Arterial Connector Study Adoption Considerations

Transcription

1 Arterial Connector Study Adoption Considerations 1. The Problem/Opportunity. Dakota County, MnDOT and the cities of Inver Grove Heights and Rosemount have conducted this study because Dakota County is growing, and will continue to grow. Growth always results in impacts to the transportation system. Although there has been limited growth in the area of the study in the past, the planned growth in Inver Grove Heights, Rosemount and the surrounding area is now starting to occur, and will continue in coming years. This regional growth is reflective of planning cities have done through their comprehensive plans, and is not something that is under County control. However, this growth will result in increased traffic on area roads (County 73, County 71, County 32, Trunk Highway 3 and Trunk Highway 52), resulting in the need to make changes to address problems on these routes in the future. In the short term, reconstruction and paving of the existing gravel segment of County 73 (Akron) needs to be considered to ensure it can be maintained properly and to improve overall system safety and efficiency. In the long term, a disjointed arterial system will mean area trips will take longer, and drivers will be exposed to a higher risk of crashes on the roadway system. Do we want to wait until after problems arise to address them, or have a plan in place to address the changes as they occur? Often, waiting for problems to occur results in reduced options, more expense to the public, and delays in implementing solutions. It should also be kept in mind that while we are proposing to put a long term plan in place now, future changes to the roadway alignments will only occur in response to actual traffic demands in the future. 2. Dakota County s Responsibility. Dakota County has a responsibility to manage a system of regional roadways to provide safe and efficient transportation now and into the future. While the County does not control land use planning and associated development that increase traffic, the County does have a responsibility to safely accommodate the increased traffic that results from this growth. Similar to County 73, all County roads have the primary function of connecting multiple communities within Dakota County to each other. To this end, County roads also are intended to carry traffic from multiple neighborhoods and communities. It would be irresponsible of the County to ignore impending growth in providing such a system for current and future County residents and businesses. The County roadway system used by the public today is a result of significant investment by Dakota County and the cities over time. It also has come with unavoidable impacts to property owners over the years, of which many would have preferred not to have been impacted. Those impacts are unfortunately a reality of managing a safe and efficient roadway system in a growing community. In a recent residential survey, 84% of residents surveyed indicated they felt most safe while driving on roads in Dakota County; and we continue to be committed to doing what we can to reduce the risk of crashes on the County roadway system now, and into the future. This is a large part of the reason numerous system studies such as this have been conducted in the growing areas of the County over the years.

2 3. The Study Process. The process used to conduct the study has been reasonable and appropriate. There have been a considerable number of public meetings, neighborhood meetings, city council workshops for discussion, and considerable effort from city, County, and MnDOT staff in assessing needs, issues, and alternative system scenarios for addressing future needs. The implications of these scenarios were also evaluated for safety, efficiency, the environment, costs, and impacts (these are outlined in the Study Report). In the end, a whole year was added to the study to ensure that relevant issues have been considered and concerns have been addressed. Unfortunately, it is rarely the case that all concerns can be addressed to the full satisfaction of everyone - this is the nature of serving the broader public good. That said, the project management team has put forth an exhaustive effort to ensure that questions and concerns raised were considered and answered. 4. We Have Listened. Through this study process, the study team has listened to the public and to the city councils. The study effort, and ultimately the recommendations, evolved substantially throughout the study. Any assertion that the minds of County staff and/or the project management team were made up before the study began is absolutely untrue. The recommended alignment evolved based on public input (this is why Scenario D was refined). A neighborhood proposal was considered and assessed, including effort made by the study team to improve the proposal to meet the same standards used with the other alternatives. Questions raised through the process have transformed the original set of recommendations drafted in January to the four current recommendations, including moving forward with design work on County 73 to answer questions on costs and impacts before any decisions are made on whether to move forward with a project. Arterial Connector Study Technical Responses Why do we need both County 73 and County 71 as arterials on the County system? The challenge in the study area is that even though some of the area is rural residential or refinery buffer, it connects to urban areas and roadway densities to the north, and needs to support future suburban areas to the south. In particular, south of the study area, County 73 and County 71 carry traffic from predominantly different travel sheds, and the County 73 travel shed will experience more growth, and therefore see more traffic. So the recommendations need to fit into a broader system of arterial roadways that exist or are planned adjacent to the direct study area. An example of this is County 46 in rural Rosemount. When County 46 was extended from Trunk Highway (TH) 3 to TH 52, there was almost no traffic generation directly along the corridor but the need for, and location of the roadway were defined by the existing roadways already in place in developed and developing areas of the County.

3 Another factor is the traffic demand the roadways will need to support. Because of the greater traffic demand from the travel shed it will serve, County 73 is expected to carry 4-lane traffic volumes in excess of 15,000 vehicles per day in the long term, and County 71 is over 10,000 vehicles per day. If one of these roadways is not available to support these traffic volumes, the traffic will not go away, but will go to other routes, affecting the safety and efficiency of those roadways. It will result in increased delays and crashes at affected intersections, increased trip lengths that result in added cost to the public, and the need to make improvements along those roadways as well. TH 3 and TH 52 will not be as free-flowing in the future as they are today. Added growth in the State and the Region will impact these roadways just as growth is impacting this study area. Having a system of roadways that provides options for people is a critical part of ensuring our transportation system is efficient, reliable, and safe. Doesn t Dakota Aggregates have a 60-Year lease to mine in UMORE? They do. However, that does not mean there will not be any development in the mined areas for the next 60 years. There are areas of UMORE that will not be mined. In addition, the areas that will be mined will be available for development as the mining moves from one location to another. An example of this is occurring now in both Apple Valley and Lakeville where mining is still happening and development is occurring right next door. The development that has occurred has caused the need for significant improvements on the County road system already, including the expansion of County Roads 31 (Pilot Knob) and County Road 46. More improvements will be necessary over time as mining and the subsequent planned development continue to progress. The exact timing of development, as always, will be defined by market forces. The question is not if this area will develop that is only a matter of time. It also should be noted that while we are proposing to put a long term plan in place now to provide a vision for addressing future County road system needs, changes to the County road system in the future will only occur in response to actual traffic demands. The Dakota County Transportation Plan says that gravel roadways will be considered for paving when volumes are greater than 500 Average Daily Traffic (ADT). Why consider paving Akron now? Traffic volume is only one factor to consider in determining the need for road improvements. The Dakota County 2030 Transportation Plan contains a section specifically on gravel road paving. The plan is clear in stating that the County will direct its resources to pave gravel roads that carry 300 to 500 vehicles per day or greater. The actual strategy for gravel road paving uses 500 vehicles per day as a starting threshold, but also states that a thorough evaluation will be conducted to determine the need and timing of gravel road paving to provide cost effective highways and increase mobility, safety, and maintenance efficiency. Traffic volumes on the gravel segment of Akron have been over 400 ADT since With continued growth occurring along Akron to the south, volumes will increase in the next few years. Further, excessive maintenance needs and safety measures point to the need to pave Akron in the very near future.

4 Earlier in the Study, it was discussed that right of way would need to be provided by Flint Hills at no cost to make Scenario D Refined feasible in comparison to Scenario B Refined. Why has that changed? The planning level cost estimates do show that Scenario B Refined is slightly less costly than Scenario D Refined, however, additional consideration has since been given to the jet fuel pipeline along Akron Avenue that could be impacted by a 4-lane expansion of Akron. 2- lane improvements along Akron can be made without affecting the portion of the jet fuel pipeline that lies within its own easement, however, 4-lane improvements likely cannot. This adds a substantial amount of cost risk for Scenario B Refined that cannot yet be quantified, but would likely result in higher total costs for Scenario B Refined in comparison with Scenario D Refined. Together with the impacts to existing residential properties that come with Scenario B Refined, this was a major factor in the study team recommending Scenario D Refined. Will improvements to Akron result in more cut through traffic on Albavar and Alameda? If Akron is reconstructed and paved, cut through traffic would be expected to be reduced since traffic will no longer be avoiding Akron because it is gravel. It will also be much faster to travel Akron directly to Cliff than to use Albavar or Alameda due to one fewer turn and higher travel speeds (Albavar is 35mph and Alameda is 30mph). When Scenario D is implemented, travel distance for a trip from northbound County 73 to westbound County 32 (and vice-versa) could be shorter using Akron directly to Cliff or Akron to Alameda in comparison with the new alignments. That said, travel times may not be shorter considering speed limits, traffic controls, and intersection delays. The City could consider a number of approaches with Akron and Alameda at the time of implementation of Scenario D Refined to ensure regional trips are more efficiently made on the County roadways. If Akron is severed from the County roadway system in the future, why would the City pay for Akron now? First, the need to improve Akron in the short term doesn t change, and those improvements will likely be in place for decades, providing substantial public benefit into the future. Second, even if Akron is severed in conjunction with a new alignment in the future, the majority of the roadway will be left in place to serve as access for area residents. Third, the City could choose not to contribute to Akron, but that would mean it would be paying for improvements to 117 th Street without County contribution due to lack of agreement on the future transportation system. The decision for City participation in Akron is part of a broader discussion on a cost-effective approach for the City in the long term roadway system. Why don t we just improve County 71 instead of Akron? As discussed above, both roadways are needed to ensure a safe and efficient County roadway system. In addition, County 71 will need to be improved in the future to add shoulders and turn lanes, regardless of what is done with Akron. How are issues on Trunk Highway 3 going to be addressed over time? In the short term, MnDOT has a pavement project for TH 3 where they are considering how to make safety improvements at the County 71 intersection with limited funds available. In the long term, even

5 with implementation of the recommendations of this study, TH 3 will likely need to be reconstructed and widened to 4 lanes from north of downtown Rosemount to TH 149. That said, if and when that occurs will depend on identification of funding sources that are not currently available. If TH 3 is not improved, this will just add to the demand for capacity on County 73. What traffic levels are needed for 4-lanes? For planning purposes, it is common for agencies to use 15,000 vehicles per day. Ultimately, the decision to invest in capacity improvements depends on actual traffic conditions and problems experienced, including higher than expected crash occurrence and unacceptable delays. Neither the County nor the cities involved spend money on projects that are not needed or don t provide public benefits to justify the cost. Is there a guarantee that money will be available when improvements are needed? Currently, both the County and the cities receive yearly State Aid funds from constitutionally dedicated funding sources for improvements such as those contemplated with this study. The County meets with each city every year to discuss which projects are the highest priorities to partner on. Since the City would participate in the cost of future improvements, both the County and the City would need to agree on the need for a project and have the funding available to proceed with the project. What input, if any, would the City have on the design of improvements to existing Akron (County 73) if the Council votes no on the study recommendations? The County typically involves its agency partners in project development, and would still invite the City s input. However, if the City does not accept the study recommendations, it will be less certain that Akron would become a City street in the future. Under this approach, the design will need to follow arterial design standards more closely, leaving less room for flexibility with design elements that could impact adjacent property owners (shoulder width, slopes, right turn lanes, etc.). Do 10 crashes in 10 years mean the gravel segment of Akron is unsafe? The crash data provided in the Council presentations was not meant to infer that the existing roadway is safe or not safe. This rate of crashes (2.46 crashes per million vehicles), which takes into account the traffic currently on Akron, is higher than the average statewide rate (0.68) for low-volume rural paved highways in Minnesota. We expect this is the case because it is more difficult to stop a vehicle on a gravel surface than a paved one. It is difficult to say what the crash rate will be on any road in the future since crashes are often due to driver behavior. However, both statewide average crash rates for similar two lane rural roads and crash rates on similar two lane rural Dakota County roads are lower than the current crash rate on Akron. This data suggests that paving this particular roadway with appropriate shoulders and turn lanes is likely to decrease the crash rate.

6 Don t improvements just invite additional traffic? As discussed above, growth is occurring and will continue to occur, regardless of what we do with the roadway system. Traffic will most often travel the roadways that get them where they need to go most efficiently, even if they are not improved to the condition they should be to minimize the risk of crashes and delays. The age, condition, maintenance needs, and safety already suggest that Akron should be paved today and these issues will only become more problematic as traffic continues to grow. We could ignore traffic demands, and when conditions get bad enough, traffic will try to find other routes that are more efficient. If we do this in one area of the County, don t we need to be willing to do this in other locations as well? If so, what are the conditions under which we decide to maintain less than adequate roadway segments and systems? Is it where neighborhoods would rather not have traffic on County roadways they are located next to? Since all County roadways have residences next to them, this approach would make any improvements to County roads very challenging if not impossible. The tradeoff between minimizing impacts and appropriately serving the traveling public is a delicate balance. However, deciding to lower the standards of safety and efficiency on the County road system to the point where we would completely avoid impacts to adjacent business and residential properties would not allow improvements to address traffic demands, which in turn, would negatively affect all who use the County roadways every day. We do not feel this is a responsible approach to developing and operating the Dakota County roadway system.