drains Rivers Proposed Diversion Alignment Roads Outside Study Area Primitive Roads Earth Road Gravel Road Miles Asphalt Road Interstate Highway

22 19TH ST SE Drain 23 Maple River Drain 25 20TH ST SE Drain 26 22ND ST SE 23RD ST SE 25TH ST SE Drain 65 40TH AVE N 19 AVE N 19TH AVE N I94 M 81 Red River Tributary Drain 24C Drain 13 I29 M 34 W I S E R T O W N S H I P CO RD TH AVE SE G A R D N E R T O W N S H I P 22ND ST SE 23RD ST SE Drain TH AVE I29 SE M 4 ARGUSVILLE M 4 29 Drain 30 -Improve Roadway Surface to Gravel -Install Box Culvert at River Crossing 26TH ST SE Sheyenne River CO RD 81 28TH ST SE M 32 28TH ST SE M 32 H A R W O O D T O W N S H I P 25TH ST SE 167TH AVE SE 27TH ST SE Rush River B E R L I N T O W N S H I P M 81 HARWOOD Lower Branch Rush River 30TH ST SE Drain 9 105TH ST N 64TH AVE N 31ST ST SE M ST N 81ST ST N 52ND AVE N Drain 67 37TH ST N 45TH ST N 57TH ST N M OLD US HWY 81 N Drain 21 26TH ST NW -Improve Roadway Surface to Gravel -Install New Box Culvert at River Crossing 32ND AVE N 32ND AVE NW 45TH ST N R E E D T O W N S H I P M 17 57TH ST N 14TH ST NW 19TH AVE NW Drain 10 Sheyenne Diversion Drain 45 WEST FARGO Sheyenne River Tributary FARGO 94 15TH ST W 93RD ST N 26TH ST W 38TH ST NW R A Y M O N D T O W N S H I P 35TH ST SE 12TH AVE NW 36TH ST SE SHEYENNE DIVERSION RD 37TH ST SE M 28 13TH AVE W 38TH ST SE 21ST AVE W 39TH ST SE 15TH S M 15 M 11 Figure 10 Mobility Improvements North Red River Diversion Master Transportation Plan 4 32ND ST SE M 11 M 20 Legend Mobility Improvements Proposed Box Culverts D ST SE 163RD AVE SE Proposed Diversion Crossings Existing Low Flow Crossings Existing Bridges Drains M 11 37TH ST SE Rivers Proposed Diversion Alignment Miles Roadway Centerlines Interstate Highway

23 POSTAL SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS The Harwood Post office currently serves all homes within the study area with the exception of the one-mile section south of CR 20. Based upon input received from the Harwood Post Office, the proposed configuration of diversion crossings would not significantly impact service within the area. The major concern of the post office was construction phasing and timing. Currently the post office receives mail sequenced based upon delivery routes. As roads are closed for bridge construction, mail carriers may be forced to alter routes. Refer to the section titled Construction Needs for further details regarding constructing phasing. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS Based upon input received from the West Fargo and Northern Cass school districts, the proposed configuration of diversion crossings would not significantly impact school bussing routes within the area. Northern Cass officials supported the recommendation of improving 167 th Avenue Southeast along the diversion channel. They anticipated that this roadway would improve bussing operations in the area. CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS Preliminary analysis indicates that due to the presence of existing roadway barriers and connectivity to Interstate- 29 that the anticipated construction haul routes will be predominantly, if not exclusively, on the county road network. Furthermore, these roadways currently carry the highest traffic volumes. As a result, there are no construction route roadway improvements recommended on the township network. Bridge construction is anticipated to restrict traffic at crossing locations in excess of one calendar year. Due to the length of construction, temporary construction bypass routes are recommended to accommodate traffic. At the lower volume crossing locations, it may be cost effective to utilize the available existing infrastructure for the bypass route by detouring traffic to the next section line. Adjacent section lines that are not designed for increased traffic loading will require roadway upgrades. For example, the one-mile section of 29 th Street Southeast between 167 th and 168 th Avenues Southeast will need to be upgraded from a minimum maintenance earth roadway to a gravel roadway to accommodate bypass traffic from CR 32. Utilizing the existing infrastructure may be impractical at specific county roads diversion crossings. At CR 20 and CR 81 in particular, no adjacent roadways exist to bypass the roadway without significant detour miles. These roadways experience the highest traffic volumes within the study area. As a result, it is recommended to construct an adjacent temporary bypass route offset approximately 200 feet from the roadway. The majority of this proposed bypass can be constructed within the ROW required for the Diversion Channel. Refer to FIGURE 11 for details regarding proposed bypass routes. Construction phasing was a topic of discussion at the majority of the meetings. The concept of constructing the bridges before the diversion was fully supported, however it was requested that traffic not be impacted on consecutive county roads. In particular, a major concern was that both CR 20 and CR 22 would be concurrently constructed causing significant inconvenience to roadway users. Based upon this input, it recommended that the contractor (or contractors in coordination) shall not be permitted to have consecutive county roads under construction at a single time. This rule would not apply to county road crossing locations that do not occur in the existing roadway right-of-way due to proposed alignment revisions (i.e. CR 4 and 31). Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report P age 16

24 Another topic of discussion at the majority of meetings was the maintenance of any roadway used as a construction route. The study team assured all invested parties that maintenance agreements would be established with all contractors prior to beginning any work. It is recommended, however, that the breadth of this agreement be extensive to ensure that each roadway is periodically maintained in a timely manner, specifically after periods of inclement weather. It is important to note that high volumes of heavy construction traffic may result in a scenario where maintenance cannot be conducted adequately or timely enough to provide acceptable riding conditions for motorists. This scenario may require that specific roadways be upgraded to pavement. At this stage in project development, the extent of construction travel each roadway will experience is unknown. Due to the cost associated with converting a gravel roadway to pavement and the added cost of maintaining a paved roadway, the final decision to upgrade a roadway should be decided once the extent of construction travel is determined. It is important to note that it is not anticipated that any roadways will require paving at this time. Additionally, all paving decisions must be approved by the proper roadway maintenance authority (county or township). FURTHER DISCUSSION The following discussion points were either received as input during one or more project meetings or arose during technical analysis. The points did not dictate the result of this study, however the comments should be considered during project development. Bridge Width: Bridge width was a major topic of discussion at the township meetings. The majority of township farmers preferred bridge deck widths exceeding 40 feet, which is beyond the Cass County standard for bridge decks for graveled or paved roadways. The general feeling was that a combine with an attached header would not be able to traverse a bridge with a smaller deck. Although the combine header should be able to clear the outside bridge barriers, the signs and hazard markers mounted on these barriers would create complications if they were fixed. Additionally, the crown of a 600-foot bridge may hide a combine occupying the entirety of the bridge from a motorist on the opposite end of the bridge. This scenario would create a potential conflict point on the bridge. There was a small group of farmers that mentioned pulling the header behind the combine whenever crossing a bridge as an acceptable alternative; however, the group was in the minority. If the bridge width is not expanded to prevent conflicts on the bridge it may be necessary to develop regulations that prohibit vehicles wider than a determined width on the diversion crossing bridges. Frontage Roads: There was a small minority of meeting attendees that felt that frontage roads along the outside or on top of the diversion embankments should be established for general public use. The study team and the majority of attendees believed that these frontage roads would experience minimal utilization, particularly once roadway users become accustomed to bridge crossing locations. Furthermore, establishing new roadways would add additional township maintenance costs from an already constrained funding source. The majority of township board members felt that the most cost effective improvements corresponded to improvements to existing roadways. New Bypass Routes versus Bypass Routes on Existing Infrastructure: As previously documented, the proposed plan is to develop new bypass routes at locations where traffic volumes are the greatest and where no adjacent infrastructure is within in a reasonable distance. This resulted in new bypass routes for CR 20 and CR 81. The proposed bypass routes for CR 32 and 22 would utilize adjacent infrastructure. Although impacts from these circuitous routes would be minimal, an increased sensitivity must be Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report P age 17

25 considered for emergency responders. The proposed bypass routes at CR 32 and 22 are anticipated to add an additional minutes of travel time on these roadways. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report P age 18

26 19TH ST SE Drain 23 Maple River Drain 25 20TH ST SE Drain 26 22ND ST SE 23RD ST SE 25TH ST SE Drain 65 40TH AVE N 19 AVE N 19TH AVE N M 81 Red River Tributary Drain 24C Drain 13 I29 M 34 W I S E R T O W N S H I P CO RD TH AVE SE G A R D N E R T O W N S H I P 22ND ST SE 23RD ST SE Proposed CR 81 Bypass Route: -Constructed as New Gravel Roadway Drain TH AVE I29 SE M 4 ARGUSVILLE 29 Sheyenne River M 32 M 32 Proposed CR 32 Bypass Route: -Use of Exsiting Roadways -Resurface Earth Roadways With Gravel -Box Culvert Installation at Rush River and 167th Ave SE Improvements Established as Part of Mobility Enhancements M 4 Drain 30 26TH ST SE CO RD 81 28TH ST SE 28TH ST SE H A R W O O D T O W N S H I P 25TH ST SE Rush River B E R L I N T O W N S H I P 27TH ST SE M 81 HARWOOD Lower Branch Rush River 30TH ST SE Drain 9 64TH AVE N 25 ST N Drain 67 Proposed CR 22 Bypass Route: -Use of Existing Roadways M 13 31ST ST SE 81ST ST N 52ND AVE N 37TH ST N 45TH ST N 105TH ST N M OLD US HWY 81 N 32ND AVE N Drain 21 Proposed CR 20 Bypass Route: -Constructed as New Gravel Roadway 32ND AVE NW 45TH ST N R E E D T O W N S H I P M 17 57TH ST N 14TH ST NW 26TH ST NW 19TH AVE NW Drain 10 Sheyenne Diversion Drain 45 WEST FARGO Sheyenne River Tributary FARGO 15TH ST W 93RD ST N 26TH ST W 38TH ST NW R A Y M O N D T O W N S H I P 34TH ST SE 35TH ST SE 12TH AVE NW 36TH ST SE 37TH ST SE M 28 13TH AVE W 38TH ST SE 94 21ST AVE W 39TH ST SE 15TH S M 15 M 11 Figure 11 Proposed Bypass Routes 4North Red River Diversion Master Transportation Plan 32ND ST SE M 11 M 20 Legend D ST SE 163RD AVE SE Construction Bypass Routes Proposed Diversion Crossings Existing Low Flow Crossings Existing Bridges Drains M 11 37TH ST SE Rivers Proposed Diversion Alignment Miles Roadway Centerlines Interstate Highway

27 COST ESTIMATES Cost estimates are based upon average costs compiled from similar past KL&J, County and NDDOT projects. Input from the County indicated that the preferred bridge widths are 36 feet minimum and 40 feet preferred for this project. County standards utilize a 28-foot roadway surface width for two-lane rural gravel sections and 32 feet for two-lane rural paved sections. Based upon this information and input from the County, the 36-foot bridges widths were utilized for bridges on gravel roadways and 40-foot bridges on paved roadways. The only exception was CR 20. The county anticipates this roadway requiring an upgrade from gravel to pavement in the near to intermediate future. Cost estimates with quantities can be found in APPENDIX A COST ESTIMATES. TABLE I Cost Estimates Cost Roadway Bridge Bypass Total County Road 4/31 $3,004,100 $3,784,500 $0 $6,788,600 County Road 81 $717,000 $4,205,000 $1,010,900 $5,932,900 County Road 32 $694,600 $4,241,300 $329,200 $5,265,100 County Road 22 $95,900 $4,045,500 $329,200 $4,470,600 County Road 20 $81,700 $4,640,000 $1,010,900 $5,732, th Ave SE Improvements $2,370,800 $0 $0 $2,370,800 27th St SE Connection to CR 81 $502,400 $0 $0 $502,400 Roadway Terminations at Diversion $323,400 $0 $0 $323,400 Box Culvert at Drain 13 and 170th Ave SE $362,500 $0 $0 $362,500 CR 4 Roadway to Parcel Connection $88,800 $0 $0 $88, th Ave SE Roadway to Parcel Connection $71,100 $0 $0 $71,100 Total $8,312,300 $20,916,300 $2,680,200 $31,908,800 Note: Cost Includes 25% Contingency and 20% Engineering Fee CONCLUSION Through various meetings and discussion with the general public and local agencies directly affected by the proposed diversion channel, it was clear that the diversion offers several transportation obstacles corresponding to connectivity, accessibility and mobility. In response to these obstacles, the study team developed solutions to remedy or minimize project impacts. Not only are engineering solutions identified in this study, relationships and consensus was built with those directly affected. These relationships offer benefits throughout the entire FM diversion project from development into construction. It is recommended that the outlets of communication be maintained as this project transitions from planning into development. All parties are affected by the roadway closures to varying degrees, whether it be during a daily commute to work or during emergency response calls. Timely notification allows roadway users to adapt to the changing roadway network landscape. This will not only prevent motorist delay resulting from unnecessary detouring, but will also help improve relationships with those opposing the project. FIGURE 12 illustrates each study recommendation on one map. Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report P age 20

28 19TH ST SE Drain 23 Maple River Drain 25 20TH ST SE Drain 26 22ND ST SE 23RD ST SE 25TH ST SE Drain TH AVE N E 19 AVE N 19TH AVE N D M 81 Red River Tributary Drain 24C Drain 13 I29 Proposed CR 4/CR 31 Roadway Realignment M 34 W I S E R T O W N S H I P CO RD TH AVE SE G A R D N E R T O W N S H I P 22ND ST SE 23RD ST SE Drain TH AVE I29 SE M 4 -Install Box Culvert ARGUSVILLE Proposed CR 81 Bypass Route: -Constructed as New Gravel Roadway M 4 29 Drain 30 New Gravel Roadway CO RD 81 Sheyenne River Proposed CR 32 Bypass Route: -Use of Exsiting Roadways -Resurface Earth Roadways With Gravel -Box Culvert Installation at Rush River and 167th Ave SE Improvements Established as Part of Mobility Enhancements -New Gravel Roadway M 32 -New Gravel Roadway -Improve Roadway Surface to Gravel -Install Box Culvert at Rush River Crossing 28TH ST SE M 32 H A R W O O D T O W N S H I P 25TH ST SE Proposed CR 32 Roadway Realignment 167TH AVE SE 27TH ST SE Rush River B E R L I N T O W N S H I P M 81 HARWOOD Lower Branch Rush River 30TH ST SE Drain 9 64TH AVE N 25 ST N 81ST ST N Proposed CR 22 Bypass Route: -Use of Existing Roadways M 13 31ST ST SE 52ND AVE N 37TH ST N 45TH ST N 57TH ST N 29 -Improve Roadway Surface to Gravel -Install New Box Culvert at River Crossing M 20 Drain TH ST N OLD US HWY 81 N 32ND AVE N 32ND AVE NW 45TH ST N R E E D T O W N S H I P M 17 57TH ST N Drain 21 14TH ST NW 26TH ST NW 19TH AVE NW Drain 10 Proposed CR 20 Bypass Route: -Constructed as New Gravel Roadway Sheyenne Diversion Drain 45 WEST FARGO Sheyenne River Tributary FARGO 94 15TH ST W 93RD ST N 26TH ST W 34TH ST SE 38TH ST NW R A Y M O N D T O W N S H I P 35TH ST SE 12TH AVE NW 36TH ST SE SHEYENNE DIVERSION RD 37TH ST SE M 28 13TH AVE W 38TH ST SE 21ST AVE W 39TH ST SE 15TH S M 15 M 11 Figure 12 Overall Project Recommendations North Red River Diversion Master Transportation Plan Miles 26TH ST SE 4 28TH ST SE 32ND ST SE M 11 M 20 Legend Cutoff Roads Proposed Diversion Crossings Proposed Box Culverts Existing Low Flow Crossings Existing Bridges Construction Bypass Routes Mobility Improvement (Earth Surface to Gravel Surface) 163RD AVE SE Accessibility Improvement Proposed Roadway Realignment Roadway Removal Drains Rivers Interstate Highway Proposed Diversion Alignment Roadway Centerlines Parcels Without Access* Parcel Lines *Does not include property that can be accessed by adjoining parcels with matching owner M 11 37TH ST SE

29 APPENDIX A - COST ESTIMATES Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report P age 22

30 Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report P age 23

31 Kadrmas, Lee & Jackson Final Report P age 24