2040 U P DAT E TO THE STREET/HIGH WAY ELEMENT

Transcription

1 2040 U P DAT E TO THE STREET/HIGH WAY ELEMENT

2 2040 UPDATE TO THE STREET/HIGHWAY ELEMENT Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization (GF-EGF MPO) Grand Forks Office 255 North 4 th Street Grand Forks, ND Phone: (701) East Grand Forks Office 600 DeMers Avenue East Grand Forks, MN Phone: ( Website: December 2013 The preparation of this document was funded in part by the United States Department of Transportation with funding administered through the North Dakota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration. Additional funding was provided through local contributions from the governments of Grand Forks, East Grand Forks, Grand Forks County, and Polk County. The United States Government and the States of Minnesota and North Dakota assume no liability for the contents or use thereof. The document does not constitute a standard specification, or regulation. The United States Government, the States of Minnesota and North Dakota, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. The contents of the document reflect the authors, who are responsible for facts and accuracy of data presented herein. Contents do not necessarily reflect polices of the States and Federal Department of Transportation.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Overview MAP-21 Compliance The Long Range Plan Preparation Process CHAPTER 1. Goals, Objectives, Standards & Performance Measures MAP-21 Goal Definitions Street and Highway Plan Goals, Objectives, Standards and Performance Measures CHAPTER 2. Existing Conditions & Special Studies Roadway System & Functional Classification Jurisdiction Functional Classification National Highway System Roadway Geometrics Pavement Quality Traffic Volumes Traffic Operations/Congestion Traffic Operations/Congestion Approach Safety/Crash Analysis Connecting Land Uses with Transportation Facilities Socioeconomic Characteristics Demographics Population Increase Land Uses Land Development Assumptions Special Studies Freight Movement Transporting Goods Interregional Truck Movement and the Metro Area i

10 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED Metro Freight Community Metro Truck Routes Truck Volumes Truck Safety Rail Lines Rail Crossings Partnerships & Recent Freight Related Improvements Emerging Issues Potential Freight Projects Origin-Destination Origin-Destination Survey Results Carbon Footprinting Defining Climate Change and Carbon Footprinting Street and Highway Plan Carbon Footprint Measurement Mitigating for Green House Gas Emissions Signals University Avenue CHAPTER 3. Identification of System, Issues and Opportunities Public Engagement Activities Public Engagement Tools Public Meetings Key Interest Groups TAC and Agency Involvement Summary of Issues, Needs and Opportunities CHAPTER 4. Range of Alternatives Project Inventory Year 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan Improvements Recently Completed Studies Programmed Improvements Local Capital Improvement Projects Inventory Review Project Addressing System Deficiencies Issues Identified by Stakeholders Safety Needs Capacity Expansion Projects State of Good Repair Projects NDDOT Projects ii

11 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED MnDOT-MnSHIP and CIMS Local Projects Key Sub-Area and Special Needs Projects University Avenue Freight Improvements Universe of Projects Consistency with Federal, State and GF/EGF MPO Policies Environmental Mitigation Considerations Sensitive Areas Environmental Mitigation Activities Environmental Justice Review CHAPTER 5. Financial Plan Fiscal Constraint & Revenue Forecasting Requirements Forecast Methodology Step 1: Evaluate Historical Transportation Improvement Funding Step 2: Establish Revenue Growth Rates Step 3: Determine Future Revenue Streams Funding Estimates CHAPTER 6. Recommended Network Improvements and Implementation Program Project Programming by Period State of Good Repair Projects NDDOT MnDOT City of Grand Forks City of East Grand Forks Grand Forks County and Polk County Fiscally Constrained Program of Projects Expected Revenue and Expenditure Estimates iii

12 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED Illustrative Project List Southend Bypass Concept Identified and Unaddressed State of Good Repair Needs NDDOT Unmet Needs MnDOT Unmet Needs City of Grand Forks Unmet Needs iv

13 FIGURES Figure 1 GF/EGF MPO Study Area Figure 2 Roadways by Jurisdiction Figure 3 Existing 2012 Street and Highway Functional Classification Figure 4 National Highway System Figure 5 Lane Miles Figure 6 Pavement Conditions Figure 7 Existing Traffic Volumes Figure 8 Traffic Flow Characteristics by Level of Service Figure 9 Existing Level of Service by Intersection Figure 10 Existing Level of Service by Roadway Segments Figure 11 Intersection Crash Locations Figure 12 Future Land Use Plan Figure Housing Growth Figure Housing Growth Figure Employment Growth Figure Employment Growth Figure 17 Freight Community Figure 18 Truck Routes Figure 19 Truck Traffic Counts Figure 20 Truck Crashes ( ) v

14 FIGURES CONTINUED Figure 21 BNSF Train Trackage Figure 22 Rail Crossings Figure 23 Point Bridge West Bound Figure 24 Point Bridge East Bound Figure 25 Sorlie Bridge West Bound Figure 26 Sorlie Bridge East Bound Figure 27 Kennedy Bridge West Bound Figure 28 Kennedy Bridge East Bound Figure 29 Potential University Avenue Improvements For Consideration Figure 30 Issues, Opportunities and Needs Figure 31 Proposed Future Roadway Functional Classification Figure 32 Year 2025 E+C Network Level of Service Analysis Figure 33 Year 2040 E+C Network Level of Service Analysis Figure 34 Environmental Constraints Figure 35 Environmental Justice Figure 36 SOGR Projects Figure 37 Projects of Significance vi

15 TABLES Table 1 Relationship of Street and Highway Plan and MAP-21 Goals Table 2 Roadway Jurisdiction by Mileage Table 3 Urban Functional Classification System Design Criteria Table 4 GF/EGF MPO System Mileage by Functional Classification Table 5 Functional System Summary Compared to FHWA Guidelines Table 6 Lane Miles Table 7 GF/EGF MPO Pavement Trends Table 8 GF/EGF MPO Pavement Condition (2008) Table 9 Definition of Level of Service for Intersections Table 10 Crash Type at Key Intersections Table 11 Severity of Crashes at Key Locations Table 12 GF/EGF MPO Population Forecasts Table 13 Study Area Housing And Employment Summary 2010 and Table Freight Movement in North Dakota Table Estimated Freight Movement in North Dakota Table Freight Movement in Minnesota Table Estimated Freight Movement in Minnesota Table 18 Truck Freight Destinations for North Dakota and Minnesota Table 19 Crashes by Truck Type and Severity, GF-EGF ( ) Table 20 Carbon Footprint for Vehicle Miles Traveled Table 21 Carbon Footprint Equivalence vii

16 TABLES CONTINUED Table 22 Volume to Capacity Thresholds Table 23 Universe of Projects Table 24 Environmental Mitigation Activities Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 GF/EGF MPO Revenue Forecasting Baseline (ND-side) Annual Average Expenditure Level GF/EGF MPO Revenue Forecasting Baseline (MN-side) Annual Average Expenditure Level GF/EGF MPO Revenue Assumptions (ND-side) Annual Growth Rate Projections GF/EGF MPO Revenue Assumptions (MN-side) Annual Growth Rate Projections Table 29 Revenue Assumptions for ND-side of GF/EGF MPO Table 30 Revenue Assumptions for MN-side of GF/EGF MPO Table 31 Funding Estimates by Time Bonds Table 32 Summary of NDDOT Alternative Expenditures Table 33 NDDOT Projects of Significance Table 34 MnDOT Planned State of Good Repair Expenditures Table 35 MnDOT Projects of Significance Table 36 Grand Forks Planned State of Good Repair Expenditures Table 37 City of Grand Forks Projects of Significance Table 38 East Grand Forks Planned State of Good Repair Expenditures Table 39 North Dakota Fiscally Constrained Projects viii

17 TABLES CONTINUED Table 40 Minnesota Fiscally Constrained Projects Table 41 Summary of Illustrative Project Expenditures Table 42 Illustrative Projects of Significance ix

18 APPENDICES Appendix A Goals Appendix B Bridge Intercept Appendix C Carbon Footprinting Appendix D Signals Appendix E University Avenue Appendix F Public Meetings Appendix G Traffic Model Update Appendix H Financials Appendix I Recommended Projects List Appendix J Illustrative Projects List x

19 INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW The purpose of the Grand Forks East Grand Forks Transportation Plan is to identify the region s existing and future multimodal transportation needs and provide a list of projects that support the system needs for the next 25+ years. The transportation planning process is a collaborative effort between the Grand Forks, East Grand forks, Polk County, Grand Forks County, North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT), Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT), the Cities Area Transit (CAT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the citizens and businesses. Through this process a set of actions and strategies has been developed that will guide the Grand Forks East Grand Forks area to a desired outcome, as defined by locally identified issues, goals, objectives and benchmarks. The Grand Forks East Grand Forks Transportation Plan will address the study area displayed in Figure 1. This Plan update focuses on the street and highway element of the multimodal transportation system and reflects changes in the metropolitan area since the last plan was completed in The Grand Forks/East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization has also developed a separate Alternate Mode Transportation Plan, which address in detail the current and future issues and needs for the metropolitan area s transit and pedestrian/bicycle systems for the metropolitan area. While separate documents, they are integrated elements that constitute a unified transportation planning program for Grand Forks East Grand Forks. The Alternate Mode Transportation Plan was updated in MOVING AHEAD FOR PROGRESS IN THE 21 ST CENTURY ACT (MAP-21) The Plan update also addresses new planning requirements associated with MAP-21 that creates a streamlined, performance-based, multimodal program to address the many challenges facing the U.S. Transportation system. These challenges include improving safety, maintaining infrastructure condition, reducing traffic congestion, improving efficiency of the system and freight movements, protecting the environment and reducing delays 1

20 Figure 1: Grand Forks/East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization Study Area Source: GF/EGF MPO

21 in project delivery. It is the goal of the GF/EGF MPO to ensure the Grand Forks- East Grand Forks area transportation planning process is consistent with the federal requirements. Key features of MAP-21 are: MAP-21 will improve transportation investment decision making through performance-based planning and programming by focusing on national transportation goals, increasing the accountability of the Federal Highway Programs. Federal Highway Transportation programs have been streamlined and simplified. MAP-21 consolidated the program structure into smaller number of broader core programs. Former programs allowed projects to only compete against other similar programs specific to that program. Under MAP-21, projects will have to compete against non-similar projects for no additional dollars available in the consolidated programs. Map-21 increases the National Highway System (NHS) and funds this particular program the most. Penalties may be imposed if the NHS is not maintained properly. State of Good Repair projects represented preservation, maintenance and nonexpansion projects that improved ride quality or extend the life of the roadway. Under federal MAP-21 rules, the Plan s range of alternatives was required to include a detailed analysis of State of Good Repair projects, as well as expansion projects to account for all needed improvement expenditures within the GF/EGF MPO Planning area out to the year THE LONG RANGE PLAN PREPARATION PROCESS The street and highway element update has been led by the GF/EGF MPO. The GF/EGF MPO is responsible for multi-modal transportation planning in the region, including automobile, truck, pedestrian, bicycle and bus transit travel. This element is one part. The Plan update has considered a wide range of social, engineering, environmental and economic factors in establishing the transportation system goals and objectives. These goals/objectives and performance measures have been developed to reflect the overall values of the community and are important because they have provided the general course for the Plan update. The Grand Forks-East Grand Forks Street and Highway Plan include the following chapters and topics: Goals, Objectives, Standards & Performance Measures- The development of the Long Range Transportation Plan s (LRTP) - Streets and Highway Element goals, objectives, standards, and performance measures was a critical step in the planning process, because to 3

22 a large extent they defined the general course of the Plan s development. The Plan s goals, objectives, standards and performance measures were developed through an open meeting/workshop process involving both the public and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) input. The previous Plan s goals, objectives, and standards provided a solid basis for completing a revised set of 2040 Plan goals, objectives, and standards. Two major updates included the addition of performance measures and incorporating Livability principles agreed to by US DOT, US EPA and US HUD Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities. Existing Conditions & Special Studies- This chapter documents the current street and highway system conditions, operations and needs. In order to plan for the long-term needs of the metropolitan area s streets and highway system, it is vital to first have a good understanding of the current system. This chapter reviews various elements of the current street and highway system, as well as presents the findings from special studies including: Roadway System and Functional Classification Roadway Geometrics Pavement Conditions Traffic Volumes Traffic Operations/Congestion Safety Analysis/Crash Analysis Connecting Land Uses with Transportation Facilities Special Studies o o o o o Freight Origin-Destination Carbon Footprinting Signals University Avenue Identification of Systems, Issues and Opportunities- The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the Plan s public engagement activities, recognize inputs of stakeholders, and identify key themes generated by citizen participation. As a result of these activities, a list of system issues and opportunities were documented, which helped inform the study process. 4

23 The identification of system issues and opportunities, both short and long-term was derived from numerous public engagement activities, as well as input from elected leaders, key interest groups, and supporting evidence (e.g., technical analysis and data). In that respect, the Streets and Highway Plan utilized various public outreach methods to generate a comprehensive list of system issues and opportunities. In turn, this qualitative list of issues was tested for their validity as part of the study s quantitative assessment process. The GF/EGF MPO sought to provide a substantial number and type of public engagement opportunities, and this input was thoughtfully discussed with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to assess and verify needs, alternatives, and shortcomings. Range of Alternatives- This chapter documents the development and evaluation of a range of roadway improvement alternatives to address current and future transportation needs, as presented in earlier chapters. Generally, the process of developing this range of alternatives included the compilation of programmed and previously identified roadway improvements, followed by the identification of new improvements aimed at addressing system needs, issues and deficiencies. Importantly, the range of alternatives list was developed to be consistent with the Plan s goals, objectives, standards and performance measures. As such, the range of alternatives emphasized the need for system preservation, as well as system expansion and system management. This chapter documents the methodology used to prepare the range of roadway improvement alternatives. Generally, the process included the following activities and analyses: Compile the Project Inventory Analyze Projects Addressing System Deficiencies Prepare a Universe of Project Needs Financial Plan- One of the more important components to the Street and Highway Plan is the Financial Plan. The Financial Plan provided an understanding of what the GF/EGF MPO and the local jurisdictions can accomplish over the Plan s horizon for expansion, preservation and maintenance projects. In that respect, the Plan also needed to be fiscally constrained by providing a reasonable outlook of anticipated revenue streams. A locallyderived methodology (approved by each State DOT) for estimating street and highway revenue was developed based on the steps outlined below: From available sources, including the GF/EGF MPO s Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), planning documents and each DOT s staffs input, a baseline funding level was calculated for each jurisdiction s key funding streams. From the information gathered as part of the above step, annual revenue growth rates and future revenue projects were determined. From the calculated future revenue forecasts, the funding for short-term, mid-term and long-term time bands was summarized. 5

24 Recommended Network Improvements and Implementation Program- This chapter documents the process used to prepare GF/EGF MPO s fiscally-constrained Plan and presents the recommended improvements for the future roadway network that can be included within forecasted financial resources. The primary objective of this chapter was the preparation of a financially-constrained program of projects for the GF/EGF MPO planning area. A major element of this activity was the completion of a project prioritization process. The process of developing the fiscally-constrained project list included coordination and outreach with local and state DOT staff aimed at addressing previously identified system deficiencies, as well as maintaining consistency with federal and state planning policies. Importantly, the fiscally-constrained project list was developed to be consistent with the Plan s goals, objectives, standards and performance measures. As such, the fiscallyconstrained project list emphasized system preservation and management of the GF/EGF MPO area s National Highway System (NHS) roadways and principal arterials. Further, as documented by the future revenue forecasts, there were very limited opportunities to include new or expansion projects within the fiscally-constrained project list, given the primary objective of maintaining a State of Good Repair on the core roadway network in the GF/EGF MPO planning area. Finally the fiscally-constrained project list was evaluated to refine project costs and groupings of project costs based on any anticipated mitigation strategies, to stage improvements within the time bands prescribed by the GF/EGF MPO and to establish year of expenditure (YOE) data to account for construction cost inflation over the programming period. The Recommended Improvements Chapter documents the methodology that was used to develop the fiscally-constrained project list, establishes the recommended fiscallyconstrained program of projects for the roadway network and presents a list of illustrative projects. This process included the following activities and analyses: Project Programming by Period Fiscally-Constrained Program of Projects Illustrative Project List 6

25 Chapter 1. Goals, Objectives, Standards & Performance Measures The development of the Long Range Transportation Plan s (LRTP) - Streets and Highway Element goals, objectives, standards, and performance measures was a critical step in the planning process, because to a large extent they defined the general course of the Plan s development. The Plan s goals, objectives and standards were developed through an open meeting/workshop process involving both the public and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) input. The previous Plan s goals (which are based upon the eight planning factors MPOs should address in an LRTP), objectives, and standards provided a solid basis for completing a revised set of 2040 Plan goals, objectives, and standards, as well as the addition of performance measures. There were two main reasons for revising and adding to the earlier Plan's work: Incorporated the Livability Principles agreed to by US DOT, US EPA and US HUD Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities. Livability Principles are about tying the quality and location of transportation facilities to broader opportunities such as access to good jobs, affordable housing, quality schools, and safer streets and roads. To address requirements included in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) laws, the most recent federal transportation authorization bill (2012). MAP-21 Goal Definitions An elaboration of MAP-21 s goals for the Federal Highway system is provided below. o Safety: To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. o Infrastructure Condition: To maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair. o Congestion Reduction: To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the NHS. o System Reliability: To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system. o Freight Movement and Economic Vitality: To improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development. o Environmental Sustainability: To enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment. 7

26 o Reduced Project Delivery Delays: To reduce project costs, promote jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in the project development and delivery process, including reducing regulatory burdens and improving agencies work practices. The Street and Highway Plan has set the foundation for the transition to MAP-21 by aligning its goals to those of the new federal law. Table 1 documents these linkages. Appendix A also demonstrates the Plan s linkage with MnDOT s Multimodal Transportation Plan s Guiding Principles and NDDOT s Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan Goals. Table 1: Relationship of Street and Highway Plan and MAP-21 Goals MAP-21 Performance Goal Definitions Street and Highway Plan Goals Safety Infrastructure Conditions Congestion Reduction System Reliability Freight Movement & Economic Vitality Reduced Project Delivery Days Economic Vitality Security Accessibility & Mobility Environmental/Energy /Quality of Life Efficient System Management Integration and Connectivity System Preservation Safety Source: SRF 2012 MAP-21 also requires that MPO s place greater emphasis on performance measures and monitoring. Performance measures are designed to serve as a benchmark to evaluate and quantify progress. This performance-based approach is meant to improve accountability of federal transportation investments, assess risks related to different performance levels and increase transparency. The USDOT is expected to disseminate rulemaking for performance measures in 2014 in four areas: National Highway Performance Program Highway Safety Improvement Program Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Freight 8

27 States will be required to set targets for each measure within one year after the rulemaking. Importantly, states will be required to set targets in coordination with MPOs and with public transit operators. MPOs will have 180 days after the States and Transit Operators to adopt performance measures and targets. During this Street and Highway Plan update, these federal and state performance targets were not in place. In anticipation of the more performance-based requirements, the GF/EGF MPO updated the goals and objectives, and added supporting performance measures. When the MAP-21 federal and state performance measures and targets are in place, the GF/EGF MPO will need to amend this Plan to incorporate them. This major update accomplished the following: New needs or trends identified in the metropolitan area were reflected by revised plan goals. These modified goals and objectives addressed new "directions" for the metro transportation system. The 2040 Street and Highway goals, objectives, and standards include notable changes from the 2008 plan, to reflect changes in local conditions, and new emphasis areas. The Street and Highway Plan s goals were coordinated with statewide planning documents. Appendix A provides a matrix that documents the Plan s goals with the North Dakota Department of Transportation s (NDDOT) Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan (TransAction III) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation s (MnDOT) Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan. Street and Highway Plan Goals, Objectives, Standards and Performance Measures These goals, objectives, standards and performance measures were reviewed by GF/EGF MPO staff, staff from each DOT, and the public. They generally reflect the needs and issues of the GF/EGF area. Additional elements of these performance measures include the provision of targets, action initiatives, and monitoring activities to ensure the next Street and Highway Plan update understands past performance and builds upon it. Goal 1: Economic Vitality Support the economic vitality through enhancing the economic competitiveness of the metropolitan area by giving people access to jobs, education services as well as giving business access to markets. 9

28 Objective 1: Continue to coordinate the LRTP goals and objectives with TIP project selection and both cities land use planning activities. Refrain from street and highway system expansions that promote development which is not contiguous to currently developed areas. STANDARDS Recognize and address the types and locations of future development identified in the Grand Forks and East Grand Forks Land Use Plans. Coordinate with local governments on the placement of regionally significant developments (e.g., ones that have a major impact on existing networks) near both vehicular and non-vehicular modes of transportation. Objective 2: Enhance the area s economic competitiveness through the movement of goods and services by the most direct route. STANDARDS Develop and maintain roadway connectivity that is appropriate for the facility type and land-use environment. Protect operational capacity of interstate and state highways through the GF/EGF MPO area and support the growth of regional intermodal freight capacity. Objective 3: Support local and regional connections that are efficient for freight and rail movement. Participate in state and national freight planning efforts. Build and maintain relationships with area businesses to increase the understanding of their freight needs. STANDARDS Improve connections to freight terminals (e.g., air and multimodal), especially the last 1-2 miles of access. Identify non-service areas and strategically locate freight that enables critical connections for key regional centers and businesses to move goods and services. Support integrated network of streets, roads, and highways that collectively support the most direct route for freight and rail. 10

29 Objective 4: Consider economic development activities in the transportation planning process. Invite economic development officials to be part of the alternatives analysis process and seek their comments on the alternatives consistency with economic development plans and initiatives. STANDARDS Provide documentation of the alternatives screening process to local economic development officials. Recognize and address economic activities at the local, regional, state and national level that influence the metro area s transportation system. Goal 1: Performance Measures and Monitoring Activities Performance Measures Land use and economic development initiatives consistent with the LRTP and TIP projects Performance Target Ninety percent (90%) land use and economic development initiatives consistent with the LRTP and TIP projects. Communication/coordination improvement between freight operators and transportation officials. Communication/coordination improvement between freight operators and transportation officials via minimum of semi-annual meetings. Action Initiatives: Document local, state and national freight initiatives that influence the region s transportation system Monitoring Activities Annually Track growth corridors through building permits and platting activities. Map the locations of major employment centers, including existing and proposed developments, and identify types of transportation available. Document locations and conditions of current freight routes. 11

30 Evaluate the LRTP s effectiveness and consistency with new development and economic development decisions. Coordinate annual meetings with the freight community. Hold joint meetings between the freight community and transportation agencies. Track number of new developments with multimodal connections. Every 5 Years Evaluate the LRTP s effectiveness and consistency with local comprehensive plans. Track the increase in households or jobs by TAZ to identify potential employment and residential growth areas and to assist in the prioritization of future transportation projects. Conduct a freight assessment of the GF/EGF MPO area and update the freight section of the LRTP. 12

31 Goal 2: Security Increase security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized uses. Objective 1: Identify critical street and highway system assets. STANDARD Support improvement projects that do not compromise the security of identified critical street and highway assets. Develop measurable data points that evaluate the security of the transportation network, especially in critical areas. Objective 2: Coordinate traffic operations with the GF/EGF MPO Bridge Closure Management Plan during flood events. STANDARD Continue to monitor current flood control operations plans and revise if any noticeable delays or changes occur. Assess and mitigate any possible impacts new roadway construction may have on high water events, including proximity to waterways, construction in wetlands or floodways, storm drainage, etc. Objective 3: Identify and incorporate state and regional emergency, evacuation, and security plans into transportation plans and TIP project selection. STANDARD Enhance/complement existing emergency, evacuation, and security plans by proposed improvement projects. Develop an implementation plan that responds to various disaster events that might occur within the region including evacuation routes and contingency planning. Objective 4: Improve incident management response within the GF/EGF MPO area. Develop agreed upon alternate routes for arterials, including Interstates and State Highways. STANDARD Utilize ITS to inform public of incidents and potential detours. Have local leaders, and applicable employees undergo traffic incident management training. Review and update internal safety and security manuals and training. 13

32 Goal 2: Performance Measures and Monitoring Activities Performance Measures Blockage of emergency transportation routes. Performance Targets 75 percent of emergency transportation routes remain unblocked. Incident clearance time. Clearance time for federal aid eligible route incidents under three year average of 30 minutes. Action Initiatives Identify and map emergency transportation routes. Maintain coordination with regional/emergency/security/hazardous materials movement plans and personnel. Refine and update any GF/EGF MPO transportation security plans or studies. Monitoring Activities Annually Collect traffic incident response and clearance times. Collect detailed flood/emergency traffic incident information (where, when, why). Map future roadway projects, both capacity expansion and state of good repair, in comparison to flood prone, low lying, future land use, and critical/sensitive environments. Every 5 Years Evaluate coordination with regional/emergency/security/hazardous materials movement plans and personnel. 14

33 Goal 3: Accessibility and Mobility Increase the accessibility and mobility options for people and freight by providing more transportation choices. Objective 1: Reduce excessive travel delays through the reduction of VMT/VHT. Evaluate all new roadway construction and roadway reconstruction for fiber installation to support future interconnection of traffic signals. STANDARD Apply congestion management strategies to appropriate roadways in lieu of capacity expansion. Utilize a database of congested corridors, listing (at a minimum) volume, capacity, level of service, and amount of delay. Promote higher land use densities. Consider other transportation or intersection improvements, such as roundabouts, that do not stop cross traffic. Objective 2: Provide an acceptable level of service for all streets and intersections during peak hours. STANDARD Strive for a level of service C at intersections, including peak travel periods (with the understanding that local and state agencies have accepted a lower level of service D threshold for determining deficiencies at intersections). Define level of service criteria for individual locations throughout the metro area, including acceptable levels of congestion, and the meaning of congestion in the context of the region. Goal 3: Performance Measures and Monitoring Activities Performance Measures Vehicle hour delays along arterial streets with coordinated signal timing plans. Performance Targets Reduce vehicle hour delays every year by improving signal coordination and timing plans. Number of interconnected traffic signals. Provide adaptive traffic controls and interconnect signals within cities by 2020 and between states by

34 Signalized intersection Level of Service (LOS). Maintain a LOS C on 90 percent or better of the signalized intersections throughout the metro area (Please note: Some intersections cannot be reasonably improved to a LOS C). Action Initiatives Implement traffic counting method utilizing cameras at signalized intersection. Update Metropolitan Intelligent Transportation System Strategy Plan and Regional Architecture. Monitoring Activities Annually Track percent of roadways that are regularly congested during weekday and peak-hour periods. Evaluate average commute times. Assess travel times on key corridors. Conduct turning movement counts at key intersections identified in a current study or identified with possible delay of service. Evaluate LOS. Every 5 Years Track the volume/capacity ratios, level of service, and the amount of delay on key corridors. On a ten-year basis, conduct an origin - destination survey to track trip distance, purpose, etc.; and compare against outward growth. 16

35 Goal 4: Environmental/ Energy/QOL Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life by valuing the unique qualities of all communities whether urban, suburban, or rural. Objective 1: Avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate adverse social, environmental, and economic impacts resulting from existing or new transportation facilities. Initiate corridor preservation and right-of-way acquisition procedures, where appropriate. STANDARD Incorporate elements of the Environmental Justice (EJ), Title IV and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) plans into the GF/EGF MPO s overall transportation planning process. Seek transportation enhancement projects that have the potential to reduce existing transportation impacts on the environment through context sensitive solutions. Compare available environmental resource maps, plans, and inventories when developing plans. Explore Green applications into roadway projects to mitigate environmental impacts. Objective 2: Encourage context sensitive design principles into project development for corridors and transportation infrastructure. Consider the USDOT sustainability principles and the Grand Forks and East Grand Forks Land Use Plans sustainable goals. STANDARD Support traffic calming measures. Evaluate complete streets principles for new and existing roadways in the GF/EGF MPO area. Identify and determine the impact projects have on historical sites and areas of significance. 17

36 Objective 3: Develop methods to reduce carbon emissions and other air pollutants associated with motorized vehicles to improve air quality. Reduce VMT and VHT growth rate, and reduce travel delays. STANDARD Promote alternatives to single occupancy vehicle travel, through the implementation of travel demand management strategies, such as carpools, vanpools and telecommuting. Evaluate air quality monitoring on a regular basis, as well as incorporating it into transportation and land use plans. Conduct a regional Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory. Goal 4: Performance Measures And Monitoring Activities Performance Measures Performance Targets Transportation-related CO 2 emissions. By 2040, reduce transportation-related CO 2 emissions by 10 percent below 2007 levels. A reduction of 17,579 tons of transportationrelated CO 2 emissions is needed every five years. Time/cost of project delivery. Reduce the time/cost of project delivery by 20 percent. Population characteristics such as low income, minority percentage, gender, disabled percentage and percentage having Limited English Proficiency (LEP). Maintain EJ, Title VI, LEP plans to ensure they reflect current and future demographics, as well as community needs. Action Initiatives Reach agreements/mous on linking the planning process with the environmental permitting to reduce the time/cost of project delivery. Apply context sensitive measures to improve livability. Monitoring Activities Annually Monitor the percent of transportation investment in EO #12898 Environmental Justice census tracts and evaluate any disproportional impacts as defined EO #

37 Evaluate the effectiveness of traffic calming measures. Evaluate EJ, Title VI, and LEP plans effectiveness in supporting the GF/EGF MPO s transportation planning process. Distribute information through PSAs, Public Presentations, and awareness campaigns. Every 5 Years Evaluate sustainability principles and their effectiveness with TIP projects. Conduct a greenhouse gas inventory of transportation related emissions. Update EJ, Title VI and LEP plans. Evaluate timeline from planning process to delivery of transportation projects to determine linkage between planning and environmental permitting. Maintain a list and location of environmentally sensitive properties. Evaluate whether agreement/mous were reached. 19

38 Goal 5: Integration and Connectivity Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes for people and freight, and housing, particularly affordable housing located close to transit. Objective 1: Obtain a balance between transportation and land use by promoting the land use plans adopted sustainability and livability principles, goals, and objectives. Identify corridors and nodes that are prime locations for infill development, densification, or transit-oriented development. STANDARD Increase the use of multi-modal transportation by providing additional transit service and reducing bicycle/pedestrian network gaps. Promote transportation improvements that support access to employment centers, especially those that provide a mix of employment opportunities (e.g. jobs and income levels). Objective 2: Map the current street system to reflect the appropriate functional classification based on adjacent activities, characteristics of the street, and type (urban/rural). STANDARD Include the jurisdiction and the axle load limits and freight restrictions of the roadway in this system mapping. Identify prime corridors for the placement of industrial uses that are adjacent to major freight operations and truck routes, which have adequate facilities for efficient freight and goods movement, and route truck traffic away from incompatible areas. 20

39 Objective 3: Define a proper mix of local, collector, and arterial streets according to land use and network continuity. Maintain the metro functional classification hierarchy to reflect FHWA guidelines for mileage by classification and to reflect the regional definitions established as part of the planning process. STANDARD Support access management guidelines that apply the appropriate roadway spacing and access points for each type of functionally classified roadway. Document that new roads are consistent with established functional classification guidelines set by the FHWA. Evaluate the future connection and/or expansion of roadways through the preservation of right-of-way. Goal 5: Performance Measures And Monitoring Activities Performance Measures Performance Targets Daily vehicle miles traveled By 2040, reduce daily vehicle miles traveled per capita by 10 percent below 2010 levels. A reduction of approximately 2,885 daily vehicle miles traveled is needed every year. Action Initiatives Maintain a functional classification system that identifies the proper adjacent land uses, access control, traffic signal spacing and truck routes. Assess land use plans to examine how they affect transportation. Monitoring Activities Annually Measure the amount of new streets and lane miles added within the region by functional classification. Track growth corridors through building permits and platting activities. 21

40 Track land development patterns and map potential compact developments that may be supported by multimodal transportation. Review all development proposals. Every 5 Years Collaborate with local agencies to track the outward expansion of development through statistical and visual means. Assist in the update in land use plan. 22

41 Goal 6: Efficient System Management Promote efficient system management and operation by increasing collaboration among federal, state, local government to better target investments and improve accountability. Objective 1: Encourage public-private partnerships (P3) and other applicable innovative financing alternatives. Incorporate public /private partnerships and other innovative funding sources into appropriate projects funding plan. STANDARD Track funding sources and financing tools that could be used to fund local transportation projects. Evaluate a cost sharing model to implement projects that directly benefit private entities. Support methods of assessing developers for the costs of street and highway improvements associated with new developments. Objective 2: Consider all local partners in the transportation planning process. Coordinate projects with economic development, transit providers, housing providers, workforce, and other agencies whose clients impact the transportation network. STANDARD Invite nontraditional partners to be a part of the transportation planning process. Support agreements necessary (e.g., MOUs, cost sharing, service contracts, etc.) to facilitate regional traffic management strategies. Incorporate environmental stewardship considerations and environmental agency coordination into the planning and implementation of transportation improvements. Collaborate with local and state agencies in setting performance measures and targets for urban and rural areas. 23

42 Objective 3: Cooperate across jurisdictional boundaries to create a seamless transportation network. Establish multijurisdictional protocols for special events (e.g., events and parades). Encourage region-wide coordination among traffic, emergency, and maintenance agencies (e.g., police, fire, DOTs, and public works). STANDARD Identify corridors experiencing congestion; schedule and fund appropriate measures to relieve congestion. Continue development and maintenance of a regional traffic demand model to forecast future corridors levels of service. Member jurisdictions should continue to participate in the GF/EGF MPO s transportation planning activities. Objective 4: Recognize the relationship between planning and financing for future transportation programs. STANDARD Explore innovative financing methods for the construction and maintenance of transportation facilities in the annual transportation budgeting process. Evaluate the cost of all types of roadway projects as they pertain to inflation. Adjust future project costs to incorporate average inflation for the projected year of expenditure. Objective 5: Maintain and update the regional ITS architecture. Investigate the applicability of Active Transportation Demand Management techniques using existing and/or new ITS infrastructure. STANDARD Develop coordinated signal timings between jurisdictions and along new corridors. Support ITS infrastructure that can record travel times, traffic volumes, turning movements, and other various data points. Evaluate monitoring systems as part of transportation facilities, such as bridges that monitor fatigue, tampering, or failure. 24

43 Goal 6: Performance Measures and Monitoring Activities Performance Measures Comparison of programmed dollar amounts to actual obligated dollar amounts. Public Participation Plan - attendance at meetings, prior notice, key points of decision. Performance Targets Have no greater than 25 percent variance when comparing programmed dollar amounts to the actual obligated dollar amounts for projects listed in the GF/EGF MPO TIP. Increase the effectiveness of the GF/EGF MPO Public Participation Plan in informing, education and engaging the public in transportation decisions. Action Initiatives None Monitoring Activities Annually Compare the actual project expenditures to the amounts programed in the local and state investment plans (e.g., CIPs and STIPs). These comparisons should assist in determining whether cost adjustments may be appropriate in the annual listing of obligations identified in the TIP. Evaluate the cost sharing opportunities for transportation projects. Conduct a customer satisfaction survey through various means of outreach (e.g., online, mailings and open houses). This activity should be done on an annual or bi-annual basis. Compare annually the amount of obligated funds to actual expenditures for projects listed in the GF/EGF MPO TIP. Update financial plan in TIP. Evaluate TIP to examine whether it was approved and adopted. Every 5 Years Evaluate the GF/EGF MPO s Public Participation Plan and its effectiveness under federal and state guidelines to engage community members and stakeholders from various groups. Evaluate the Long Range Transportation Plan for its effectiveness in public-private partnerships. Evaluate the Financial Planning Forecast in the LRTP. 25

44 Goal 7: System Preservation Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system by first targeting federal funds towards existing infrastructure to spur revitalization, promote urban landscapes and protect rural landscapes. Objective 1: Identify sufficient funding for each proposed improvement included in the GF/EGF MPO plans. Inform project finance planning and fiscal constraints by identifying all available funding amounts and their sources. STANDARD Identify funding that can be used for operations, maintenance, and facility construction. Document funding used for State of Good Repair projects and document whether a State of Good Repair for the federal transportation system can be currently maintained. Objective 2: Identify likelihood of project funding; higher likelihood should be associated with near-term projects. STANDARD Increased likelihood of funding, corresponding to the timing of projects. Provide technical assistance to local jurisdictions in applying for state and federal funding programs. Objective 3: Improve the cost-effectiveness of maintenance and preservation of the existing pavement. Develop a life-cycle cost analysis of pavement type done for projects with cost estimates over $2,500,000. Investigate new pavement technologies and their applicability to roadways in the region. STANDARD Monitor pavement surface conditions and schedule timely investments. Schedule preventative maintenance and overlays before roadway surfaces are deteriorated. Develop a needs-based prioritization matrix that allows multiple projects to be compared to one another based on objective and measureable criteria. Prioritize TIP projects, favoring the improvement of the existing transportation network, as opposed to construction of new infrastructure. 26

45 Objective 4: Preserve, maintain, and improve the existing street and highway system. Create a congestion management process that seeks to add efficiency to the existing transportation network, rather than adding capacity. Coordinate pavement management systems to track pavement characteristics including condition. STANDARD Maintain pavement, signal systems, signage, striping and other features of the transportation system to a level that permits traffic operations. Prioritize road rehabilitation and reconstruction projects based upon the aforementioned pavement management system. Reduce the system mileage that falls below the NDDOT and MnDOT minimum thresholds for ride quality and condition. Strive for a state of good repair by ensuring maintenance funding is available before new facilities are constructed. Goal 7: Performance Measures and Monitoring Activities Performance Measures Performance Targets Condition of pavement. Reduce percentage of pavements rated in poor condition. Condition of bridges and bridge decks. 85 percent of bridges rated as good and satisfactory. Dollars of discretionary funds secured. Increase the number of dollars of discretionary funds secured by the GF/EGF area. Amount of federal funds towards existing infrastructure. Track percentage of federal funds programmed towards existing infrastructure. Action Initiatives Update the Pavement Management Systems for the metro area so it can be utilized to guide decisions on which type of pavement work makes best use of funds available to ensure state of good repair and reduce yearly average maintenance costs by evaluating the effectiveness and cost-benefit of preservation and maintenance projects. Incorporate and evaluate bridge inspection reports into biennial performance reports. 27

46 Monitoring Activities Annually Track the number ride-quality deficient roadway miles and distress deficient roadway miles in the GF/EGF region and compare to overall Grand Forks County, Polk County, MnDOT and NDDOT system. Perform a life-cycle cost analysis of pavements used in order to determine the best use of pavement materials. Perform a cost-benefit analysis for pavement rehabilitation versus roadway reconstruction for applicable projects. Track the percentage of federal funds programs that is put toward existing and new infrastructure. Every 2 Years Review bridge inspection report. Every 5 Years Update pavement system for metro area. 28

47 Goal 8: Safety Increase safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized uses. Objective 1: Reduce the number, severity, and rate of crashes compared to previous years by type of vehicle and transportation facility. Identify high-incident crash locations by transportation facility (intersections, road segment, bicycle/pedestrian facility, and bicycle/pedestrian vehicle conflict point). Track high-incident locations logging the number, type, and severity of crashes. STANDARD Comprise a list of intersection treatments that are applicable in reducing incidents, listing them by their applicability to certain scenarios including engineering, education, and enforcement solutions. Support policies that prohibit/penalize distracted driving. Identify funding availability to increase the safety of the roadway system. Coordinate with local, county, and state agencies (4Es) to develop education, public health, engineering, and enforcement strategies targeted at crash reduction. Objective 2: Identify and incorporate NDDOT and MnDOT Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) and local safety plans into GF/EGF MPO plans. STANDARD Recommended street and highway improvements should not conflict with the SHSPs of North Dakota and Minnesota. Coordinate efforts with local emergency/security/hazardous materials groups. 29

48 Goal 8: Performance Measures and Monitoring Activities Performance Measures Number of traffic fatalities and serious crashes Performance Targets Target zero traffic fatalities by the year Reduce intersection crash frequency, with a focus on severe crashes, for all nodes with significant commuter and freight traffic volumes, and compare to critical crash rates. Action Initiatives Participate in State and County Level Strategic Highway Safety Plans. Conduct travel training as needed. Monitoring Activities Annually Evaluate intersection crash frequency for all nodes with significant commuter and freight traffic volumes, and compare to critical crash rates. Evaluate crash severities. Review crash data. Identify vehicle crash locations that would benefit from changes in traffic or pedestrian signal operations, raised medians, street lights, and signage. Evaluate Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) priorities and their effectiveness in addressing GF/EGF MPO safety needs. Report the number of times travel training programs were conducted. Every 5 Years Evaluate Transportation improvement Programs (TIP)/State LRTP projects to determine their effectiveness in achieving safer roadway system. Review both states strategic highway safety plan to provide guidance for determining future TIP safety projects. 30

49 Chapter 2. Existing Conditions & Special Studies This chapter documents the current street and highway system conditions, operations and needs. In order to plan for the long-term needs of the metropolitan area s streets and highway system, it is vital to first have a good understanding of the current system. This chapter reviews various elements of the current street and highway system, as well as presents the findings from special studies including: Roadway System and Functional Classification Roadway Geometrics Pavement Conditions Traffic Volumes Traffic Operations/Congestion Safety Analysis/Crash Analysis Connecting Land Uses with Transportation Facilities Special Studies o o o o o Freight Origin-Destination Carbon Footprinting Signals University Avenue Roadway System & Functional Classification Jurisdiction Roadways within in the metropolitan area are administered according to their jurisdictional classification. The jurisdiction of roadways is an important component of the Plan, because it defines the regulatory, maintenance, construction, and financial obligations of each governmental unit. The metropolitan area is comprised of six roadway jurisdictions: o City of Grand Forks(City Streets) o City of East Grand Forks (City Streets) o Polk County (County Roads) o Grand Forks County (County Roads) o Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) (Interstates and State Highways) o North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) (Interstates and State Highways) 31

50 Jurisdictional classification is intended to document these responsibilities and obligations among state, county and municipal agencies. The hierarchy of jurisdictional classification is established so that higher volume regional corridors are managed by the State DOTs (e.g., interstates and trunk highways), while intermediate volume corridors (e.g., CSAHs, county roads and local roads) that carry more localized traffic are maintained by the county and local municipalities (see Figure 2). Table 2 provides a summary of the roadway mileage in the metropolitan area by roadway jurisdiction: Table 2: Roadway Jurisdiction by Mileage Jurisdiction State County Township City Total North Dakota Minnesota MPO Study Area Source: GF/EGF MPO 2013 Functional Classification The existing metropolitan street and highway system was categorized into a functional hierarchy based on the type of facility, facility ownership, and the role the facility serves in the local, regional and national transportation system. Within the study area, the GF/EGF MPO has grouped streets and roadways into six general functional categories: Interstate Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Urban Collector Rural Collector Local A general description of this classification system is included in Table 3. The table provides the differentiations of functions and characteristics among the various functional classes in the metro area. The current functional classification of the street and highway network in the GF/EGF MPO is displayed in Figure 3. The functional classification was established by the GF/EGF MPO in accordance with State DOT policies and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The facility mileage by jurisdiction is documented in Table 4. 32

51 Figure 2: Roadways by Jurisdiction Source: GF/EGF MPO

52 Table 3: Urban Functional Classification System Design Criteria Criteria Interstate Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Urban Collector Local Trip-Making Service Performed Connects Grand Forks - East Grand Forks to other regions. Connects Grand Forks -East Grand Forks and other regions within sub-areas of the region. Connects activity centers within the metropolitan area. Connects neighborhood and commercial areas to arterials; offers subarea mobility. Provides mobility within neighborho ods and subareas. Mobility / Access Approximate Daily Traffic (VPD) Highest traffic mobility; no direct land access. 10,000+ Mobility is emphasized; limited land access. 15,000 to 30,000+ Medium traffic mobility; medium land access. 5,000 to 10,000+ Limited traffic mobility; high land access. Most limited traffic mobility; highest land access 1,000 to 8,000 < 1,000 Approximate Spacing (Miles) N/A 1 to 2, less in Central Business District (CBD) Vito Mess in CBD 1/2 or less As needed Typical Speed Limit (MPH) Minimum Right-of-Way Linkage to Regional Roadways 65 to to to to Feet 150 to 200 Feet Serve as inter regional roadways Yes, often serve as regional roadways 100 to 150 Feet 80 to 100 Feet 60 to 100 Feet Sometimes Rarely No Parking Prohibited Prohibited Generally prohibited Limited Permitted Traffic Management Tools Interchange spacing; no direct land access Signal timing, land access spacing, junction control Signal timing, land access spacing, junction control Geometry, number of lanes, access spacing Discontinuit y, stop signs, etc. Level of Continuity Continuous Semi-continuous Semicontinuous Usually not continuous Discontinuo us Source: SRF

53 Figure 3: Existing 2012 Street and Highway Functional Classification Source: GF/EGF MPO

54 GF/EGF MPO Totals by State North Dakota - side Minnesota - side Table 4: GF/EGF MPO System Mileage by Functional Classification Miles by Facility Type Interstate Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Major Collector Local All Roads Total Miles Source: GF/EGF MPO 2013 Guidelines have been established by the FHWA for appropriate mix of functional classifications for a street and highway system within an urban area. Table 5 presents these federal guidelines and compares them to the functional classification mileage totals for the metropolitan area. Table 5: Functional System Summary Compared to FHWA Guidelines Facility Type Percentage of Total System Miles Metro Area FHWA Urban Guidance Principal Arterials (including interstates) 11% 5 to 10% Principal Arterials plus Minor Arterials 18% 15 to 25% Collectors 18% 5 to 10% Local Streets 61% 65 to 80% Sources: GF/EGF MPO 2013 & Guidance to the 1989 FHWA Functional Classification Guidelines. As shown in Table 5 the overall ratios of mileage by functional classification are in line with the suggested guidance from the FHWA, with the exception of collectors and local streets. It should be noted that the percentages presented for Grand Forks East Grand Forks metropolitan area are sensitive to where the boundary between urban and rural is established. All of the street and highway segments illustrated in Figure 3 are within the GF/EGF MPO boundary and are included in the Table 5 calculations. Review of the data in Table 5 indicates that the metropolitan area currently has an appropriate functional mix of streets to offer a balanced level of access and mobility across the community. FHWA released an updated version of its Functional Classification Guidelines in November This updated version re-vamps significantly the Guidelines and the GF/EGF MPO will need to work with its partners to evaluate these new Guidelines and their impact on the above information. MnDOT has already indicated a statewide effort in 2014 to update functional classification and the GF/EGF MPO will participate. 36

55 National Highway System The roadway system is further classified as part of the National Highway System (NHS). The NHS was designated by Congress in 1995 to facilitate infrastructure improvement spending on transportation projects that were important to the Nation s economy and interstate commerce. As part of MAP-21, this definition was updated to include most principal arterials under the NHS designation. Persevering and maintaining the NHS system is a key part of MAP 21 s objectives. Figure 4 depicts the NHS system within the GF/EGF MPO metropolitan area. Roadway Geometrics The transportation system within the metro area was evaluated to determine the number of lane miles by roadway type. For example, the primary north-south and east-west corridors are typically four-lane divided or undivided facilities (e.g., Washington Ave., Columbia Road, 32 nd Ave. and Demers Ave.) and secondary routes (e.g., Cherry Street and 24 th Ave.) are typically two-lane facilities. A summary of the lane-miles by facility type are described in Table 6 and displayed in Figure 5. Roadway Type Source: GF/EGF MPO 2013 Table 6: Lane Miles North Dakota Minnesota GF/EGF MPO Study Area Four Lane All Others Total The study also reviewed existing GF/EGF MPO databases and collected additional information to determine lane configurations at key intersections. Key intersections were defined by GF/EGF MPO staff, and in all cases were the junction of two roadways functionally classified as collector, minor arterial, principal arterial or interstate ramp. The intersection lane geometry was collected to define the number of through lanes, left-turn and right-turn lanes. This intersection information was an important input in determining the capacity of the current roadway system and was incorporated into the regional travel demand model. Pavement Quality With new federal and state policies, MPO plans are required to give greater emphasis to preserving and maintaining existing transportation infrastructure. A large part of this focus is a result of aging pavements, rising costs of materials, and stagnant or declining funds. Importantly, the GF/EGF MPO s updated goals, objectives and performance measures emphasize the need to preserve and maintain existing transportation systems. 37

56 Figure 4: National Highway System Source: GF/EGF MPO

57 Figure 5: Lane Miles Source: GF/EGF MPO

58 The study s pavement analysis utilized data from pavement management software that is maintained by the GF/EGF MPO and local agencies. The different pavement conditions assigned to the roads fall into five categories and contain a rating system known as a Pavement Condition Index (PCI): Good condition Satisfactory condition Fair conditions. Poor condition Very poor condition The most recent pavement condition data available for the GF/EGF MPO metro area is for the year This assessment also looked at data available for 1999 and During the course of this time period, pavement conditions improved between 1999 and 2003 and then declined between 2003 and 2008 (see Table 7), however the weighted average PCI improved between 2003 and Table 7: GF/EGF MPO Pavement Trends Year Average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Weighted Average PCI City Grand Forks East Grand Forks Grand Forks East Grand Forks NA NA Source: GF/EGF MPO 2008 Note: The average is the sum of the PCI for all segments divided by the number of segments. The weighted average is calculated by multiplying each value by the weight that it holds, adding them up, and then dividing by the sum of the weights. The spike in improved pavement conditions after 1999 can be contributed to roadway investments after the major 1997 flood. However, if the decline in PCI continues (as it has between 2003 and 2008), significant policy decisions and alternatives investment allocations by state and local government leaders will need to be made to ensure that these roadways maintain a state of good repair. Table 8 summarizes the current pavement conditions (2008) for the GF/EGF MPO area and is depicted in Figure 6. 40

59 Table 8: GF/EGF MPO Pavement Conditions (2008) Pavement Condition GF/EGF MPO Area MN-side ND-side Local Roads State Roads Local Roads State Roads Local Roads State Roads Good 7% 25% 20% 32% 4% 23% Satisfactory 8% 17% 18% 11% 6% 18% Fair 4% 7% 3% 0% 4% 9% Poor 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 4% Very Poor 2% 13% 0% 0% 3% 16% No Data 5% 5% 9% 3% 4% 6% Source: GF/EGF MPO 2008 MAP-21 requires special consideration for the preservation of National Highway System. Based on the data presented in Table 8, it should be noted that 42 percent of the total state system is considered to be in good or satisfactory pavement conditions. It is also important to note that nearly 16 percent of the State DOT s pavement is considered to be in poor or very poor condition and when a roadway system falls into these categories, it is often too deteriorated for rehabilitation and requires a costly total reconstruction, while segments within the fair category can be rehabilitated at a lower cost. Therefore, it is important to maintain the number of miles in the good condition and to ensure mileage in the fair condition category do not drop into poor condition, which will necessitate greater taxpayer expenditures. 41

60 Figure 6: Pavement Conditions (2008) Source: GF/EGF MPO

61 Traffic Volumes The study area s current traffic volumes that are key datasets used in evaluating the metro area's existing transportation system conditions (see Figure 7). Average daily traffic (ADT) counts were made available from the GF/EGF MPO. The most recent available ADT data, collected in 2010, are presented in Figure 7. This data came from counts completed by the GF/EGF MPO, MnDOT and NDDOT. In addition to the daily traffic volumes, turning movement counts were collected by the GF/EGF MPO and utilized for 2013 signal timing improvements and in the regional travel demand model. These counts were collected in the spring of 2012 at key intersections across the metropolitan area. These intersections included: 1st St/2nd Ave 20th St/24th Ave 2nd St/Central 32nd Ave & 17th St 32nd Ave & 20th St 32nd Ave & 23rd St (Wal-Mart) 32nd Ave & 31st St 32nd Ave & 34th St 32nd Ave & 38th Street 32nd Ave & Columbia Rd 32nd Ave & I29 42nd St & 11th Ave 42nd St & 17th Ave 42nd St & 6th Ave 42nd St & DeMers Ave 42nd St & University Ave 4th St/2nd Ave 5th St/2nd Ave 5th St/University Ave Columbia Rd & 11th Ave Columbia Rd & 13th Ave Columbia Rd & 17th Ave Columbia Rd & 24th Ave Columbia Rd & 28th Ave Columbia Rd & 2nd Ave Columbia Rd & 6th Ave Columbia Rd & Demers Quad Rds Columbia Rd & University Ave DeMers Ave & 20th St DeMers Ave & 34th St DeMers Ave & Columbia Demers Ave 42nd Gateway Dr & 20th St Gateway Dr & 3rd St Gateway Dr & 42nd St Gateway Dr & 47th St Gateway Dr & 5th St Gateway Dr & Columbia Rd Gateway Dr & I29 Gateway Dr & REA Dr Gateway Dr & Stanford Rd Gateway Dr & Washington St Gateway/2nd St. Washington St & 13th Ave Washington St & 17th Ave Washington St & 24th Ave Washington St & 28th Ave Washington St & 2nd Ave Washington St & 32nd Ave Washington St & 5th Ave Washington St & Campbell Dr Washington St & DeMers Ave Washington St & University Ave Washington St/47th Ave 43

62 Figure 7: Existing Traffic Volumes Source: NDDOT

63 Traffic Operations/Congestion Knowledge of traffic volumes provided an understanding of the general nature of traffic, but was insufficient to describe / quantify the quality of service provided. For this reason, the concept of level of service (LOS) is used by the study to correlate numerical traffic volume data to subjective descriptions of traffic performance at intersections. LOS is a term used to qualitatively describe roadway and intersection traffic operations and levels of congestion. A graphical representation of traffic flow conditions for each LOS is displayed in Figure 8, and more detailed definitions of LOS, including the level of delay at intersections are provided in Table 9. Figure 8: Traffic Flow Characteristics by Level of Service Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board,

64 Level of Service Table 9: Definition of Level of Service for Intersections Average Intersection Delay per Vehicle (Seconds) Signalized Unsignalized Description A Free Flow, Insignificant Delays. Very little, if any, delay incurred at intersections (< 10 seconds per vehicle). Corridor travel speed is within 10% of the free-flow operating speed (travel speed without any outside influences controlling any one driver s decision on how fast to drive). B > 10 and 20 > 10 and 15 Stable Operation, Minimal Delays. Described as reasonably unimpeded operations. A driver s ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only minimally restricted by other vehicles. Operating speeds are within approximately 30 percent of the free-flow speed. Typical intersection delay is between 10 and 20 seconds per vehicle. C > 20 and 35 > 15 and 25 Stable Operation, Acceptable Delays. Operations with the corridor are stable; however, one driver s ability to maneuver between lanes or make a turn may be restricted due to the need to yield to other vehicles. Not all vehicles during every single cycle clear the intersection (cycle failures). The average delay per vehicle at a controlled intersection ranges from 20 to 35 seconds. D > 35 and 55 > 25 and 35 Restricted Flow, Regular Delays. Reflects the limits of stable flow, and a slight change in vehicle flow may result in substantial increases in delay. The average vehicle travel speed is approximately 40 percent of the estimated free-flow speed. Queues may develop, but dissipate rapidly without excessive delays. The average intersection delay per vehicle ranges from 35 to 55 seconds. E > 55 and 80 > 35 and 50 Maximum Capacity, Extended Delays. Volumes at or near the finite capacity. Vehicles may wait through several signal cycles. Long queues form upstream from intersection. Typical operating speeds in the corridor are less than 35 percent of the free-flow speed and intersection delay ranges from 55 to 80 seconds per vehicle. F > 80 > 50 Forced Flow, Excessive Delays. Represents jammed conditions. Intersection operates below capacity with low volumes. Queues may block upstream intersections. Source: 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board,

65 Traffic Operations/Congestion Approach An analysis of existing traffic operation was completed for the metro area in The primary objective of the existing traffic operations analysis was to determine how traffic currently operates within the study area and establish a baseline condition from which to evaluate future conditions. This two-staged approach presented the opportunity to identify corridor and/or intersection operational deficiencies. It is also important to note that the GF/EGF MPO has set a performance target of maintaining a LOS C on 90 percent or better of the signalized intersections throughout the metro, with the understanding that MnDOT sets a lower LOS D threshold for identifying deficiencies on its trunk highway system and GF/EGF MPO and NDDOT have agreed to LOS D threshold for a specific intersection (DeMers/Washington). Thus, for the purposes of this analysis a deficiency is defined as LOS D or worse. Intersections At signalized intersections, LOS is based on the weighted average of all approach delays. For unsignalized intersections, the LOS is based on the worst condition minor street movement delay (usually the left turn movements on the cross street). The PM peak hour intersection analyses were conducted using the Synchro software program, utilizing the methodologies found in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Traffic operations results are based on current (2012) traffic, the existing roadway network characteristics and traffic signal timing information. A total of 43 intersections were evaluated and this analysis determined that six intersections operated at LOS D or worse (see Figure 9): 17th Ave. & Columbia Rd. 32nd Ave. & Columbia Rd. 17th Ave. & Washington St. DeMers Ave. & Washington St. 32nd Ave. & Washington St. US Highway 2 & Central Ave. Based on this analysis, the GF/EGF MPO is slightly under (86 percent) their desired target of maintaining a LOC C on 90 percent or better of the signalized intersections throughout the metro area. Corridors/Segments The regional model prepared for the Street and Highway Plan identified the existing LOS for key roadway segments within the metro area. The regional model utilized roadway characteristics (e.g., number of lanes) and average daily traffic volumes 47

66 Figure 9: Existing Level of Service by Intersection Source: GF/EGF MPO

67 (2010) to determine LOS. This analysis identified four corridors experiencing LOS of D or higher (see Figure 10): Demers Ave at I-29 (LOS D+ west of I-29 and LOS D east of I-29) Columbia Road between 11 th Ave. S and Demers Ave. (LOS D+) Demers Avenue crossing the Red River (LOS D and LOS F) Gateway Dr. east bound onto 4 th St. NW (LOS F) 49

68 Figure 10: Existing Level of Service by Roadway Segments Source: GF/EGF MPO

69 Safety /Crash Analysis The existing traffic safety analysis in the Grand Forks - East Grand Forks metropolitan area was based on evaluation of the crash / accident records available from the NDDOT and MnDOT (see Figure 11). Summaries of crash records for the study area street system were obtained from NDDOT and MnDOT for the three year period from January 1, 2009 to December 31, For the intersection-based crash assessment, a detailed analysis was completed at the 43 intersections in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks that experienced 10 or more crashes during the three-year analysis period. The crash rate was reported as the number of crashes per million entering vehicles at the intersection. The average crash rate for the 43 intersections was approximately 0.9 crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV), and was consistent between Grand Forks and East Grand Forks. For the segment-based crash assessment on the Minnesota side, the crash rate was reported as the estimated number of crashes per million VMT along each segment. Segment crash data was calculated for 13 segments along state routes in East Grand Forks. The average crash rate for state routes was 1.05 crashes per million VMT. Due to the format of the North Dakota data, segment-based analyses were not possible. Identifying the intersections and segments with the most crashes is the most straightforward approach to determining the location of safety needs. As noted above, there were 43 intersections in the Grand Forks- East Grand Forks study area with 10 crashes or more during the studied three-year period. These intersections and crash locations are identified in Figure 11. Therefore, a statistical crash rate analysis was completed to determine if the crashes are related to a geometric issue or due to the random nature of crashes. To identify the significance of the crashes, MnDOT has developed a methodology to identify intersections and segments that exhibit a statistically higher crash rate. The critical crash rate is defined as a statistically adjusted crash rate to account for the random nature of crashes. If the actual crash rate is above the critical crash rate, the crashes can be considered related to a geometric design or traffic control issues. If it is below the critical crash rate, the crashes can be considered to have occurred randomly. This methodology and analysis was completed for the entire metro area. There were no intersections or segments in the metro area, which were identified to have crash rates that exceed the critical crash rate. Therefore, a second level of crash evaluation was completed for locations with crash rates that were higher than the expected rate, to analyze both the type and severity of crashes. MnDOT s expected crash rate is an average crash rate based on similar intersections that experience the same type of traffic volumes and speeds. Based on this methodology, an expected crash rate is derived for that type of intersection. In this case, the crash analysis determined eight intersections had a crash rate that exceeded the expected crash rate. Table 10 summarizes the types of crashes occurring at each location. 51

70 Figure 11: Intersection Crash Locations Source: SRF

71 Based on the data summarized and presented in Table 10, two types of crashes are most prevalent in the metro area: Angle or Turn Crashes: All eight intersections with crash rates greater than the expected rate experienced angle or turn crashes at significantly higher rates than the average for all study-area intersections. Angle or turn crashes accounted for approximately 45 percent of the crashes at these intersections. Rear End Crashes: Rear end crashes accounted for approximately 43 percent of the crashes at the eight intersections with crash rates greater than the expected crash rate. The severity of crashes for the intersections with a crash rate greater than the expected rate is documented in Table 11. The crash severity evaluation for the intersections and segments is summarized in the bullets below. There was one fatality at the intersections with a crash rate greater than expected during the analysis period. 14 percent of the crashes at the eight intersections with crash rates greater than expected involved a fatality or an injury. 11 percent of the crashes at the 43 intersections with 10 or more crashes involved a fatality or an injury. none of the eight intersections have an actual crash rate above the critical crash rate, which means the crashes can be considered to have occurred randomly and not related to a geometric design nor traffic control issues. 53

72 Table 10: Crash Type at Key Intersections Intersection Crash Type Angle/Turn Rear End Head On Single Vehicle Side Swipe Other 17 th Avenue and Columbia Road 24 th Avenue and Columbia Road 20 th Street and 32 nd Avenue 31 st Street and 32 nd Avenue 34 th Street and 32 nd Avenue 5 th Street N and Demers Avenue 5 th Street N and University Avenue US Highway 2 and Central Avenue Source: NDDOT

73 Table 11: Severity of Crashes at Key Intersections Intersection Actual Crash Rate Expected Crash Rate Critical Crash Rate Total Crashes Fatal Crashes Injury Crashes 17 th Avenue and Columbia Road 24 th Avenue and Columbia Road 20 th Street and 32 nd Avenue 31 st Street and 32 nd Avenue 34 th Street and 32 nd Avenue 5 th Street N and Demers Avenue 5 th Street N and University Avenue US Highway 2 and Central Avenue Source: SRF

74 Connecting Land Uses with Transportation Facilities An understanding of the connection between the transportation system and the land uses in the GF/EGF MPO is important, because the travel demands on the regional street and highway system are tightly linked to the region's land uses and development patterns. In some respect, the metro area s transportation network has shaped the land use patterns seen today and vice versa. For example, a large portion of the region s commercial and industrial uses are anchored along the major transportation corridors (e.g., US 2 and I-29), including the railroad lines. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Demographic and economic background of the metropolitan area can provide an overall understanding of the community, while at the same time this data can be used as an indicator or predictor of travel behavior. DEMOGRAPHICS Forecasts of growth in population, households and employment are translated into future travel patterns and provide the basis for developing the 2040 LRTP for the Grand Forks East Grand Forks metropolitan area. By studying the population, housing, and employment, future travel needs can be determined and a plan for an efficient transportation system can be developed. POPULATION INCREASE The GF/EGF MPO conducts population estimates and forecasts for both cities. Population estimates are derived from a combination of data from the census, building permits, and the board of realtors. Between the 2000 and 2010 Censuses, the GF/EGF MPO s population estimates show a metropolitan increase of 5,684 persons during the period of 2000 through Population forecasts predict future growth rates based on current and historical trends. The GF/EGFMPO and both City Councils have adopted a 1.2% annual growth rate for planning purposes and forecasts. Table 12 demonstrates the city and metropolitan population forecasts through Table 12: GF/EGF MPO Population Forecasts Year City Grand Forks 52,875 59,179 66,280 74,234 East Grand Forks 8,601 9,522 10,728 12,088 Metropolitan Area 61,476 68,701 77,008 86,322 Source: GF/EGF MPO

75 LAND USES The Grand Forks 2040 Land Use Plan differs from previous plans completed in Grand Forks in that it emphasizes implementation and takes a proactive approach to managing growth both in the City and in its Growth Management Area. Much of Grand Forks new development will occur in the Growth Management Area. The future land use map is focused on the city s Growth Management Area, which is the area outside the city limits, but within the four-mile zoning jurisdiction. Growth Management identifies a three level tier system for managing timing and sequencing of growth for Grand Forks. Future land uses have been identified for all three tiers of the City s Growth Management Area. Specific uses and locations have been identified for Tier 1, where more immediate growth is anticipated, and Tier 2, which is not anticipated to develop for another 25 years. Tier 3 is identified broadly as an agricultural zone, an area where no urban development is expected within the planning period. Tier 2 future land uses have been identified to provide a broad brush approach for the city and its residents. Although Tier 2 is not anticipated for immediate development, it is important for the community to establish a vision for this area s eventual land uses and their most appropriate location. Should there be a need to expand Tier 1 to accommodate increased development, the map provides a land use guide for determining where expansion might be appropriate for particular land uses. Figure 12 shows the Grand Forks future land use plan map. The East Grand Forks 2040 Land Use Plan carries forward a similar Growth Management philosophy, but with one major difference. The flood protection system in the City has provided the growth boundaries for the future, so a tier system is not necessary. The City promotes growth within city limits, where municipal services are available. The City thus preserves an urban expansion area located inside the flood protection system for future urban development. Figure 12 shows the East Grand Forks future land use plan map. East Grand Forks includes a future land designation known as the Urban Expansion Reserve (UER). This is an area the City has identified as being a location that future growth could occur but not likely within the planning horizon. This area is included within the City s flood protection system. So the development is intended someday, but well beyond

76 Figure 12: Future Land Use Plan Source: GF/EGF MPO

77 LAND DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS The preliminary 2040 traffic forecasts rely on the 2040 development concept as an input. The 2040 development concept, based on the land use plans and the population growth documented above for Grand Forks and East Grand Forks, was reviewed by the GF/EGF MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and was presented to both planning commissions for comment. Whereas the Land Use Plans for each community documents city-wide anticipated population growth and future land uses, the development concept provides a projected number of new jobs and households by location (at the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) level). As documented in Table 13 the development concept for the region assumes that housing units and persons employed will increase by approximately 30 to 35 percent between today and Table 13: Study Area Housing And Employment Summary 2010 and 2040 Year Housing Units Employment ,871 38, ,714 50,783 Growth (2010 to 2040) 9,843 12,412 Percentage Growth 35% 32% Source: GF/EGF MPO Travel Demand Model Figures illustrate the level of housing unit growth by TAZ in year 2025 and 2040, and Figures the level of employment growth by TAZ in year 2025 and To further understand the land use patterns within the region, the Plan examined planned growth patterns for the City of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks (see Figures 13-16). A greater understanding of the Cities land uses and transportation systems provide additional insight on the location of major trip generators, economic growth centers and housing density. Further, the travel demand model integrated land use information from each City s future land development plans. With this future growth, the model calculated the future traffic forecasts. Thus, the model is developed and has been maintained by the GF/EGF MPO as a tool capable of evaluating the interaction between the region s land uses (the locations and amounts of housing and employment) and its roadway system. Within the model, traffic volumes are assigned and associated with the city s growth areas. This effort helps ensure the 59

78 street and Highway Plan is consistent with future growth projections and the city s land use plans. 60

79 Figure 13: 2025 Housing Growth Source: GF/EGF MPO

80 Figure 14: 2040 Housing Growth Source: GF/EGF MPO

81 Figure 15: 2025 Employment Growth Source: GF/EGF MPO

82 Figure 16: 2040 Employment Growth Source: GF/EGF MPO

83 Special Studies During the early stages of the planning process, four special studies were conducted to help inform the Range of Alternatives chapter. The Street and Highway Plan analyzed freight movement, documented travel patterns by conducting an origin-destination study, prepared a carbon footprinting analysis to determine transportation impacts on the environment, completed a signal system analysis and recommendations, and an analysis of University Avenue. These studies are summarized in this chapter and are also intended to help supplement the existing conditions analysis. Freight Movement Freight and commodities are moved internationally and regionally thru the GF/EGF MPO area via highway, rail, pipeline, and air. The focus of this analysis was to identify those modes that most affect the metro area s streets and highway system. Thus, this section evaluated truck and rail freight movements, connectivity, safety needs and issues and opportunities. The findings from this analysis identified strategies and improvement projects, which were then considered in the Range of Alternatives process. Additionally, the freight information will inform each State DOT s freight planning process as required by MAP-21. In the meantime, the GF/EGF MPO recognized the goals that have been established under the National Freight Policy: Improving the contribution of the freight transportation system to economic efficiency, productivity, and competitiveness. Reducing congestion on the freight transportation system. Improving the safety, security, and resilience of the freight transportation system. Improving the state of good repair of the freight transportation system. Using advanced technology, performance management, innovation, competition, and accountability in operating and maintaining the freight transportation system. Reducing adverse environmental and community impacts of the freight transportation system. The GF/EGF MPO embraced these goals as part of its Plan s development and will continue to collaborate and coordinate with the freight community during the Street and Highway Plan s implementation program. The GF/EGF MPO will also work with local, state and national agencies to ensure future state freight plans are integrated accordingly into the GF/EGF MPO area s planning process. Transporting Goods Millions of truck miles are logged each day with deliveries to all areas of the country. The movement of goods and services has been impacted in recent years by high fuel costs and the economic downturn. According to preliminary estimates from FHWA s Freight 65

84 Analysis Framework, freight tonnage decreased by 2.4 percent in 2008 and an additional 11.1 percent in 2009, after years of growth. However, early indications suggest that tonnage has started to rebound in 2010, with an increase of 4.6 percent over 2009 levels. 1 Regardless of nationwide trends, trucks continue to dominate the freight transportation industry in North Dakota and Minnesota. In 2010, trucks carried 55 percent of the goods transported over land in North Dakota. These trucks carried 85.1 million tons of goods valued at $40.9 billion (See Table 14). The weight of goods carried by trucks in North Dakota is projected to increase 252 percent, from 85.1 to 214 million tons, by the year The value of goods carried by trucks is projected to increase 256 percent, from $40.9 to $104.8 billion, by the year 2040 (See Table 15). Table 14: 2010 Freight Movement in North Dakota Mode Tons Percent Value Percent Truck 85, % 40, % Rail 18, % 11, % Air (includes truck-air) % % Multiple modes & mail 1, % 2, % Pipeline 20, % 14, % Other and unknown 28, % 2, % Total: 153, % 70, % Note: Tons expressed in thousands and value expressed in millions. Source: Freight Analysis Framework Data Tabulation Tool Version 3 (July 11, 2012) Table 15: 2040 Estimated Freight Movement in North Dakota Mode Tons Percent Value Percent Truck 214, % 104, % Rail 108, % 31, % Air (includes truck-air) Multiple modes & mail % % 3, % 4, % Pipeline 67, % 23, % Other and unknown 16, % 3, % Total: 409, % 167, % Note: Tons expressed in thousands and value expressed in millions. Source: Freight Analysis Framework Data Tabulation Tool Version 3 (July 11, 2012) 1 Freight Facts and Figures 2010, Federal Highway Administrations Office of Freight Management and Operations 66

85 In 2010, trucks carried 62 percent of the goods transported over land in Minnesota. These trucks carried million tons of goods valued at $226.5 billion (See Table 16). The weight of goods carried by trucks in Minnesota is projected to increase 185 percent, from to million tons, by the year The value of goods carried by trucks is projected to increase 190 percent, from $226.5 to $429.8 billion, by the year 2040 (See Table 17). Table 16: 2010 Freight Movement in Minnesota Mode Tons Percent Value Percent Truck 300, % 226, % Rail 73, % 18, % Water 20, % 3, % Air (includes truck-air) % 2, % Multiple modes & mail 32, % 55, % Pipeline 51, % 21, % Other and unknown 3, % 5, % Total: 481, % 334, % Note: Tons expressed in thousands and value expressed in millions. Source: Freight Analysis Framework Data Tabulation Tool Version 3 (July 11, 2012) Table 17: 2040 Estimated Freight Movement in Minnesota Mode Tons Percent Value Percent Truck 555, % 429, % Rail 145, % 35, % Water 39, % 6, % Air (includes truck-air) % 18, % Multiple modes & mail 39, % 250, % Pipeline 71, % 26, % Other and unknown 8, % 11, % Total: 860, % 780, % Note: Tons expressed in thousands and value expressed in millions. Source: Freight Analysis Framework Data Tabulation Tool Version 3 (July 11, 2012) In essence, these numbers demonstrate the vast scale of freight needs within North Dakota and Minnesota. More importantly, the demand for freight transportation is expected to grow beyond Planning for a quality transportation infrastructure is necessary for the movement of freight, and is a key component in maintaining the region s economic success and competiveness. 67

86 The GF/EGF MPO is the crossroads of a number of key freight flows via numerous modes. Therefore, the Street and Highway Plan s goals, objectives, standards, and performance measures address freight components. Interregional Truck Movement and the Metro Area The major intermodal freight corridors that bisect the Grand Forks East Grand Forks metro area include I-29, US 2, US 81 and TH 220. Of these, US 2 and I-29 provide freight connectivity to regional and international markets. US 2 through East Grand Forks is also part of the designated national truck network and recognized as a Super Haul Expanded Envelope truck corridor by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Super Haul routes have the ability to move oversized and over-weight loads through the state. In developing Super-Haul Corridor Routes, MnDOT identified key characterizes for these routes. The criteria for designation Super-Haul Corridor includes roadways that can generally accommodate a loaded vehicle with a 16-foot height limit, a 16-foot width limit with an 8- foot wide axle, a 130-foot length limit, and a 235,000 lbs. weight limit 2. US 2 through Grand Forks can accommodate the same criteria but just is not labeled Super Haul Expanded Envelope truck corridor. The designation by MnDOT of US 2 as a super haul route is meant to ensure that future transportation decisions respect the special highway design required for the movement of such goods, and do not jeopardize the movement of over-sized and over-weight loads to and from the Duluth ports and across the state. For example, super haul routes should contain diamond interchanges which allow for easier movements for over-size loads when transferring from one roadway to another. In addition, whenever possible, no roundabouts should be constructed along the identified Super Haul Corridors. As noted earlier, Super Haul routes are used for MnDOT planning purposes. However, it is important to recognize that the intent of the Super Haul route and their design principals should be considered for the entire corridor as US 2 plays a pivotal freight connection for both states. US 2 connects western North Dakota energy development and the Duluth ports with the Grand Forks East Grand Forks metro area. This connection encourages economic activity all along the corridor, and especially in the GF/EGF MPO area. For example, this route is utilized by local industries, such as LM Wind Power to import parts via the St. Lawrence Seaway and Duluth. LM Wind Power assembles wind turbine blades and exports the final product to all parts of the nation. I-29 also serves as a key international freight corridor. It is designated as a NAFTA trade corridor, which carries freight from the Canadian border south to Kansas City, and to I-35, which continues south to the Mexican border. Truck activity in the Grand Forks East Grand Forks metro area has increased as a result of NAFTA, and numerous local industrial, 2 MnDOT Western Minnesota Regional Freight Study, September

87 agricultural processing, commercial, and wholesale trade businesses have located in the GF/EGF MPO area because of the proximity and access to I-29. As noted above, freight does not always originate or terminate in the GF/EGF MPO area. Therefore, it is important to recognize that the interstate system, and key federal/state highway networks link to, and extend beyond the GF/EGF MPOG area. These freight networks play an integral role in each state s economy and other major freight destinations across the nation, such as Texas, Louisiana and Washington (See Table 18). Thus, preserving the interstate and other NHS/principal arterials capacity for freight needs is in the best interest of the metro area. Table 18: Truck Freight Destinations for North Dakota and Minnesota North Dakota Tons Percent North Dakota 124,696 80% Minnesota 10,511 7% Texas 9,175 6% Illinois 7,973 5% Wisconsin 3,168 2% Total: 155, % Minnesota Tons Percent Minnesota 304,750 80% Wisconsin 30,363 8% Louisiana 19,745 5% Washington 15,391 4% Michigan 10,485 3% Total: 380, % Note: Tons expressed in thousands. Source: Freight Analysis Framework Data Tabulation Tool Version 3 (July 11, 2012) Metro Freight Community As presented earlier, providing an efficient truck freight system depends on effective linkages between regional and metro system, and freight generators. For instance, Grand Forks and East Grand Forks is home to a variety of major businesses and industries, including big box retailers, regional shopping centers, and manufacturing plants, which all generate and attract freight traffic. More importantly, the coordinated regional and metro systems must support a large agricultural industry that requires freight to move goods to processing plants, such as American Crystal Sugar and the North Dakota State Mill. Some of the region s largest freight users or shippers are highlighted in Figure 17 and listed below: American Crystal Sugar BNSF Britton Transport Karriers Inc. Keith Brown Trucking LM Wind Power North Dakota State Mill Porta Mix Con 69

88 Pro Transport Scott s Express Simplot Wherely Motors 70

89 Figure 17: Freight Community Source: GF/EGF MPO

90 Metro Truck Routes The movement of goods and services by truck is facilitated by designated truck routes within the metro area (See Figure 18). However, trucks routes are designated differently between the State of North Dakota and Minnesota. In Minnesota, truck routes include any road designated as a Municipal State Aid (MSA) route. In North Dakota, state law allows specific designations of truck routes. In Grand Forks these include: Gateway Drive, Demers Avenue, Washington, 32nd Avenue and Mill Road. Trucks also may travel on any road off the designated truck route only when they are at the intersection to the destination and then must travel the shortest possible route to the destination and follow the reverse route back to the intersection on the designated truck route. Grand Forks has also prohibited trucks over a certain weight from traveling on two bridge structures; for Columbia Road overpass the weight limit is 20,000 pounds gross weight and for the Point Bridge it is 40,000 pounds gross weight Truck Volumes Traffic volume data was obtained from NDDOT for Grand Forks and from the MnDOT for East Grand Forks. While passenger vehicle traffic counts are taken often in several places in the metro area, truck-specific counts are taken less often and in fewer places. Figure 19 presents truck traffic counts taken in Grand Forks by NDDOT in 2009 and in East Grand Forks by MnDOT in It is also important to recognize the number of truck trips that occur during the harvest season. For example, there are large volumes of trucks transporting beets to nearby production facilities. In 2012, these volumes were documented as part of turning movement counts collected for S. Washington. A total of 316 trucks were counted and of those trucks, 119 or 38 percent were beet trucks. This finding continues to demonstrate that large volumes of truck trips occur within the metropolitan area, and there is a significant amount of trucks during the harvest season. Truck Safety According to the US DOT, about 12 percent of all motor vehicle crashes in the United State involve a large truck. Trucks were involved in about two percent of all crashes in the metro area from 2009 to This is a two percent reduction from the total number of truck crashes that occurred from 2006 to Detailed truck crash data for the study area are shown in Table 19. Figure 20 shows the location of truck crashes in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks from The data indicated that Gateway Drive (US 2) is a truck corridor with a high number of truck crashes, especially at the intersections. For example, US 2 and Central Avenue was identified as an intersection that had a crash rate that exceeded the expected crash rate. This information helps set the basis for project prioritization when addressing freight needs. 72

91 Figure 18: Truck Routes Sources: GF/EGF MPO

92 Figure 19: Truck Traffic Counts Source: GF/EGF MPO

93 Table 19: Crashes by Truck Type & Severity, Grand Forks East Grand Forks ( ) Truck Type Total Double Axle Triple Axle or greater Tractor with 0-3 Trailers Unknown Heavy Truck Severity Total Death Injury Property Damage Only Source: GF/EGF MPO

94 Figure 20: Truck Crashes ( ) Source: GF/EGF MPO

95 Rail Lines The majority of tracks in the region are owned and operated by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). Approximately nine trains are scheduled to run through the metro area each day. Six trains utilize the main east-west rail line, two of which travel at night. Of the three daily trains traveling north-south, two utilize the 42nd Avenue rail line, one during the day and one at night. The other north-south train travels to and from the ND Mill. BNSF train trackage is depicted in Figure 21. American Crystal Sugars (ACS) site in East Grand Forks is also a high-end user, receiving one to ten railcar shipments of coal each day. Amtrak also operates its Empire Builder line on the BNSF lines, providing daily rail passenger service to Chicago and Seattle. Passenger ridership information for the Empire Builder Line has shown an increase between 2011 (241,546) and 2012 (257,471) by 6.6 percent 3. Minimizing the traffic delay at rail crossings is important, especially for truck freight movement in the metro area, as well as across the nation. For example, the FHWA reports that unexpected delays (by train blockages) can drive up the cost of freight transport by 50 to 250 percent, hindering the ability of a region s transportation system to effectively meet freight demands. The movement of various agricultural products, especially sugar beets, via trucks from field to processing or transshipment points can also be disrupted by train traffic. Balancing the movement of goods and service between multiple modes of transportation is a challenging task and requires the coordination and collaboration between both public and private sectors. Rail Crossings In terms of traffic operations, rail movement has a major impact on Grand Forks East Grand Forks region. There are 45 railroad crossings, 20 of which have crossing signs only; 9 crossings have signs and flashers; and, 16 have crossing signs, flashers and gates (see Figure 22). In 2010, the GF/EGF MPO investigated options to improve safety for at-grade highway rail crossings and to minimize the impacts of train horn noise throughout the community. The Quiet Zone Final Rule, issued by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in June 2005, offers an opportunity to accomplish this objective. The Rule specifies the procedures and actions necessary to establish a train whistle-free quiet zone for at-grade highway rail crossings. The quiet zone assessment for the metropolitan area analyzed four at-grade crossings in East Grand Forks and eleven crossing in Grand Forks. A recommended crossing improvement plan for each of the at-grade crossings was developed. The GF/EGF MPO and the cities continue to work towards implementing quiet zones throughout the metropolitan area. 3 Amtrak Ridership for FY 2012 (October May) 77

96 Figure 21: BNSF Train Trackage Source: GF/EGF MPO

97 Figure 22: Rail Crossings Source: GF/EGF MPO

98 Partnerships & Recent Freight Related Improvements Over the years, the GF/EGF MPO, as part of its planning process, has established partnerships with the freight community to address needs and issues. Coordinating and collaborating with the freight community has resulted in a number of freight-related transportation improvement projects being identified and implemented. Since the 2008 Street and Highway Plan update, the following freight improvements have been accomplished: 2009: Construction of an extended acceleration lane for northbound traffic from the Demers Avenue I-29 on ramp (this project was moved from the long range program to a TIP priority, in response to private sector concerns). 2010: Construction of 48th Street between 17th Avenue South and 32nd Avenue South. 2011: Installation of flashers and gates for rail crossing at Central Avenue near 1st Avenue Northwest in East Grand Forks. Emerging Issues As part of the Plan update, the freight community participated in a series of interviews and focus group meetings. From these discussions, specific metro freight issues, opportunities and needs were compiled and are presented below: Trucks experience difficulty at the intersection of Washington Street, Gateway Drive, and North 5th Street, in addition to crossing the railroad tracks. Trucks have a difficult time making their turns and clearing the intersection before the light turns yellow. According to the city ordinance, it is illegal to be in an intersection when the light is yellow. This conflicts with federal rules. Revisions to the city s ordinance should be considered. Freight issues are present in the downtown during harvest season. A southern bypass or a river crossing at Merrifield Road would be a preferred alternative over the northern bypass/truck reliever route identified in the 2035 Street and Highway Plan. Simplot does not have access to a rail line and uses Henningsen Cold Storage to receive shipments via rail. Simplot is currently working with BNSF to have the ability to ship by rail directly from Simplot or from their storage buildings. Truck delays and truck backups are experienced along Gateway Drive near Simplot. LM Wind Power transports wind turbine blades to two offsite storage facilities: Thompson Interchange, and near the Air Force Base at Emerado. 80

99 Oversize loads (wind turbine blades) are shipped on a regular basis from LM Wind Power. Products are transported to one of three places: 5-10% goes to Duluth via Highway 2; 20% go to Emerado via DeMers to County Road 5 to Highway 2; 70% go south on 48th Street to 32nd Avenue and either south on I-29 to customer or Thompson storage area. 80 percent of wheat shipments to the ND Mill are transported by truck within 100 miles of Grand Forks. Potential Freight Projects This list of issues provided guidance in developing solutions and prioritizing future transportation improvements. These freight needs have been added to those identified in the last Plan and by the 2009 Metro Freight Study. In that respect, the following projects (refer to Table 42 in Chapter 6 also) have been proposed as potential solutions to critical freight issues in the GF/EGF MPO area: Construction of a bridge crossing the Red River at Merrifield Road (2009 Street and Highway Plan: Mid-term). Construction of an I-29 interchange at Merrifield Road (2009 Street and Highway Plan: Mid-term). Construction of a grade separation for the BNSF rail crossing at Demers Avenue and 42nd Street (2009 Street and Highway Plan: Long-term). Construction of a north bypass/truck relief route (2009 Street and Highway Plan: Illustrative). Signal and intersection improvements to Washington Street, Gateway Drive and North 5th Street, at and near the railroad crossings (current Street and Highway Plan process). Construction of a south bypass/truck relief route (current Street and Highway Plan process). Extend 36th Street north to connect with a new street (20th Avenue North) and connect with 42nd Street (current Street and Highway Plan process). Implement recommendations from the Mill Spur Feasibility Study (August 2010): - Crossing Closures: 7th Avenue North, 6th Avenue North and public alley closed between University Avenue and 4th Avenue North - Implement active warning devices, gates and flashers - Median improvements - Landscaping and trail improvements 81

100 Origin-Destination As part of the Street and Highway Plan, an O/D study was conducted on the three major river crossings at the Kennedy Bridge (US 2), Sorlie Bridge (DeMers Avenue) and Point Bridge (Minnesota Ave.). A full report of this study can be found in Appendix B. The purpose of the Origin - Destination Study (O/D) was to gather vehicle travel pattern information in order to determine how people travel within, to/from and through the metro area. On Thursday, May 3, 2012, traffic in each direction was intercepted and drivers were interviewed to gather information regarding their trip origin-destination, purpose, frequency, vehicle occupancy and river crossing route choice. The survey was performed during the peak hours (7 to 9 a.m., 1 to 3 p.m. and 4 to 6 p.m.) of the day. A valid sample of over 2,000 drivers (more than 10 percent of all vehicles during the survey period) were interviewed with a margin of error less than +/- three percent at a 95 percent confidence level. Origin-Destination Survey Results Findings from the survey are displayed in Figures and documented in Appendix B. Key findings from the study include: Generally, less than 10 percent of the trips were external to external zone (i.e. through) trips, which did vary by location and direction. A vehicle license plate survey showed more North Dakota drivers use the Sorlie Bridge and more Minnesota drivers use the Kennedy and Point Bridges. The percentage of North Dakota and Minnesota drivers which was roughly the same for both States in 2001, has shifted in 2012 with more Minnesota drivers crossing the river. Most drivers who use the bridges to travel between the two States did so on a daily basis. The most repeat travel was recorded at the Point Bridge with 70 percent using the bridge at least once per day. The Kennedy and Sorlie Bridges had at least daily use at 61 percent and 51 percent, respectively. This reflects the importance of these bridges for intercity traffic circulation. General Trip purpose: - 35 percent home-based work trips - 5 percent non-home-based work trips - 10 percent school trips - 15 percent shopping trips - 35 percent other trips The majority of drivers using the bridges did so as part of a work trip. The Point Bridge had the largest percentage of work related trips at 52 percent. The Sorlie Bridge was similar with 47 percent followed by the Kennedy Bridge with 41 percent. Of the work trips that have an 82

101 Figure 23: Point Bridge West Bound Source: GF/EGF MPO Survey

102 Figure 24: Point Bridge East Bound Source: GF/EGF MPO Survey

103 Figure 25: Sorlie Bridge West Bound Source: GF/EGF MPO Survey

104 Figure 26: Sorlie Bridge East Bound Source: GF/EGF MPO

105 Figure 27: Kennedy Bridge West Bound Source: GF/EGF MPO Survey

106 Figure 28: Kennedy Bridge East Bound Source: GF/EGF MPO Survey

107 Carbon Footprinting The purpose of this analysis was to compare existing and future transportation decisions, to their potential impacts on the environment; specifically related to carbon emissions and energy use. The foundation for this analysis utilized the methodology used in the Green Grand Forks Plan and the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for the City of Grand Forks September 2008). Information gathered throughout this process helped guide, from an environmental perspective, the Street and Highway Plan s recommendations and range of alternatives. Defining Climate Change and Carbon Footprinting Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the greenhouse effect 4. The greenhouse effect is caused by an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which traps the sun s heat in the lower atmosphere, causing the surface to warm. GHG emissions are produced and released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. The largest contributor to GHG emissions in the U.S. is for transportation, electricity, and heating needs. The most common GHG emissions are carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and fluorinated gasses. 5 The transportation (e.g., boats, cars, trucks, airplanes and trains) sector accounts for 27 percent of GHG emissions. Furthermore, carbon footprinting is typically measured by the burning of fossil fuels in units of carbon dioxide. In essence, carbon footprinting is a means to determine the impact human activity has on the environment. Human activity is influenced by the built environment, which includes different types of settings. The built environment may include elements such as housing developments, transportation networks, schools, hospitals, and airports. A meaningful carbon footprint assessment evaluates each component to determine the human impact on the environment. This method provides an overall carbon footprint for the entire community. However, the Street and Highway Plan solely focuses on carbon footprinting for the transportation network. Therefore, findings from this study were meant to complement the City of Grand Forks and the University of North Dakota s efforts in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 4 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007: GHG Emissions: 89

108 Street and Highway Plan Carbon Footprint Measurement A pound of CO 2 emitted today by driving a car may still be in the atmosphere decades to hundreds of years from now. Therefore, measuring GHG associated with transportation systems is closely linked to CO 2. However, this level of assessment can be difficult to measure, considering data availability and scale. To evaluate the metropolitan area s carbon footprint from a transportation perspective, the Street and Highway Plan took a general approach by evaluating the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for passenger cars and light trucks. The Plan s methodology is documented in Appendix C. The assessment looked at 2006 and 2010 VMT data. VMT was extrapolated out to determine an estimate for GHG emissions (see Table 20). As a result, the assessment documented a reduction in VMT between 2006 and It is important to note that the reduction in VMT from this final year period may not equate to a long-term trend for the GF/EGF MPO area. This short-term trend may merely reflect a change in travel behavior during the economic downturn in 2008 and increase in fuel costs. Therefore, VMT should be continually monitored to determine if travel behaviors are changing within the region. Regardless, there was a reduction in VMT, which equated to a reduction in carbon emissions over the five year period. This reduction is quantified into measurable outcomes by using the Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Equivalent Calculator (see Table 21). For example, the reduction in VMT and CO 2 equated to the removal of 337 passenger vehicles from the transportation network. The end result was a reduction in the metropolitan area s carbon footprint from an environmental perspective. This information can serve as a benchmark for the area, during future analyses. Mitigating for Green House Gas Emissions A reduction in VMT and carbon emissions can also have positive outcomes from a financial and public health perspective. For instance, not taking the steps to reduce GHGs and mitigate the impacts of climate change can cost citizens money. For example, natural disasters (e.g., flooding) may inflate the cost of homeowner s insurance and increase the costs for damaged infrastructure (e.g., bridges and roads). This has been a local concern, as a result of early winter thaws that have caused major flooding along the Red River. As a result of more frequent floods, there has been a financial impact to the transportation system. Furthermore, the fluctuation in the annual freeze-thaw cycle also costs money in terms of increased street maintenance, such as potholes and crack repairs. The LRTP s Transit Plan also encourages non-motorized transportation modes, such as biking or walking instead of driving, which increases physical activity and improves air quality. These measures can reduce health care costs associated with chronic and respiratory diseases. 90

109 Year Table 20: Carbon Footprint for Vehicle Miles Traveled Total Vehicle-Miles Traveled by Year by Passenger Cars and Light Trucks 6 Average Miles of Travel per Gallon of Fuel Consumed 7 Gallons of Fuel Consumed by Year By Passenger Cars and Light Trucks ,428, ,244, , ,698, ,458, ,642 Difference - 4,270, ,099-1,895 Source: FHWA Highway Statistics For Urbanized Areas 2012 & 2006 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide or CO 2 Equivalent Equivalent Table 21: Carbon Footprint Equivalence Carbon Foot Print Reduction from a Decrease in VMT from Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Annual CO2 emissions from the number of passenger vehicles. -192,726 CO2 emissions from the number of gallons of gasoline consumed. -3,998 CO2 emissions from the number of barrels of oil consumed CO2 from the number of tanker truck's worth of gasoline CO2 emissions from burning of the number of railcars' worth of coal. Source: Based On EPAs Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies 6 Passenger cars and light trucks account for approximately 80% to 90% of vehicles on Grand Forks-East Grand Forks roads. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory for the City of Grand Forks, North Dakota, prepared by Dr. Gopal Bandyopadhyay (September 2008). 7 In 2007, the weighted average combined fuel economy of cars and light trucks combined was 20.4 miles per gallon (FHWA 2008) FHWA Highway Statistics for Urbanized Areas (2010) 9 FHWA Highway Statistics for Urbanized Areas (2006) 10 Indicators were based on EPAs Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Definitions for each indicator can be found at: 91

110 Signals Signal retiming was included as part of a larger project to update the Streets and Highway Plan for the GF/EGF MPO. This involved the development of 3 optimized signal timing plans for 44 arterial intersections in Grand Forks. The project was also the first retiming effort completed for Grand Forks after their 2012 implementation of a central signal management system. The results from the timing plan revealed a 25% reduction in total delay during A.M. peak period, a 1% reduction for the P.M. peak period, and no change for the Saturday peak period. (Appendix D) For this effort, the three highest traffic volume plans (weekday a.m. peak, weekday p.m. peak, and Saturday peak) were updated for each of the 44 project intersections. The corridors retimed as part of the project are 4-lane arterials ranging from low-speed urban to medium-speed suburban in setting. This effort will help address the level of service (LOS) concerns identified as part of the existing conditions analysis. Signal retiming will continue to play a role in helping achieve lower levels of services at intersections, while reducing traffic delays. University Avenue Overtime, a number of pedestrian, safety and mobility concerns have been expressed regarding University Avenue from Columbia Road to 42nd Street. Therefore, the Street and Highway Plan evaluated potential alternatives for addressing these concerns through a special study. The study involved the coordination with the Grand Forks/UND Transportation and Traffic Coordination Committee. A large part of this effort was to document potential alternatives to address identified issues and needs. More importantly, it was an opportunity to evaluate potential options in a University Avenue Closure (both permanent and part-time). However, it is important to recognize the study determined these options will have a negative impact to traffic flow on campus and on other roadways adjacent to campus. Furthermore, the closure of University Avenue, either temporary or fulltime, has not been supported by policy makers, City staff, and was not supported by the public during the public participation opportunities offered as part of the Street and Highway Plan update. Therefore, these alternatives have been dropped from further consideration. Finding from this study are documented in Appendix E and summary of potential improvements for consideration are depicted in Figure

111 Figure 29: Potential University Avenue Improvements for Consideration Source: SRF

112 Chapter 3. Identification of System, Issues and Opportunities The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the Plan s public engagement activities, recognize inputs of stakeholders, and identify key themes generated by citizen participation. As a result of these activities, a list of system issues and opportunities were documented, which helped inform the study process. The identification of system issues and opportunities, both short and long-term was derived from numerous public engagement activities, as well as input from elected leaders, key interest groups, and supporting evidence (e.g., technical analysis and data). In that respect, the Streets and Highway Plan utilized various public outreach methods to generate a comprehensive list of system issues and opportunities. In turn, this qualitative list of issues was tested for their validity as part of the study s quantitative assessment process. The GF/EGF MPO sought to provide a substantial number and type of public engagement opportunities, and this input was thoughtfully discussed with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to assess and verify needs, alternatives, and shortcomings. Public Engagement Activities The objective of the public involvement process was to offer local stakeholders a broad range of opportunities to provide input. While public information meetings were a key activity to interact with the stakeholders, it was the desire of the GF/EGF MPO to provide other direct contact opportunities, as well as use new social media methods and offer continuous access to information during the study process. Therefore, the preparation of the Streets and Highway Plan included significant stakeholder outreach to capture public and stakeholder input. These methods are discussed in further detail below. Public Engagement Tools Three social media tools were used to involve the general public through the Street and Highway Plan update: The GF/EGF MPO website at provided an always available resource that was able to disseminate information and receive feedback from the general public. Study documents and meeting presentations were posted at the site at every study milestone. The GF/EGF MPO Facebook page provided a quick and easy way to disseminate project updates and public meeting notices. 94

113 Local Media: Interviews were conducted with the newspapers and television stations. Press releases were developed and distributed to local outlets. Public Meetings Public meetings were held at key milestones during the planning process. The materials presented at the meetings were also posted on the GF/EGF MPO website immediately following the meetings. Appendix F includes a summary of meeting notices, sign-in sheets and comments received from public meetings, and include meeting notes from stakeholder meetings. The public meetings and their results are summarized below: Public Meeting #1: May 16, This meeting was held at Grand Forks City Hall early in the Plan development process. The purpose of the first public meeting was to establish a clear understanding of the public s issues and needs. A series of innovative public engagement tools were utilized to gather public feedback. For instance, citizens and staff gathered around maps with markers to facilitate and record discussions about the current transportation issues. The information covered in this meeting included: Introduction to the transportation planning process. Overview of the tasks included in the plan development. Identification of local transportation issues in a workshop setting with meeting attendees. Citizen survey on the street and highway system. The electronic citizen surveys proved to be an effective means of collecting public input. The questions and responses are documented in Appendix F. A total of 48 questions were asked over the course of an hour. Survey questions focused on street and highway elements, congestion issues, railroad crossings and freight. Each question was displayed in a power point with a list of options to choose from. Staff walked the audience through each question. At the end of each question, the group s tallied response was automatically displayed on a screen (21 survey respondents). General observations from the survey are listed below: The majority of participants agreed that transportation funds should be focused on preservation projects versus expansion projects. Sixty percent (60%) of the participants strongly agreed or agreed with the existing prioritization of a new Red River crossing. The first 95

114 priority is a crossing at Merrifield and the second priority is a crossing at 32nd Avenue The remaining responses were neutral on the subject (20%) or disagreed with the prioritization (25%). Sixty-nine percent strongly agreed or agreed that governments should generate more revenue to increase future roadway funding. However, when asked what the preferred method would be to increase funding (e.g., bonding, property tax, special assessments and utility fees for transportation); the responses varied among the citizens The movement of freight throughout the metro was a concern, especially beet trucks traveling through downtown during harvest season. A wide range of responses were received when asked if traffic signals in the metro area were timed accordingly. Public Meeting #2: July 26, This meeting was held at the East Grand Forks City Hall. The second open house provided another opportunity for the public to further express their views on issues and opportunities. At this stage in the planning process, the input was used to help refine the Plan s goals and objectives. Furthermore, input was used to help expand the issues map and form a range of project alternatives for further analysis later in the study process. The following list, in no particular order, identifies key issues and opportunities that ranked as high priorities among the participants (15 total participants): Congestion on the Columbia Road corridor. Red River Crossings with the first priority was a future Red River crossing at Merrifield Road, and then a crossing at 32nd Avenue South. Pedestrian/bike/bus/vehicle conflicts along University Avenue on the UND campus, and a discussion of preliminary alternatives. Future railroad underpass reconstruction at Washington Street. Need for an additional interchange off of I-29 (south of 32nd Avenue). Railroad crossing improvements at DeMers Avenue and 42nd Street to reduce long delays. 96

115 Railroad crossings improvements at Gateway Drive and 42nd Street to reduce long delays. Concern about traffic signal density, poor traffic operations, congestion, and safety needs along DeMers Avenue in downtown. Congestion, poor sight distance, and too many access points along Washington Street. Impacts to the historic neighborhood/granitiod streets. Difficultly accessing Bygland Road from side streets during peak periods. Public Meeting #3: September 10, 2013 At this point in the planning process, a thorough review of the metropolitan area s existing conditions and issues had been identified. Based on these findings, a range of alternative transportation projects and costs had been drafted. Further, the need to maintain the metropolitan area s NHS and principal arterial roadway system in a state of good repair was discussed, as was the need to rebalance preservation and expansion investments. The public meeting served as an opportunity to refine and shape this list. It was also an opportunity to discuss the forecasted funding resources, and probably fiscal constraints in implementing these projects overtime. The following plan elements were on display and presented for input. Revenue forecasts at the federal, state and local level Range of alternatives (by time horizon) Preservation strategies and alternatives Proposed implementation plan for the GF/EGF MPO area Public Meeting #4 November 13, 2013: The last public open house was held in East Grand Forks City Hall to present the Plan recommendations. The purpose of the meeting was to present the Plan and to inform the public of the upcoming public meetings the Plan will be formally presented for both preliminary approval and final approval by the local agencies. Based upon the fiscal constraint, the presentation focused on the state of good repair projects being recommended. Further, the presentation provided an example of the types of projects and their approximately year of being done for various segments of the federal aid eligible network. The following plan elements were on display and presented for input. 97

116 Revenue forecasts at the federal, state and local level Recommended State of Good Repair Projects (by time horizon) List of Illustrative Projects Key Interest Groups As part of the public process, the GF/EGF MPO also directly reached out to certain major stakeholder groups to get a better sense of their transportation needs and priorities. The stakeholder meetings are summarized below, in addition to key issues identified as part of those meetings: Issues were collected from the freight community representatives who attended focus group meetings in June of 2012 (see Freight Chapter). Some of the key issues identified during those meetings included: - Freight issues are present in the downtown during harvest season. - A southern bypass or a river crossing at Merrifield Road would be a preferred alternative over the northern bypass/truck reliever route identified in the 2035 Streets and Highway Plan. - Safe and convenient access to I-29 and US 2 is essential in helping move products and goods in and out of the metropolitan area. Focus meetings and presentations were conducted with representatives from the University of North Dakota to discuss pedestrian, bicycle, transit and vehicle conflicts on University Avenue. These discussions evolved into a small area study, which is documented in Appendix E. A summary of University Avenue issues included: - Pedestrian/bicycle improvements to University Avenue must be aesthetically pleasing and fit within the context of the environment. - Improvements along University Avenue will need to be cognizant of the surrounding area s historical and cultural amenities. - Low cost/high impact solutions (e.g., barriers within the medians) can be used along University Avenue to solve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle conflicts. - Closing University Avenue was not an appropriate solution. - Some improvements can be implemented soon, and others must wait until the corridor pavement is rehabilitated. 98

117 TAC and Agency Involvement The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was responsible for reviewing all of the key Plan deliverables. The TAC is composed of various modal staff from the GF/EGF MPO s cities and counties, as well as technical staff from the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT), the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Study meetings were held on approximately a bimonthly basis throughout the Plan development period. Additional agency involvement included project check-ins with NDDOT Management in Bismarck, ND and MnDOT Management in St. Paul, MN. Project updates were also given to the Grand Forks and East Grand Forks City Councils. Furthermore, the planning commissions of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks acted in an advisory role for the Plan update. The TAC, agency management, city planning commissions and city councils were involved during the planning process to: Gather input on current and emerging transportation issues in the region. Refine goals, objectives, and performance measures Act as a sounding board for ideas or alternatives for potential changes to the transportation system. Discuss project priorities and fiscal constraint challenges, and reach consensus on an implementation program. Engaging these key representatives throughout the planning process helped streamline the approval process. Summary of Issues, Needs and Opportunities A collective list of significant issues and opportunities gathered from the multiple outreach activities is summarized in the Issue and Opportunities map (see Figure 30). However, it is important to recognize that the input received; in some cases, represents the views of only a small percentage of the overall metropolitan population. Therefore, input may not depict a consensus around specific transportation concerns, and often citizen request for additional infrastructure improvements do not consider cost and/or other project needs or priorities. In essence, the Issues and Opportunities map captures a wide range of citizen input regarding street and highways; in some respects, this map has not changed since the last update. However, the process did help confirm a range of issues that needed to be considered as part of the planning process. The issues and opportunities input process served a foundation for assessing future improvement needs for the metro area s streets and highways. 99

118 Figure 30: Issues, Opportunities and Needs Source: GF/EGF MPO

119 Chapter 4. RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES This chapter documents the development and evaluation of a range of roadway improvement alternatives to address current and future transportation needs, as presented in earlier chapters. Generally, the process of developing this range of alternatives included the compilation of programmed and previously identified roadway improvements, followed by the identification of new improvements aimed at addressing system needs, issues and deficiencies. Importantly, the range of alternatives list was developed to be consistent with the Plan s goals, objectives, standards and performance measures. As such, the range of alternatives emphasized the need for system preservation, as well as system expansion and system management. This chapter documents the methodology used to prepare the range of roadway improvement alternatives. Generally, the process included the following activities and analyses: Compile the Project Inventory Analyze Projects Addressing System Deficiencies Prepare a Universe of Project Needs PROJECT INVENTORY This section will summarize the systematic methodology used to develop the project inventory. Year 2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan Improvements Projects identified by the previous Street and Highway Plan, were compiled to summarize known and documented transportation improvement needs. This list served as a starting point for the range of alternatives process. Any projects completed since adoption of the 2008 Plan were removed from the inventory Recently Completed Studies Current or recent studies that identified or recommended roadway improvements with the GF/EGF MPO planning area were compiled and reviewed. It was through this step that additional recommended roadway improvements were identified for inclusion on the expanded range of alternatives list. These studies also provided valuable technical analysis and costs estimates for such improvements. 101

120 Programmed Improvements A list of roadway projects currently programmed in the GF/EGF MPO s TIPs and each state s STIPs was compiled to add to the range of alternatives list. Compiling programmed improvements ensured that all new projects identified for the comprehensive range of alternatives list were consistent with recent programming documents. This information also provided valuable data on project scopes, cost, funding sources and program year. Local Capital Improvement Projects The Grand Forks 6-year CIP ( ) and the East Grand Forks 5-year CIP ( ) were obtained to add locally programmed roadway projects to the list. As roadway improvements were compiled for inclusion in the comprehensive range of alternatives list, funding sources were reviewed to identify the use of one-time or special funds, such as grants or special assessments. It was through this process that costs, scopes, funding sources and year of improvements for many local projects were identified and/or refined. Inventory Review After compiling the inventory, it was evaluated through discussions with the GF/EGF MPO, local and state officials. This approach provided a method to screen duplicative projects or identify improvements that overlapped. Project Addressing System Deficiencies With the identification and screening of all previously identified and programmed improvements, the range of future potential projects was further expanded upon by considering improvements needed to address safety, congestion or pavement deficiencies. Projects added during this step were gathered from public input and needs identified through technical analysis and maintenance programs. All projects were screened by the TAC to evaluate their technical merits and to prevent any duplicative improvements. Issues Identified by Stakeholders A series of public meetings were conducted to establish a clear understanding of the public s views on transportation issues and needs. The first meeting utilized public engagement tools to gather public feedback. This outreach focused on street and highway elements, safety concerns, congestion issues, railroad crossings and freight. The second meeting provided another opportunity for the public to further express their views on opportunities, issues and specific project needs. Additional outreach efforts added to this information. This input, gathered from public meetings, social media and outreach efforts to key stakeholders was used to further expand upon the range of project alternatives. 102

121 Safety Needs A list of safety issues and needs were identified as part of the Plan s detailed technical analysis. These issues and needs were evaluated during the development of the range of alternatives by the TAC and GF/EGF MPO staff to determine possible project improvements that will address safety needs. A detailed summary of the safety issues are identified in the Existing Conditions Chapter. Capacity Expansion Projects Year 2025 and 2040 average daily traffic (ADT) forecasts were prepared by the GF/EGF MPO regional travel demand forecast model. As a part of the Long-Range Transportation Plan update, staff from the Advanced Traffic Analysis Center (ATAC) worked in coordination with GF/EGF MPO staff to update the travel demand model. The model update included the most recent state-of-practice techniques to improve the model s ability to correctly replicate local travel patterns, as well as refinements to the model s trip generation rates and traffic assignment process. Details about the updates to the model update can be found in Appendix G. Other updates included, but were not limited to, revised land use and transportation network assumptions to represent year 2010, year 2025 and year 2040 conditions. To prepare year 2025 and 2040 forecasts, the GF/EGF MPO and ATAC established the future functional classification system of the roadways within the GF/EGF MPO planning area, as displayed in Figure 31. ADT forecasts for year 2025 and 2040 were developed after the incorporation of the Existing + Committed transportation system. The Existing + Committed represents the existing transportation system, plus all roadway improvement projects that were programmed in the GF/EGF MPO s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Upon calibration and verification, traffic forecasts were produced and mapped using the revised network, future functional classification system and the new land use assumption. Level of Service Analysis The ADT forecasts developed through the travel demand modeling process provided the basis for the future Level of Service (LOS) deficiency analysis. This analysis was completed using volume to capacity (V/C) ratios to estimate future levels of congestion. Table 22 shows the V/C thresholds used for the LOS deficiency analysis. 103

122 Table 22: Volume to Capacity Thresholds Level of Service V/C Ratio A C < 0.8 D D E F > 1.0 Source: ATAC The primary function of the LOS deficiency analysis was to identify future congestion on corridor segments throughout the GF/EGF MPO planning area, so that mobility improvement projects could be scoped and considered that could mitigate future operational issues. LOS outputs were evaluated to determine locations anticipated to exhibit congestion issues (i.e., LOS D+ of worse) by year 2025 or For such areas a project scope and cost was prepared, and if deemed appropriate by the GF/EGF MPO staff and TAC, they were integrated into the range of alternatives list. Figure 31 displays the year 2025 LOS for the GF/EGF MPO area, whereas Figure 32 illustrates the year 2040 LOS. 104

123 Figure 31: Proposed Future Roadway Functional Classification Source: GF/EGF MPO

124 Figure 32: Year 2025 E+C Network Level of Service Analysis Source: ATAC

125 Figure 33: Year 2040 E + C Network Level Of Service Analysis Source: ATAC

126 State of Good Repair Projects Reconstruction and rehabilitation improvement plans were assembled from Grand Forks, East Grand Forks, the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). This information was compared to pavement condition data and evaluated by technical staff representing each jurisdiction to identify programmed and planned State of Good Repair improvements through year State of Good Repair projects represented preservation, maintenance and non-expansion projects that improved ride quality or extend the life of the roadway. Unlike the previous Streets and Highway Plan, under federal MAP-21 rules the Plan s range of alternatives was required to include a detailed analysis of State of Good Repair projects, as well as expansion projects to account for all needed improvement expenditures within the GF/EGF MPO planning area out to the year NDDOT Projects The NDDOT provided a list of reconstruction, rehabilitation and maintenance projects expected to be programmed or planned for the state highway system within the GF/EGF MPO planning area to year Major bridge projects for the Kennedy and Sorlie Bridges were also included in the NDDOT list. Additionally, this list provided specific details on each project, including location, length, year of construction and estimated cost. Such projects consisted of mill and overlays, concrete panel replacements and reconstructions; however, none of the reconstruction projects were scoped for full reconstruction, rather they were merely for in-place reconstruction (e.g., work within the current curb lines). MAP-21 requires that improvements on reconstruction projects address all known deficiencies, unless fiscal constraint is documented indicating funding limitations. Under these circumstances where fiscal constraint prohibits full reconstruction, a list of projects with unmet needs must be compiled and prioritized. With MAP-21 s mandate for an increased emphasis on system preservation and the required inclusion of State of Good Repair projects for the range of alternatives list, the initial NDDOT preservation project expenditures far exceeded NDDOT s forecasted revenues. Given the overall magnitude of expenditures estimated by NDDOT, it was determined that alternatives would need to be developed before a NDDOT improvement plan could be selected that was more in-line with the GF/EGF MPO s expected revenue. An analysis of these alternative scenarios is presented in the next chapter. MnDOT - MnSHIP and CIMS The State of Minnesota recently completed its 20-year State Highway Investment Plan (MnSHIP), which communicates MnDOT s capital investment priorities. MnDOT s priorities are predominantly preservation-oriented, in light of documented needs and its state 108

127 Transportation Plan policies. MnSHIP provides a fiscally constrained investment strategy that aligns planned expenditures with expected revenues for the next 20 years. As a result of these of investment priorities, MnDOT provided the GF/EGF MPO a list of projects focused exclusively on preserving the existing infrastructure. However, this list did not address all known MnDOT preservation needs in the GF/EGF MPO planning area, which were presented in MnDOT s CIMS (Corridor Investment Management Strategy) planning process. The only investment priorities identified by MnSHIP within the next 10 years for the GF/EGF MPO planning area were MnDOT s share of the major project costs for the Kennedy and Sorlie Bridges, which will be equally funded by NDDOT. Under this state investment policy, there will be a number of unfunded GF/EGF MPO needs over the 20- year horizon of MnSHIP. Local Projects The Cities of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks each provided a list of expected State of Good Repair projects needed for their respective local roadway systems that addressed pavement condition issues. Again, to comply with the new MAP-21 provisions, these projects were focused at extending the life of the roadway system within the fiscal constraints of the Plan. In order to address the sub-standard pavement conditions and meet the fiscal constraints of the Plan, a majority of the projects identified were mill and overlays. Each list provided project location, length, and estimated cost of each project. KEY SUB-AREA AND SPECIAL NEEDS PROJECTS The planning process also considered projects addressing key sub-areas and special needs. Provided below is a summary of these findings and their impact on the range of alternative project list. University Avenue A list of University Avenue improvements was identified as part of a special study and coordination with the Grand Forks/UND Transportation and Traffic Coordination Committee. Key issues were compiled and potential alternatives were identified during the technical analysis in order to address vehicle congestion/delay, transit flow and to improve pedestrian safety along the corridor. As noted earlier in the existing conditions chapter, a special study was prepared as part of the Street and Highway Plan update. Findings from this study can be found in Appendix E. 109

128 Freight Improvements A list of freight improvements was identified as part of the special public outreach to this key stakeholder group. These improvements were screened as part of the technical analysis to determine their relevance and importance in addressing the freight community s concerns. UNIVERSE OF PROJECTS As explained, the range of alternatives list was compiled to represent the entire universe of projects that had been evaluated and screened by the planning process. The range of alternatives was focused on addressing the GF/EGF MPO area s issues, needs and deficiencies. As explained earlier, where legitimate needs were tested and established, specific project alternatives were developed using quantitative and qualitative methods. Table 23 provides a detailed summary of each project included in the entire universe of projects list. This list groups projects into three defined groups, which include: Existing + Committed: Includes all roadway improvements identified during the development of the range of alternatives that were expected to be completed out to 2040 using non-federal or non-state funds. State of Good Repair: Includes all roadway improvements related to the preservation and maintenance of the existing roadway system, especially the NHS and principal arterial network. Discretionary: Includes all non-preservation roadway improvements. These projects include the expansion of existing roadways, safety or the construction of new roadways/bridges. The universe of projects also provided a detailed summary of each project, including its location, project scope, the need that it addresses (i.e., safety, level of service, preservation etc.), desired project timeframe, year of expenditure cost, jurisdiction and any special potential funding sources that were outside the revenue forecasts presented in Financial Plan Chapter. 110

129 Table 2 - Range of Alternatives Existing Plus Committed Model Network (Projects expected to be completed using non-federal/non-state funds) Roadway Location Project Scope Project Rationale **Desired Project Timeframe** Cost (Year Of Expenditure) Year Special Funding Source Jurisdiction S.Columbia Rd 36th Ave to 40th Ave Urban to Rural transition improvement: Widen to 5 lanes with new signal at 36th Ave Convert to urban cross-section Short-Range $2,325, % Local City of Grand Forks S 34th St 32nd Ave Construct southbound right turn lane Yr LOS D- and Yr LOS F Short-Range $259, HSIP City of Grand Forks 40th Ave S 38th St to Ruemmele Rd Construct new 2-lane N/S collector (cost for all 2-lane assumed 40' cross section) Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Short-Range $1,040, % Local City of Grand Forks S 34th St Ruemmele Rd to 43rd Ave Construct new 2-lane N/S collector Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Short-Range $2,080, % Local City of Grand Forks S 38th St 40th Ave to 47thd Ave Construct new 2-lane N/S collector Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Short-Range $562, % Local City of Grand Forks S 34th St 43rd Ave to 47th Ave Construct new 2-lane N/S collector Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Short-Range $630, % Local City of Grand Forks 47th Ave S Columbia Rd to Washington St Rural to urban reconstruct 2-lanes with TWLTL Yr LOS E Short-Range $6,813, % Local City of Grand Forks 36th Ave S 16th St to Washington St Construct 2-lanes with TWLTL roadway Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Mid-Range $866, % Local City of Grand Forks 55th Ave S 48th St to 42nd St Construct new 2-lane E/W collector Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Mid-Range $2,165, % Local City of Grand Forks 55th Ave S 38th St to Columbia Rd Construct new 2-lane E/W collector Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Mid-Range $3,030, % Local City of Grand Forks 62nd Ave S Washington St to Belmont Rd Rural to urban reconstruct 2-lanes with TWLTL None Mid-Range $3,463, % Local City of Grand Forks 62nd Ave S Columbia Rd to Washington St Rural to urban reconstruct 2-lanes with TWLTL Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Mid-Range $4,329, % Local City of Grand Forks 47th Ave S Columbia Rd to S 38th St Rural to urban reconstruct 2-lanes with TWLTL Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Mid-Range $10,442, % Local City of Grand Forks 36th Ave S 38th St to 16th St Re-stripe for 2 lanes with TWLTL, remove parking to accommodate 3 travel lanes Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Long-Range $355, % Local City of Grand Forks S 36th St 20th Ave and 42nd St (North of Simplot) Construct new 2-lane E/W collector Yr LOS D+ at access point along Gateway Dr corridor Long-Range $2,370, % Local City of Grand Forks S 38th St 47th Ave to 62nd Ave Construct new 2-lane N/S collector Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Long-Range $2,903, % Local City of Grand Forks 40th Ave S 42nd St to 48th St Construct new 2-lane E/W collector Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Long-Range $2,962, % Local City of Grand Forks 62nd Ave S 42nd St to 48th St Rural to urban reconstruct 2-lanes with TWLTL Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Long-Range $2,962, % Local City of Grand Forks 62nd Ave S 38th St to Columbia Rd Rural to urban reconstruct 2-lanes with TWLTL Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Long-Range $4,147, % Local City of Grand Forks S 48th St 32nd Ave to 47th Ave Construct new 2-lane N/S collector Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Long-Range $5,925, % Local City of Grand Forks

130 Roadway Location Project Scope Project Rationale **Desired Project Timeframe** Cost (Year Of Expenditure) Year Special Funding Source Jurisdiction S 48th St 47th Ave to 62nd Ave Construct new 2-lane N/S collector Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Long-Range $5,925, % Local City of Grand Forks 47th Ave S 38th St to S 48th St Rural to urban reconstruct 2-lanes with TWLTL Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Long-Range $14,291, % Local City of Grand Forks 42nd St 36th Ave to 62nd Ave Rural to urban reconstruct 2-lanes to accommodate potential interchange at 47th Ave and I-29 Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Long-Range $10,665, % Local City of Grand Forks State of Good Repair Projects Roadway Location Project Scope Project Rationale **Desired Project Timeframe** Cost (Year Of Expenditure) Year Special Funding Source Jurisdiction N Washington St GF-N Wash St (Jct US 2 to I-29) Mill & HBP 2" Roadway Maintenance Short-Range $1,927, NDDOT S Columbia Rd 11th Ave S to 14th Ave S Rehabilitation Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Short-Range $5,792, City of Grand Forks Kennedy Bridge Red River Crossing TBD Roadway Maintenance Short-Range $12,500, NDDOT Kennedy Bridge Red River Crossing TBD Yr LOS F Short-Range $12,500, MnDOT S Columbia Rd 40th Ave S to 47th Ave S Rehabilitation Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Short-Range $4,700, City of Grand Forks N Washington St GF-N Wash St (Jct US 2 to I-29) Chip Seal Roadway Maintenance Short-Range $208, NDDOT US 2 (Business) Grand Forks - 5th To Red River HBP or Reconstruction Roadway Maintenance Short-Range $5,061, NDDOT Sorlie Bridge Red River Crossing TBD Roadway Maintenance Short-Range $14,500, NDDOT Sorlie Bridge Red River Crossing TBD Yr and Yr LOS F Short-Range $14,500, MnDOT University Ave Washington St to 20th St Mill and Overlay University Ave 20th St to State St Mill and Overlay Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Short-Range $430, City of Grand Forks Short-Range $709, City of Grand Forks US 2 (Business) Washington St S Washington St N Washington St Washington St Grand Forks - Gateway Dr. Demers Ave GF-S Wash St (5th Ave S to 1st Ave N) GF-S Wash St (Hammerling to 8th Ave N) GF-N Wash ST (0.05 MI S 8th to US 2) GF-S Wash St (Hammerling to 8th Ave N) Mill & HBP 3" Roadway Maintenance Short-Range $1,461, NDDOT Reconstruct Underpass Roadway Maintenance Short-Range $22,858, NDDOT Mill & HBP 2" Roadway Maintenance Short-Range $821, NDDOT CPR Roadway Maintenance Short-Range $1,423, NDDOT Microsurface Roadway Maintenance Short-Range $118, NDDOT

131 Roadway Location Project Scope Project Rationale S Washington St GF-S Wash St (Hammerling to 7th Ave S) **Desired Project Timeframe** Cost (Year Of Expenditure) Year Special Funding Source Reconstruct (Addresses Deficiencies) Roadway Maintenance Short-Range $10,336, NDDOT Jurisdiction DeMers Ave GF-Demers Ave (BUS US 81 to BUS US 2) CPR & Grind Roadway Maintenance Mid-Range $1,249, NDDOT Gateway Dr GF I-29 East to Columbia Road CPR & Grind Roadway Maintenance Mid-Range $2,170, NDDOT I-29 Near 32nd Ave S N to HWY 2 Inter CPR & Grind Roadway Maintenance Mid-Range $2,858, NDDOT I-29 Near 32nd Ave N to S US 2 CPR & Grind Roadway Maintenance Mid-Range $2,863, NDDOT I-29 S US 2 NN of N GF Inter-SB CPR & Grind Roadway Maintenance Mid-Range $4,308, NDDOT I-29 HWY 2 Inter to North of Grand Forks CPR & Grind Roadway Maintenance Mid-Range $4,313, NDDOT River Rd NW 20th St NW to 23rd St NW Mill and Overlay Poor pavement quality index and identified in East Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Mid-Range $242, City of East Grand Forks 10th St NE Central Ave to 5th Ave NE Mill and Overlay Poor pavement quality index and identified in East Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Mid-Range $312, City of East Grand Forks 4th Ave S / Minnesota Ave DeMers Ave to S 3rd St Mill and Overlay University Ave 3rd St to Washington St Mill and Overlay Gateway Dr (Westbound) Central Ave to Kenneday Bridge Mill Rd Seward Ave to Bacon Rd Overlay Mill and Overlay S Belmont Rd 47th Ave S to 62nd Ave Mill and Overlay S Cherry St 4th Ave S to 17th Ave S Mill and Overlay S 48th St DeMers Ave to 17th Ave S Mill and Overlay and Shoulders S Belmont Rd 5th St to 32nd Ave Mill and Overlay Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Crash rate exceeds Expected crash rate Poor pavement quality index and identified in East Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Crash rate exceeds Expected crash rate Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Mid-Range $398, City of Grand Forks Mid-Range $571, City of Grand Forks Mid-Range $641, City of East Grand Forks Mid-Range $866, City of Grand Forks Mid-Range $866, City of Grand Forks Mid-Range $866, City of Grand Forks Mid-Range $1,039, City of Grand Forks Mid-Range $1,749, City of Grand Forks Gateway Dr Gateway Dr-Columbia RD To Red River CPR & Grind Roadway Maintenance Mid-Range $2,446, NDDOT US 2 Maintain State of Good Repair Roadway Maintenance Mid-Range $5,407, MnDOT N 42nd St University Ave to Gateway Dr Reconstruction Columbia Rd Overpass Rehabilitation Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Short-Range $4,000, City of Grand Forks Mid-Range $6,434, City of Grand Forks

132 Roadway Location Project Scope Project Rationale **Desired Project Timeframe** Cost (Year Of Expenditure) Year Special Funding Source Jurisdiction Gateway Dr GF-55th ST E to I-29 EB CPR & Grind Roadway Maintenance Mid-Range $1,948, NDDOT US 2 (Business) S Washington St Grand Forks - Gateway Dr. Demers Ave GF-S Wash St (32nd Ave S- Hammerling) Mill & HBP 3" Roadway Maintenance Mid-Range $2,162, NDDOT CPR & Grind Roadway Maintenance Mid-Range $2,496, NDDOT DeMers Ave GF-Demers Ave (I-29 to BUS US 81) CPR & Grind Roadway Maintenance Mid-Range $4,254, NDDOT US 2 (Business) Grand Forks - Gateway Dr. Demers Ave Microsurface Roadway Maintenance Mid-Range $190, NDDOT N Washington St GF-N Wash St (Jct US 2 to I-29) Mill & HBP 2" Roadway Maintenance Mid-Range $3,470, NDDOT 32nd Ave S 32nd Ave S-GF Columbia Rd to Washington Str. Reconstruct Roadway Maintenance Long-Range $11,112, NDDOT 32nd Ave S 32nd Ave S-GF I-29 to Columbia Rd Reconstruct (Addresses Deficiencies) Roadway Maintenance Long-Range $ NDDOT N Washington St GF-N Wash St (Jct US 2 to I-29) Chip Seal Roadway Maintenance Mid-Range $375, NDDOT 4th Ave S / Minnesota Ave DeMers Ave to S 3rd St Mill and Overlay University Ave 3rd St to Washington St Mill and Overlay University Ave Washington St to 20th St Mill and Overlay Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Crash rate exceeds Expected crash rate Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Long-Range $136, City of Grand Forks Long-Range $196, City of Grand Forks Long-Range $201, City of Grand Forks DeMers Ave 4th St NW to Sorlie Bridge Mill and Overlay Poor pavement quality index and identified in East Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Long-Range $213, City of East Grand Forks Mill Rd Seward Ave to Bacon Rd Overlay S Belmont Rd 47th Ave S to 62nd Ave Mill and Overlay S Cherry St 4th Ave S to 17th Ave S Mill and Overlay University Ave 20th St to State St Mill and Overlay S 48th St DeMers Ave to 17th Ave S Mill and Overlay and Shoulders S Belmont Rd 5th St to 32nd Ave Mill and Overlay Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Poor pavement quality index and identified in Grand Forks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Long-Range $296, City of Grand Forks Long-Range $296, City of Grand Forks Long-Range $296, City of Grand Forks Long-Range $332, City of Grand Forks Long-Range $355, City of Grand Forks Long-Range $598, City of Grand Forks Washington St GF-S Wash St (Hammerling to 8th Ave N) Mill & HBP 2" Roadway Maintenance Short-Range $1,479, NDDOT US 220 Maintain State of Good Repair Roadway Maintenance Long-Range $8,010, MnDOT

133 Roadway Location Project Scope Project Rationale Washington St GF-N Wash ST (0.05 MI S 8th to US 2) **Desired Project Timeframe** Cost (Year Of Expenditure) Year Special Funding Source CPR/Grind Roadway Maintenance Long-Range $2,563, NDDOT Jurisdiction Washington St GF-S Wash St (Hammerling to 8th Ave N) Microsurface Roadway Maintenance Short-Range $213, NDDOT 3rd Ave SE 1st St SE to 5th Ave SE Bridge rehabilitation and slide repair Roadway Maintenance Illustrative $6,831,000 post-2040 City of East Grand Forks MN TH 220 S of TH 2 to Southern MPO Limits Reconstruct Poor pavement quality on non-principal arterial Illustrative $10,600,000 post-2040 MnDOT Roadway Location Project Scope Project Rationale DeMers Ave 48th St to 42nd St Re-stripe for 3 lanes with two westbound lanes, with new signal at I-29 west ramps (Suggest inclusion with NDDOT 2014 reconstruction) Discretionary Projects **Desired Project Timeframe** Cost (Year Of Expenditure) Year Special Funding Source Jurisdiction Yr LOS D- Short-Range $506, NDDOT 32nd Ave S at Columbia Rd Add NB and WB dual left-turn lanes Intersection LOS > D, Approach V/C issues Yr LOS D- and 2040 LOS F Short-Range $192, NDDOT DeMers Ave at I-29 Signalize ramp intersections Yr LOS D along DeMers Ave between ramps Short-Range $1,518, NDDOT Gateway Dr Cambridge St (RE Arena Entrance)to Columbia Rd Reconstruct intersection at Columbia Rd, signalize intersection at entrance to arena and remove north frontage road access at arena entrance (see traffic study) Yr LOS D- Short-Range $5,395, NDDOT S Columbia Rd S Washington St 14th Ave S to 24th Ave S 7th Ave S to Hammerling Ave Reconstruct to variable 5-lane to 6-lane roadway with 11 ft lanes, replacement of signing, signals, lights, construction of shared use path and replacement of sidewalks Full pavement pavement reconstruct w/ access and driveway modifications, bus turnouts, new ped facilities and re-alignment of side-streets (8th Ave S, 10th Ave S and 14th Ave S) Yr LOS F and Yr LOS F and follows recommendations provided in the Columbia Rd Phase III Study Short-Range $16,133, City of Grand Forks Yr LOS F Mid-Range $12,092, NDDOT S Washington St 5th Ave S to 7th Ave S Full pavement reconstruction with continuous flow intersection (CFI) at DeMers Ave Year 2025 and 2040 Intersection LOS E/F Mid-Range $20,289, NDDOT Gateway Dr 42nd St to 43rd St Extend full-width EB and WB turn lanes V/C issues at at-grade rail crossing for Yr LOS D+ Long-Range $2,370, NDDOT Gateway Dr 55th St to 42nd St Expand to 6 lanes with removal of access at 48th for eastbound traffic Yr LOS E and 2040 LOS F Long-Range $2,962, NDDOT 32nd Ave S 48th St to 52nd St Urban to Rural transition improvement: Expand to 4 lanes Addresses rural-urban transition, accommodate future development area and add access to industrial park Long-Range $3,299, NDDOT S Washington St 48th St to 57th St Urban to Rural transition improvement: Expand to 4 lanes Convert to urban cross-section Long-Range $8,696, NDDOT Gateway Dr N Washington to Mill Rd Reconstruct roadway and intersections to accommodate additional turn lanes, remove/reduce skews at intersections and replace traffic signals V/C issues at at-grade rail crossing for Yr LOS D- and Yr LOS F Illustrative $25,000,000 post-2040 Freight Project NDDOT N Washington St 8th Ave N to 1st Ave N Full pavement pavement reconstruction with access and driveway modifications and new pedestrian facilities Long-term project priority identified in Washington St. Corridor Study Long-Range $12,838, NDDOT DeMers Ave 42nd St at BNSF railroad Grade-separated rail crossing Yr LOS D at intersection approach Illustrative $21,383,891 post-2040 Rail Project NDDOT 32nd Ave S Red River Crossing Construct new bridge Limited ADT growth in southern East Grand Forks, addresses Sorley and Kennedy Bridge LOS F in Yr and 2040 Illustrative $25,559,444 post-2040 NDDOT

134 N 5th St Roadway Location Project Scope Project Rationale at DeMers Ave Monitor crash data with updated signal timing plans, may require new signal heads to allow for protected EB and WB left turns Newly incorporated signal timing plans, monitor safety at intersection and recommendations from KLJ Traffic Ops Report **Desired Project Timeframe** Cost (Year Of Expenditure) Year Special Funding Source Jurisdiction Short-Range $63, HSIP NDDOT University Ave at N 5th St Monitor crash data with updated signal timing plans, may require installation of warning signs Newly incorporated signal timing plans, monitor safety at intersection and recommendations from KLJ Traffic Ops Report Short-Range $63, HSIP City of Grand Forks S 20th St at 32nd Ave Improve intersection safety and negative offset left turn Yr LOS E and 2040 LOS F and crash rate exceeds Expected crash rate Short-Range $633, HSIP City of Grand Forks S 31st St at 32nd Ave Improve intersection safety and negative offset left turn Yr and 2040 LOS F and crash rate exceeds Expected crash rate Short-Range $633, HSIP City of Grand Forks University Ave English Coulee to Columbia Rd Conduct parking assignments, implement transit recommendations, install ped signals with transit priorities and reconfigure roadway for one general purpose 11' thru lane, one 13' shared bus/bike lane and 1.5' gutters in each direction (Typcial section = 64' min.) Improve bike/ped mobility, connectivity and safety (Short-term recommendations from University Ave Study) Short-Range $1,360, TAP City of Grand Forks S 42nd St at I-29 Realign to reconfigure ramps to/from NB I-29 Yr and 2040 LOS E/F along 32nd Ave corridor and LOS D+/- at current 42nd St. intersection Short-Range $11,207, City of Grand Forks 17th Ave S at Washington St Extend full-width right and left SB turn lanes at 17th Ave by 150' Yr LOS E and Yr LOS F Mid-Range $175, City of Grand Forks 40th Ave S 38th St to Washington St Restripe to accommodate 3 lanes Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Mid-Range $242, City of Grand Forks University Ave English Coulee to Columbia Rd Reconfigure roadway for one general purpose 11' lane, 4' bicycle lane, 11' bus lane and 1.5' gutters in each direction (Typcial section = 68' min.) Only be implemented with the full reconstruct of University Ave. Improve bike/ped mobility, connectivity and safety (Mid-term recommendations from University Ave Study) Long-Range $2,548, TAP City of Grand Forks University Ave Between Harvard St and Hamline St Install grade-separated pedestrian crossings between Harvard St and Hamline St Improve bike/ped mobility, connectivity and safety (Mid-term recommendations from University Ave Study) Long-Range $3,555, TAP City of Grand Forks N 55th St at DeMers Ave Reconstruct intersection to allow for two SB turn lanes at 55th None Long-Range $4,740, City of Grand Forks S 42nd St 17th Ave to 29th Ave Expand to 4 lanes Year 2040 LOS D+ Long-Range $14,094, City of Grand Forks 17th Ave S 42nd St to 48th St Construct overpass Yr LOS D along DeMers Ave between ramps Long-Range $25,189, City of Grand Forks Mill Spur Railway Gateway Dr to University Ave Implement warning devices, gates and flashers, crossing Closures and median improvements and landscape and trail improvements Implement recommendations from Mill Spur Feasibility Study (above average crash rate) Illustrative $3,632,000 post-2040 Rail Project City of Grand Forks Merrifield Rd Interchange at I-29 Construct new interchange Limited ADT growth, desired southern bypass and alternative truck route Illustrative $8,983,765 post-2040 Grand Forks County 47th Ave S at I-29 Construct interchange (Pending IAR Study) Yr LOS D and Yr LOS F along 32nd Ave Illustrative $20,772,000 post-2040 City of Grand Forks Merrifield Rd Red River Crossing Connect to river crossing bridge and I-29 Limited ADT growth, desired southern bypass and alternative truck route Illustrative $21,383,891 post-2040 Grand Forks County North Bypass Truck Route North of Gateway Dr Evaluate long-term need for bypass Desired northern bypass truck route was illustrative in 2008 LRTP Illustrative post-2040 Freight Project N/A Gateway Dr 2nd Ave NE (3/4 access) Gateway Dr Access Management Study Recommendation Increasing ADT's and consistent with corridor Access Management Strategies. Short-Range $320, CIMS MnDOT Gateway Dr at Central Ave Improve intersection with right turn lane and acceleration/merge lane modifications and signal timing LOS and safety issues identified in Central Ave Corridor Study and crash rate exceeds expected crash rate Mid-Range $1,732, HSIP MnDOT Bygland Rd 5th Ave SE to Greenway Blvd Restripe as 3 lane roadway Yr LOS D- and Yr LOS E along northern end of corridor Mid-Range $745, City of East Grand Forks

135 Roadway Location Project Scope Project Rationale MN TH 220 at US 2 Signalize intersection with connection to new bridge connection No V/C issues, intersection improvements necessitated by future 32nd Ave bridge connection **Desired Project Timeframe** Cost (Year Of Expenditure) Year Special Funding Source Jurisdiction Illustrative $379,596 post-2040 MnDOT Central Ave 17th St to 23rd St Construct multi-purpose paths/crosswalks, install traffic signal at 23rd St and 4-lane to 2-lane transition north of 23rd St Addresses rural-urban transition and accommodate future development area Illustrative $2,575,000 post-2040 CIMS MnDOT 32nd Ave S 44th Ave SW to Bygland Rd Connect 32nd Ave Bridge to Bygland Rd 5th Ave NW at Gateway Dr Construct traffic signal Polk CR 58 at Bygland Rd Add Westbound left-turn lane, with connection to new bridge Limited ADT growth in southern East Grand Forks, addresses Sorlie and Kennedy Bridge LOS F in Yr and 2040 Improve system continuity and reduce volumes at high-crash intersection (2008 LRTP) No V/C issues, intersection improvements necessitated by future 32nd Ave bridge connection Illustrative $5,061,276 post-2040 N/A Mid-Range $3,117, CIMS MnDOT Long-Range $300, Polk County 3rd Ave SE Point Bridge Approach Reconstruct intersection for dual left-turn lanes at northbound approach of 1st St SE and 3rd Ave SE intersection Roadway Maintenance and Yr LOS D- and Yr LOS F Long-Range $1,896, City of East Grand Forks New roadway American Crystal Sugar New road access to Crystal Sugar Increasing ADT's along TH 2, evaluate connectivity needs at 10 St NE Illustrative $1,644,915 post-2040 N/A 2nd Ave NE 4th St NE to Gateway Dr Grade-separation from railroad, creating continuous N/S corridor Provide continuous north-south corridor in East Grand Forks. Illustrative $14,930,764 post-2040 City of East Grand Forks

136 Consistency with Federal, State and GF/EGF MPO Plans For this consistency analysis, each project noted on the range of alternatives list was reviewed for consistency with key state and federal plans. In some cases potential projects did not fully conform to these investment policies and priorities. In such instances, projects were re-scoped or phased or the inconsistency was noted for consideration during project prioritization. Preservation has been a focal point in recent state and regional plans, as well as federal MAP-21 legislation. MAP-21 law requires states and MPOs to establish: Minimum standards for states to use in developing and operating bridge and pavement management systems Performance measures for interstate and NHS pavement condition, NHS bridge condition, and interstate and NHS performance Minimum conditions for interstate pavements that may vary geographically Data elements necessary to collect and maintain standardized data to carry out a performance-based approach Both State DOT plans, the North Dakota s Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan (TransAction III) and the previously cited MnSHIP, emphasize system preservation as a key investment priority. For example, one of TransAction s fundamental values is a transportation system that is maintainable and sustainable, consistent with MAP-21. MnSHIP s investment strategy calls for a percentage of all statewide investment to be performance-based and for statewide preservation activities. This fundamental value found in each state s transportation policies, emphasizes preservation and maintenance before expansion. This core value is further supported by various state initiatives and strategies that target low-cost/high-benefit solutions and performance-based project selection. This theme was also clearly captured in the Street and Highway Plan s goals, objectives and performance measure, such that the Plan emphasizes preservation of the existing transportation system, targeting federal funds towards existing NHS and principal arterial roadways to spur revitalization, promote urban landscapes, protect rural landscapes, increase livability and establish a sustainable metropolitan transportation system. The range of alternatives project list, with its extensive preservation of State of Good Repair projects significantly changes the investment paradigm of previous Street and Highway Plan. However, this Plan is consistent with new state and federal policies, which have clearly embraced preservation and maintenance needs, in addition to setting the stage for future performance-based planning efforts. 112

137 From this consistency analysis, some project s scope or costs were revised, some project phased, and those projects identified as most consistent with federal, state, and local policies were noted for consideration during the fiscal constraints analysis in Chapter 5. Environmental Mitigation Considerations The GF/EGF MPO s transportation planning activities are metropolitan in scope and all of the projects included in the range of alternatives analysis were general concepts. With such limited detail, it is not possible to fully identify those elements that would impact the physical and social environment. Thus, the following environmental mitigation review did not focus on individual projects within the Street and Highway Plan, but rather offers a summary of: Sensitive Areas The types of environmentally sensitive areas of interest in the GF/EGF MPO planning area. The analyses that should be conducted in future early stages of project development to identify potential conflicts between improvement concepts and environmentally-sensitive areas. The generalized mitigation strategies that may be considered in an effort to minimize negative effects that a project could have on an environmentally sensitive area. There are numerous environmentally-sensitive areas found throughout the Grand Forks- East Grand Forks region. An overview of some of the identified sensitive areas, including wetlands, species of concern and identified cultural sites, is provided in Figure 34. Many of these sensitive areas are too small or too numerous to map at a metropolitan-level and can only be clearly identified through a project-level analysis. Some areas are yet to be identified and will only become known once a project-level analysis is completed. When a programmed project is ready to move from the Plan into the design / engineering phase, the project sponsor will be responsible for conducting the necessary analyses as required by state and federal regulations to determine the type, location, and impact to environmentallysensitive areas within the project study area. 113

138 Figure 34: Environmental Constraints Source: GF/EGF MPO