CCP 01-11-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\t(lJ The evaluation considered three roadway options: . Access to both CR I and CR J - the project as proposed with Rice Creek Parkway continuous between CR I and CR J, . Access to CR J only - Rice Creek Parkway does not connect south to CR 1. . Access to CR J with interchange improvements - this option assumes that CR J is widened from Rice Creek Parkway west through the 1-35W West Service Drive including widening the bridge over 1-35W. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 5-5. As shown in the table and discussed above, all of the proposed development could be accommodated on the site with access to both CR I and CR J with a LOS E intersection operating threshold. Without access to CR I, only about 35 percent of the proposed site development could be accommodated even with a LOS E int<::rsection operating threshold. With improvements to CR J, approximately 80 percent of the site development could be accommodated. As discussed in the mitigation section below, the improvements to CR J are estimated to cost approximately $2,000,000, Consideration was also given to an access connection directly into the site at or near the TH 118 ramps without a connection to CR 1. However, it is unlikely that a workable design could be developed given the relatively high design speed of the existing freeway ramps. MnDOT has jurisdiction over this interchange and is not supportive of such a connection. In addition, a connection to the TH 118 ramps would not provide the direct access to 1-35W required to support the site development. Alternative Proiect - Business Park The alternative business park development was analyzed using the procedures described under the proposed project. The trip generation associated with the alternative business park development is shown in Table 5-6. The alternative business park development is forecast to generate 31,760 daily trips with 3,100 during the PM peak traffic hour. The alternative development was assumed to have the same geographic trip distribution as the proposed project (Figure 5-2). The forecast PM peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed and resulted in the intersection operations shown in Table 5-7. As indicated in the table, all of the key intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak traffic hour except the intersections of CR J and the West 1- 35W Service Road and CR J and the East 1-35W ramps. The CR JII-35W interchange is forecast to operate at LOS F. The forecast traffic volumes through the interchange will exceed the practical capacity of the intersections resulting in long delay times, 5.1.3 Mitigation Measures No-Build Alternative The no-build alternative will have no significant impacts un traffic operations so no mitigation is required. WISP ARK Rice Creek Corporale Park DraflEIS December 10. 1998 Page 72 I J I I I I I I I -. . I I I , I I e~ I I