8.2 SR 05-17-2021
Request for Action
To Item Number
Mayor and City Council 8.2
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
General Business May 17, 2021 Cal Portner, City Administrator
Item Description Reviewed by
Northwest Metro Mississippi River Crossings
Feasibility Analysis
Reviewed by
Action Requested
Review and discuss.
Background/Discussion
Councilmember Wagner attended the Northwest Metro River Crossings Policy Advisory Committee Meeting in
March.
As the liaison to the committee, she would like to discuss and receive feedback from the Council regarding the
planning of a possible future river crossing as a new crossing could have impacts on the development of Elk
River.
Financial Impact
N/A
Mission/Policy/Goal
The Elk River Mission
Attachments
PAC Minutes
PAC PowerPoint
The Elk River Vision
A welcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional
service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity.
Updated: August 2020
1
The meeting will start in:
River Crossings
Northwest Metro
Feasibility Analysis
March 26, 2021
Northwest Metro
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting 2
Mississippi River Crossings Feasibility Analysis
Agenda
WelcomeIntroductionsRecap of PAC Meeting #1Traffic Updates (2020)No Build Traffic ForecastsConcept Review & ScreeningConcept EffectivenessForecast Sensitivity ApproachNext Steps
4
Welcome!
Sherburne CountyWright CountyMetropolitan Council Three Rivers Park DistrictFHWAMnDOTSRF ConsultingBolton & MenkSambatek
AnokaBrooklyn ParkChamplinCoon RapidsDaytonElk RiverMaple GroveOtsegoRamseyRogersSt. MichaelAnoka CountyHennepin County
5
Background and Purpose
Understand Past EffortsUnderstand Travel PatternsUnderstand System PerformanceUnderstand Land Use and GrowthUnderstand Community Position Develop and Evaluate Concepts Define Next Steps
Goals of the Feasibility Analysis
6
Goals and Expectations
finding investigation
-
Greater analysisEnvironmental reviewCommunity engagement
This is a factand the first of several stepsWill not include recommendationsFuture phases include:
5/4/2021
Schedule
Recap of PAC Meeting #1
analysis
analysis
covered ...
analysis
destination
we
-
Project background and purposeContextOriginCongestion
What
(Champlin)
(Anoka)
Wesp
Karasek
Judy Johnson
Council
Dennis Fisher (Dayton)Ryan Gleason (St. Michael)Ryan Jerry Koch (Coon Rapids)Tim McNeil (Dayton)Jennifer Wagner (Elk River)Ron Wagner (Otsego)Brian
City OfficialsMet
Recap of PAC Meeting #1
(Wright)
(Anoka)
Burandt (Sherburne)
Scott
Vetsch
Kiffmeyer
Stephenson
Commissioners
Novotony
Koegel
Lucero
Representatives
MaryErinEricJerry NewtonPaulPeggyZackBarbaraMatt LookScott Schulte (Anoka)Darek
StateCounty
was
Whothere
The congestion analysis findings match my experience of travel in the region
Recap of PAC Meeting #1
heard ...
we
destination findings match my
-
The originexperience of travel in the region
What
Recap of PAC Meeting #1
How is safety factored into the feasibility analysis?How is the feasibility analysis forecasting demand for travel? What assumptions is it making about teleworking?
Questions/discussion points
12
Traffic Updates
AM Congestion
vs. 2020
2019
PM Congestion
vs. 2020
2019
PAC Question 1
PAC Question 2
PAC Question 3
No Build Traffic Forecasts
No Build Traffic Forecasts
AND
Anticipated 2040 land use growth Highway improvement projects (recent, current, upcoming)
Travel Demand Modeling considers the highway system and land usesTraffic forecasts account for changes in:
2018 Trips with 2040 Highway Network
Volume increases with roadway improvementsVolume decreases with roadway improvements
Legend
2040 Trips with 2018 Highway Network
Volume increases with 2040 land use changesVolume decreases with 2040 land use changes
Legend
2040 Trips with 2040 Highway Network
Volume increases with planned 2040 conditionsVolume decreases with planned 2040 conditions
Legend
2040 No Build Forecasts
2040 No Build ADT forecasts on study area highways
Capacity Analysis
-
to
-
Volume
>1.2
capacity results:
0.85 to 1.0
-
level hourly capacities
-
to
-
<0.85
>1.0
hour directional traffic from daily forecasts
-
Under capacity Approaching capacity Over capacity Significantly over capacity
Estimate peakCompare to planningSummarize volume
V/C Analysis Results LegendReduced CongestionPossible New CongestionWorsening of Existing Congestion
Capacity Summary
-
to
-
Congestion reduced
with freeway conversion
Congestion reduced
with freeway conversion
Year 2040 No Build Volume
Congestion reduced
with capacity expansion
OverOver
UnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnder
PM V/C
WB / SB
ApproachingApproachingApproaching
OverOver
UnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnder
PM V/C
EB / NB
ApproachingApproaching
OverOverOver
UnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnder
AM V/C
WB / SB
ApproachingApproaching
OverOverOver
UnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnder
EB / NB
AM V/C
ApproachingApproachingApproaching
Summary of Existing V/C
lane arteriallane arterial
lane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freeway
--
------------
44
lane expresswaylane expresswaylane expresswaylane expresswaylane expressway
444646664448
-----
44444
Existing Facility Type
94
94
-
-
Section
94 to CSAH 81
CR 144 to I
TH 610 to I
-
East of TH 610
North of TH 10
West of TH 101
I
TH 252 to TH 10
109th to TH 610
TH 101 to TH 610TH 169 to TH 252
CSAH 81 to TH 169
TH 10 to Mississippi
Mississippi to 109thWest of TH 169/101
TH 169/10 to CR 144
TH 47 to Hanson Blvd
Hanson Blvd to TH 610
Armstrong Blvd to TH 47
TH 169/101 to Armstrong Blvd
94
-
I
TH 610
Hwy 10
Highway Hwy 169Hwy 101
Hwy 169 Elk River
OverOverOverOverOver
UnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnder
PM V/C
WB / SB
ApproachingApproaching
OverOver
UnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnder UnderUnderUnderUnderUnder
PM V/C
EB / NB
ApproachingApproaching
Significantly Over
OverOverOver
UnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnder UnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnder
AM V/C
WB / SB
Significantly Over
OverOverOver
UnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnder UnderUnderUnderUnderUnderUnder
EB / NB
AM V/C
Approaching
Significantly OverSignificantly Over
Summary of 2040 No Build V/C
lane arteriallane arterial
lane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freewaylane freeway
lane freewaylane freewaylane freeway
--
-----------
---
44
lane expresswaylane expresswaylane expressway
44464664448
448
---
444
Existing Facility Type
94
94
-
-
Section
94 to CSAH 81
CR 144 to I
TH 610 to I
-
East of TH 610
North of TH 10
West of TH 101
I
TH 252 to TH 10
109th to TH 610
TH 101 to TH 610TH 169 to TH 252
CSAH 81 to TH 169
TH 10 to Mississippi
Mississippi to 109thWest of TH 169/101
TH 169/10 to CR 144
TH 47 to Hanson Blvd
Hanson Blvd to TH 610
Armstrong Blvd to TH 47
TH 169/101 to Armstrong Blvd
94
-
I
TH 610
Hwy 10
Highway Hwy 169Hwy 101
Hwy 169 Elk River
capacity
capacity
under
capacity
under
under
V/C ratios improve to
V/C ratios improve to
V/C ratios improve to
Locations with Current/Future Improvements
94 from TH 101 to TH 610
-
ITH 169 Elk River TH 10 Ramsey/Anoka
(river
Approaching
TH 252 and TH 10
Capacity
increases from Under Capacity to
Approaching
94 and Hwy 169 and between
-
I
New Locations Approaching/Over Capacity
west of Hwy 169/TH 101
TH 10CapacityTH 610 betweenbridge) increases to
Locations under capacity for existing, but approaching or over in 2040
Significantly Over
Over Capacity
to
to
Over Capacity
Significantly Over
to
to
Over Capacity
Over Capacity
Approaching
Significantly Over
Approaching
to
Over Capacity
Over Capacity
94: increase from
-
Locations with Increased Congestion
94: increase from
-
TH 610 and I
Hwy 169 and TH 252: increase from
TH 610: increase from
94 east of
-
TH 10 between TH 47 and Hanson Blvd: increase from TH 101 between CR 144 and IITH 610 betweenHwy 169 betweenHwy 169 near Mississippi River: additional time periods
Locations approaching/over capacity for existing, but worse in 2040
Concept Review & Screening
Concept Development Overview
Build upon past planningRecognize projects under developmentConsider improving existing corridorsTarget deficiencies in the systemConsider new connections / crossings
Assume Programmed Projects CompletedConsider Future River Crossing Demands / 2040 CongestionHow can travel demands be reasonably served?
Considerations
Concept Development Approach
TH 10/169 in Elk RiverSB TH 101 in RogersTH 169 in Champlin and Anoka Step 1: Brainstorm ideasStep 2: Evaluate and narrow range of ideas Step 3: Review effectiveness and feasibility
of four corridor improvementsStep 4: Develop concept graphics / cost
Remaining Expressways in 2040Approach
34
Summary
-
Concept Brainstorm
35
Summary
-
Concept Brainstorm
36
Highway 10
Concept Brainstorm
37
Highway 101
Concept Brainstorm
Highway 610
Concept Brainstorm
thth
Rd
Rd
AveAve
120114
Ferry
Main St
W River
Highway 169
Bridge
Historic
th
th
Rd
Ped
Ave
Ave
SPUI
117
109
Dayton
Hayden
Lake Rd
Concept Brainstorm
th
11 Signals / Built Urban EnvironmentTH 10 to W. River Rd / Dean AveSouth of River Rd / Dean Ave to 109
TH 169
Highway 169
Concept Brainstorm
New River Crossing
Concept Brainstorm
Ave to
th
Zanzibar / Armstrong AlignmentTH 169 to Ramsey Blvd or Sunfish Lake Blvd TH 169 to 117Round Lake BlvdTH 252 Extension to Hanson Blvd
Potential Locations A.B.C.D.
42
New River Crossing
Concept Brainstorm
Concept Packaging
(TH 101 +
Mobility Mobility New River New River
Concept 1 Improvements (TH 101 + TH 10)Concept 2 Improvements TH 10 + TH 610)Concept 3 Crossing (Arterial)Concept 4 Crossing (Expressway)
Concept Packages
Concept Packaging
(TH 101 +
Mobility Mobility New River New River
Concept 1 Improvements (TH 101 + TH 10)Concept 2 Improvements TH 10 + TH 610)Concept 3 Crossing (Arterial)Concept 4 Crossing (Expressway)
Concept Packages
Concept Packaging
(TH 101 +
Mobility Mobility New River New River
Concept 1 Improvements (TH 101 + TH 10)Concept 2 Improvements TH 10 + TH 610)Concept 3 Crossing (Arterial)Concept 4 Crossing (Expressway)
Concept Packages
Concept Packaging
(TH 101 +
Mobility Mobility New River New River
Concept 1 Improvements (TH 101 + TH 10)Concept 2 Improvements TH 10 + TH 610)Concept 3 Crossing (Arterial)Concept 4 Crossing (Expressway)
Concept Packages
Discussion
Improvement ideas Screening method and resultsConcept packages
Questions, comments, or feedback on:
Concept Effectiveness
Blvd
94
-
I
to
252
Blvd.
to Armstrong
to TH
Lake
TH169/101
Initial Improvement Evaluation
Blvd to Round
System Interchange Improvements CR 144
Mobility Improvements
10 A:
HwyHwy 10 B: Add lane HansonHwy 101 A:Hwy 610 A: Mobility Improvements TH 169
UnderUnderUnderUnder
PM V/C
WB / SB
CapacityCapacityCapacityCapacity
UnderUnderUnderUnder
PM V/CEB / NB
CapacityCapacityCapacityCapacity
UnderUnderUnderUnder
AM V/C
WB / SB
CapacityCapacityCapacityCapacity
UnderUnderUnderUnder
EB / NB
AM V/C
CapacityCapacityCapacityCapacity
94
-
Blvd
Section
Improvement Effectiveness Evaluation
CR 144 to I
TH 169 to TH 252
TH 47 to Hanson Blvd
TH 169/101 to Armstrong
B
Highway
TH 610
Hwy 10Hwy 10
Hwy 101
Planning Level Capacity New River Crossing
ArterialExpresswayFreeway
variety of facility types were evaluated for
Anew river crossing conceptProjected volumes compared to planning level facility capacitiesGuide inclusion of appropriate facility scale in Concept Evaluations
90,000
80,000
Lane
-
4Freeway
70,000
60,000
50,000
Lane
-
4Expressway
Over Capacity
Under Capacity 40,000
Approaching Capacity
Roadway Planning Capacity (vehicles per day)
30,000
Lane
-
4Arterial
20,000
Level Capacity Needs for New River Crossing
-
Lane
-
2Arterial
10,000
0
Planning
1.201.000.800.600.400.200.00
RatioCapacity-to-Volume
mile
mile
-
-
Urban cross sectionMinimum ¼signal spacingRural cross sectionMinimum ½signal spacing
ArterialExpressway
Forecast Sensitivity Approach
Evaluate 2040 No Build and Improvement Concepts with sensitivity test forecast volumesCompare the extent to which No Build system needs remain the same as traditional forecastsCompare
the effectiveness of Improvement Concepts at addressing the identified issuesSensitivity results will clarify the confidence of the effectiveness of Improvement Concepts
2040 Traffic Forecast Approach
2040
Adjusted trend with lower baseline and slower growth
2040 trajectory
-
2019
Traditional growth on
Sensitivity Test
Base
20192020
COVID
-
Post
TrafficDemand
4
PAC Question
Schedule
7720
-
234
-
651
Chris Hoberg
ĭŷƩźƭƷźğƓ͵ŷƚĬĻƩŭθƭƷğƷĻ͵ƒƓ͵ǒƭ
Questions?
7984
-
499
-
763
Jennifer Wiltgen
ƆĻƓƓźŅĻƩ͵ǞźƌƷŭĻƓθƭƷğƷĻ͵ƒƓ͵ǒƭ
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting
Friday, March 26, 2021
8:30 to 10:00
Meeting Notes
Attendees:
Mike Barnes, MnDOT Metro District Engineer; Jennifer Wiltgen, MnDOT Metro District Project Manager;
Jane Kansier, Bolton & Menk; Eric Johnson, Bolton & Menk; Paul Morris, SRF Consulting Group; Brian
McLafferty, SRF Consulting Group; Kent Barnard, MnDOT Communications; Melissa Barnes, MnDOT
North Area Manager; April Crockett, MnDOT West Area Manager; Jerry Koch, Mayor of Coon Rapids;
Dennis Fisher, Council Member - City of Dayton; Eric Lucero, MN House of Representatives District 30B;
Jennifer Wagner, CM Elk River; Ryan Gleason, Council Member - City of St. Michael; Scott Schulte, Anoka
County Commissioner; Darek Vetsch - Wright County Commissioner; Zack Stephenson, MN House of
Representatives District 36A; Ryan Karasek, Mayor of City of Champlin; Mary Kiffmeyer, MN State
Senate District 30; Commissioner Kevin Anderson, Hennepin County; Debra Musgrove, City of Ramsey
City Council; Anna Varney, Federal Highway Administration; Commissioner Matt Look, Anoka County;
Judy Hanson, City of Maple Grove City Council; John Hoffman, MN State Senator District 36
Agenda Items
1. Welcome
2. Introduction
3. Recap of PAC Meeting #1
4. Traffic Analysis
5. Concept Review and Screening
6. Concept Effectiveness
7. Wrap-up
Meeting Notes
Mike Barnes, MnDOT, introduced himself, welcomed attendees to the PAC meeting, and
reviewed the agenda for the meeting.
Jennifer Wiltgen, MnDOT Project Manager, briefly reviewed the project background,
purpose, goals, expectations, and schedule.
1 | Page
Jane Kansier, Bolton & Menk, shared a recap of the December 2020 PAC meeting
covering agenda, attendance, survey results, and attendee questions.
Paul Morris, SRF Consulting Group, shared the traffic analysis component of the project:
o As follow-up to PAC Meeting 1 questions abou
congestion, Paul presented side by side maps of 2019 vs 2020 congestion in the
study area.
o PAC members were then asked to provide reactions to the maps using
Mentimeter.
12 of 14 attendees said the maps reflect their experiences during the
pandemic
In response to an open-ended question about the biggest change in
traffic, the most common answers were less peak hour traffic and higher
speeds. Multiple attendees also mentioned an increase in off-peak traffic.
The most common answer to a question about causes of congestion was
stoplights
2 | Page
When asked how traffic analysis results should be used to guide the
feasibility analysis, attendees opted for a blend of traditional planning
assumptions and sensitivity analysis
o Paul Morris presented 2040 no-build traffic forecasts. These forecasts account
for changes in land use growth and highway improvement projects
o Paul Morris presented a volume-to-capacity analysis of the 2040 no-build
forecasts
o Locations with reduced congestion
I-94 from TH 101 to TH 610
TH 169 Elk River
TH 10 Ramsey/Anoka
3 | Page
o Locations with possible new congestion
TH 10 west of Hwy 169/TH 101
TH 610 between I-94 and Hwy 169 and between TH 252 and TH
10 (river bridge)
o Locations with increased congestion
TH 10 between TH 47 and Hanson Blvd
TH 101 between CR 144 and I-94
I-94 east of TH 610
TH 610 between Hwy 169 and TH 252
Hwy 169 between TH 610 and I-94
Hwy 169 near Mississippi River
Eric Johson, Bolton Menk, reviewed four packages of improvement concepts
o Eric presented considerations and an overview of the approach used to develop
improvement concepts
o Eric shared the results of a concept brainstorm that identified 14 improvements
to highways in the study area.
o Each improvement was assessed for impacts on traffic flow across the
Mississippi River, consistency with regional planning, and impacts on
surrounding communities and/or the natural environment.
o Based on this assessment, 7 of 14 improvements were deemed eligible for
inclusion in Concept Development
4 | Page
Highway 10
Ramsey to Elk River: Spot mobility improvements from Amstrong
Blvd. to TH 101
Ramsey to Elk River: Covert to 4-lane grade separated corridor
from Amstrong Blvd. to TH 101
Hanson Blvd. to Round Lake Blvd: Add lane
Highway 101
TH 101 SB mobility improvements
TH 101/I-94 interchange improvements
Highway 610
TH 169 to TH 252: mobility improvement
Highway 169
Concept brainstorming identified two potential improvements on
Hwy 169, but both were deemed ineligible for concept
development due to impacts to the built environment
New river crossing
Four new river crossings were considered
Of these four, only the Zanzibar/Armstrong Alignment was
assessed to be consistent with local and regional planning and
eligible for inclusion in Concept Development.
5 | Page
o Eric then presented 4 concept packages. These packages consisted of different
combinations of concepts deemed eligible for concept development
Paul Morris, SRF Consulting Group, shared an evaluation of concept effectiveness.
o Analysis of the proposed mobility improvements on Hwy 10, Hwy 101 and Hwy
610 showed that all of the improved segments would be under capacity in 2040.
o Projected volumes on the proposed Zanzibar/Armstrong alignment are
consistent with a 4-lane arterial or 4-lane expressway capacity need
Paul Morris, SRF Consulting Group, provided an
forecast sensitivity test approach
o Evaluate 2040 No Build and Improvement Concepts with sensitivity test forecast
volumes
o Compare the extent to which No Build system needs remain the same
as traditional forecasts
o Compare the effectiveness of Improvement Concepts at addressing the
identified issues
o Sensitivity results will clarify the confidence of the effectiveness of Improvement
Concepts
1.
6 | Page
Jennifer Wiltgen, MnDOT Project manager, reviewed the schedule and provide closing
remarks
Scott Schulte, Anoka County Commissioner, asked about the outcome of past studies of
MnDOT staff Chris Hoberg and Jennifer Wiltgen are available as project contacts and for
questions.
7 | Page