Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Evaluation of Phasing Options for Highway 10 <br />May 20, 2008 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />In order to provide the 1110st favorable assessment of potential phasing scenarios, these intersections were <br />all assumed to be signalized in 2012 when the new Highway 10 interchange is completed. <br /> <br />Table I provides an overall summary of intersection LOS for both the morning and afternoon peak hours <br />for each of the phasing scenarios along with existing conditions. The existing conditions were modeled <br />as a basis for comparison. Overall under existing conditions most intersections operate well. The <br />exception is the current Highway 10/County 96 signalized intersection which is operating at a LOS F <br />during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. <br /> <br />Table I - Intersection Level of Service <br /> <br />Intersection Current 2012 - Build 2012 - Build 2012 - Build <br /> Conditons CR 96 grade CR 96 grade CR 96 grade <br /> separation and separation and separation and <br /> ~ interchange full interchange full interchange <br /> along Highway along Highway along Highway <br /> 10 with no west 10 with no west 10 with west <br /> fronta)!e road [rontage road frontage road <br /> am pm am pm am pm am pm <br />CR H/CR 10 Intersection C C C C C C C C <br />CR H/I-35W East Ramp A A B B B B B B <br />CR H/I-35W West Ramp A A B B B B B B <br />CR 96/0Id TH 8 E F C C C C C C <br />Intersection <br />CR 96/1-35W West Ramp B A D E C E C C <br />CR 96/1-35W East Ramp A B C B A B A B <br />CR 96/Round Lake A B B B B B A B <br />Boulevard <br />CR 96/0Id Highwav 10 A A A A A A B C <br />CR 96/Hiehwav 10 F F N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A <br />CR 96/Rice Creek N/A N/A D C C C C B <br />Parkwav <br />CR 96/Hamline C D C D C D C D <br />Prior Ave/Highway 10 N/A N/A A A B A C C <br />West Ramo <br />Prior Ave/Highway 10 N/A N/A A B A B A A <br />East Ramo <br /> <br />The first scenario that was modeled is shown as Figure I which includes the Highway 10/County 96 <br />grade separation and the new local access interchange without the southbound exit and no west frontage <br />road. Operational modeling shows that, without the Highway 10 southbound exit ramp, the west County <br />96/1-35W ramp will experience an overall LOS E in the pm peak period (see Table I). The southbound <br />move itself will operate at LOS F. This result leads to the conclusion that phasing the new Highway 10 <br />local access interchange is not feasible and would result in traffic operational problems with the County <br />96/1-35W interchange. <br />