6.0. & 7.0. SR 07-08-2002Item 6. & 7.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
DATE:
Pat Klaers, Cit~)~.~nistrator
July 8, 2002
SUBJECT: Highway 169 Corridor Management Plan Presentation
Highway 10 Corridor Management Plan Presentation
Recently the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) authorized long-range
studies on seven major transportation corridors throughout the state. The Highway 101/169
and Highway 10 corridors were two of the seven transportation routes that were studied by
professional consulting firms hired by Mn/DOT. Each of the seven transportation routes
were the subject of a corridor management plan (CMP) because they were identified as being
at risk of not meeting Mn/DOT performance objectives. These performance objectives
relate to such things as the number of accidents and average travel speed. Each CMP was
put together after a series of meetings between Mn/DOT, the consulting firms,
representatives of the impacted local units of government, and the public.
The City Council has invited citizens, property owners, and business owners to attend an
informational meeting on the CMP for both Highway 101/169 and Highway 10. Attached
for your information are the Chamber of Commerce newsletter article on this meeting and
two articles that have appeared in recent editions of the Elk Po'per StarNeuas.
The Highway 101/169 presentation is scheduled at 7:00 p.m. and the Highway 10
presentation is scheduled for 8:00 p.m. The Highway 101/169 presentation will be made by
Tim Thorcen, from CH2M Hill, and MnDOT representative Kurt Easdund. The Highway
10 presentation will be made by Howard Preston, from Howard R. Green, and MnDOT
representative Terry Humbert. A few copies of the Highway 101/169 plan are available. The
Highway 10 plan is on computer disk and copies are available.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
ELK RIVER'S HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION PLANS
July 8, 2002 Meeting at Elk River City Hall
Transportation issues have become a major issue for
our area. Some are directly related to the Highway
101 / 169 and Highway 10 corridors that run through
Elk River. Recently the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT)
authorized long-range
studies by professional
consulting firms on major
transportation routes in the
state including the two listed
above. A Corridor
Management Plan on each
highway corridor has
resulted from these studies.
The Elk River City Council
has established a public
information meeting for citizens and business owners
to attend. The meeting will take place Monday, July 8
in the Elk River City Council Chambers at City Hall.
The purpose of the July 8 meeting is to present
information to those affected in Elk River; citizens,
property owners and business owners that may be
significantly impacted by any of the recommended
plans and changes that could
occur in the future.
Given the current status of
transportation funding in
Minnesota, there are many
questions related to the
funding and the timing for
implementation of the
recommendations that are
identified in these two
corridor management plans.
These plans are long-range
in nature and it is likely that recommendations will be
implemented gradually based on funding and
community input.
The Highway 101 / 169 Corridor Management Plan
will be presented at 7 p.m., and the Highway 10
Corridor Management Plan will be presented at 8 p.m.
The presentation on each plan will be made by the
consulting engineering firm_ and MnDOT personnel
with a question/answer/discussion period following
the presentations.
Please attend this important and informational
meeting. The Highway 101 / 169 and Highway 10
corridors are vital to our area's economic future.
Your input is needed in order to make an impact on
any plans that are being considered.
Visit us on the web at www.erstarnews.com · Wednesday, July 3, 2002/Elk River Star News / 5
[ELK RIV[R
Meetings set to address MnDOT ,hig
The Minnesota Depart-
ment of Transportation is
looking for feedback on its
long-range studies on seven
mai or 'transportation
routes in the state, includ-
ing the Highway 101/169
and Highway 10 corridors
that run through Elk River.
The corridors were the
subject of a Corridor man-
hway studies
agement plan (CMP)
Because they were identi-
fied as being at risk of not
meeting Mn/DOT perform-
ance objectives relating to
things like number of acci-
dents and average travel
speed.
The CMPs for both the
Highway 101/169 and the
Highway 10 corridors will
be presented at a public
information meeting
Monday, July 8.
Businesses and residents
who may be affected by
changes to the ~ransporta-
~ion routes are invited to
the meeting to give input
on plans being considered.
The meeting Will' be in the
Elk River City Council
chambers at City Hall. The
Highway 101/169 CMP ,will
be presented at 7 p.m., and
the Highway 10 CMP will
be presented ac 8 p.m.
The presentation on each
plan will be made by the
consulting engineering firm
and Mn/DOT. A question-
and-answer period will fol-
low the presentations.
City's highways
to be discussed
Elk River City Council
has scheduled an informa-
tional meeting on the
Highway 101/169 and
Highway 10 transportation
comdor management
plans.
The meeting, set for 7
p.m. July 8 at the Elk River
City Council chambers,
will feature presentations
by the proJect's consulting
engineering firms and the
Minnesota Department of
Transportation
The 101/169 corridor
presentation will begin at 7
p.m.. and the Highway 10
presentation is scheduled
for 8 p.m.
The council is looking for
feedback from Elk River
citizens and business own-
ers on the ~mpact of the
plans and recommenda-
tions for changes.
--~' C~ty Council Minutes Page 13
April 15, 2002 ~
"~--- 1zo-UNcILMEMBER DIETZ MOVED TO ACCEPT THE BID FROM VISU-
SEWER CLEAN & SEAL, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,560.
COUNClLMEMBER KUESTER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 5-0.
7.4. Consider Funding and Timing of the 175th Avenue Improvement Watermain Construction
City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that Elk River Utilities has already taken action on this
item. He stated that the Utilities Commission has asked that the 175th Avenue watermain be
bid as alternate and Nh:. Maurer suggested that half of the trail be bid as an alternate also'.
The Council concurred with Mr. Maurer's suggestion.
7.5. Consider Resolutions Regarding Waco and Hwy. 10 Signal Project
City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that he has completed a feasibility study for the
signalization of the intersection of Highway 10 and Waco Street. He stated that three
commercial properties would be assessed one-quarter of the cost for installation of the
signal and a public hearing must be held.
COUNCILMEMBER TVEITE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 02-31
ORDERING A PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY REPORT, RESOLUTION 02-32
RECEIVING THE FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ORDERING A PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE IMPROVEMENT, AND RESOLUTION 02-33
DETERMINING ASSESSED COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND ORDERING
PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE MATTER OF
THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 10/WACO STREET INTERSECTION
SIGNALIZATION IMPROVEMENT OF 2002. COUNCILMEMBER MOTIN
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0.
Consider Resolutions Regarding tntetre~onal.~rridor Studies? (,Highway 10 and Highway
169)
City Engineer Terry Maurer stated that Elk River is the only community that hasn't adopted
the Highway 10 and Highway 169 [nterregional Corridor resolutions. He discussed three
options for Council consideration.
Mayor Klinzing stated that she did not want to adopt any resolutions until MnDOT could
speak to the Council and the public at a City Council meeting. She would like to receive
public comment from Elk River residents, as these two studies would have a big impact on
the city.
City Administrator Pat K_laers suggested that a letter be sent to MnDOT acknowledging Elk
River's participation in the study and stating that the city is willing to sign the resolutions at
a later date after the city receives input from citizens.
The Council concurred on delaying consideration of these two resolutions until a later date.
Howard R. Green Gompany
Item 7.6.
April~,2002
Files: 809230J-0325
809235J-0325
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
P.O. Box 490
Elk River, MN 55330-0490
RE:
TH 10 INTERREGIONAL CORRIDOR STUDY
TH 169 INTERREGIONAL CORRIDOR STUDY
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF INTERREGIONAL CORRIDOR
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Dear Council Members:
Mn/DOT is requesting that the City of Elk River adopt a resolution for both the TH 10 and
TH 169 Interregional Corridor Management Plans. City staff had originally anticipated
that the City Council would not consider these resolutions until there was an opportunity
for the City Council to hold public headngs with Mn/DOT and the consultants for the
studies available to present the plan and the City Council to take feedback from the
public. However, recently City staff has been informed that the City of Elk River is
apparently the only governmental jurisdiction involved in the studies that has not
considered adopting the resolutions regarding the Corridor Management Plans.
Therefore, staff has decided to bring these resolutions forward at this time.
There are several different ways the City Council can approach this issue. City Council
could consider one of the following options or a variation. The options staff sees are as
follows:
Take no action on the resolutions and let the final Corridor Management Plans be
published without a resolution from the City of Elk River.
Adopt a resolution that simply states that the City of Elk River was a participant in
the planning process and does or does not agree with the vision statement or goals
of the plan.
Adopt the resolution in the format suggested by Mn/DOT with a list of issues that
need further discussion. These issues could be as specific as commenting directly
on portions of the plan recommendation, or as generic as identifying segments that
need further discussion and planning before the City is willing to accept them.
Attached to this Correspondence are the following items from each Interregional Corridor
Management Plan:
1. Draft resolution presented by Mn/DOT.
Ltr 4.-11-02 Council2
1326 Energy Park Drive · St. Paul, MN 55108 · 651/644-4389 fax 651/644-9446 toll free 888/368-4389
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Apdl 11, 2002
Page Two
2. Vision Statement/Goals.
3. Sections of the plan that discuss proposed improvements pertaining to the City of
Elk River.
4. Tables dealing with the pdodtization of projects and costs relative to improvements
within the City of Elk River.
I will be available at your April 15, 2002, meeting to discuss this issue further and answer
questions relative to the two Interregional Corridor Management Plans.
Sincerely,
Howard R. Green Company
Terry J. Maurer, P.E.
TJM:tw
Attchs.
Ltr 4-11-02 Council2
Howard R, Green Company
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TH 101 -TH 169 CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN (DRAFT)
FEBRU^R¥2002
Rogers, Elk River, Princeton and Milaca. The second round of public open houses was held March 18
and 19, 2002 at two locations: Princeton and Elk River. Members of the CMP project team were
available at each meeting to answer questions and obtain input.
1.3 Corridor Vision Statement and Need for Action
1.3.1 Corridor Vision Statement
Developing a corridor vision for 2025 involved several steps, including the early development of a
Vision Statement (see box below). The Vision Statement established the basic goals of the corridor
planning process, included 2025 performance goals, and outlined the roles that Mn/DOT and other
corridor partners can expect to play as the planning process moves toward implementation.
The vision statement was developed with input from the corridor partners after a process of issue
identification, preliminary traffic forecasting, and early performance predictions: The corridor
partners considered how the highways serve their communities, what they perceived as an
acceptable level of service, and what they felt was an acceptable level of impact to local and through
transportation systems. Corridor partners desires and concerns about future performance of the
corridor were addressed through a continual refinement of the vision statement. The following steps
outline the process used to refine the vision statement:
· Review corridor issues, deficiendes, and objectives
· Identify alternative strategies or improvement concepts
· Analyze and discuss advantages and disadvantages of the improvement concepts
· Determine short- and long-term consensus approaches by corridor partners
,,i
TH 101 -TH 169 Corridor Vision Statement
1. CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS
The CMP will be developed to achieve a balance between the needs and visions of individual communities and the safe and
efficient movement of people and goods. Specifically, the planning process will strive to minimize adverse community effects while
maintaining or improving both interregional and local traffic operations.
2. HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE GOALS
Mn/DOT and its corridor partners have established the future highway performance goals (2025) for the TH 101-TH 169 IRC as
follows:
· Improve travel time performance and predictability to meet the target speed of 60 mph for the high priority segment from
Rogers to Zimmerman, minimizing delays on TH 101-TH 169 and on intersecting roadways.
· Maintain or improve travel time performance and predictability to mee[ the target speed of 55 mph for the medium priority
segment from Zimmerman to Garrison, minimizing delays on TH 169 and on intersecting roadways.
· Improve safer7 to achieve crash rates better than the statewide average, limiting conflicts between the various vehicle tTpes
and pedestrians.
3. IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES AND ROLES
These goals will be achieved by focusing highway project investments, guiding future land use patterns, and managing highway
access points. Mn/DOT and its corridor partners will provide leadership toward the achievement of corridor goals by sharing their
visions, promoting projects or initiatives, and protecting or enhancing community image and natural resources.
1-7
. 22~ st St ~
Project #8
New interchange at 221 st Avenue
~ Currant Design Project
New interchange:at C, SAH ~CSAH 33
(2003
Elk River New interchange
~ (possible split diamond)
Jackson Ave , ,, at Jackson and 197th Avenues
Project #6 School St. O
New interchange at Main Street :-,
Overpass at School Street . ~ Main St
~ Project #5
O Improved interchange at TH 10
Project #4 I CSAH 39.:~
New interchange at CSAH 39 otsegO
' 0~¢/,/ ~ Project #3
_CSAH 37 ~ ~-~ New interchange at CSAH 37
Overpass at CSAH 42
Project #2 St. Michael
New interchange at CSAH 36
Legend
Existing Interchange
Current Design Project
Proposed Interchange
Proposed Overpass
Roads
Project Boundary
m
Rogers
CSAH 144
ROgers Drive
Project #1
Improved interchange at 1-94
New interchanges ar overpasses at
CSAH 144 and Rogers Drive
Potential Highway Improvement Projects
0.500.51
Miles
Figure 5-1
Page 1 of 2
TH 101 -TH 169 CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN (DRAFT) FEBRUARY 2002
the monetary value of both advantages (benefits) and disadvantages (costs) of various highway
projects. The result of a benefit-cost analysis is a ratio that indicates the economic desirability of
a project from a monetary point of view. Generally, an investment is considered economically
viable when the benefits exceed the costs--in other words, when the benefit-cost ratio is greater
than one. While the benefit-cost ratio is a valuable toot, it is also important to weigh the results
of the analysis against additional factors such as environmental, social, and other community
impacts. The results of the benefit-cost analyses for the 13 potential projects are sttmmarized in
Table 5-3.
TABLE 5-3
Highway Improvement Projects Benefit-Cost Ratios and Cost Estimates
Construction Project Number and Name
(all project costs include frontage roads
and 20% of project c.ost right-of-way estimate)
4-lane Freeway Conversion Upgrade to 6-lane Freeway
Cost Estimate Benefit- Cost Estimate Benefit-
(million $) Cost Ratio (million $) Cost Ratio
1' Rogers (growth area 1) - Improved and new
interchanges from 1-94 to CSAH 144
2: St. Michael (growth area 2) - New interchange
at CSAH 36
3: Otsego A (growth area 2) - New interchange at
CSAH 37; overpass at CSAH 42
4: Otsego B (growth area 2) - New interchange at
CSAH 39
5: Elk River A (growth area 3) - Improved
interchange at TH 10
6: Elk River B (growth area 3) -New interchanges
at Main Street; overpass at School Street
7: Elk River C (growth area 3) - New interchange
(possible split diamond concept) at Jacksorv'197th,
south of future CR 33 interchange
8: Elk River D (growth area 4) - New interchange
at 221st Avenue
9: South of Zimmerman (growth area 5) - New
interchange at CR 36/CR 45
10: Zimmerman (growth area 6) - New
interchange at CSAH 4
11' North of Zimmerman (growth area 7) - New
interchange at 277th Avenue
12: South of Princeton A (growth area 8) - Future
CSAH 9 interchange
13: South of Princeton B (growth area 8) - New
interchange at CR 38
$66 5.3 Add $15 4.4
million
$16 19.4 Add $4 million 15.0
$17 8.0 Add $6 million 5.9
$11 6.8 Add $3 million 5.2
$29 3.3 Add $5 million 2.8
$13 9.1 Add $3 million 7.38
$16 15.4 Add $6 million 10.61
$12 O..8
$15 0.9
$21 2.7
$17 O.5
$7 1.4
$9 0.8
5-8
TH 101 - TH 169 CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN (DRAFT)
FEBRUARY2002
planning and development reviews, and would prevent new signals from being installed. A
possible final stage of project development would be the 6-lane seg-ment from north of Rogers to
Elk River. Planning for fids last phase would begin in 15 to 20 years.
To further its project prioritization work for multiple IRCs, Mn/DOT has categorized various
IRC projects as follows (with reference to fire projects identified in this CMP):
· Category I Projects. Already prOgrammed--includes: (a) the Sherburne CR 33 interchange
project, (b) the Sherburne CSAH 9 interchange project, (c) safety improvements at Mille
Lacs CSAH 11, and (d) the upgrade of TH 169 to four lanes from Onamia to Garrison. These
projects are already included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or
the Work and Studies Plan.
· Category II Projects. Strategic Projects to Reach IRC Performance Targets--includes:
(a) seven potential projects to upgrade TH 101-TH 169 to a 4-1ane freeway from 1-94 in
Rogers through Jackson/197th Street in Elk River; and (b) the development of a new
interchange at CSAH 4 in Zimmerman. As previously discussed, these projects are
considered the top priorities for further study and development because they will be
necessary to achieve IRC speed and safety performance targets.
· Category III. Long-Term Vision Projects to Achieve Other Goals--~ncludes: (a) potential
expansion of a future four-lane freeway to slx lanes from Rogers through Elk River; (b) five
potential future upgrades (new interchanges) to achieve a continuous freeway from Elk
River to Princeton; and (c) access consolidation and related actions along unsignalized
expressway from Princeton to Onarrda.
The above-referenced projects are also listed individually by category, with estimated costs, in
Appendix D--see Table D-4, page D-10. The recommended process to actually manage the
corridor in the future, discussed in Section 5.4 below, is built around these project priorities.
5.4 Corridor Management Recommendations
Several recommendations have been developed based on preliminary project performance
evaluations and prioritiz~,tion work. The.recommendations are structured to identify the
highest priorities for foLlow-up actions to be taken as the planning process concludes.
The responsibilities of corridor partners relative to each of these recommendations are also
discussed. Mn/DOT will play the largest role in the implementation of these recommendations;
however, the corridor vision could not have been successfully developed, nor can it be
successfully implemented, without the cooperation of city, county, and township governments.
Additionally, environmental stakeholders, such as the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, have participated in the CMP process
and will undoubtedly continue to do so in the future.
5-10
SAMPLE CMP RESOLUTION
WHEREAS., Minnesota's State Transportation Plan recogaxizes the sigxM_fdcance of interregional
highway corridors in providing citizens and businesses throughout the State of Minnesota with
high quality access to recreational, educational, employment and health care opportunities, and
to the transport of products and services produced by our local economy to.reg/onal, national
and global markets; and,
WHEREASj TH 101-TH 169 has been identified by the Minnesota Department of Transportation
as a High Priority I_nterre~onal Corridor from Rogers to Zimmerman and a Medium Priority
I_nterregional Corridor from Zimmerman to Garrison that enhances the economic vitality of the
state and provides essential access for central Minnesota counties and cities to major economic
markets and cultural centers including the St. Paul-Minneapolis metropolitan area and,
WHEREA~ the continued growth of the region is leading to increasing travel demand in the
~orridor and development pressure adjacent to the corridor which, ff un_managed, can
negatively affect the level of performance, safety and congest/on experienced by users of the
corridor; and,
WHERAS, community leaders, motorists and road authorities have identSfied this growing
travel demand and development pressure as a concern with potential negative consequences for
mobility and safety in the corridor, with the potential to degrade the performance level now
provided by the corridor, and the resulting implications for the economy and quality of life of
the region; and,
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, recognizing the potential impact of
continued growth pressure on the corridor, has completed an Interregional Corridor
Management Plan in partnership with its partners along the corridor to look at the long-term
role that TH 101-TH 169 will play in meeting t_he transportation needs of central Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, it is imperative at this critical t/me that a long-term vision for the type of service
that the TH 101-TH 169 corridor needs to be established and that the steps are identified and
initiated to:
1. Preserve the function of the corridor through advance planning, not only for the TH 101-
TH 169 corridor but local supporting street systems and land use and development
patterns; and,
2. Secure the needed famding to pursue the vision established for the corridor; and,
3. EstabLish a plan of action for the development of planning and programming activities
that will proactively address the needs identified.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED~ the (City, County, Township, etc.) of (insert name of
City, County, Township, etc.) endorsed the vision and corridor management plan for TH 101-
TH 169.
I
I
FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED, the (City, County, Township, etc.) of (insert name)
endorsed the concept that an adequate network of supporting roads is necessary to attain the
TH 101-TH 169 corridor vision and that the roadway networks identified in the TH 101-TH 169
Corridor Management Plan will be considered as interim g~.ddes until such time as refinements
to these improvements are identified.
FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED, the (City, County, Township, etc..) of (insert name)
recogrdzed the regional significance of the corridor in supportLng the re~onal economy and
intends to reflect the TH 101-TH 169 Corridor Management Plan vision, strategies and policies
through updates to the (insert name of City, County, Township etc.) land use and
transportation plans as well as subdivision ordinances.
FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED, the (City, County, Township, etc.) of (insert name) is
committed to working in partnership with Mn/DOT and the other partners along the corridor
as a member of the TH 101-TH 169 Corridor Management Team in order to achieve the vision
and implement the recommendations of the TH 101-TH 169 Corridor Management Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the (City, County, Township, etc.) of (insert name) intends to
bring forward the following issues for resolution and discussion with the TH 101-TH 169
Corridor Management Team:
List issues here
Signa~lre Block
1.3 Vision Statement
The development of the Vision Statement for the TH 10 corridor has been an evolving
process. The overall draft Vision Statement was presented to the study's Policy and
Technical Advisory Committees for their review and comment. With their input, the
Vision Statement was revised and has guided the development of the application of the
vision by subarea. The TH 10 overall vision for the corridor follows.
TRUNK HIGHWAY (TH) 10 INTERREGIONAL CORRIDOR
TH 24 to 1-35W
(Clear Lake to Mounds View)
VISION STATEMENT
A Focus on Mobility, Safety, Balance, and Partnership
The Vision for the TH 10 Interregional Corridor is to achieve a balance betwee;
regional mobility and local circulation. The balance point will be dynamic along
corridor and responsive to interregional connectivity goals and local commur~?
needs.
The Vision is to achieve interregional system goals for speed and safety as well
improve local circulation. Mobility should be addressed by providing a high qua
of traffic flow and better managing access from adjacent land uses with a
pr/ority on safety. Consistency with local land use plans is critical to implementatio:
The path from Vision to Reality is dependent on a partnership among alt stakeholder:,
to achieve a balanced mobility. Townships, cities, counties, Mn/DOT, other state aox
local agencies, and the corridor stakeholders will need to plan and work together
achieve intra-city access and intercity mobility.
Subarea workshops were held to enlist the help of the two advisory committees in
developing the application of the vision to the subareas. See Chapter 2 for a further
discussion of the subarea workshops.
TH ]0 Corridor
Management Platt:
TH 24 in Clear lake to 1-35W
January 2002
] -6 1NTROD UCTION
Table 6.1-2
Prioritization of Projects by Timeframe
Project
No.
2
4
4B
4C
5
6
Project
TH 24 to CSAH 8
CSAH 8 to CSAH I 1
CSAH 11 to Waco Street
- CSAH 11 to Waco Street w/o CSAH
14/15 Interchange3
- CSAH 14/15 Interchange
Waco Street to TH 169
- Waco Street to 600' west of Proctor
- 600' west of Proctor to 950' east
of Main St.
- 950' east of Main St. to TH 169
TH 169 to Sunfish Lake Blvd
Sunfish Lake Blvd to Round Lake Blvd
Round Lake Blvd to TH 610
TH 510 to 1-35W
Short-Term:
2002-2010
X
X
Project Timeframe
IMedium-Term:
2010-2018
X
X
X
X
Long-Term:
2¢?~ 8-2025
X
X
X
* Interim improvements should be completed in the short-tenn.
TH I0 iRC Study
Corridor Management Plan
No. 813260J
6-4
January 2002
Alternative Staging and Implementation
Table 6.1-3
Breakdown of Year 2001 Project Costs by Estimated Timeframe and Jurisdiction
Project Timeframe, Jurisdiction, and Estimated Costs
Short-Term Medium-Term Long-Term
Projecti Costs: Costs: Costs:
No. [ Project 2002-2010 2010-2018 2018-2025
1 TH 24 to CSAH 8 $13,944,000 (D3)
2 CSAH 8 to CSAH 11 $13,397,160 (D3)
3 CSAH 11 to Waco Street
- CSAH 11 to Waco Street w/o '$51,448,960 (D3)
CSAH 14/15 Interchange3
-CSAH 14/15 Interchange $5,500,000 (D3)
4 Waco Street to TH 169
4A - Waco Street to 600' west of Proctor 1525,998,767 (D3)
- 600' west of Proctor to 950' east of $21,283,489 (D3)
4B Main St.
4C - 950' east of Main St. to TH 169 $5,754,240 (D3)
I $114,720,489
5 TH 169 to Sunfish (Metro) ~
$95,025,767
6 Sunfish to Round Lake Boulevard (Metro)
Round Lake Blvd to TH 610 · $101,495.375
7(8-lanes) ~ (Metro)
8TH 610 to 1-35W (8-lanes) · $14,_50,~38
(Metro)
Total by Timeframe: Metro Division $95,025,767 $114,720,489 $115,745,713
Total by Timeframe: District 3 $5,500,000 $78,486,689 $53,339,927
Grand Total by Timeframe $100,525,767 $193,207,178 $169,085,640
* Cost estimates for short-term, interim improvements have not ~een developed. However, the long-
term cost estimates provided for projects 7 and 8 assume that NO nterim improvement projects have
been completed.
,TH 10 IRC Study
Corridor Management Plan
No. 813260,1
6-5
January 2002
Alternative Staging and Implementation
(Insert City, County, Township, etc.name)
RESOLUTION NO.
ACCEPTING, SUPPORTING, AND ADOPTING THE
TH 10 INTERREGIONAL CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHF. REAS, Minnesota's State Transportation Plan reco~tmizes the significance of interregional
highway corridors in providing citizens and businesses throughout the State of Minnesota with
high quality access to recreational, educational, employment and health care opportunities, and
to the transport of products and services produced by our l°caI economy to regional, national,
and global markets; and,
WHEREAS, the TH 10 Interregional Corridor haS' ~ id'entitled by the Minnesota Department
of Transportation as a High Priority Corridor fi0m I£35W to TH 169 and as a Medh~m Priority
Corridor fi.om TH 169 to TH 24 in Clear Lake!ffi~ ~Ces the economic vitality of the state
providing essential access for the central regi6h °f the state in Sherbume, Anoka, and Ramsey
Counties to major economic markets ~d cultural Centers including the h/fmneapolis-St. Paul
metropolitan area; and, :: :;~
WHEREAS, the continued gr6~h ofth~region is leading to increasing travel demand in the
corridor which, ifunmanaged~can ne~tively affect the level of performance, safety, and
congemon expcrien d bye corridor; and,
WHF. REAS, community leaders, motorists, and road authorities have identified this growing
travel demand and development pressure as a concern with potential negative consequences for
mobility and safety in the corrrdor, with the potential to degrade the performance level now
provided by the corridor, and the resulting implications for the economy and quality of life of the
region; and,
WHEREAS, the lVfmnesota Department of Transportation, recognizing the potential impact of
continued growth pressure on the corridor, has completed an Interregional Corridor Plan in
partnership with its partners along the corridor to look at the long-term role that the TH 10
Corridor will play in meeting the transportation needs of the central region of Minnesota; and,
WHEREAS, it is imperative at this critical time, with continued growth occurring in the region,
that a long-term vision for the type of service that the TH 10 Corridor needs to provide be
established and that the steps are identified and initiated to:
1. Preserve the function of the corridor through the advance planning, not only for the TH
10 Corridor but for the local supporting street systems and land use and development
patterns; and,
2. Secure the needed funding to pursue the vision established for the corridor; and,
3. Establish a plan of action for the development of planning and programming activities
that will proactively address the needs identified.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the (insert City, County, Township, etc of__
endorses the vision and corridor management plan for the TH 10 Corridor.
FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED, the (insert City, County, Township, etc of )
endorses the concept that an adequate network of supporting roads is necessary to attain the TH
10 Corridor vision and that the roadway networks identified in the TH 10 Corridor Managemem
Plan will be considered as interim guides until such time as refinements to these improvements
are identified.
FURTHF. RMORE BE IT RESOLVED, the (insert City, County, Township, etc of )
recognizes the regional significance of the corridor in supporting the regional economy and
intends to reflect the TH 10 Corridor Management Plan vision, strategies, and policies through
updates to the (insert City, County, Township, etc of ).land use and transportation plans as
well as subdivision ordinances.
F[JRTHERMORE BE 1T RESOLVED, the (insert City, County, Township, etc of ) is
committed to working in partnership with Mn/DOT and the other partners along the corridor as a
member of the TH 10 Corridor Management Team .in order to achieve the vision and implement
the recommendations of the TH 10 Corridor Management Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the (insert City, County, Township, etc of , ,) intends to
bring forward the following issues for resolution and discussion with the TH 10 Corridor
Management Team: :' : ..
1. List Issues Here
2
0 CH2MHILL
TH 101-TH 169
Corridor Management Plan
(I-94 in Rogers to TH 18 in Garrison)
Public Hearing CORRIDOR PLAN
Elk River City Council Chambers
July 8, 2002
Corridor Management Plan
Progress Summary
May Jun Jul Auq Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
Identify Issues
Develop
Improvement
Alternatives
Plan for Project
Implementation
TH 101-TH 169 Corridor Vision Statement
1. CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT PLAN GOALS
The CMP ~ll be developed to echieve a balance beiweon the ~ and visions of individual
communities and the safe and efr~ant movement of peo~e and ~. S~y, the planning
prOCeSS will slrive to minimize adverse community effects Mlile maintaining or im~ng bofh
interregional and local traffic
2. HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE GOALS
Mn/DOT and its corridor parmem have established the f~ high~ performance goals (2025) fOr the
TH 101 - TH 169 IRC as ~of~:
· Improve trlWel tiwte pe~fomlance arKI predictability to ~ the targel speed of 60 rnph for the
high prtorltY~ ~ Rogers to Zimmermon~ mtl~tmlzlng delays on TH 101oTH169 and on
intemecting mae'ways.
mph fo~e ~m i:.t~ ~ from ~ to Ga~son, minimizing ~ on TH 't 69
andon ~ng roadways.
· Improve saf~ to anhieve crash rates better than Ihe ~de average,'tlmlting ~icts
3. IMPLEMENTtqT~N APPROACHES AND ROLES
These goals will be achieved by fonusing highway pro~ect inv--, gukf. ng future lapel Un patterns.
and managing highway access points: MM:)OT and corrid0r pa~ will provide leede~hip ~rd
achievement of ~ ~.J~y ~g their ~siofls, pmmofing I~ Or i~tiativas, and ~g or
enhancing CommUnity ~ and natu~ resoumes.
Population Growth
Projected Population Growth from 2000 to 2025
Future Transportation Performance
Peak Period Weekday Travel Speed Performance
Alternative Strategies to Achieve the Vision
Alternative - Expand to a 6-Lane Signalized Arterial
Cedar Avenue, City of ~ Valley
Alternative Strategies to Achieve the Vision
Alternative,- Expand to a Freeway
Diamond ~, c~ ~ R~.~ ~--
Alt. Strategies to Achieve the Vision
Elk Rive r 2025
4-la ne Freeway
Elk River (84,000 A DT)
61 mph
(32,400 Al
37 mpa
Elk River 2025 --
6-lane
(84,000 A DT)
34 m ph
Elk River 2025
4-lane
(84,000 ADT)
9 mph
· An expanded signalized
expressway would fail to satisfy
the visions of improved safety,
improved speed, and improved
local traffic operations.
· Peak-hour speeds would not be
improved and signalized
intersections would continue to
fail (ddvers waiting through
cycles).
· The desired performance simply
cannot be achieved by expanding
the highway while leaving the
signals in place (p. 4-4).
· A four-lane freeway would
accommodate future volumes
while improving speeds
Alternative Strategies to Achieve the Vision
Key Findings
· The speed and safety performance goals stated in the corridor vision cannot he
achieved without highway capacity improvements.
· The speed performance goals stated in the corridor vision can be achieved by
improving the highway to a freeway from Rogers through Elk River.
· The safety performance goal stated in the corridor vision can be most readily
achieved by eliminating signalized intersections and by addressing crash problems
at other selected intersections.
· Proper management of TH 169 as a four-lane expressway between Princeton
and Onamia is sufficient to achieve the speed goals staled in the corridor vision.
· Upgrading TH 169 to a four-lane rural expressway hetwsen Ooamta and
Garrison is necessary to achieve the safety and speed objectives stated in
the corridor vision.
Alternative Strategies to Achieve the Vision
Overall Corridor Performance with 4-Lane Freeway through Elk River
Overall ccxTIdo~' apeed
ff 4-lane freeway through
Elk RI~ ~llt by 2015.
/
/ Target Speed
'~ / (High priority IRC)
~ ~ I1
1 ,s ~ overm~ cm'r~dor ~peed
~ ff ElS Improvemef~ta from
· ~ ~.~...~bum by 2OlO.
completed.
;,'~:~'; ~,,*., ~; ~ I O 2015 20 ,~ ?3?5
Year
Action Plan for Corridor Management
Key Recommendations
· Mn/DOT and the corridor partners should complete ongoing project development work.
· Local governments should update comprehensive plans and should consider updating local
zoning ordinances (such as setback requirements).
· Soon after this CMP is completed, Mn/DOT should develop a scoplng document, to apply the
appropriate early level of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, capture the CMP
effort, and conduct an agency Input and review cycle.
· Mn/DOTandcorrldorpartnersshouldplanfortbephaseddevelopmentofhighwayimprovement
· To maintain highwayperformance on the existing tour-lane expressway in Mille Lacs County (from
Princeton to Onamta), planning should be focused on development patterns at primary and
secondary development nodes.
· Mn/DOT and corridor partners should seek opportunities to enhance multimodel opportunities
along the corridor, Including transit services, freight oparatlons, and other multimodal ~
opportunities.
Action Plan for Corridor Management
Proposed Projects
Action Plan for Corridor Management
Planned or Programmed Projects
· TH 169 at CSAH 9
· Interchange, construction 2002
· TH169 at CR 33
· Interchange and frontage roads, construction 2003
· TH169 at CR11
· Intersection safety Improvement, construction 2004
· TH 169 Onamia - Garrison · Work Plan - FY 2006 to 2010 funding
· DEIS published and circulated
· Public Hearing on March 4th
· Preferred Alternative selection
Action Plan for Corridor Management
Strategic Projects Necessary to Meet IRC Targets
· System Interchange TH 101 / 1 94
· Improve 1-94 Interchange and separate through and local movements.
· Interchange at Hennepln CR 144
· Eliminate Other Signals (through Elk River)
· CSAH 36, CSAH 37 & CSAH 39 Interchanges
· CSAH 42 overpass
· Improve TH 10 Interchange
· Main Street interchange
· School Street crossover
· Split diamond - Jackson Street to 197~h Street
· Replace CSAH 4 Intersection (Zimmerman) with
Interchange (highest crash rate/severity intersection)
Action Plan for Corridor Management
Long-Term Vision Projects
· Possible upgrade to a six-lane freeway from Rogers
through Elk River
· Not needed by 2025 to achieve targets; maybe later?
· Keep In mind for design of bridges
· Complete a continuous freeway from Rogers to
Princeton
· Consolidate and ultimately eliminate access points
· Additional Interchanges (4) from Elk River to Princeton
· Access and safety management for the four-lane
expressway from Princeton to Onamia
· Focus on primary and secondary development nodes
· Guide growth, consolidate access, set priorities for possible
interchanges
vfhich projects are planned to be built soon?
A number of projects described in the Corridor Plan are currently underway. These projects are already included
in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) or the Work and Studies Plan Process. The following
table identifies these projects that are already programmed.
Project Cost Status
CR 33 intemhange
(Elk River)
$12 million (budgeted cost)
Construction planned for
2003
GSAH 9 interchange
(North of Zimmerman)
$4 million (let cost)
Construction in 2002
CSAH 11 Safety
Improvement
(North of Milaca)
$1 million (budgeted cost)
Construction planned for
2004
Upgrade to 4-lane
expressway between TH 27
(Onamia) and TH 18
(Garrison)
Estimates for this project range from $50 to $100
million. It is not possible to provide an accurate
estimate for this project at this time.
Draft ElS published;
public hearing March 4th
Which projects should be started next?
Projects necessary to achieve IRC speed and safety performance targets are considered the top priorities and are
included on the following table.
Proiect
Improved and new interchanges from 1-94 to CSAH 144
New interchange at CSAH 36
New interchange at CSAH 37; overpass at CSAH 42
New interchange at CSAH 39
Improved interchange at TH 10
New interchange at Main Street; overpass at School Street
New interchange (possible split diamond concept) at
Jackson/197th
New interchange at CSAH 4
Location
Estimated Cost
Rogers $66 million
Otsego/St. Michael $16 million
Otsego $17 million
Otsego $11 million
Elk River $29 million
Elk River $13 million
Elk River $16 million
Zimmerman $21 million
The corridor partners worked together to reach consensus that upgrading TH 101-TH 169 to a freeway between
Rogers and Princeton is strongly supported as the long-term vision for an improved corridor. The most favorable
projects for achieving the vision (listed in order from south to north) are:
· Rogers through Elk River -Upgrade to a 4-lane freeway (6-lane freeway possible long-term vision)
· Elk River to Princeton - Upgrade to a 4-lane freeway as long term vision
Princeton to Onamia -Access m~nagement and consolidation toward development nodes to maintain
performance of existing highway
· Onamia to Garrison - Upgrade to a four-lane expressway (current EIS project)
What are some of the Issues?
Several factors have been identified by
Mn/DOT and its corridor partners that
demonstrate a need for action along the
Highway 101/169 corridor, including:
* Population Growth -- The corridor is in a
rapidly growing part of Minnesota. For
example, Sherburne Cotmty is projected
to have the highest percentage increase in
population of any county in the state
(92% in the next 25 years).
· Traffic Volume Growth -- Traffic
volumes are expected to double by 2025
along the entire corridor. Greater
increases will occur in the developed
areas of Rogers, Elk River, Zimmerman,
and Princeton.
Traffic Speed Performance~The current
high Priority IRC portion of the corridor
between Rogers and Zirnmerman has an
1
2000 2025 2026
AADT 23,900 65,400 $5,400
i SPEEC 71 67 67
average weekday peak period speed of
52 mph. If no changes are made to the
corridor, the average weekday peak
period speed would be 12 mph in 2025.
(Note: The figure to the right shows the
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
and the forecasted speeds for the four
segments of the high priority portion of
the corridor under the no build
alternative, as well as the three build
alternatives that were considered.
The table to the right shows the actual
and forecasted speed performance for
the entire high priority segment of the
corridor which extends from Rogers
to Zimmerman).
Safety -- Eleven intersections
currently have crash rates and crash
costs that are higher than the
statewide norm. Traffic signals
contribute to the higher rates,
especially at Highway 4 in
Zimmerman - the most dangerous
intersection in the corridor. Access
WRIGHT
2000 2025 2025 2025 2025
AADT 32,400 64,0~0 84,000 84.{3{30 84,li!]
SPEED 37 9 34 61 64
2000 2026 2025 2025 2025
AADT 34,500 72,000 72,000 72.{3D0 72,000
SPEED 53 11 41 64 6S
Travel Speed Performance
The statewide IRC program emphasizes planning to maintain reliable travel speeds under
typical weekday peak hour conditions and to improve highway safety. For this plan, the IRC
speed performance goals are based on the IRC priority (shown on the map and below).
IRC Priority Segment Target Actual Forecast
Speed Speed (2001) Speed (2025)
High Priority - Rogers to 60 mph 52 mph 12 mph
Zimmerman
Medium Priority- 55 mph 67 mph 60 mph
Zimmerman to Garrison
The studies completed for the plan show that the average peak period speed for
the high priority segment would drop dramatically by 2025, while the medium
priority segment would remain above its target speed.
points to the highway are also safety risks.
ISee the Corridor Management Plan on the web!
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/movin.qminnesota/101
169corridorplan.html