The URL can be used to link to this page

10.1 SR 08-01-2022it ci Elk* River Request for Action To Item Number Mayor and City Council 10.1 Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by Work Session August 1, 2022 Justin Femrite, P.E., Public Works Director Item Description Reviewed by Highway 10 Corridor Study Cal Portner, City Administrator Reviewed by Action Requested Provide final comments on the Highway 10 Corridor Study. Background/Discussion Initiated in April of 2020, the Highway 10 Corridor Study has progressed toward final completion. The main findings identify the vision of the highway to become a freeway -style corridor with grade -separated access points. This remains consistent with previous planning efforts surrounding the 171" Focused Area Study but further extends that freeway concept easterly to meet the visioned freeway -style highway corridor through Anoka County. SRF will provide a final review of the Study's findings and work any last comments of the Council into the document. Financial Impact None Mission/Policy/Goal Meet changing needs - Agile Attachments ■ Highway 10 Corridor Study The Elk River Vision A n elcoming community with revolutionary and spirited resourcefulness, exceptional service, and community engagement that encourages and inspires prosperity. P I I E I 1 0 IY NATURE Updated. August 2020 Final Report Prepared by SRF Consulting Group SRF May 2022 SHERBURNE �► C 0 U N T Y city 10 Ellsdoft _ m ( , 'Ity Of DEPARTMENT OF r`- ANOKA River TRANSPORTATION COUNTY HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Table of Contents Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... v ExecutiveSummary ..................................................................................................................... 1 StudyOverview............................................................................................................................ 6 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................6 StudyProcess....................................................................................................................................................7 StudyArea.........................................................................................................................................................8 RelatedPlanning Efforts...................................................................................................................................6 ExistingConditions...................................................................................................................... 7 Transportation System Overview.......................................................................................................................7 TypicalSection.........................................................................................................................................7 Jurisdiction............................................................................................................................................... 7 FunctionalClass...................................................................................................................................... 7 Right -of -Way .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Utilities.................................................................................................................................................. 10 PavementConditions............................................................................................................................ 10 Access.................................................................................................................................................. 10 MultimodalSystem............................................................................................................................... 11 Transportation Operations............................................................................................................................. 14 DataCollection..................................................................................................................................... 14 DailyTraffic Volumes............................................................................................................................ 14 TravelPatterns..................................................................................................................................... 14 Origin -Destination Analysis................................................................................................................... 14 RoadwayCapacity................................................................................................................................ 19 IntersectionCapacity............................................................................................................................ 19 GapAnalysis......................................................................................................................................... 22 Other Operations Observations............................................................................................................ 22 CorridorSafety............................................................................................................................................... 23 CrashHistory........................................................................................................................................ 23 CrashAnalysis...................................................................................................................................... 23 Social, Environmental, and Economic Context............................................................................................... 27 LandUse............................................................................................................................................... 27 Soils...................................................................................................................................................... 29 Farmland.............................................................................................................................................. 29 WaterResources.................................................................................................................................. 29 Resources and Hazards....................................................................................................................... 29 Potentially Contaminated Sites............................................................................................................ 34 ■ HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Minority and Low -Income Populations.................................................................................................. 34 ExistingConditions Summary......................................................................................................................... 37 Stakeholder and Public Engagement Round 1.............................................................................................. 38 Technical Advisory Board Meeting....................................................................................................... 38 FocusGroup Meetings.......................................................................................................................... 38 PublicOpen House............................................................................................................................... 39 Alternatives............................................................................................................................... 40 Alternatives Development Process................................................................................................................. 40 PreliminaryEvaluation................................................................................................................................... 40 BenefitCost Analysis............................................................................................................................ 42 CorridorCapacity Analysis.................................................................................................................... 43 AdditionalSignal Needs........................................................................................................................ 44 SecondaryEvaluation..................................................................................................................................... 46 NorthSegment..................................................................................................................................... 46 SouthSegment..................................................................................................................................... 47 Stakeholder and Public Engagement Round 2.............................................................................................. 52 Technical Advisory Board Meeting....................................................................................................... 52 FocusGroup Meetings.......................................................................................................................... 52 PublicOpen House............................................................................................................................... 53 Long-term Vision ........................................................................................................................ 54 ImplementationStrategies............................................................................................................................. 56 LocalRoadway Vision........................................................................................................................... 56 NorthSegment..................................................................................................................................... 56 SouthSegment..................................................................................................................................... 58 MiddleSegment................................................................................................................................... 62 FundingOpportunities.................................................................................................................................... 62 Stakeholder and Public Engagement Round 3.............................................................................................. 64 Technical Advisory Board Meeting....................................................................................................... 64 PublicOpen House............................................................................................................................... 64 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................. 65 ■ HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT List of Figures Figure1. Study Area..............................................................................................................................................5 Figure2. Typical Section.......................................................................................................................................7 Figure3. Roadway Jurisdiction..............................................................................................................................8 Figure 4. Functional Classification........................................................................................................................9 Figure5. Typical Right-of-Way............................................................................................................................ 10 Figure6. Access................................................................................................................................................. 12 Figure7. Multimodal System.............................................................................................................................. 13 Figure8. Freight................................................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 9. Daily Highway 10 Travel Patterns........................................................................................................ 16 Figure 10. Monthly Highway 10 Travel Patterns................................................................................................. 16 Figure 11. Origin -Destination Analysis Westbound............................................................................................. 17 Figure 12. Origin -Destination Analysis Eastbound.............................................................................................. 18 Figure 13. Existing Level of Service A.M............................................................................................................. 20 Figure 14. Existing Level of Service P.M............................................................................................................. 21 Figure15. Gap Analysis...................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 16. Safety - Crash Frequency................................................................................................................. 25 Figure17. Safety - Crash Severity..................................................................................................................... 26 Figure18. Land Use........................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure19. Soils.................................................................................................................................................. 30 Figure20. Farmland........................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure21. Water Resources............................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 22. Resources and Hazards.................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 23. Low -Income Populations................................................................................................................... 35 Figure24. Minority Populations......................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 25. Preliminary Alternatives.................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 26. Peak Hour Capacity for a Four -Lane Signalized Highway.................................................................. 43 Figure 27. Peak Hour Capacity for a Four -Lane Grade -Separated Highway....................................................... 44 Figure 28. Restricted Crossing Intersection Control Evaluation......................................................................... 45 Figure 29. Grade -Separated Alternative - North Segment................................................................................. 47 Figure 30. Grade -Separated Alternative - Kelly Farm Road Area...................................................................... 48 Figure 31. Grade -Separated Alternative - Jarvis Street/Cleveland Street......................................................... 48 Figure 32. Grade -Separated Alternative - Adams Street................................................................................... 49 Figure 33. Grade -Separated Alternative - Alpine Drive...................................................................................... 49 Figure 34. Highway 10 Long -Term Vision........................................................................................................... 54 Figure 35. Highway Local Roadway Network...................................................................................................... 55 Figure 36. Local Roadway Typical Section......................................................................................................... 56 Figure 37. North Segment Long -Term Vision...................................................................................................... 57 Figure 38. South Segment Long -Term Vision..................................................................................................... 60 Figure 39. Middle Segment Long -Term Vision.................................................................................................... 61 a GHW4�� RRIOOR�� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT List of Tables Table 1. Access Spacing Guidelines................................................................................................................... 11 Table 2. Access Spacing Compliance Review..................................................................................................... 11 Table 3. Level of Service Criteria........................................................................................................................ 19 Table4. Gap Acceptance.................................................................................................................................... 22 Table5. Crash Type............................................................................................................................................ 24 Table 6. Crash and Severity Rates..................................................................................................................... 24 Table 7. Preliminary Evaluation Summary .......................................................................................................... 42 Table 8. Benefit Cost Analysis - North Segment................................................................................................ 43 Table 9. Benefit Cost Analysis - South Segment............................................................................................... 43 Table 10. South Segment Alternative Evaluation Summary ............................................................................... 51 Table 11. North Segment Long -Term Vision by Phase....................................................................................... 58 Table 12. South Segment Long -Term Vision by Phase....................................................................................... 59 Table 13. Funding Strategies (External)............................................................................................................. 63 Table 14. Funding Strategies (Internal - Taxing)................................................................................................. 63 Table 15. Funding Strategies (Internal - Bonding).............................................................................................. 64 Table 16. Funding Strategies (Internal - Cost Participation).............................................................................. 64 List of Appendices Appendix - Public and Stakeholder Engagement Materials Appendix B - Traffic Analysis Supporting Data for Existing System Analysis Appendix C - Detailed Evaluation Matrices Appendix D - Traffic Analysis Supporting Data for Alternatives Analysis Appendix E - Concept Layouts and Cost Estimates ■ HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Project Management Team (PMT) Name Justin Femrite Agency City of Elk River Ryan Sandhoefner City of Elk River Luke Wehseler MnDOT District 3 Tod Sherman MnDOT Metro Jennifer Wiltgen MnDOT Metro Ashley Hansen MnDOT Metro Kent Barnard MnDOT Metro Technical Advisory Board (TAB)* Name Kelvin Howieson Agency MnDOT District 3 Steve Voss MnDOT District 3 Tom Cruikshank MnDOT District 3 Andrew Witter Sherburne County Joe MacPherson Anoka County Bruce Westby City of Ramsey * All PMT members participate on the TAB as well. Consultant Team Name Molly Stewart Agency SRF Consulting Matt Pacyna SRF Consulting Collin Schroeder SRF Consulting Alysa Johnson SRF Consulting Dan McNiel SRF Consulting Phil Kulis SRF Consulting Dan Tinklenberg SRF Consulting Priyam Saxena SRF Consulting Farveh Makhssous Sambatek Brittney Krebsbach Sambatek Mark Salo Sambatek U-1 HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Elk River along with its partners from MnDOT, Sherburne and Anoka Counties and the City of Ramsey completed the Highway 10 Corridor Study. The goal of the study was to develop a long- term 20+ year vision for the Highway 10 corridor and then build consensus around this vision. The long-term vision would be something that would be implemented over time as opportunities arise and funding becomes available. The goal of the long-term vision is to ensure safe and efficient operations along the Highway 10 corridor while supporting economic development within the area and region. The study included the following public engagement to facilitate the analysis process: • Virtual open houses • Targeted stakeholder focus group meetings • Community surveys • Study specific website The study was guided by the Project Management Team (PMT), which was comprised of representatives from the City of Elk River, MnDOT District 3, and MnDOT Metro. The PMT played an integral part in the study by providing oversight and input on technical analyses, concept alternatives development and evaluation and the public engagement process. Additionally, the project included a Technical Advisory Board (TAB) that served as a sounding board and provided input and guidance at key project milestones. Members of both the PMT and TAB are identified in the Acknowledgements section of this report. Existing Conditions Summary A comprehensive analysis of the conditions along the Highway 10 corridor within the study area was completed. The assessment included a review of existing planning documents, preliminary environmental review, analysis of existing and future traffic operations and safety, and review of the multimodal system. Highway 10 is an important corridor for personal and freight transportation, connecting local and regional users to greater Minnesota. After analysis of the current conditions along the roadway, the following concerns were identified: • All study intersections currently operate at an overall LOS C or better. • Sides -street access to Highway 10 is challenging, with most stop - controlled approaches operating at LOS E or worse during the peak periods. OPERATIONS • Existing ADT volumes on Highway 10 are approaching the facility's planning -level capacity. • There are limited or no adequate gaps for motorists to safely access Highway 10 during the peak periods. • Vehicles were observed using the shoulders as acceleration lanes to access Highway 10. • 200 crashes have occurred within the study area during the past 5-years. • The study corridor has crash and severity rates that are statistically SAFETY significant compared to locations with similar characteristics. • The 171st Avenue intersection has crash and severity rates that are statistically significant compared to locations with similar characteristics. �GHW4� 0 ■ �RRIOORSN� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT • The Intersections of 173rd Avenue and 165th Avenue had crash rates just under the statewide expected crash rate. • Majority of the crashes occurred at intersections (61 percent) and were mostly rear end and angle crash types. Majority of the rear end crashes were for westbound vehicles at the signalized intersection of 171st Avenue. ACCESS • Current access along Highway 10 does not meet the Mn DOT guidelines for access spacing. • Most land adjacent to Highway 10 is agricultural and impacts on this land should be minimized. SOCIAL, • Several water resources are in the study area. Future ENVIRONMENTAL, recommendations should minimize impacts to floodplains, wetlands, or AND ECONOMIC drinking water supply management areas. CONTEXT • The roadway is close to many potentially contaminated sites and must minimize interaction with these sites. • The Oliver Kelley Farm, a nationally registered historic property, is located directly adjacent to the corridor. Alternatives Considered The alternative development process was multifaceted using a range of inputs including technical data, public comments, design parameters, and guidance from the PMT and TAB. The primary goal was to identify a unified vision for the Highway 10 corridor that can be implemented over time as opportunities arise and funding becomes available. Given the complexity and needs of the area, this vision may take 20+ years and significant fiscal investment to realize. Therefore, this study is the first step in the process and additional planning, environmental, design, and engagement efforts will be needed in the future. The initial long-term alternatives that were considered include: • A No Build alternative, which is also known as the do-nothing option. • Alternative 1, which is an at -grade signalized corridor alternative that would include the addition of new traffic signals along the corridor coupled with access modifications and acceleration lanes. • Alternative 2 represents a more innovative at -grade corridor alternative, which includes a combination of reduce conflict intersections (also known as RCls) along with potentially more traffic signals, access modifications, and acceleration lanes. • Alternative 3 is a grade -separated corridor alternative that provides a free flow option for Highway 10 motorists. This free flow corridor would be accomplished through a series of new interchanges, bridges, and/or on or off ramps. This alternative would also include access closures along Highway 10. A comprehensive evaluation of each alternative was completed. Evaluation criteria was developed based on the existing conditions analysis and centered around safety, mobility and convenient access being high priorities for the corridor. Bike and pedestrian accommodations, project costs and right-of-way impacts were also used in the evaluation process. The results of the preliminary evaluation showed that alternative 3, which is the grade -separated corridor alternative, meets the majority of the evaluation criteria well, with the exception of cost. This alternative has the highest costs; however, it provides the best safety and mobility for all users. a GHW4�, Page I A �RRIOOR�� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Long -Term Vision Following the second round of stakeholder and public engagement, additional discussions with the PMT occurred to confirm the long-term vision for the Highway 10 Corridor would be a grade - separated corridor with interchanges at Highway 169 (existing), Twin Lakes Road and Adams Street (see Figure E--1). Additionally, access closure and a robust local roadway network will be needed to support this long-term vision (see FigureE-Z. Figure E -1. Highway 10 Long -Term Vision ■ HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Figure E - 2. Highway Local Roadway Network HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Next Steps The critical next step for this study is to complete significant environmental review, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to fully analyze these conceptual alternatives and implementation strategies. Through this environmental process, interchange design and implementation will be determined. The environmental review process also includes additional opportunities for public input. Following the environmental review, the project would move into preliminary and final design. The goal of the study was to identify a long-term 20+ year vision for the Highway 10 corridor ensures safe and efficient operations along the Highway 10 corridor while supporting economic development within the area and region. Implementation of the long-term vision will take commitment and collaboration from all study partners. The cities, counties, and MnDOT will need to continue to collaborate to determine next steps such as environmental review, preliminary and final design, and agency cost sharing and coordination. a GHHIY �RRIOORSN� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT STUDY OVERVIEW Introduction The City of Elk River along with its partners from MnDOT, Sherburne and Anoka Counties and the City of Ramsey completed the Highway 10 Corridor Study. The goal of the study was to develop a long- term 20+ year vision for the Highway 10 corridor and then build consensus around this vision. The long-term vision would be something that would be implemented over time as opportunities arise and funding becomes available. The goal of the long-term vision is to ensure safe and efficient operations along the Highway 10 corridor while supporting economic development within the area and region. The corridor study focused on Highway 10 between Highway 169 and Jarvis Street, near the Sherburne and Anoka County border. The general study approach is outlined below: • Build upon previous planning efforts • Quantify current and future transportation conditions, issues, and needs • Evaluate transportation improvement alternatives • Engage key stakeholders to solicit input and build understanding • Develop a fiscally responsible implementation plan to support economic development and corridor operations and safety a GHW4y, Page 1 • �RRIOORSN� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Study Process The Highway 10 Corridor Study took approximately two years to complete and followed the schedule shown below. The study included public engagement, including three open houses, focus group meetings, and agency coordination to effectively facilitate the study process. The study was guided by the Project Management Team (PMT), which was comprised of representatives from the City of Elk River, MnDOT District 3, and MnDOT Metro. The PMT played an integral part in the study by providing oversight and input on technical analyses, concept alternatives development and evaluation and the public engagement process. Additionally, the project included a Technical Advisory Board (TAB) that served as a sounding board and provided input and guidance at key project milestones. Members of both the PMT and TAB are identified in the Acknowledgements section of this report. J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A $ 0 N D J F M A M J �GHW4� 0 ■ �RRIOORSN� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Study Area Shown in Figure 1, the Highway 10 study corridor is approximately 3.5 miles. The limits of the study are from Highway 169 to Jarvis Street/Cleveland Street. Additionally, some areas outside of the Highway 10 corridor were reviewed as part of the study to identify transportation system connectivity. The study segment is primarily within the Elk River city limits with a small portion on the eastern side in the Ramsey city limits. The study includes the following key intersections: • 173rd Avenue • 171st Avenue • 170th Avenue • 167th Avenue • 165th Avenue • Kelly Farm Road a �Hway • Edison Street • Jarvis Street/Cleveland Street • Adams Street North • Adams Street South • Alpine Drive 1-0 Figure 1. Study Area Highway 10 Corridor Roads Wetlands Rail Line 5th kl County Boundary 0 Municipal Boundary HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Related Planning Efforts Several planning efforts are ongoing or were recently completed near the corridor. To ensure this study aligns with identified goals and decisions made in previous efforts, the project team reviewed and will integrate relevant information from those plans into the study recommendations. These planning efforts include: Elk River 'vet Compreher�ve Plan i�ia riui�6 Elk River Comprehensive Plan This plan emphasized the importance of Highway 10 as a regional corridor and economic driver. Reconstruction of the roadway is identified as one of the city's top priorities. Sherburne County Transportation Plan This plan identified the strong economic impact of the roadway, and the need for immediate access and safety improvements. � w.ovF�'ENT sjF ajFv Project rN CY 104� zo,v Icy r aF sT ",. le ec ® L�NlNUEP.... IN UT q (flyerijwr(,(PF � oF✓FL�aFna��e��.,��. IN "Ira AND'PEOMP �} { Ramsey County Gateway Project This project will add grade separated intersections near the project area, to facilitate safer travel and transport of goods. Page 1 6 HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT EXISTING CONDITIONS To develop meaningful transportation solutions, it is important to understand and quantify the existing characteristics of the study area. This process can help identify transportation issues and needs necessary to provide safe and efficient operations for all users, while supporting economic development. The following information provides a summary of the existing conditions evaluation. Transportation System Overview Typical Section The Highway 10 corridor is primarily a rural four -lane divided expressway with select turn lanes at intersections (see FigureZ. There is a wide median, which generally allows most motorist types to complete a two -stage crossing or turning maneuver by using the median. From a traffic control perspective, there is one traffic signal at the intersection of 171st Avenue; the remaining intersections are side -street stop -controlled. The posted speed limit varies between 60 to 65 miles per hour (mph). Figure 2. Typical Section Jurisdiction Roadway jurisdictions include three categories: State, county, and city. Highway 10 falls under State jurisdiction, as does Highway 169 to the west (see Figure 3). This typically indicates higher traffic volumes, less frequent access, and higher speeds. All the roadways that intersect Highway 10 within the study area are under city jurisdiction. Functional Class Functional classification defines the roadway function, including access, speed, regional connectivity, and system connectivity of a roadway. The entirety of Highway 10 is classified as a Primary Arterial road, indicating a mobility focus with low access, high speed, and strong regional and system connectivity. It is connected to Highway 169 - another Primary Arterial. Most roadways that cross Highway 10 are classified as local roadways except for 171st Avenue which is a Major Collector and Jarvis Street/Cleveland Street which is an A Minor Connector (see Figure 4). �GHW4�, �RRIOOR�� 1 I V� 40 L_ 181st.Ave•NW ti r v a 175th Ave NW LL Elk River 165th'Ave NW v v 'jO&WWt s ' CO 64 Ermine B/, 1 0,1471, %f / 176th Ave'NW i �1 u� 167th La NW qr Ram �S�rO F1 ego Saint Michlel H I Sherburne Hennepin z cn v a Q Alpin `bunker Lake �O o � n pl � B � o�� RISE sO„ Dayton ) I V r . y ( Hass r Figure 3. Roadway Jurisdiction Jurisdiction City Highway 10 Subarea Study Limit County State Source: 2018 data obtained from MnDOT Elk River v E T 3 D -Q S Q� GJ 73 ro ti H N Nowthen s CO 64 176th Ave'NW 1.7ard Ave NW O C Q ` 167th La NW qr Ramsey ego Ipin Saint Michael Dayton Ql� Hassan Figure 4. Functional Classification Functional Class Primary Arterial B Minor Minor Arterial Major Collector A Minor Expander Minor Collector A Minor Connector Local Source: 2018 data obtained from MnDOT 116 HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Right -of -Way Based on available Sherburne County parcel data, the typical right-of-way along the Highway 10 corridor ranges from 220 to 230 feet (see Figure 5). Utilities There is an above ground power line that runs parallel to Highway 10 on the south and west side of the roadway for the entire length of the corridor. There is also an above ground power line that runs parallel to Highway 10 on the north and east side of the roadway between 173rd Avenue and Highway 169 and between Adams Street North and Alpine Drive. There is intersection lighting at all intersections along the corridor. Pavement Conditions MnDOT collects pavement condition data on their roadways on an annual basis. MnDOT's Figure 5. Typical Right -of -Way pavement condition data for reporting the statewide pavement performance measures includes Ride Quality Index (RQI), Surface Rating (SR), Pavement Quality Index (PQI), and Remaining Service Life (RSL). According to 2019 MnDOT pavement management data, the following pertains to the Highway 10 corridor: • The RQI is good with a rating score between 3.1 and 5.0. • The SR is good with a rating score between 2.5 and 4.0. • The PQI is good with a rating score between 2.8 and 4.5. • The RSL ranges from Medium (4 to 11 years left) to High (12 plus years left). Additionally, the segment of Highway 10 from Jarvis Street/Cleveland Street to Fairoak Avenue is scheduled for a medium mill and overlay in 2027. Access Within the study area there are a total of five residential, one farm, 16 public, and 11 commercial access points along the Highway 10 corridor (see Figure 6). Access points were further categorized by full access versus partial access (e.g., right-in/right-out). The amount of access has a correlation between the safety and overall function of the roadway (i.e., mobility versus access). Primary intersections refer to full -movement intersections that may be considered for signalization if the appropriate signal warrants have been met. Secondary intersections refer to intersections that may be accommodated midway between primary intersections if they do not create safety issue. Secondary intersections may be full -movement intersections or partial -movement intersections (e.g., right-in/right-out). The area surrounding the Highway 10 corridor is currently rural. In the future, there is potential for the area to transition to urban or urbanizing. For the purposes of this study, access guidelines for rural and urban/urbanizing facility types were considered. �GHH'4Y E� Page ' HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Table 1. Access Spacing Guidelines Analysis of current access spacing found that most intersections within the study area are non- compliant with the current guidelines for both rural and urban/urbanizing facility types (see TabieZ. Additionally, the amount, type, and sporadic location of the existing access could be a contributing factor to any potential safety and congestion issues experienced along the corridor. Table 2. Access Spacing Compliance Review N�l Segment Limits Access Points'- Compliance Compliance • • •.Spacing . • 3 access 5 access 1 Highway 171st 0.75 2 3 points/mile points/mile 169 Avenue Non- Compliant Compliant 3 access 5 access 2 171st 165th 0.88 3 3 points/mile points/mile Avenue Avenue Non- Non -Compliant Compliant Jarvis 3 access 5 access 3 165th Street/ 1.65 4 7 points/mile points/mile Avenue Cleveland Non- Non -Compliant Street Compliant Jarvis 3 access 5 access 4 Street/ Alpine 0.44 3 3 points/mile points/mile Cleveland Drive Non- Non -Compliant Street Compliant 1 Includes to/from intersections in total number of access points. Multimodal System Due to Highway 10's classification as a Primary Arterial roadway, most users utilize personal vehicles, rideshare, or public transit. However, the use of multimodal systems adjacent to the corridor interact directly with the operations of Highway 10 and will likely shape future development in the area. Within a quarter mile of the corridor is the Elk River Northstar Train Station, which connects Elk River to downtown Minneapolis (see Figure 7). This rail line runs parallel to Highway 10 within the study area. Although relatively little pedestrian and bicycle use occurs directly along Highway 10, there are nearby pedestrian facilities to consider. Several trails exist within one mile of Highway 10, connecting residents to local parks, residential communities, historic properties, and the waterfront. Two of these trails connect to roads that directly intersect Highway 10, and a trail to the southeast - just outside the study area - runs immediately adjacent to the roadway. a GHH'4Y �RRIOOR�� O QU -c Q Ln Ramsey z 164th La NW �n Y J Figure 6. Access Access Type Commercial - Full Access Public - Partial Access • Commercial - Partial Access Residential - Full Access Farm - Partial Access Residential - Partial Access Public - Full Access o �178th-Ave/ 0 z N m E- LL 5th7A've NW 173 rd t Figure 7. Multimodal System (Q Transit Stations Parks Rail Line Wetlands Trails Sidewalks E i o / � O Q -c Q Ln Ramsey CM�111 �LINII, HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Transportation Operations To quantify current transportation operations, the following data collection and roadway capacity analyses were conducted. Data Collection Typically, data collection for a corridor study would involve collecting the most recent traffic data, including daily traffic volumes and intersection turning movement counts. However, this corridor study is being conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has impacted normal travel patterns. Therefore, to ensure the most accurate data possible, a combination of data sources was reviewed, including: • Automated Traffic Recorder (ATR) Station 352 Data • Historical average daily traffic (ADT) volumes provided by MnDOT • Historical intersection turning movement counts collected for previous area studies • StreetLight data, which includes navigation-GPS data and location -based services (LBS) data This data was used to calibrate the existing conditions and ensure typical (non-COVID-19) conditions are represented. Daily Traffic Volumes Highway 10 is an important corridor within Elk River, transporting up to 34,000 vehicles per day (vpd). Heavy Commercial Average Annual Daily Traffic (HCAADT) volumes along Highway 10 average about 1,400 vpd, which equates to approximately four (4) percent heavy commercial vehicles. There are also several key freight facilities within the study area, shown in Figure 8. Travel Patterns Daily traffic patterns for eastbound traffic show higher use Monday through Friday, while westbound traffic peaks Thursday and Friday. Monthly travel peaks occur in both directions from May through September. This suggests that there is a significant amount of summer weekend "cabin" traffic that utilize the corridor. Figure 9and Figure 10display the daily and monthly travel patterns, respectively, on Highway 10. Three years of data (e.g., 2017 through 2019) was utilized and then averaged, which is shown on the figures. Origin -Destination Analysis An Origin -Destination analysis was completed for the study area utilizing StreetLight' Analytics Data from 2019 to better understand who is currently using the corridor. Based on the data, most users of the Highway 10 corridor originate or are destined to locations outside of the study area (70 to 75 percent). The remaining trips include users that originate or are destinated for locations within the study area (25 to 30 percent). Most westbound motorists originate from Highway 10 east of the study area (67 percent) and have destinations that include Highway 10 west of the study area (38 percent), Highway 169 (30 percent), and Highway 101(22 percent). A summary of the key westbound and eastbound origins and destinations are shown in Figure 11and Figure12, respectively. 1 www.streetlightdata.com Page 1 14 p W �I 0 178th Ave I � N Je�a� m Gee _E --L175th-Ave NW w 1/3rq Ave NW k River QU � O Q s Q 165th�ve N\N Ln Ramsey z 164th La NW 'O �n i_ r Inverness La,NW �F 10 �a / 3 v a� D 01 � z y� c I 0 w 9� hPO Sherburne Hennepin Figure 8. Freight Current HCAADT 0 - 1,500 Commercial and 1,501 - 2,500 Industrial Land ® Greater than 2,501 O Freight Facilities Source: 2017 data obtained from MnDOT HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Figure 9. Daily Highway 10 Travel Patterns 22,000 20,000 U 18,000 f0 i 0 16,000 0.0 m > 14,000 12,000 10,000 Figure 10. Monthly Highway 10 Travel Patterns 21,000 20,000 19,000 U 18,000 17,000 0 v h0 16,000 v a 15,000 14,000 13,000 �`GNW4Y,o Sa��taa'A tEastbound ♦Westbound e'O�JatJ �atr P��\ �aJ ,�e �a J�Jy� ¢t et � tc�Zt et p 1� rye op 169 � 40 430% 138% 03% 22 o 1% 1% � Y v r Q Ramsey ,r 1 V9% �. 6U 4% iLj�sslssl p p�2:�� Dayton q3% 2% Figure 11. Origin -Destination Analysis Westbound Destination Zone Destination Location Origin Location Middle Filter Location 6%4 67% Uff 0,E Anoka 3% Source: 2019 StreetLight Analytics Data 169 40 b 27% 3o 3% is 4 8% ,-i, <; "< ; p P i Figure 12. Origin -Destination Analysis Eastbound Destination Zone Destination Location Origin Location Middle Filter Location Ramsey 57 04% 45% 3% Dayton 8%'t q 70% °o*r Anoka yP o 1% Source: 2019 StreetLight Analytics Data HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Roadway Capacity A volume to capacity analysis was completed for the Highway 10 corridor to identify the existing level of congestion. Congestion on an existing roadway system is judged to exist when the ratio of traffic volume to roadway capacity approaches or exceeds 1.0. The ratio of volume to capacity (V/C) provides a measure of congestion for a roadway that can help determine if roadway improvements, access management, or travel demand management strategies are necessary. As noted, the existing AADT on Highway 10 is about 34,000 vpd. The typical planning level capacity for a four -lane divided rural roadway is 35,000 to 38,000 vpd. Given the existing volume to capacity ratio (V/Q is ranges from 0.89 to 0.97, the Highway 10 corridor is approaching capacity. Intersection Capacity To determine the capacity of key intersections along Highway 10, a Level of Service (LOS) analysis was conducted. Traffic volumes for a typical weekday (i.e., Tuesday/Wednesday) during the summer months were utilized for the intersection capacity analysis. The LOS is defined by a letter grade (A through F), which is determined by the calculated delay and/or the density of the roadway. Intersections are quantified from LOS A through LOS F based on these factors, in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Current local guidance indicates overall intersection LOS D operations or better are considered acceptable. The capacity analysis utilized VISSIM, a traffic microsimulation software. This software allows the creation of existing roadway and intersection geometries, and inputs traffic volumes and signal timing information to replicate the existing traffic conditions within the project area. VISSIM provides an average delay experienced by drivers at each intersection and approach. The average approach delay and intersection delay determines the LOS (see Table 3). Table 3. Level of Service Criteria A <_ 10 <_ 10 B > 10-20 > 10-15 C > 20-35 > 15-25 D > 35 - 55 > 25 - 35 The analysis was completed for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which represent 7:00 to 8:00 during the a.m. and 4:15 to 5:15 during the p.m. A summary of the existing study intersection levels of services during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours are illustrated in Figurel3and Figurel4, respectively and detailed results are in AppendixB. In general, all study intersections currently operate at an overall LOS C or better during the peak hours. However, access from the cross -streets onto or across Highway 10 is challenging, with several side -street approaches operating at LOS E or worse. These findings are consistent with field observations conducted as part of this study, as well as from feedback with key agency partners. a GHW4�, ■ _ �RRIOOR�� v E o � O Q Ln 2,200 Ramsey 164thLa.W N 470 Sherburne Hennepin Figure 13. Existing Level of Service A.M. Overall Intersection LOS Current AADT AorB 0-2,200 Worst Approach LOS 2,201 - 6,500 6,501 - 12,200 D 12,201- 34,000 • E or F 34,001- 52,000 Inverness La NW '3 M ti ID a Q Source: 2019 Data F 5th River •16 s y10 h ,:�V \ '00 O tseg �a J Figure 14. Existing Level of Service P.M. Overall Intersection LOS Current AADT AorB 0-2,200 Worst Approach LOS 2,201 - 6,500 6,501 - 12,200 D — 12,201- 34,000 • E or F 34,001- 52,000 2,200 Ramsey z----g64th L-a N\N 7 470 Inverness La NW O s� ti v a a •� Q ,a O O N � r-I z o '1,550 9� I hP0 Sherburne Hennepin Source: 2019 Data HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Gap Analysis A gap assessment was completed to understand current gaps along Highway 10 to help determine if there are sufficient gaps to allow motorists from the side -streets to access and/or cross Highway 10. To complete this assessment, field observations were conducted to quantify the number and length of available gaps by direction. Based on this assessment, average westbound gaps vary from 3.4 to 7.7 seconds, and eastbound gaps vary between 3.7 and 5.2 seconds. This indicates there are limited gaps during the p.m. peak period for all movements in the westbound direction, but adequate gaps for all movements in the westbound direction during the a.m. peak period. In the eastbound direction, there are limited gaps during the a.m. peak period for all movements, while limited gaps for some movements during the p.m. peak period. Table 4provides a summary of the gap acceptance criteria used for this assessment. Note that Figurel5is an additional tool to help evaluate gaps from MnDOT's access management manual. This approach indicates that based on the volumes along Highway 10, there is a high risk of safety issues with any access along the corridor. Table 4. Gap Acceptance Vehicle Movement Left -Turn from Major Right -Turn from Minor 1-Stage Through on Minor 2-Stage, Stage 1 2-Stage, Stage 2 1-Stage Left -Turn from Minor 2-Stage, Stage 1 2-Stage, Stage 2 Source: Highway Capacity Manual Chapter 19 Other Operations Observations In addition to the operations analysis previously noted, other key corridor observations included: Figure 15. Gap Analysis 4000 400 3600 360 • Area landscaping can impact 3200 320 sight distance at a few locations. 2WO 260 • The horizontal curvature of the 2400 240 roadway can impact sight q 2000 260 distance at a few locations. y 1 160 • The traffic signal at 171st Avenue Y200 77D creates additional gaps in the wo W eastbound direction. 400 40 • Motorists on the side -streets A'NT VPH AADT 5.000 1pA00 15000 20. 000 25.000 experience significant delays GONF1iGTING VOLUME while trying to access and/or cross Highway 10. • Multiple vehicles were waiting in the median at one time, creating potential conflicts • Vehicles were using the shoulders as acceleration lanes to access Highway 10. Four -Lanes (Seconds) 4.1 6.9 6.5 5.5 5.5 7.5 6.5 6.5 OMDEO FOUR -CANE ROADWAYS (WITH WIDE MEMNS) "' AAOT 30,000 35.000 a GHW4�, Page I A �FRIOOR�� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Corridor Safety Crash History Crash data from the Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT) for the years 2015 through 2019 was reviewed. Within the past five years, 200 crashes have occurred on Highway 10 from 169 to Alpine Drive (see Figure 16). Sixty-one percent of the total crashes occurred at intersections and were mostly rear end and angle crash types (see Table 5). Majority of the rear end crashes were for westbound vehicles at the signalized intersection of 171st Avenue which is the only signal in the study area. The severity of crashes within the study area are illustrated in Figure-17. Note that of the crashes reviewed, two were fatal, and five involved serious injuries. Crash Analysis There are numerous ways to evaluate safety along the corridor and at intersections, and in this study the actual crash and severity rates were calculated and compared to the expected and critical crash and severity rates for intersections and segment with similar characteristics (see Table 6). This approach was used to determine the statistical significance of the amount and severity of the crashes that have occurred. In general, the expected crash and severity rates represent the average rates for intersections with similar characteristics. An above expected crash rates does not necessarily indicate a crash issue, however a crash or severity rate above the critical rates indicates an issue area that needs to be investigated further to determine if there are any engineering solutions to address the statistically significant crash issue. Based on this approach, the study corridor has both a crash and severity rate above the respective critical rates, which indicates a crash issue. Most of these crashes occurred at 171st Avenue, which is the only signalized location within the study segment. The intersection of 167th Avenue has an above average severity rate, but the rate is below the critical rate. This higher rate is likely associated with one of the fatal crashes that occurred at this location. The Intersections of 173rd Avenue and 165th Avenue had crash rates just under the statewide expected crash rate. As part of the alternative development process, potential solutions to these issues will be identified and evaluated. No other significant crash issues were noted along the corridor. a GHW4�, ■ _ �RRIOORSN� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Table 5. Crash Type ._ Segment/Intersectionar .• On Other Road _ End Op posing _ Highway 10 (169 to Alpine 40 60 1 35 44 Drive) 173rd Avenue 1 0 8 1 1 4 171st Avenue 3 6 24 0 11 9 170th Avenue 0 0 3 0 1 0 167th Avenue 5 1 1 0 5 2 165th Avenue 4 1 3 0 2 2 Kelly Farm Road 2 0 0 0 0 0 Edison Street 2 1 0 0 1 0 Jarvis Street/ Cleveland Street 1 3 0 0 2 1 Adams Street North 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adams Street South 1 0 0 0 0 0 Alpine Drive 1 1 1 0 5 2 Table 6. Crash and Severity Rates • Highway 10 (169 to Alpine 0.29 0.51 Drive) 0.44 1.29 0.64 173rd Avenue 0.25 0.24 0.42 0.41 0.35 0.63 171st Avenue 0.45 0.75 0.66 0.63 1.05 0.88 170th Avenue 0.25 0.06 0.42 0.41 0.06 0.63 167th Avenue 0.25 0.22 0.42 0.41 0.50 0.63 165th Avenue 0.25 0.19 0.42 0.41 0.25 0.62 Kelly Farm Road 0.25 0.03 0.42 0.41 0.06 0.63 Edison Street 0.25 0.06 0.42 0.41 0.10 0.63 Jarvis Street/ Cleveland Street 0.25 0.11 0.42 0.41 0.17 0.62 Adams Street North 0.25 0.00 0.42 0.41 0.00 0.63 Adams Street South 0.25 0.02 0.42 0.41 0.02 0.63 Alpine Drive 0.25 0.16 0.42 0.41 0.24 0.62 5th River 16 Figure 16. Safety - Crash Frequency Crash Frequency Sparse _ Dense 1-/3 rq-Ave-N W Ramsey z 164th La NW �n N C O w 7. Sherburne Hennepin F—F— I Source: 2015 - 2019 data obtained from MnCMAT Figure 17. Safety - Crash Severity Crash Severity ® Fatal Possible Injury Serious Injury Property Damage Only Minor Injury Unknown Severity 1-/3 rq-Ave-N W Ramsey 164th La NW Source: 2015 - 2019 data obtained from MnCMAT HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Social, Environmental, and Economic Context Consideration of the social, environmental, and economic context2 was a vital component of the corridor study. Land Use contributes directly to traffic volumes, safety, and economic impacts. Natural features also play a key role in shaping the future of Highway 10, as many construction, alignment, and regulations are tied to environmental resources. Understanding the soils, farmland, water resources, and nearby resources and hazards will ensure future changes to the highway are appropriate and responsive to the surroundings. Additionally, understanding the community and economic context is essential and provides insight into the existing use and future needs of the corridor. A Social, Environmental, and Economic review was completed and identified the following impacts on nearby resources. Land Use There are a variety of land use types immediately adjacent to Highway 10 within the study area. Most land use along the study corridor is zoned agricultural, with other areas zoned as commercial, industrial or mixed -use. There are also areas of parks, low density residential, historic sites, municipal land, and high density residential (see Figure 18) adjacent to the corridor. All these land use types drive users onto the highway and have specific needs from the transportation system. Commercial & Industrial Clustered areas of commercial and industrial land use are present near the northwestern and southeastern segments of the study corridor. These land use types are stretched along the corridor to maximize access and speed for shipping and transport needs. With such close proximity to Highway 169, the businesses located in these commercial and industrial zones rely on Highway 10 for efficient access to interstate and intrastate business opportunities. Agricultural The portion of Highway 10 which borders agricultural land provides key access to farmers and agricultural goods. Just as Highway 10 ensures efficient access to local and national markets for businesses in industrial and commercial areas, farmers utilize the roadway to ship and receive agricultural goods. Other Land Use Types The remaining land use types - parks, low density residential, historic sites, municipal land, and high density residential - rely on Highway 10 for commuting and tourism. Residential lands require frequent access to the highway which needs to be balanced with appropriate access spacing along the corridor. The Oliver Kelley farm, a historical museum located along the corridor, generates traffic from daily activities and special events. The study team considered the needs of these land types, while accommodating appropriate guidelines during the alternative development phase. 2 The purpose of this evaluation was to perform a preliminary inventory of potential impacts to guide the development of future alternative concepts. This assessment was based on environmental factors addressed in the environmental review process for highway projects and utilized available desktop resources. This analysis does not attempt to quantify specific project impacts. Additional analysis, including quantifying environmental impacts where necessary, will be completed for any proposed improvements reviewed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and/or the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). �GHHIY �FRIhJRSNO Otsego Figure 18. Land Use Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Rural Developing - Commercial - Mixed Use 175th Ave NW River in NN - Industrial - Education Park - Managed Forest Agricultural Municipal Other 0 178th Ave /Ermine BIvd,NVV� 11) o G\e N/ j / �6h p e i LT 173rd Ave NWQu / E O Q� � s Q We NW Ln NO V �j 4*q Sherburne Hennepin Source: Sherburne County, Anoka County HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Soils The soils surrounding Highway 10 can be classified by their hydric quality, on a scale from 0-100 percent, and are split into four hydric categories. Most soils along and near the corridor are 1-32 percent hydric, with only two areas identified as 66 percent or greater (see Figure 1Jj. Farmland Hydric levels often provide good indicators of where farmland is located, as agriculture cannot thrive in high hydric levels. This is true along Highway 10, where much of the land is classified as agricultural use. Approximately two-thirds of the Highway 10 study corridor is surrounded by designated farmland, with most of the exceptions including industrial and commercial sites (see Figure 20). Water Resources Several water resources are located along or near the study area (see Figure2l). Immediately to the south of the highway lies the Mississippi River, less than a quarter mile from the roadway in most locations. Due to the proximity, the Highway 10 corridor is also less than a quarter mile from the River's 100-year floodplain. To the north, the corridor intersects a drinking water supply management area and passes by public waters. The highway intersects with one wetland and is within a quarter mile of others. Future recommendations for the corridor will need to accommodate these water resources and minimize impacts. Resources and Hazards There are existing resources and potential hazards (see Figure2Z adjacent or near the corridor, including: • The designated Department of Natural Resources Area of Biodiversity to the northeast • Section 106 historic property and a historic resource located at Oliver Kelley Farm directly adjacent to the highway which is registered on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). • The Section 4(f) legislation provides protection for publicly owned parks, recreation areas, historic sites, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites (in public and private ownership). Potential 4f impacts could include Babcock Memorial Park, Elk River Youth Athletic Complex, Dayton Port Roadside Park, and the Links at Northfork Golf Course. • The Section 6(f) legislation of the Land and Water Conservation Act (LAWCON) requires that any land acquired or developed with LAWCON funds be retained and used for outdoor recreational purposes into perpetuity. Currently there are no Section 6(f) parcels in the project area. • There are no State or Federal threatened or endangered species in the project area. a GHW4�, Page_ • �RRIOOR�� \14k River QU � O Q -c Q 165thAv NW Ramsey f left Figure 19. Soils Hydric Classification Not Hydric (0%) Hydric (1-32%) Hydric (66-99%) Hydric (100%) N C O Sherburne Hennepin Source: 2015 USGS Figure 20. Farmland Farmland s m 173rd Ave NW Ramsey Source: Sherburne County 175th Ave NW River 16 N m s Figure 21. Water Resources NWI Wetlands s Public Waters Drinking Water Supply Management Areas 100 Year Floodplain Source: 2019 State of Minnesota, Minnesota DNR Memb'r Park �o 0 L ® 0 O• Elk fiver a a 0 O 0 <,sT tit a 16�th Ave-N\N • Oliver Kelley Farm �p Figure 22. Resources and Hazards Resources Hazards DNR Areas of MAPC Agency Biodiversity Interests Critical Habitats O Hazardous Material Site 0 Historic Resource O Hazardous Material Parks Generator 0 0.4 0 Miles Err d' line Park ��Ermin, egh,dNl/�� 173rd Ave NW m QU -11 % °Oakridge eQU � % /,I.tasca Park Trail Head • Youth z 164th La NW Athletic N -omplex • Sherburne Hennepin Hazardous Material Treatment Ramsey CD z 9� ® �O Waysi'deS Rest Park Source: 2019 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, DNR HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Potentially Contaminated Sites Within a quarter mile of the corridor, there are 63 potentially contaminated sites according to data from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (see Figure22). These sites are associated with a variety of permit types, including automotive, recycling, freight, machinery, manufacturing, mining, government, irrigation, and construction. Coordination with MnDOT's Contaminated Materials Management Team (CMMT) would be required during a future project development and environmental review process. This would include responses to the MnDOT Early Notification Memorandum (ENM) and the MnDOT Environmental Due Diligence (EDD) process. MnDOT CMMT staff would determine the need for contaminated materials investigations, determinations, response action plans, and contaminated materials management special provisions. Minority and Low -Income Populations Digital data from the American Community Survey (ACS) published by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2018 was evaluated to identify areas of proportionally higher low-income and minority populations. Figure23and Figure 24 illustrate the low-income and minority populations in the study area. As part of any future environmental review process, a formal environmental justice analysis will be required to identify potential adverse and disproportionate impacts to low-income and minority populations as required by NEPA and MEPA. Source: Urban Institute a GHH'4Y �FRIOOR�� Figure 23. Low -Income Populations $0 - $95,999 $96,000 - $109,999 Greater than $110,000 Highway 10 Corridor Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates 2018, HUD Income Limits 178th Ave zaSti10 � Je�a� m Gee _E LT 175th Ave NW z a w f �F III VID Figure 24. Minority Populations All people except for Non -Hispanic White (os defined by the U.S. Census) 0 - 4.99% Minority 5-10% Minority Greater than 10%Minority Highway 10 Corridor Sherburne --,j Hennepin Nji Erm�Blvd NV N`N 1� 6�h PJe z in • �4k m 173rd Ave N\N Ramsey 164th La NW 1 Invernessa NW Source: ACS 5-Year Estimates 2018 HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Existing Conditions Summary Highway 10 is an important corridor for personal and freight transportation, connecting local and regional users to greater Minnesota. After analysis of the current conditions along the roadway, the following concerns were identified: • All study intersections currently operate at an overall LOS C or better. • Sides -street access to Highway 10 is challenging, with most stop - controlled approaches operating at LOS E or worse during the peak periods. OPERATIONS • Existing ADT volumes on Highway 10 are approaching the facility's planning -level capacity. • There are limited or no adequate gaps for motorists to safely access Highway 10 during the peak periods. • Vehicles were observed using the shoulders as acceleration lanes to access Highway 10. • 200 crashes have occurred within the study area during the past 5-years. • The study corridor has crash and severity rates that are statistically significant compared to locations with similar characteristics. • The 171st Avenue intersection has crash and severity rates that are statistically significant compared to locations with similar SAFETY characteristics. • The Intersections of 173rd Avenue and 165th Avenue had crash rates just under the statewide expected crash rate. • Majority of the crashes occurred at intersections (61 percent) and were mostly rear end and angle crash types. Majority of the rear end crashes were for westbound vehicles at the signalized intersection of 171st Avenue. ACCESS • Current access along Highway 10 does not meet the MnDOT guidelines for access spacing. • Most land adjacent to Highway 10 is agricultural and impacts on this land should be minimized. SOCIAL, • Several water resources are in the study area. Future ENVIRONMENTAL, recommendations should minimize impacts to floodplains, wetlands, or AND ECONOMIC drinking water supply management areas. CONTEXT • The roadway is close to many potentially contaminated sites and must minimize interaction with these sites. • The Oliver Kelley Farm, a nationally registered historic property, is located directly adjacent to the corridor. a GHW4�, ■ _ �RRIOORSN� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Stakeholder and Public Engagement Round 1 To introduce the study and confirm the existing conditions along Highway 10, the study team facilitated a variety of public and stakeholder activities as discussed below. Technical Advisory Board Meeting The first Technical Advisory Board (TAB) meeting was held in October 2020. The primary goal of the meeting was to introduce the study, discuss the role of the TAB, review the study schedule, and present preliminary technical information from the existing conditions analysis. The presentation and meeting summary from TAB meeting 1 is in AppendixA. Focus Group Meetings The first virtual focus group meetings were held in November 2020. There were separate meetings held with representatives from the local business community and representatives from the freight hauler community. Each meeting included a brief presentation followed by an open discussion with attendees. A map of the study area was utilized to gather feedback on issues and opportunities in the study area with regards to the existing conditions along Highway 10. Detailed feedback received is in Appendix A. There were four businesses represented at the focus group meeting, the study team learned the following: Primary concerns were access on/off Highway 10, safe and unsignalized intersections, and high speeds along the corridor. Important to consider frontage/backage roads in future recommendations. / There were three freight haulers represented at the focus group meeting, the study team learned the following: Primary concerns were access on/off Highway 10 and safe and unsignalized intersections. Ir Important to have easy access on/off Highway 10 versus having a high mobility or reduced travel times along the corridor. Important to accommodate large trucks in future recommendations. Concern with innovative intersection alternatives (e.g., reduce conflict intersections) not being able to adequate accommodate large trucks. U HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Public Open House The study's first public input opportunity was conducted in December 2020 through January 2021 and included a narrated presentation, an interactive comment map, and community survey. A total of 516 people responded to a community survey, which included a total of 230 open-ended comment responses. Detailed feedback received is in AppendixA. From the community survey, the study team learned that: There was strong Congestion was the A large majority support for innovative highest existing issue (77%) of the access changes, experienced along the respondents travel closing access or corridor. the corridor 2+ times adding interchanges. per week. The intersections of 173rd There was low support and 171st were the top two for adding more traffic intersections where There was congestion was noted as the signals or leaving the strong support g corridor as is. highest concern. for a wider, safer median. HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT ALTERNATIVES The next step in the process was to establish feasible long-term access alternatives for the Highway 10 corridor taking into consideration the technical analysis and input received from the public and stakeholders. To accomplish this, a range of conceptual corridor access alternatives were developed. These concept alternatives can then be carried forward for further analysis in future environmental processes. Alternatives Development Process The alternative development process was multifaceted using a range of inputs including technical data, public comments, design parameters, and guidance from the PMT and TAB. The primary goal was to identify a unified vision for the Highway 10 corridor that can be implemented over time as opportunities arise and funding becomes available. Given the complexity and needs of the area, this vision may take 20+ years and significant fiscal investment to realize. Therefore, this study is the first step in the process and additional planning, environmental, design, and engagement efforts will be needed in the future. The initial long-term alternatives that were considered include: • A No Build alternative, which is also known as the do-nothing option. • Alternative 1, which is an at -grade signalized corridor alternative that would include the addition of new traffic signals along the corridor coupled with access modifications and acceleration lanes. • Alternative 2 represents a more innovative at -grade corridor alternative, which includes a combination of reduce conflict intersections (also known as RCls) along with potentially more traffic signals, access modifications, and acceleration lanes. • Alternative 3 is a grade -separated corridor alternative that provides a free flow option for Highway 10 motorists. This free flow corridor would be accomplished through a series of new interchanges, bridges, and/or on or off ramps. This alternative would also include access closures along Highway 10. Preliminary Evaluation Evaluation criteria were then developed based on the existing conditions analysis and centered around safety, mobility and convenient access being high priorities for the corridor. Bike and pedestrian accommodations, project costs and right-of-way impacts were also used in the evaluation process. Each alternative was assigned a rating relative to its ability to meet the criteria. The rating system was as follows: Good; meets criteria well Moderate; no distinguishing characteristics 40 Poor; fails to meet criteria The results of the preliminary evaluation (see Table 7) showed that alternative 3, which is the grade - separated corridor alternative, meets the majority of the evaluation criteria well, with the exception of cost. This alternative has the highest costs; however, it provides the best safety and mobility for all users. A detailed evaluation matrix for each of the alternatives is in AppendixC. a GHW4�, Page _ , �FRIOOR�� ALTERNATIVE #1 SIGNALS Low Cost: $75M High Cost: $114M ALTERNATIVE #2 RCIs Low Cost: $78M High Cost: $117M 171SFAVENUE R 171SF TWIN LAKES ROAD - TWIN 165TH AVENUE R KELLV FARM ROAD R ADAMS THE ALPINE DRIVE R CSRF Figure 25. Preliminary Alternatives © At -Grade Access Closed,$300,000 each RCI O Right -In, Right -Out Intersection O. (includes 1,500 ft. acceleration lanes on TH 10) OSignalized Intersection O ALTERNATIVE #3 GRADE -SEPARATED Low Cost: $94M High Cost: $180M Reduced -Conflict Intersection Signalized Reduced -Conflict Intersection Grade -Separated aRemove Signal TOTAL COST Total Cost Estimates Include the following: - Local Roadway Costs which assumed the following: - 9.37 miles of local roadway construction. -Three-lone urban roadway typicalsection. - ROW and Design and Engineering costs were included. -Grade-separated alternatives included 0.23 miles of reconstruction of Highway 10 to meet design requirements for a freeway facility. -Grade-separated alternative costs were based on an averagefor the alternatives of interchanges, High-T and Button Hooks. - ROW and Design and Engineering costs were included for the grade -separated alternative. -Alternatives #1 and #2 included the cost to expand Highway 10 to a six -lane section in the high cost total. HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Table 7. Preliminary Evaluation Summary Criteria Alt i Signals Alt 2 Hybrid Alt 3 Grade - Separated Improves Existing • and Future Safety U) Access Spacing • Compliance Improves Peak Hour Mobility on Hwy 10 Continuity with Hwy • 10 to the East 2 Improves Mobility • Crossing Hwy 10 Improves Mobility Accessing Hwy 10 Y Improves Mobility m Crossing Hwy 10 Minimizes • Construction Costs Minimizes Right -of- • Way Impacts More detailed evaluation was also completed for each alternative for the following criteria. The results are summarized below. Additional information is available in Appendix& Benefit Cost Analysis A benefit cost analysis is used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an investment. Projects are considered cost-effective if the benefit -cost ratio is greater than 1.0. The larger the ratio number, the greater the benefits per unit cost. A preliminary benefit cost analysis was completed to for each grade -separation location. The CMF Clearinghouse was used to identify appropriate Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) for the safety improvements at two locations identified for future grade -separation. MnDOT's traffic safety benefit - cost spreadsheet was utilized to calculate preliminary benefit -cost ratios for each alternative. The results of the preliminary benefit -cost analysis are shown in Table Band Table 9. Supporting documentation can be found in AppendixC a GHH'4Y Page _ I , �FRIOOR�� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Table 8. Benefit Cost Analysis — North Segment 1 Costs in 2022 dollars, low cost did not include local roadway connections. Table 9. Benefit Cost Analysis — South Segment Alternative cost ($)' Benefit ($) Benefit to Cost Ratio Alt 1 Signal $300,000 $3.6 million 11.87 Alt 2 Hybrid $1.9 million $3.4 million 1.76 (Signalized RCI) Alt 3 Grade -Separated $15 million $12.1 million 0.81 1 Costs in 2022 dollars, low cost did not include local roadway connections. Corridor Capacity Analysis A corridor capacity analysis was completed using the projected future peak hour traffic volumes on Highway 10. Using the future traffic volumes with capacity calculation procedures discussed in the Highway Capacity Manual, Figure26and Figure27were developed. These figures show the capacity thresholds for signalized and grade -separated corridors. The black boxes around the capacity thresholds show the range of peak hour traffic volumes the Highway 10 corridor is projected to experience in the future. Based on the capacity thresholds shown in Figure26, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are expected to exceed capacity on Highway 10. Based on the capacity thresholds shown in Figure27, Alternative 3 is expected to be under capacity on Highway 10. Figure 26. Peak Hour Capacity for a Four -Lane Signalized Highway 0 500 1,000 1,501) 2,OOD 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,504 5,OOC1 ■Acceptable Approaching Poor Poor ■ V/C> 3 ■ Volume Range �gH`M4Y �RRIppRSN� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Figure 27. Peak Hour Capacity for a Four -Lane Grade -Separated Highway Am6�� L Q 50., 1,000 1,500 2,000 2.,500 3,0000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,0M ■Acceptable Approaching Poor Poor ■V/C> l ■Volunne Range Additional Signal Needs A key consideration when evaluating the long-term alternatives is understanding and quantifying the intersection control modifications that each alternative requires. Highway 10 under existing conditions consists of only one signalized intersection at Highway 10 and 171st Avenue. Each alternative evaluated, requires the removal of the signal at this intersection. Alternative 1 would require the addition of two signalized intersections on Highway 10. One of the signalized intersections would be at Twin Lakes Road and the other would be in the south segment of the corridor, at or near Jarvis Street. Alternative 2 would require one to two additional signals along Highway 10. Under this alternative, it was assumed RCIs were at the intersections of Highway 10 and Twin Lakes Road and Highway 10 and Jarvis Street. Using the projected future daily traffic volumes with the Federal Highway Administration: Restricted Crossing U-Turn Intersection Informational Guide, control needs were evaluated for these two RCI locations. The RCI control thresholds along with the future intersection daily volumes are shown in Figure28. Based on this figure, the Twin Lakes Road RCI would need to be signalized, and the Jarvis Street RCI is right at the threshold of needing to be signalized. Year 2045 peak hour capacity analysis was performed at the Highway 10 and Jarvis Street RCI to determine if this location would have acceptable operations as an unsignalized RCI. Year 2045 peak hour analysis showed that location would have poor operations as an unsignalized RCI (shown in AppendixD). Alternative 3 is the grade separated alternative, eliminating all at -grade intersections on Highway 10. Under this alternative there will be no signalized intersections on Highway 10. a �Hway HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Figure 28. Restricted Crossing Intersection Control Evaluation 105,000 90,000 75,000 82 000 E t� 45,004 #1,000 _ 30,OOD 15,000 0 Restricted Crossing U-turn Informational Guide far u09 ift m RCS r 84AM LWW ab" Molor sh1aei 1"able dwwid spec IN DOWAZed RG T 0 Minor Street Dernwed LEGEND - US 10 and Twin Lakes Road - US 10 and Jarvis Street Exhibit +-7. Feasible demand space for signalized RCL-T intersection. �gHW4Y HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Secondary Evaluation To better understand impacts and help establish a future access vision associated with the long- term grade -separated corridor vision, the Study Team developed several concept alternatives for the corridor. The concept alternatives do not indicate a directive or design that must be implemented, but reasonable alternatives that helps to set the vision for future access at each location. Additional detailed analysis, review, and environmental consideration will need to be conducted in the future to determine specific design options for each grade -separated location along Highway 10. Based on the corridor context and guidance from the PMT and TAB, it was determined that two grade -separated locations would be evaluated for the Highway 10 Corridor within the study limits. The study corridor was divided into a north segment and a south segment. The north segment focused on the area from the Highway 101/169 interchange through the Twin Lakes Road area. The south segment focused on the area from Kelly Farms Road to Alpine Drive. North Segment Previous planning efforts point to Twin Lakes Road as the best option for grade -separated access in the north segment of the corridor. The 171st Avenue location, where a signal currently exists, was ruled out as the long-term interchange location due to the high number of impacts anticipated because of the dense development adjacent to the intersection, as well as its proximity to the existing Highway 101/169 interchange. The 171st Avenue location also would not meet MnDOT's preferred interchange spacing requirements of 1 to 2 miles as it is too closely spaced with the exiting interchange at Highway 101/169. Several interchange types were evaluated for the Twin Lakes Road location including more traditional options, such as a standard diamond or folded diamond, and more innovative options, such as a buttonhook and overpass and a split high T configuration. These options were developed (see Figure29) at a conceptual level to better understand potential impacts. These concept layouts are also in AppendixE. As noted previously, the concept alternatives do not indicate a directive or design that must be implemented, but reasonable alternatives that help to set the vision for future access at each location. Additional detailed analysis, review, and environmental consideration will need to be conducted in the future to determine specific design options for the Twin Lakes Road location. a GHH'4Y `oPage 1 I �FRIOOR�� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Figure 29. Grade -Separated Alternative — North Segment dig I '''� ' • , r ' "Southern grade -separated location to be determined South Segment In the south segment of the Highway 10 corridor, four locations for grade -separated access were explored. These locations included the Kelly Farm Road Area, Jarvis and Cleveland Street, Adams Street and Alpine Drive. All south segment alternatives assumed an interchange at Twin Lakes Road. Several interchange types were evaluated for each location mainly focusing on a standard diamond or folded diamond interchange type. These options were developed (see Figure 30through Figure 33) at a conceptual level to better understand potential impacts. These concept layouts are also in AppendixE. As noted previously, the concept alternatives do not indicate a directive or design that must be implemented, but reasonable alternatives that help to set the vision for future access at each location. Additional detailed analysis, review, and environmental consideration will need to be conducted in the future to determine specific design options for each location. Kelly Form Rood Area The Kelly Farm Road Area alternative is located approximately 1/2 mile south of the existing Kelly Farm Road access. The concepts developed (see Figure 30) for this location show minimal impacts to current building and residential properties. However, the Kelly Farm Road area was the least desirable location for grade -separated access on Highway 10 as it is the closest to Twin Lakes Road and does not align with the city's future planning vision for the area. a �Hway E� Page 47 HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Figure 30. Grade -Separated Alternative — Kelly Farm Road Area Jarvis Street/Cleveland Street Jarvis Street/Cleveland Street is the next major intersection to the south. Businesses located near this location include Furniture and Things and Exquisite Stone. The concepts developed (see Figure 31) for this location show more impacts to adjacent businesses and property when compared to the Kelly Farm Road Area. Figure 31. Grade -Separated Alternative —Jarvis Street/Cleveland Street 0 Page 1 48 HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Adams Street Adams Street is approximately 1/4 mile south of Jarvis Street/Cleveland Street. Businesses located at this access include Riverside Farms and the Car and Credit Used Car Dealership. This location provided more opportunities to minimize impacts to adjacent businesses and properties so additional interchange concepts (see Figure3Z were developed. For example, the tight diamond concept alternative, shown in Figure32, provides the least number of impacts to adjacent properties. In addition to the reduced impact to adjacent properties, the Adams Street location also aligns the best with the City's future planning vision for the area. Figure 32. Grade -Separated Alternative — Adams Street Alpine Drive The final location evaluated in the south segment was Alpine Drive. This location is the furthest to the south and lies near the border of the cities of Elk River and Ramsey. Like the Jarvis Street and Cleveland Street location, the concepts developed (see Figure 33) for this location show more impacts to the adjacent businesses and properties when compared to the Kelly Farm Road Area or Adams Street locations. Figure 33. Grade -Separated Alternative — Alpine Drive (D Page 1 49 HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT South Segment Alternotive Evaluation A preliminary evaluation of the four south segment grade -separated location alternatives was completed. Like the long-term vision alternative evaluation, criteria were selected based on the existing conditions analysis and centered around safety, mobility and convenient access being high priorities for the corridor. Land use, bike and pedestrian accommodations, project costs and right-of- way impacts were also used in the evaluation process. Each alternative was assigned a rating relative to its ability to meet the criteria. The rating system was as follows: Good; meets criteria well Moderate; no distinguishing characteristics Poor; fails to meet criteria The results of the preliminary evaluation (see Tab/e10) show that The Kelly farm Road Area location (which is Alternative 1) meets many of the evaluation criteria but does not align with the City's future planning vision for the area and it does not support existing land use. The alternatives developed at both Jarvis Street and Cleveland Street and at Alpine Drive have more impacts to the adjacent businesses and properties which is not as desirable. The Alpine Drive location also does not align with the city's future planning vision for the area. The Adams Street alternative rises above the rest as the business and property impacts are less at this location and it better aligns with the city's future planning vision for the area. The Adams Street location is also centrally located for the existing businesses within the area. a GHH'4Y `o �RRIOOR�� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Table 10. South Segment Alternative Evaluation Summary Adams Alt 4 Alpine I?", I Farm .d Street Street Drive Improves Existing and Future Safety U) Access Spacing Compliance Improves Peak Hour Mobility on Hwy 10 Continuity with Planned Facilities Provides E/W Local Road Connectivity Existing Land Use Compatibility a J Minimizes Right -of - Way Impacts Provides Access Across Hwy 10 to Ped/Bike Destinations m Continuity with • Planned Facilities Minimizes 1p Construction Costs Locally Favored Option #r a �Hway HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Stakeholder and Public Engagement Round 2 To gather feedback on the long-term corridor alternatives for Highway 10, the study team facilitated a variety of public and stakeholder activities as discussed below. Technical Advisory Board Meeting The second Technical Advisory Board (TAB) meeting was held in May 2021. The primary goal of the meeting was to discuss the public engagement feedback received to date, review the long-term alternatives and preliminary evaluation, and gather consensus on the long-term vision for the Highway 10 corridor. The presentation and meeting summary from TAB meeting 2 is in Append&A. The outcome from the TAB meeting was consensus for the long-term vision for Highway 10 to be grade -separated. Focus Group Meetings The second round of virtual focus group meetings were held in May and June 2021. There were separate meetings held with representatives from the local business community, representatives from the freight hauler community, and local elected officials. Each meeting included a brief presentation followed by an open discussion with attendees. The goal of each meeting was to gather feedback on each group's preference for the long-term vision for Highway 10. Detailed feedback received is in AppendixA. There were three businesses represented at the focus group meeting, the study team learned the following: Maintaining business access on/off Highway 10 and across Highway 10 is important. There was consensus for the long-term vision for Highway 10 to be grade- separated. Minimizing business impacts during implementation will be important. There were four freight haulers represented at the focus group meeting, the study team learned the following: Primary concerns were access on/off Highway 10 and safety. There was consensus for the long-term vision for Highway 10 to be grade - separated. a`�NWgy�o �RRI000.5\"� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT There were four local elected officials represented at the focus group meeting, the study team learned the following: Primary concerns were addressing existing safety issues on Highway 10. There was consensus for the long-term vision for Highway 10 to be grade - separated. Concern with innovative intersection alternatives (e.g., reduce conflict intersections) being used as a temporary solution, would rather see funding go towards grade -separation. Public Open House The study's second public input opportunity was conducted in June 2021 and included a live virtual presentation and community survey. A total of 172 people responded to a community survey, which included a total of 23 open-ended comment responses. Detailed feedback received is in From the community survey, the study team learned that: Construction in the north A large majority segment should be (84%) of the prioritized over the south respondents support segment. a grade -separated facility. Consider adding and extending No clear choice selected acceleration lanes for in location on Highway 10. in south segment. There was strong support for removing traffic signals to improve safety and congestion. rJ\ There was support for additional frontage roads to provide access to adjacent properties. Page 1 53 HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT LONG—TERM VISION Following the second round of stakeholder and public engagement, additional discussions with the PMT occurred to confirm the long-term vision for the Highway 10 Corridor would be a grade - separated corridor with interchanges at Highway 169 (existing), Twin Lakes Road and Adams Street (see Figure 34). Additionally, access closure and a robust local roadway network will be needed to support this long-term vision (see Figure 36). Figure 34. Highway 10 Long -Term Vision E� a �Hway Page 54 HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Figure 35. Highway Local Roadway Network ■ HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Implementation Strategies It is anticipated that the full implementation of the Highway 10 corridor long-term vision will take 20 years or longer to come to fruition. Additional detailed analysis, design, and significant environmental review, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), will need to be conducted in the future to determine specific implementation strategies along the Highway 10 corridor. Additionally, the strategies identified below are preliminary and may change over time as the ultimate corridor vision is implemented (depending on safety, traffic growth, development, funding, etc.). Local Roadway Vision Through discussions with the PMT, it was determined that a three -lane urban design with an adjacent multiuse trail (see Figure 36) would be utilized to develop concept layouts for the local roadway network needed to support the long-term vision. Figure 36. Local Roadway Typical Section R/W 40.C' LOCAL ROAD 40.0' 6.0' 4.0' 11.0' 10.0' 11.0' BLVD SHLD THRU CONT. THRU LT. TURN PROFILE GRADE 1 �1eA Q1 VR��4A S� B424 C&G B424 C&G �pP LOCAL ROAD DESIGN SPEED = 30 MPH North Segment R/W 6.0' 10.0' 1 2.0' D BLVD TRAIL d nz 2.0% �r4 The north segment of the Highway 10 corridor is from the Highway 169 interchange to 165th Avenue. The overall long-term vision for this segment includes an interchange at the future connection of Twin Lakes Road and Highway 10 and several local road connections on both sides of Highway 10 to connect traffic to the future interchange (see Figure 37). There will also be access closures along Highway 10 once the local road connections are constructed. Planning -level costs were developed for the roadway improvements outlined in the implementation phases below. Costs were developed using planning -level construction cost estimates and are displayed in 2022 dollars. The cost for right-of-way acquisition was not included in any cost estimates. The total planning -level cost to construct the north segment long-term vision is estimated to be $21.6 million for the local road connections and access closures and $15 - $20 million for the interchange construction. For planning purposes, the study team divided the long-term vision for the north segment into four phases. There have been no timeframes assigned to any of the phases. Construction will be determined through coordination with study partners and be based on available funding. Each phase is summarized in Table11. Concept level layouts and detailed planning -level cost estimates can be found in AppendixE. �gHW4Y rp _ HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Figure 37. North Segment Long -Term Vision HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Table 11. North Segment Long -Term Vision by Phase DescriptionPhase • Signal improvements at 171st Avenue including revised signal timing and/or improved lighting or signage. 1 • Access closures along Highway 10. $1 million • Local roadway connections. • Right-in/right-out access at 165th Avenuel. • Access closures along Highway 10. • Local roadway connections near Yale Street. 2 • Optional construction of an auxiliary lane for northbound and $3.2 million southbound on Highway 10 and signal revisions at 171st Avenue2. 3 • Access closures along Highway 10. $5.2 million • Local roadway connections. • Construct interchange at Twin Lakes Road and remove signal $12.2 million at 171st Avenue. (local roadways only) 4 • Access closures along Highway 10. • Local roadway connections. $15 - $20 million • Reconstruct Highway 10 to grade -separated standards. (interchange) !The City of Elk River recently received development plans for the parcels surrounding 165th Avenue on the southwest side of Highway 10. As part of this development a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) will be needed to assess traffic control needs for the existing intersections along Highway 10). The outcome of the TIS may change the implementation strategies recommended as part of the Highway 10 Corridor Study. 2The construction of an auxiliary lane on Highway 10 is identified as an optional project. As part of the existing conditions analysis, it was determined that there would be capacity issues on Highway 10 in the north segment between 2030 and 2035. Adding an auxiliary lane for both directions of Highway 10 would extend capacity of the segment for 20 plus years. It should be noted that the auxiliary lane is not needed if an interchange is constructed at Twin Lakes Road. The intent of this optional project was to provide an alternative should it take longer to secure funding for the interchange in this segment. South Segment The south segment of the Highway 10 corridor is from Edison Street to Alpine Drive. The overall long- term vision for this segment includes an interchange near Adams Street and Highway 10 and several local road connections on both sides of Highway 10 to connect traffic to the future interchange (see Figure 40). There will also be access closures along Highway 10 once the local road connections are constructed. Planning -level costs were developed for the roadway improvements outlined in the implementation phases below. Costs were developed using planning -level construction cost estimates and are displayed in 2022 dollars. The cost for right-of-way acquisition was not included in any cost estimates. The total planning -level cost to construct the north segment long-term vision is estimated to be $18 - $21.8 million for the local road connections and access closures and $15 - $20 million for the interchange construction. a GHW4�, Page 1 • �RRIOORSN� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT For planning purposes, the study team divided the long-term vision for the south segment into four phases. There have been no timeframes assigned to any of the phases. Construction will be determined through coordination with study partners and be based on available funding. Each phase is summarized in Table12. Concept level layouts and detailed planning -level cost estimates can be found in AppendixE. Phase 2 and Phase 4 have two options for local roadway connections. The final alignment of the local roadway network will be determined through discussions with existing property owners, future development needs and coordination with local agency partners. Table 12. South Segment Long -Term Vision by Phase Phase Description Planning -Level Cost • Intersection control change at Jarvis Street/Cleveland Street1. 1 Access closures along Highway 10. $5.6 million • Local roadway connections. • Access closures along Highway 10. 2A Local roadway connections. $4.1 million • Backage road on the north side of Highway 10. • Access closures along Highway 10. 2B Local roadway connections. $5.6 million • Frontage road on the north side of Highway 10. 3 • Access closures along Highway 10. $3 million Local roadway connections. • Construct interchange near Adams Street and close access at $5.3 million Jarvis Street/Cleveland Street. (local roadways only) 4A Access closures along Highway 10. • Local roadway connections. $15 - $20 million • Optional realignment of Jarvis Street2. (interchange) • Construct interchange near Adams Street and close access at $7.7 million Jarvis Street/Cleveland Street. (local roadways only) 4B Access closures along Highway 10. • Local roadway connections. $15 - $20 million • Optional realignment of Jarvis Street2. (interchange) 1 The type of intersection control at Jarvis Street/Cleveland Street has not been determined yet. The City of Elk River and MnDOT are planning to complete a separate analysis to determine the approportionate control needed to mitigate the existing safety and mobility issues at this location. The options that will be explored include a signalized reduced conflict intersection (RCI) and traditional signal. 2The realignment of Jarvis Street north of Highway 10 is identified as an optional project. There are two options identified (Phase 4A and Phase 4B) as part of this study. Future development and discussions property owners will determine the final construction project. a GHH'4Y �FRIhJR�� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY- FINAL REPORT Figure 38. South Segment Long -Term Vision Page 1 60 HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY- FINAL REPORT Figure 39. Middle Segment Long -Term Vision (D Page 1 61 HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Middle Segment The middle segment of the Highway 10 corridor is from 165th Avenue to Edison Street. The overall long-term vision for this segment includes local road connections on both sides of Highway 10 to connect traffic to the future interchanges at Twin Lakes Road and Adams Street (see Figure 39). There will also be access closures along Highway 10 once the local road connections are constructed. Planning -level costs were developed for the roadway improvements outlined in the implementation phases below. Costs were developed using planning -level construction cost estimates and are displayed in 2022 dollars. The cost for right-of-way acquisition was not included in any cost estimates. The total planning -level cost to construct the north segment long-term vision is estimated to be $15.3 million for the local road connections and access closure. Concept level layouts and detailed planning -level cost estimates can be found in AppendixE. Funding Opportunities Funding from many sources will be needed to fully implement the selected long-term vision for the Highway 10 corridor. Table13through Table16 provide a summary of the potential funding sources identified for the Highway 10 corridor. The funding sources identified are based on existing data and may change in the future. Some of these will require legislative action (e.g., state aid funds or state bonding), some will require external funding (e.g., a request to MnDOT for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds), but all others (e.g., taxes and bonding) can be implemented by the County Board of Commissioners or City Council, at their discretion. Cost -sharing between agencies will also need to occur as the project moves forward. Currently, most of the Highway 10 corridor improvements are not fully funded or programmed in the capital improvement plans of the agency partners. The City of Elk River has secured Local Partnership Program (LPP) funding for the year 2024 for the north segment of the corridor. The City of Elk River also has $5.24 million in Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP) funding for the year 2024. Details of the construction project are still being determined. MnDOT also identified a funding need in the next five years for a pavement preservation project on Highway 10. Details of this project have not yet been determined. Following the completion of this study, MnDOT along with the City of Elk River are planning to complete additional analysis for the south segment of Highway 10 to determine the appropriate improvements to include in the upcoming pavement preservation project. There is no other funding available for implementation of the selected long- term vision for the Highway 10 corridor. Study partners should continue to monitor funding and determine next steps for implementation of the long-term vision as opportunities arise. Future partnerships between MnDOT Metro, MnDOT District 3, Sherburne County, and the City of Elk River will need to continue to successfully fund the long-term vision for the Highway 10 corridor. a GHH'4Y `oPage 1 3 �FRIhJR�� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Table 13. Funding Strategies (External) Funding Source Repayment Match Probability of Max Competitive q'd q'd Securing Request Solicitation Infrastructure for Rebuilding No Yes Very Low No Max Annually America (INFRA) Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability No Yes Very Low mi2on Annually and Equity (RAISE) Highway Safety Improvement No Yes Medium $500K 2023 Program (HSIP) (10% min) Transportation Economic No Yes Low $10 2023 Development (TED) million Surface Transportation Program No Yes High N/A Annually (STP) (20% min) State Bonding No Yes High N/A 2022 Local Road Improvement No Yes High $1.25 2022 Program (LRIP) million Local Partnership Program (LPP) No No High $710K 2022 State Aid Funds, No No High N/A N/A 1 Would require a mileage request or reallocation of CSAH system funds. Table 14. Funding Strategies (Internal -Taxing) Funding Source Repayment Match Probability of Max Request Required Required Securing County Wheelage Tax No No High N/A Local Option Sales Tax No No High N/A Ad Valorem Tax Levy No No High N/A (Local Property Tax) Tax Increment Financing No No Medium N/A (TIF) Tax Abatement No No Medium N/A Special Tax Levy for No No Low N/A Transportation a GHW4�� RRIOOR�� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Table 15. Funding Strategies (Internal - Bonding) Table 16. Funding Strategies (Internal — Cost Participation) Stakeholder and Public Engagement Round 3 To gather feedback on the selected long-term vision for Highway 10 and the implementation strategies, the study team facilitated a variety of public and stakeholder activities as discussed below. Technical Advisory Board Meeting The third TAB meeting was held in October 2021. The primary goal of the meeting was to discuss the public engagement feedback received to date, review the long-term vision and implementation strategies for the Highway 10 corridor. The presentation and meeting summary from TAB meeting 3 is in AppendixA. The outcome from the TAB meeting was consensus for a grade -separated long-term vision for Highway 10 including local roadway connections and access closures necessary to support this long-term vision. Public Open House The study's third public input opportunity was conducted in May 2022 and included a recorded presentation. Detailed feedback received is in Append&A. a GHH'4Y Page _ • I �FRIOOR�� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT CONCLUSIONS The critical next step for this study is to complete significant environmental review, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to fully analyze these conceptual alternatives and implementation strategies. Through this environmental process, interchange design and implementation will be determined. The environmental review process also includes additional opportunities for public input. Following the environmental review, the project would move into preliminary and final design. The goal of the study was to identify a long-term 20+ year vision for the Highway 10 corridor ensures safe and efficient operations along the Highway 10 corridor while supporting economic development within the area and region. Implementation of the long-term vision will take commitment and collaboration from all study partners. The cities, counties, and MnDOT will need to continue to collaborate to determine next steps such as environmental review, preliminary and final design, and agency cost sharing and coordination. �GHW4�, �FRIOOR�� HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Appendix A - Public and Stakeholder Engagement Materials Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Technical Advisory Board Meeting 1 October 1, 2020 F:A-kGr WAq Y,7q Y/DOR �\� Study Area Characteristics • Four -Mile Study Segment • High -Speed Expressway I F Posted Speed Limit — 60 mph • One Traffic Signal (@ 171St Ave) • AADT approaching 34,000 vpd Study Goals • Build a unified system plan that can be implemented overtime to ensure safe and efficient operations along the Highway 10 corridor • General Approach: • Build upon previous planning efforts • Quantify current and future transportation conditions, issues, and needs • Evaluate transportation improvement alternatives • Engage key stakeholders to solicit input and build understanding • Develop a fiscally responsible implementation plan to support economic development and corridor operations and safety Study Schedule Study Tasks TI - Prefect Management Prated Manage* Mcetings Taehnlcal Advisory Board MeeHnge T2 - 5takeholtler/Agerley [nvoi—ir t Elk RI— Planning Conrud-Ion OR R{yea City Counch ndn 141atorlcal Saclety T3 - Community Engage merit Pehllc Open Hause Meatinga fln-person Artum) F—,. Groups IF.Fght R-1— Elected Gffitm ls. Bealrres 0 Online Engagement Stpdy U—y Targeted Social Media TA - Data CeI16etion And Aequlaillon T5 - VJslon & Goa Ia T8 • IeevcS Idcntlflcotlon and Confirmation TT - Alt—atlVea Development, Analysla. and Screening/Evaluation 78 - Implementation Plan. and Docu menrallon 2020 2021 cc 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 R M E w w w w w w w w w w S S S FB FB FB FB FB FB FB FB '(i' FOCW 13M.y '" Wet Updaies/Surveys/FateBonk Ads updated: September 1, 20P0 0 fr9Jecln+lanaperamealang Vy $ Fg 0 TAB Meeting * Key DelrveraWe l Tedhnkml Memaran0um Stakeholder Meeting` Draft Ftepwt Open lfeuse Meeting 4 Renal Report Technical Advisory Board (TAB) Role • Review technical information t • Provide study feedback and direction pF • Support public engagement efforts Who's Using Highway 10 • Leveraged Streetlight Analytics Data (2019) • Origins/Destination split relatively evenly between Highway 10 (Elk River), Hwy 169, and Hwy 101 • Segment Users • 70 to 75% "Regional" Users • 25 to 30% "Local" Users (within the study corridor or Ramsey) Eastbound Highway 10 z T a^i 25°r,: I Dayton LEGEND y - Middle Filter Location ♦ - Origin Location 0 - Origin Zone ♦ - Destination Location XX% Percent of Traffic t 8% T 'l Harn,cy , L t4% • �. t5% ywy 6q d7 Miss 4r3, .�' 1� tt A,,ok, Westbound Highway 10 (m Otsego 30 38%t t 13% 22°Aj( 1, JF v t0i � 11 LEGEND y - Middle Filter Location ♦ - Origin Location 0 - Destination Zone ♦ - Destination Location XX% Percent of Traffic DaYtoi Ramsey 1 9% 14% Fryl O�GHWA ), i r�RR100R 5 �0 Daily Travel Patterns Eastbound Hwy 10 ADT 22,000 22,000 z0,000 20,000 18,000 18,000 16,000 16,000 14,000 14,000 —2017 —2018 —2019 12,000 12,000 10,000 - 10,000 °aa� I)o6-1 reSaa1 �tSaa� Ft�aa� c�taa� Saa� °aa� Ilo6-1 resaa1 �tsaa� Ft aa� c�taa� �` � wed �`a Sa �` 'C wed �r Sa Westbound Hwy 10 ADT 21,000 z0,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 Monthly Travel Patterns Eastbound Hwy 10 ADT —2017 —2018 —2019 21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 Westbound Hwy 10 ADT 1 13,000 3,000 cJ cJ `r �J as oe �a y� .p et at et Data aac� ac�r pit\ �aJ �Jco �J�J �Jy� rac ores rac rec � cJa toa ac pQ �S �.> >o �� etc nor .�C•o e,51 �•P >a� arc �. P° �ec� Co ,ems `ate �a der p �eQ Qc ore Q �eQ �o Oa � Traffic Operations AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour A CECE=' 'L il� Ik River __ i. •. IkRiver Overall Intersection LOS Worst Approach LO5 Signalized Intersection - �' ,,. 0 oQego p A •JW < l 5 10 � \ B >10-20 >10-15 C > 20 - 35 > 15 25 �� ♦ + �� a�� D >35-55 >25-35 =A Dayton Key Observations 165t" Avenue • Limited sight distance due to tall grass and horizontal curve • More eastbound gaps than westbound (due to signal at 1715t Ave/platoons) t' `f Edison Street • Eastbound platoons have dispersed by this location • Heavy Vehicle — 2.5 minutes to make a left -turn maneuver • Pick-up truck — 1 minute to make a right -turn maneuver • Cleveland Street • Busy 2-stage crossing (multiple vehicles waiting in the median) • Passenger Car — 2.5 minutes to make an eastbound left -turn movement • Vehicles observed using the shoulder as an acceleration lane Gap Assessment • Average Westbound Gaps: — 3.4 to 7.7 seconds • Limited gaps during p.m. peak period (all movements) • Adequate gaps during the a.m. peak period (all movements) • Average Eastbound Gaps: —3.7 to 5.2 seconds • Limited gaps during a.m. peak period (all movements) • Limited gaps during the p.m. peak period for the minor movements to/across Highway 10, as well as right -turns onto Highway 10 • Adequate gaps during the p.m. peak period for left -turns from Highway 10 E Gap Acceptance: HCM 2010 Chapter 19 (seconds) Vehicle Movement Four -Lanes Left -Turn from Major 4.1 Right -Turn from Minor 6.9 1-Stage 6.5 Through on 2-Stage, Stage 1 5.5 Minor 2-Stage, Stage 2 5.5 1-Stage 7.5 Left-Tu rn from Minor 2-Stage, Stage 1 6.5 2-Stage, Stage 2 6.5 Crash History • 5-years of Crash Data (2015 through 2019) • 256 Crashes along Highway 10 • 36% single vehicle run-off-road/other • 28% rear end • 15% other • 13% right angle • 8% sideswipe • 104 Intersection Related Crashes • 50% Occurred at 171St Avenue • 45% rear end • 21% angle • 12% single vehicle run-off-road/other • 12% sideswipe ' • 11% other Crash History • 7 Severe Crashes along Highway 10 2 severe crashes were alcohol or drug related t' • 2 Fatal Crashes on Highway 10 • Westbound near Jarvis, rear end crash due to southbound right turning vehicle failing to yield • Eastbound near 167th Ave, right-angle crash due to northbound through vehicle failing to yield hj Safety Crash S—v Y 5 7e17 �a , • M miw o��nao��aan < grew o��o�n OMuni�ma�ao��ea,�e� Crash Analysis Highway Highway 10 (169 to Armstrong) 0.29 0.46 0.44 0.64 Hwy 10 / 173rd Ave 0.25 W'0.24 0.42 0.41 W0.35 0.63 Hwy 10 / 171s' Ave 0.45 �0.75 0.66 0.63 M.05 0.88 Hwy 10 / 1651h Ave 0.25 0.19 0.42 0.41 0.25 0.62 Hwy 10 / Kelly Farm Rd 0.25 L 0.03 0.42 0.41 0.06 0.63 Hwy 10 / Edison St 0.25 r 0.06 0.42 0.41 0.10 0.63 Hwy 10 / Cleveland St 0.25 l 0.11 0.42 0.41 0.17 0.62 Hwy 10 / Adams St N 0.25 10 0.00 0.42 0.41 0.00 0.63 Hwy 10 / Adams St S 0.25 L 0.02 0.42 0.41 0.02 0.63 Hwy 10 / Alpine Dr 0.25 r 0.16 0.42 0.41 0.24 0.62 Other Data • Functional Classification t • Roadway Jurisdiction p Access Inventory • Land Use • Multimodal Connectivity • Resources and Hazards • Soils • Water Resources • Demographics Public Engagement • Website — www.highwaylOcorridorstudy.com of Focus Groups • Freight Haulers • Local Businesses • Elected Officials • Virtual Open House • Format/Timeline Discussion • Narrated Presentation, Wikimapping, and Form/Function Survey Next Steps • Develop Draft Existing Conditions Documentation p • Coordinate Focus Group Meetings • Targeting the week of October 19th or October 26th • Develop Draft Virtual Open House Materials (October) • Survey/Presentation • Prepare Notifications • Targeting Mid -November Start LI 4 \ I Summary SRFNo. 13321 Location: Zoom Virtual Meeting Client: City of Elk River, MnDOT Date: 10/1/2020 Subject: TH 10 Corridor and Subarea Study TAB Meeting 1 Attendees: Tod Sherman, Jennifer Wiltgen, Ashley Roup, Savannah Kaul, Steve Voss (MnDOT Metro), Luke Wehseler, (MnDOT District 3), Justin Femrite, Ryan Sandhoefner (City of Elk River), Andrew Witter (Sherburne County), Joe MacPherson (Anoka County), Bruce Westby, Tim Gladhill (City of Ramsey), Steve Peterson (Met Council), Kristina Nesse, (Sambatek), Craig Vaughn, Molly Stewart, Matt Pacyna (SRF) From: Molly Stewart Agenda 1. Study Area Characteristics • High speed, high volume corridor 2. Study Goals • Pick up where adjacent study to the east left off 3. Study Schedule 4. TAB Role • Review technical information • Provide study feedback and direction at various points throughout the process • Help support the public engagement efforts • Six meetings throughout the study process 5. Existing Conditions • O-D Analysis 0 75 percent of users are regional users. 0 25 percent are local users. Local user based on start/end point rather than trip length. 0 Steve Peterson — how do you define the local vs regional? • Traffic Patterns 0 Recreational peak for westbound direction on Thursday and Friday. 0 Peak also noted during summer months which supports the recreational traffic assumption. TH 10 Corridor and Subarea Study TAB Meeting October 1, 2020 City of Elk River Page 2 0 Traffic volumes during weekday during summer months were utilized for traffic operational analysis. • Traffic Operations 0 AM and PM hours analyzed 0 Used Viism 0 No stopping really along the corridor, only at signal is at Twin Lakes Parkway 0 Long delays for side streets due to heavy volumes on TH 10 and no signals 0 Lots of dual stage crossings 0 Working towards a long-term vision with an implementation plan that can be built upon without throw away improvements • Gap Assessment 0 More gaps for eastbound than westbound 0 More aggressive behavior due to lack of gaps for left and right turns 0 Cleveland is a busy two stage crossing, this results in conflicts in the center median 0 Some vehicles utilizing the shoulder as acceleration lanes 0 Avg westbound gap 3.4-7.7 seconds 0 Avg eastbound gap 3.7-5.2 seconds 0 Joe — notices a lot of trucks backing up to turn onto TH 10 at the intersection of Alpine — could this be shared? Also significant issues at Jarvis — low boy trailer pulled out infront of cars last year. Lots of heavy commercial equipment at this intersection, tough for operations. 0 • Crash Analysis 0 256 crashes along TH 10 from 2015-2019, 50 crashes per year which is significant 0 104 of the crashes were intersection related and 50 percent of these were at 171" Avenue. Majority of rear end crashes were westbound at the signal at 171" Avenue. It is the first signal in a while for westbound. 0 7 severe crashes, 2 were alcohol related. 0 2 fatals — at Jarvis and 167`' Ave 0 171" crash rate is above average and critical rates 0 Segment of TH 10 is also above average and critical rates 0 Need to be mindful of access and traffic control changes for recommendations to not create more safety problems along the corridor. • Other Data 0 SEE Scan (Sambatek) ■ Kelly Farm site 0 Functional/Jurisdiction TH 10 Corridor and Subarea Study TAB Meeting City of Elk River October 1, 2020 Page 3 o Access o Land Use o Multimodal connectivity o Demographics 6. Public Engagement • Focus Groups o TAB to provide input on focus group attendees. ACTION o How did the gateway study went — Bruce? Bruce to send contact info for ones engaged on this study. Timing was a struggle but there was a lot of interest. o Bruce to send projected land use east of Jarvis and TH 10. Likely a lot of traffic utilizing Alpine to head west from this development. ACTION o Three sets of focus group meetings ■ Existing conditions ■ Review options ■ Present final options • Open House o Narrated presentation posted on website o Survey to complement about vision/direction for the corridor. o Wikimapping utilized o More of pushing of information, engagement would be in focus groups and via wikimapping and survey for open house o Potentially have "office hours" for the public to ask questions o District 3 freight plan — coordinate with Justin/Andy o Consider Metro Quest for engagement — MnDOT tool that could be utilized 7. Next Steps • Existing conditions document • Coordinating focus group meetings. TAB provide feedback by end of week. ACTION • Develop draft virtual open house materials Actions Needed Actions Needed Responsibility I Meeting Date H.-\Projects\ 13000\ 13521 \_Correspondence\Meetings\201001 _TAB_Meeting1 \201001_TAB_Summary.do6x Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Technical Advisory Board Meeting 2 May 6, 2021 P! Z- G r v v Aq Y-zq *1(11�. � hhhh"406 Meeting Purpose • Review study progress • Discuss public engagement feedback • Review long-term alternatives and preliminary evaluation • Gather consensus on the long-term vision for the Highway 10 corridor • Provide next steps in the study process Study Goals • Build a unified system plan that can be implemented over time to ensure safe and efficient operations along the Highway 10 corridor • General Approach: • Build upon previous planning efforts • Quantify current and future transportation conditions, issues, and needs • Evaluate transportation improvement alternatives • Engage key stakeholders to solicit input and build understanding • Develop a fiscally responsible implementation plan to support economic development and corridor operations and safety Schedule Study Tasks T1 Project Management Project Manager Meetings Teehnlpal Advisory Beard Meetings T2-Stakeho1der/Agency Involvemarrt Elk River Planning CommEse•Ion Elk River City Council T3-Community Engagement Public Open House Meetings Ilrroerson / Virtual) Focus Groups (Freight Haulers, Fleeted Olncials, Businesses) Online Engagement Study Survey Targeted Social Walla T4 - 0ole Callaetim, and Acquisition TS - vision & Goals T - Issues Identification and Confirmation T7 - Alternatives Development. Malysle, and Screening/Evaluetlan TS- Implementation Plan and 0ocumentation We are here 2020 2021 i tooR5t�� 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 a ® I • Qyf% w w w IN IN w w w w IN 5 5 5 FB FB FB FB FB FB FB FB 0 Prej—Managers Mcfting Q Focus Group w/$/FB Web updates/SurveysfFamBeok Ads updated: September 1, 2020 0 TAIlMerang * Kay Gedvarahle/ I2[hniral Memorandum Siakepe dfr Mfeilnq 0 Draft Report Open House Meeting * Final Report What have we been up to? • Corridor Issues Identification - Complete • Safety concerns at key intersections (171st Avenue, 173rd Avenue, 165th Avenue). • Delay concerns at side -street access, most operate at LOS E or worse during peak periods. • Access spacing along corridor not compliant with guidelines. • Focus Group Meetings and Public Open House (Round 1) - Complete • Alternatives Development and Evaluation — In Progress Public Engagement • Focus Groups • Local Businesses — 11/4/2020 • 4 businesses represented • Primary concerns include access on/off Hwy 10, safety at unsignalized intersections, high speeds along corridor • Important to consider frontage/backage roads in future recommendations • Freight Haulers — 11/5/2020 • 3 freight haulers represented • Primary concerns include access on/off Hwy 10, safety at unsignalized intersections • Important to have easy access to/from Hwy 10 and then high mobility/reduced travel times, future designs that accommodate large trucks • Elected Officials— (for Rounds 2 and 3) • Virtual Open House (live 12/8 through 1/19) • Narrated Presentation, Wikimapping, and Form/Function Survey • 761 site views • 516 survey responses (-310 surveys were completely filled out) • 105+ email contact list sign-ups Public Engagement —Survey Results WHAT ISSUES DO YOU EXPERIENCE WHEN USING THE CORRIDOR? Congestion (74%) Access (42%) n Vehicle safety ''�`D (42%) Other responses included: • High speeds (26%) • Pedestrian safety (11 %) HOW OFTEN DO YOU TRAVEL THE CORRIDOR? • Approximately 77 percent of respondents travel the corridor 2+ times a week WHAT IS YOUR PREFERENCE FOR THE LONG-TERM VISION (10+YEAR S) OF THE CORRIDOR Top ranked options: • Innovative access changes (179 respondents ranked as a top two Priority) • Interchanges and closing access (177 respondents ranked as a top two priority) • Add a frontage road (165 respondents ranked as a top two priority) Lowest ranked options: • Add more traffic lights (219 respondents ranked as a bottom two priority) • Leave as is (186 respondents ranked as a bottom two priority) What We Know • The are existing safety issues that warrant mitigation today • The existing at -grade intersections are expected to reach capacity between 2030 and 2035 • The addition of more signals along the corridor is seen as less favorable by the public • The study segment will be the last area of Highway 10 with at -grade access between Highway 101/169 and Armstrong Boulevard • Based on public comments and the purpose and need developed for this study, alternatives that provide free -flow conditions along Highway 10 will be considered What We Know 0 Gap Acceptance: HCM 2010 Chapter 19 av (seconds) Average Westbound Gaps: � 3.4 to 7.7 seconds �g p Vehicle Movement Four -Lanes • Limited gaps during p.m. peak period (all movements) • Adequate gaps during the a.m. peak period (all movements) Left -Turn from Major 4.1 Right -Turn from Minor 6.9 • Average Eastbound Gaps: —3.7 to 5.2 seconds 1-Stage 6.5 • Limited gaps during a.m. peak period (all movements) • Limited gaps during the p.m. peak period for the minor Through on 2-Stage, Stage 1 5.5 movements to/across Highway 10, as well as right -turns Minor onto Highway 10 2-Stage, Stage 2 5.5 • Adequate gaps during the p.m. peak period for left -turns from Highway 10 1 Stage 7.5 Left -Turn 2-Stage, Stage 1 6.5 from Minor 2-Stage, Stage 2 6.5 What We Know • The traffic signal at 171st Avenue creates additional gaps in the eastbound direction. • Motorists on the side -streets experience significant delays while trying to access and/or cross Highway 10. • Multiple vehicles were waiting in the median at one time, creating potential conflicts. • Vehicles were using the shoulders as acceleration lanes to access Highway 10. NwAr'o i ��RRtooRSt�� Traffic volumes -F US 10 (Study Corridor) At -grade full access 34,000* TH 13 (US 169 to I-35W) Grade -separated (US 169, TH 13, TH 5, I-35W) and at -grade full access 51,000 — 54,000 US 169 (Shakopee to Jordan) Grade -separated and restricted at -grade access 29,000 — 36,000 TH 55 (Plymouth) At -grade full access 34,000 — 41,000 TH 65 (US 10 to CSAH 14) Grade -separated (CSAH 14, US 10) and at -grade full access 41,000 — 58,000 US 10 (Main Street to TH 610) Grade -separated 59,000 — 80,000 TH 101 (1-94 to US 10) Grade -separated 41,500 — 52,000 US 169 (Elk River) At -grade full access 37,500 — 47,500 * Forecasted traffic volume expected to be 48,000 - 54,000 Long -Term Alternative Development Process • Build off previous studies and concepts to • Identify and evaluate the long-term corridor vision • Initial long-term corridor alternatives considered • No Build • Alternative 1— Signals and Access Modifications (with Accel/Decel Lanes) • Alternative 2 — Signals, Access Mods, and R-Cuts (with Accel/Decel Lanes) • Alternative 3 — Grade -Separated Facility (Interchanges, High-T Combo, Button hook/Overpasses) ALTERNATIVE #1 SIGNALS Low Cost: $75M High Cost: $114M 1715TAVENUE-(�i ) v'r- _ TWIN LAKE$ ROAD 165TH AVENUE KELLY FARM ROAD ALTERNATIVE #2 R05 AUAM55TREF�T ALP, NE LR,VE Low Cost: $78M High Cost: $117M TWIN ALTERNATIVE #3 GRADE -SEPARATED Low Cost: $94M High Cost: $180M AO ADAMS TOTALCOST Total cast Estimores Include the following: -Local Roadway Casts which assumed the follawMg - 9.37 mites of local roodwoy construction. - Three -tone urban roadwo y typical se,6on. -ROW and Design and Engineering casts were included. -Gmde-sepamted uiternatiues included 0.23 miles a, reconstruction ofHighwoyl0 tomeetdesign requirements faro freeway f.riRty. -Grade-separated alternative costs were based on an ove age for the alternatives of interchonges, High-Tond Burtan Hooks. - ROW and Design and Engineering costs were included far the grade -separated alternative. - Alternatives H1 and A2 included the cost to Highway 10 to a six expand High -lone section in the high cast total. Conflict Point Analysis -Methodology • Conflict Point Types • Intersection —Crossing, Merging, Diverging • Freeway —Merging, Diverging • Categorized existing intersection crash data • Intersection crossing — left -turn, angle, head on • Intersection merge/diverge —all others • Applied crash costs to crash data • Crossing conflict types cost 3.5x more than merging and diverging Intersection Diverge Intersection Merge Intersection Crossing Freeway Diverge Freeway Merge 1.0 1.2 3.5 0.8* — 1.1 1.4* — 1.6 • Used Freeway severity weights from TH 13 * TH 13 corridor project Severity Weights • Increased to account for higher speeds on Hwy 10 Conflict Point Analysis - Scoring • Identified conflicting volumes are multiplied by their severity weights • Conflict Point Score calculated for each intersection/interchange for the different alternatives • Conflict Point Score represents the "At -Risk" exposure for each alternative 48,900,000 51,500,000 47,200,000 26,800,000 (22,500,000)# * Conflict point score using freeway severity weights from the TH 13 corridor project Preliminary Benefit Cost Analysis $9 - $114 million $12 - $117 $ 12,500,000 $ 280,000 $ 225,000,00 million $30 - $180 $ 9 100,000 $ 3,700,000 $ 163,000,00 • • million * Project Costs in 2021 dollars , low cost did not include local roadway construction wAr'o i ��RRIDORSt�� -0.87to-0.07 Key Evaluation Considerations • Long term peak hour mobility • At -Grade Alternatives • No Build • Alternative 1— Signals • Alternative 2 — RCI's tc"' Y i'o ` ��RRlDORSt�o 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 ■ Acceptable Approaching Poor Poor ■ V/C> 1 ■ Volume Range • Grade -Separated Alternatives ■ • Alternative 3 — Interchanges, High-T Combo, Buttonhook/Overpasses 160 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 ■Acceptable Approaching Poor Poor ■V/C>1 ■Volume Range Key Evaluation Considerations AM 3.6 3.4 3.3 4.3 4.1 3.4 PM 6.2 5.8 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.3 * Grade -Separated Alternative results from HCS - used average travel time between the Interchange, High T, and Button Hook Alternatives Key Evaluation Considerations • Additional Signal Needs: • Alternative 1— N 2 additional Signal (Twin Lakes Road and South Area) • Alternative 2 — N 1 to 2 additional Signals • Alternative 3 — Removes 1 Signal 106.000 90,000 79,000 75,000 60.E a g 41,000 30,000 IS'" o L 4 6,000 76,000 Minor Street Demand (rpd) Exbibit 5-7, Feasible demand space for signalized RCIL T intersection. Restricted Crossing U14um Infotmatdonat Guide bm"O demand "M to unM"Itzed RMA` - - - for el0natlzed R� maw Sum 4-LW* Strom LEGEND - US 10 and Twin Lakes Road -US 10and Kelly Farm Are&Access 49 - US 10 and Jervis Street Long -Term Alternative Evaluation HybridEvaluation Criteria Alt I Alt 2 Signals Grade -Separated Y Improves existing and future safety • • • ! V) Access spacing compliance • • Improves peak hour mobility on Hwy 10 • • Y Continuity with Hwy 10 to the East • • • • o � Improves mobility crossing Hwy 10 • • • Improves mobility accessing Highway 10 • mImproves mobility crossing Hwy 10 Minimizes construction cost v t • Y Minimizes right-of-way impacts • Good; meets criteria well Moderate; no distinguishing characteristics • Poor; fails to meet criteria �F,j G5,.rd.',,-d m, Alternative IS"RF Grade - Separated vA,te�rna,, Alternative Grade -Separated Alternative Process • Developed Concept Station Grade -Separated Alternatives • Focused on Standard and Folded Diamond configurations to understand general footprint impacts • Developed grade -separated configurations for each potential long-term alternative location for preliminary impacts evaluation Preliminary Grade -Separated Alternative Kelly Farm Standard Diamond Folded Diamond V Preliminary Grade -Separated Alternative Jarvis Street Standard Diamond Folded Diamond Preliminary Grade -Separated Alternative Adams Street (D Standard Diamond Folded Diamond 0., 0,.-,VW.4Y Preliminary Grade -Separated Alternativl�", Adams Street N O"' ��77100)0]F77� Parclo — Opt 1 (Adams Align) Parclo — Opt 2 (Shifted West) Preliminary Grade -Separated Alternativew� ��RRIAlpine Drive DORS Standard Diamond Folded Diamond Grade -Separated Alternative Evaluation Y Improves existing and future safety v V) Access spacing compliance Improves mobility on Hwy 10 Y o Continuity with planned facilities Provides E/W local road connectivity f Existing land use connectivity J = Minimizes right-of-way impacts Provides access across Hwy 10 to pedestrian/bicycle destinations m Continuity with planned facilities Minimizes cost t Y o Locally favored option Allk 1p Good; meets criteria well • Moderate; no distinguishing characteristics E WA), ��RRlDORSt�o 0 11 • • Poor; fails to meet criteria Local Roadway Alternatives Kel Iy Farm& Gateway nhernati s s Kelly Farm Alernative 4t Kelly Farm AllernalWe n3 � Gateway Alternative pl � Gaarway Alternative tl3 —et d AgrkulNral Sail . 100.Haar FloodPlain NwEerah Erospn Rhk � Severe Ermion R'¢k Panel Virres Trail Parkm�u� awNWgy�o Local Roadway Alternatives" dway Alternatives a`vNWgy�o �'t ��o Preliminary Grade -Separated AlternativO7 Twin Lakes R•.• `!� �ARlDOR SZ�� St andard Diamond r. I 7 �r Folded Diamond Preliminary Grade -Separated Alternative Twin Lakes Road Pardo Button Hook Next Steps • Refine Long -Term Alternatives and Evaluation • Coordinate Second Round of Public Engagement Meetings • Focus Groups - Targeting Early to Late -May • Who should be included in Elected Officials Focus Group? Can Cities/Counties send invite to elected officials? • SRF to coordinate with Freight Haulers and Businesses. • Virtual Open House - Targeting Late-May/early-June Start • Two 1-hour virtual meetings (noon, evening) and Q&A • Goal — Get Feedback on Long -Term Alternatives and Evaluation • Begin Implementation Planning Process • Identify need/priority areas • Develop interim improvements and phasing • Prepare funding strategy SRF Summary SRFNo. 13321 Location: Zoom Virtual Meeting Client: City of Elk River, MnDOT Date: 5/6/2021 Subject: TH 10 Corridor and Subarea Study TAB Meeting 2 Attendees: Jennifer Wiltgen, Ashley Roup, Kent Barnard (MnDOT Metro), Tom Cruikshank (MnDOT District 3), Justin Femrite, Ryan Sandhoefner (City of Elk River), Andrew Witter (Sherburne County), Joe MacPherson (Anoka County), Bruce Westby (City of Ramsey), Steve Peterson (Met Council), Molly Stewart, Matt Pacyna, Collin Schroeder (SRF) From: Molly Stewart Agenda 1. Study Progress • No comments. 2. Public Engagement Update • No comments. 3. Existing/Future Conditions Recap Witter - Can you look at the peak hour profiles similar to other corridors? Feels this will help focus on the operation. SRF followed -up that we could review this, but noted that since there is only one stop on the corridor today, mobility along Hwy 10 isn't the major issue; the volumes are high enough that there are not enough gaps to safely make maneuvers from the side -street, as well as for left -turn movements from Hwy 10 onto the cross -streets. 4. Alternative Development and Evaluation MacPherson — is everyone ok with 171 s' Avenue going away as a signal? Femrite noted that TLR is the long-term vision but may not be able to support removing a signal at 171" Avenue. • MacPherson — is there are options to provide access or across Highway 10 being considered. SRF noted that yes, there are multiple options being considered, including signals, acceleration/deceleration lanes, RCIs, overpasses, and High-T's. • Wiltgen — asked about the benefit -cost evaluation. Focuses on freeway versus at -grade and doesn't do a great job at addressing the safety aspect. SRF walked the group through the conflict scope methodology associated with the benefit cost evaluation. This approach is more focused on the safety benefits associated with each alternative. TH 10 Corridor and Subarea Study TAB Meeting City of Elk River May 6, 2021 Page 2 • Wiltgen — preliminary conversations on the weigh station is that keeping it there is not a fatal flaw. There is support to keeping it in some form or relocate. The dual direction of the current facility is nice, can it be incorporated into an interchange project? Would be nice to maintain dual directionality. • MacPherson — the four potential locations at the south end, sees a lot of potential impacts. What conversations with the City have been done to date? SRF noted that the south location will be discussed with the focus groups and the public in the next round of engagement. Femrite has spoken at the staff level, feels the Kelly Farm access is too far west; Alternative 2 at Jarvis is very challenged; Alternative 4 has some challenges with the rail crossing as well. City has migrated towards the Adams area (Alternative 3). • MacPherson — asked Westby (Ramsey), was there right-of-way set aside heading towards the west? SRF to add the Anoka County parcels in the Alpine area. Witter noted that these is right-of-way platted west of Alpine for the location connectivity to Adams. Femrite noted previous studies in the area and has favored the Adams alignment from the previous efforts. • Femrite — City is looking to get the roadway built in progress to connect Twin Lakes Road with 165`'' Avenue, potentially as early as late 2021 or 2022. 5. Next Steps • Femrite — doesn't see a need for police/fire to be included as part of the elected officials focus group; Westby agreed on behalf of Ramsey. • Virtual Open House — SRF will host two separate live meetings, tentatively planned for Thursday June 10"'. One meeting over the lunch hour, one during the evening. • Westby — sees a potential red -flag with the Adams to Alpine Drive connection ... has a quiet zone designation today, changes could impact it and should be considered. • Cruikshank — noted a few D3 staff were missing, should we have a quick internal check - in for this as well to confirm the next steps. SRF noted we will coordinate on Monday during our PM check -in meeting. Actions Needed Actions Needed Responsibility I Deadline Confirm elected officials for focus groups Ramsey, Elk River, By 5/1-0 Anoka County and Sherburne County Coordinate focus groups and public meeting information I SRF H..\Projects\ 13000\ 13521 \_Correspondence\Meetings\210506_TAB_Meeting2\210506_TAB_Summary.docx I� WAY �ROR 0 Elk River Highway Corridor 10 Study Technical Advisory Board Meeting 3 October 20, 2021 • Review study progress • Discuss public engagement feedback from second round of engagement • Review long-term vision • Review implementation plan • Provide next steps in the study process • Focus Group Meetings and Public Open House (Round 2) • Alternatives Development and Evaluation • Implementation Plan Development ♦ 2020 2021 We Are Here 2022 • Focus Groups — May/June 2021 • Local Businesses, Elected Officials, Freight Haulers • Consensus for grade -separation of Highway 10 • Live Online Open House —June 10, 2021 • Two virtual meetings lunch hour and evening meeting • Survey - June 10 — 30, 2021 • 172 responses • High support (84%) for grade -separation • Support for prioritizing improvements at Twin Lakes Road • No clear choice selected for interchange location in south segment 0.6 miles to Weigh Station 2.4 miles to Armstrong Blvd Typical Section LOCAL ROAD 40.C' 40.0' BLVD SHLD THRU DONT. THRU SHLD BLVD TRAIL LT. TURN PROFILE GRADE 4•�% _2.0% _2.0% 2.0!._ 2.0%_ _4.0'/ _2.0Y \�8424 C&G LOCAL ROAD DESIGN SPEED = 30 MPH B424 C&G J CROSS SECTION TO BE USED ON ALL PROPOSED ROADWAYS EXCEPT DRIVEWAYS AND TYING INTO AN EXISITNG ROADWAY WITH A NARROW TYPICAL SECTION. CROSS SECTION TO BE MODIFIED DURING DESIGN DEVELOPMENT TO FIT THE CONTEXT OF THE AREA INCLUDING TRAIL AND/OR SIDEWALK LOCATIONS, STRIPING, CURB TYPE, RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH, ETC. `Z`�GHAWY so ci ��RRIDOR�� • Other Considerations: R/W • Section will be modified during design to fit context of area. VAR °RFL rra, • aTrail connections added TTFR, to be consistent with City's Master Plan (2018). • North Segment • US 169 to 165t" Avenue • Phases 1-4 • South Segment • Edison Street to Alpine Drive • Phases 1-4 • Middle Segment • Kelly Farm Road area North segment South segment Middle segment • Safety Improvements at 171St Ave including: • Dynamic warning flashers, retroreflective sheeting to signal backplates, FYA phasing • Local roadway connections to 173rd Ave and access closures on Highway 10 (maintain emergency vehicle access for eastbound) • Local roadway connection to 1651" Ave (construction planned for 2022) • Right-in/right-out access at 165t" Ave and access closure on Highway 10 Planning -level cost: $1 million E ..I IENAYS :Z��j 65 Ti alE. 11 • Local roadway connection between Yale Street and 167t" Ave • Access closures on Highway 10 r— —•_- LEGEND — aXLsENa.eNFAR, . —A, N=T�X=NWs - PAEYIOIIS PNiSER[CNSTaIRT10N E1rSGTING TRAFFIC GIGN.L EIt ISTIXG RIGHT OF .1 o E 111E III- E r - - Planning -level cost: $3.2 million • Local roadway connection south of 171St Ave (Vance Street extension) • Access closures on Highway 10 • Third lane for northbound and southbound on Highway 10 and signal revisions at 171St Ave (optional) • Would extend capacity to 2045+ vs 2030/2035 without the third lane Third Lane • Requires additional pavement for added lane and shoulder width • Traditional configuration/less driver confusion • May have potential right-of- way and/or drainage impacts Planning -level cost: $5.2 million Dynamic Shoulder • Additional structural strength needed for shoulder • Requires dynamic signing to ensure that traffic is in correct lane and using the dynamic shoulder when active • Potential issues in the winter with plows only treating primary lanes • Planning -level cost: $4.1 million Planning -level cost: $5.2 million LEGEND acveo .u.ow.r x.csEu wEoi.xs a cunss - exruwrxnus Luis . susw.rs __A ruxss�cws*xuc,rox ..aPosEo rx.FFrc s=cx.v Q e.csc�xc xgcnr or .a.AL o EATI..EE EE�E. F ... • Construct interchange at Twin Lakes Road and remove signal at 171s' Ave • Local roadway connection at 171St Ave and Twin Lakes Road and access closure on Highway 10 • Local road connection from interchange to 1651" Ave and access closures on Highway 10 • Local roadway connection from interchange to Yale Street and access closures on Highway 10 • Access closures on Highway 10 T H LH m = Planning -level cost: $4.6 million (Twin Lakes Road) Planning -level cost: $7.6 million (local road connection for interchange) Planning -level cost: $15 - $20 million (interchange) • Install temporary signal at Jarvis Street/Cleveland Street and upgrade approaches • Local roadway connection between Edison Street and Adams Street and access closure on Highway 10 • Extend frontage road north along Highway 10 • Access closures on Highway 10 Signal • Would require left -turn lanes for the side -street approaches • Capacity reached by 2035 • With dual southbound left -turn lanes capacity reached after 2045 • 45% crash reduction • Planning -level cost: $5.6 million Signalized RCI • Capacity reached after 2045 • No additional lanes needed • Requires three signals in separate locations • Unsignalized RCI would reach capacity before 2030 • 52% crash reduction • Planning -level cost: $5.9 million i -~J/--------- LEGEND RAT— .E51— a C-5 � . ........... s«.w F�� s«xLL P.aPosEo .:, 0 ExraaxcE c�osEo -,n r' Planning -level cost: $5.6 million • Local roadway connection between Jarvis Street and Alpine Drive (backage road) • Access closures on Highway 10 LEGEND � a.�segN�o�axs x cokes IONax CD ST -T.gN 0 "_ol >nasE coxsT-11a �y oNq_" ,.FFxc s qxA Ex Ts T:UIN s�cxn� ----- Ex�srxxc rt�cxr aF Wav Fnq.gSEU �=x.N� qF rem Planning -level cost: $4.1 million • Local roadway connection between Jarvis Street and Alpine Drive (frontage road) • Access closures on Highway 10 LEGEND 0 wnveo noaowar ® BITIIwBIHbnSITRAILS cSRBIKEWAYS _ OPT IOwnL COx5T111111x ® nxoxasEo *.arrlc slGwaLTxou ¢KlsTsxs TAavvsc slwnu - vRocosEo RmxT or war 0 EnTRaace c 11 0 1 Planning -level cost: $5.5 million • Extend frontage road on south side of Highway 10 east of Adams Street • Access closures on Highway 10 IECENI � P�YEN Na.o.Nr - BIIIININOUSITPpILSC6N&IWEWavS E..o s P ..EN.a...aN ]E� NOPNSEo.N.FFI sI N. � E~ISrINs ,N.FFI� ==aN.� - o wAo Wlcx] aE .W. o . I—E �Lo.ED ;E ASE ENEi.. I��.� F! 'NASA I --------------- Planning -level cost: $3 million • Construct interchange at Adams Street and remove signal • Local roadway connections from 1561" Ave for business access and access closures on Highway 10 • Local roadway connection between Edison Street and Cleveland Street and access closures for north leg of Edison Street • Realign Jarvis Street (optional) I Planning -level cost: $ 2.8 million , . (local road connection) q#Planning-level cost: 1 $2.5 million local road connection for interchange) . o Planning -level cost: $15 - $20 million (interchange) • Construct interchange at Adams Street and remove signal • Local roadway connections from 156tn Ave for business access and access closures on Highway 10 • Local roadway connection between Edison Street and Cleveland Street and access closures for north leg of Edison Street • Realign Jarvis Street and Alpine Drive (optional) Planning -level cost: $2.8 million (local road connection) Planning -level cost: $4.9 million (local road connection for interchange) Planning -level cost: $15 - $20 million (interchange) • Local roadway connections between 165t" Avenue and south segment on both sides of Highway 10 • Access closures on Highway 10 Planning -level cost: $15.3 million LLGLND EXIST— TRAFF "'IT' I 1111T IF III ,T IF MnY • North Segment Total Planning -level Cost: $21.6 million (local roads) • Phase 1: $1 million • Phase 2: $3.2 million • Phase 3: $5.2 million • Phase 4: $12.2 million (local roads) $15 - $20 million (interchange) • South Segment Total Planning -level Cost: $18 - $21.8 million (local roads) • Phase 1: $5.6 million • Phase 2A: $4.1 million / Phase 213: $5.5 million • Phase 3: $3 million • Phase 4A: $5.3 million (local roads) / Phase 413: $7.7 million $15 - $20 million (interchange) • Middle Segment Total Planning -level Cost: $15.3 million • Incorporate feedback received from TAB • Finalize implementation plan, costs, and funding strategies • Final study documentation • Host final round of engagement —targeting December o Recorded presentation posted on study website o Interactive survey to gather public feedback IS'RF Location: Zoom Virtual Meeting Client: City of Elk River, MnDOT Date: 10/20/2021 Subject: TH 10 Corridor and Subarea Study TAB Meeting 3 Summary SRFNo. 13321 Attendees: Jennifer Wiltgen, Tod Sherman (MnDOT Metro), Luke Wehseler, Tom Cruikshank, Steve Voss (MnDOT District 3), Justin Femrite, Ryan Sandhoefner (City of Elk River), Andrew Witter (Sherburne County), Joe MacPherson (Anoka County), Bruce Westby (City of Ramsey), Molly Stewart, Collin Schroeder (SRF) From: Molly Stewart Agenda 1. Study Progress • No comments. 2. Public Engagement Update • No comments. 3. Long-term Vision • Femrite — Likes the idea of showing the long-term vision first, then going through the potential phases to reach that ultimate vision. Thinks the public would be more receptive to this format. 4. Implementation Plan — North Segment • Phase 1 o Witter — Noted that FYA phasing is not necessarily a safety improvement. • Phase 2 o Femrite — Need to make sure that footprint of potential future interchange would accommodate the potential development on the southwest side of TH 10 at 165"' Avenue. o Voss — If 165"' Avenue was right -in right -out access, development would need access elsewhere. TIS recommended to investigate local connections to this development more closely o Wehseler — What is our solid answer as to why the desired location for the interchange is at Twin Lakes Rd versus a location that is further to the south to accommodate future development? Femrite commented that much of the existing development and existing traffic in the north segment is coming from the 171' Avenue area; also noted that there is not much developable area near Kelly Farm as this will serve primarily as agricultural TH 10 Corridor and Subarea Study TAB Meeting City of Elk River October 20, 2021 Page 2 use, and Cargill likes their "buffer" of agricultural land surrounding their facility. Cargill will not be relocating any time soon. o Voss — Concern with a permanent at -grade intersection at 165"' Avenue for the development; Femrite commented that the at -grade intersection at 165"' Avenue would only serve as an interim location for access to the development until the interchange would be constructed. o Voss — Commented on the transparency of the phasing figures; we don't want businesses to get frustrated their access gets closed prior to another businesses access. • Phase 3 o Voss — Would the third lane be utilizing the existing shoulder? Commented that if you're already spending $5M for a third lane, why not put that money towards constructing an interchange? Comments were made agreeing with that sentiment. SRF noted that the pros/cons of the third lane will be documented in the final report. This information can then be utilized by elected officials/decision makers to justify the need for a future interchange as the third name interim solution may not provide the best benefit/cost. o MacPherson — Third lane does not address any of the safety concerns that exist at the 171" Avenue intersection. The addition of the third lane has the potential to make the safety issues worse at this intersection. o Wiltgen — Interchange also accommodates traffic crossing US 10, allows this traffic to go across TH 10 safer and more efficiently. o MacPherson — Local roadway connections made on the westside of TH 10 turned out nice. Also noted that he really likes this project, addresses the safety issues along the highway. o Wehseler — Would there be any impacts to the frontage road system shown in the figures with the addition of a third lane? SRF responded saying no, what is show in the figures would be acceptable. Femrite commented stating that the third lane being that close to the frontage road system might give drivers an uncomfortable feeling if seeing headlights approaching so close. • Phase 4 o Wehseler — Would the alignment of TH 10 need to be adjusted to accommodate the interchange at Twin Lakes Rd? SRF responded that there would need to be modifications made to the alignment of the mainline to accommodate the speeds of a grade separated corridor. Also noted that the realignment is included in the cost estimate. 5. Implementation Plan — South Segment • Phase 1 o Wiltgen — Brought up the TH 65/Viking signalized RCI, the issues at that location have been worked though and have made significant operational and safety improvements. Signal improvements to help traffic get through TH 10 Corridor and Subarea Study TAB Meeting City of Elk River October 20, 2021 Page 3 faster and have seen heavy vehicles utilizing the signalized RCI at that location. o MacPherson — Would like to see the push to go to the long-term vision at this location. There are a lot of heavy vehicles with the land use being primarily industrial. Appreciates the analysis of the two at -grade options. o MacPherson — Curious as to what the feedback from the public is on a signal at this location? SRF noted that we haven't received feedback on the at -grade options at this location at this time but that the public will have an opportunity to comment during the next round of public engagement. o Voss — A signalized intersection works with what we're trying to accomplish with the study, signal provides operational benefit in the interim, but ultimately wants to work towards the long-term vision with the interchange. Signal is a lower cost option that buys some time until the funding is there for the interchange. • Phase 4 o MacPherson — Could also be a grade -separated type crossing at Cleveland/Jarvis if that better serves the traffic in the area. o MacPherson — What is the future of the weigh station to the south? Will this be going away? Brought up concern with the ramp spacing and horizontal curves. Concerns with the curvature creating congestion in the area, drivers tend to brake around curves — see I-94 near TH 101. This potential issue could be mitigated by straightening out these curves. o MacPherson — Good idea to have the interim signal located at an existing intersection rather than at the location of the future interchange. This will make things smoother during the construction of the interchange. o Wiltgen — Commented on the future of the weigh station; weigh station will remain at the same location long-term but thinks that they would be open to investigating some different alignments/configurations to accommodate the future interchange in the south segment of our study area. • Phases 2A and 2B o No Comments. • Phase 3 o No Comments. 6. Implementation Plan — Middle Segment Voss — Is there a concern with how the service road system will work with the potential developments? This will likely something to consider as future development happens. 7. Implementation Plan — Summary of Costs by Phase • No Comments. 8. Next Steps TH 10 Corridor and Subarea Study TAB Meeting City of Elk River October 20, 2021 Page 4 • MacPherson — Was there going to be one more engagement with elected officials? Create some sort of work session to share the information with them and make sure everyone understands the project, mentioned that this has worked very well for Anoka County. Share with their own officials, then if they have questions, they can send them to SRF. • Witter, Femrite, Westby — work sessions and discussions with elected officials would be very advantageous. • Westby, Femrite — SRF's participation in the work sessions would be beneficial. Westby thinks there will be a lot of questions regarding the signals, since they have been eliminating signals at other locations along this corridor. • Westby — question for Femrite; joint work session between both cities? Could be a good option if there are other items to discuss. Westby mentioned it has been a while since Ramsey has talked to other adjacent cities. • Voss — Cost effectiveness component to the different alternatives? SRF responded, pros and cons of the different alternatives will be communicated qualitatively. Actions Needed Actions Needed Responsibility I Deadline H..\Projects\ 13000\ 13521 \_Correspondence\Meetings\211020_TAB_Meeting3\211020_TAB_Summary.docx Communications and Public Involvement Plan H/ghwayl0 Corr/dog and Subarea Study MY of Elk River, MN /n partnersh/p w/th MaDOT Draft # 9.0 Prepared by: October 1, 2020 SRF No. 13521 Table of Contents Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose of the communications and involvement plan...............................................................................................2 Projectbackground and summary...................................................................................................................................2 Communityunderstanding...............................................................................................................................................4 Communications and public involvement strategy.......................................................................................................5 Goals.................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Objectives............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Tasks.............................................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. Potential stakeholders and key populations...................................................................................................................6 Agency involvement approach.......................................................................................................... 7 ProjectManagement Team...............................................................................................................................................7 Strategic Advisory Group Meetings.........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. TechnicalAdvisor, Committee.......................................................................................................................................7 Information sharing approach.......................................................................................................... 8 1. Public communication................................................................................................................................................8 2. Local media...............................................................................................................................................................11 Public outreach approach................................................................................................................11 Outreachtools and methodology..................................................................................................................................11 1. Community open houses....................................................................................................................................................12 2. Pop up Engagement...................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3. Online Survey, Project Wikimap, ArcGIS Story Map .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Detailedtimeline...............................................................................................................................12 Introduction Purpose of the communications and involvement plan This plan provides an overview of the tasks associated with public involvement that will occur as recommended for the Highway 10 Corridor and Subarea Study. This document identifies proposed outreach strategies for a broad set of stakeholders as well as the format, purpose and timeline for specific engagement activities. The purpose of the study is to address safety, mobility, and operational issues to maintain functionality of Highway 10, while also addressing and improving local transportation system connectivity and accessibility within Elk River and its neighbor Ramsey to the east. The intent of public involvement for this project is to bring together study partners to inform, educate, and build consensus amongst stakeholders - including landowners, businesses, and the general public regarding the future of Highway 10 and the surrounding area. Public involvement is a dynamic process; as such, this plan is considered a living document and will be updated to reflect input received from project partners, stakeholders and the public as the project progresses. Project background and summary The City of Elk River and its MnDOT partners will conduct a transportation planning study for a 3.5-mile segment of Highway 10 as well as review the local transportation system in a 13.5 square mile area surrounding the Highway 10 corridor (see Figure 1 issues map). A key study outcome of this effort is the identification of access alternative(s) that include vibrant land uses and ensure businesses and potential residential development can thrive with safe connections to, from, and across Highway 10. This key outcome will be met through extensive public engagement, robust technical analysis of alternatives, and comprehensive coordination with the City of Elk River and project partners. The study will include an in-depth review of current operations, land use, and local roadway connectivity along the Highway 10 corridor, along with broader transportation system needs on supporting roadways and intersections. Due to the importance of this route and the level of volume, MnDOT has Highway 10 classified as a 1AF access facility, which means its long-term goal is best suited as a controlled -access, freeway type facility. There have been numerous studies and planning projects over the past 10-plus years that have moved forward a full freeway concept on either side of this study area. Given the potential for growth and development in this area, there is urgency to develop a vision and implementation plan for this segment of Highway 10. With any large infrastructure project or corridor study, managing change, relationships, and public expectations and providing adequate opportunities for feedback is crucial to the political and public perception and success of the project. Engagement of residents, local agencies and the traveling public will provide insight into local priorities and needs. 2 ISSUES MAP 169 ft Future freeway upgrade el, Northstar Transit a Q Elk River Station !� m mi +75th c`e a LLJ x -� \\",- I � 1 \ I H' tiJ�l�f 165th We NN l I � Twin Lakes Rd v� Interchange TH 10 Future Access Plan StudyArea KEY ISSUE SICONSIDERATIONS Large study area for potential travel pattern shifts JG`1'ICfl�fl Major transportation facilities: — BNSFLine (Barrier) — TH 10 (Accessibilitp) — Local roadway connectivity — Northstar Transit Station — Twin Lakes Road changes e" — TH 169 (System Improvements) Future land use changes Business accesslcirculation TH 10 ROW improvement needs Multimodal system connectivity Intentional/thoughtful engagement with the community Stakeholder support 173.dn Ultimate future concept plan • Implementatlonstrategy(short - term, mid-term, Tong -term) BNSF Northstar line Legend OTH 10 Corridor Port WeighTrails TH to subarea StL*Limit Station (ATR]Rail Line Parks `� 100 Year Flooclaln :,,ayton JhC)fl® DNR Biodi ersityIllMurldpal Boundaries II Ill FAST Development AreaLarge Property Owners Historic Site Key intersect ons Figure 1: Project Issues Maki I 1, I Northstar Transit Ramsey Station 7�c Armstrong Blvd Interchange Future freeway N upgrade ' 0 55 1 �=.i MilesO Study partnem and community undemtanding Study Partnem Throughout this process the Study will collaborate with the City of Elk River as the lead agency, representatives from the City of Ramsey, Anoka and Sherburne counties, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Highway 10 serves the immediate Elk River community and beyond, and the connecting roadway network needs to work in unison to provide access to various land uses in the community. While MnDOT has jurisdiction over Highway 10, the City has a significant stake in the outcome of how Highway 10 operates and helps support economic development. MnDOT will be involved in the study, as well as Anoka and Sherburne counties to ensure planning continuity. Community undemtanding Key community members include Anoka and Sherburne counties, MnDOT, cultural resource agencies, freight haulers (i.e., Morrell Transfer and Lefebvre Transportation), chambers of commerce, and city commissions and boards (Elk River and Ramsey). The City of Elk River has a population of approximately 23,900 and an average commute time of 30 minutes per household. The demographics for the City of Elk River are 91% White, 2% Black or African American, 2% Two or more races, 1.7% Asian, 1.3% Hispanic/Latino and 0.3% American Indian. Sherburne County as a population of approximately 92,000 and an average commute time of 30 minutes per household. The population of Sherburne County is 92% White, 2% Black or African American, 2% Two or more races, 1.3% Asian, 1.3% Hispanic/Latino and 0.4% American Indian. Anoka County has a population of approximately 353,800 and an average commute time of 26 minutes per household. The demographics for Anoka County are 81% White, 6.5% Black or African American, 4.5% Asian, 3% Two or more races, 2% Hispanic/Latino and 1% American Indian. City of Ramsey has a population of approximately 26,00 and an average commute time of 30 minutes per household. The demographics for the City of Ramsey are 91% White, 3% Asian, 2% Two or more races, 2% Black or African American, 1% Hispanic/Latino and 0.1% American Indian. Key community considerations for this project include: • Potential impacts to properties from proposed access alternatives. • Provide up-to-date information and address community concerns. • Address access and detour impacts of potential Study outcomes. 4 • Coordinate with other Highway 10 projects and nearby construction project outreach. Communications and public involvement strategy Goals • All communications are clear and consistent (look/feel, how the project is referenced, information being shared, etc.). • Community expectations are established appropriately (e.g. type of work, phases, limits, resources for staying in touch). • Community members are provided opportunities to identify issues and comment on proposed alternatives. • Provide communications and engagement opportunities to identified stakeholders. Objectives There is an easily recognizable and consistent entity, point of contact and resource for those who want and need updates about this project. o As project lead, the City of Elk River will be the recognizable entity for all major communications. o The project website will serve as the consistent entity for project materials. http s: / /www.highwaylOcorridorstudy.com/ • Materials and messaging are shared by local communities, local public/private organizations, businesses and project partner communication channels. • Those who have participated in the project feel informed and heard. Key messaging areas We will communicate with the public on the following topics: • Study purpose, need and benefits. • Project processes (e.g. who makes the decisions, where public input comes in.), status and schedules (e.g. Right -of -Way acquisition, design and construction). • Corridor vision and goals. • Corridor alternatives development, analysis and evaluation. • Assessments from local governments. • Final design decision. Potential stakeholders and key populations The following list has been identified as possible community partners/stakeholders to involve in the Highway 10 Corridor and Subarea Study. This list is expected to grow as relationships are built and networks are leveraged. Directly Impacted Property owners adjacent to Highway 10 access locations and commuters who use these intersections. Residents who live adjacent to the potential project area. Indirectly Impacted Area residents (Big Lake, Zimmerman, Nowthen, Ramsey, Rogers, Dayton, Ostego, Coon Rapids, Elk River, Champlin) Highway 10 commuters Property owners whose land Trucking and freight industry may be purchased. Business owners who use the route (Anoka, Coon Rapids, Elk River, Ostego, Dayton, Ramsey businesses etc.) Pedestrians /Bicyclists Northstar transit riders Agency Partners City of Elk River MnDOT Sherburne County Anoka County Police/Fire/EMT FHWA Metro Transit Elk River School District Private and Public Utilities City of Ramsey, City of Coon Rapids, City of Ostego. City of Dayton Met Council Minnesota Historical Society Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Sherburne Soil and Water Conservation District / Anoka Conservation District Sen. Mary Kiffineyer, Rep. Paul Novotny, Rep. Eric Lucero Rep. Kurt Daudt, Sen. Jim Abeler_ ReD. John Heinrich 6 Issues/Considerations • Large study area with the potential for travel patter shifts. • The Highway 10 and surrounding study area includes a large number of transportation facilities including local roadway connections, BNSF (barrier), Twin Lakes Road changes, and TH 169 system improvements. • Railroad concerns and access to Northstar transit station. • Future land uses changes and business access • Highway 10 right of way and interchange preservation • Developing a consistent vision/understanding Agency Involvement approach This section outlines the approach to involving key agency stakeholders in the project. Project Management Team The Project Management Team (PMT) is the decision -making body for the project. PMT meetings are held bi-weekly. PMT members will also participate in public and business meetings as needed. Consultants will prepare agenda and meeting minutes, as well as any exhibits or meeting materials. The PMT will consist of internal stakeholders from: • City of Elk River • MnDOT • Consultant team (SRF, Sambatek) • Key representatives may be invited as needed Technical Advisory Board The Technical Advisory Board (TAB) will meet up to six (6) times to help identify key issues/opportunities, review data, findings, and alternatives, provide input on the study process/schedule, and help communicate with key stakeholders. Membership will include representatives from the PMT, as well as Metropolitan Council, the City of Ramsey, and Anoka and Sherburne Counties. Information sharing approach 1. Public communication To ensure impactful, effective and timely communication, the team will use a combination of existing communication tools with support from project partners. Communications tools include: • Pro'ectwebsite:hLt.ps://www.1-ighwaylOcorridorstud,.com/ o Post project updates, feedback opportunities, project contacts and other information for the public. We will encourage all stakeholders to use the website to get the latest information by signing up for emailed project updates. • GovDelivery list o Use project email list, City of Elk River and/or MnDOT GovDelivery list to provide county road -specific e-mail/wireless alerts. This will be our primary tool for pro -actively communicating directly to residents, city partners and other stakeholders. • Print/traditional communications o Share information on major study developments. Depending on the topic of discussion and its importance, we will mail flyers and informational postcards to affected residents and/or businesses. • Social media o Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are effective and affordable platforms for the consultant team and study partners to provide study updates, inform stakeholders of project updates and promote upcoming public input opportunities. o Use paid, targeted Facebook ads to inform residents about upcoming meetings and pop-up events. • Engagement activities o Open Houses (31. One at the beginning, mid -point, and end of the study. The first open house will introduce the study, its purpose, and preliminary existing conditions as well as ask stakeholders and the public to identify/confirm issues, needs, and areas of opportunity in the corridor and subarea. The second open house will consist of reviewing and asking for input on the draft corridor and subarea concepts. The third and final open house will consist of presenting the final corridor alternative concept and implantation plan. The first public open house is anticipated to be hosted online due health and safety concerns related to COVID-19. As the project progresses the consultant team will assess the viability of in -person engagement for second and third open house. Any in -person events will be located in ADA accessible and M. conveniently located community spaces. As a means of gathering input and making the series of open houses more interactive, when possible, the consultant team will use a live audience flash poll. Attendees can respond to questions anonymously using their mobile devices or tablet devices available during the meeting. Comment cards will also be available for anyone preferring to provide a written comment. In advance of these public meetings, MnDOT, the consultant team and study partners will share social media posts advertising the open houses. Additionally, the consultant team will draft a study news release for MnDOT communications to send to local media outlets to publicize these events. It is recommended that any presentation made at the open house be recorded and posted on the study website and social media outlets. This provides an additional opportunity for those that were unable to attend to still learn about the study and its potential impacts. o Focus Group Meetings (3): Transitioning the TH 10 corridor to a full freeway facility will require careful attention to the accessibility of the adjacent land use and businesses that exist today. Therefore, the consultant team will host focus group meetings with key stakeholders along the corridor to engage them in the process of determining viable options for access modification/consolidation and adjacent roadway network improvements. The Local Government/Agency has already done a good job with this conversation and coordinating with property owners as part of other activities related to the Twin Lake Road and Yale Street improvements. Providing these smaller group meetings in conjunction with the open houses will ensure adjacent property owners have multiple opportunities to share their input and participate in the process. Each focus group serves as an opportunity to dive deeper into freight, school, neighborhood, or other business issues in relation to the TH 10 corridor, gain useful information, and build strong relationships. Spending additional time listening to their concerns, identifying their priorities, and strategizing ways to develop a workable solution will help in addressing potential concerns at the onset of the study. The consultant team feels this will help mitigate future issues, demonstrate that the study team values the community's perspective, and ensures the public has multiple chances to participate in the decision -making process. Three focus groups will be identified, which are tentatively expected to include freight haulers, elected officials, and businesses. Three sets of meetings will occur approximately 1- month prior to each open house. o Online Survey, Wikimap, ArcGIS Story Map: These online tools provide opportunities for residents to learn more about the project and share input at times and locations that are convenient for them. 0 An online survey is an easy and effective way to solicit community input at key times in the project schedule. Online surveys will include compelling graphics. In addition to providing key information about project alternatives, surveys will provide important demographic data to help inform who has been engaged in the process. ■ A project Wikimap is a unique way for residents to provide detailed information about specific locations, respond to other public comments and interact with study partners within an online platform. ■ An ArcGIS Story Map is a web application that combines maps, narrative text, images and multimedia content to tell a story about the project. This webpage will be interactive and inform the public about the project purpose and alternatives as well as promote the project survey and Wikimap where residents can provide input and feedback. Other resources The consultant team will work with MnDOT communications staff to provide project updates and information to agency partners. SRF will help recruit community organizations, such as the City of Elk River, Sherburne County, Anoka County, Minnesota Historical Society and others to serve as project communicators and partners. This builds trust and respect in the community. It is assumed that MnDOT communications staff distribute information and work with media outlets. • Agency partner websites o City of Elk River - htti2s://www.cl.anoka.mn.us/ o City of Ramsey - htti2s://www.ci.ramsey.mn.us/ o Sherburne County - https://www.co.sherburne.mn.us/ o Anoka County - htti2s://www.anokacoun!3-.us/ o MnDOT Metro - htW://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/i2rojects.html o MnDOT D3 — htti2s://www.dot.state.mn.us/d3/ • Social media o City and agency social media accounts should be considered primary tools, as their followers are the stakeholders the project is aiming to communicate with. ■ City of Elk River Facebook https://-,v-,vw.ficebook.com/CiiyofElkRiNer/ ■ City of Ramsey Facebook https://www.facebook.com/Cit�,ofCoonRapidsNEnnesota ■ Sherburne County Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SherburneCount,MN / 10 Anoka County Facebook https://www.facebook.com/anokacoun /www.facebook.com/anokacouniyonline ■ MnDOT Facebook https://www.facebook.com/mndot 2. Local media The project team will reach out to local media outlets to inform the public about upcoming events and provide other important project information and timelines. MnDOT and the consultant team will connect with local media prior to each large public event to provide a news release for study partners to distribute to local media. Outlet Type ABC Newspapers Anoka County Newsletter Sherburne County Newsletter Newspaper/Website Newsletter/Website Newsletter/Website City of Elk River Website/Newsletters Municipal Area Chamber of Commerce Newsletters Newsletter/Website KSTP, WCCO, KARE, KMSP Regional Television/Radio Star Tribune Newspaper/Website Pioneer Press/TwinCities.com Newspaper/Website The Campus Eye Anoka -Ramsey Student Newspaper Newspaper/Website Elk River Star News Newspaper/Website Champlin Chronicle City Newsletter Municipal City of Ramsey News Flash Municipal Public outreach approach Outreach tools and methodology This section provides a description of the tools used specifically to inform, consult or involve the public in this project. Tools will be used in tailored ways to ensure that a wide variety of community members and stakeholders are able to connect with the study process. 11 1. Community open houses It is recommended that three public open house meetings are held throughout the study duration to allow the community to identify issues, discuss project materials with project team members and learn about next steps. The open houses will be promoted on social media and through local media outlets to encourage residents to attend. Additionally, the Public Engagement Team has experience with hybrid approaches to in -person engagement events that provide opportunities to host a virtual open house and have a two-way dialogue with residents who are unable to attend the meeting in person. Open house #1 The first open house will be held in November 2020, and is anticipated to be a virtual format. The first open house will introduce the study, its purpose, and preliminary existing conditions as well as ask stakeholders and the public to identify/confirm issues, needs, and areas of opportunity in the corridor and subarea. Open house #2 The second open house is expected to be held in Spring 2021. Feedback from stakeholders who attended the first open house will be factored into the concept development process. This open house will be informative and provide an opportunity to review concepts and alternatives evaluation and gather input on the draft corridor and subarea concepts. Open house #3 The third and final open house will provide a summary of project progress and public input received throughout the study process. New information shared at open house #3 will consist of presenting the final corridor alternative concept and implementation plan. Detailed tlmellne PHASE 1 — Initial Analysis of AlternalgWid Pro aping 1. Prepare draft messaging for social and traditional media 2. Identify the needs and concerns Timeframe Action/Event Purpose and Outcome Target Audience Responsible Party Project kick- Introduce project Internal, PMT All off meeting, Define goals and PMT Meeting objectives 12 PHASE 2 — Preliminary design and environmental documentation 1. Feedback on identified alternatives 2. Inform and update community and leaders Timeframe Strategy Purpose and Outcome Target Audience Responsible Party Phase 2 Important Dates Strategy #1 Phase 1 Important Dates Strategy HASE 3 — Initial Analysis of Alternatives and Project Scoping are draft messaRin.R for social and traditional media 13 2. Identify the needs and concerns 14 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Stakeholder Focus Group Meeting November 4, 2020 �0 ID OR T© Introductions • Focus Group Members ❖ Cornerstone Auto ❖ Exquisite Stone ❖ Furniture and Things ❖ Jerry's Auto ❖ Pearson Family Farm •'• Riverside Farms Study Partners ■ r Elk ANOK,A River COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION M SHERBURNE COUNTY Study Area Characteristics Four -Mile Study Segment • High -Speed Expressway • Posted Speed Limit — 60 mph • One Traffic Signal (@ 1715t Ave) • AADT approaching 34,000 vpd Nowthen -- I • • • q y n A ,a,nt Michae —_ z� n D,y- \ Study Goals • Build a unified system plan that can be implemented over time to ensure safe and efficient operations along the Highway 10 corridor • General Approach: ❖ Build upon previous planning efforts ❖ Quantify current and future transportation conditions, issues, and needs ❖ Evaluate transportation improvement alternatives ❖ Engage key stakeholders to solicit input and build understanding ❖ Develop a fiscally responsible implementation plan to support economic development and corridor operations and safety Focus Group Role �a • Review project information t • Provide feedback regarding: FIF•'• Key issues and opportunities ❖ Corridor specific needs and use ❖ Existing and future business plans • Review and comment on potential alternatives and suggest enhancements • Discuss how changes to the corridor may benefit or impact business, land use, future economic investments, corridor use, etc. Study Schedule 2020 2021 2022 • N D i F m A m i i A s • �I I II II III �II � II II II I �� I I I I I I I I II ♦ 'I 'I 'I 'I ; ♦ 'I 'I 'I ♦ ', II II III ®I II II II II ®I II � II ® II II I I I I I I I I I I I II �I I II II II II � II II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Existing Condition Findings To Date • Travel Patterns ❖ Users - 75% regional ; 25% local `y ❖ Recreational "cabin" route t' ❖ Active freight corridor a ❖ Limited multimodal facilities • Traffic Operations ❖ Traffic volumes are approaching capacity ❖ Difficult to access/cross Highway 10 during peak periods (limited gaps) ❖ Numerous vehicular conflicts and unauthorized maneuvers • Safety ❖ 256 Crashes in the past 5 years ❖ Statistically significant crash and severity rates (compared to similar facilities) ❖ The amount of access doesn't meet current roadway guidance HWAY�o i ��RRIDORS��D Focus Group Example Questions • Where is your business located? p How do you or your business use the corridor? • What are your existing and future business plans? • What issues do you experience along the corridor and where? Focus Group Example Questions • Have you been following the adjacent Gateway Corridor Study to the east and the future vision identified? • How important is access to the corridor for your business? • What would be your long-term vision for the corridor? Focus Group Example Questions • How could the corridor be improved? ass How quickly do you feel changes should be implemented and where is the ; biggest need(s)? • How could changes to the corridor benefit or impact your business? Next Steps Thank you for participating today! • Document Focus Group Feedback • Finalize Existing Conditions Documentation • Host Virtual Open House (December/January) •'• Study Overview Video ❖ Wikimapping —Existing Issues Identification/Comments ❖ Form and Function Survey • Website — www.highwaylOcorridorstudy.com SRF Record of Meeting SRF No. 13521 Highway 10 Corridor Study Stakeholder Meeting #1- Business Owners Wednesday, November 4, 2020 Purpose of Meeting The City of Elk River, in partnership with MnDOT, Sherburne County, Anoka County and the City of Ramsey is conducting a Highway 10 Corridor Study from Highway 169/101 to Alpine Drive. The City is looking to build a unified system plan for the Highway 10 corridor that can be implemented over time. This plan will identify access, intersection, and roadway improvements to support existing and future development, as well as to maintain and/or improve operations and safety along the Highway 10 corridor for all users. Focus Group Role Provide feedback on key issues and opportunities, corridor specific needs and use, existing and future business plans. Attendees Matt Pacyna — SRF Consulting Dan McNiel - SRF Consulting Ryan Sandhoefner - City of Elk River Steve Hickman - Furniture and Things Chris Dedrick — Jerry's Auto Cornerstone Auto — Steve Rolfe and Rob Powell Riverside Farms — Eric Nathe Summary of Meeting The focus group discussion started with a welcome and introductions. Matt Pacyna then shared a short overview presentation (see attached PDF) summarizing the study area characteristics, goals, role of the focus group discussions, schedule and existing conditions. Cornerstone Auto asked if Study Partners were aware of the original Hwy 10 Corridor Study and how this planning effort will build upon past studies. Matt noted the original Hwy 10 Corridor Study included a future long-term vision for an interchange at 165th. Links to previous Hwy 10 Studies are available here: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Page 2 Link: https://www.elkrivermn.gov/1578/Plans-Studies-Future-Projects (see 169 Redefine, CSAH 13/Twin Lakes Road Corridor Study, and Twin Lakes Road/Kelley Parkway studies) • Link: https://chents.bolton-menk.com/ramse3:gateway/ Existing Conditions Discussion Dan McNiel then facilitated a group discussion focused on series of questions. This round of questions focused on background and existing conditions, including: • Where is your business located? • How do you or your business use the corridor? • What are your existing and future business plans? • What issues do you experience along the corridor and where? Riverside Farms: My business is located along the corridor and we have three locations. Two of them along this corridor. Our home business is west of the intersection on Alpine and then we just purchased the Baldwin Farm just past Furniture and Things. Our business is farming and selling fresh market vegetables. We have a wholesale and retail business on the highway. We have semis going out all year long as well as tractors up and down the highway. That is the toughest thing for us. The biggest issue for us is getting across Hwy 10. The last break-up in traffic is at Ramsey Blvd if heading westbound. Eastbound I take the shoulder. Our biggest priority is safety, which is a challenge operating larger vehicles on Hwy 10 and managing access. Jerry's Auto: We are in the car business and have been in this location since 1973. Highway 10 is important to us. We do have some issues getting off and on Hwy 10. When our customers leave if they are heading west, it can be difficult for them to make that curve. We would like to have a little more information; it is a little premature for me to comment on future plans until we see an action plan. The visibility from Hwy 10 is our number one advertising. Stop lights and busy traffic is good for us because those cars are stopped and seeing our inventory. We are also concerned about safety with our customers leaving the lot. Cornerstone Auto: We are located on the eastside of Hwy 10 adjacent to 171" and have and another dealership south of 171". We have a carwash the public uses highway 10 to access. Some issues we see on Hwy 10 are safety. The biggest problem at 171" is people traveling 65-70 MPH and yellow lights create issues. Flashing lights could help that issue immediately. Access is another important issue. Broadway Bar/Jerry's Auto traffic could be routed to the light at 171" which could reduce median and access issues in that area. Page 3 In long-term plans, Hwy 169 Northbound and want to turn west on Hwy 10 ramp is very short and unsafe. An interchange at 1651h would have significant land use impacts for existing businesses. Furniture and Things: We are on the corner of highway 10 and Jarvis. The corridor helps to bring customers to our location. We also use the corridor to bring inventory back and forth from our warehouse on Ulysses near the train station. We are considering future business plans in the area over the next 5 years. It is difficult to cross Hwy 10 during peak traffic. You must wait for a break in the lights and once the lights are removed in Ramsey, and Sunfish, I wonder how we are going to ever get across Hwy 10. Issues and Opportunities Discussion The second set of questions focused on issues and opportunities, including: Have you been following the adjacent Gateway Corridor Study to the east and the future vision identified? • How important is access to the corridor for your business? • What would be your long-term vision for the corridor? Riverside Farms: I am not very familiar with the Gateway Study, but I am aware of what is happened around Armstrong. I think the biggest consideration is access for our businesses. If the Hwy gets any faster, it is an issue. There are significant changes in speed limit along Hwy 10. Our trucks coming out of the scale house face issues. I hope that Study Partners take the time to travel the corridor during peak times to truly experience to traffic along the corridor. It would be nice to keep some lights along the corridor; I think we need more break-ups. I agree with Cornerstone's suggestion of flashing lights. Getting on 169 can be a nightmare some days. I would like to see the corridor be more friendly and forgiving for everybody. Jerry's Auto: I agree with a lot of Riverside Farms' comments. I have been following the Gateway Study, what I have seen is that future proposed plans will impact our property and future business plans significantly, we are waiting to learn more. I have heard that there will be an overpass and I have heard there will be a stoplight near our property, our long-term plans will be impacted by those decisions. Speed of traffic is also a major issue on Hwy 10 and access along the corridor is what our business relies on that access. Page 4 Cornerstone Auto: Question: I had heard of the Elm Creek/Dayton Crossing, is that still happening? Riverside Farms noted that project is in the City of Ramsey's 20-year plan. If that happens it may move some of Hwy 10's traffic. If the construction of an interchange at 1651h does go in, it will hurt a lot of businesses. There will need to be a good frontage road system. Furniture and Things: We definitely need access along the corridor for businesses. I do not know if you can add acceleration lanes or service roads, but we all need access. It would also be helpful to have breaks in Hwy 10 traffic to accommodate the neighborhood and businesses behind us on Jarvis street. Next Steps and Implementation Discussion: The last set of questions focused on next steps and implementation, including: How could the corridor be improved? How quickly do you feel changes should be implemented and where is the biggest need(s)? • How could changes to the corridor benefit or impact your business? Riverside Farms: I would like to see changes sooner or later, I like the idea of flashing lights, there is a good example of a warning light in Nice. This would help 173Td Avenue hugely. The bends in the road are concerning. The amount of growth and planned construction projects make it difficult to tell how it impacts this corridor. I would also like to see some acceleration lanes; this would help a lot of businesses operating heavy equipment. This backs up a lot of other traffic, as trucks wait to cross or enter the highway. Jerry's Auto: I think everyone has done a good job covering this issue. It is really hard to determine the future until there is more information about recommendations for the corridor. I'd like more information on what is being considered for short, mid, and long-term improvements. Cornerstone Auto: I use the acceleration lane on 1651h frequently and it is very helpful. It would be good to connect Jerry's Auto area to 171s` would help. The crossing by Broadway Bar is a scary crossing. I think that flashing lights would also be helpful. Page 5 Furniture and Things: I think that removing stop lights in Anoka and Ramsey will require the need for some short and mid-term improvements along the corridor. I have followed some of the previous studies mentioned here today, but I am interested in learning more. Conclusion We hope to hold two more focus group discussions with this group as the corridor study progresses. The next discussion will likely take place in late spring or early summer of 2021. At that point in time, we will likely have a range of different ideas and we will look for your thoughts and feedback on what works and does not work from your perspective. Thank you for taking time out of your day to meet and discuss the corridor with us, we truly appreciate your time and input and we look forward to continuing the conversation. SRF Record of Meeting SRF No. 13521 Highway 10 Corridor Study Stakeholder Meeting #1- Freight Haulers Thursday, November 5, 2020 Purpose of Meeting: The City of Elk River, in partnership with MnDOT, Sherburne County, Anoka County and the City of Ramsey is conducting a Highway 10 Corridor Study from Highway 169/101 to Alpine Drive. The City is looking to build a unified system plan for the Highway 10 corridor that can be implemented over time. This plan will identify access, intersection, and roadway improvements to support existing and future development, as well as to maintain and/or improve operations and safety along the Highway 10 corridor for all users. Focus Group Role Provide feedback on key issues and opportunities, corridor specific needs and uses, as well as existing and future business plans. Attendees Matt Pacyna — SRF Consulting Dan McNiel - SRF Consulting Molly Stewart — SRF Consulting Ryan Sandhoefner - City of Elk River Terry Morrell — Morrell Haulers Chuck LeFebvre — LeFebvre Companies Kevin Abfalter — Abfalter Concrete Summary of Meeting The focus group discussion started with a welcome and introductions. Matt Pacyna then shared a short overview presentation (see attached PDF) summarizing the study area characteristics, goals, role of the focus group discussions, schedule and existing conditions. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Page 2 Existing Conditions Discussion Dan McNiel then facilitated a group discussion focused on series of questions. This round of questions focused on background and existing conditions, including: • Where is your business located? • How do you or your business use the corridor? • What are your existing and future business plans? • What issues do you experience along the corridor and where? LeFebvre Trucking: Our business is located just off 171" Avenue and Hwy 10. We use the corridor to access our Elk River location. For us it is all about getting to and from our main location. We have trucks and personal vehicles coming and going every day and every night and we use the intersection at 171" daily. Hwy 10 is an alternative route to the metro area versus Hwy 94, after they redid Hwy 94 years ago. They limited us on access of certain loads (oversized loads and multi-axel bridge girders). Hwy 10 really saved us on a couple bigger projects in the Metro Area or south of the Metro. When they put the bridge in Ramsey, we were grateful for the access and it helps us maneuver our loads. Everybody has got the same issues with Hwy 10. Too many lights and too much traffic at night, obviously Fridays are terrible. We are excited to see what possibilities are out there. We do not have any significant existing or future plans to expand our business out of this particular location, but we are interested in seeing recommendations of this Corridor Study. There are approximately 40 trucks in and out of this location daily. We also have contract carriers coming and going, and it is always a little busier in the summer months. Abfalter Concrete: We are located off Cleveland Avenue, on the southside of Highway 10 directly across from Jarvis / Furniture and Things. We run anywhere from 30 to 60 trucks in and out of here daily. We have about 50 employees. I guess the biggest issue for us is safety. We do not have a light here to access Hwy 10. So, we are challenged to travel west on Highway 10 At this intersection you have Metro Gravel and a new company that scrapping all the cars. There are a lot of vehicles that they want to go east. So, and you have the problem of multiple vehicles sitting on at the median. Obviously, there have been several crashes near Cleveland Avenue. We are thankful we have not been involved in any crashes, but there has been a lot there over the years. We moved to this location in the early 2000s, and we have seen several serious crashes. It is a challenge for us to get out and accelerate these big trucks and job site trucks, it is a real challenge along Hwy 10. Page 3 Often, we have our guys go east and come back to the west because of those access issues. So, we are excited to see what can be address in this Corridor Study. Morrell Trucking: We are located right off 171" Avenue, south of the railroad tracks. Our business started in the 1960s, and we have relocated within the Elk River area two different times. We moved out to this location in the late 1990s. We do a variety of different workloads, with a diverse operation. On a given day we have between 80 to 90 trucks leave in the morning and return at night. We also have office staff accessing the location with their personnel vehicles. The issues we see on the corridor is a lot of traffic, a lot of congestion and when you add oversized loads, multi -axle loads with escorts it can be difficult to access the corridor. There are times where you can make like a left turn, but you could never make a right turn. Sometimes you must get creative with routes because the turning radius, or the access points, are not designed to handle our types of loads or equipment. Our company is growing, and we anticipate 20 - 25% growth within the next three to four years. We would like to call this area home and we do not want to have to relocate to due access. Hopefully, we can work together to create some win -win alternatives. Issues and Opportunities Discussion The second set of questions focused on issues and opportunities, including: • Have you been following the adjacent Gateway Corridor Study to the east and the future vision identified? How important is access to the corridor for your business? What would be your long-term vision for the corridor? Matt noted the original Hwy 10 Corridor Study included a future long-term vision for an interchange at 165th. Links to previous Hwy 10 Studies are available here: Link: htt2s://www.elkrivermn.gov/1578/Plans-Studies-Future-Projects (see 169 Redefine, CSAH 13/Twin Lakes Road Corridor Study, and Twin Lakes Road/Kelley Parkway studies) • Link: https://clients.bolton-menk.com/ramseygatewa�:/ LeFebvre Trucking: I am familiar with the Gateway Corridor Study. I know after Ramsey went in; I think a river crossing was discussed. I have not been following that study very closely. Page 4 Regarding a future vision for the corridor, I would like to see less stop lights, but other alternatives take land and money. I think as we look forward into the future some of the ways around a bridge or a ramp, such as J-turns, are challenging for our vehicles. The visibility of our business does not rely on general public, but it is important to have easy access to Highway 10 for our vehicles. Abfalter Concrete: I am not very familiar with the Gateway Corridor Study and what has been going on to the east. We continue to add a handful of trucks every year and continue to plan for long-term growth. Visibility and advertising are not as important as access to Highway 10. Access is important to us; it allows us to get trucks in and out of our location. Our trucks leaving Cleveland are split in both directions. Every day, all day long we have trucks and employees in and out of this location. I spend time traveling in the southern states and I liked the frontage road systems that they use (i.e. Texas). Morrell Trucking: I mentioned, we relocated to our current location in the late 1990s. There were some huge hurdles related to our move concerning safety and access. We did not want to move to 171" prior to that light being installed out of fear of safely accessing Hwy 10. You just cannot get up to speed fast enough to get out of the way of Hwy 10 traffic. The traffic light helps to control the intersection. The idea of J-turns is a bit concerning. Our turning maneuvers cannot be performed very quickly and with distracted driving and other issues there are a lot of near misses and scary incidents. How does lighting, signage and education help to reduce issues. How can alternatives and designs be more user friendly and safer for all vehicles? Next Steps and Implementation Discussion: The last set of questions focused on next steps and implementation, including: How could the corridor be improved? How quickly do you feel changes should be implemented and where is the biggest need(s)? • How could changes to the corridor benefit or impact your business? LeFebvre Trucking: If money were no issue, I think an improvement would be to put a bridge over the entire corridor. I say that jokingly, but I like the idea of a frontage road system. I have also heard discussion of an overpass, but I am sure there are right of way and cost issues associated with that. Page 5 I do not know what we would do without the light at 171". Nobody likes lights in the trucking business when you are constantly starting and stopping, but we need them to access our business. I am not advocating for more lights, but I see this as an important challenge for this Corridor Study to examine. I know we are talking about 20 to 30-year plans, but I would like to see improvements implemented as funds are available. As soon as possible is preferred. The biggest impact for our business is safer access to our business, and saving time traveling to destinations is important for our business. Abfalter Concrete: A frontage road will not do any good unless it is on both sides of the highway. A big problem we have here is westbound traffic making you U-turns at Cleveland and then going back to the east. There are several businesses (Rain for Rent, MG trailer, and others) that make a U turn here. If we have got any kind of activity in the center median, that is a challenge for our business. How quickly should the changes be made? You have seen 256 accidents in this little stretch and in five years, and I do not think they are getting any better or any less severe. I would say the changes should be implemented as money becomes available. How could the changes affect or benefit our business? It is all about safety for us. If it takes us two or three minutes to get out into traffic, we can live with the additional time if there is safety. We want to keep our people and our customers and everybody else on Highway 10 safe. That is the biggest consideration for us. Matt Pacyna asked about a J-turn as a potential safety improvement, noting that Abfalter vehicles have difficulty turning left and are already making turning movements similar to a J-turn. Last week would be a perfect example. We had one of our two -ton trucks in the media and he got out there trying to go west. He got out in that medium before anybody was in the turn lane. Another truck proceeded into that turn lane and decided they did not make a wide enough corner. The truck backed up right into the side of our truck. Now this was just last week. So, in that case, the J-turn is a bad thing, especially if there's not room enough for a truck/tractor trailer to make that turn. We have a wide range of loads in and out of our facility, it changes all the time based on various loads. Morrell Trucking: A big challenge for our business is the demand for bigger and heavier loads. We are challenged to deliver loads that are bigger, heavier, longer and wider. That obviously impacts the designing of some of the intersections, to ensure the design gives our vehicles more room to operate. We understand you must safely control Hwy 10 traffic, but I would say some of the solutions are over built and difficult to maneuver. I think that signage could help, but it cannot block intersections or impact our ability to maneuver. Page 6 The intersection at 171" is a good example of that, you have room to swing that corner, but then we Put signs and remove the effectiveness of the mobile curve. We ruin tires on a regular basis and occasionally pick off signs. The ability to have access to our business is an important consideration. There is also the need to control traffic and be safe. Turning the corner at a slower pace is a difficult situation because sometimes traffic does not recognize we're not moving at the same speed as other traffic. Safety is paramount for everyone. I think everybody feels the same way, especially with the demands that are put on us today. It is important to recognize we operate some unique businesses/equipment that need to work hand in hand with the local community and city government. The ability to expedite this process and implement safety improvements would be in everyone's best interest. Conclusion We hope to hold two more focus group discussions with this group as the corridor study progresses. The next discussion will likely take place in late spring or early summer of 2021. At that point in time, we will likely have a range of different ideas and look for your thoughts and feedback on what works and what does not work from your perspectives. Thank you for taking time out of your day to meet and discuss the corridor with us, we truly appreciate your time and input and we look forward to continuing the conversation. • Corridor Study Overview Welcome • Corridor Study Schedule • How to share your input • High -Speed Expressway • Posted Speed Limit — 60 mph • One Traffic Signal (171St Ave) Otsego Key 1751h A, Highway 10 Roads — Rail Line Parks Wetlands ✓✓ County Boundary 0 Municipal Boundary Ramsey l cRrh I_a NW Imemess La NW NW u Primary Goal: Build a unified system plan that can be implemented over time to ensure safe and efficient operations along the Highway 10 corridor • General Approach: • Build upon previous planning efforts • Quantify current and future transportation conditions, issues, and needs • Evaluate transportation improvement alternatives • Engage key stakeholders to solicit input and build understanding • Develop a fiscally responsible implementation plan to support economic development and corridor operations and safety Study Schedule 2020 2021 2022 11 —� Engagement Page We Want to Hear from you • Engagement Page t AhHburnt Cc—: • Survey Elk River • Interactive map • Sign up for email list to receive project updates u • Thank you for visiting the Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study engagement page. • Please continue exploring the site to complete the Study survey and share your experiences on the interactive map. • Help us spread the word by sharing this engagement page with friends, family, co- workers and other Highway 10 Corridor users. Website — www.highwaylOcorridorstudy.com NWAYElk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Online Open HouseNGAGEMENTSUMMARY WHAT ENGAGEMENT OCCURRED? The primary goal of the Highway 10 Corridor Study is to create a future vision for the corridor that improves safety, manages access, improves freight movement, manages congestion into the future, and aligns with the City's development goals. A key focus in accomplishing the corridor study goals is determining access management options at key intersections along the corridor. Over 500 area residents and business owners completed a community survey to help identify access management opportunities. The Corridor Study hosted an online open house from December 8th - January 19th. Residents had an opportunity to visit an engagement web page, view a video presentation, sign-up for email updates and share their experiences traveling the corridor via a community survey. This initial round of engagement will support alternative development and residents will have additional opportunities to learn more and share input later in the Spring of 2021. (D 0, (D ENGAGEMENT WEBSITE SURVEY RESULTS DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS • 692 unique visitors 516 survey responses How did you hear about this survey? • 761 total visits 230 open-ended Education Level • 26% accessed via Desktop comments Zip Code • 68% accessed via Cell Phone 10 interactive map Age • 6% accessed via Tablet comments Race/Ethnicity Gender WHAT ISSUES DO YOU EXPERIENCE WHEN USING THE CORRIDOR? O Congestion (74%) O Access (42%) OVehicle safety (42%) Other responses included: High speeds (26%) • Pedestrian safety (11 %) HOW OFTEN WHAT IS YOUR PREFERENCE FOR DO YOU TRAVEL THE LONG-TERM VISION (10+YEARS) THE CORRIDOR? OF THE CORRIDOR • Approximately 77 percent of respondents travel the corridor 2+ times a week Top ranked options: • Innovative access changes (179 respondents ranked as a top two priority) • Interchanges and closing access (177 respondents ranked as a top two priority) • Add a frontage road (165 respondents ranked as a top two priority) Lowest ranked options: • Add more traffic lights (219 respondents ranked as a bottom two priority) • Leave as is (186 respondents ranked as a bottom two priority) ELK RIVER HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY ? Key sly 175th A, Highway 10 o Roads Rail Line n Parks A 173rd Ave NW — s L m Wetlands `�\ n 172nd Ave NW County Boundary 1 z g 171st La NW 0 Municipal Boundary Lakes Rd NW Otsego OA Hwy 10 / 173rd Ave 26% O OB Hwy 10 / 171st Ave 38% O OC Hwy 10 / 165th Ave 13% 3O oD Hwy 10 / Kelly Farm Rd 5% 3O OE Hwy 10 / Edison St 3% O OF Hwy 10 / Cleveland St 8% O OG Hwy 10 / Adams St N 4% O HO Hwy 10 / Alpine Dr 28% D OM r Eliminate stoplights, keep traffic flowing on WHAT Hwy 10 SUGGESTIONS DID WE HEAR?Add a turn arrow to the existing light at 171st, traffic backs up here. ELK RIVER HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY 0.25 0.5 O3 z F O Lu v o O *Intersection with most Pedestrian comments 0 Widen medians to make crossing Hwy 10 easier, currently it feels unsafe. Add acceleration lanes to Hwy 10, especially if considering RCls. N Ramsey 1(4th to NW Inverness Ld NW 3 o� O1e3 dt�e NW H Reduce at grade intersections and add frontage roads. Reduce at grade intersections and add interchanges at key locations. Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q1 Which of the following best describes your interest in the Highway 10 Corridor? Select all that apply. Answered: 182 Skipped: `i Resident Business ov Emplo Visi Other (pl spe ANSWER CHOICES Resident Business owner Employee Visitor Other (please specify) Total Respondents: 182 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 73.08% 133 6.04% 11 14.84% 27 13.19% 24 5.49% 10 # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 1 Traveler 2 Interested in the project 3 Travel through 4 Business customer 5 Traveling through to Motley 6 Former Resident now frequent traveler 7 Live in Ramsey 8 Travel thru area - Business 9 Travel for work 10 Dialysis clinic manager DATE 1/19/2021 3:42 PM 1/12/2021 11:19 AM 1/11/2021 12:11 PM 1/10/2021 1:24 PM 1/6/2021 5:50 PM 12/31/2020 1:49 PM 12/30/2020 8:34 PM 12/30/2020 8:09 PM 12/26/2020 10:40 AM 12/10/2020 5:34 PM 1/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q2 How often do you travel the Highway 10 Corridor within the limits shown in grey on the image above? Everyday Two or more times awee Once a WE Once a mo Nev ANSWER CHOICES Everyday Two or more times a week Once a week Once a month Never TOTAL 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 43.72% 80 33.88% 62 10.93% 20 11.48% 21 0.00% 0 183 2/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q3 What are the issues you experience when using the Highway 10 Corridor? (Select your top two issues) Congestion/[on delay am Safety while driving Safety as pedestria High speed: Difficulty accessing... Other (pleas specify 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Congestion/long delays 71.58% 131 Safety while driving 40.98% 75 Safety as a pedestrian 5.46% 10 High speeds 22.95% 42 Difficulty accessing Highway 10 42.08% 77 Other (please specify) 16.94% 31 Total Respondents: 183 3/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE 1 Stoplight congestion 1/19/2021 4:06 PM 2 Horrible road (potholes) on 10 in Ramsey all way to Anoka 1/19/2021 2:46 PM 3 Crossing 10 1/19/2021 2:28 PM 4 Since the silent train crossings got impelemented it has drastically increased the congestion 1/19/2021 11:55 AM 5 Stop lights 1/19/2021 11:48 AM 6 Median at 165th is deadly treacherous in the winter 1/19/2021 9:00 AM 7 Stoplights 1/15/2021 2:24 PM 8 Lack of access control from side streets and driveways 1/13/2021 8:51 AM 9 Semaphore cycle times at 10/171st can be awful. Way to short or way too long. 1/9/2021 11:01 PM 10 No issues 1/7/2021 11:49 PM 11 Accessing or leaving businesses. Trying to get across 10 from Broadway pizza for example is 1/6/2021 9:32 PM dangerous 12 Seems to be many drivers unfamiliar with the route & speed limits, consequently impatient & 1/6/2021 5:50 PM reckless. I'd love to see a bypass. 13 Lights too short or long 1/4/2021 6:45 PM 14 Low speeds 1/4/2021 10:36 AM 15 Slippery in spots in winter 1/1/2021 5:57 PM 16 Slow trucks in the left lane approaching/leaving the weigh station 12/30/2020 5:06 PM 17 Too many stoplights 12/30/2020 8:34 AM 18 It's dangerous for residents in Northfork to cross and pull out onto hwy 10 via Jarvis and 12/30/2020 8:29 AM Alpine!! 19 None 12/30/2020 7:07 AM 20 Stop lights on a highway 12/29/2020 7:00 PM 21 safety bicycling and getting to bike trails 12/15/2020 10:23 AM 22 1 have no other issue when going to and leaving from work in this section. 12/14/2020 8:34 AM 23 Takes too long to get through elk river 12/13/2020 4:42 PM 24 Uncertainty approaching uncontrolled waiting cross traffic 12/11/2020 10:38 AM 25 Intersection at Hwy 169/10 and 171st Ave NW is unsafe. Due to not have designated green 12/11/2020 10:35 AM turn lights onto the Hwy. Many evenings after work, I am turning North onto the Hwy and feel unsafe due to traffic crossing over the highway or other drivers coming from the opposite side of 171st. 26 turning from Yale (Caseys left onto 169) is always dangerous people run red lights, need 12/11/2020 9:25 AM overpass 27 this section seems fine Except the light at 173 takes a long time to change to crossing traffic. 12/11/2020 9:01 AM 28 Unsafe intersection at Hwy 10 and 171st, no green light to turn left onto 10 from 17st on the 12/11/2020 8:58 AM Caseys/Speedway side. 29 Wish the light had separate signals for people turning 12/10/2020 5:34 PM 30 Safety as a cyclist 12/10/2020 9:03 AM 31 Merging into 169 north creates congestion 12/8/2020 10:29 PM 4/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q4 What intersections do you use to access the Highway 10 Corridor? (select all that apply) See the map above to view the location of these intersections. A Hwy 10 / 173rd Ave BHwy 10/ 171st Ave CHwy 10/ 165th Ave D Hwy 10/ Kelly Farm Rd E Hwy 10 / Edison St F Hwy1( Cleveland G Hwy 10 Adams St H Hwy 10 Alpine D None of tl abo ANSWER CHOICES A Hwy 10 / 173rd Ave BHwy 10/171stAve C Hwy 10 / 165th Ave D Hwy 10 / Kelly Farm Rd E Hwy 10 / Edison St F Hwy 10 / Cleveland St G Hwy 10 / Adams St N H Hwy 10 / Alpine Dr None of the above Total Respondents: 135 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 28.89% 33.33% 11.11% 4.44% 8.15% 8.89% 6.67% 25.19% 32.59% 39 45 15 6 11 12 9 34 44 5/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q5 What issues do you experience at the following intersections along the Highway 10 Corridor? See the map above to view the location of these A Hwy 10 / 173rd Ave BHwy 10/ 171st Ave CHwy 10/ 165th Ave ■ intersections. Answered: 130 Skipped:53 D Hwy 10 6/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Kelly Farm Rc E Hwy 10 / Edison St F Hwy 10 Cleveland S G Hwy 10 / Adams St N H Hwy10/ Alpine Dr 7/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 41 safety M Congestion / Long Delays 0 Difficulty accessing Hwy 10 y Unsafe pedestrian crossing M N/A SAFETY CONGESTION / DIFFICULTY UNSAFE N/A TOTAL LONG DELAYS ACCESSING HWY PEDESTRIAN RESPONDENTS 10 CROSSING A Hwy 10 / 32.43% 47.75% 28.83% 12.61% 23.42% 173rd Ave 36 53 32 14 26 111 B Hwy 10 / 35.24% 52.38% 23.81% 12.38% 24.76% 171stAve 37 55 25 13 26 105 C Hwy 10 / 28.26% 21.74% 15.22% 7.61% 51.09% 165th Ave 26 20 14 7 47 92 D Hwy 10 / 19.78% 15.38% 14.29% 5.49% 59.34% Kelly Farm Rd 18 14 13 5 54 91 E Hwy 10 / 25.00% 23.91% 13.04% 4.35% 57.61% Edison St 23 22 12 4 53 92 F Hwy 10 / 23.96% 21.88% 15.63% 6.25% 54.17% Cleveland St 23 21 15 6 52 96 G Hwy 10 / 23.08% 23.08% 12.09% 8.79% 56.04% Adams St N 21 21 11 8 51 91 H Hwy 10 / 37.25% 34.31% 32.35% 10.78% 33.33% Alpine Dr 38 35 33 11 34 102 8/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q6 What would be your preference for the long-term vision (10+ years) of the Highway 10 Corridor? You can use the drop down boxes, or click and move the options below to rank your preference. Answered:130 Skipped: 5" Leave as is.R Maintain... Add more traffic signal Innovative access chang.. 41EL" Interchanges and closing.. Son" Add a frontage road next to... 0 1 2 3 Leave as is. Maintain at -grade intersections and signal at 171st. Add more traffic signals Innovative access changes i.e. Reduced Conflict Intersection (RCI /RCUT/J -turn), adding acceleration lanes, etc. Interchanges and closing access Add a frontage road next to Highway 10 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 8.00% 11.20% 18.40% 36.80% 25.60% 10 14 23 46 32 5.56% 6.35% 14.29% 24.60% 49.21% 7 8 18 31 62 37.21% 22.48% 24.81% 6.20% 9.30% 48 29 32 8 12 29.03% 29.03% 19.35% 16.94% 5.65% 36 36 24 21 7 22.83% 32.28% 21.26% 14.96% 8.66% 29 41 27 19 11 TOTAL SCORE 125 2.39 126 1.94 129 3.72 124 3.59 127 3.46 9/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q7 What would you do to improve the Highway 10 Corridor? Please share any suggestions or ideas you have to help the Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study. 10/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 RESPONSES DATE Route Highway 10 around downtown Elk River. That area is more congested during rush hour 1/19/2021 7:17 PM than any metro area I am familiar with. Bridges and under passes with frontage roads and limited access 1/19/2021 5:53 PM Add longer turn lanes from hwy 10 Frontage roads, west side of 10. Limit access points onto 1/19/2021 5:50 PM 10. We need another bridge added over the river. 10/169 should of been rerouted around Elk River years ago. Remove traffic signal and make freeway access. Then add frontage road to improve business 1/19/2021 4:11 PM access. Also add more traffic lanes. Nothing 1/19/2021 3:57 PM I wish I had an answer.. I leave my shop off of Cleveland and in the summer, I can sit there for 1/19/2021 3:54 PM ever to get on. Often I go to the overpass at Armstrong. I have seen WAY too many crashes from Cars trying to cross More bridges and add a lane. Take out the stop lights 1/19/2021 2:55 PM Get rid of the closed car dealerships and better access to side roads without having to cross 1/19/2021 2:48 PM the highway. Better access to biking trails. Acceleration lanes would help the most! 1/19/2021 2:30 PM More light/lamp posts. It is very dark all along the corridor, especially on snowy winter nights. 1/19/2021 12:17 PM Also maybe add reflectors along the lane dividers. Thank you! I would take out the signal at 171st and make it a different type of interchange. PLEASE DO 1/19/2021 11:51 AM NOT add any more signal lights EVER, it already takes way to long to get from one end of ELK RIVER to the other on HWY 10. The most miserable stretch of hwy 10 No stoplights at intersections. Use acceleration lanes and turn lanes. Actually enforce the 1/19/2021 11:02 AM speed limits all along Hwy 10 from Anoka through Elk River. Lights cause more congestion but it's hard to access the businesses along the road due to 1/19/2021 9:18 AM high rates of speed and difficulty getting on and off. Adding acceleration lanes would help with merging Get rid of all the stoplights. 1/16/2021 11:07 PM Less stoplights near Anoka and Sunfish Blvd - always congested there. It would be nice to 1/15/2021 2:26 PM drive through without having to stop. Add overpasses such as was done at Armstrong 1/15/2021 5:50 AM Get rid of stoplights 1/14/2021 9:30 PM Your survey is written so you can achieve the answers you want.. the questions are silly and 1/14/2021 7:36 PM not relevant to actual issues which should be identified with hwy 10 travel.... I am not sure. Cars are moving at warp speed and it is difficult to exit. I think a frontage road 1/14/2021 1:39 PM might help for small business traffic trying to exit b Semaphores with longer acceleration and deceleration lanes for tuning/merging onto highway. 1/9/2021 11:05 PM Dedicated left turn lanes with protected arrows as needed. Redo hwy 10 so its less bumpy 1/9/2021 2:49 PM Acceleration lanes, 1/7/2021 6:58 PM Make it safer to access/exit businesses. Picking up pizza at Broadway pizza is out of the 1/6/2021 9:44 PM question during rush hour. It's so hard to get back across 10 without a light. If there was a frontage road from the light at 171st down to the businesses that would be great. I think it only goes as far as Spire. Traveling east on Hwy 10, the exit to travel 101/169 N does not have a signal. THIS EXIT 1/5/2021 8:33 PM NEEDS A SIGNAL!! This is a huge safety issue. There have been accidents and deaths at this intersection. I have seen dangerous near misses of collisions, and just on January 1, 2021, 1 was involved in an accident as a car pulled out in front of me as I traveled on 101S 11/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey after having just exited from traveling Hwy 10W. The other driver, having exited from Hwy 10E pulled out into my lane with the intention of traveling 169N which requirestge driver cross 2 lanes of traffic. Something must be done at this exit to avoid more potential deaths. 25 Frontage roads and interstate type on/off ramps. Add more lanes. 1/4/2021 4:44 PM 26 Please make sure cars have ample access to local businesses. We can't prioritize freight 1/4/2021 10:41 AM mobility at the expense of small business. People must feel compelled to stop in our town and spend money and to do that it must be extremely easy to navigate the highway. If it is too hard people to access the businesses they will just fly through at top speed and spend their money in neighboring towns. 27 Use the one Intersection you missed in your survey to allow traffic to access eastern Elk River 1/2/2021 1:15 PM without going to highway 169. That is to complete Jarvis St going north to county road 13 so those that live that way can avoid going through town. This eliminates traffic in town making both areas lighter on traffic. It also adds a way around Elk River if traffic is bad 28 Interchange for 171st/Twin Lakes. Safety concerns and long waits when accessing Northstar 1/1/2021 1:48 AM station. 29 Better businesses. Overpasses 12/31/2020 9:30 AM 30 Please no more stop lights. 12/31/2020 7:00 AM 31 Add an overpass like on Hwy 10 and Armstrong Blvd in Ramsey. 12/30/2020 8:37 PM 32 I think there needs to be a rebuild to interstate standards 12/30/2020 5:10 PM 33 If money were no object and it could be done well, it'd be nice to see this stretch become a 12/30/2020 5:09 PM limited access highway and have a bike/pedestrian trail next to the train tracks down into Anoka/Ramsey. 34 Better patrol from law enforcement 12/30/2020 12:05 PM 35 As much as the short term constructions would make my daily commute absolute hell, I think 12/30/2020 8:41 AM the best long term solution is to add interchanges and get rid of all stoplights along the highway corridor. Replace them with overpasses etc. As is, it is very dangerous for traffic crossing or turning onto the highway 36 Adding reduced conflict Intersections won't help with gapless traffic conditions. Adding a 12/30/2020 8:41 AM dedicated acceleration lane along 10 and lengthening turn lanes would help. 37 All I know is people don't know how to drive, don't know how to handle their own vehicle, and 12/30/2020 7:32 AM don't care. Alpine and Cleveland are the worst 2 crossings and they are horrible for crossing Highway 10 from either direction. In the winter it's even worse as I've had someone fly out in front of me while I was traveling East on HWY 10 in traffic. In a snow storm I was traveling west and was able to go the speed limit in the left lane. I needed to make a left turn into Broadway Pizza. I signaled way before the turn lane and slowing down. I had to slowdown in the drive lane but I didn't brake until I got in the turn lane. A jerk of a flat bed truck driver quickly maneuvered into the right lane and then cut me off back in the left hitting my front fender, and they kept driving. I was attempting to safely turn left! People are jerks. Honestly I like the new crossings on Highway 65. Those seem safer that these unmarked intersections. I'd like to see those on Highway 10 if possible. 38 xxxx sherburne county 12/30/2020 1:25 AM 39 The intersection of Hwy 10 and Alpine Drive is dangerous. We have see far too many 12/29/2020 7:29 PM accidents there one was fatal. It's not uncommon to wait in long lines to get onto the highway safely and if there is snow on the road, it makes it even more dangerous. It's been a decade of trying to cross the highway and enter onto the highway safely. Please fix it! 40 Take out stop light. Bridge with over pass. 12/29/2020 7:03 PM 41 Eliminate at grade direct access through implementation of frontage roads and 12/23/2020 5:43 PM overpass/underpass arrangements to maintain and improve local access traffic flows. 42 Make it an expressway. Keep all TRUCK in the RIGHT LANE ONLY.Add overpasses and 12/15/2020 10:58 AM interchanges 43 Remove stoplights, add flyovers. 12/14/2020 11:15 AM 12/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey 44 Freeway with strategic interchanges and frontage roads. 12/11/2020 10:45 AM 45 Add overpass at 173rd - similar to what rogers did with 101 and 141st 12/11/2020 9:28 AM 46 This section is pretty good with conghestion, I would just say the 173rd light takes a while to 12/11/2020 9:04 AM change to crossing traffic. The congestion happens west of the this section on 10 and 101. 47 Add safer intersection for left turn, going strait at 171st st and Hwy 10. 1 almost get hit every 12/11/2020 8:59 AM single time I go straight to cross over Hwy 10. 48 1 am thankful everyday I make it through the intersection by my work. I am not sure what the 12/11/2020 8:53 AM right option is to make it more safe but I have seen too many times to count, people who blow through that intersection when their light is red. I ensure that I look both ways at least twice before I pull out into the intersection. It is not a long light for us to get onto highway 10 and when turning can be dangerous as well. I also don't feel pedestrians have a very safe way to get across. Something needs to be done so I am hopeful and thankful that you are looking into this. 49 Please keep easy access to Zane at nw for the dialysis clinic for the sake of patients getting 12/10/2020 5:37 PM to their treatments easily 50 acceleration lanes would help with accessing highway 10. The RCl/J turn would make the 12/10/2020 2:57 PM issue worse because currently it is harder to make a RH turn onto the highway than it is to cross it. The gaps in the traffic coming from Elk River or Ramsey have decreased and do not allow safe windows to enter/merge onto the highway and a J turn would require left turn access to merge twice into traffic instead of crossing and then merging. Acceleration lanes would help with entering/merging onto the highway. 51 Please plan on extending the cycling trail from the edge of Ramsey to Elk River's downtown. 12/10/2020 9:05 AM 52 Build overpasses at all intersections so Hwy 10 flows smoothly. 12/8/2020 10:32 PM 53 Close a couple of the least busy intersections add frontage roads and overpasses at 17 1st 12/8/2020 5:18 PM and down by Cleveland. 13/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q8 How did you hear about the study and survey? Select all that apply. Study websita Social media Word of mouth Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Study website 4.51% 6 Social media 75.94% 101 Word of mouth 16.54% 22 Other (please specify) 6.77% 9 Total Respondents: 133 # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE 1 Elk River city web sight 1/15/2021 3:18 PM 2 facebook 1/14/2021 11:37 AM 3 newspaper 1/13/2021 3:00 PM 4 Newspaper 1/2/2021 5:22 PM 5 Star News 1/1/2021 6:01 PM 6 Newspaper 12/26/2020 7:46 AM 7 Elk River News page as email. 12/11/2020 10:46 AM 8 Coworker 12/11/2020 10:37 AM 9 local news on google 12/10/2020 2:59 PM 14/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q9 What is your age range? (optional) 17 or younger 18 to 25 to 35 to 45 to 55 to 65 to 74, 75+ Prefer not t answe 0% 10% ANSWER CHOICES 17 or younger 18to24 25 to 34 35to44 45to54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75+ Prefer not to answer TOTAL 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 0.00% 6.06% 18.94% 34.09% 25.76% 7.58% 5.30% 1.52% 0.76% 0 8 25 45 34 10 7 2 1 132 15/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q10 What is your zip code? (optional) ,Answered: 109 Skipped: r 16/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 RESPONSES 55330 55330 55303 55398 55330 55330 55330 55330 55303 55398 55330 55330 55303 55309 55330 55330 55328 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55309 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 DATE 1/20/2021 9:37 AM 1/19/2021 11:09 PM 1/19/2021 8:45 PM 1/19/2021 8:17 PM 1/19/2021 7:18 PM 1/19/2021 5:54 PM 1/19/2021 5:50 PM 1/19/2021 4:13 PM 1/19/2021 4:10 PM 1/19/2021 3:58 PM 1/19/2021 3:54 PM 1/19/2021 3:17 PM 1/19/2021 2:57 PM 1/19/2021 2:49 PM 1/19/2021 2:49 PM 1/19/2021 2:39 PM 1/19/2021 2:30 PM 1/19/2021 2:14 PM 1/19/2021 1:29 PM 1/19/2021 1:26 PM 1/19/2021 12:47 PM 1/19/2021 12:40 PM 1/19/2021 12:35 PM 1/19/2021 12:24 PM 1/19/2021 12:18 PM 1/19/2021 12:14 PM 1/19/2021 11:52 AM 1/19/2021 11:03 AM 1/19/2021 9:19 AM 1/19/2021 9:13 AM 1/19/2021 8:25 AM 1/17/2021 1:24 PM 1/17/2021 1:24 PM 1/17/2021 8:59 AM 1/16/2021 11:09 PM 1/16/2021 10:23 PM 1/16/2021 8:46 PM 17/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 55330 55303 55433 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55303 55330 55014 55330 55330 55303 55309 55330 55309 55309 55448 55330 55434 55330 55330 55303 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55316 55330 55303 1/16/2021 8:27 PM 1/15/2021 3:18 PM 1/15/2021 2:27 PM 1/15/2021 12:55 PM 1/14/2021 11:01 PM 1/14/2021 7:37 PM 1/14/2021 7:26 PM 1/14/2021 5:18 PM 1/14/2021 3:42 PM 1/14/2021 2:22 PM 1/14/2021 1:40 PM 1/14/2021 11:37 AM 1/14/2021 11:01 AM 1/14/2021 10:56 AM 1/13/2021 8:53 AM 1/11/2021 4:41 PM 1/11/2021 12:14 PM 1/10/2021 10:17 PM 1/10/2021 10:17 PM 1/10/2021 1:30 PM 1/9/2021 11:05 PM 1/9/2021 2:50 PM 1/8/2021 3:47 PM 1/7/2021 11:53 PM 1/7/2021 6:59 PM 1/6/2021 9:46 PM 1/6/2021 6:00 PM 1/5/2021 8:34 PM 1/5/2021 5:44 PM 1/4/2021 4:44 PM 1/4/2021 10:41 AM 1/2/2021 5:22 PM 1/2/2021 1:15 PM 1/1/2021 6:01 PM 1/1/2021 3:03 PM 12/31/2020 1:54 PM 12/31/2020 7:01 AM 12/30/2020 9:35 PM 18/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey 76 55303 77 55302 78 55319 79 55303 80 55330 81 55430 82 55330 83 55330 84 55303 85 55303 86 55303 87 55303 88 55303 89 55398 90 55330 91 55303 92 55330 93 55330 94 55362 95 55330 96 55398 97 55330 98 55330 99 55330 100 55330 101 55330 102 55376 103 55056 104 55330 105 55330 106 55330 107 55330 108 55398 109 55330 12/30/2020 9:19 PM 12/30/2020 8:37 PM 12/30/2020 8:14 PM 12/30/2020 5:23 PM 12/30/2020 5:21 PM 12/30/2020 5:09 PM 12/30/2020 12:18 PM 12/30/2020 10:55 AM 12/30/2020 10:11 AM 12/30/2020 8:41 AM 12/30/2020 8:41 AM 12/30/2020 8:38 AM 12/30/2020 7:33 AM 12/30/2020 6:55 AM 12/29/2020 7:29 PM 12/29/2020 7:03 PM 12/23/2020 5:43 PM 12/15/2020 11:00 AM 12/14/2020 11:15 AM 12/14/2020 8:37 AM 12/11/2020 11:38 AM 12/11/2020 10:46 AM 12/11/2020 10:37 AM 12/11/2020 9:28 AM 12/11/2020 9:16 AM 12/11/2020 9:05 AM 12/11/2020 9:02 AM 12/11/2020 8:59 AM 12/11/2020 8:54 AM 12/10/2020 5:38 PM 12/10/2020 2:59 PM 12/10/2020 9:05 AM 12/8/2020 10:33 PM 12/8/2020 5:18 PM 19/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q11 What is your gender? (optional) Answered: 125 Skipped: _� Male (He / Him / His) L Female (She Her / Her Other / Prefer not to answer 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Male (He / Him / His) 40.80% Female (She / Her / Hers) 55.20% Other / Prefer not to answer 4.00% TOTAL 51 5 125 20 / 25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q12 What is your education level? (optional) iAnswered:129 Skipped:5, Some high school, no... Som college/tech. College graduate Post graduate work or... Prefer not t answe 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Some high school, no diploma 0.00% 0 Some college/technical/or vocational training 22.48% 29 College graduate 48.84% 63 Post graduate work or advanced degree 22.48% 29 Prefer not to answer 6.20% 8 TOTAL 129 21/25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q13 What race/ethnicity best describes you? (optional) Answered: 125 Skipped: _� American Indian /... Asian / Asianl American /... Black / African... Hispanic / Latino /... White/ Caucasian" Multipl� ethnicitie Prefer not t� answe Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES American Indian / Alaskan Native 0.00% 0 Asian / Asian American / Pacific Islander 0.80% 1 Black / African American 0.00% 0 Hispanic / Latino / Spanish 1.60% 2 White / Caucasian 86.40% 108 Multiple ethnicities 0.80% 1 Prefer not to answer 9.60% 12 Other (please specify) 0.80% 1 TOTAL 125 # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE 1 Human 1/14/2021 7:37 PM 22 / 25 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q14 What is the primary language spoken in your home? (optional) ,Answered: 128 Skipped: _� English P Spanish Somali Karen Prefer not t answer Other (pleas specify ANSWER CHOICES English Spanish Somali Karen Prefer not to answer Other (please specify) TOTAL 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 94.53% 121 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 4.69% 6 0.78% 1 128 # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 1 Cornish DATE 1/14/2021 7:37 PM 23 / 25 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q1 Which of the following best describes your interest in the Highway 10 Corridor? Select all that apply. Resident. Business owner' Employee Visitor Other (please' specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Resident 82.15% 267 Business owner 4.31% 14 Employee 14.15% 46 Visitor 11.69% 38 Other (please specify) 3.69% 12 Total Respondents: 325 # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE 1 Safety 1/19/2021 1:24 PM 2 Commuter 1/19/2021 11:58 AM 3 Live in neighboring town and commute through this area 1/9/2021 4:56 PM 4 JJU 1/7/2021 8:32 PM 5 Resident of Ramsey and travel to Elk River for employment 1/1/2021 4:18 PM 6 But live in St. Cloud more freeway we get the better fro our area. 1/1/2021 2:28 PM 7 nurse 1/1/2021 7:18 AM 8 Regular traveler through the corridor. 12/31/2020 6:07 AM 9 Commuter 12/30/2020 2:26 PM 10 City of Ramsey 12/17/2020 6:40 PM 1/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey 11 Hwy 10 user 12/11/2020 7:25 AM 12 Fire/EMS responder 12/10/2020 7:01 PM 2/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q2 How often do you travel the Highway 10 Corridor within the limits shown in grey on the image below? Answered:299 Skipped:34 Everyday hL. Two or more times aweek Once a week Once a month F, Never 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Everyday 39.80% Two or more times a week 31.77% Once a week 18.06% Once a month 10.37% Never 0.00% TOTAL 119 95 54 31 0 299 3/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q3 What are the issues you experience when using the Highway 10 Corridor? (Select your top two issues) Answered: 281 Skipped: S. Congestion/long delays 0&6=16. Safety while driving Safety as pedestrian High speeds i Difficulty accessing... Other (please ■ specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Congestion/long delays 74.38% 209 Safety while driving 41.99% 118 Safety as a pedestrian 5.69% 16 High speeds 25.27% 71 Difficulty accessing Highway 10 41.99% 118 Other (please specify) 10.68% 30 Total Respondents: 281 # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE 1 The onramp to 10 North from 101 is very short and dangerous. 1/20/2021 11:46 AM 2 Light at 171st is seemingly always red 1/20/2021 9:20 AM 3 Low speeds 1/19/2021 10:32 PM 4 Deer 1/19/2021 6:21 PM 5 Trucks in left lane to the weigh station. 1/19/2021 4:13 PM 6 Speed is to slow once out of elk river 1/19/2021 3:34 PM 7 Road conditions, potholes, water build up in tire grooves in the summer and ice build up in the 1/19/2021 3:18 PM 4/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey winter due to open fields and gusty winds 8 Train delays 1/19/2021 1:41 PM 9 Inattentive driving by others 1/19/2021 1:16 PM 10 Stop lights in town will back up traffic no matter what's done in that corridor. Eliminating 1/16/2021 11:30 AM congestion at the county line to Elk River would seem futile with traffic going through any town. 11 Safety as a bicyclist 1/11/2021 4:03 PM 12 Crossing north bound lanes of Hwy 10 to 185th when accessing the YAC can be very delayed 1/8/2021 8:05 AM too. 13 Not a long enough or wide enough entrance ramp from 169/101 going west. It should have 1/5/2021 4:14 PM more space and be longer for entering cars to make it to a safe speed for entering on to highway 10 14 Lack of turn lanes in ER 1/3/2021 12:53 PM 15 Inconsistent traffic signals 1/2/2021 3:42 PM 16 Hwy 10 and 101 exchange could be better (faster and safer) 1/1/2021 3:43 PM 17 Too fast for urban o road needs to be freeway 1/1/2021 2:34 PM 18 NONE, BUT IT FORCES ME TO SELECT 2 1/1/2021 4:02 AM 19 Nothing wrong with this area. 12/31/2020 6:20 AM 20 None 12/30/2020 8:56 PM 21 Slow trucks that turn at recycle and other industrial locations east of the stop light 12/30/2020 2:28 PM 22 Trucks bypassing the weigh station just E of the study area via adjacent residential 12/10/2020 8:41 PM neighbothoods. 23 Uncontrolled intersection 12/10/2020 7:35 PM 24 Frequent crosswinds make ice accumulation faster. Frequent high impact accidents. 12/10/2020 7:03 PM Frequently dodging semi traffic exiting weigh station. 25 Worst timed stop lights in all of Minnesota. 12/10/2020 4:34 PM 26 None 12/10/2020 4:30 PM 27 NONE 12/10/2020 10:21 AM 28 Bad sightlines and interchange with the 101/169 Northbound off ramp onto Hwy 10 Westbound 12/10/2020 10:11 AM 29 Sudden stops when the Elk River stop light slows traffic down 12/8/2020 9:09 PM 30 Always really slow drivers in the left lane 12/8/2020 6:01 PM 5/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q4 What intersections do you use to access the Highway 10 Corridor? (select all that apply) See the map below to view the location of these intersections. A Hwy 10 / 173rd Ave B Hwy 171st Ave■ 71st Ae CHwy 10/ 165th Ave DHwy 10/ Kelly Farm Rd E Hwy 10 / 1 Edison St F Hwy 10 / ■ Cleveland St G Hwy 10 / , Adams St N H Hwy10/ Alpine Dr None of the above 0% ANSWER CHOICES A Hwy 10 / 173rd Ave BHwy 10/171stAve C Hwy 10 / 165th Ave D Hwy 10 / Kelly Farm Rd E Hwy 10 / Edison St F Hwy 10 / Cleveland St G Hwy 10 / Adams St N H Hwy 10 / Alpine Dr None of the above Total Respondents: 248 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% RESPONSES 25.81% 38.31% 12.50% 4.84% 3.23% 7.66% 4.44% 27.42% 36.69% 90% 100% 64 95 31 12 8 19 11 68 91 6/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q5 What issues do you experience at the following intersections along the Highway 10 Corridor? See the map above to view the location of these NML� A Hwy 10 / 173rd Ave BHwy 10/ 171st Ave CHwy 10/ 165th Ave intersections. n u,.,,, 1n / 7/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey v nvvy iv Kelly Farm Rd E Hwy 10 / Edison St 1 F Hwy 10 / Cleveland St G Hwy 10 / Adams St N H Hwy10/ Alpine Dr 8/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey AL M 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Safety Congestion... Difficultyac... 0 Unsafe ped... N/A SAFETY CONGESTION / DIFFICULTY UNSAFE N/A TOTAL LONG DELAYS ACCESSING HWY PEDESTRIAN RESPONDENTS 10 CROSSING A Hwy 10 / 32.30% 48.45% 33.54% 8.07% 26.71% 173rd Ave 52 78 54 13 43 161 B Hwy 10 / 31.55% 55.36% 33.93% 11.90% 20.83% 171stAve 53 93 57 20 35 168 C Hwy 10 / 29.45% 29.45% 33.56% 4.79% 41.78% 165th Ave 43 43 49 7 61 146 D Hwy 10 / 29.79% 19.15% 24.11% 6.38% 50.35% Kelly Farm Rd 42 27 34 9 71 141 E Hwy 10 / 24.81% 21.80% 20.30% 4.51% 54.14% Edison St 33 29 27 6 72 133 F Hwy 10 / 29.41% 23.53% 24.26% 4.41% 48.53% Cleveland St 40 32 33 6 66 136 G Hwy 10 / 27.82% 21.05% 19.55% 4.51% 53.38% Adams St N 37 28 26 6 71 133 H Hwy 10 / 47.02% 33.11% 41.72% 7.95% 25.83% Alpine Dr 71 50 63 12 39 151 9/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q6 What would be your preference for the long-term vision (10+ years) of the Highway 10 Corridor? You can use the drop down boxes, or click and move the options below to rank your preference. Answered: 181 Leave as is. Maintain... h6 Add more traffic signals Innovative access chang... Interchanges and closing... Add a frontage road next to... 0 1 2 3 Leave as is. Maintain at -grade intersections and signal at 171st. Add more traffic signals Innovative access changes i.e. Reduced Conflict Intersection (RCI /RCUT/J -turn), adding acceleration lanes, etc. Interchanges and closing access Add a frontage road next to Highway 10 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 9.36% 9.94% 17.54% 39.18% 23.98% 16 17 30 67 41 2.35% 10.00% 13.53% 19.41% 54.71% 4 17 23 33 93 30.51% 27.12% 24.29% 10.17% 7.91% 54 48 43 18 14 38.29% 21.71% 15.43% 19.43% 5.14% 67 38 27 34 9 22.03% 31.64% 28.25% 10.17% 7.91% 39 56 50 18 14 TOTAL SCORE 171 2.42 170 1.86 177 3.62 175 3.69 177 3.50 10/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q7 What would you do to improve the Highway 10 Corridor? Please share any suggestions or ideas you have to help the Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study. skipped: 240 # RESPONSES DATE 1 Safty study 1/20/2021 3:54 AM 2 Not really a problem for me. 1/19/2021 11:27 PM 3 No stoplights 1/19/2021 10:34 PM 4 Easier access for trucks entering highway 10, they are going to go whenever they find it 1/19/2021 8:07 PM convenient, which doesn't always mean safe. Back up of traffic entering N 169. 5 Eliminate stop lights and create service roads to allow easier access to small businesses. 1/19/2021 7:32 PM 6 A better grade coming by on to highway 10 from 171st. It is so steep that in the winter when it 1/19/2021 6:36 PM is icy you need a running start to get on highway 10. Only gets worse as people spin their tires to access the highway at the intersection. A less steep grade would be nice. 7 Add lanes east and west lanes with overpasses and frontage roads 1/19/2021 6:28 PM 8 Add an arrow on the 171st/Hwy 10 intersection! There are near accidents every single day as 1/19/2021 4:22 PM people try to get onto HWY 10 and make turns into oncoming traffic. It feels like a death trap. 9 Reduce lights and construct over/under pass systems 1/19/2021 3:12 PM 10 167th by Broadway is a disaster. The end of Yale St NW needs to be punched through to 1/19/2021 3:10 PM access the stoplight at 171st. I would like to see most of the intersections that don't have a stoplight closed and possibly a frontage rd put in. I want to be able to SAFELY get on to 10 in a reasonable amount of time and not have to play Frogger with my family's lives. 11 Add another lane 1/19/2021 1:47 PM 12 Combine multiple roads into one access to HWY 10, bike path from 171st Ave to the 1/19/2021 1:24 PM connection path at Alpine to keep cyclists off the road, overpasses, and speed control and instructive driving surveillance. 13 Make it more like the new 101 between Otsego and 94. 1/19/2021 12:19 PM 14 Moratorium on new housing. Enough people live in the area, the county, and the state. 1/19/2021 11:35 AM 15 Not sure it makes any sense to improve the Highway 10 Corridor until you resolve the issues 1/19/2021 11:23 AM that cause traffic to slow down when reaching Elk River. 16 Please pay attention to cross street traffic. The turn from Main Street to Walgreens & sonic is 1/19/2021 10:33 AM treacherous. 17 Not sure what the answer is for 171st without impacting the surrounding business. That 1/19/2021 9:57 AM intersection needs to be reworked tho. An interchange would be ideal, however I'm not sure that's possible. Southbound 171st needs a right turn lane at the very least and the grade needs to be raised. The left lane needs to be reserved for left turn and through traffic to the south side of highway 10 where the gas stations are. I would not want to be a pedestrian attempting to cross this intersection safely. The only safe option would be a pedestrian tunnel or overpass of some kind. Traffic move far too fast through there and vehicles constantly run red lights through that signal. 18 A bypass bridge stretching the length of down town elk river, directly over the top of the 1/19/2021 9:37 AM existing hwy 10. 19 Need frontage roads on these accesses. The inability of foresight putting businesses so close 1/19/2021 8:57 AM to the Highway has limited the corrections needed to make this a safe road. State and city 11/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey leaders have yet again have not planned for the future by their bad decisions in the past. Nothing you do here in this stretch of road will have much effect since traffic going through Elk river isn't fixed. All your going to do is speed traffic up to be snagged up when you get to downtown Elk River. 20 Less entry points and less stop lights. Keep traffic moving and adjust to safer access points 1/16/2021 11:59 AM 21 The major issue with this section of highway 10 is the intersection with 101 and 169. However 1/11/2021 11:49 PM It looks like that section isn't incorporated in this study 22 Please extend the bicycle trail that ends on the south side of Highway 10 in Ramsey. 1/11/2021 4:07 PM 23 One big suggestion with this and all interstates and highways would be for safety and to 1/9/2021 3:13 PM improve flow of traffic would be to limit Semi Trucks during rush hour traffic to the slow lane of traffic. They are not able to start and stop efficiently and causes traffic to slow in the left to two left lanes of traffic, causing people to try to dart around them to get ahead and cause accidents. I will bet if you did a survey alone on this nation wide you would see some very impressive results. I have lived in the metro for thirty nine years, and that was a problem back then, it is still a problem now. I think if you look at the State Patrol data, you would come to the same conclusion. Individual tax payers pay the higher taxes, corporations pay less, I think there shipping can take the slow lane during rush hour traffic. Thank you for letting people give input, and thank you for what you do. 24 Better plowing in winter at intersections. People get stuck or almost hit because they cannot 1/7/2021 9:42 PM get going if they have to stop before crossing. 25 More bridges over the Mississippi River between Anoka and Elk River would really help. 1/6/2021 10:42 PM 26 Have less cross walks or have them only at designated directions. Have acceleration lanes. 1/5/2021 4:17 PM Have no turn on red at more intersections. 27 Over the years I've lived in different parts of the Twin Cities. I currently live in Elk River. It 1/5/2021 1:41 PM continues to amaze me how the northern suburbs get shafted with highway money. Looking at how the highways, as spokes of a wheel, coming out from MSP/StPaul, there's only a couple that are still plagued with stoplights. Highways 10, 55 and 65. All the remaining highways were updated years and decades ago. Highway 61, 52, 169, 212, 12. Some have been updated multiple times! While nothing has happened in the northern suburbs. It's time to resolve the traffic and safety issues. Don't put a band -aid on it! 28 No more crossing opposite direction to turn left in areas with no lights. Eliminate traffic lights, 1/4/2021 7:34 PM add better acceleration lanes and exits to frontage roads. 29 The stoplights from the west side of Elk river all the way through Anoka need to be replaced 1/4/2021 8:15 AM with exits and interchanges. Or removed altogether. 30 Reduce intersections and add frontage roads or other roads to access business from remaining 1/4/2021 12:41 AM interchanges 31 Less traffic lights 1/3/2021 6:38 PM 32 Add turn lanes in downtown ER. Yes that means tearing down the buildings ER just had to 1/3/2021 1:00 PM build against the highway. ERs downtown is not THAT vibrant. Close down some down town entrances and fix the Parrish/Main street intersection 33 In the near term, frontage roads should be constructed on either side of Hwy 10 between 1/2/2021 9:50 PM Alpine to Edison. With access to Hwy 10 at Jarvis only with a stop light and in the future an interchange. Then another interchange somewhere around 171st. Finally, a full access interchange at TH169/TH101. The current design to add another stop light to hwy 10 to allow traffic to SB Hwy 101 is irresponsible to the commuters on Hwy 10. 34 Add another lane in each direction and remove stoplights at intersections. 1/2/2021 6:05 PM 35 Well I had asked a project manager about roundabouts, and they told me traffic volume was 1/2/2021 4:08 PM way too high on 10 for roundabouts. RCI's would be a good alternative for roundabouts. MnDOT has added RCI's on Hwy 65 in communities that are close in size to Elk River. I feel there is almost no room for overpasses when you also consider on and off ramps. Now I had an idea, which would be wildly expensive and would cause crippling construction delays. But I envisioned a tunnel going underneath Main and Jackson and coming up by Proctor Ave. For traffic needing to access those roads there could be a service road with reduced speed thru 12/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey the core of downtown Elk River. But really, any means to get traffic signals off this corridor would be greatly welcomed. 36 Add overpasses and frontage roads. J turns are too dangerous with the high rate of speed 1/2/2021 10:30 AM because people don't know how to work them. 37 The plans to remove stop lights through Anoka and Ramsey are great and need to be extended 1/2/2021 6:53 AM into elk river. I think eventually the highway will need to be routed around the downtown area. 38 Add an acceleration lane at Alpine and highway 10. Add a frontage road on both sides for 1/2/2021 6:00 AM business access and close off a few of the lesser used crossing areas. 39 Close some access points and defer traffic to safer locations to enter Highway 10 1/2/2021 2:36 AM 40 Needs an additional lane in each direction. Too busy to be only 2 lanes in each direction. 1/2/2021 1:17 AM 41 With 169 over the last 15 or so years slowly becoming controlled access between 694 and 10, 1/1/2021 3:25 PM and just say there trying to get money for 109 th interchange, which will bring interchange road even closer. With recently funded local road portion of Zimmerman interchange, and upcoming eElk River 169 freeway project, tans the 3 reconstruction and freeway projects to the east on 10 and 10/169 making this section a freeway just makes sense. It's the next logical section toward hopefully by near 2030 the entire highway 10 corridor in Elk River is a controlled access highway or shortly there after. As St. Cloud and cities grow 10 will become more and more congested over time if not do something. Making this freeway along with other upcoming projects will also help take some pressure off the 101/94 corridor in Rogers area. Please make this stretch the next step toward hopefully in 20/30 years most if not controlled access highway all the way to Little Falls. Thanks. I know many others who feel the same way. 42 173rd use a bypass much like 144 in Rogers on 101 1/1/2021 10:17 AM 43 Add frontage road to eliminate intersections and direct access. Then add interchanges at major 12/31/2020 11:27 PM intersections like 171 and Alpine 44 Need a right turn lane on 171st to 10w from the park and ride. It gets incredibly backed up. 12/31/2020 10:41 PM 45 Restrict access, treat like a freeway, add frontage roads and overpasses. 12/31/2020 1:00 PM 46 Keep traffic flowing, no stop and go. 12/31/2020 10:43 AM 47 Posted speeds are high and people drive even faster. In summer months, roads are fine, may 12/31/2020 10:12 AM have to wait a while to cross the highway but traction is good. In the winter, turn lanes are often not plowed appropriately and are too short. Getting traction to cross 10 at any intersection that does not have a light often feels like a death trap. 48 Adding a frontage road and acceleration lane would help a lot! 12/31/2020 8:20 AM 49 Driving through Anoka and Ramsey is so infuriating with all of their lights on highway 10 that 12/31/2020 6:43 AM by the time you hit sherburne county, everyone wants to go 100 mph to make up for lost time. Then people sit in the left lane and go too slow. The turn lanes to get off of the highway are too short (by the truck scale site) and then you hit 169 and that has too many lights. That traffic pours into highway 10. Then downtown ER has too many lights. So Anoka to Elk River is the most frustrating part to drive in my commute. And I drive to Vandals heights from Elk River. 50 Frontage roads along both sides of this corridor with two or three signaled entry/exit 12/31/2020 6:18 AM intersections onto Highway 10. 51 None, leave it alone, everything is fine as it is. 12/30/2020 8:58 PM 52 More overpasses. Eliminate traffic lights. Enforce speed limits (big too slow and too high) 12/30/2020 6:51 PM 53 Make 171st an interchange so traffic moves smoothly onto 169/101. Blend into improvements 12/30/2020 2:43 PM on 169 in elk River by eliminating major stoppage westbound approaching 169. No stop lights. Add other methods to enter and exit 10. 54 Reduce access... NO reduced conflict intersections unless you provide adequate acceleration 12/30/2020 2:39 PM lanes. 55 Bypass downtown elk river. Backs up because of the speed changed (55, 30,45,55). 12/30/2020 1:41 PM 56 1 really liked the access road idea. 12/30/2020 1:16 PM 13/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey 57 Keep traffic flowing. Maybe use the same extended turn lanes used on 169 and CR 12 in 12/30/2020 1:07 PM Pease and 65 and CR 22 in East Bethel. 58 Prob interchanges to keep traffic flow going and make it easier to access 12/30/2020 12:14 PM 59 Plan for access to cross the river in Ramsey to Dayton. Start planning now because we need 12/30/2020 11:37 AM it. 60 Eliminate stoplight for more uninterrupted freeway (right lane queues for a long time for drivers 12/30/2020 11:02 AM preparing to exit onto 101). Much longer left turn and/or 3 lanes for trucks turning left eastbound immediately after 171st. Eliminate the need to switch 3 lanes immediately after merging eastbound highway 10 from 101 when turning left on 171st. Much longer turn lane for left turn eastbound 10 immediately before weigh station. Much longer merge lanes for weigh station and rest area by kelley farm. 61 Adding in a third lane, or adding in acceleration lanes. Making the middle intersection safer 12/30/2020 10:41 AM with more room as getting across is not easy. 62 Make is a 6 way highway. This will allow people to turn into and out of businesses and free up 12/30/2020 9:59 AM traffic. The turn lanes off of hwy 10 into businesses are terrible and not wide enough. I have been close to clipping people with my trailer or clipping people who are turning with a trailer because of the bad turn lanes on hwy 10 63 Less intersections. 12/30/2020 9:13 AM 64 Do Not put in j hook intersection as a semi truck driver they are even more hard to access the 12/29/2020 11:10 PM highway than a noncontrolled intersection. The ones they put on highway 65 are dangerous and don't allow trucks to access the highway easily 65 Please consider that there are many class 8 operations that use those access to get on off 12/29/2020 8:32 PM highway ten at these intersections. 66 remove stop lights, add interchanges. 12/14/2020 9:24 AM 67 Increased safety crossing hwy 10 whatever mode of transportation 12/11/2020 7:15 PM 68 Improve accessibility & visibility to businesses 12/11/2020 2:41 PM 69 Fewer traffic lights, make it safer. 12/11/2020 8:04 AM 70 Have more ramps like the ramp in Ramsey and remove traffic light control intersections. Have 12/11/2020 7:36 AM driven this route for more than 11 yrs consistent from our home up north to Blaine to our sons home several times a month. Sometimes I go up to bunker road to get out of the heavy traffic from Foley exit to almost elk river. 71 1 don't ever see pedestrians or bikes in that corridor but a separate bike path along the corridor 12/11/2020 5:50 AM would be nice. I think the Hwy 10 corridor further north right through Elk River is more of a problem 72 Get rid of stop light by ford kia intersection 12/10/2020 9:56 PM 73 Improve the scenery by eliminating billboards. 12/10/2020 8:55 PM 74 Enforce current traffic laws would greatly help. 12/10/2020 8:18 PM 75 Make it a full expressway with overpasses at alpine, Kelley farm and 173rd. Frontage road for 12/10/2020 7:57 PM the rest. 76 Grade separations, bridges, and reducing conflict with side roads/businesses. 12/10/2020 7:06 PM 77 Find a way to eliminate the stoplight at 171st. Also it would be helpful to have more 12/10/2020 6:26 PM communication about congestion, accidents, or issues beyond this light to be able to turn or reroute to avoid these situations. 78 PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT install anymore signal lights, Hwy 10 is already a 12/10/2020 6:20 PM nightmare to get through Elk River on any given night, especially weekends. Add more frontage roads to funnel traffic to ONE signal light!! 79 Reduce stoplights through downtown westward. Time the stoplights together like they do on 10 12/10/2020 4:37 PM in Ramsey and Anoka. These lights make Highway 10 seems like it's really just 10th Ave, not a highway. 14/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey 80 Biking/hiking trail that would hook up to Ramsey bike trails that stop at Ramsey/Elk River 12/10/2020 4:33 PM border on South side of Hwy 10 Also, access to Hwy 10 from Edison - 2nd access to South bound Edison. There is only one way in/out to this development, this is a Safety issue. 81 Having more access to pedestrian safety - bridge overpasses for pedestrians over certain 12/10/2020 3:19 PM intersections. There are long waits and traffic moves very fast on hwy 10. There are too many traffic lights for flow of traffic. Having something like the new 169 option of having over passes with roundabouts for better flow and more safe exiting or entering onto Hwy 10. There is also very little room on Hwy 10 for error. The exiting or turn lanes are short and not that visible due to road curves. 82 4 Lane boulevard Bridge over the Mississippi from Otsego to 165th with overpass 12/10/2020 11:10 AM acceleration/deceleration lanes on/off hwy 10. 83 Add exit only lanes, and those entering hwy have own lane and don't merge into existing 2 12/10/2020 10:43 AM lanes. Jarvis and Alpine need similar set up as Armstrong Blvd. But any fixes to these 4 miles only go so far when you get to the Hwy 10/169/101 cluster and when entering a 30mph zone in Elk River or trying to go north on 169 in afternoon rush hour. 84 Widen medians to make crossing easier (e.g. leaving Broadway Pizza to head West on 10), or 12/10/2020 10:25 AM divert access to a traffic signal. 85 The segment of Highway 10 going through downtown Elk River is far more problematic 12/10/2020 10:17 AM regarding traffic congestion and access issues than the segment highlighted by this corridor study. Improving access and traffic flow on the segment of Highway 10 between 101/169 and Proctor Road/CR 1 would likely provide a secondary benefit to the corridor segment highlighted in this study. 86 If you can help the 169/10 exchange, thing wouldn't back up as much. 12/10/2020 9:38 AM 87 Eliminate stop lights, create ramps to access highway 10 12/10/2020 8:54 AM 88 Add interchange at 171st. Frontage road from 171st to 165th. 12/10/2020 8:40 AM 89 Tune stoplights to keep intersection full.... keep cars from sitting at a light with a empty 12/9/2020 9:31 AM intersection. 90 Fix the shit that's causing the problems in downtown Elk River on Hwy 10 where MORE 12/8/2020 10:49 PM residents and businesses would actually benefit in utilizing my taxpayer dollars. Don't ask for more taxes for this project, it is NOT the problem we need to focus on for Elk River. 91 Have back plan for accidents because right now it's sometimes hours before they clear and 12/8/2020 9:25 PM you have no frontage road to get on. Also close some of the crossings. Seen to many close calls. 92 The Main Street traffic light in Elk River causes significant backups, which can lead to sudden 12/8/2020 9:18 PM breaking from highway speeds, the frequent train crossings intensify this effect. There's a lot of traffic that diverts off of highway 10 onto 169, and traffic leaving highway 10 seems to cause a lot of last minute lane switching, and when the an ramp on ramp is backed up it becomes a very dangerous stretch of road. Exiting from the Casey's gas station intersection feels extremely dangerous, the elevation of the road, and the number of cars coming from the other direction makes it a hazardous turn. I've had plenty of near misses as I've tried to turn on because it's hard to tell if someone is turning to the right, going straight or turning left coming from over by the car dealership. I've seen plenty of cars turn without signals, or go straight with a signal on. Going to Casey's gas station in Elk River usually results in me having to park in the middle of the intersection and verify that there are no cars coming from the other direction so that way I can drive back into Elk River. 93 remove all intersections and add bridges and ramps 12/8/2020 2:57 PM 15/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q8 How did you hear about the study and survey? Select all that apply. Study website M Social media Word of mouth Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Study website 9.09% 16 Social media 78.41% 138 Word of mouth 6.82% 12 Other (please specify) 10.23% 18 Total Respondents: 176 # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE 1 Email from Elk River E-mail weekly 1/9/2021 3:14 PM 2 Star Newspaper 1/5/2021 7:18 PM 3 Star news 1/3/2021 6:38 PM 4 Star News 1/3/2021 2:13 PM 5 Newspaper 1/3/2021 1:01 PM 6 through work 12/31/2020 10:50 AM 7 Social worker at Allina shared link for those of us who drive this stretch frequently. 12/31/2020 10:12 AM 8 Facebook 12/11/2020 7:45 AM 9 City of Ramsey Facebook post. 12/10/2020 8:56 PM 10 email notification from newsletter 12/10/2020 6:26 PM 11 News Flash Email via Elk River 12/10/2020 3:20 PM 16/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey 12 email from City of Elk River 13 City email 14 City email 15 Monticello times 16 monticello times website 17 Monticello newspaper 18 news release 12/10/2020 11:11 AM 12/10/2020 10:26 AM 12/10/2020 8:40 AM 12/9/2020 8:56 AM 12/9/2020 6:02 AM 12/8/2020 9:18 PM 12/8/2020 2:58 PM 17/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q9 What is your age range? (optional) 17 or younger 18 to 24' 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 - 65 to 74 75+ Prefer not to answer 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 17 or younger 0.00% 0 18 to 24 2.82% 5 25 to 34 15.25% 27 35 to 44 30.51% 54 45 to 54 29.94% 53 55 to 64 13.56% 24 65 to 74 3.95% 7 75+ 0.00% 0 Prefer not to answer 3.95% 7 TOTAL 177 20 / 27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 RESPONSES 55448 55330 55330 55330 55309 55330 55330 55330 55330 55303 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55303 55330 55330 55330 55330 55309 55330 55330 55330 55330 55303 55303 55309 Q10 What is your zip code? (optional) DATE 1/20/2021 12:51 AM 1/19/2021 10:21 PM 1/19/2021 9:52 PM 1/19/2021 8:44 PM 1/19/2021 8:07 PM 1/19/2021 8:00 PM 1/19/2021 4:23 PM 1/19/2021 4:06 PM 1/19/2021 3:12 PM 1/19/2021 2:59 PM 1/19/2021 1:47 PM 1/19/2021 1:45 PM 1/19/2021 1:24 PM 1/19/2021 11:53 AM 1/19/2021 11:36 AM 1/19/2021 11:12 AM 1/19/2021 9:57 AM 1/19/2021 9:37 AM 1/19/2021 8:51 AM 1/19/2021 8:36 AM 1/16/2021 2:52 PM 1/16/2021 12:00 PM 1/16/2021 11:12 AM 1/16/2021 10:40 AM 1/12/2021 11:05 AM 1/11/2021 11:49 PM 1/11/2021 9:16 PM 1/11/2021 9:01 AM 1/9/2021 3:15 PM 1/7/2021 9:42 PM 1/7/2021 7:11 PM 1/6/2021 10:43 PM 1/6/2021 10:34 PM 21/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 55330 55330 55330 55303 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 65303 55330 55330 55330 55303 55309 55448 56303 55330 55330 55303 55309 55330 56472 55303 55038 55303 55398 55309 55303 55330 55398 55330 55371 55303 55371 55330 55330 1/6/2021 10:38 AM 1/5/2021 7:18 PM 1/5/2021 1:41 PM 1/5/2021 12:53 PM 1/4/2021 12:41 AM 1/3/2021 6:38 PM 1/3/2021 2:14 PM 1/3/2021 1:01 PM 1/2/2021 9:51 PM 1/2/2021 9:19 PM 1/2/2021 5:10 PM 1/2/2021 4:08 PM 1/2/2021 3:49 PM 1/2/2021 10:30 AM 1/2/2021 6:53 AM 1/2/2021 2:36 AM 1/1/2021 3:47 PM 1/1/2021 3:27 PM 1/1/2021 2:17 PM 1/1/2021 10:18 AM 1/1/2021 9:43 AM 12/31/2020 11:38 PM 12/31/2020 11:28 PM 12/31/2020 5:18 PM 12/31/2020 1:00 PM 12/31/2020 10:43 AM 12/31/2020 10:12 AM 12/31/2020 8:26 AM 12/30/2020 8:58 PM 12/30/2020 6:51 PM 12/30/2020 3:05 PM 12/30/2020 2:39 PM 12/30/2020 1:16 PM 12/30/2020 1:09 PM 12/30/2020 11:37 AM 12/30/2020 11:26 AM 12/30/2020 11:08 AM 12/30/2020 11:02 AM 22 / 27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 55303 55330 55330 55330 55330 55303 55319 55398 55330 55330 55308 55330 55330 55330 55330 55303 55330 55330 55303 55303 55303 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55362 12/30/2020 8:23 AM 12/29/2020 9:46 PM 12/29/2020 8:33 PM 12/11/2020 2:42 PM 12/11/2020 8:05 AM 12/10/2020 9:56 PM 12/10/2020 8:18 PM 12/10/2020 7:44 PM 12/10/2020 7:07 PM 12/10/2020 6:26 PM 12/10/2020 5:05 PM 12/10/2020 4:37 PM 12/10/2020 4:34 PM 12/10/2020 3:20 PM 12/10/2020 11:11 AM 12/10/2020 10:44 AM 12/10/2020 10:36 AM 12/10/2020 10:26 AM 12/10/2020 9:38 AM 12/10/2020 9:05 AM 12/10/2020 8:54 AM 12/10/2020 8:40 AM 12/9/2020 9:32 AM 12/9/2020 6:02 AM 12/8/2020 9:44 PM 12/8/2020 9:25 PM 12/8/2020 9:18 PM 12/8/2020 2:58 PM 23 / 27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Male (He / Him / His) Female (She / Her / Hers) Other / Prefer not to answer Q11 What is your gender? (optional) FV] 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Male (He / Him / His) 51.83% Female (She / Her / Hers) 41.46% Other / Prefer not to answer 6.71% TOTAL 85 m 11 164 24/27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q12 What is your education level? (optional) Answered:173 Skipper.. Some high school, no... So college/tec Collq gradua Post graduate work or... Prefer not to answer 0% 10% ANSWER CHOICES Some high school, no diploma Some college/technical/or vocational training College graduate Post graduate work or advanced degree Prefer not to answer TOTAL 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 0.58% 28.32% 45.66% 19.08% 6.36% 1 49 79 33 11 173 25 / 27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q13 What race/ethnicity best describes you? (optional) American Indian /... Asian / Asian American /... Black / African... Hispanic / Latino /... White / Caucasian Multiple I ethnicities - Prefer not to answerer Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES American Indian / Alaskan Native 0.00% 0 Asian / Asian American / Pacific Islander 0.00% 0 Black / African American 1.21% 2 Hispanic / Latino / Spanish 0.00% 0 White / Caucasian 81.82% 135 Multiple ethnicities 1.21% 2 Prefer not to answer 14.55% 24 Other (please specify) 1.21% 2 TOTAL 165 # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE 1 USA 1/9/2021 3:16 PM 2 Norwegian american 12/31/2020 1:01 PM 26 / 27 Highway 10 Corridor Study Survey Q14 What is the primary language spoken in your home? (optional) AnS1A/PYPrl, 1rr, Skinners• 1rR English Spanish Somali Karen Prefer not to answer Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES English 92.12% 152 Spanish 0.00% 0 Somali 0.00% 0 Karen 1.21% 2 Prefer not to answer 6.67% 11 Other (please specify) 0.00% 0 TOTAL 165 # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) There are no responses. DATE 27 / 27 I� WAY �ROR 0 Elk River Highway Corridor 10 Study Local Business Focus Group Meeting May 21, 2021 Introductions • Focus Group Invitees: ❖ Furniture and Things ❖ Jerry's Auto ❖ Pearson Family Farm •'• Riverside Farms ❖ Cornerstone Auto ❖ Exquisite Stone O�GHWAY�o i r�RRIDOR5��0 • Study Partners . Aim Elk River COUNTY MDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SHERBURNE COUNTY Focus Group Role - Meeting #2 • Review and comment on potential alternatives and suggest enhancements • Discuss how changes to the corridor may benefit or impact business, land use, future economic investments, corridor use, etc. WHAT ISSUES DO HOW OFTEN WHAT IS YOUR PREFERENCE FOR YOU EXPERIENCE DO YOU TRAVEL THE LONG-TERM VISION (10+YEARS) WHEN USING THE CORRIDOR? OFTHECORRIDOR THE CORRIDOR? 10 Congestion (74%) Approximately Top ranked options: Lowest ranked options: O Access (42%) 77 percent of Innovative access Add more traffic respondents changes (179 lights (219 0 Vehicle safety travel the corridor respondents ranked respondents ranked (42%) 2+ times a week as a top two priority) as a bottom two Other responses Interchanges and priority) included: closing access (177 Leave as is (186 High speeds (26%) respondents ranked respondents ranked Pedestrian safety as a top two priority) as a bottom two (11%) Add a frontage road priority) (165 respondents ranked as a top two priority) Study Area Characteristics • Existing safety issues along corridor • High level of congestion at intersections • At -grade intersections are expected to reach capacity between 2030 and 2035 • Access spacing along corridor not compliant with guidelines. • This will be the last area of Highway 10 with at -grade access between Highway 101/169 and Armstrong Boulevard 1 r�RRIDORS��D Key ,E HHlghw 10 Dads weua�e: u^ .ems o�o �,�,,,. o Munidpalg ��eary Miles � 025 0.5 1 Ramsey Long -Term Alternative Development Process • Build off previous studies and concepts to identify a long-term corridor `5 vision that can be implemented over time to ensure safe and efficient t'e operations along the Highway 10 corridor. • Initial long-term corridor alternatives considered: ❖ No Build ❖ Alternative 1— Signals and Access Modifications ❖ Alternative 2 —Signals, Access Modifications and R-Cuts ❖ Alternative 3 — Grade -Separated Facility (Interchanges, High-T Combo, Buttonhook/Overpasses) SSS SSS SSSS 171ST AVENUE!V1(Y.I ) 171ST AVENUE /IM(Y-1 } 171STAVENUE TWIN LAKES ROAD I_( TWIN LAKES ROAD LLM I_ I TWIN LAKES ROAD 165TH AVENUE 1UN 165TH AVENUE KELLV FARM ROAD ,{fit KELLV FARM ROAD ^ ADAMS STRE€T I _ L ADAMS STREET 104 Q / ADAMS 1 w^F ALPINE DRIVEALPINIE DRIVE At -Grade Access Closed G Reduced -Conflict Intersection Remove Signal 0 Right -in, Right -Out Intersection g g O Signalized Reduced -Conflict Intersection 0 Signalized Intersection O Grade -Separated Long -Term Alternative Evaluation Improves existing and future safety • Access spacing compliance . . Improves peak hour mobility on Hwy 10 • Continuity with Hwy 10 to the East . • • :n Improves mobility crossing Hwy 10 i Improves mobility accessing Highway 10 i mImproves mobility crossing 'Hwy 10 Minimizes construction cost w Y 0 Minimizes right-of-way impacts • Good; meets criteria well Moderate; no distinguishing characteristics • Poor; fails to meet criteria Discussion • What is your preference for the long-term vision for the corridor? • At -grade or grade separated access? • Do any of the alternatives provide a benefit to you and your business? • Are there any pros or cons to the alternatives that were evaluated? Long -Term Alternatives — Grade Separated • The study is evaluating long-term solutions for the corridor. • We will discuss long-term solutions for two segments of Hwy 10: • North segment - Twin Lakes Road • South segment - Kelly Farms Road to Alpine Drive • Local Roadway Network i Long -Term Alternatives — Grade SeparatedC) • All four alternatives include an interchange at US 169 and Twin Lakes Road, with various options for an interchange along the southern portion of the corridor: ****Kelly Farms Road Alignment ❖Jarvis Street / Cleveland Street Alignment ❖Adams Street Alignment ❖Alpine Drive Alignment Grade Separated Alternative Evaluation v Improves existing and future safety Access spacing compliance a Improves mobility on Hwy 10 o Continuity with planned facilities Provides E/W local road connectivity v Existing land use connectivity J Minimizes right-of-way impacts Provides access across Hwy 10 to pedestrian/bicycle destinations m Continuity with planned facilities a Minimizes cost Locally favored option * Good; meets criteria well • Moderate; no distinguishing characteristics 0 L 0 i 0 u 0 0 Poor; fails to meet criteria Discussion • Do you support a grade separated long-term vision for the corridor? • Do any of the grade separated alternatives provide a benefit to you and your business? • Are there any pros or cons to the alternatives that were evaluated? Local Street Network • The corridor study is also exploring how potential long-term corridor alternatives will algin with the existing roadway network. I Thank you for participating today! • Document Focus Group Feedback • Host Virtual Open House #2 (June 10) ❖ Afternoon meeting (11:30 am —12:30 pm) ❖ Evening meeting (5:00 — 6:00 pm) ❖ Corridor Alternative Survey • Study anticipated to conclude in early 2022 • Website — www.highwayl0corridorstudy.com SRF Record of Meeting Highway 10 Corridor Study Focus Group Meeting #2- Business Owners Friday, May 21, 2021 Purpose of Meeting The City of Elk River, in partnership with MnDOT, Sherburne County, Anoka County and the City of Ramsey is conducting a Highway 10 Corridor Study from Highway 169/101 to Alpine Drive. The city is looking to build a unified system plan for the Highway 10 corridor that can be implemented over time. This plan will identify access, intersection, and roadway improvements to support existing and future development, as well as to maintain and/or improve operations and safety along the Highway 10 corridor for all users. Focus Group Role Review and comment on potential alternatives and suggest enhancements. Discuss how changes to the corridor may benefit or impact business, land use, future economic investments, corridor use, etc. Attendees Steve Hickman - Furniture and Things Justin Femrite — City of Elk River Ryan Sandhoefner - City of Elk River Chris Dedrick — Jerry's Auto Eric Nathe - Riverside Farms Matt Pacyna — SRF Consulting Dan McNiel - SRF Consulting Molly Stewart — SRF Consulting SRF Record of Meeting Summary of Meeting Justin Femrite: • This conversation and engagement for this study will help to carry local voices forward. We appreciate your participation and feedback. • Please note everything shown today is preliminary, concepts are showing lines on the map, but this not the full footprint and we are still working to determine the future long-term vision for the corridor. Steve Hickman: • We are preparing to move our other store Plants and Things from Sunfish/Hwy 10 to our Furniture and Things property at Javis Street/Hwy 10. Chris Dedrick: • Owner and operator of Jerry's Auto located on Hwy 10 near on 1671. Eric Nathe: • Family has owned and operated Riverside Farms for 40 years, located on Hwy 10 near Adams Street. Molly Stewart: • Our goal to gather consensus for this Hwy 10 corridor segment. A review of round 1 engagement in Jan 2021 and congestion, safety and access are primary concerns for Hwy 10. • Round one engagement we learned the public is less in favor of signalized access along the corridor — innovative RCI- or Grade separated with support from local roadway network. • Current issues along corridor — congestion is already and forecasted to become worse --- the corridor is moving towards grade separated free flow facility. • Long-term vision — look to identify and build consensus • Key factors — build off previous studies done in the area • Work to develop a long-term vision that is safe, efficient, and able to be implemented over time Individual Corridor Alternatives Molly Stewart: provided a brief overview four potential corridor alternatives: • No build • At -grade signalized improvements • At -grade Innovative improvements • Grade -separated free flow facility SRFRecord of Meeting The study partners have conducted a preliminary evaluation, with alternatives ranked on various criteria such as safety, mobility and cost. The evaluation matrix indicated grade -separation as the most preferable long-term vision for the corridor. Next, the focus group reviewed four alternatives for grade -separated access long the Highway 10 corridor. Study partners discussed how access would change with access locations evenly spaced along corridor to meet access spacing guidelines and local road network improvements to support mobility in the area. The Adams Street alternative was identified as the preferred location for an access location along the south segment of the corridor due to minimal business impacts and aligns with the City's long-term planning. Riverside Farms: With everything that is planned on southside of the highway would need a frontage road — I own most land — what does that mean from me? Need to access via tractor, pick-up, tractor — if this goes to a freeway, how does that work for my business and access? Once the decisions between at grade or grade separated is determined — how do we get there and meet the needs of the study? Justin Femrite: • We'll go through a negotiated purchase between MnDOT/City and the property owner — at this point lines don't mean anything — help us convey the message — how do we make this work. We understand it will be hard to make improvements without affecting some property/buildings. This study will outline phased improvement 15 — 20 years into the future Jerry's Auto: • Looking at 171 s' — what does remove the signal look like here? How to maintain current access along Hwy 10? Less impactful to have interchange at Twin Lakes — there would be frontage/backage road area. This is pointing toward a grade -separated facility — may take a long time to get to that facility — evaluating interim steps — phasing in round 3. Furniture and Things: • Is Alpine Dr. showing right -in and right -out in the at grade alternatives? • In conjunction with grade separated would include local roadway • 10 and Sunfish — separated access — there would be roundabouts and grade separated • Frontage road to local road network Grade Separated Alternatives The group review north and south segments of the corridor and how the local roadway network will complement those alternatives. SRFRecord of Meeting Main focus of north segment was at Twin Lakes Road, this aligns with previous city plans, spacing along the corridor. 171" is very close to 169 and had significant business impacts. Different types of interchange and considered as ways to provide grade separated free flow facility. Lots of environmental review will still need to be completed. The group reviewed the south segment options for what that would like for each of the locations (standard diamond or folded diamond) as well as evaluation matrix. Group discussed that Jarvis and Alpine have lots of adjacent business impacts — Adams Street seems to most beneficial location. Safety, mobility, land use, impacts to businesses Eric Nathe I would prefer Alpine Partial clover has less impact --- south of the corridor — when grade separated comes in, the free flow will really impact access without breakage of traffic — coming out of Anoka/Ramsey traveling north — that will be an issue — I was waiting about 2.5 min to go eastbound on Hwy 10 (westbound could have been 5 —10 min). Justin Femrite As we see improvements to the east we will be pressed to phase in interim improvements. There are impacts for each alternative, continue to grow your business — if future changes occur you will be compensated. We are not far enough along in the process, but if we need to take footprint you will be compensated. Local Roadway Network: These are getting into some the details that show we have options — how does it best connect — how to keep from being overly impactful. Details of the long-term concept. City goal to finalize a plan Eke this and move towards how to fund this — problems on Hwy 10 aren't going away —safety challenges. Hearing it from community, elected officials, state and federal funding. Chris Dedrick: What does phasing look like, will improvements start in the north or the south? One access at Broadway Pizza going west. We own two access to the east, any timeframe to understand those ideas? Justin Femrite: Improvements and funding for Twin Lakes Road and frontage road near your location. We have federal funding, but paused to align with this study, that makes sense as a logical phased implementation. We don't have that answer, needs along entire of corridor — next phase will look at prioritization. ISR'F Record of Meeting Mississippi River Crossing Study — we are partners in this process studying new river crossings, most options are east of Elk River. Likely no new river crossing that connects with this corridor discussed today. Highway 10 Corridor Study Focus Group Meeting- Elected Officials Friday, May 28, 2021 Purpose of Meeting The City of Elk River, in partnership with MnDC►T, Sherburne County, Anoka County and the City of Ramsey is conducting a Highway 10 Corridor Study from Highway 169/101 to Alpine Drive. The City is looking to build a unified system plan for the Highway 10 corridor that can be implemented over time. This plan will define a long-term vision for the corridor that identifies access locations and roadway improvements to support existing and future development, as well as to maintain and improve operations and safety along the Highway 10 corridor for all users. Focus Group Role Review and comment on potential alternatives and suggest enhancements. Discuss how changes to the corridor may align with other transportation planning efforts and discuss impacts/benefits to constituents from Anoka County, Sherburne County, City of Ramsey and City of Elk River. Attendees Matt Look — Anoka County Commissioner Barbara Burandt — Sherburne County Commissioner Garret Christianson — City of Elk River City Council Dan Specht — Ramsey City Council Member Andrew Witter — Public Works Director / Sherburne County Justin Femrite — City of Elk River Ryan Sandhoefner - City of Elk River Matt Pacyna — SRF Consulting Dan McNiel - SRF Consulting Molly Stewart — SRF Consulting Summary of Meeting Justin Femrite: • This conversation and engagement for this study will help to carry local voices forward. We appreciate your participation and feedback. • Please note everything shown today is preliminary, concepts are showing lines on the map, but this not the full footprint and we are still working to determine the future long-term vision for the corridor. Matt Pacyna: • A goal for the study, and a primary objective of engagement, is to gather broad consensus on the long-term vision for Highway 10. • In our first round of engagement we learned the public prioritizes access changes and largely supports grade separation as the long-term vision for the corridor. Safety and congestion were identified as existing issues along Highway 10. Today we will review several alternatives for the long-term vision of Highway 10 Corridor as well as options to improve the local roadway network to maintain access for properties along Highway 10. Individual Corridor Alternatives Molly Stewart: provided a brief overview four potential corridor alternatives: • No build • At -grade signalized improvements • At -grade Innovative improvements • Grade -separated free flow facility The study partners have conducted a preliminary evaluation, with alternatives ranked on various criteria such as safety, mobility and cost. The evaluation matrix indicated grade -separation as the most preferable long-term vision for the corridor. Next, the focus group reviewed four alternatives for grade -separated access long the Highway 10 corridor. Study partners discussed how access would change with access locations evenly spaced along corridor to meet access spacing guidelines and local road network improvements to support mobility in the area. The Adams Street alternative was identified as the preferred location for an access location along the south segment of the corridor due to minimal business impacts and aligns with the City's long-term planning. Justin Femrite: Previous studies have identified potential for one interchange between City of Ramsey's western limits and City of Elk River's eastern limits at either Alpine Drive, Adams Street, Jarvis/Cleveland Street. We have also met with local business along the south segment of the corridor. They continued to express concerns about safety and access. Highway 10 transitioning to a free flow facility further east will further impact available gaps in traffic and additional safety concerns. Matt Look: • I have worked the past 16 years to make improvements to Highway 10. • Grade -separation has an estimated cost of $200 million, or less with innovative solutions. The final combination of corridor improvements will ultimately determine the price tag. • Identifying a long-term vision will help policymakers decide how best to advocate for funding at the State Legislature. • I am aware that there are challenges with the pent-up flow of traffic. • Anoka County is currently working on improvements from Armstrong/Th Street north to Thurston/Fairoak, as well as Ramsey/Sunfish. After completing those improvements, the County will look to ensure improvements to Highway 65 and Highway 47. Matt Pacyna: The study is working towards a long-term vision, but we understand there are existing issues along the corridor that will require phased improvements. We hope to identify recommendations for interim improvements. The corridor is in MnDOT D3 • The study will conclude in early 2022 with a preferred long-term vison, phased improvements as well as potential funding opportunities. Barb Burandt: Growing up and traveling on Highway 10 I know that safety is an important issue. Twin Lakes Road is unsafe, I have experienced issues at the intersection, and I try to avoid this intersection. • Addressing current issues along Highway 10 is a priority and I am happy to hear about plans for interim improvements. Garett Christianson: Question — by putting in grade -separated at Twin Lakes — do we know how much traffic will be diverted from 171" and Hwy 10. What do we get back from the investment? Justin- at a point in time when a grade -separated — access spacing — connection at 1715` would go away and Twin Lakes would become primary access. Matt — from a safety benefit — interchange would be significantly safer that signalized intersection — most severe type of accidents. Mobility benefit. Dan Specht: • We do not want to see more things blocking traffic — goal to make this a free flow facility. Consolidate roads in Ramsey to limit access points along Hwy 10. Justin — City engineer Westby gave some input about alternatives -side road — maintaining quiet zones. Concept level. Matt Look: The RCI on Hwy 65 (169"' — Ham Lake), we have had significant push back — not using tool properly- put in some signs — don't waste too much investment of RCIs, would be reluctant to support — with traffic volumes — crossing two lanes to do a turn in — Justin — appreciate the insight and lessons learned — MnDOT continues to stress alternative solutions. Barb Burandt: I am glad to hear you are looking at statistics for assessing safety and I would encourage the project to prioritize areas with the highest potential to reduce crashes and increase safety along Highway 10. Has there been any discussions or considerations regarding the rest stop and weigh station? o Justin: Yes there has been preliminary discussions with MnDOT. SRF Record of Meeting Highway 10 Corridor Study Focus Group Meeting #2- Freight Haulers Friday, June 9, 2021 Purpose of Meeting The City of Elk River, in partnership with MnDOT, Sherburne County, Anoka County and the City of Ramsey is conducting a Highway 10 Corridor Study from Highway 169/101 to Alpine Drive. The city is looking to build a unified system plan for the Highway 10 corridor that can be implemented over time. This plan will identify access, intersection, and roadway improvements to support existing and future development, as well as to maintain and/or improve operations and safety along the Highway 10 corridor for all users. Focus Group Role Review and comment on potential alternatives and suggest enhancements. Discuss how changes to the corridor may benefit or impact business, land use, future economic investments, corridor use, etc. Attendees Terry Morrell — Morrell Haulers Chuck LeFebvre — LeFebvre Companies Jennifer — Metropolitan Gravel Amber — Abfalter Concrete Justin Femrite — City of Elk River Ryan Sandhoefner - City of Elk River Matt Pacyna — SRF Consulting Dan McNiel - SRF Consulting Molly Stewart — SRF Consulting Summary of Meeting The focus group discussion started with a welcome and introductions. Molly Stewart then shared a short overview presentation (see attached PDF) summarizing the study area characteristics, goals, role of the focus group discussions schedule and existing conditions. SRFRecord of Meeting Justin Femrite: • This conversation and engagement for this study will help to carry local voices forward. We appreciate your participation and feedback. • Please note everything shown today is preliminary, concepts are showing lines on the map, but this not the full footprint and we are still working to determine the future long-term vision for the corridor. Molly Stewart: • Our goal to gather consensus for this Hwy 10 corridor segment. A review of round 1 engagement in Jan 2021 and congestion, safety and access are primary concerns for Hwy 10. • Round one engagement we learned the public is less in favor of signalized access along the corridor — innovative RCI- or Grade separated with support from local roadway network. • Current issues along corridor — congestion is already and forecasted to become worse --- the corridor is moving towards grade separated free flow facility. • Long-term vision — look to identify and build consensus • Key factors — build off previous studies done in the area • Work to develop a long-term vision that is safe, efficient, and able to be implemented over time Individual Corridor Alternatives Molly Stewart: provided a brief overview four potential corridor alternatives: • No build • At -grade signalized improvements • At -grade Innovative improvements • Grade -separated free flow facility The study partners have conducted a preliminary evaluation, with alternatives ranked on various criteria such as safety, mobility and cost. The evaluation matrix indicated grade -separation as the most preferable long-term vision for the corridor. Next, the focus group reviewed four alternatives for grade -separated access long the Highway 10 corridor. Study partners discussed how access would change with access locations evenly spaced along corridor to meet access spacing guidelines and local road network improvements to support mobility in the area. The Adams Street alternative was identified as the preferred location for an access location along the south segment of the corridor due to minimal business impacts and aligns with the City's long-term planning. ISR'F Record of Meeting Grade Separated Alternatives and Local Roadway Network The group review north and south segments of the corridor and how the local roadway network will complement those alternatives. Main focus of north segment was at Twin Lakes Road, this aligns with previous city plans, spacing along the corridor. 171" is very close to 169 and had significant business impacts. Different types of interchange and considered as ways to provide grade separated free flow facility. Lots of environmental review will still need to be completed. The group reviewed the south segment options for what that would like for each of the locations (standard diamond or folded diamond) as well as evaluation matrix. Group discussed that Jarvis and Alpine have lots of adjacent business impacts — Adams Street seems to most beneficial location. Safety, mobility, land use, impacts to businesses Metropolitan Gravel: As far as we're where we are located, right off of Jarvis Street, safety is the biggest problem that we have with our drivers trying to get out. For Jarvis Street, but I can tell you just from a business owners' perspective that goes right over my building so. But safety is one of our big issues is just I mean I was just up there, visiting that facility, because I office out of Newport we have two locations one in Newport one in Elk River and It took me 15 to 20 minutes, just to get on to that get down to highway tend to come back to the office so yeah safety is number one. Looking at what is shown today, if you followed Jarvis Street as preferred alternative, we would like to have to relocate or a close-up shop. Justin Femrite: As we see improvements to the east we will be pressed to phase in interim improvements. There are impacts for each alternative, continue to grow your business — if future changes occur you will be compensated. We are not far enough along in the process, but if we need to take footprint you will be compensated. Abfalter Concrete: Safety is our number one priority. Could this presentation be shared with us. It would be helpful to pass this information along to others at Abfalter Concrete. Thank you for participating in our discussion today. We appreciate you taking time to share your thoughts and hear more about an update from the highway 10 corridor study. We will be sure to follow up to share the presentation with those who may be interested. Have a good day. I� WAY �ROR 0 Elk River Highway Corridor Virtual Open House June 10, 2021 10 Study • During the presentation attendees will be on mute and have their camera disabled • During the presentation, please use the "Q&A" function to share your comments and thoughts for discussion after the presentation • While many are now used to virtual meetings like this, please bear with us if technical difficulties arise • Please use the "Q&A" function to type your comments and thoughts; project staff will read through the comments in the order they're received following the presentation. After some comments have been read aloud and reacted to by staff, attendees will have an opportunity to "raise" their hand to be acknowledged for up to 2 minutes of open mic. Please be respectful during this time. Following this open mic, more comments will be read aloud and reacted to again. If you are calling in to the meeting and would like to make a comment, please enter *9 on your phone to raise your hand. Press *6 to unmute yourself when the appropriate time comes. • Hear about study progress and review potential alternatives for the long-term (20+ year) vision for the Highway 10 Corridor. 2020 2021 2022 Round 2 Engagement MAP KEY Highway 10 Rum River Bridge Replacement Construction Year: 2022 ■U.S. Highway 10/169 Improvement Project Construction Year: 2022 ■Highway 169 Redefinition Construction Year: 2022 ■Ramsey Gateway Highway 10 Project Construction Year: 2024 a Highway 10 Corridor Study SURVEY RESULTS • 516 survey responses • 230 open-ended comments • 10 interactive map comments WHAT ISSUES DO YOU EXPERIENCE WHEN USING THE CORRIDOR? (3 Congestion (74%) ( j Access (42 % ) Vehicle safety (42%) Other responses included: High speeds (26%) • Pedestrian safety (11 %) HOW OFTEN DO YOU TRAVEL THE CORRIDOR? • Approximately 77 percent of respondents travel the corridor 2+ times a week WHAT IS YOUR PREFERENCE FOR THE LONG-TERMVISION (10+YEARS) OF THE CORRIDOR Top ranked options: • Innovative access changes (179 respondents ranked as a top two priority) • Interchanges and closing access (177 respondents ranked as a top two priority) • Add a frontage road (165 respondents ranked as a top two priority) Lowest ranked options: • Add more traffic lights (219 respondents ranked as a bottom two priority) • Leave as is (186 respondents ranked as a bottom two priority) • Existing safety issues along corridor. • High level of congestion at intersections. ❖ Signalized intersection of 171s' Avenue expected to reach capacity between 2030 and 2035. Long delays at most unsignalized intersections. ❖ Limited gaps to access/cross Hwy 10. • Access spacing along corridor not compliant with guidelines. • This will be the last area of Highway 10 with at -grade access between Highway 101/169 and Armstrong Boulevard. KO Key Hlghw 10 Dads 0 111 0.5 1 Miles Ramsey • Build off previous studies and concepts to identify a long-term (20+ year) corridor vision that can be implemented over time to ensure safe and efficient operations along the Highway 10 corridor. • Initial long-term corridor alternatives considered: ❖ No Build ❖ Alternative 1— Signals and Access Modifications ❖ Alternative 2—Signals, Access Modifications and Reduced Conflict Intersections (RCIs) ❖ Alternative 3 — Grade -Separated Facility (Interchanges, High-T Combo, Buttonhook/Overpasses) Improves existing and future safety Access spacing compliance Improves peak hour mobility on Hwy 10 Y Continuity with Hwy 10 to the East 0 Improves mobility crossing Hwy 10 Improves mobility accessing Highway 10 Y v Improves mobility crossing Hwy 10 m a Minimizes construction cost v t Minimizes right-of-way impacts Good; meets criteria well M M • • • • F" LJ LA n LJ Moderate; no distinguishing characteristics Poor; fails to meet criteria KO • The corridor study is also exploring how potential long-term corridor alternatives will align with the existing roadway network. KO • Various grade -separated alternatives have been developed for the corridor. North segment • The north segment includes grade - separated alternatives that focus around the Twin Lakes Road area. The location of a future grade -separated access in the south segment is being evaluated. South segment % ' Local roadway network options have been developed to help facilitate mobility and *southern grade -separated access to current and future businesses and location to be determined properties. Grade -Separated Alternative North Segment Standard Diamond Button Hook US 169 Folded Diamond Partial Cloverleaf 171" Avenue Twin Lakes Split OA'\ ,:",_Kelly Farm Road Adams Street ?5t Alpine Drive • All south segment alternatives include an interchange at Highway 169 and Twin Lakes Road. The following four locations were considered for the south segment alternative: ❖ Kelly Farm Road Area Alignment ❖ Jarvis Street / Cleveland Street Alignment ❖ Adams Street Alignment •'• Alpine Drive Alignment '00] Local Roadway Network South Segment o � o > Improves existing and future safety v Access spacing compliance Improves mobility on Hwy 10 o Continuity with planned facilities Provides E/W local road connectivity v Existing land use connectivity N J Minimizes right-of-way impacts Provides access across Hwy 10 to pedestrian/bicycle destinations m Continuity with planned facilities v Minimizes cost t o Locally favored option Good; meets criteria well 0 • Moderate; no distinguishing characteristics 0 11 • Poor; fails to meet criteria • Document Round 2 public input • Take the Survey! https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/elkriverlO • Update alternatives based on feedback • Develop and evaluate implementation scenarios • Identify costs and funding strategies • Host Round 3 of public input (Fall 2021) • Please use the "Q&A" function to type your comments and thoughts; project staff will read through the comments in the order they're received following the presentation. • After some comments have been read aloud and reacted to by staff, attendees will have an opportunity to "raise" their hand to be acknowledged for up to 2 minutes of open mic. Please be respectful during this time. Following this open mic, more comments will be read aloud and reacted to again. • If you are calling in to the meeting and would like to make a comment, please enter *9 on your phone to raise your hand. Press 6 to unmute yourself when the appropriate time comes. For more information about the project, please contact: Justin Femrite Matt Pacyna Molly Stewart Public Works Director/Chief Engineer Project Manager Deputy Project Manager City of Elk River SRF Consulting Group SRF Consulting Group jfemrite@elkrivermn.gov mpacyna@srfconsulting.com mstewart@srfconsulting.com 763-635-1051 763-249-6726 763-452-4784 Stay involved: • Take the Survey! https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/elkriverl0 • Visit the Study website www.highwaVlOcorridorstudV.com I WHAT ENGAGEMENT OCCURRED? The primary goal of the Highway 10 Corridor Study is to create a future vision for the corridor that improves safety, manages access, improves freight movement, manages congestion into the future, and aligns with the City's development goals. A key focus in accomplishing this goal statement is determining access management options for key intersections along the corridor. L Round 2 engagement included two live virtual open house meetings, a community survey, social media and email updates as well as materials available on the project website. f - J How often do you travel this segment of Highway 10? Do you support grade - separated access as the long- term vision for the corridor? Rank your preference for the location of grade -separated access. Where should improvements occur first and how quickly should improvements be made? u0,-""*& Do you have any suggestions for improving the Highway 10 corridor? The survey received 172 responses: Respondent Locations: 75% - Elk River/Otsego 12% - Anoka/Ramsey 7% - Big Lake/Becker 6% - Other How often do you travel the Highway 10 Corridor? o Everyday = 40% o Twice or more a week = 30% o Once a week = 15% o Once a month = 15% IIIMANDI :1:a:I[e1MEMiTMAYKIK4103O N19197:1 I1191PXA When reporting their support for a grade -separated facility as the long-term vision (20+ years) for the corridor: 84% of respondents support s a grade -separated facility Of the 23 open -response comments received: 16 involved improving the efficiency of the roadway and safe flow of traffic. ►I- 9 involved the necessity of improving Hwy 10. 5 involved improving and maintaining safety on Hwy 10. Respondents ranked their preference (1st choice — 4th choice) for the location of a grade -separated access within the southern segment of the corridor: Kelly Farm Road = consistently either 1st or 4th ranked option, with fewer 2nd and 3rd rankings. Jarvis/Cleveland Street and Adams Street = mostly 2nd and 3rd rankings, with fewer 1st and 4th rankings. Alpine Street = received the most 4th rankings, with fewer 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rankings. Removing stoplights while maintaining corridor safety would improve traffic congestion. UH11r__ Frontage roads will be important for access on the east and west side of the corridor. it Construction should begin at north segment of the corrid "first" and "as soon as possibl Consider adding and extending acceleration lanes on Highway 10. ELK RIVER HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey Q1 How often do you travel the Highway 10 Corridor within the limits shown in grey on the image above? Everyday Two or more times awee Once a WE Once a mo Nev ANSWER CHOICES Everyday Two or more times a week Once a week Once a month Never TOTAL 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 40.94% 70 29.82% 51 14.62% 25 14.62% 25 0.00% 0 171 1/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey Q2 Do you support a grade -separated facility as the long-term vision (20+ years) for the corridor? Grade -separation means a free flow highway with interchanges and/or bridges and ramps to support local access. Answered:137 Skipped:3:, Yes No don't know 11 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 83.94% No 8.76% I don't know 7.30% TOTAL # IF YOU DO NOT SUPPORT GRADE -SEPARATION AS A LONG-TERM VISION, HOW DATE WOULD YOU IMPROVE THE HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR? 1 #3 6/28/2021 8:31 AM 2 Build a bypass north of elk river 6/28/2021 8:26 AM 3 You need to address the actual access points at 10/169 and not have vehicles turn across 6/19/2021 7:52 AM traffic to exit Hwy 10 westbound to south 169 & Eastbound 10 to North 169. There also needs to be an additional North/South access to Elk river from Otsego/Albertville to help traffic flow and access. 4 1 think this area of hwy 10 moves just fine. People are in a hurry and with continued 6/18/2021 10:34 AM construction nobody wants to travel to/from/thru Elk River. People want the highway to just move along so frontage roads or back ways into places would be more efficient than round abouts or stop lights. Longer merging lanes would also be nice. No more stop and stall or slowing traffic on hwys. No more 4 year construction plans on hwys. 5 This does not seem to be one of the main problem areas on Highway 10. Though there are 6/17/2021 12:46 PM some backups during rush hour, it mainly centers around the stoplight at 171st. That would be my recommended spot for improvement - the rest of this stretch doesn't have a lot of issues. 6 Howwould that preserve the downtown area? It's already a hot mess in that space. Also, why 6/17/2021 12:00 PM can't we add another bridge crossing the Mississippi? By only having the two options, it gets easily congested. What about re-routing HWY 10? Or if you really want a free -flowing highway, have it be built over Main St - Upland. 115 12 10 137 2/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey It depends on development demands along the corridor - right now there is not a pressing need 6/17/2021 10:40 AM on the southern end where there is mostly ag land Too much money to correct a minor inconvenience for very few people. 6/17/2021 9:43 AM 3/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey Q3 Please rank your level of support for constructing a grade -separated access at Kelly Farm Road: ANSWER CHOICES Total Respondents: 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 5 3 2 2 4 1 5 5 4 3 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 AVERAGE NUMBER 3 TOTAL NUMBER 315 RESPONSES DATE 7/1/2021 2:20 PM 6/30/2021 8:58 PM 6/30/2021 2:11 PM 6/30/2021 8:15 AM 6/30/2021 8:10 AM 6/30/2021 12:19 AM 6/29/2021 8:29 PM 6/29/2021 6:55 AM 6/28/2021 10:49 PM 6/28/2021 9:41 PM 6/28/2021 8:13 PM 6/28/2021 2:57 PM 6/28/2021 2:45 PM 6/28/2021 1:36 PM 6/28/2021 1:27 PM 6/28/2021 1:25 PM 6/28/2021 1:05 PM 6/28/2021 11:24 AM 6/28/2021 11:13 AM 94 4/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 0 5 3 1 4 0 1 2 2 5 2 1 2 5 5 5 4 5 1 2 5 5 5 2 0 5 5 4 4 3 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 L 6/28/2021 10:55 AM 6/28/2021 10:09 AM 6/28/2021 10:07 AM 6/28/2021 9:00 AM 6/28/2021 8:45 AM 6/28/2021 8:28 AM 6/28/2021 8:10 AM 6/28/2021 8:07 AM 6/28/2021 7:55 AM 6/28/2021 7:50 AM 6/28/2021 7:47 AM 6/28/2021 7:46 AM 6/28/2021 7:44 AM 6/28/2021 7:38 AM 6/28/2021 7:32 AM 6/26/2021 9:02 AM 6/22/2021 3:31 PM 6/21/2021 10:06 PM 6/21/2021 3:19 PM 6/21/2021 1:27 PM 6/21/2021 1:25 PM 6/21/2021 1:23 PM 6/21/2021 10:21 AM 6/20/2021 4:52 PM 6/20/2021 11:45 AM 6/19/2021 4:47 PM 6/19/2021 12:41 PM 6/19/2021 12:34 PM 6/18/2021 9:22 PM 6/18/2021 7:23 PM 6/18/2021 6:09 PM 6/18/2021 1:47 PM 6/18/2021 12:48 PM 6/18/2021 11:08 AM 6/18/2021 11:02 AM 6/18/2021 10:54 AM 6/18/2021 10:40 AM 6/18/2021 10:36 AM 5/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 0 0 5 5 4 3 3 4 5 4 5 0 5 4 0 5 2 0 2 5 3 4 3 3 5 4 3 4 0 5 3 0 2 5 2 5 4 6/18/2021 10:21 AM 6/18/2021 10:20 AM 6/18/2021 9:56 AM 6/18/2021 9:20 AM 6/18/2021 9:03 AM 6/18/2021 8:19 AM 6/18/2021 8:19 AM 6/18/2021 8:18 AM 6/18/2021 8:05 AM 6/18/2021 7:59 AM 6/18/2021 7:56 AM 6/18/2021 7:45 AM 6/18/2021 4:45 AM 6/17/2021 8:54 PM 6/17/2021 7:04 PM 6/17/2021 4:39 PM 6/17/2021 3:59 PM 6/17/2021 1:12 PM 6/17/2021 12:49 PM 6/17/2021 12:36 PM 6/17/2021 12:35 PM 6/17/2021 12:02 PM 6/17/2021 11:49 AM 6/17/2021 11:47 AM 6/17/2021 11:32 AM 6/17/2021 11:12 AM 6/17/2021 10:43 AM 6/17/2021 10:00 AM 6/17/2021 9:49 AM 6/17/2021 9:47 AM 6/17/2021 9:42 AM 6/17/2021 9:39 AM 6/17/2021 9:21 AM 6/16/2021 3:50 PM 6/15/2021 4:09 PM 6/11/2021 7:46 PM 6/9/2021 5:17 PM 6/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey Q4 Please rank your level of support for constructing a grade -separated access at Jarvis/Cleveland Street: ANSWER CHOICES Total Respondents: 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 5 0 3 5 3 3 1 5 1 3 4 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 AVERAGE NUMBER 4 TOTAL NUMBER 323 RESPONSES DATE 7/1/2021 2:20 PM 6/30/2021 8:58 PM 6/30/2021 2:11 PM 6/30/2021 9:15 AM 6/30/2021 8:15 AM 6/30/2021 8:10 AM 6/30/2021 12:19 AM 6/29/2021 6:55 AM 6/28/2021 10:49 PM 6/28/2021 9:41 PM 6/28/2021 8:13 PM 6/28/2021 2:57 PM 6/28/2021 2:45 PM 6/28/2021 1:36 PM 6/28/2021 1:27 PM 6/28/2021 1:25 PM 6/28/2021 1:05 PM 6/28/2021 11:24 AM 6/28/2021 11:13 AM .el 7/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 5 5 4 3 4 5 3 4 4 0 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 1 2 5 5 0 4 5 5 5 4 2 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 4 0 4 6/28/2021 10:55 AM 6/28/2021 10:09 AM 6/28/2021 10:07 AM 6/28/2021 9:00 AM 6/28/2021 8:45 AM 6/28/2021 8:28 AM 6/28/2021 8:10 AM 6/28/2021 8:07 AM 6/28/2021 7:55 AM 6/28/2021 7:50 AM 6/28/2021 7:44 AM 6/28/2021 7:40 AM 6/28/2021 7:38 AM 6/28/2021 7:32 AM 6/26/2021 9:02 AM 6/22/2021 3:31 PM 6/21/2021 10:06 PM 6/21/2021 3:19 PM 6/21/2021 1:27 PM 6/21/2021 1:25 PM 6/21/2021 1:23 PM 6/21/2021 10:21 AM 6/20/2021 4:52 PM 6/20/2021 11:45 AM 6/19/2021 4:47 PM 6/19/2021 12:41 PM 6/19/2021 12:34 PM 6/18/2021 9:22 PM 6/18/2021 6:09 PM 6/18/2021 1:47 PM 6/18/2021 12:48 PM 6/18/2021 11:08 AM 6/18/2021 11:02 AM 6/18/2021 10:54 AM 6/18/2021 10:40 AM 6/18/2021 10:36 AM 6/18/2021 10:21 AM 6/18/2021 10:20 AM 8/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 M 5 5 4 2 3 1 5 3 5 4 4 5 2 5 3 5 4 4 3 3 4 2 1 4 0 5 3 0 4 0 3 5 L 6/18/2021 9:56 AM 6/18/2021 9:20 AM 6/18/2021 9:03 AM 6/18/2021 8:19 AM 6/18/2021 8:19 AM 6/18/2021 8:18 AM 6/18/2021 7:56 AM 6/18/2021 7:45 AM 6/18/2021 4:45 AM 6/17/2021 8:54 PM 6/17/2021 7:04 PM 6/17/2021 4:39 PM 6/17/2021 3:59 PM 6/17/2021 1:12 PM 6/17/2021 12:49 PM 6/17/2021 12:36 PM 6/17/2021 12:35 PM 6/17/2021 12:02 PM 6/17/2021 11:49 AM 6/17/2021 11:47 AM 6/17/2021 11:32 AM 6/17/2021 11:12 AM 6/17/2021 10:43 AM 6/17/2021 10:00 AM 6/17/2021 9:49 AM 6/17/2021 9:47 AM 6/17/2021 9:42 AM 6/17/2021 9:39 AM 6/17/2021 9:21 AM 6/16/2021 3:50 PM 6/15/2021 4:09 PM 6/11/2021 7:46 PM 6/9/2021 5:17 PM 9/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey Q5 Please rank your level of support for constructing a grade -separated access at Adams Street: ANSWER CHOICES Total Respondents: 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 5 1 4 5 3 3 1 3 2 3 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 AVERAGE NUMBER 3 TOTAL NUMBER 280 RESPONSES DATE 7/1/2021 2:20 PM 6/30/2021 8:58 PM 6/30/2021 2:11 PM 6/30/2021 9:15 AM 6/30/2021 8:15 AM 6/30/2021 8:10 AM 6/30/2021 12:19 AM 6/29/2021 6:55 AM 6/28/2021 10:49 PM 6/28/2021 9:41 PM 6/28/2021 8:13 PM 6/28/2021 2:57 PM 6/28/2021 2:45 PM 6/28/2021 1:36 PM 6/28/2021 1:27 PM 6/28/2021 1:25 PM 6/28/2021 1:05 PM 6/28/2021 11:24 AM 6/28/2021 11:13 AM 83 10/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 5 4 3 4 5 3 4 2 0 5 5 5 3 4 5 1 2 5 5 0 4 0 5 3 3 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 1 0 5 5 2 1 6/28/2021 10:09 AM 6/28/2021 10:07 AM 6/28/2021 9:00 AM 6/28/2021 8:45 AM 6/28/2021 8:28 AM 6/28/2021 8:10 AM 6/28/2021 8:07 AM 6/28/2021 7:55 AM 6/28/2021 7:50 AM 6/28/2021 7:44 AM 6/28/2021 7:38 AM 6/28/2021 7:32 AM 6/26/2021 9:02 AM 6/22/2021 3:31 PM 6/21/2021 10:06 PM 6/21/2021 3:19 PM 6/21/2021 1:27 PM 6/21/2021 1:25 PM 6/21/2021 1:23 PM 6/21/2021 10:21 AM 6/20/2021 4:52 PM 6/20/2021 11:45 AM 6/19/2021 12:41 PM 6/19/2021 12:34 PM 6/18/2021 9:22 PM 6/18/2021 6:09 PM 6/18/2021 1:47 PM 6/18/2021 12:48 PM 6/18/2021 11:08 AM 6/18/2021 11:02 AM 6/18/2021 10:54 AM 6/18/2021 10:40 AM 6/18/2021 10:36 AM 6/18/2021 10:21 AM 6/18/2021 9:56 AM 6/18/2021 9:20 AM 6/18/2021 8:19 AM 6/18/2021 8:19 AM 11/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 1 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 2 5 2 4 3 2 4 4 4 0 5 2 0 0 0 2 5 4 6/18/2021 8:18 AM 6/18/2021 7:56 AM 6/18/2021 7:45 AM 6/18/2021 4:45 AM 6/17/2021 8:54 PM 6/17/2021 7:04 PM 6/17/2021 4:39 PM 6/17/2021 1:12 PM 6/17/2021 12:49 PM 6/17/2021 12:36 PM 6/17/2021 12:35 PM 6/17/2021 12:02 PM 6/17/2021 11:49 AM 6/17/2021 11:47 AM 6/17/2021 11:12 AM 6/17/2021 10:43 AM 6/17/2021 10:00 AM 6/17/2021 9:49 AM 6/17/2021 9:47 AM 6/17/2021 9:42 AM 6/17/2021 9:39 AM 6/17/2021 9:21 AM 6/16/2021 3:50 PM 6/15/2021 4:09 PM 6/11/2021 7:46 PM 6/9/2021 5:17 PM 12/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey Q6 Please rank your level of support for constructing a grade -separated access at Alpine Drive: ANSWER CHOICES Total Respondents: 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 5 1 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 4 0 5 5 5 5 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 AVERAGE NUMBER 4 TOTAL NUMBER 297 RESPONSES DATE 7/1/2021 2:20 PM 6/30/2021 8:58 PM 6/30/2021 2:11 PM 6/30/2021 9:15 AM 6/30/2021 8:15 AM 6/30/2021 8:10 AM 6/29/2021 6:55 AM 6/28/2021 10:49 PM 6/28/2021 9:41 PM 6/28/2021 8:13 PM 6/28/2021 2:57 PM 6/28/2021 2:45 PM 6/28/2021 1:36 PM 6/28/2021 1:27 PM 6/28/2021 1:25 PM 6/28/2021 1:05 PM 6/28/2021 11:24 AM 6/28/2021 10:55 AM 6/28/2021 10:09 AM 84 13/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 4 4 5 4 1 3 0 4 5 5 3 4 5 0 2 5 5 0 4 5 5 5 5 5 2 4 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 5 5 5 2 4 6/28/2021 10:07 AM 6/28/2021 9:00 AM 6/28/2021 8:28 AM 6/28/2021 8:10 AM 6/28/2021 8:07 AM 6/28/2021 7:55 AM 6/28/2021 7:50 AM 6/28/2021 7:44 AM 6/28/2021 7:38 AM 6/28/2021 7:32 AM 6/26/2021 9:02 AM 6/22/2021 3:31 PM 6/21/2021 10:06 PM 6/21/2021 3:19 PM 6/21/2021 1:27 PM 6/21/2021 1:25 PM 6/21/2021 1:23 PM 6/21/2021 10:21 AM 6/20/2021 4:52 PM 6/20/2021 11:45 AM 6/19/2021 4:47 PM 6/19/2021 12:41 PM 6/19/2021 12:34 PM 6/19/2021 7:02 AM 6/18/2021 9:22 PM 6/18/2021 6:09 PM 6/18/2021 1:47 PM 6/18/2021 12:48 PM 6/18/2021 11:08 AM 6/18/2021 10:54 AM 6/18/2021 10:40 AM 6/18/2021 10:36 AM 6/18/2021 10:21 AM 6/18/2021 10:20 AM 6/18/2021 9:56 AM 6/18/2021 9:20 AM 6/18/2021 8:19 AM 6/18/2021 8:19 AM 14/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 1 0 3 5 5 1 5 5 3 5 4 4 3 2 5 2 4 4 0 5 2 0 4 0 5 5 L 6/18/2021 8:18 AM 6/18/2021 7:56 AM 6/18/2021 7:45 AM 6/18/2021 4:45 AM 6/17/2021 8:54 PM 6/17/2021 7:04 PM 6/17/2021 4:39 PM 6/17/2021 1:12 PM 6/17/2021 12:49 PM 6/17/2021 12:36 PM 6/17/2021 12:35 PM 6/17/2021 12:02 PM 6/17/2021 11:49 AM 6/17/2021 11:47 AM 6/17/2021 11:32 AM 6/17/2021 11:12 AM 6/17/2021 10:43 AM 6/17/2021 10:00 AM 6/17/2021 9:49 AM 6/17/2021 9:47 AM 6/17/2021 9:42 AM 6/17/2021 9:39 AM 6/17/2021 9:21 AM 6/16/2021 3:50 PM 6/15/2021 4:09 PM 6/11/2021 7:46 PM 6/9/2021 5:17 PM 15/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey Q7 Ultimately, the Highway 10 corridor will likely include one grade - separated access location along the southern segment of the corridor (grade -separation means a free flow highway with interchanges and/or bridges and ramps to support local access). Please review the graphics and rank your preference for the location of a grade -separated access within the southern segment of the corridor. Kelly Farm Road Area-... Jarvis/Clevela d Street-. Adams Street Alternative # Alpine Drive - Alternative #4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Kelly Farm Road Area- Alternative #1 Jarvis/Cleveland Street - Alternative #2 Adams Street - Alternative #3 Alpine Drive - Alternative #4 1 2 3 4 47.95% 12.33% 9.59% 30.14% 35 9 7 22 18.31% 43.66% 26.76% 11.27% 13 31 19 8 15.49% 23.94% 43.66% 16.90% 11 17 31 12 21.92% 19.18% 19.18% 39.73% 16 14 14 29 TOTAL SCORE 73 2.78 71 2.69 71 2.38 73 2.23 16/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey Q8 Where should improvements along the corridor occur first? North segmen -Twin Lakes.. South segmen - between Ke. No preferer I don't kn 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES North segment - Twin Lakes Road and 171st Avenue South segment - between Kelly Farms Road Area and Alpine Drive No preference I don't know TOTAL RESPONSES 53.57% 19.05% 20.24% 7.14% 45 16 17 6 84 17/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey Q9 How quickly do you feel changes should be implemented along the north segment of the corridor (Twin Lakes Road and 171st Avenue)? As soon as possible 3 to 5 year: 5 to 10 year 10 to 20 year 20+ year: ANSWER CHOICES As soon as possible 3 to 5 years 5 to 10 years 10 to 20 years 20+ years TOTAL 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 55.42% 30.12% 10.84% 2.41% 1.20% 46 25 9 2 1 83 18/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey Q10 How quickly do you feel changes should be implemented along the south segment of the corridor (Kelly Farm Road to Alpine Drive)? As soon as possible 3 to 5 years 5 to 10 years® 10 to 20 years, 20+ years ANSWER CHOICES As soon as possible 3 to 5 years 5 to 10 years 10 to 20 years 20+ years TOTAL 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 37.80% 35.37% 15.85% 6.10% 4.88% 31 29 13 5 4 82 19/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey Q11 Do you have any suggestions for improving the Highway 10 Corridor? Please share suggestions or ideas you have to help the Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study team. # RESPONSES DATE 1 The interchanges and bridges. Also consider in 10-20 years from Proctor Ave. towards big 7/1/2021 2:26 PM lakes for future interchanges/bridges after these ones are figured out. 2 Improved access to cross the highway and the entrance and exit of the scale. 6/28/2021 8:16 PM 3 Make a bypass north of elk River connecting to 10 west of elk River 6/28/2021 1:07 PM 4 Make it an actual highway like they are doing on 169. With cabin traffic and the area expanding 6/28/2021 7:58 AM the traffic is just going to keep getting worse. Traffic lights are not really a viable option moving forward. Either drop hwy 10 so it goes under intersections or build overpasses across hwy 10. Another option may be to build a raised bypass that lets you go straight through elk river without stopping and leaves local traffic as normal. 5 Those businesses along the strip (including creative kids academy) need to be connected to 6/28/2021 7:43 AM Yale street/171st ave so that people have access to the stoplight to safely get back on highway 10 6 Go around Elk River to go WB and EB Hwy 10 for trucks and those heading to/from up north, 6/26/2021 9:17 AM leaving main corridor for local traffic. Also make Elk River more accessible for emergency vehicles by eliminating need to stop for trains. 7 Build interim frontage roads between Alpine & Cleveland (both sides) close off access to Hwy 6/21/2021 10:10 PM 10 accept at Jarvis, install signal or RCUT. 8 MNDOT has no foresight. The mess of traffic that is Elk River (Hwy 10 and Hwy 169) 6/20/2021 11:50 AM should've been dealt with 5 years ago. The Hwy 10 Corridor (Anoka/Ramsey/Alpine Dr) should've been taken care of ten years ago. I'm curious why Anoka County/Sherburne County are so far behind other parts of the Twin Cities when it comes to funding for roads? 9 Build a bike trail with all improvements 6/19/2021 12:44 PM 10 Make longer turn lanes or separate lanes. Many folks slow down or pull out in front of cars. 6/19/2021 12:37 PM 11 get it all done asap 6/18/2021 1:49 PM 12 Possibly removing stop lights. 6/18/2021 10:42 AM 13 Stop over burdening us with road construction 6/18/2021 10:38 AM 14 Need to look at other Highway projects when planning out which area to complete first so not 6/18/2021 9:05 AM all main Highway routes are being completed at the same time. 15 Any reduction in stoplights while maintaining safety is my highest priority. 6/18/2021 7:47 AM 16 Just get it done long overdue driving hwy 10 is a painful daily trip 6/18/2021 4:49 AM 17 Not sure if this is applicable to the Hwy 10 Corridor team or not but we need another bridge 6/17/2021 7:09 PM over the Mississippi River in between Rogers and Anoka. 18 Sooner the better. More traffic = more risks for motorists 6/17/2021 4:41 PM 19 Make all the stop lights go away for less overall traffic! 6/17/2021 12:53 PM 20 Way less lights and overpasses. I literally take back roads to another town to shop for 6/17/2021 11:51 AM groceries so I can avoid highways 10 and 169 and the million trains that come through. Elk River is losing revenue when I do that, but my frustration level is much lower. 20 / 27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey 21 The Highway 10/101 intersection should be converted to a full clover leaf or a more modern 6/17/2021 11:18 AM configuration. The increase traffic flow is going to create more accidents at this current intersection. 22 It is disturbing that all of your options assume the person wants construction and fancy 6/17/2021 9:55 AM interchanges constructed. I don't want any construction, it's fine the way it is. I believe that this push to constructing interchanges is being pushed by construction companies and others that simply want to make a monetary profit. 23 Build interchanges to connect this segment with the 4 traffic lights west of this segment done 6/11/2021 7:54 PM about 10 years ago planning I mean. So from the lake bridge to to east city limit be amazing. Help traffic flow much better help the city like crazy. 21/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Q12 What is your zip code? (optional) RESPONSES DATE 55309 6/30/2021 9:16 AM 55330 6/30/2021 8:22 AM 55330 6/30/2021 12:21 AM 55330 6/29/2021 6:57 AM 55303 6/28/2021 9:43 PM 55330 6/28/2021 8:16 PM 55330 6/28/2021 2:58 PM 55330 6/28/2021 2:27 PM 55330 6/28/2021 1:29 PM 55330 6/28/2021 1:07 PM 55330 6/28/2021 10:56 AM 55330 6/28/2021 10:11 AM 55330 6/28/2021 10:09 AM 55330 6/28/2021 9:01 AM 55330 6/28/2021 8:46 AM 55330 6/28/2021 8:30 AM 55330 6/28/2021 8:12 AM 55330 6/28/2021 8:09 AM 55330 6/28/2021 7:59 AM 55330 6/28/2021 7:56 AM 55369 6/28/2021 7:45 AM 55330 6/28/2021 7:44 AM 55330 6/28/2021 7:43 AM 55330 6/26/2021 9:18 AM 55330 6/21/2021 10:10 PM 55309 6/21/2021 1:32 PM 55330 6/21/2021 1:25 PM 55330 6/21/2021 10:23 AM 55330 6/20/2021 4:53 PM 55330 6/20/2021 11:51 AM 55330 6/19/2021 12:45 PM 55330 6/19/2021 12:37 PM 55330 6/19/2021 7:57 AM 22 / 27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55330 55440 55330 55330 55303 55303 55398 55303 55330 55330 55330 55330 55303 55330 55330 55303 55309 55309 55330 55303 55303 55744 6/18/2021 9:23 PM 6/18/2021 1:50 PM 6/18/2021 12:51 PM 6/18/2021 10:56 AM 6/18/2021 10:43 AM 6/18/2021 10:38 AM 6/18/2021 10:23 AM 6/18/2021 9:57 AM 6/18/2021 9:21 AM 6/18/2021 9:05 AM 6/18/2021 8:22 AM 6/18/2021 8:20 AM 6/18/2021 7:59 AM 6/18/2021 7:49 AM 6/18/2021 4:50 AM 6/17/2021 7:10 PM 6/17/2021 4:41 PM 6/17/2021 12:54 PM 6/17/2021 12:51 PM 6/17/2021 12:38 PM 6/17/2021 12:03 PM 6/17/2021 11:51 AM 6/17/2021 11:35 AM 6/17/2021 11:19 AM 6/17/2021 10:45 AM 6/17/2021 10:02 AM 6/17/2021 9:56 AM 6/17/2021 9:49 AM 6/17/2021 9:42 AM 6/17/2021 9:24 AM 6/15/2021 4:12 PM 6/11/2021 7:55 PM 23 / 27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey Q13 What is your age range? (optional) 17 or younger 18 to 25 to 35 to 45 to 55 to 65 to 74, 75+ Prefer not t answe 0% 10% ANSWER CHOICES 17 or younger 18to24 25 to 34 35to44 45to54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75+ Prefer not to answer TOTAL 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 0.00% 0.00% 18.67% 37.33% 18.67% 17.33% 5.33% 1.33% 1.33% 0 0 14 28 14 13 4 1 1 75 24/27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey Q14 What is your gender? (optional) Answered:72 Skipped:10(; Male (He / Him / His) L Female (She Her / Her Non -binary (They / Them... Prefer not to answer 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Male (He / Him / His) 45.83% Female (She / Her / Hers) 43.06% Non -binary (They / Them / Theirs) 0.00% Prefer not to answer 11.11% TOTAL 33 31 0 8 72 25 / 27 Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study - Corridor Alternative Survey Q15 What race/ethnicity best describes you? (optional) American Indian /... Asian / Asianl American /... Black / African... Hispanic / Latino /... White/ Caucasian" Multiple ethnicities i Prefer not t= answe Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES American Indian / Alaskan Native 0.00% Asian / Asian American / Pacific Islander 1.47% Black / African American 0.00% Hispanic / Latino / Spanish 1.47% White / Caucasian 80.88% Multiple ethnicities 0.00% Prefer not to answer 16.18% Other (please specify) 0.00% TOTAL # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE There are no responses. 0 1 0 1 55 0 11 0 68 26 / 27 I� WAY �ROR 0 Elk River Highway Corridor Virtual Open House May 2022 10 Study 2020 2021 2022 • Review study progress • Discuss public engagement feedback • Review long-term vision • Review implementation plan • Provide next steps in the study process MAP KEY Highway 10 Rum River Bridge Replacement Construction Year: 2022 U.S. Highway 10/169 Improvement Project Construction Year: 2022 Highway 169 Redefinition Construction Year: 2022 ■Ramsey Gateway Highway 10 Project Construction Year: 2024 ■ Highway 10 Corridor Study Elk. River �� i69 The study's first public input opportunity was conducted during January of 2021 and included a recorded presentation, community survey, and focus group meetings. There were over 500 responses to the community survey. Congestion is a major issue along the study corridor and especially at 171st Avenue during the peak periods Access to and from the highway is often challenging And vehicle safety is a concern Strong support for access changes such as innovative intersections, grade -separated interchanges, and a more robust frontage roadway network. The study's second public input opportunity was conducted during June of 2021 and included a live virtual presentation, community survey, and focus group meetings. There were a total of 172 responses to the community survey. Strong support (84%) for grade-separation/interchanges Support for prioritizing improvements at Twin Lakes Road No clear choice selected for interchange location in south segment • Interchanges at Twin Lakes Road and Adams Street • Access closures elsewhere • Robust local road network to support long-term vision • Implementation plan developed for north, south and middle segments North segment South segment Middle segment • Interchange at Twin Lakes Road • Local road connections • Access closures on Highway 10 • Total Planning -level Cost: • $21.6 million (local roads) • $15 - $20 million (interchange) South Segment Long -Term Highway Mision Optional Action O (lose Access Road Construction • Future Interchange Other Segment • Other Access Note'. 1...... phases are shown keel • Interchange at Adams Street • Local road connections • Access closures on Highway 10 • Total Planning -level Cost: • $18 - $21.8 million (local roads) • $15 - $20 million (interchange) r�RRIDOR�� d Middle Segment Optional Action O (lose Access Road(onstruction Other Intersections • Local road connections • Access closures on Highway 10 • Planning -level cost: $15.3 million • Incorporate feedback received during Round 3 public input • Final study document is available on the website for review and comment • Study will conclude in June 2022 • Study partners will complete a separate analysis to determine interim traffic control options for south segment. For more information about the project, please contact: Justin Femrite Public Works Director City of Elk River jfemrite@elkrivermn.gov 763-635-1051 Molly Stewart Project Manager SRF Consulting Group mstewart@srfconsulting.com 763-452-4784 Stay involved: • Visit the Study website www.highwaylOcorridorstudy.com HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Appendix B - Traffic Analysis Supporting Data for Existing System Analysis Existing Condition (Year 2019) VISSIM Analysis US 10 Corridor and Subarea Study AM Peak Hour -Arterial WES Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Overall Delay Overall LOS v h ft R sedveh sedveh sec/veh) Northbound Thru 1,073 0 0 1.2 A 1.2 A Right 24 0 0 1.9 A 1.0 A Southbound Thru 1,999 0 0 0.7 A 0.8 A Right 15 0 0 1.2 A Eastbound Right 1 0 22 29.8 D 29.8 D Westbound Right 13 1 63 13.0 B 13.0 B Approach Movement Volume v h Average Queue ft Maximum Queue ft Movement Delay sedveh Movement LOS Approach Deay sedveh Approach LOS Overall Delay sedveh Overall LOS Northbound Left Thru 25 878 12 35 56 270 84.6 14.0 B 14.7 B Right 111 2 65 4.3 A Southbound Left 195 57 176 78.8 E 19.6 B 222 C Thru 1,739 77 552 13.6 B Right 69 1 54 3.1 A Eastbound Left 24 1 10 1 55 1 71.0 1 E 41.6 D Thru 25 9 54 60.3 E Right 72 11 91 25.3 C Westbound Left Thru 148 22 77 38 267 243 80.7 61.1 E 51.2 D Right 194 52 1 278 27.5 C Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay APProach Los Overall Delay Overall LOS v h R R sedveh sedveh sedveh Southbound Thru 1,949 0 0 1.1 A 1.1 A 1.3 A Right 7 0 0 1.0 A Eastbound Right 13 2 44 27.9 D 27.9 D Average Maximum Movement Approach Overall Approach Movement Volume Queue Queue Delay Movement LOS Delay Approach Los Delay Overall LOS (vph) (R) (ft) (sedveh) (sedveh) (sedveh) Northbound Left 10 1 19 13.6 B 0.5 A Thru 996 0 0 0.4 A Southbound Thru 1,949 0 0 1.0 A 1.0 A 1.3 A Right 12 0 0 1.4 A Eastbound Left 16 6 68 65.0 56.3 Right 6 5 67 33.1 D Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay APProach LOS Overall Delay Overall LOS v h R R sedveh sedveh ;veh) Northbound Left 0 0 A 0.6 A Thru 914 0 0 0.5 A Right 10 0 0 1.6 A Southbound Left 49 1 26 13.7 B 1.2 A Thru 1,907 0 0 0.9 A Right 0 - - 0.0 A Eastbound Left 1 1 38 71.2 35.0 D 1.5 A Thru 0 0.0 A Right 3 0 36 22.9 C Westbound Left 3 7 88 68.0 14.2 B Thru 0 0.0 A Right 93 7 84 12.5 B Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay LOS Movement Approach Delay AppLOSroach Overall Delay Overall LOS v h ft R sedveh sedveh sedveh Northbound Left 0 0.0 A 0.6 A Thru 919 0 0 0.6 A Southbound Thru 1,906 0 0 1.2 A 1.2 A 1.0 A Right 0 0.0 A Eastbound Left 0 0.0 A 24.6 C Right 1 0 20 24.6 C Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 1,079 1,073 -6 23 24 1 2,026 1,999 -27 12 15 3 1 1 0 13 13 0 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 24 25 1 888 878 -10 108 111 3 194 195 1 1,761 1,739 -22 72 69 -3 27 24 -3 23 25 2 69 72 3 141 148 7 21 22 1 187 194 7 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (VPh) 1,963 1,949 -14 8 7 -1 13 13 0 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 10 10 0 1,006 996 -10 1,965 1,949 -16 11 12 1 14 16 2 7 6 -1 Target Simulatetl Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 0 0 0 927 914 -13 8 10 2 50 49 -1 1,922 1,907 -15 0 0 0 2 1 -1 0 0 0 2 3 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 87 93 6 Target Simulatetl Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 1 0 -1 934 919 -15 1,927 1,906 -21 0 0 0 1 0 -1 1 1 0 H:\Projects\13000r13521\TratfStudy\OperatimAnalysis\VISSIM\Existing Conditions\03 MOEs\_AM Artenal MOEs.xlsx 11/24/2020 Existing Condition (Year 2019) VISSIM Analysis US 10 Corridor and Subarea Study AM Peak Hour -Arterial MOEs Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay APL LOS OS Overall Delay Overall LOS v h ft ft sedveh sec/veh sec/veh) Northbound Left 11 1 23 16.7 C 0.3 A Thru 922 0 0 0.1 A 1.5 A Southbound Thru 1,884 0 0 1.8 A 1.8 A Right 17 0 0 2.7 A Eastbound Left 4 2 50 52.4 28.5 D Right 17 2 51 22.8 C Approach Movement Volume v h Average Queue ft Maximum Queue R Movement Delay sec/veh Movement LOS Approach Dray sedveh Approach Los Overall Delay sedveh Overall LOS Northbound Left 2 0 0 25.6 D 0.2 A Thru 909 0 0 0.1 A Right 16 0 0 0.8 A Southbound Left 14 0 1 12.5 B 0.5 A 1.0 A Thru 1,882 0 0 0.4 A Right 4 0 0 0.9 A Eastbound Left 11 1 3 1 58 1 46.0 1 E 35.8 E Thru 0 0.0 A Right 9 2 55 23.3 C Westbound Left 20 4 73 43.9 E 32.4 D Thru 0 0.0 A Right 15 3 1 73 1 17.0 C Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay Approach Los Overall Delay Overall LOS v h R R sec/veh sec/veh sec/veh Northbound Thru 923 0 0 0.0 A 0.1 A Right 5 0 0 0.4 A Westbound Right 5 0 41 12.8 1 B 12.8 B Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Overall Delay Overall LOS v h ft ft sec/veh sec/veh (secNeh) Northbound Left 0 0.0 A 0.1 A Thru 926 0 0 0.1 A 0.5 A Southbound Thru 1,906 0 0 0.6 A 0.6 A Right 3 0 0 1.1 A Eastbound Left 1 0 24 30.6 D 26.5 D Right 3 0 25 25.2 D Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Overall Delay Overall LOS v h R R seciveh ea eh sec/veh) Northbound Thru 877 0 0 0.3 A 0.3 A Right 14 0 0 1.1 A Southbound Left 36 1 34 7.0 A 0.6 A 1.4 A Thru 1,870 0 0 0.5 A Westbound Left 33 7 65 59.4 32.7 D Right 51 4 67 15.4 C Note: Results are the average of five (5) simulation runs Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vPh) (vph) 10 11 1 930 922 -8 1,911 1,884 -27 17 17 0 5 4 -1 19 17 -2 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vPh) (vPh) (vPh) 3 2 -1 913 909 -4 15 16 1 15 14 -1 1,909 1,882 -27 6 4 -2 11 11 0 0 0 0 10 9 -1 22 20 -2 0 0 0 16 15 -1 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vPh) (vPh) (vPh) 925 923 -2 5 5 0 6 5 -1 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vPh) (vph) (vPh) 1 0 -1 929 926 -3 1,939 1,906 -33 2 3 1 1 1 0 2 3 1 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vPh) (vPh) (vPh) 876 877 1 13 14 1 31 36 5 1,910 1,870 40 33 33 0 54 51 -3 H:\Projects\13000\13521\TmffStudy\OperatimAnalysis\VISSIM\Existing Conditions\03 MOEs\_AM Arterial MOEs.xlsx 11/24/2020 Existing Condition (Year 2019) VISSIM Analysis US 10 Corridor and Subarea Study PM Peak Hour - Arterial WES Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay AP LOS LOS Overall Delay Overall LOS v h ft R sedveh sedveh sec/veh) Northbound Thru 2,180 0 0 1.8 A 1.8 A Right 11 0 0 1.7 A 19 A Southbound Thru 1,549 0 0 0.5 A 0.5 A Right 16 0 0 1.0 A Eastbound Right 1 0 22 35.2 E 35.2 L Westbound Right 66 17 90 40.3 E 40.3 E Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Overall Delay Overall LOS (vph) it) iftl sedveh sedveh sedveh Northbound Left 41 24 99 104.8 21.9 C Thru 1,922 159 837 21.6 C Right 182 4 89 6.6 A Southbound Left 219 75 204 92.7 23.4 Thru 1,260 47 370 12.4 B Right 71 1 59 3.4 A 287 C Eastbound I Left 39 1 29 1 93 1 133.5 73.4 E Thru 63 25 116 69.4 E Right 39 5 74 19.5 B Westbound Left 127 92 342 98.7 72.7 E Thru 22 91 363 77.5 E Right 232 110 1 391 58.0 E Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay APProach Los Overall Delay Overall LOS v h R ft sedveh sedveh sedveh Southbound Thru 1,402 0 0 0.9 A 0.9 A 1.0 A Right 23 0 0 1.0 A Eastbound Right 9 1 41 14.3 1 B 14.3 B Average Maximum Movement Approach Overall Approach Movement Volume Queue Queue Delay Movement LOS Delay Approach LOS Delay Overall LOS (vph) (R) (ft) (sedveh) (sedveh) (sedveh) Northbound Left 8 0 13 7.4 A 1.1 A Thru 2,139 0 0 1.1 A Southbound Thru 1,400 0 0 0.7 A 0.7 A 1.4 A Right 9 0 0 1.3 A Eastbound Left 13 9 80 84.7 51.3 Right 23 9 82 32.5 D Approach Movement Volume (vph) Average Queue ft Maximum Queue R Movement Delay sedveh Movement LOS Approach Delay sec/veh) APProach LOS Overall Delay �secweh) Overall LOS Northbound Left 1 0 0 13 B 1.4 A Thru 2,095 0 0 1.4 A Right 4 0 0 1.8 A Southbound Left 58 7 69 41.5 E 2.4 A Thru 1,358 0 0 0.7 A Right 3 0 0 1.5 11 Eastbound Left 3 1 37 124.0 71.1 2.5 A Thru 0 Right 3 1 39 18.1 Westbound Left Thru 5 0 11 92 112.8 0.0 A 35.0 E Right 52 11 90 27.5 D Average Maximum Movement Approach Overall Approach Movement Volume Queue Queue Delay Movement LOS Delay Approach LOS Delay Overall LOS (vph) ft R sedveh sedveh sec/veh) Northbound Left 1 0 9 17.1 C 1.6 A Thru 2,104 0 0 1.6 A Southbound Thru 1,351 0 0 0.9 A 0.9 A 1.4 A Right 2 0 0 1.4 A Eastbound Left 3 0 21 68.0 58.0 Right 1 0 27 28.1 D Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vPhl (vph) (vPh) 2,200 2,180 -20 13 11 -2 1,572 1,549 -23 13 16 3 2 1 -1 62 66 4 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vPh) (vPh) (vPh) 40 41 1 1,945 1,922 -23 183 182 -1 221 219 -2 1,285 1,260 -25 68 71 3 44 39 -5 55 63 8 42 39 -3 121 127 6 21 22 1 224 232 8 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vPh) (vPh) (vPh) 1,426 1,402 -24 22 23 1 9 9 0 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 8 8 0 2,155 2,139 -16 1,425 1,400 -25 10 9 -1 13 13 0 22 23 1 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vPh) (vPh) (vPh) 1 1 0 2,109 2,095 -14 3 4 1 63 58 -5 1,381 1,358 -23 3 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 4 5 1 0 0 0 51 52 1 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vPh) (vPh) (vPh) 1 1 0 2,111 2,104 -7 1,386 1,351 -35 2 2 0 2 3 1 2 1 -1 H:\Projects\13000r13521\TmffStudy\OperatimAnalysis\VISSIM\Existing Conditions\03 MOEs\_PM Arterial MOEs.xlsx 11/24/2020 Existing Condition (Year 2019) VISSIM Analysis US 10 Corridor and Subarea Study PM Peak Hour -Arterial MOEs Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay APL LOS OS Overall Delay Overall LOS v h ft R sec/veh sec/veh sec/veh) Northbound Left 12 0 18 8.6 A 0A A Thru 2,103 0 0 0.3 A 1.0 A Southbound Thru 1,320 0 0 1.4 A 1.4 A Right 31 0 0 2.6 A Eastbound Left 4 2 54 104.4 31.8 D Right 19 2 51 16.6 Approach Movement m v h Average Queue Queue ft Maximum Queue R Movement Delay sec/veh Movement LOS Approach Dray sec/veh Approach Los Overa ll Delay sedveh Overall LOS Northbound Left 15 0 11 17.0 C 0.6 A Thru 2,075 0 0 0.4 A Right 37 0 0 2.0 A Southbound Left 46 8 54 72.9 2.8 A 57 A Thru 1,280 0 0 0.3 21 Right 18 0 0 1.2 A Eastbound Left 74 1 20 1 82 1 202.7 1 132.8 Thru 0 0.0 Right 16 76 81 71.5 Westbound Left 18 66 144 290.7 265.1 Thru Right 0 24 61 141 0.0 1 245.9 Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay APProach Los Overall Delay Overall LOS (v h) R R sec/veh sedveh sec/veh Northbound Thru 2,128 0 0 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.1 A Right 6 0 0 0.5 A Westbound Right 2 1 29 48.4 :E 48.4 E Average Maximum Movement Approach Overall Approach Movement Volume Queue Queue Delay Movement LOS Delay Approach LOS Delay Overall LOS v h ft ft sec/veh sec/veh c/veh) Northbound Left 0 0.0 A 0.3 A Thru 2,131 0 0 0.3 A 0.4 A Southbound Thru 1,310 0 0 0.4 A 0.4 A Right 3 0 0 1.1 A Eastbound Left 1 1 24 207.7 78.8 Right 2 0 18 14.4 B Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue MovementL Delay Approach Delay ApproaGt LOS Overall Delay Overall LOS v h ft R sec/vehsec/veh sec/veh) Northbound Thru 2,094 0 0 1.01.0 A Right 44 0 0 1.8Southbound Left 71 20 104 42.72.7 A 43 A Thru 1,241 0 0 0.4Westbound Left 14 55 104 535.7171.6 Right 42 13 78 50.2 Note: Results are the average of five (5) simulation runs Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vPh) (vPh) 13 12 -1 2,108 2,103 -5 1,356 1,320 -36 32 31 -1 4 4 0 22 19 -3 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vPh) (vPh) (vPh) 12 15 3 2,081 2,075 -6 38 37 -1 50 46 A 1,311 1,280 -31 17 18 1 14 14 0 0 0 0 17 16 -1 21 18 -3 0 0 0 26 24 -2 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vPh) (vPh) (vPh) 2,128 2,128 0 7 6 -1 3 2 -1 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 1 0 -1 2,134 2,131 -3 1,346 1,310 -36 3 3 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vPh) (vPh) (vph) 2,090 2,094 4 40 44 4 75 71 -4 1,272 1,241 -31 16 14 -2 45 42 -3 H:\Projects\13000\13521\TmffStudy\OperatimAnalysis\VISSIM\Existing Conditions\03 MOEs\_PM Arterial MOEs.xlsx 11/24/2020 HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Appendix C - Detailed Evaluation Matrices Elk Rrve Hlghway> comud, study Decision 1: What is the best long-term solution to improve safety and mobility along the Highway 10 Corridor? Alteme8ve 3-1 neG.deSepe.- Evalua[lon Crllerla No B011tl Altemative Altemmtive l-Mane At-Bmtle lid, 319n11s Alte—&.2-4 -MG.d.Hybrl,(3lgnaIs+RCUTs) (11-.hange at Twln lake Road and 1 somewhere between Irwin Lake R.d and leis ea Primary Int eb.ne) (twin Lake Road and Janie ae Primary IMemeeUOns) Kelly Farm Roatl -d Alpine Drive) d,ess¢s lOte ,,0—hesand Crash types NO No P-1 v¢s Crasn CM[ per year In 2045 s132r4 $125M $84M.$—M (Crasn costsavtngs per yearCpnparM to No mMl E12SM (-$o4 MI (so 3 MI ($44M to S3.7 MI otal 2— C-1, cost(TOta12D1 ,Crash $—M s237M $—M S—M CMt Savingsl 1-s78 MI ($5 MI (s64 MI ae,,eatrocMt Ratlo N/A o ar ro o6T o w ro oaz o 36 ro e i3 —5 Ped SEd cram tre,.e— Icrasnes/year) 67 a 69.3 657 425 ro 46.s Axess Point pFrt Access a a Access Fml Axe== ads Fall Access 4 ama Axzss F u Access ama Access FxPMW Yee, 2045 rMd.Y Operat—average =MEMO =MEMO =MEW MMEMEM • dallytramC Wlum¢s) .u..n. ..w..nn.. .w..rrc.�.rn... w.v ......e. ....., n.. ... .... .. ....n„w. w....... .... ..rc,...w,nv,� s` 6P.Ed year 2045 rMdwaYOperat- 5 IdvecnMal peaknoarnaRiC vaam¢sl 0 #, „® . ,_. „�. utelSgnall: 0.95/1.14 ue(RI/RO) 0.78/2.87 ue1RVRO1-0.78/2W A14—Nee kAEMMIV r 2045 n[bseCtlOn W.me—reuty,a00 Md(N/A)XXX/X.M h Avenue(SSS) 0.32/L20 RM IaV¢ d(slgna):':'/1.23 �t A�pnue(RI/RO): G-/0.41 IaN¢Road(K.) 0../L0I 65m AvenuelRVRO1: 0.19/0.41 ampint¢rs¢Ce Slgnall: 0.36/0.41 —RampintersechOn(Slgna0: 0.34/0.45 (FHWA CAP X[Od) ry Kell, Farm AxCs IN/A)—/XXX ry w KON R,Im Axess lSlg,e)-;, / ry ¢w Hay Farm Ax e(Kur): 0.76/0.84 South-1—hange ¢¢[IS551: LOB/4.90 e¢t(Signall: 0.87/L07 sstree[(RC"0../0.% West RampintersMaM(Slgnal) 0.15/0.22 Algne IXrlv¢I5551:-5/159 Alpine IXrrvel Rl/RO): 0.25/G.': Alpine IXtv¢IRI/Rol: 0.25/O.88 ampinters M(S0-)0.13/0.28 CandOlTm�¢I Tlmes AM/PM ry/q NOdhbound-36/62 NOdhbound-3a/5.8 NOrmoound-33/3.a South—d-43/36 South—d-4.1/36 SMmbOund -34/33 rvlghway Coro Pro vlded atslgnallzed lntersecdMs P—Ed.gnallzed lnterseco0ns PraldM atsignallzM lntersecnons Prrnnded at mtercMngesand rn.¢rpasses -_-_ ped2strian/blgoleaesanatl0ns 3 m Pedestran toso—1 orstr¢ss tOSF tOSF tOSF at PEtlestrtan overpass LOSC-Fatlntercnanges(vades eased Mtmmcvolumes and signal minpJ P,Q. cee. N/A Y9-$114 M s12- $11T M 83o-$ieo M Thresholds Good Average Poor Elk Rrver Righway 10 emeder study DecIslon 2: Where should) the southern Interchange be located? Imtemh.10law3w alernkhvae ASMwhve 1 arerwuve 2 arerwwe 3 arerwhve 4 Ke91y f8tm PfBa Jams Sheet ASems Sheet Alpine DHve ImprW¢s 6shng haa N¢m la atlml CapaCd O'.Netylmp—enmmestKe Kthhe Satay monshamtl antl tlOcumentetl oemrea new mterenange, new ramps titled ram w aerea. h tl a neetl M,moolllryat safety lmprwements rs 0o h—heIn me ashngwnmoons lepelt ncipalartenasyst¢m lntaChangessh081 On ly Cpnn¢C[princlpal larvMek1lMt- LOca0le Algn¢OHv¢-Local street es E/W Local a mer penoi1-0,re an Amines arteealastl�nm FImOr¢—St Major (COmtl cenneamme mture Fllimore Srcet Exmnsion) I ¢t-Laa15[, t(COup wnn¢ctt0[h¢tumr¢ IPomntel Ai8lnor R¢lie�¢r Kexmnaetl NO. oatl Canectrvlry hehh mnaronal classifiwtia system atloptEtl 0yme Tmnsporm[ron theaor (C)ua realign han larva s[rea tome rcell yFarm Area) POtenwl M0, Cellecmr KOle [Exmnsa antlU Wm¢a Major C011ecmri )))more sree GAry 88 tO Hwy 10) , eoam antl apph-1 Wthe McMOpohmn C -1 Wnmn intemhange ist0 ce constre(fetl a expanded, me Operational The"K Ofthemamline and assocated weavmgsewasmastte mtea_ va Partal-would need maddress weigh smtron need Partal--ldneedmadmesswelghsmtronhM Partal--ldneedmaddresswaghsmtionneed hanger On the penolpalart¢Hal system 1h08ld ce spaced ata Twin lake Rw0(FUWre) Twin Lake Rw0(FUWre) Twin lake Read (F-M) Twin Lake Reed (FUWre) ACC¢ss Spaang um almiro(cenrertOcenrer). IPl[sd¢mrmin¢d apprOpdamm 15 MI les 2➢Miles 22MIles 25 Miles n intelCh-geat l¢ss - imll¢apart Or mOmry an ex-e K1 Ws'u6h 3130n/Real 3 p 13 Mlles Weigh 3[a3on/R@sl3wD oB Mlles Weigh 306 n/Reat Sh" 06 MIles WeEgh 3I I In/Reat3Wp o-4 Mlles nt¢ralange, the sat¢ Opaatpn OPthe mam roadway mustce A amMrong BOdkrenl amMmng BOakretE amatmng SDDlewle mamtamed. 3n1gSDUletel3 l Miles r l OCai Rcedways Local Roadway COnnectivdyand Conhnefty —l0. LimR¢tl —,be —ble Pam&Impem Rem0e1 0l ROKlty lmPM/ke—l— I¢g[- tet015 5t010 5t010 Remcet a hnslness PhOp— 1-10ns needed -o -s -a -3.3 -va Crossing COnsstent wim potentai 0pt— Potentlal Potential Potential Potential Canpati0ilny WOvtles00-0nsa l—Flghway—petl¢sYran/hl4 le yB. .1. Farm Part t—eReNdential P artal, mostly mdushial Pa rtal,5an¢R¢sm¢ntial 0ifry/ estinatrons elk¢a0ilM1y Continmry wim PNnn¢d laCllR yss yss Partal, would ncetlmrerocam larvisstr¢¢[[O Adams N0 (Elk Rrver �mprehensixc Plan) aignment Thresholds Good Average POOF Traffic Safety Benefit -Cost Calculation Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Reactive Project Route Highway 10 Begin RP Location US 10 and North Area District District 3/Metro End RP Proposed Work Signalized RCI Project Cost* $1,900,000 Project Service Life 20 years * exclude Right of Way from Project Cost 0.85 Fatal (K) Crashes 0.85 Serious Injury (A) Crashes 0.85 Moderate Injury (B) Crashes 0.85 Possible Injury (C) Crashes 0.85 Property Damage Only Crashes Fatal (K) Crashes Serious Injury (A) Crashes Moderate Injury (B) Crashes Possible Injury (C) Crashes Property Damage Only Crashes Begin Date 1/1/2015 Data Source MnCMAT2 Crash Severity Updated 01/14/2022 MDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION County Sherburne Miles Installation Year 2025 Traffic Growth Factor 1.3% Reference CMF Clearinghouse Crash Type All Reference Crash Type End Date All www.CMFclearinghouse.org 12/31/2019 < optional end CMF > K crashes 0 A crashes 1 B crashes 5 C crashes 8 PDO crashes 39 5 years $2,138,745 Benefit (present value) B/C Ratio = 1.13 $1,900,000 Cost Proposed project expected to reduce 2 crashes annually, i of which involving fatality or serious injury. Page 1 of 3 Updated 01/14/2022 Crash Severity Crash Cost K crashes $1,500,000 A crashes $750,000 B crashes $230,000 C crashes $120,000 PDO crashes $13,000 Link: mndot.gov/pianning/program/apoendix_a.htmI Real Discount Rate: 0.7% Traffic Growth Rate: Project Service Life: Crash Severity Crash Reduction Annual Reduction 1.3% Revised 20 years Revised Annual Benefit K crashes 0.00 0.00 $0 A crashes 0.15 0.03 $22,500 B crashes 0.75 0.15 $34,500 C crashes 1.20 0.24 $28,800 PDO crashes 5.85 1.17 $15,210 $101,010 Updated 01/14/2022 CMF / CRF DETAILS CMF ID; 9984 CONVERT A CONVENTIONAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION TO A SIGNALIZED SUPERSTREET DESCRIPTION: CONVERT A CONVENTIONAL SIGNALIZED INIERS ECTIC N TN A SIG NALI ZED SUPERSTREET [ALSO KNOWN AS A RESTRICTED CROSSING U-IURN INTERSECTIO N OR A I-NR N I NTERSECTIONI PRIOR CDNDIIION: CONVENTIONALSIGNAl. IZED INTERSECTION CATEGORY: INTERSECTION GEOMETRY STUDY: SAFETY EVALUATION OFSIGNAUZFD RESTRICTED CROSSING U-TURN INTERSECTIONS. HUMMER & RAO. 2017 1 Star Quality Rating: r. ; , i , r [VIEW SCORE DETAI LS] .................................................................................................................. Rating Points Total: 90 Value: 0.85 Adjusted Standard Error: Unadjusted Standard Error: 0.16 Crash Modification Factor [CMF[ Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) Value: 15 fThis value indicatesa decrease in crashes) Adjusted Standard Error: Unadjusted Standard Error: 16 Page 3 of 3 Traffic Safety Benefit -Cost Calculation Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Reactive Project Route Highway 10 Begin RP Location US 10 and North Area District District 3/Metro End RP Proposed Work Grade -Separated Interchange Project Cost* $15,000,000 Project Service Life 20 years * exclude Right of Way from Project Cost 0.43 Fatal (K) Crashes 0.43 Serious Injury (A) Crashes 0.43 Moderate Injury (B) Crashes 0.43 Possible Injury (C) Crashes 0.64 Property Damage Only Crashes Fatal (K) Crashes Serious Injury (A) Crashes Moderate Injury (B) Crashes Possible Injury (C) Crashes Property Damage Only Crashes Begin Date 1/1/2015 Data Source MnCMAT2 Crash Severity Updated 01/14/2022 MDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION County Sherburne Miles Installation Year 2025 Traffic Growth Factor 1.3% Reference CMF Clearinghouse Crash Type All Reference Crash Type End Date All www.CMFclearinghouse.org 12/31/2019 < optional end CMF > K crashes 0 A crashes 1 B crashes 5 C crashes 8 PDO crashes 39 5 years $7,676,359 Benefit (present value) $ B/C Ratio = 0.52 15,000,000 Cost Proposed project expected to reduce 5 crashes annually, i of which involving fatality or serious injury. Page 1 of 3 Updated 01/14/2022 Crash Severity Crash Cost K crashes $1,500,000 A crashes $750,000 B crashes $230,000 C crashes $120,000 PDO crashes $13,000 Link: mndot.gov/pianning/program/apoendix_a.htmI Real Discount Rate: 0.7% Traffic Growth Rate: Project Service Life: Crash Severity Crash Reduction Annual Reduction 1.3% Revised 20 years Revised Annual Benefit K crashes 0.00 0.00 $0 A crashes 0.57 0.11 $85,500 B crashes 2.85 0.57 $131,100 C crashes 4.56 0.91 $109,440 PDO crashes 14.04 2.81 $36,504 $362,544 „- 2 c)1 Updated 01/14/2022 CMF ID; 460 CONVERT AT -GRADE INTERSECTION INTO GRADE -SEPARATED INTERCHANGE DESCRIPTION: PRIOR (ON DIIION: NOPRIORCON0117O f51 CATEGORY: INTERCHANGE RESIGN SIUDY, REVISION OF THE HANDBOOK OF ROAD SAFETY MEASURES, ELV I K, R. AND ERK E. A. 2007 Star Quality Rating: [VIEW SCORE DETAILS] Rating Points Total: 30 Crash Modification Factor (CMF[ Value: 0,43 Adjusted Standard Error. 0.05 Unadjusted Standard Error: 0.03 Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) Value: 57 (This value indicatesa decrease in crashes) Adjusted Standard Error. 5 Unadjusted Standard Error: 3 IMF ID: 461 CONVERT AT -GRADE INTERSECTION INTO GRADE -SEPARATED INTERCHANGE DESCRIPTION: PRIOR (ONDITIO N: ND PRIDRCONDIRDNISP CAIEGURY: INTERCHANGE DESIGN STUDP, REVISION OF THE HAND BOOK OF ROAD SAFETY MEASURES, ELV I K, R. AND ERKE, A. 2007 Star Quality Rating: [VIEW SCORE DETAI IS] ...i............................................................................................................ Rating Points Total: 30 Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Value: 0.64 Adjusted Standard Error: 0.14 Unadjusted Standard Error: 0.03 Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) Value: 36 (This value indicates a decrease in crashesy Adjusted Standard Error. 14 Unadjusted Standard Error: 8 Validated CMFs with IHSDM results from previous project Traffic Safety Benefit -Cost Calculation Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Reactive Project Route Highway 10 Begin RP Location US 10 and South Area District District 3/Metro End RP Proposed Work At -Grade Signal Project Cost* $300,000 Project Service Life 20 years * exclude Right of Way from Project Cost 0.84 Fatal (K) Crashes 0.84 Serious Injury (A) Crashes 0.84 Moderate Injury (B) Crashes 0.84 Possible Injury (C) Crashes 0.84 Property Damage Only Crashes Fatal (K) Crashes Serious Injury (A) Crashes Moderate Injury (B) Crashes Possible Injury (C) Crashes Property Damage Only Crashes Begin Date 1/1/2015 Data Source MnCMAT2 Crash Severity Updated 01/14/2022 MDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION County Sherburne Miles Installation Year 2025 Traffic Growth Factor 1.3% Reference CMF Clearinghouse Crash Type All Reference Crash Type End Date All www.CMFclearinghouse.org 12/31/2019 < optional end CMF > K crashes 0 A crashes 2 B crashes 7 C crashes 12 PDO crashes 54 5 years $3,558,519 Benefit (present value) B/C Ratio = ��.87 $300,000 Cost Proposed project expected to reduce 3 crashes annually, i of which involving fatality or serious injury. Page 1 of 3 Updated 01/14/2022 Crash Severity Crash Cost K crashes $1,500,000 A crashes $750,000 B crashes $230,000 C crashes $120,000 PDO crashes $13,000 Link: mndot.gov/pianning/program/apoendix_a.htmI Real Discount Rate: 0.7% Traffic Growth Rate: Project Service Life: Crash Severity Crash Reduction Annual Reduction 1.3% Revised 20 years Revised Annual Benefit K crashes 0.00 0.00 $0 A crashes 0.32 0.06 $48,000 B crashes 1.12 0.22 $51,520 C crashes 1.92 0.38 $46,080 PDO crashes 8.64 1.73 $22,464 $168,o64 Updated 01/14/2022 CMFID: 9144 INSTALL A TRAFFIC SIGNAL DESCRIPTION; PHI ORCDNDill ON: UNSIONALIZED INTERSECTION CAIEGORY;INTERSECTIONTRAFFIC CONTROL STUDY; A FULL BAYES BEFORE -AFTER STUDYACCOUAITING FOR TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL EFFECTS: EVALUATPNG THE SAFETY IMPACT OF NEW SIGNAL IN57ALLATIONS. SACCHIA ET AL.. 2016 Star Quality Rating: 't-ri+rr01 [VIEW SCOREDETAIILSI .................................................................................................................. Rating Points Total: 120 Value: 0.84 Adjusted Standard Error: Unadjusted Standard Error: 0.054 Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) Value: 15 (This value indicates a decrease in crashes) Adjusted Standard Error: Unadjusted Standard Error: 5..4 Page 3 of 3 Traffic Safety Benefit -Cost Calculation Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Reactive Project Route Highway 10 Begin RP Location US 10 and South Area District District 3/Metro End RP Proposed Work Signalized RCI Project Cost* $1,900,000 Project Service Life 20 years * exclude Right of Way from Project Cost 0.85 Fatal (K) Crashes 0.85 Serious Injury (A) Crashes 0.85 Moderate Injury (B) Crashes 0.85 Possible Injury (C) Crashes 0.85 Property Damage Only Crashes Fatal (K) Crashes Serious Injury (A) Crashes Moderate Injury (B) Crashes Possible Injury (C) Crashes Property Damage Only Crashes Begin Date 1/1/2015 Data Source MnCMAT2 Crash Severity Updated 01/14/2022 MDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION County Sherburne Miles Installation Year 2025 Traffic Growth Factor 1.3% Reference CMF Clearinghouse Crash Type All Reference Crash Type End Date All www.CMFclearinghouse.org 12/31/2019 < optional end CMF > K crashes 0 A crashes 2 B crashes 7 C crashes 12 PDO crashes 54 5 years $3,336,112 Benefit (present value) B/C Ratio = 1.76 $1,900,000 Cost Proposed project expected to reduce 3 crashes annually, 1 of which involving fatality or serious injury. Page 1 of 3 Updated 01/14/2022 Crash Severity Crash Cost K crashes $1,500,000 A crashes $750,000 B crashes $230,000 C crashes $120,000 PDO crashes $13,000 Link: mndot.gov/pianning/program/apoendix_a.htmI Real Discount Rate: 0.7% Traffic Growth Rate: Project Service Life: Crash Severity Crash Reduction Annual Reduction 1.3% Revised 20 years Revised Annual Benefit K crashes 0.00 0.00 $0 A crashes 0.30 0.06 $45,000 B crashes 1.05 0.21 $48,300 C crashes 1.80 0.36 $43,200 PDO crashes 8.10 1.62 $21,060 $157,560 „- 2 c)1 Updated 01/14/2022 CMF / CRF DETAILS CMF ID; 9984 CONVERT A CONVENTIONAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION TO A SIGNALIZED SUPERSTREET DESCRIPTION: CONVERT A CONVENTIONAL SIGNALIZED INIERS ECTIC N TN A SIG NALI ZED SUPERSTREET [ALSO KNOWN AS A RESTRICTED CROSSING U-IURN INTERSECTIO N OR A I-NR N I NTERSECTIONI PRIOR CDNDIIION: CONVENTIONALSIGNAl. IZED INTERSECTION CATEGORY: INTERSECTION GEOMETRY STUDY: SAFETY EVALUATION OFSIGNAUZFD RESTRICTED CROSSING U-TURN INTERSECTIONS. HUMMER & RAO. 2017 1 Star Quality Rating: r. ; , i , r [VIEW SCORE DETAI LS] .................................................................................................................. Rating Points Total: 90 Value: 0.85 Adjusted Standard Error: Unadjusted Standard Error: 0.16 Crash Modification Factor [CMF[ Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) Value: 15 fThis value indicatesa decrease in crashes) Adjusted Standard Error: Unadjusted Standard Error: 16 Page 3 of 3 Traffic Safety Benefit -Cost Calculation Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Reactive Project Route Highway 10 Begin RP Location US 10 and South Area District District 3/Metro End RP Proposed Work Grade -Separated Interchange Project Cost* $15,000,000 Project Service Life 20 years * exclude Right of Way from Project Cost 0.43 Fatal (K) Crashes 0.43 Serious Injury (A) Crashes 0.43 Moderate Injury (B) Crashes 0.43 Possible Injury (C) Crashes 0.64 Property Damage Only Crashes Fatal (K) Crashes Serious Injury (A) Crashes Moderate Injury (B) Crashes Possible Injury (C) Crashes Property Damage Only Crashes Begin Date 1/1/2015 Data Source MnCMAT2 Crash Severity Updated 01/14/2022 MDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION County Sherburne Miles Installation Year 2025 Traffic Growth Factor 1.3% Reference CMF Clearinghouse Crash Type All Reference Crash Type End Date All www.CMFclearinghouse.org 12/31/2019 < optional end CMF > K crashes 0 A crashes 2 B crashes 7 C crashes 12 PDO crashes 54 5 years $12,052,940 Benefit (present value) $ B/C Ratio = 0.81 15,000,000 Cost Proposed project expected to reduce 7 crashes annually, i of which involving fatality or serious injury. Page 1 of 3 Updated 01/14/2022 Crash Severity Crash Cost K crashes $1,500,000 A crashes $750,000 B crashes $230,000 C crashes $120,000 PDO crashes $13,000 Link: mndot.gov/pianning/program/apoendix_a.htmI Real Discount Rate: 0.7% Traffic Growth Rate: Project Service Life: Crash Severity Crash Reduction Annual Reduction 1.3% Revised 20 years Revised Annual Benefit K crashes 0.00 0.00 $0 A crashes 1.14 0.23 $171,000 B crashes 3.99 0.80 $183,540 C crashes 6.84 1.37 $164,160 PDO crashes 19.44 3.89 $50,544 $569,244 „- 2 c)1 Updated 01/14/2022 CMF ID; 460 CONVERT AT -GRADE INTERSECTION INTO GRADE -SEPARATED INTERCHANGE DESCRIPTION: PRIOR (ON DIIION: NOPRIORCON0117O f51 CATEGORY: INTERCHANGE RESIGN SIUDY, REVISION OF THE HANDBOOK OF ROAD SAFETY MEASURES, ELV I K, R. AND ERK E. A. 2007 Star Quality Rating: [VIEW SCORE DETAILS] Rating Points Total: 30 Crash Modification Factor (CMF[ Value: 0,43 Adjusted Standard Error. 0.05 Unadjusted Standard Error: 0.03 Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) Value: 57 (This value indicatesa decrease in crashes) Adjusted Standard Error. 5 Unadjusted Standard Error: 3 IMF ID: 461 CONVERT AT -GRADE INTERSECTION INTO GRADE -SEPARATED INTERCHANGE DESCRIPTION: PRIOR (ONDITIO N: ND PRIDRCONDIRDNISP CAIEGURY: INTERCHANGE DESIGN STUDP, REVISION OF THE HAND BOOK OF ROAD SAFETY MEASURES, ELV I K, R. AND ERKE, A. 2007 Star Quality Rating: [VIEW SCORE DETAI IS] ...i............................................................................................................ Rating Points Total: 30 Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Value: 0.64 Adjusted Standard Error: 0.14 Unadjusted Standard Error: 0.03 Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) Value: 36 (This value indicates a decrease in crashesy Adjusted Standard Error. 14 Unadjusted Standard Error: 8 Validated CMFs with IHSDM results from previous project HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Appendix D - Traffic Analysis Supporting Data for Alternatives Analysis Year 2045 No Build Conditions VISSIM Analysis US 10 Corridor and Subarea Study AM Peak Hour -Arterial MOEs INI Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Overall Delay Overallv LOS h R R sec/veh sec/veh) sec/veh) Northbound Thru 1,440 0 0 1.5 A 1.5 A Right 26 0 0 1.9 A Southbound Thru 2,735 65 591 6.6 A 6.6 A 49 A Right 17 0 0 3.6 A Eastbound Right 1 0 22 55.0 55.0Ml Westbound Right 16 2 63 17.9 C 17.9 Approach Movement Volume (vph) Average Queue ft Maximum Queue ft Movement Delay sedveh Movement LOS Approach Delay sec/veh) Approach LOS Ovemll Delay sedveh Over LOS Northbound Left 30 14 70 79.6 E 15.7 B Thru 1,181 54 386 15.3 B Right 133 3 70 4.9 A Southbound Left 248 64 208 77.2 E 27.6 C Thru 2,390 335 1,292 23.1 C Right 95 1 70 11.4 B Eastbound Left Thru 29 27 15 10 61 57 89.1 73.7 E 62.3 E 37.5 D Right 87 26 128 49.8 D Westbound Left Thru 156 21 444 409 651 668 355.8 80.0 E 160.7 Right 253 419 688 47.1 D Approach Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay MovementDelayAPProach LOS Approach LOS Overall DelayOverell LOS ft ft sedveh sedveh sedveh) Southbound tviekM 00 7.2 0 0 7.0A 1.5 A Eastbound 4 46 47.7 E 47.1 E Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay APProach LOS Overall Delay Overall LOS (vph) R ft sedveh sec/veh sedveh Northbound Lek 12 2 27 33.0 D 0,9 A Thru 1,331 0 0 0.6 A Southbound Thru 2,625 0 0 1.4 A IA A 2.1 A Right 16 0 0 1.9 A Eastbound Left 16 21 87 175.6 164.3 Right 6 19 89 134.2 Approach Movement Volume v h Average Queue ft Maximum Queue ft Movement Delay sedveh Movement LOS Approach Delay sec/veh APProach LOS Overall Delay sedveh Ove ra ll LOS Northbound Left 0 0 A 0.8 A Thru 1,223 0 0 0.8 A Right 9 0 0 1.3 A Southbound Left 54 1 31 17.5 C 1.4 A 20 A Thru 2,574 0 0 1.1 A Right 0 - 0.0 A Eastbound Left Thru 4 0 2 41 104.7 0.0 A 77.0 Right 3 40.1EWestbound Lek Thru 4 0 ��w 10. 0.0 A 20.9 C Right 119 14 114 17.2 C us iu ana Ken Approach rarm Ka Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay APProach LOS Overall Delay z-.a sro Overall LOS (vph) ft sedveh sedveh sedveh) Northbound Left 0 0.0 A 0.8 A Thru 1,235 0 0 0.8 A Southbound Thru 2,556 0 0 1.5 A 1.5 A 13 A Ri ht 0 0.0 A Eastbound Lek 0 0.0 A 177.0 Right 1 2 22 711.0 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 1,487 1,440 A7 27 26 -1 2,777 2,735 -42 14 17 3 1 1 0 15 16 1 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 28 30 2 1,234 1,181 -53 136 133 -3 254 248 -6 2,435 2,390 -45 89 95 6 34 29 -5 25 27 2 84 87 3 177 156 -21 22 21 -1 246 253 7 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 2,686 2.627 -59 10 9 -1 15 16 1 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 12 12 0 1,382 1,331 -51 2,687 2,625 -62 14 16 2 16 16 0 8 6 -2 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 0 0 0 1,278 1,223 -55 8 9 1 66 54 -12 2,629 2,574 -55 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 4 1 0 0 0 113 119 6 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vPh) (vph) 1 0 -1 1,285 1,235 -50 2,635 2,556 -79 0 0 0 1 0 -1 1 1 0 H:\Projects\13000\13521\TraffStudy\OpemtionAnalysis\VISSIM\02_Year 2045 No Build\04 MOEs\_AM Arterial MOEs.xlsx 12/8/2021 Year 2045 No Build Conditions VISSIM Analysis US 10 Corridor and Subarea Study AM Peak Hour -Arterial MOEs INI Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Overall Delay Overall LOS (vph) ft R sedveh sec/veh) sedveh Northbound Left 11 1 21 20.6 C 0.4 A Thru 1,233 0 0 0.2 A Southbound Thru 2,546 0 0 2.2 A 2.2 A 2.0 A Right 20 0 0 3.2 A Eastbound Left 5 5 57 104.8 49.6 E Right 22 6 56 37.0 E Approach Movement Volume v h Average Queue ft Maximum Queue ft Movement Delay sedveh Movement LOS Approach Delay sec/veh) Approach LOS Overall Delay sedveh Overall LOS Northbound Left 4 0 0 19.6 C 0.3 A Thru 1,201 0 0 0.2 A Right 33 0 0 1.0 A Southbound Left 29 1 17 21.4 C 0.7 A Thru 2,532 0 0 0.5 A Right 6 0 0 1.0 A Eastbound Left Thru 12 0 1 9 69 1 91.3 0.0 1 A 68.7 29 A Right 12 7 67 46.1 E Westbound Left 36 39 130 137.3 109.1 Thru Right 0 31 37 129 0.. 76.4 A Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay Approach Los Overall Delay Overall LOS (v h) ft R sedveh (,Delay sedveh) Northbound Thru 1.232 0 0 0.0 A 0.1 A Right 5 0 0 1.1 A 0.1 A Westbound Ri ht 6 1 45 17.1 C 17.1 C Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue ent Movement Delay Movement LOS A Delay APProach LOS Overall Delay Overall LOS (vph) ft R sedveh sedveh sedveh Northbound Left 0 0.0 A 0.2 A Thru 1,236 0 0 0.2 A Southbound Thru 2,567 0 0 0.8 A 0.8 A 0.6 A Right 4 0 0 1.0 A Eastbound Left 0 0.0 A 31.4 D Right 4 1 26 31.4 D Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay APProach LOS Overall Delay Overall LOS (vph) R R sedveh sec/veh sec/veh) Northbound Thru 1,180 0 0 0.5 A 0.5 A Right 35 0 0 1.2 A 215 C Southbound Left 63 3 56 13.9 B 1.1 A Thru 2,502 0 0 0.8 A Westbound Left 41 1,177 1,074.1 791.1 Right 60 11 108 597.7 Note: Results are the average of five (5) simulation runs Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 12 11 -1 1,280 1,233 -47 2,616 2,546 -70 20 20 0 6 5 -1 23 22 -1 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 4 4 0 1,248 1,201 A7 29 33 4 29 29 0 2,603 2,532 -71 7 6 -1 13 12 -1 0 0 0 12 12 0 42 36 -6 0 0 0 31 31 0 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 1,274 1.232 -42 6 5 -1 7 6 -1 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vPh) (rah) (vPh) 1 0 -1 1,279 1,236 A3 2,654 2,567 -87 3 4 1 1 0 -1 3 4 1 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 1,175 1,180 5 36 35 -1 63 63 0 2,594 2,502 -92 88 41 A7 105 60 A5 H:\Projects\13000\13521\TraffStudy\OpemtionAnalysis\VISSIM\02_Year 2045 No Build\04 MOEs\_AM Arterial MOEs.xlsx 12/8/2021 Year 2045 No Build Conditions VISSIM Analysis US 10 Corridor and Subarea Study PM Peak Hour -Arterial MOEs INI Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Ovemll Delay Ovemll LOS (vph) ft ft sedveh sedveh sedveh Northbound Thru 2,803 0 0 2.0 A 2.0 A Right 15 0 0 2.0 A Southbound Thru 2,128 0 0 0.9 A 0.9 A 4.0 A Right 18 0 0 1.6 A Eastbound Right 1 0 22 28.5 D 28.5 D Approach m Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Overall Delay Overall LOS (vph) ft ft sedveh sec/veh) sedveh Northbound Left 46 23 113 109.3 41.6 D Thru 2,507 1,049 1,953 42.1 D Right 211 5 98 21.1 C Southbound Left 287 175 352 168.2 32.9 C Thru 1,754 70 553 12.2 B Right 85 1 55 3.6 A Eastbound Left 36 319 447 1 668.7 361 0 65.3 E Thru 58 69 171 290.9 Right 41 7 86 189.8 Westbound Left 146 647 954 367.6 277.5 Thru 20 622 924 250.7 Right 279 670 979 232.4 UJ iu arm i N[n Approach Ave Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movm eent Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Overall Delay L-.ay .,o Overall LOS (vph) ft ft sedveh sedveh sedveh) Southbound Thru 1.914 0 0 1.0 A 1.0 A Right 25 0 1.2 A Eastbound Right 13 3 47 1 37.2 37.2 E Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue MovementI Delay Approach Delay Overall Delay Overall LOS v h ft ft) sedvehsec/veh sedveh Northbound Lek 10 1 25 40.913.8Thru 2,771 240 797 13.7Southbound Thru 1,912 0 0 1.01.0 A 10.0 A Right 12 0 0 2.0Eastbound Left 11 87 175 395.0218.6 Right 20 70 156 121.6 Approach Movement Volume (vph) Average Queue ft Maximum Queue ft Movement Delay sedveh Movement LOS Approach Delay sec/veh APProach LOS Overall Delay sedveh Ova ra ll LOS Northbound Left 1 0 0 39 E 2.9 A Thru 2,719 6 88 2.8 A Right 3 0 0 6.1 A Southbound Left 75 183 331 288.8 15.0 B 10.7 E Thru 1,830 1 30 3.8 A Right 2 0 0 1.5 A Eastbound Left 2 14 56 176.0 98.8 Thru 0 0.0 A Right 3 25 66 47.3 E Westbound Left 6 142 285 365.9 182.3 Thru 0 0.0 A Right 68 118 256 1 166.1 Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay Movement LOS Approach Delay APProach LOS Overall Delay Overall LOS (vph) ft ft sedveh sedveh sedveh) Northbound Left 1 0 12 21.1 C 2.1 A Thru 2,719 0 0 2.1 A Southbound Thru 1,775 117 328 15.1 C 15.1 C 73 A Ri ht 1 0 0 1.0 A Eastbound Lek 4 3 28 75.2 64.2 Right 1 0 27 20.3 C Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 3,000 2,803 -197 15 15 0 2,153 2,128 -25 15 18 3 2 1 -1 73 71 -2 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 48 46 -2 2,666 2,507 -159 231 211 -20 294 287 -7 1,776 1,754 -22 85 85 0 56 36 -20 61 58 -3 51 41 -10 151 146 -5 22 20 -2 293 279 -14 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (rah) (vph) (vph) 1,953 1,914 -39 25 25 0 12 13 1 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 10 10 0 2,930 2,771 -159 1,953 1,912 -41 12 12 0 15 11 4 26 20 -6 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 1 1 0 2,870 2,719 -151 3 3 0 81 75 -6 1,893 1,830 -63 5 2 -3 4 2 -2 0 0 0 4 3 -1 4 6 2 0 0 0 66 68 2 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vPh) (vph) (vph) 1 1 0 2,871 2,719 -152 1,898 1,775 -123 3 1 -2 3 4 1 2 1 -1 H:\Projects\13000\13521\TraffStudy\OpemtionAnalysis\VISSIM\02_Year 2045 No Build\04 MOEs\_PM Arterial MOEs.xlsx 12/8/2021 Year 2045 No Build Conditions VISSIM Analysis US 10 Corridor and Subarea Study PM Peak Hour -Arterial MOEs INI Average Maximum Movement Approach Overall Approach Moveent m Volume Queue Queue Delay Movement LOS Delay Approach LOS Delay Overall LOS (vph) k ft) sec/veh sedveh) sec/veh) Northbound Left 9 7 41 17.5 C 0.5 A Thru 2,725 0 0 0.4 A Southbound Thru 1,543 928 1,419 122.2 121 3 Right 34 0 0 80.8 44.8 E Eastbound Left 4 28 88 210.5 73.7 Right 14 23 87 34.6 D us iu arm warns Approach su i—ana Movement st Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue nt Movement LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Overall Delay z-ry ai Overall LOS (vph) ft ft h (,Delay sedveh Northbound Left 12 17 35 1.4 A Thru 2,736 0 0 ARi ht 68 0 0 ASouthbound LeR 39 645 824 Aa 763 Thru 1,446 262 377 ERi ht 17 0 0 B Eastbound LeR 0 A 113.0 319 D Thru 0 ARight 2 104 242 Westbound Left 6 1,034 1,231 ,.5 1,476.1 Thru 0 0.0 A R ht 7 886 1,095 1,367.7 Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue Movement Delay LOS Movement Approach Delay Approach LOS Overall Delay verall OLOS LOS (v h) ft ft seGveh seGveh sedveh) Northbound Thru 2.815 0 0 0.1 A 0.1 A Right 9 0 0 0.5 A 0.2 A Approach Movement Volume Average Queue Maximum Queue MovementAA Delay Approach Delay APProachDelay LOS Overall Overall LOS v h ft R seGvehsedveh sedveh Northbound LeR 0 0.00.5 AThru 2,826 0 0 0.5Southbound Thru Ri ht 1,408 5 512 0 762 0 97.597.3 62.9 32.8 D Eastbound Lek0 0.0#DN/0! #DN/0!Ri ht 0 0.0 us iu arm Alpine ur Average Maximum Overall z-rva sto Approach Movement Volume Queue Queue Delay APProach LOSsedveh)LOS Delay Overall v h R ft) sec/veh Northbound Thru 2,814 0 0 1.7 A Ri ht 113 0 0 EDelay JemerlApproach Southbound LeR 68 793 982 73.4 1,290 0 0 25.1 DThru Westbound Left 0 518.9 Right 15 225 369 Note: Results are the average of five (5) simulation runs Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 16 9 -7 2,867 2,725 -142 1,862 1,543 -319 38 34 -4 5 4 -1 26 14 -12 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 15 12 -3 2,820 2,736 -84 72 68 -4 89 39 -50 1,780 1,446 -334 19 17 -2 16 0 -16 0 0 0 21 2 -19 40 6 -34 0 0 0 47 7 -40 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 2,903 2.815 -88 8 9 1 4 4 0 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (rah) (vph) 1 0 -1 2,910 2,826 -84 1,837 1,408 A29 4 5 1 1 0 -1 1 0 -1 Target Simulated Volume Volume Difference (vph) (vph) (vph) 2,820 2,814 -6 109 113 4 146 68 -78 1,692 1,290 A02 45 0 A5 91 15 -76 H:\Projects\13000\13521\TraffStudy\OpemtionAnalysis\VISSIM\02_Year 2045 No Build\04 MOEs\_PM Arterial MOEs.xlsx 12/8/2021 HCS7 Two -Way Stop -Control Report LEormation Site Information Analyst Collin Schroeder Intersection US 10 and 165th Ave Agency/Co. SRF Consulting Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 3/1/2021 East/West Street 165th Ave Analysis Year 2045 North/South Street US 10 Time Analyzed AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Lanes 4- Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration R R T R T R Volume (veh/h) 3 68 1280 6 2637 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 4 4 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type I Storage Left + Thru 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 6.98 6.98 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.34 3.34 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 3 72 Capacity, c (veh/h) 127 388 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.19 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.1 0.7 Control Delay (s/veh) 34.1 16.4 Level of Service (LOS) D C Approach Delay (s/veh) 34.1 16.4 Approach LOS D C Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.6 Generated: 3/1/2021 12:53:15 PM 02_165th Ave_RIRO.xtw HCS7 Two -Way Stop -Control Report LEormation Site Information Analyst Collin Schroeder Intersection US 10 and 165th Ave Agency/Co. SRF Consulting Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 3/1/2021 East/West Street 165th Ave Analysis Year 2045 North/South Street US 10 Time Analyzed PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Lanes 4- Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration R R T R T R Volume (veh/h) 4 40 2872 2 1903 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 4 4 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type I Storage Left + Thru 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 6.98 6.98 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.34 3.34 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 4 43 Capacity, c (veh/h) 234 104 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.41 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.1 1.7 Control Delay (s/veh) 20.7 61.5 Level of Service (LOS) C F Approach Delay (s/veh) 20.7 61.5 Approach LOS C F Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.6 Generated: 3/1/2021 1:04:41 PM 02_165th Ave_RIRO.xtw HCS7 Two -Way Stop -Control Report LEormation Site Information Analyst Collin Schroeder Intersection US 10 and 171st Ave Agency/Co. SRF Consulting Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 3/1/2021 East/West Street 171 st Ave Analysis Year 2045 North/South Street US 10 Time Analyzed AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Lanes 4- Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration R R T R T R Volume (veh/h) 91 212 1290 109 2672 119 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 4 4 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type I Storage Left + Thru 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 6.98 6.98 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.34 3.34 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 97 226 Capacity, c (veh/h) 123 385 v/c Ratio 0.78 0.59 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 4.6 3.6 Control Delay (s/veh) 98.3 26.7 Level of Service (LOS) F D Approach Delay (s/veh) 98.3 26.7 Approach LOS F D Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.6 Generated: 3/1/2021 12:25:10 PM 01 _171 st Ave_RI RO.xtw HCS7 Two -Way Stop -Control Report LEormation Site Information Analyst Collin Schroeder Intersection US 10 and 171st Ave Agency/Co. SRF Consulting Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 3/1/2021 East/West Street 171 st Ave Analysis Year 2045 North/South Street US 10 Time Analyzed PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Lanes 4- Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 Configuration R R T R T R Volume (veh/h) 58 307 2766 154 2038 130 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 4 4 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type I Storage Left + Thru 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 6.98 6.98 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.34 3.34 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 62 327 Capacity, c (veh/h) 209 114 v/c Ratio 0.30 2.87 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 1.2 30.6 Control Delay (s/veh) 29.3 921.9 Level of Service (LOS) D F Approach Delay (s/veh) 29.3 921.9 Approach LOS D F Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.6 Generated: 3/1/2021 12:55:50 PM 01 _171 st Ave_RI RO.xtw HCS7 Two -Way Stop -Control Report LEormation Site Information Analyst Collin Schroeder Intersection US 10 and Alpine Dr Agency/Co. SRF Consulting Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 3/1/2021 East/West Street Alpine Dr Analysis Year 2045 North/South Street US 10 Time Analyzed AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Lanes 4- Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 Configuration R T R T Volume (veh/h) 105 1171 40 2681 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 4 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No No Median Type I Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 6.98 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.34 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 112 Capacity, c (veh/h) 424 v/c Ratio 0.26 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 1.0 Control Delay (s/veh) 16.5 Level of Service (LOS) C Approach Delay (s/veh) 16.5 Approach LOS C Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.6 Generated: 3/1/2021 12:29:18 PM 03_Alpine Dr_RIROxtw HCS7 Two -Way Stop -Control Report LEormation Site Information Analyst Collin Schroeder Intersection US 10 and Alpine Dr Agency/Co. SRF Consulting Group Jurisdiction Date Performed 3/1/2021 East/West Street Alpine Dr Analysis Year 2045 North/South Street US 10 Time Analyzed PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Lanes 4- Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 Configuration R T R T Volume (veh/h) 91 2815 114 1736 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 4 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 Right Turn Channelized No No Median Type I Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 Critical Headway (sec) 6.98 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.34 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 97 Capacity, c (veh/h) 109 v/c Ratio 0.88 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 5.3 Control Delay (s/veh) 129.4 Level of Service (LOS) F Approach Delay (s/veh) 129.4 Approach LOS F Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.6 Generated: 3/1/2021 1:09:55 PM 03_Alpine Dr_RIROxtw -10 HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst Collin Schroeder Intersection US 10 and Jarvis St Agency/Co. SRF Consulting Group, Inc Jurisdiction Elk River Date Performed 4/1/2021 East/West Street Jarvis St Analysis Year 2045 North/South Street US 10 Time Analyzed AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Lanes 4- Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 Configuration R R L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 30 168 0 15 1245 31 0 92 2666 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 4 4 4 4 4 4 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type I Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 6.9 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.98 6.98 4.18 4.18 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.34 3.34 2.24 2.24 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 32 179 16 98 Capacity, c (veh/h) 124 400 126 492 v/c Ratio 0.26 0.45 0.13 0.20 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 1.0 2.2 0.4 0.7 Control Delay (s/veh) 43.8 21.1 37.7 14.1 Level of Service (LOS) E C E B Approach Delay (s/veh) 43.8 21.1 0.4 0.5 Approach LOS E C Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.6 Generated: 4/1/2021 12:49:41 PM Main Intersectionxtw -10 HCS7 Two -Way Stop General Information -Control Report Site Information Analyst Collin Schroeder Intersection US 10 and Jarvis St Agency/Co. SRF Consulting Group, Inc Jurisdiction Elk River Date Performed 4/1/2021 East/West Street Jarvis St Analysis Year 2045 North/South Street US 10 Time Analyzed AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Lanes 4- fl I It f' Y 1 t* r Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 Configuration U T T Volume (veh/h) 130 1283 2638 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 4 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.3 Critical Headway (sec) 4.42 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.6 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.61 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 138 Capacity, c (veh/h) 103 v/c Ratio 1.34 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 9.7 Control Delay (s/veh) 281.9 Level of Service (LOS) F Approach Delay (s/veh) 25.9 Approach LOS Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.6 Generated: 4/1/2021 12:51:28 PM North MUTxtw HCS7 Alternative Intersections Results Summary General Information Alternative Intersection Information Agency SRF Consulting Group, Inc Intersection Type RCUT with TWSC Analyst Collin Schroeder I Analysis Date 4/1/2021 Segment One Distance, ft 700 Jurisdiction Elk River I Duration, h 10.25 Segment Two Distance, ft 700 Intersection US 10 and Jarvis St I PHF 10.94 Arterial Direction North -South Main Intersection File Main Intersection.xtw North Crossover File North MUT.xtw South Crossover File South MUT.xtw Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Demand EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR Intersection One Demand ( v ), veh/h 130 1283 2638 Intersection Two Demand ( v ), veh/h 30 168 0 15 1245 31 0 92 2666 10 Intersection Three Demand ( v ), veh/h 1276 15 2666 (1) North Crossover J41-LU + fl'i It+Y? T� r (2) Main Intersection P"I It+Y't f'r (3) South Crossover J41 1-4U + f I I+Yt Tr'_I* Queue -to -Storage Ratio EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR Intersection One (RQ) 0.63 Intersection Two (RQ) 0.04 0.06 Intersection Three (RQ) 0.01 Alternative Intesection Results O-D O-D Movements Flow Rate (veh/h) Control Delay (s/veh) EDTT (s/veh) ETT (s/veh) LOS EBL EBR(2) + SBU(3) 16 58.0 14.7 72.7 E EBT EBR(2) + SBU(3) 0 EBR EBR(2) 16 43.8 -- 43.8 D WBL WBR(2) + NBU(1) 138 303.0 14.7 317.7 F WBT WBR(2) + NBU(1) 0 WBR WBR(2) 40 21.1 -- 21.1 C NBL NBL(2) 16 37.7 -- 37.7 D NBT -- 1309 0.0 -- 0.0 A NBR -- 33 0.0 -- 0.0 A SBL SBL(2) 98 14.1 -- 14.1 B SBT -- 2698 0.0 -- 0.0 A SBR -- 11 0.0 -- 0.0 A Overall Results EB WB NB SB Approach ETT, s/veh I LOS 58.3 E 1 251.0 F 0.4 A 0.5 A Intersection ETT, s/veh I LOS 11.1 F Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.6 Generated: 4/1/2021 12:50:17 PM Main Intersectionxtw -10 HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst Collin Schroeder Intersection US 10 and Jarvis St Agency/Co. SRF Consulting Group, Inc Jurisdiction Elk River Date Performed 4/1/2021 East/West Street Jarvis St Analysis Year 2045 North/South Street US 10 Time Analyzed AM Peak Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Lanes 4- Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 Configuration T U T Volume (veh/h) 1276 15 2666 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 4 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.3 Critical Headway (sec) 4.42 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.6 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.61 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 16 Capacity, c (veh/h) 409 v/c Ratio 0.04 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh) 14.1 Level of Service (LOS) B Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.1 Approach LOS Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.6 Generated: 4/1/2021 12:52:52 PM South MUTxtw -10 HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst Collin Schroeder Intersection US 10 and Jarvis St Agency/Co. SRF Consulting Group, Inc Jurisdiction Elk River Date Performed 4/1/2021 East/West Street Jarvis St Analysis Year 2045 North/South Street US 10 Time Analyzed PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Lanes 4- Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 Configuration R R L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 40 136 0 29 2802 75 0 235 1629 23 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 4 4 4 4 4 4 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Right Turn Channelized No No No No Median Type I Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 6.9 6.9 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 6.98 6.98 4.18 4.18 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.3 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 3.34 3.34 2.24 2.24 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 43 145 31 250 Capacity, c (veh/h) 292 111 343 103 v/c Ratio 0.15 1.31 0.09 2.43 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.5 9.8 0.3 22.5 Control Delay (s/veh) 19.4 261.7 16.5 737.9 Level of Service (LOS) C F C F Approach Delay (s/veh) 19.4 261.7 0.2 91.9 Approach LOS C F Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.6 Generated: 4/1/2021 1:08:51 PM Main Intersectionxtw -10 HCS7 Two -Way Stop General Information -Control Report Site Information Analyst Collin Schroeder Intersection US 10 and Jarvis St Agency/Co. SRF Consulting Group, Inc Jurisdiction Elk River Date Performed 4/1/2021 East/West Street Jarvis St Analysis Year 2045 North/South Street US 10 Time Analyzed PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Lanes 4- fl I It f' Y 1 t* r Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 Configuration U T T Volume (veh/h) 85 2871 1887 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 4 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.3 Critical Headway (sec) 4.42 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.6 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.61 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 90 Capacity, c (veh/h) 223 v/c Ratio 0.41 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 1.8 Control Delay (s/veh) 31.8 Level of Service (LOS) D Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.9 Approach LOS Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.6 Generated: 4/1/2021 1:10:04 PM North MUTxtw HCS7 Alternative Intersections Results Summary General Information Alternative Intersection Information Agency SRF Consulting Group, Inc Intersection Type RCUT with TWSC Analyst Collin Schroeder I Analysis Date 4/1/2021 Segment One Distance, ft 700 Jurisdiction Elk River I Duration, h 10.25 Segment Two Distance, ft 700 Intersection US 10 and Jarvis St I PHF 10.94 Arterial Direction North -South Main Intersection File Main Intersection.xtw North Crossover File North MUT.xtw South Crossover File South MUT.xtw Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Demand EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR Intersection One Demand ( v ), veh/h 85 2871 1887 Intersection Two Demand ( v ), veh/h 40 136 0 29 2802 75 0 235 1629 23 Intersection Three Demand ( v ), veh/h 2906 18 1736 (1) North Crossover J 4 1- L U � 4 (2) Main Intersection W_ (3) South Crossover # Queue -to -Storage Ratio EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR Intersection One (RQ) 0.12 Intersection Two (RQ) 0.03 1.94 Intersection Three (RQ) 0.06 Alternative Intesection Results O-D O-D Movements Flow Rate (veh/h) Control Delay (s/veh) EDTT (s/veh) ETT (s/veh) LOS EBL EBR(2) + SBU(3) 19 19.4 14.7 34.1 C EBT EBR(2) + SBU(3) 0 EBR EBR(2) 23 19.4 -- 19.4 B WBL WBR(2) + NBU(1) 90 261.7 14.7 276.4 F WBT WBR(2) + NBU(1) 0 WBR WBR(2) 54 261.7 -- 261.7 F NBL NBL(2) 31 16.5 -- 16.5 B NBT -- 2981 0.0 -- 0.0 A NBR -- 80 0.0 -- 0.0 A SBL SBL(2) 250 737.9 -- 737.9 F SBT -- 1733 0.0 -- 0.0 A SBR -- 24 0.0 -- 0.0 A Overall Results EB WB NB SB Approach ETT, s/veh I LOS 26.1 C 270.9 F 0.2 A 91.9 F Intersection ETT, s/veh I LOS 42.6 F Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.6 Generated: 4/1/2021 1:09:41 PM Main Intersectionxtw -10 HCS7 General Information Two -Way Stop -Control Report Site Information Analyst Collin Schroeder Intersection US 10 and Jarvis St Agency/Co. SRF Consulting Group, Inc Jurisdiction Elk River Date Performed 4/1/2021 East/West Street Jarvis St Analysis Year 2045 North/South Street US 10 Time Analyzed PM Peak Peak Hour Factor 0.94 Intersection Orientation North -South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Lanes 4- Major Street: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1 U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 Configuration T U T Volume (veh/h) 2906 18 1736 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 4 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%) Right Turn Channelized Median Type I Storage Left Only 1 Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec) 4.3 Critical Headway (sec) 4.42 Base Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.6 Follow -Up Headway (sec) 2.61 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 19 Capacity, c (veh/h) 78 v/c Ratio 0.25 95% Queue Length, Q95 (veh) 0.9 Control Delay (s/veh) 65.8 Level of Service (LOS) F Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.7 Approach LOS Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM TWSC Version 7.6 Generated: 4/1/2021 1:10:24 PM South MUTxtw ReportHCS7 Freeway Facilities Project Information Analyst Date 4/9/2021 Agency SRF Consulting Group Inc. Analysis Year 2045 Jurisdiction Northbound US 10 Time Period Analyzed AM Peak Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/In 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/In 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 9 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Facility Segment Data No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Basic Basic NB US 10 1000 2 2 Diverge Diverge Adams Off -Ramp 1000 2 3 Basic Basic NB US 10 2300 2 4 Merge Merge Adams On -Ramp 1500 2 5 Basic Basic NB US 10 6000 2 6 Diverge Diverge Twin Lakes Off -Ramp 1500 2 7 Basic Basic NB US 10 3000 2 8 Merge Merge Twin Lakes On -Ramp 1500 2 9 Basic Basic NB US 10 1500 2 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Basic Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) 1 0.94 0.962 1339 4800 0.28 70.0 9.6 A Segment 2: Diverge Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.94 0.94 0.962 0.962 1339 98 4800 2000 0.28 0.05 57.8 57.8 11.6 13.1 B Segment 3: Basic Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) 1 0.94 0.962 1241 4800 0.26 70.0 8.9 A Segment 4: Merge Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.94 0.94 0.962 0.962 1421 180 4800 2000 0.30 0.09 61.7 1 61.7 11.5 12.8 B Segment 5: Basic Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) 1 0.94 0.962 1421 4800 0.30 70.0 10.1 A Segment 6: Diverge Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.94 0.94 0.962 0.962 1421 233 4800 1 2000 0.30 0.12 57.4 57.4 12.4 13.8 B Segment 7: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/In) LOS 1 0.94 0.962 1188 4800 0.25 70.0 8.5 A Segment 8: Merge Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.94 0.94 0.962 0.962 1661 473 4800 2000 0.35 0.24 61.6 61.6 13.5 14.5 B Segment 9: Basic Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) 1 0.94 0.962 1661 4800 0.35 70.0 11.9 B Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/In Density, veh/mi/In Travel Time, min LOS 1 66.6 10.5 10.1 3.3 A Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 66.6 Density, veh/mi/In 10.1 Average Travel Time, min 3.3 Density, pc/mi/In 10.5 Volume Distribution 2000- aj 1500- o • • 1000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Segment s E a) a) M- Ln Speed Distribution 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Segment 1 Density Distribution 10or _Q Ln a) n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Segment TP1 • Speed > 60 . 50 < Speed <_ 60 O 40 < Speed <_ 50 • 30 < Speed <_ 40 • 20 < Speed <_ 30 • Speed <_ 20 • Density <_ 11 . 11 < Density <_ 18 O 18 < Density <_ 26 • 26 < Density <_ 35 • 35 < Density <_ 45 • Density > 45 Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM Freeways Version 7.6 Generated: 04/09/2021 09:02:05 NB AM.xuf ReportHCS7 Freeway Facilities Project Information Analyst Date 4/9/2021 Agency SRF Consulting Group Inc. Analysis Year 2045 Jurisdiction Southbound US 10 Time Period Analyzed AM Peak Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/In 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/In 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 9 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Facility Segment Data No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Basic Basic SB US 10 1500 2 2 Diverge Diverge Twin Lakes Off -Ramp 1500 2 3 Basic Basic SB US 10 3000 2 4 Merge Merge Twin Lakes On -Ramp 1500 2 5 Basic Basic SB US 10 6000 2 6 Diverge Diverge Adams Off -Ramp 1500 2 7 Basic Basic SB US 10 2300 2 8 Merge Merge Adams On -Ramp 1000 2 9 Basic Basic SB US 10 1000 2 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Basic Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) 1 0.94 0.962 3086 4800 0.64 68.6 22.5 C Segment 2: Diverge Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.94 0.94 0.962 0.962 3086 494 4800 2000 0.64 0.25 56.8 56.8 27.2 28.1 D Segment 3: Basic Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) 1 0.94 0.962 2592 4800 0.54 69.9 18.5 C Segment 4: Merge Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.94 0.94 0.962 0.962 2915 323 4800 2000 0.61 0.16 60.2 1 60.2 24.2 24.4 C Segment 5: Basic Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) 1 0.94 0.962 2915 4800 0.61 69.2 21.1 C Segment 6: Diverge Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.94 0.94 0.962 0.962 2915 135 4800 1 2000 0.61 0.07 57.7 57.7 25.3 26.6 C Segment 7: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/In) LOS 1 0.94 0.962 2780 4800 0.58 69.6 20.0 C Segment 8: Merge Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.94 0.94 0.962 0.962 2966 186 4800 2000 0.62 0.09 60.1 60.1 24.7 24.8E 4.8 C Segment 9: Basic Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) 1 0.94 0.962 2966 4800 0.62 69.1 21.5 C Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/In Density, veh/mi/In Travel Time, min LOS 1 65.8 21.9 21.1 3.3 C Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 65.8 Density, veh/mi/In 21.1 Average Travel Time, min 3.3 Density, pc/mi/In 21.9 Volume Distribution 3 500- U • aj 3000- • >° • 2500 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Segment TP1 — Speed Distribution 70- O 65- • Speed > 60 • 50 < Speed <_ 60 aa) O 40 < Speed <_ 50 M 60- 4030 < Speed <_ 40 • 20 < Speed <_ 30 • Speed <_ 20 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Segment Density Distribution 30- c 2 n • Density <_ 11 • 11 < Density <_ 18 O 18 < Density <_ 26 20 • 26 < Density <_ 35 c a) • 35 < Density <_ 45 • Density > 45 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Segment TP1 Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM Freeways Version 7.6 Generated: 04/09/2021 09:24:01 SB_AM.xuf US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Alternative 3 - Grade Separated: Interchange Analysis Interchange Type North Area Interchange - Cap-X: Max VIC South Area Interchange - Cap-X: Max VIC AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour West Ramp Intersection East Ramp Intersection West Ramp Intersection East Ramp Intersection West Ramp Intersection East Ramp Intersection West Ramp Intersection East Ramp Intersection Traditional Diamond 0.36 0.34 0.41 0.45 0.15 0.13 0.22 0.28 Partial Cloverleaf - NW/SE Loops 0.24 0.14 0.31 0.14 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.07 Partial Cloverleaf - NE/SW Loops 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 Displaced Left -Turn 0.23 0.31 0.28 0.40 0.07 0.13 0.16 0.25 Diverging Diamond 0.24 0.32 0.31 0.42 0.07 0.13 0.16 0.26 Single Point 0.34 0.42 0.14 0.26 ReportHCS7 Freeway Facilities Project Information Analyst Date 4/9/2021 Agency SRF Consulting Group Inc. Analysis Year 2045 Jurisdiction Northbound US 10 Time Period Analyzed PM Peak Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/In 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/In 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 9 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Facility Segment Data No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Basic Basic NB US 10 1000 2 2 Diverge Diverge Adams Off -Ramp 1000 2 3 Basic Basic NB US 10 2300 2 4 Merge Merge Adams On -Ramp 1500 2 5 Basic Basic NB US 10 6000 2 6 Diverge Diverge Twin Lakes Off -Ramp 1500 2 7 Basic Basic NB US 10 3000 2 8 Merge Merge Twin Lakes On -Ramp 1500 2 9 Basic Basic NB US 10 1500 2 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Basic Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) 1 0.94 0.962 3239 4800 0.67 68.0 23.8 C Segment 2: Diverge Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.94 0.94 0.962 0.962 3239 244 4800 2000 0.67 0.12 57.4 57.4 28.2 29.4 D Segment 3: Basic Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) 1 0.94 0.962 2995 4800 0.62 69.0 21.7 C Segment 4: Merge Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.94 0.94 0.962 0.962 3176 181 4800 2000 0.66 0.09 59.6 1 59.6 26.6 26.5 C Segment 5: Basic Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) 1 0.94 0.962 3176 4800 0.66 68.3 23.3 C Segment 6: Diverge Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.94 0.94 0.962 0.962 3176 342 4800 1 2000 0.66 0.17 57.1 57.1 27.8 28.9 D Segment 7: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/In) LOS 1 0.94 0.962 2834 4800 0.59 69.5 20.4 C Segment 8: Merge Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.94 0.94 0.962 0.962 3398 564 4800 2000 0.71 0.28 58.9 58.9 28.8 28.0 C Segment 9: Basic Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) 1 0.94 0.962 3398 4800 0.71 67.1 25.3 C Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/In Density, veh/mi/In Travel Time, min LOS 1 65.1 24.1 23.2 3.4 C Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 65.1 Density, veh/mi/In 23.2 Average Travel Time, min 3.4 Density, pc/mi/In 24.1 Volume Distribution 3 500- • v aj 3000- 0 2500 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Segment s E a) a) Ln Speed Distribution 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Segment • Speed > 60 • 50 < Speed <_ 60 O 40 < Speed <_ 50 • 30 < Speed <_ 40 • 20 < Speed <_ 30 • Speed <_ 20 Density Distribution 30- O ZQ O c • Density <_ 11 `\' 25- • 11 < Density <_ 18 O¢ O 18 < Density <_ 26 Ln O • 26 < Density <_ 35 c • 35 < Density <_ 45 • Density > 45 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Segment TP1 Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM Freeways Version 7.6 Generated: 04/09/2021 09:11:09 NB_PM.xuf ReportHCS7 Freeway Facilities Project Information Analyst Date 4/9/2021 Agency SRF Consulting Group Inc. Analysis Year 2045 Jurisdiction Southbound US 10 Time Period Analyzed PM Peak Project Description US 10 Elk River Corridor and Subarea Study Facility Global Input Jam Density, pc/mi/In 190.0 Density at Capacity, pc/mi/In 45.0 Queue Discharge Capacity Drop, % 7 Total Segments 9 Total Time Periods 1 Time Period Duration, min 15 Facility Segment Data No. Coded Analyzed Name Length, ft Lanes 1 Basic Basic SB US 10 1500 2 2 Diverge Diverge Twin Lakes Off -Ramp 1500 2 3 Basic Basic SB US 10 3000 2 4 Merge Merge Twin Lakes On -Ramp 1500 2 5 Basic Basic SB US 10 6000 2 6 Diverge Diverge Adams Off -Ramp 1500 2 7 Basic Basic SB US 10 2300 2 8 Merge Merge Adams On -Ramp 1000 2 9 Basic Basic SB US 10 1000 2 Facility Segment Data Segment 1: Basic Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) 1 0.94 0.962 2397 4800 0.50 70.0 17.1 B Segment 2: Diverge Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.94 0.94 0.962 0.962 2397 575 4800 2000 0.50 0.29 56.6 56.6 21.2 22.2 C Segment 3: Basic Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) 1 0.94 0.962 1822 4800 0.38 70.0 13.0 B Segment 4: Merge Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.94 0.94 0.962 0.962 2101 279 4800 2000 0.44 0.14 61.3 1 61.3 17.1 18.0 B Segment 5: Basic Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) 1 0.94 0.962 2101 4800 0.44 70.0 15.0 B Segment 6: Diverge Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.94 0.94 0.962 0.962 2101 327 4800 1 2000 0.44 0.16 57.2 57.2 18.4 19.6 B Segment 7: Basic Time Period PHF fHV Flow Rate (pc/h) Capacity (pc/h) d/c Ratio Speed (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/In) LOS 1 0.94 0.962 1774 4800 0.37 70.0 12.7 B Segment 8: Merge Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) F R F R Freeway Ramp Freeway Ramp F R F R Freeway Ramp 1 0.94 0.94 0.962 0.962 1921 147 4800 2000 0.40 0.07 61.4 61.4 15.6 1 6.7 B Segment 9: Basic Time PHF fHV Flow Rate Capacity d/c Speed Density LOS Period (pc/h) (pc/h) Ratio (mi/h) (pc/mi/In) 1 0.94 0.962 1921 4800 0.40 70.0 13.7 B Facility Time Period Results T Speed, mi/h Density, pc/mi/In Density, veh/mi/In Travel Time, min LOS 1 66.2 15.5 14.9 3.3 B Facility Overall Results Space Mean Speed, mi/h 66.2 Density, veh/mi/In 14.9 Average Travel Time, min 3.3 Density, pc/mi/In 15.5 Volume Distribution 2500- • U _Q • aj 2000- 0 1500 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Segment Speed Distribution �0 65- • Speed > 60 E • 50 < Speed <_ 60 O 40 < Speed <_ 50 � 60- • 30 < Speed <_ 40 • 20 < Speed <_ 30 • Speed <_ 20 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Segment Density Distribution 25- c 20 Z4 • Density <_ 11 V • 11 < Density <_ 18 O 18 < Density <_ 26 Ln 15— • 26 < Density <_ 35 c a) • 35 < Density <_ 45 • Density > 45 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Segment TP1 Copyright © 2021 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCSM Freeways Version 7.6 Generated: 04/09/2021 09:26:25 SB_PM.xuf HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY - FINAL REPORT Appendix E - Concept Layouts and Cost Estimates Grade -Separated North Segment Alternatives Standard Diamond Button Hook �s '40 r mond l Partial Cloverleaf US 169 Split High T W NO .� If \1 171" Avenue ` i 1 Twin Lakes Road Split High T Kelly Farm Road Adams Street Alpine Drive Grade -Separated �41 %NW�'° Alternative #1- Kelly Farm Road Area Alignment Grade -Separated � j,,WA ° Alternative #2- Jarvis Street/Cleveland Street Alignment Standard Diamond AL O Grade -Separated � j,,WA ° Alternative #3- Adams Street Alignment Standard Diamond Grade -Separated �41 %NW�'° Alternative #4- Alpine Drive Alignment "CONVERT TURN LANE STRIPING TO SHO/ULDE R[ EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY i I'SRF Elk River Highway 10 Corridor North Segment- Phase 1 sae a Elk Rlver, MN 9IC I']1� \4 LEGEND PAVED ROADWAY _ RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKEWAYS _ OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS PHASE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY CL OSEO ENTRANCE CLOSED 173RD AVE NW — EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY CONVERT TURN LANE STRIPING TO SHOULDER i Figure 1 LEGEND PAVED ROADWAY RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKEWAYS OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS PHASE CONSTRUCTION OPROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY - PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY CLOSED ENTRANCE CLOSED FSRF Elk River Highway 10 Corridor North Segment - Phase 1 Job 413521 Elk River, MN M0021 0 loo 200 SCALE IN FEET 165TH AVE NW CEO SF, O i Figure 2 LEGEND PAVED ROADWAY _ RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS ®� BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKEWAYS \ - _ OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION •� PREVIOUS PHASE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING RIGHT OF NAY PROPOSED RIGHT OF NAY / CLOSED ENTRANCE CLOSED _ CLOSED to CLOSED \ - CLOSED - - N a a YALE ST NW `JRF Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study North Segment - Phase 2 Figure 3 sae #1 Elk River, MN 9ltll']1i 3 2 z VANCE ST NW CLOSED 11CLOSED o �\ m RQNT AGE RN F YALE E s Y4 CLOSED I �¢ I'SRF Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study North Segment- Phase 3 (3rd Lane Option) sae #1 Elk Rlver, MN 9ltll']1i vI LEGEND PAVED ROADWAY _ RAISED MEDIANS S CURBS _ BITUMINOUS TRAILS 4 BIKEWAYS _ OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION PREVIOUS PHASE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY CLOSED ENTRANCE CLOSED �-- Figure 4 CSRFElk River Highway 10 Corridor Study North Segment - Phase 4 Figure 5 loe413521 Elk River, NIN s, sizan .... .,�. F =.1 SEE LEGEND Mp1 CHLSNE \ \ � PAVED ROADWAY \ RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS _ BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKEWAYS ® - er� OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION .t PREVIOUS PHASE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL \ EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL _r EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY /f \ FUTURE INTERCHANGE -_- PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY \ CLOSED ENTRANCE CLOSED g0- CLOSED a E \ g P E \FS \ r �SS'RF Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study North Segment- Phase 4 (Interchange Option A) Figure 6 Job *135z1 Elk River, MN 91V-1 �SS'RF Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study North Segment- Phase 4 (Interchange Option B) Figure 7 Job 913521 Elk River, MN 91V-1 Nay 10 Interstate Correction ed for Grade -Separated Freeway pieted when interchange is tructed) 156TH AVE / 10 LEGEND PAVED ROADWAY _ RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS _ BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKEWAYS _ OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION _ PREVIOUS PHASE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING Tfl AFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY CLOSED ENTRANCE CLOSED I'SRF Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Figure 8 South Segment - Phase IA i esaaz Elk River, MN LEGEND PAVED ROADWAY _ RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS _ BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKEWAYS _ OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION _ PREVIOUS PHASE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED Tfl AFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY CLOSED ENTRANCE CLOSED I'SRF Elk River Highway 10 Corridor South Segment - Phase 1 B i esa a z Elk RI,F,, MN L 7 J o ]56TH AVE --- CLOSED ' I CLOSED --- �' Figure 9 LEGEND PAVED ROADWAY _ RAISED MEDIANS 8. CURBS _ BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKEWAYS _ OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION _ PREVIOUS PHASE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL --- EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY CLOSED ENTRANCE CLOSED „156TH AVE c� �1 N N Lei CLOSED Yi 7 S . f! - - - - - CL-� 11. 1. `JRF Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study South Segment - Phase 2A Figure 10 v eaaa Elk Rl—,MN LEGEND PAVED ROADWAY _ RAI5ED NEDI ANS & CURBS _ BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKEMAYS _ OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION _ PREVIOUS PHASE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY [LOSED ENTRANCE CLOSED A 156TH AVE I I 0 oa zoa i CLOSE 0 —[ OSED 1-1 SED 1 Q CLOSED 5 F!� `JRF Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study South Segment - Phase 2B Figure 11 i esaaz Elk Rl—,MN LEGEND PAVED ROADWAY _ RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS _ BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKEWAYS _ OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION _ PREVIOUS PHASE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL --- EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY CLOSED ENTRANCE CLOSED aoseD REMOVE TRAIL PL ACEMENT—\, FROM PHASE 1 I� I'SRF Elk River Highway 10 Corridor South Segment - Phase 3 i esaaz Elk Rl—,MN c�esED Figure 12 LEGEND PAVED ROADWAY _ RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS - BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKEWAYS _ OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION - PREVIOUS PHASE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL --- FXT;TING RIGHT OF WAY -- - PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY CLOSED ENTRANCE CLOSED 11 `JRF Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study L, South Segment- Phase 4A (Interchange Option) Figure 13 Job , Elk River, MN 111912022 3 T) LEGEND PAVED ROADWAY RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKEWAYS OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION _ PREVIOUS PHASE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL --- EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY CL� ENTRANCE CLOSED h UIUKt INItKI,HANUt -- - Z_ #40V Q ti P i `JRF Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study L, South Segment- Phase 4B (Interchange Option) Figure 14 lob : Elk River, MN vlsizozz m LEGEND PAVED ROADWAY _ RAISED MEDIANS 4 CURBS _ BITUMINOUS TRAILS & eIKE.A11 _ OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION _ PREVIOUS PHASE CONSTRUCTION ® PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY CLOSED ENTRANCE CLOSED `JRF Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study South Segment - Phase 4 Figure 15 i esaaz Elk Rl—,MN T / r � \x/ [LOBED aosED _ /IU aosED � = _ _ CLOSED CLOSED --- _ CLOSED 90 LEGEND w �2� PAVED ROADWAY m L� RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS N BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKENAYS - I OPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION ti CLOSED j __ -�— PREVIOUS PHASE CONSTRUCTION m _ CLOSED I1 "- / PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ]Q EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL CLOSED n EXISTING RIGHT OF NAY --- --- \\ ,, - PROPOSED RIGHT OF MAY ENTRANCE CLOSED `JRF Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study Middle Segment Figure 16 sae#1 Elk Rl—,MN 1119i - SRF Comm No 13521 PRINTED: 9/8/2021 850 PM H:\Projects\13000\13521\Design\Cost Estimates\Local Road Improvements\13521_North_Phase 1.xlsx ELK RIVER HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY C North Segment - Phase 1 IS'R1 Concept Cost Estimate (based upon 2020 bid price information) Prepared By: SRF Consulting Group, Inc., September 3, 2021 Figure 1 Figure 2 TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT PAVING AND GRADING COSTS GrP 1 a 2106 Excavation - common & sub rade cu. vd. 10.00M30 38.000 1,300 13.000 5.100 51,000 GrP 3a Mainline Pavement 1 s d. 35.0078 575 750 26 250 2 995 104 825 GrP 4a Concrete Walk / Trail / Median 1 s d. 75.0012 375 165 12 375 r oncrete Curban utter in. . Grp 8a Removals - Pavement s d. 6.0021 780 2 670 17 220 6 500 39 000 SUBTOTAL PAVING AND GRADING COSTS: 24,215 $71,470 $295,685 DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL Dr 5 Draina e 30% 68 000 22 000 90 000 Dr 7 Turf Establishment & Erosion Control 10% 23 000 8 000 31 000 SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL $91,0001 1 $30,000 11 1 $121,000 SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS SGN 1 Mainline Si nin C&D mile 35,000 0.45 15,750 0.32 11,200 0.77 26,950 ain ine nin mi e SUBTOTAL SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS: $18,0001 1 $12,800 11 $30,800 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: 1 $333,2151 1 $114,27011 1 $447,485 MISCELLANEOUS COSTS M 1 Mobilization 5 % 1 1 17 0001 6 000 $23,000 on Quantiflea vlmor terns M 7 I I emoorary Pavement & Draina e I I 5 11 1 517 000 6 000 M 8 Traffic Control 3 % 10 000 4 000 �$150,000 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS: $111,000 $39,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS without Contingency: $444,215 $153,270 $597,485 1 Contingency or "risK' 30% $134,000 $46,000 $180,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS PLUS CONTINGENCY: $578,2151 $199,270 $777,485 OTHER PROJECT COSTS: DESIGN ENG. & CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. Lump Sum 1 20% $116,0001 1 $40,000 $156,000 SUBTOTAL OTHER PROJECT COSTS $116,0001 1 $40,000 $156,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $694,215 1 1 $239,270 $933,485 NOTE: (1) Includes aggregate base class 5. SRF Comm No 13521 PRINTED: 9/3/2021 8:45 PM H:\Projects\13000\13521\Design\Cost Estimates\Local Road Improvements\13521_North_Phase 2.xlsx ELK RIVER HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY IS'RF North Segment - Phase 2 Concept Cost Estimate (based upon 2020 bid price information) Prepared By: SRF Consulting Group, Inc., September 3, 2021 Figure 3 TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT EST. QUANTITY EST, AMOUNT PAVING AND GRADING COSTS GrP 1a 2106 Excavation - common & sub rade cu. vd. 10.00 17.400 174.000 17,400 174.000 rp Granular Subarade cu. vd. 15.00 14 000 210 UOU 14 000 GrP 3a Mainline Pavement 1 sa. vd. 35.00 10 430 365 050 10 430 365 O50 r Bituminous a rails . d. GrP 4c ADA Pedestrian Curb Ram each 1800.00 5 9 000 5 9 000 GrP 5 Concrete Curb and Gutter lin. ft. 27.00 4 830 130 410 4 830 130 410 r a Removals - Pavement sa. vd. SUBTOTAL PAVING AND GRADING COSTS: $1,066,750 $1,066,750 DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL Dr 5 lDrainaae I 1 30% 1 321 000 302 000 Dr 7 u sta is ment rosion -ControlZ�T SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL $428,000 $428,000 SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS SGN 1 Mainline Si nin C&D mile 1 35,00011 0.75 $26,250 0.75 26 250 SG N 2 Mainline Stri in mile 5 000 0.75 3 750 Q. 3 750 SUBTOTAL SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS: $30,000 $30,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $1,524,750 $1,524,750 MISCELLANEOUS COSTS o i ¢anon77 M 2 Non uantitied Minor Items 20% 305 000 305 000 M 7 Tem ora Pavement & Drainage 5°� 77 000 77 000 ra is Control SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS: $505,000 $505,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS without Contingency: $2,029,750 1 $2,029,750 1 lContingency or "risk" 1 1 30% 1 $609,0001 $609,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS PLUS CONTINGENCY: $2,638,750 1 $2,638,750 OTHER PROJECT COSTS: DESIGN ENG. & CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. I Lump Sum 1 20% $528,0001 $528,000 SUBTOTAL OTHER PROJECT COSTS 1 1 $528,0001 1$528,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $3,166,750 1 $3,166,750 NOTE: (1) Includes aggregate base class 5. SRF Comm No 13521 PRINTED: 9/8/2021 8:57 PM H:\Projects\13000\13521\Design\Cost Estimates\Local Road Improvements\13521_North_Phase 3.xlsx Irf� ELK RIVER HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY North Segment - Phase 3 Concept Cost Estimate (based upon 2020 bid price information) Prepared By: SRF Consulting Group, Inc., September 3, 2021 Figure 4 - 3rd Lane Option (2) Dynamic Shoulder Option (2) ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT I PRICE EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT PAVING AND GRADING COSTS GrP 1 a 2106 Excavation - common & sub rade 10.00 37.800 378.000 23.900 239.000 r Gran ar u ra a 30,300 GrP 3a Mainline Pavement ��sla. 35.00 22 680 723 800 14,305 500,675. GrP 5 Concrete Curb and Gutter 27.00 635 17 145 635 17 145 GrP 8a Removals - Pavement 6.00 13 200 79 200 13,200 $79,200 SUBTOTAL PAVING AND GRADING COSTS: $1,722,645 $1,122,520 DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL Dr 5 Draina e 30% 517 000 337 000 Dr 7 Turf Establishment & Erosion Control 10% 173 000 113 000 SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL $690,000 $450,000 SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS SGN 1 Mainline Si nin C&D mile 35 000 1.90 66 500 1.90 66 500 SGN 2 Mainline Stn in mile 5 000 1.90 9 500 1.90 9 500 SGN 3 Mainline Si nin Dynamic Shoulder each 150 000 11 1 11 2 300 000 SUBTOTAL SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS: $76,000 $376,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $2 488 645 $1 948 520 MISCELLANEOUS COSTS M 1 Mobilization I 1 5% 125.000 $98,000 M 2 Non Uuantitied Minor Items i 11 20% 498 000 320 000 M 7 Tem ora Pavement & Draina a 5% 125.000 98 000 M 8 ITraffic Control 1 1 3% 75 000 59 000 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS: $823,000 $645,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS without Contingency: $3,311,645 $2,593,520 1 lContingency or "risk" 1 1 30% $994,000 1 $779,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS PLUS CONTINGENCY: IF $4,305,645 11$3,372,520 OTHER PROJECT COSTS: DESIGN ENG. & CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. Lump Sum 20% $862,000 $675,000 SUBTOTAL OTHER PROJECT COSTS 11 $862,00011 1 $675,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST IL I $5,167,645 $4,047,520 NOTE: (1) Includes aggregate base class 5. (2) Includes Vance St NW/170th Ln roadway connection. SRF Comm No 13521 PRINTED: 9/13/2021 12:28 PM H:\Projects\13000\13521\Design\Cost Estimates\Local Road Improvements\13521_North_Phase 4.xlsx ELK RIVER HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY C North Segment - Phase 4 IS'R1 Concept Cost Estimate (based upon 2020 bid price information) Prepared By: SRF Consulting Group, Inc., September 3, 2021 Figure 5 Figure 617 (Local Road Only) (2) TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT PAVING AND GRADING COSTS GrP 1 a 2106 Excavation - common & sub rade 0g8.240 100 251,000 49,100 491.000 74.200 742,000 Grp 'Grp 3a Mainline Pavement 1 0030 526050 29 460 1 031 100 44,490 1 557 150 Grp 4a Concrete Walk/Trail / Median 1 0825 136.875 1 825 133,875 r ituminous a rai Meachi GrP 4c ADA Pedestrian Curb Ram 1 1 800 4 7 200 5 9 000 Grp 5 Concrete Curb and Gutter 0 222 480 8 060 217 620 16 300 440 100 GrP 8a Removals - Pavement 0705 58 230 17 275 103 650 26 980 161 880 SUBTOTAL PAVING AND GRADING COSTS: $1,538,735 $2,588,070 $4,126,805 DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL Dr 5 Draina e 30% 462,000 777,000 1 239 000 Dr 7 Turf Establishment & Erosion Control 10% 154 000 259 000 413 000 SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL 1 $616,0001 1 $1,036,000 11 $1,652,000 SIGNAL AND LIGHTING COSTS SGL 2 1 Remove Si nals I each 10 000 1 10 000 1 10 000 SUBTOTAL SIGNAL AND LIGHTING COSTS: $10,000 $10,000 i SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS SGN 1 Mainline Si nin C&D mile 35,000 0.63 22 050 0.94 32,900 1.57 54,950 SGN 2 Mainline Stri in mile 5 000 0.63 3150 0.94 4 700 1.b/ 7 850 SUBTOTAL SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS: $25,200 $37,600 11 $62,800 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $2,189,935 $3,661,670 $5,851,605 MISCELLANEOUS COSTS M 1 Mobilization 5% 110,000 184,000 294 000 M 2 Non uantrned Minor Items 20% 438 000 I 733 000 1 171 000 emporary Pavement & Drainage M 8 11 raffic Control 1 1 3 % 66 000 110 000 176 000 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS: $724,000 $1,211,000 $1,935,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS without Contingency: $2,913,935 1 $4,872,670 $7,786,605 1 lContingency or "risk" 1 1 30% $875,0001 $1,462,000 $2,337,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS PLUS CONTINGENCY: $3,788,935 1 $6,334,670 $10,123.605 OTHER PROJECT COSTS: 11 DESIGN ENG. & CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. Lump Sum 20% $758,000 $1,267,000 $2,025,000 SUBTOTAL OTHER PROJECT COSTS $758,000 $1,267,000 $2,025,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $4,546,935 $7,601,670 $12,148,605 NOTE: (1) Includes aggregate base class 5. (2) Interchange costs include $15,000,000 - $25,000,000. SRF Comm No 13521 H:\Projects\13000\13521\Design\Cost Estimates\13521_TH 10_ConceptCostEst_SpecYr_2020.xlsx IS'RF SCOPING ESTIMATE "PER MILE COSTS" Concept Cost Estimate (based on 2017 bid price information) Prepared By: SRF Consulting Group, Inc., 4/26/2021 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE PAVING AND GRADING COSTS GrP 1 a 2106 Excavation - common & sub rade cu. vd. 10.00 GrP 2d 2106 Granular Sub rade CV cu. d. 15.00 r a Mainline Pavement s . A GrP 7 Pavement Ed e Drains lin. tt. 8.00 GrP 8a Removals - Pavement sa. vd. 6.00 SUBTOTAL PAVING AND GRADING COSTS: DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL r raina e - ruralmile SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS SGN 1 Mainline Si nin C&D mile 35 000 SGN 2 Mainline Stripina mile I gb.UUU SUBTOTAL SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS: SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: MISCELLANEOUS COSTS Wobilization M 7 Tem orar Pavement & Draina e 5 M 8 Traffic Control 1 1 3 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS: ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS without Contingency: 1 lContingency or "risk" 30% ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS PLUS CONTINGENCY: ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS ROUNDED TO NEAREST $0.1 MILLION: OTHER PROJECT COSTS: DESIGN ENG. & CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. Lump Sum 20% SUBTOTAL OTHER PROJECT COSTS TOTAL PROJECT COST NOTE: (1) Includes aggregate base class 5 and PASB or OGAB, as appropriate. (2) Does not include pavement edge drains. TH 10 -4 Lane Rural Freeway median ditch 0.23 miles EST. QUANTITY EST. I AMOUNT 38,300 383 000 16 200 243 000 3000 2,500 20 000 11,430 68 580 $1,023,580 $128,300 0.2 1 8,050 0.2 1 150 $9,200 $1 161 080 59 000 35 000 $386 000 $1,547,080 $465,000 $2,012,080 $2,100,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,600,000 PRINTED: 5/4/2021 1:39 PM North Segment - Phase 4 Reconstruction of Highway 10 to high- speed standards to be completed when interchange is constructed SRF Comm No 13521 H:\Projects\13000\13521\Design\Cost Estimates\Local Road Improvements\13521_South_Phase 1.xlsx FS'R F IN 71►11q.IIivjLlypze➢i iEEPFlL I ELK RIVER HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY South Segment - Phase 1 Concept Cost Estimate (based upon 2020 bid price information) Prepared By: SRF Consulting Group, Inc., January 5, 2022 Figure 8 - Signal Option Figure 9 - R-Cut Option (Signalized) ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT EST. QUANTITY EST, AMOUNT PAVING AND GRADING COSTS r la 2106 Excavation -common-common& subarade cu. r 20 21 Ub Granular S u ra e cu. r a ain me Pavementso . 1 GrP a Concrete a TrailMedian s GrP 4b Bituminous Walk / Trail 1 s d. 40. 3,135 125 400 3,135 125.400 GrP 4c ADA Pedestrian Curb Ram each 1800.00 5 9 000 5 9 000 GrP Concrete ur an u er n. GrP a Removals - Pavement SUBTOTAL PAVING AND GRADING COSTS: $1,673,400 $1,805,490 DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL r raina e r u s a is menErosion Control SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL 1 $671,00011 1 $723,000 SIGNAL AND LIGHTING COSTS na s(permanent) each SUBTOTAL SIGNAL AND LIGHTING COSTS: $300,000 $400,000 SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS SGN 1 Mainline Si nin C&D mile 35,000 1.15 40,250 1.15 40,250 SGN 2 Mainline StriDina mile 5 000 I 5 5 750 1.15 5 750 SUBTOTAL SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS: $46,000 $46,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $2,690,400 1 $2,974,490 MISCELLANEOUS COSTS M 1 Mobilization 5 % 135.000 149 000 M 2 11jon Uuantinecl Minor Items 20 % 1 539 000 595.000 emporary PavementDrainage rattic Uontrol SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS: $890,000 $983,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS without Contingency: $3,580,400 $3,957,490 1 lContingency or"risk' 1 1 30% $1,075,000 $1,188,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS PLUS CONTINGENCY: =F $4,655,400 IF $5,145,490 OTHER PROJECT COSTS: 11 DESIGN ENG. & CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. Lump Sum 209/6 $932,000 $1,030,000 SUBTOTAL OTHER PROJECT COSTS $932,000 $1,030,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST 1 $5,587,400 1 $6,175,490 NOTE: (1) Includes aggregate base class 5. SRF Comm No 13521 PRINTED: 1/19/2022 12:19 PM H:\Projects\13000\13521\Design\Cost Estimates\Local Road Improvements\13521_South_Phase 2.xlsx ELK RIVER HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY IS'RF South Segment - Phase 2 Concept Cost Estimate (based upon 2020 bid price information) Prepared By: SRF Consulting Group, Inc., September 3, 2021 Figure 10 Figure 11 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT EST. I QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT PAVING AND GRADING COSTS GrP 1a 2106 Excavation - common & sub rade cu. vd. 10.00 23.900 239.00 32,200 322.000 r Granular u ra a cu. d. 19 10025 800 GrP 3a Mainline Pavement 1 s d. 35.00 14 310A286 0 850 19 295 675 325 r ituminous a rai s d.GrP 4c ADA Pedestrian Curb Ram each 1800.00 608006 10 800 GrP 5 Concrete Curb and Gutter lin. ft. 27.00 6 3300 910 8 785 237 195 r a Removals - Pavement s d. SUBTOTAL PAVING AND GRADING COSTS: $1,380,230 $1,861,680 DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL Dr 5 Draina a 30% 415 000 559 000 Dr 7 u sta is ment rosion ontro SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL $554,000 $746,000 SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS SG N 1 Mainline Si nin C&D mile 35 000 0.94 32 900 0.98 34,300 SG N 2 Mainline Stri in mile 5 000 0.94 4 700 0.98 4 900 SUBTOTAL SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS: $37,600 $39,200 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $1,971,830 $2,646,880 MISCELLANEOUS COSTS o i cation M 2 Non uantified Minor Items 20°� 395 000 530 000 M 7 Tem ora Pavement & Drainage 5°� 99 000 E 000 ra is Control SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS: $653,000 $876,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS without Contingency: $2,624,830 $3,522,880 1 lContingency or "risk" 1 1 30% 1 $788,0001 $1,057,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS PLUS CONTINGENCY: $3,412,830 1 $4,579,880 OTHER PROJECT COSTS: DESIGN ENG. & CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. I Lump Sum 1 20% $683,0001 1 $916,000 SUBTOTAL OTHER PROJECT COSTS 1 1 $683,0001 1 $916,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $4,095,830 1 1 $5,495,880 NOTE: (1) Includes aggregate base class 5. SRF Comm No 13521 PRINTED: 1/19/2022 12:20 PM H:\Projects\13000\13521\Design\Cost Estimates\Local Road Improvements\13521_South_Phase 3.xlsx ELK RIVER HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY IS'RF South Segment - Phase 3 Concept Cost Estimate (based upon 2020 bid price information) Prepared By: SRF Consulting Group, Inc., September 3, 2021 Figure 12 TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT EST. I QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT PAVING AND GRADING COSTS GrP 1a 2106 Excavation - common & sub rade cu. vd. 10.00 18.500 185.000 18,500 $185.000 rp Granular Subarade cu. vd. 15.00 14 800 22,00Q 14 800 220 Grp 3a Mainline Pavement 1 sa. vd. 11 070 387 450 11 070 387 450 r Bituminous a rails d. �27. Grp 5 Concrete Curb and Gutter lin. ft. 4 790 129330 4 790 129 330 GrP 8a Removals - Pavement s d. 5,195 31 170 5,195 $31,170 SUBTOTAL PAVING AND GRADING COSTS: $996,950 $996,950 DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL Dr 5 Draina a -urban 30% 300 000 300 000 Dr 7 Turf Establishment & Erosion Control 10°� 100 000 100 000 SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL $400,000 $400,000 SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS !Mainline Sianina (C&D) mile SUN 2 Mainline btripina mile 5 000 0.80 4 000 0.80 $4,QQQ SUBTOTAL SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS: $32,000 $32,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $1 428 950 $1 428 950 MISCELLANEOUS COSTS M 1 Mobilization I 1 5% 72.000 72.000 Non Quantified minor Items M 7 I I emporary Pavement & Draina e I 5u/b 72 000 I 72 000 M 8 ITraffic Control 1 1 3% 1 143,000 $43,000 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS: $473,000 $473,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS without Contingency: $1,901,950 $1,901,950 1 lContingency or "risk" 1 1 30% $571,0001 $571,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS PLUS CONTINGENCY: $2,472,950 1 $2,472,950 OTHER PROJECT COSTS: DESIGN ENG. & CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. I Lump Sum 1 1 $495,0001 $495,000 SUBTOTAL OTHER PROJECT COSTS 1 $495,0001 $495,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $2,967,950 $2,967,950 NOTE: (1) Includes aggregate base class 5. SRF Comm No 13521 PRINTED: 1/19/2022 1221 PM H:\Projects\13000\13521\Design\Cost Estimates\Local Road Improvements\13521_South_Phase 4.xlsx ELK RIVER HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY South Segment - Phase 4 IS'RF Concept Cost Estimate (based upon 2020 bid price information) Prepared By: SRF Consulting Group, Inc., September 3, 2021 Figure 13 (Local Road Only) (2) Figure 14 (Local Road Only) (2) Figure 15 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT PAVING AND GRADING COSTS Grp 1a 2106 Excavation - common & sub rade cu. d. 10.00 14.300 143.000 28.700 287.000 16.800 168.000 r Granular u ra a cu. Grp 3a Mainline Pavement 1 sa. vd. 35.00 8,75830 298 550 17 165 600 775 — 10 075 352 625 r Bituminous a Trailso. Grp 4c ADA Pedestrian Curb Ram each 1800.00 1 1 800 2 3 600 2 3 600 Grp 5 Concrete Curb and Gutter lin. ft. 27.00 4 265 115 155 8 430 227 610 3.1 60 85 320 Grp 8a Removals - Pavement s d. 6.00 675 4 O50 675 4 O50 9 245 55 470 SUBTOTAL PAVING AND GRADING COSTS: $828,755 $1,652,135 $935,115 DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL Dr 5 Draina e 30 % 249 000 496,00011 281 000 Dr 7 Turf Establishment & Erosion Control 10 % 83 000 166 000 94 000 SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL $332,000 $662,000 i $375,000 SIGNAL AND LIGHTING COSTS SGL 2 Remove Si nals I I each 10 000 1 $10,000 SUBTOTAL SIGNAL AND LIGHTING COSTS: $10,000 SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS SGN 1 Mainline Si nin C&D mile 35 000 0.40 14,00011 0.80 28 000 0.78 27 300 SGN 2 Mainline Stri in mile 5 000 0.40 2 000 0.80 4 000 0.78 3 900 SUBTOTAL SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS: 1 $16,00011 1 $32,00011 1 $31,200 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: 1 $1,176,75511 1 $2,346,135 11 $1,351,315 MISCELLANEOUS COSTS M 1 Mobilization 1 5 % 1 159000 118 000 68 000 M 2 Non Quantified Minor Items 20 % 236 000 470 000 271 000 emporary Pavement & Drainage M 8 Traffic Control 3 % 36 000 71 000 41 000 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS: 1 $390,00011 1 $777,00011 1 $448,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS without Contingency: $1,5166,755 $3,123,135 $1,799,315 1 IContinqency or "risk" 30% $471,000 $937,000 $540,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS PLUS CONTINGENCY: $2,037,755 $4,060,135 $2,339,315 OTHER PROJECT COSTS: DESIGN ENG. & CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. Lump Sum 20%. $408,000 $813,000 $468,000 SUBTOTAL OTHER PROJECT COSTS 1 $408,0001 1 $813,000 $468,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST 1 $2,445,75511 1 $4,873,135 $2,807,315 NOTE: (1) Includes aggregate base class 5. (2) Interchange costs include $15,000,000 - $25,000,000. SRF Comm No 13521 PRINTED: 1/19/2022 12:21 PM H:\Projects\13000\13521\Design\Cost Estimates\Local Road Improvements\13521_Long Term.xlsx ELK RIVER HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR STUDY IS'RF Middle Segment Concept Cost Estimate (based upon 2020 bid price information) Prepared By: SRF Consulting Group, Inc., September 3, 2021 Figure 16 TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT PAVING AND GRADING COSTS rP 1a 2106 Excavation - common & sub rade cu. d. 10.00 89,900 899.000 89,900 899.000 r Granular u ra a cu. d. 71.90 71 90000 GrP 3a Mainline Pavement 1 s d. 53 910 1 886 850 53 910 1 886 850 r Bituminous a rails d. �27. GrP 5 Concrete Curb and Gutter lin. ft. 26 960 727 920 26 960 727 920GrP 8a Removals -Pavement s d. 2 525 15 150 2,525 15 150 SUBTOTAL PAVING AND GRADING COSTS: $5,204,220 $5,204,220 DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL Dr 5 Draina a 30% 1 562 000 1 562 000 Dr 7 Turf Establishment & Erosion Control 10°� 521 000 521 000 SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL $2,083,000 $2,083,000 SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS !Mainline Sianina (C&D) mile SUN 2 Mainline btripina mile 5 000 2.55 12 750 2.55 12 750 SUBTOTAL SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS: $102,000 $102,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: $7 389 220 $7 389 220 MISCELLANEOUS COSTS M 1 Mobilization 5% 370 000 370 000 Non uanti ie Minor Items M 7 Tem ora Pavement & Draina e 5°� 370 000 370 000 M 8 Traffic Control 3% 222 000 222 000 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS: $2,440,000 $2,440,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS without Contingency: $9,829,220 $9,829,220 1 Contin enc or "risk" 30% $2,949,000 $2,949,000 ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS PLUS CONTINGENCY: $12,778,220 $12,778,220 OTHER PROJECT COSTS: DESIGN ENG. & CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. Lump Su $2,556,000 1 $2,556,000 SUBTOTAL OTHER PROJECT COSTS 1 $2,556,0001 $2,556,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $15,334,220 $15,334,220 NOTE: (1) Includes aggregate base class 5. SRF Comm No 13521 H:\Projects\13000\13521\Design\Cost Estimates\13521_TH 10_ConceptCostEst_SpecYr_2020.xlsx IS'RF SCOPING ESTIMATE "PER MILE COSTS" Concept Cost Estimate (based on 2017 bid price information) Prepared By: SRF Consulting Group, Inc., 4/26/2021 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE PAVING AND GRADING COSTS GrP la 2106 Excavation -common & sub rade cu. vd. 10.00 GrP 2d 2106 Granular Sub rade CV cu. vd. 15.00 77FTa a— ine Pavement s . A GrP 7 Pavement Ede Drains lin. ft. 8.00 GrP 8a Removals - Pavement sa. vd. 6.00 SUBTOTAL PAVING AND GRADING COSTS: DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL r raina e - ruralmile SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE, UTILITIES AND EROSION CONTROL SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS SGN 1 Mainline Si nin C&D mile 35 000 SGN 2 Mainline Stripina mile I gb.UUU SUBTOTAL SIGNING & STRIPING COSTS: SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS: MISCELLANEOUS COSTS Wobilization M 7 Tem orar Pavement & Draina e 5 M 8 Traffic Control 1 1 3 SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS: ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS without Contingency: 1 lContingency or "risk" r 7 30% ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS PLUS CONTINGENCY: ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS ROUNDED TO NEAREST $0.1 MILLION: OTHER PROJECT COSTS: DESIGN ENG. & CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. Lump Sum 20% SUBTOTAL OTHER PROJECT COSTS TOTAL PROJECT COST NOTE: (1) Includes aggregate base class 5 and PASB or OGAB, as appropriate. (2) Does not include pavement edge drains. TH 10 -4 Lane Rural Freeway median ditch 0.23 miles EST. QUANTITY EST. AMOUNT 38,300 383 000 16 200 243 000 2 500 20 000 11,430 68 580 $1,023,580 $128,300 0.2 1 8,050 0.2 1 150 $9,200 $1 161 080 59 000 35 000 $386 000 $1,547,080 $465,000 $2,012,080 $2,100,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,600,000 PRINTED: 5/4/2021 1:39 PM MO H H �3 ,i Consider Jarvis Street realignment J Extend South Frontage Road as opportunities Consider Weigh arise �� Station , upgrades or relocation to �I Q Kelly Farm Road 73rd Ave NW Ave NW NW Maintain emergency vehicle access d1hr Ave w Construction planned for 2022 ��— North Segment Temporary Signal Phase 2 0 Safety Improvements Optional Action 0 Close Access Road Construction 0 Right-In/Right-Out Other Segment • Future Interchange Note: Previous phases are shown faded EE 1. EB jAve V"H21 I North Segment ® Temporary Signal Phase 3 O Safety Improvements Optional Action O Close Access Road Construction O Right-In/Right-Out Other Segment • Future Interchange Note: Previous phases are shown faded I1 I r• I �' I _I m u .i .n i North Segment ® Temporary Signal Phase 4 O Safety Improvements Optional Action O Close Access Road Construction O Right-In/Right-Out Other Segment • Future Interchange ' Note: Previous phases are shown faded 03 OBf}r.r�� M1f}nr�-n'� EB ,II 6• 1 A T Lis -n I I ` .Y4 �rp South Segment Sout h Highway 10 Vision Optional Action 0 Close Access Road Construction • Future Interchange Other Segment Other Access Note: Previous phases are shown faded V South Segment — Phase 1 Traffic Control Change Optional Action O Close Access Road Construction • Future Interchange Other Segment ® Other Access Note: Previous phases are shown faded i s ' N� I. Traffic control 1' will 1' determined following.1 1 analysis that will 1' c1mipeted -1 r T, South Segment Phase 2A Optional Action Road Construction Other Segment Note: Previous phases are shown faded Traffic Control Change O Close Access • Future Interchange ® Other Access A South Segment Phase 2B Optional Action Road Construction Other Segment Note: Previous phases are shown faded Traffic Control Change O Close Access • Future Interchange ® Other Access \ A South Segment Phase 3 Optional Action Road Construction Other Segment Note: Previous phases are shown faded <W- _I Traffic Control Change O Close Access • Future Interchange ® Other Access South Segment Phase 4A Traffic Control Change Optional Action Close Access Road Construction • Future Interchange Other Segment Other Access South Ph ase a t S Note: Previous phases are shown faded nce South Segment Phase 4B Optional Action Road Construction Other Segment Note: Previous phases are shown faded 'A Traffic Control Change O Close Access • Future Interchange ® Other Access Middle Segment Optional Action Road Construction L — Other Segments r -*r- -r Note: Previous phases are shown faded O Close Access ® Other Intersections PAM PUSCH AGENCY A FARMERS UNION AGENCY 1; August 1, 2022 Dear members of the City Council, Due to several conflicting extracurricular activities, I am unable to attend tonight's meeting. However, as a businessowner within the community, the proposed Highway 10 access closure will have a negative impact on my business and many others. Your duty, as elected members of the Elk River City Council, is represent your constituents. Ask yourself this question: How does denying access to our businesses help our city? This proposal instructs people, commuters, customers, and prospects, to drive -by and go to the next town for car service, gas, and food. Do you want our community to accommodate its needs? Or do you want children looking out the car window counting the number of abandon buildings in Elk River on the way to the cabin? It's hard to count when traveling at 70 miles per hour, but at least they will get there 15 minutes faster. You all know what is right. I implore you to do the right thing. Thank you for taking the time to listen, I Robert P. Pampusch Jr., businessowner and resident of Elk River Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study City Council Presentation August 1, 2022 Project Schedule J A S 0 N D J F M A M J J A s 0 N D J F M A M J Project Begins Open House Focus Groups Online Engagement Data Collection Vision and Goals Issues Identification Develop Alternatives Implementation Plan & Documentation Project Complete �`GFIWAY7o Where is the Elk River Highway 10 Corridor Study? ��RRIDORSt�� MAP KEY Highway 10 Rum River Bridge Replacement Construction Year: 2022 U.S. Highway 1011 G9 Improvement Project Construction Year. 2022 Highway 169 Redefinition Construction Year. 2022 Ramsey Gateway Highway 10 Project Construction Year. 2024 Highway 10 Corridor Study • Four -Mile Study Segment • High -Speed Expressway • Posted Speed Limit — 60 mph • One Traffic Signal (@ 1715t Ave) • AADT approaching 34,000 vpd Otsego Key Highway 10 Roads Rall Ll- Parks Wetlands County Boundary ' r,I, w 0 Municipal Boundary 0 0.25 0.5 Miles N A Ramsey • Build a unified system plan that can be implemented over time to ensure safe and efficient operations along the Highway 10 corridor • General Approach: • Build upon previous planning efforts • Quantify current and future transportation conditions, issues, and needs • Evaluate transportation improvement alternatives • Engage key stakeholders to solicit input and build understanding • Develop a fiscally responsible implementation plan to support economic development and corridor operations and safety i Ilk, 0 Issues and Needs RRIDORS • Existing safety issues along corridor. • High level of congestion at intersections. ❖ Signalized intersection of 1715t Avenue expected to reach capacity between 2030 and 2035. ❖ Long delays at most unsignalized intersections. ❖ Limited gaps to access/cross Hwy 10. • Access spacing along corridor not compliant with guidelines. • This will be the last area of Highway 10 with at -grade access between Highway 101/169 and Armstrong Boulevard. A Ramsey En a ement Round 1 ��RRIDORS�� The study's first public input opportunity was conducted during January of 2021 and included a recorded presentation, community survey, and focus group meetings. There were over 500 responses to the community survey. Congestion is a major issue along the study corridor and especially at 171st Avenue during the peak periods Access to and from the highway is often challenging And vehicle safety is a concern Strong support for access changes such as innovative intersections, grade -separated interchanges, and a more robust frontage roadway network. ��GNW �o Round 1— Focus Group Meetings RRIDORS • Focus Groups (2)—11/4/2020, 11/5/2020 • Discussed existing conditions • Freight Haulers • Morrel Haulers • LeFebvre Companies • Metal Craft Machine & Engineering • Local Businesses • Riverside Farms • Pearson Family Farm • Jerry's Auto • Amcon Concrete Products • Novco • Walter Concrete • Metro Truck/Metro Gravel • CornerStone Auto • Exquisite Stone • Furniture and Things �GNW �o Round 1—Virtual Open House`. RRIDORS • Live 12/8/2020 through 1/19/2021 • Narrated Presentation, Wikimapping, and Form/Function Survey • 761 site views • 516 survey responses (-310 surveys were completely filled out) • 105+ email contact list sign-ups GNW �o Lon -Term Alternative Development Process�, DORS • Build off previous studies and concepts to identify along -term (20+ year) corridor vision that can be implemented overtime to ensure safe and efficient operations along the Highway 10 corridor. • Initial long-term corridor alternatives considered: ❖ No Build ❖ Alternative 1— Signals and Access Modifications ❖ Alternative 2 — Signals, Access Modifications and Reduced Conflict Intersections (RCIs) ❖ Alternative 3 — Grade -Separated Facility (Interchanges, High-T Combo, Buttonhook/Overpasses) �GNW �o Long -Term (20+ Years) Alternative Evaluation DORS Evaluation Improves existing and future safety Access spacing compliance Improves peak hour mobility on Hwy 10 Continuity with Hwy 10 to the East 0 2 Improves mobility crossing Hwy 10 Improves mobility accessing Highway 10 m a Improves mobility crossing Hwy 10 L Minimizes construction cost Q) s Minimizes right-of-way impacts W • n LJ Good; meets criteria well Moderate; no distinguishing characteristics Poor; fails to meet criteria Long -Term Alternatives �,'° Grade -Separated RR/DOR� • Various grade -separated alternatives have been developed for the corridor. North segment • The north segment includes grade - separated alternatives that focus around the Twin Lakes Road area. • The location of a future grade -separated access in the south segment is being evaluated. South segment _ Local roadway network options have been I developed to help facilitate mobility and *Southern grade -separated ' ' access to current and future businesses and location to be determined properties. Grade -Separated Alternative North Segment Standard Diamond Button Hook Pius 16g �\ st 171 Avenue Twin Lakes Road Folded Diamond 11 Partial Cloverleaf \% Kelly Farm Road AN Jarvis Street/ \%_Cleveland Street Adams Street Alpine Drive \% Grade -Separated Alternatives �,��° South Segment ��RR/DOR�� • All south segment alternatives include an interchange at Highway 169 and Twin Lakes Road. The following four locations were considered for the south segment alternative: ❖ Kelly Farm Road Area Alignment *:* Jarvis Street /Cleveland Street Alignment ❖ Adams Street Alignment ❖ Alpine Drive Alignment Grade -Separated Alternative Kelly Farm Road Area 19S 169 U V\ 17111 Avenue \% 10111VVor Twin Lakes Road Standard Diamond Kell Farm Road VIV y Syjt� V Miff Folded Diamond Grade -Separated Alternative Jarvis Street /Cleveland Street j US 169 Standard Diamond V. 1715t Avenue Twin Lakes Road , `A \%. 4;: AN Jarvis Stree %Cleveland Str Folded Diamond Grade -Separated Alternative �,co ��° Adams Street RR/DORM r- Grade -Separated Alternative Alpine Drive p RRIDORS South Segment Grade -Separated Alternative Evaluation oRR /DORS Improves existing and future safety 4.1 N Access spacing compliance Improves mobility on Hwy 10 o Continuity with planned facilities Provides E/W local road connectivity Existing land use connectivity Minimizes right-of-way impacts Provides access across Hwy 10 to pedestrian/bicycle destinations CO Continuity with planned facilities Minimizes cost s o Locally favored option 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Good; meets criteria well Moderate; no distinguishing characteristics 0 Poor; fails to meet criteria En a ement Round 2 ��RRIDORS�� The study's second public input opportunity was conducted during June of 2021 and included a live virtual presentation, community survey, and focus group meetings. There were a total of 172 responses to the community survey. Strong support (84%) for grade-separation/interchanges Support for prioritizing improvements at Twin Lakes Road No clear choice selected for interchange location in south segment �GNW �o Round 2 — Focus Group Meetings RRIDORS • Focus Groups (3) — 6/9/2021, 5/21/2021, 5/28/2021 • Presented alternatives including preferred grade -separated alternative • Freight Haulers • Morrel Haulers • LeFebvre Companies • Metal Craft Machine & Engineering • Local Businesses • Riverside Farms • Pearson Family Farm • Jerry's Auto • Amcon Concrete Products • Novco • Walter Concrete • Metro Truck/Metro Gravel • Cornerstone Auto • Exquisite Stone • Furniture and Things �GNW �o Round 2 — Focus Group Meetings RRIDORS • Elected Officials • City of Elk River - Councilmember Garrett Christianson • City of Ramsey - Councilmember Dan Specht • Sherburne County - Commissioner Barbara Burandt • Anoka County - Commissioner Matt Look �GNW �o Round 2 —Virtual Open House`. RRIDORS • Live Online Open House —June 10, 2021 • Two virtual meetings lunch hour and evening meeting • Survey - June 10 — 30, 2021 • 172 responses �`�HwAy7o Long -Term Vision `ter • Interchanges at Twin Lakes Road and Adams Street • Access closures elsewhere • Robust local road network to support long-term vision North Segment Long -Term Vision North Segment \T Long -Term HighwayTOVision Road Construction Other Segment O Close Access A � • Future Interchange owl 14 �`HwAy7o AM — South Segment Long -Term Vision o RR/DOR • Interchange at Adams Street • Local road connections • Access closures on Highway 10 • Total Planning -level Cost: • $18 - $21.8 million (local roads) • $15 - $20 million (interchange) Middle Segment Long -Term Vision Middle Segment Optional Action O Close Access i Road Construction • Other Intersections OtherSegments Note: Previous phases are shown Faded \\ 7 7`s ,, hi . En a ement Round 3 ��RRIDORS�� The study's third public input opportunity was conducted during June of 2022 and included a recorded presentation. The final study document was also available for review and comment. Public support for multimodal accommodations incorporated into the local roadway network Some concern from local businesses and future impacts, business owners would like to be informed about timing of implementation of long-term vision Next Steps`. ��RRIDORS�� • Incorporate feedback received from the City Council. • Final study document is available on the website for review. • Study partners will complete a separate analysis to determine interim traffic control options for south segment. Questions? ��RRIDORS�� For more information about the project, please contact: Justin Femrite Public Works Director City of Elk River jfemrite@elkrivermn.gov 763-635-1051 Molly Stewart Project Manager SRF Consulting Group mstewart@srfconsulting.com 763-452-4784 Visit the Study website www.highwaVlOcorridorstudV.com